when i sorted through this in 2016, the argument i made that i felt was most compelling was to point out that i had about an equal level of agreement with hillary and trump, which you might think is insane, but from a libertarian-left perspective (that opposes corporate globalization, the "free trade" system, imperialist wars and a number of other things that are central to the core messaging of contemporary neo-liberalism) it's really not if you look at it carefully.

so, i said something like that i agreed with about 40% of what clinton said and disagreed without about 60% of what she said - which is probably not all that different than your average fake-left "progressive". but, how many of them sat down and carefully sorted through what trump said and really carefully quantified it? they may have been surprised to realize that they probably agreed with more than 30% of what he said, anyways - and specifically regarding his opposition to this core neo-liberal agenda, some of which has actually panned out better than i actually expected (and some of which hasn't).

yes, it's sad that so many of us disagree with 60% of what the candidate we dislike less has to say, but...

unlike a lot of people, i would actually prefer clinton to biden, overall. she's at least bright; biden isn't. but, with clinton the problem was that she was ultimately evil to her core. biden's problem is that he's just kind of a dipshit.

so, i'm still basically in the same place with both of them - i agree with roughly 35% of what either of them say, and disagree with most of what both of them say, it's just over different specific issues. trump pisses me off on the climate the most; biden's going to piss me off the most with his foreign policy.

but, i might agree with 3% of what mike pence says, and it will mostly involve clauses that utilize the word puppy. he's pretty much the perfect personification of everything i hate about the world.

they're both clearly in bad health, but i'd guess that trump stays alive and cogent longer than biden.

it's just a perception, but i'd guess that trump will probably get through four years, and biden probably won't.

if trump actually quits, all bets are off on this.

as it is, i'm stuck trying to figure out what the least bad option is, who i think is going to die first, etc.

but, i'd vote for a warm pile of shit before i voted for mike pence.

i wouldn't even brake for mike pence if i saw him crossing the street. really.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/30/why-trump-might-quit-387681

again: the spanish flu mutated. twice.

that's why there were waves.

will there be multiple waves of this, too?

if it mutates a couple times, you should expect that, yes. and, over time, because it's not going away, you would expect it to become seasonal - which is what happened to the spanish flu.

if it's very slow to mutate, the difference between a "wave" and a "season" will likely get blurry.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-is-one-big-wave-not-seasonal-who-expert-suggests-1.5044839

to be clear, though: because the ruling has to do with the quebec charter, the supreme court will be interpreting the situation from a civil law (that is, a franco-roman) perspective, and not the common law (that is, germanic law) that i was talking about.

i don't have a lot of patience for civil law (yuck.), and don't really want to get into this. i find the premise that law is void of interpretation to be too authoritarian for my tastes. that's one of the things i don't like much about quebec; i wish they'd come face-to-face with their franco-german origins and embrace the superiority of common law.

but, when the supreme court takes on these quebec-specific issues, and uses quebec-specific rules, they only apply within quebec. that is, any ruling or precedent that comes out of this will be in a civil law context and not be binding in the rest of the country.

if the case was in ontario, or probably anywhere else in canada, the complainant just wouldn't have grounds to file and if it made it to court at all it'd get thrown out almost immediately. you can't just sue people for being mean, that's crazy. no duty exists.

yet, such a duty does seem to have been erected in quebec statute, bizarrely - and i think it clearly would infringe on freedom of expression, to the point that it's not constitutional.

but, quebec never signed the constitution, and doesn't consider itself bound by it.

so, who knows what they do.

i would:

1) scratch out 10.1 (& 2, while i'm at it)
2) allow that the statements were discriminatory, but discrimination by private citizens is covered by federal free speech legislation.
3) award $0 in damages to the complainant
4) award costs to the defendant

ok, so i just took a flip through this and it's really quite a bizarre document.

generally, human rights legislation wouldn't have clauses like this in it:

Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason.

that's not a right, it's actually more or less the opposite of one - and something that the supreme court has actually explicitly rejected on multiple occasions.

this is the specific rule:
No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10.

section 10 is the usual list of prohibited grounds.

that's not a right, either - that's a law. and, frankly, it's in direct contradiction to the federal charter.

