Monday, November 18, 2019
oh, won't somebody think of the children?
with enough hugs and kisses and love and nice fluffy pillows, everything will be fine. you just need to have faith.
idiots.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/the-guardian-view-on-british-children-in-syria-bring-them-back
with enough hugs and kisses and love and nice fluffy pillows, everything will be fine. you just need to have faith.
idiots.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/the-guardian-view-on-british-children-in-syria-bring-them-back
don can't forget things that he never knew.
but, what we're remembering is not the "sacrifice that veterans made". no. that's a lie, that's historical ignorance.
what we're remembering is the tyranny of our own government in slaughtering it's own civilians - and we're standing for a few brief moments, together, to ensure that we never let that happen again.
those new to the country can be forgiven for excusing themselves from the ceremonies that honour the dead, if they don't feel that that is their history. but, i do expect their support in standing strong against any future government that would revert to the past, in bringing back conscription - and wearing a poppy doesn't mean much, in the latter context.
but, what we're remembering is not the "sacrifice that veterans made". no. that's a lie, that's historical ignorance.
what we're remembering is the tyranny of our own government in slaughtering it's own civilians - and we're standing for a few brief moments, together, to ensure that we never let that happen again.
those new to the country can be forgiven for excusing themselves from the ceremonies that honour the dead, if they don't feel that that is their history. but, i do expect their support in standing strong against any future government that would revert to the past, in bringing back conscription - and wearing a poppy doesn't mean much, in the latter context.
well.
does anybody have any statistics on the incidence of poppy-wearing in first generation canadians? it's an empirical question.
i don't care about don cherry. he's kind of an institution in this country, but one of the things i remember about him was thinking he didn't even know that much about hockey. i don't actually know what he was trying to say, or if it was actually offensive.
if you said that recent immigrants don't celebrate easter, you'd mostly be right, because they largely aren't christians. now, if you implied that they should celebrate easter, you'd be saying something confusing. why is it reversed with remembrance day, which is a very specifically eurocentric event? why would we expect muslim or chinese immigrants to commemorate the deaths of white canadians fighting a pointless war for the british empire?
and, cherry is wrong on that point - world war one had nothing to do with democracy, and these people didn't die to save anybody. rather, their deaths were a symptom of their lack of freedom. most of the soldiers did not gain the franchise until after the war (if they survived it) because they didn't own property, and most of the people that died were conscripted to fight. those millions of dead did not choose their fate, they were pointlessly slaughtered for reasons that historians still can't entirely figure out, a hundred years later.
it's a completely orwellian holiday.
further, the canadian story is inherently ethnic in context - quebec nearly started a civil war over it, something called the conscription crisis. they didn't think they were dying for anybody's freedom, at all, they thought they were being marched off to die by the anglos.
if i were to move to china, i'd be faking it if i were to get into emotional reflections about the rape of nanking, even as i recognize that it was a horrible war crime. i don't know if they wear ribbons, or do something else to commemorate it, but i know i wouldn't do it. i'd have the respect to sit quietly and wait for them to finish, but it wouldn't be my holiday, and i wouldn't participate.
so, what he said was weird. but, if the premise is that the insinuation that immigrants don't celebrate remembrance day is insulting, i'd question it on it's face.
if there's an issue at hand here, it's maybe in coming to terms with the fact that remembrance day is kind of a white holiday that lacks relevance for a growing percentage of the country, while recognizing that it was never commemorated uniformly across the country in the first place.
in french canada, this is the day where we celebrate the end of conscription. but, don doesn't like the quebeckers, either - he's just allowed to talk about that, as he pleases.
does anybody have any statistics on the incidence of poppy-wearing in first generation canadians? it's an empirical question.
i don't care about don cherry. he's kind of an institution in this country, but one of the things i remember about him was thinking he didn't even know that much about hockey. i don't actually know what he was trying to say, or if it was actually offensive.
if you said that recent immigrants don't celebrate easter, you'd mostly be right, because they largely aren't christians. now, if you implied that they should celebrate easter, you'd be saying something confusing. why is it reversed with remembrance day, which is a very specifically eurocentric event? why would we expect muslim or chinese immigrants to commemorate the deaths of white canadians fighting a pointless war for the british empire?
and, cherry is wrong on that point - world war one had nothing to do with democracy, and these people didn't die to save anybody. rather, their deaths were a symptom of their lack of freedom. most of the soldiers did not gain the franchise until after the war (if they survived it) because they didn't own property, and most of the people that died were conscripted to fight. those millions of dead did not choose their fate, they were pointlessly slaughtered for reasons that historians still can't entirely figure out, a hundred years later.
it's a completely orwellian holiday.
further, the canadian story is inherently ethnic in context - quebec nearly started a civil war over it, something called the conscription crisis. they didn't think they were dying for anybody's freedom, at all, they thought they were being marched off to die by the anglos.
if i were to move to china, i'd be faking it if i were to get into emotional reflections about the rape of nanking, even as i recognize that it was a horrible war crime. i don't know if they wear ribbons, or do something else to commemorate it, but i know i wouldn't do it. i'd have the respect to sit quietly and wait for them to finish, but it wouldn't be my holiday, and i wouldn't participate.
so, what he said was weird. but, if the premise is that the insinuation that immigrants don't celebrate remembrance day is insulting, i'd question it on it's face.
if there's an issue at hand here, it's maybe in coming to terms with the fact that remembrance day is kind of a white holiday that lacks relevance for a growing percentage of the country, while recognizing that it was never commemorated uniformly across the country in the first place.
in french canada, this is the day where we celebrate the end of conscription. but, don doesn't like the quebeckers, either - he's just allowed to talk about that, as he pleases.
so, i wanted to be extra thorough, and i don't apologize for that, even if it means i still haven't uploaded yet.
i guess it just gives me time to test on the chromebook, which i was hoping to have fixed by today but haven't even looked at yet..
but, i've got this worked out, even if it's later than i wanted it to be.
i need to do some running around today...
i guess it just gives me time to test on the chromebook, which i was hoping to have fixed by today but haven't even looked at yet..
but, i've got this worked out, even if it's later than i wanted it to be.
i need to do some running around today...
this is just a picture. but, we all need to start thinking more dialectically, in general, and this is a good example.
it's going to be cold in canada for a while, still.
but, you see all of that hot air in the atlantic? it's going to win the fight, sometimes. and, it's going to win more and more often over the upcoming years.
so, think of it like a struggle - an epic battle, a duality. that's reality: conflict, change.
if the line is over the st. lawerence, as it has been for the last several years, then it is true that cities that straddle the line - chicago, detroit, toronto, montreal - will have some absolutely brutal weather. again.
but, it's also likely that you'll get a few bouts of warmth.
this is my advice this winter: check the long range, and try to plan around the nice spots.
it's too early to lose hope in an early spring, because that hot water could still overwhelm, in the end.
it's going to be cold in canada for a while, still.
but, you see all of that hot air in the atlantic? it's going to win the fight, sometimes. and, it's going to win more and more often over the upcoming years.
so, think of it like a struggle - an epic battle, a duality. that's reality: conflict, change.
if the line is over the st. lawerence, as it has been for the last several years, then it is true that cities that straddle the line - chicago, detroit, toronto, montreal - will have some absolutely brutal weather. again.
but, it's also likely that you'll get a few bouts of warmth.
this is my advice this winter: check the long range, and try to plan around the nice spots.
it's too early to lose hope in an early spring, because that hot water could still overwhelm, in the end.
i've posted this statement before, but it's not getting through. there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding.
when i say "i would never support elizabeth warren or pete buttigieg or joe biden, and now also bernie sanders, because they're too right-wing", that seems to be being misconstrued as though i'm pouting - as though i'm saying "i would normally support the democrats, but i don't like the candidate, so i'm withholding support".
in fact, i've been clear that i wouldn't normally support the democrats at all - that i would usually vote for a party to the left of the democrats, like the greens. i would usually be highly critical of the democrats.
so, it's not unusual that i'm withholding support for the democrats; what's unusual is that i was even thinking about supporting them in the first place, and that was due 100%, solely, entirely to bernie sanders. 98 years out of 100, i'm not going to even consider it.
and, i'm not a "non-voter". i'm just a communist.