so, my initial analysis was a canada-wide analysis (well, it was an ontario-specific analysis that is applicable in probably every other province) based on a combination of ontario and federal law. federal law still applies in quebec, but it's a delicate thing.

can the court rule the charter unconstitutional? because that clause shouldn't exist, subject to the federal constitution (which quebec never signed).

that case could actually get quite messy.

http://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-12

yeah, i'd have to look into this more specifically, but the premise underlying the discrimination tort is based on a duty of care that a comedian does not have to an audience member. there's no relationship there.

what does it mean for a comedian to discriminate against a private citizen? there's no contract involved. there's no commercial activity at hand. the comedian has no authority over the audience.

so, i don't really think it matters if it's discrimination or not, because a comedian does not have any legal obligation to avoid discriminatory jokes.

of course, if you don't like his jokes, you don't have to let him perform in your venue and etc. but to establish damages, the tort has to be built on a duty to the person claiming them that was not met by the person being accused, and i just don't see how that exists, here.

rather, it seems like the judges were just enforcing their moral opinions, and that shouldn't be happening, at all.

you could consequently potentially see a ruling that agrees that the comedian was discriminatory in his remarks, but awards damages to $0 and even gives him backs costs for wasting his time.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/supreme-court-of-canada-to-hear-appeal-of-quebec-comedian-mike-ward-on-joke-complaint-1.5045307

doug ford won most minority votes in the last election; it's the reason he won. they like him; he's popular in immigrant communities. he's the kind of leader they actually want.

but, he mostly got elected by swinging the muslim vote over the sex ed curriculum, which was key in specific ridings.

and, what has he done?

- banned sex ed
- passed a hijab law

i mean, what's next? mandatory praying? banning evolution?

my primary concern as a parent right now would be to ensure that my children do not become habituated to covering their faces in public, and that they don't develop the bad habit of putting faith in an idea over the realities of empirical science.

you may have faith in the idea of cloth face coverings reducing spread, but that's exactly what you're being conditioned to, and that's exactly why you need to pull the rug out from under the idea altogether.

this is how it starts.

it's up to us to stop it, via non-compliance, civil disobedience and carefully targeted legal battles.

and, if we don't?

get used to praying three times a day at the butt of a shotgun.

that's right.

ontario just mandated hijabs in the classroom.

that's what just happened, here.

it's very sad, and very depressing. but, all i can do is yell...

Students in Grades 4 through 12 will be required to wear a non-medical mask or cloth face covering while at school. Younger children will be encouraged, but not required, to do so.

that needs to be fought.

what if, as a parent, i find it revolting, humiliating, embarrassing and appalling to force my child to cover their face in public like a fucking religious idiot and refuse to do it?

and, let's be clear, here - there's no meaningful science underlying the idea that a hijab law (which is what this actually is. face the facts - your kids are being forced to wear religious gear at school.) is going to reduce the spread of anything amongst children except for self-confidence. this is not science; this is religion masquerading as science, and it's increasingly appearing as though it's actually a specific religion trying to enforce itself, underlying the issue.

if i had kids i would send them to school without face coverings and challenge the system to take me on. if they send the kids home that's fine - i'd rather home school them than send them to a fucking madrassa.

as it is, i find this law shameful, and it is just another reason that this government has given me to be ashamed and embarrassed about being an ontarian.

how do i get out of this collapsing society, that is heading into a dark age?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-coronavirus-ontario-july-30-back-to-school-1.5668495

when they came for those who refused to isolate, you said nothing.

and you should be condemned by history for it.

am i more afraid of the state than the virus?

yes.

the probability the virus is going to harm me is exceedingly low.

the probability that the state is going to harm me is moderate to concerning.

i repeat: it would seem that this is a time to be extra vigilant about protecting your personal information, because there's a very real possibility that some thugs with some guns might show up at your house and threaten you with violence if you don't obey their barked orders.

but, i mean....

this is why you shouldn't give your contact information out when people ask, or really even get tested unless you're sure you're sick.

this is a time to protect your privacy, right now; get in the habit of being a little extra vigilant in preventing the spread of your personal data.