i was born in 1981, but i'm comfortable in stating that i would not have voted for the anti-communist and pro-catholic jfk. and, while it is true that nixon was a racist despot, he still has an actual better legacy than jfk in terms of actual accomplishments. i would not feel ashamed about preferring nixon over jfk at all (although i would have voted for a socialist party).
hey, hey lbj! how many kids did you kill today?
i may have flirted a little with rfk - it's hard to tell how seriously i would have actually taken him but, i would have more actively supported the various anti-war and pseudo-left candidates in the late 60s and early 70s, and then tuned out when they lost.
i would have interpreted jimmy carter as a sign of the apocalypse, and been a fan of punk rock and everything that that means from 1975-1993. so, i would have hated tipper gore and the pmrc with a passion. to the extent that i would have voted during these years at all, it would have been for people pretty far outside of the spectrum.
i might have supported clinton in 1993 just to get the republicans out and end the misery of it, and then horribly regretted it. but, i might have been a passive perot fan, too. you have to understand that clinton campaigned against most of what he did, in a time where you should have been able to believe him - he was the great deceiver, the great betrayer. would i have seen through it? it's hard to say. i know that chomsky saw through it, so there's some precedent, but i may have rationalized it. this is harder, for me, than jfk. by 1997, at least, i'd be looking at the greens. by 2000, we can start looking at reality.
- i did not support al gore, because i thought he was too pro-war and in bed with the oil companies. i do not think that a gore presidency would have significantly altered the course of history. i supported nader in 2000.
- the 1/50 fluke occurrence that caused me to seriously support the democrats was the invasion of iraq, and it's actually interesting to wonder what would have happened if it was gore that invaded iraq (as he had been arguing for since the 80s), and he had to go up against a republican. might they have elected a ron paul type? if so, i'd have had to have supported that ron paul type, against my better judgement. at the time, that war could still be reversed, and it had to take precedent over just about anything else. further, kerry had believable anti-war credentials. i supported kerry in 2004.
- by 2008, the moment to end the catastrophe had passed, and the democrats were running a guy that was promising to blow up afghanistan because he thought it was a tactical mistake to invade iraq. i did not support barack obama - i supported the greens in both 2008 and 2012.
- in 2016, i very weakly endorsed clinton, but, in the booth, i would have almost certainly voted for jill stein.
so, i'm not pouting; these people just aren't presenting proposals i'd actually support. i am seriously about twenty degrees to the left of the democrats. i look at a buttigieg and i agree with maybe 25% of what he's saying. then, i look at trump and i also agree with about 25% of what he's saying, which is unusual for a republican. if your argument is "you have to vote democrat because the republicans are so terrible", i might interject that trump isn't nearly as bad as bush or reagan or nixon, and might not even be as bad as clinton. sure, i'd rather somebody else was president. but, in context, trump isn't nearly as bad as he could be - and i'd certainly pick him over rubio or cruz. the urge and drive i felt in 2004 to get bush out is just lacking at the moment.
then, i look at the greens and agree with 90% of what they're saying. so, i'm going to vote for the greens and not against the republicans.
and, if you're upset by that, i don't give a fuck. rather, i will suggest that we have a debate about the policies that the democrats are supporting, and why i don't support them, and won't support them. but, you have to put me in context - i'm not a pouting democrat that's turning my nose up, i'm a hardened socialist that was dabbling in a party that i've spent most of my life fighting against.
in this particular election, i don't feel particularly conflicted, or like there's a hard choice to make. there's not a democrat in the field that would pull me away from the greens, this time. so, i'm going to be supporting the greens, to the extent i'm supporting anybody at all.
but, again - i can't vote in the united states. and, if i can't find a serious candidate that i actually like, i'm not going to spend a lot of time thinking about the process any further.
my position is essentially this - don't give me shit for standing my ground. if you want my vote, change your policies to reflect what i care about. and, if you won't do that, accept that we're in different political camps - i'm a socialist, and you're a capitalist.
when i say "i would never support elizabeth warren or pete buttigieg or joe biden, and now also bernie sanders, because they're too right-wing", that seems to be being misconstrued as though i'm pouting - as though i'm saying "i would normally support the democrats, but i don't like the candidate, so i'm withholding support".
in fact, i've been clear that i wouldn't normally support the democrats at all - that i would usually vote for a party to the left of the democrats, like the greens. i would usually be highly critical of the democrats.