you can't take away my rights by pretending it's an "emergency".

no, i'm not going to let you do that.

i'm going to stand up and fight back against the assault on the population by the state.

i can't, for a second, understand why the government decided to take this approach of trying to force everybody to follow a set of draconian rules instead of taking the people most vulnerable and isolating them until the thing passes.

but, they made a decision to take a stupid approach, and we're going to have to suffer through it.

so, do i blame a "recalcitrant" citizen for the crime of asserting his inalienable rights?

no.

i blame a government that was arrogant enough to think it had the prerogative to take those inalienable rights away in a "health emergency".

https://o.canada.com/news/case-of-ontario-man-who-ignored-covid-19-quarantine-order-shows-challenges-of-crucial-contact-tracing

i want all of you banhammers, tinpot dictators, petty tyrants, self-appointed grand poobahs and other type of totalitarian despots to ask yourself a question the next time you decide to burn a book:

what if i'm wrong?

leave the church.

delete your twitter account.

science cannot operate in a climate of totalitarianism and fear.

science relies on a free exchange of information, without censorship.

and, science does not make claims that are absolute truth - science is subject to modification, to alteration, to evolution, to change.

twitter's lost the plot.

clearly.

if some neo-galileo were to post an update on twitter today that challenged the existing science, would he not be accused of disinformation and have his posts deleted?

how did we get here?

and how do we get back?

we've seen this sort of scenario come up a few times, now, and it really has to go back to the point.

who exactly is twitter hiring to determine what is "disinformation" and what is not?

i'm going to guess it's a bunch of 19 year-olds working from their parents' basements, because they tend to label things as "disinformation" that are actually true fairly often.

and, what do you do when you have this organization like twitter that thinks it knows the truth well enough to censor others, but is in truth actually usually wrong, itself?

because that's what we're seeing over and over - twitter label valid science or perfectly legitimate debate as "disinformation" or "propaganda", and free-thinking people the world over wondering "how did we get to this point?".

but, it's a tendency of authoritarianism, isn't it?

just ask galileo.

or turing.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/who-resuming-hydroxychloroquine-study-for-covid-19/

dr. fauci is wrong.

he seems to be wrong a lot, doesn't he?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/29/dr-fauci-says-all-the-valid-scientific-data-shows-hydroxychloroquine-isnt-effective-in-treating-coronavirus.html

i started writing this last night before i fell asleep.

=========

so, the msm is really going full gotcha on this hydroxycholoroquine thing, even going so far as to delete a tweet by madonna, who does not like being censored.

it's my job to weigh in on this bullshit and correct the shoddy journalism. so, let's survey the results on this drug here in a way that people can properly understand. and, i won't hold my breath that the idiots will get it through their numbskulls.

so, let's take a quick look through this:
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

that is not a small scale trial in a sketchy field hospital in nigeria, it's a major study at a major medical institution that was published in a leading medical journal. and, this is what they say, rather clearly:

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

they conclude there is some reason to think that the treatment was effective.

“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

.
.
.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped saves lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

they make an important caveat, though:

Dr. Zervos also pointed out, as does the paper, that the study results should be interpreted with some caution, should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings and require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19.

“Currently, the drug should be used only in hospitalized patients with appropriate monitoring, and as part of study protocols, in accordance with all relevant federal regulations,” Dr. Zervos said.

so, why is this peer-reviewed study by a major institution in a leading academic journal being ignored in favour of some now-ancient preliminary studies at medrxiv?

well, it's at least 40% politics, surely. i can't correct your mistake if you're just being dishonest and know better anyways, and this seems to be something that is driving ratings at the news networks. so, they don't want to destroy a good story, i guess.

but, i can point out what the confusion no doubt is if the bad articles are being produced in good faith, and it's the question of what the drug does.