so, it's not unusual that i'm withholding support for the democrats; what's unusual is that i was even thinking about supporting them in the first place, and that was due 100%, solely, entirely to bernie sanders. 98 years out of 100, i'm not going to even consider it.
and, i'm not a "non-voter". i'm just a communist.
i was born in 1981, but i'm comfortable in stating that i would not have voted for the anti-communist and pro-catholic jfk. and, while it is true that nixon was a racist despot, he still has an actual better legacy than jfk in terms of actual accomplishments. i would not feel ashamed about preferring nixon over jfk at all (although i would have voted for a socialist party).
hey, hey lbj! how many kids did you kill today?
i may have flirted a little with rfk - it's hard to tell how seriously i would have actually taken him but, i would have more actively supported the various anti-war and pseudo-left candidates in the late 60s and early 70s, and then tuned out when they lost.
i would have interpreted jimmy carter as a sign of the apocalypse, and been a fan of punk rock and everything that that means from 1975-1993. so, i would have hated tipper gore and the pmrc with a passion. to the extent that i would have voted during these years at all, it would have been for people pretty far outside of the spectrum.
i might have supported clinton in 1993 just to get the republicans out and end the misery of it, and then horribly regretted it. but, i might have been a passive perot fan, too. you have to understand that clinton campaigned against most of what he did, in a time where you should have been able to believe him - he was the great deceiver, the great betrayer. would i have seen through it? it's hard to say. i know that chomsky saw through it, so there's some precedent, but i may have rationalized it. this is harder, for me, than jfk. by 1997, at least, i'd be looking at the greens. by 2000, we can start looking at reality.
- i did not support al gore, because i thought he was too pro-war and in bed with the oil companies. i do not think that a gore presidency would have significantly altered the course of history. i supported nader in 2000.
- the 1/50 fluke occurrence that caused me to seriously support the democrats was the invasion of iraq, and it's actually interesting to wonder what would have happened if it was gore that invaded iraq (as he had been arguing for since the 80s), and he had to go up against a republican. might they have elected a ron paul type? if so, i'd have had to have supported that ron paul type, against my better judgement. at the time, that war could still be reversed, and it had to take precedent over just about anything else. further, kerry had believable anti-war credentials. i supported kerry in 2004.
- by 2008, the moment to end the catastrophe had passed, and the democrats were running a guy that was promising to blow up afghanistan because he thought it was a tactical mistake to invade iraq. i did not support barack obama - i supported the greens in both 2008 and 2012.
- in 2016, i very weakly endorsed clinton, but, in the booth, i would have almost certainly voted for jill stein.
so, i'm not pouting; these people just aren't presenting proposals i'd actually support. i am seriously about twenty degrees to the left of the democrats. i look at a buttigieg and i agree with maybe 25% of what he's saying. then, i look at trump and i also agree with about 25% of what he's saying, which is unusual for a republican. if your argument is "you have to vote democrat because the republicans are so terrible", i might interject that trump isn't nearly as bad as bush or reagan or nixon, and might not even be as bad as clinton. sure, i'd rather somebody else was president. but, in context, trump isn't nearly as bad as he could be - and i'd certainly pick him over rubio or cruz. the urge and drive i felt in 2004 to get bush out is just lacking at the moment.
then, i look at the greens and agree with 90% of what they're saying. so, i'm going to vote for the greens and not against the republicans.
and, if you're upset by that, i don't give a fuck. rather, i will suggest that we have a debate about the policies that the democrats are supporting, and why i don't support them, and won't support them. but, you have to put me in context - i'm not a pouting democrat that's turning my nose up, i'm a hardened socialist that was dabbling in a party that i've spent most of my life fighting against.
in this particular election, i don't feel particularly conflicted, or like there's a hard choice to make. there's not a democrat in the field that would pull me away from the greens, this time. so, i'm going to be supporting the greens, to the extent i'm supporting anybody at all.
but, again - i can't vote in the united states. and, if i can't find a serious candidate that i actually like, i'm not going to spend a lot of time thinking about the process any further.
my position is essentially this - don't give me shit for standing my ground. if you want my vote, change your policies to reflect what i care about. and, if you won't do that, accept that we're in different political camps - i'm a socialist, and you're a capitalist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)