while the ford results actually don't surprise me, the same center is currently doing a prophylactic trial, and i don't expect this trial to produce positive results, in the end. that is, that while the science underlying the efficacy of the drug as a treatment in very specific scenarios may be compelling, the idea that it's going to ward the disease off certainly isn't. this is the study you probably imagine is underlying the science and yet hasn't even been done yet:

https://www.henryford.com/whip-covid-19

why are they experimenting with this drug? the answer is that it's an immunosuppressor. something that seems to happen with very sick covid patients is that their immune system starts attacking itself. the clinical purpose of this drug - as it is used for autoimmune disorders like lupus, rather than parasites like malaria, a confusion i ran into as well due to bad msm coverage - is to weaken the immune system, to stop it from attacking itself. when successful, this allows the patient to recover enough to seek other treatments.

then, does this drug cure the disease? no. but, it was never suggested by anybody (except trump, apparently) that it should be used for the purpose of curing the disease. what it does is eliminate a symptom, and that makes it a lot easier for doctors to help you beat it yourself. remember: at this stage, the only defense you have remains your own body. the best the doctors can do is help your body work, right now, and this drug does that by stopping it from attacking itself, just like it does with lupus patients.

so, let's be clear: no credible person ever argued that the hydroxy is an antiviral drug, or that it would help clear the disease from the system. what credible people suggested, and tested, and have found to be true, is that the drug has an effect on calming the immune system down, and preventing your immune response from killing you.

so, what is probably going to happen if you give random people the drug out in the wild? the answer is that they're going to be more likely to get sick, due to their immune system weakening, which is what the drug does. not only will the drug fail in warding off the disease, but it will likely increase the likelihood of serious infection.

that's what happens when you use medication wrong,  but we don't usually blame it on the medicine. generally, we blame it on the person who consumed the dose at the wrong time, or on the doctor for malpractice.

well what about the study that showed it kills people?

that actually got retracted:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

i don't expect this to end any time soon; the ignorance of the general public, combined with the dishonesty of the mainstream press (and their own ignorance, feigned or real) has created a perfect storm of gotcha politics. but, nobody knows what the fuck they're even talking about.

there have been some other drugs brought in in the same class that are being utilized for the same reason, and there may be good reasons to use those drugs on some patients, instead. side effects would be one reason. that's fine, and i'm not going to second guess the doctors, or question why they pick one representative of a class of drugs over others, and there are lots, including price, availability and corporate interconnectedness.

and, again: the drug will neither cure you if you have it nor protect you from getting it. i don't need to wait for that study.

but, the actual science underlying this drug as a treatment option in specific scenarios has actually been established for many, many years, and the people you need to "get" are actually the mainstream media, for disseminating truly disastrous levels of disinformation around it.

everybody is a liar.

trust noone.

fwiw, i've now read in multiple sources that "north americans" don't put tobacco in their marijuana.

well, i grew up in ottawa, and everybody put lots of tobacco in their marijuana; it's the idea of smoking it pure that sounds weird, and sort of wasteful, to me. i guess i can imagine americans lighting their phillies with $100 bills sort of thing, but that is not the norm, here in canada - we mix.

and, while i've found that people in detroit don't use filters very often (something i find odd.), they do at least roll with tobacco in michigan.

and, i mean, don't tell me that marijuana is less dangerous; it might be less addictive, and that might be my concern, but it's just as bad for you, overall.

inhaling the smoke of any plant will increase your cancer risk, because it's not any specific chemical that is increasing the risk but the cellulose in the actual plant. there is no plant that is more safe to smoke than any other.

yeah.

why didn't i think of this before?

it seems like people have tried rolling pot with just about anything.

maybe i can find something with some potent phytoestrogens in it :)

yeah, this makes sense and is more or less what i'm feeling just right now.

the pot might not be addictive, but if you smoke it with tobacco then you're turning it into a concoction that actually is. and, you may end up with people that are less talented with intuitive approaches to primary component analyses than i am, and just think they're addicted to the marijuana.

no.

it's the two-three cigarettes that go into every j that have got you hooked.

https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/blog-smoking-tobacco-with-your-weed-increases-risk-of-addiction-n361

i'm going to try the edibles, first.

https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/blog-top-10-replacements-for-tobacco-in-spliffs-n858

why don't i just smoke the pot without the tobacco?

it's a lot more expensive and it's not really practical. if i roll a quarter of a gram, that's a potent persie, and it'll end up knocking me right out. but, short of getting a pipe, that's about as small a j as you can get without throwing something else in there.

do they sell, like, empty hemp that you can roll with or something? hrmnn.

so, why not get a pipe? well, why not get a pipe?

i'd rather try the edibles first, but that might be the next step.

summer is over?

well, what is summer?

winter: less than 15 degrees
fall/spring: 15-30 degrees
summer: 30+ degrees

24-25 is like a cool spring or fall day; it's not summer.

i mean, i think i've been pretty clear in this space that i don't really want to smoke anymore, except when i'm in specific social scenarios, and i suspect that that itself may fade a little in a reality where i have easier access to pot and kind of don't have to buzz around the edges of social groups anymore. 

i think i've been pretty clear that i don't want to habituate back into the smoking of anything, and that the chances of that happening are precisely zero.

so, when i tell you i'm looking forward to getting past the delivery mechanism, i think it should be clear that i'm really actually feeling that. like, i legit don't want to. but, i also legit want to get baked once in a while....

i'll admit this snuck up on me, and i didn't actually expect it. that's fine; i'll get through it.

the weather forecast for august is petty uninspiring, so it seems like the hot part of the summer is more or less over. don't misunderstand me: getting stoned in sweaty, hot weather is one of my favourite things in the world to do, and i don't regret it. but, it's been six weeks now of smoking more days than not, and i'm reminding myself why i quit.

if the edibles are a shitty buzz or whatever else, in the end, then i'll need to go back to the headcave model - twice a year, in binges. but, if they actually work, i may be within a few weeks of the last time i smoke any tobacco, ever.

marijuana really isn't addictive, and i've really never had a problem with it in that way, in 25 years. i've never had a problem with alcohol or with mushrooms or with anything else, either.

but, tobacco can get you on the first hit; they say it's more addictive than heroin.

so, to be clear.

i'm not buying another package of rolling tobacco. i'm not going to throw it away, i will get a little more pot to smoke through it, but that will be the end of that. i was hoping i could just leave it in the cupboard and hit it once in a while, but that idea isn't working out. i need to keep the tobacco out of the house....

that 26er of vodka is still untouched from march, though. it's weird. i'd have to have a deep conversation with my subconscious to kind of get my head around it entirely, but i feel like it's actually the tobacco that is driving me here, not the pot. see, and the trick is that of these three things, it's only tobacco that gets you physically hooked. it is the most damaging and the most dangerous of the three.

so, i think i'm at the point where i'm getting the urge to smoke more pot as an excuse to smoke more cigarettes. if that's the end result of leaving pot in the house, i can't leave pot sitting in the house. so, we're going to smoke through it...

but, i might react to a chocolate bar the same way i react to the 26er, because i can't put tobacco in it and smoke it. you see? so, i'm going to try that, instead.

but, the reality just right now is that i've been smoking a lot of tobacco with the pot, that i am actually feeling it and that i'm going to have to spend a week or two flushing it out. again. that is what i need to kind of clue into, and react to and actually come to terms with and move past.

that was a lot of posting, huh?

i seem to be "coming down" from too much marijuana use. so, i'm drinking too much coffee, kind of fidgety, wide awake, kind of distracted and smoking too much rolling tobacco....

i guess that's obvious.

i have managed to convince myself that i can't leave rolling tobacco in the cupboard, i'll end up smoking it. i should have known that - that idea isn't likely to work out well. and, frankly, i'm kind of looking forward to getting past the delivery mechanism. i'm going to have to smoke through it, which means buying a little more, but let's hope that i've turned the corner into some kind of edible by the start of next month.

i think i'll find it a lot easier to put some chocolate in the cupboard than to put anything i can smoke in the cupboard.

did i get some cleaning done? i got one of three piles of dishes done and spent some time washing my face. so, a little, but not much.

the temperature in here has been more pleasant over the last few days, which is better. i think he did have something running under the floor, and he's turned it off. regardless, that seems to be the big difference - the floor is much less cold than it was, which is letting the unit retain much more of the heat. temperature is weird when converted to language; i think my idea is getting across. it's maybe a little more humid, too, which is making the ambient air seem less winterish.

i'll get those last 2013-2014 posts up soon, i just need to clear my head and sort through the list of things.