every time i search for anything about the middle east in the news, google gives me back several, some times dozens, of links to an iranian-aligned state media company in qatar called al jazeera. i never click those links. i don't consider arab state media to be a reliable source of information, and this particular network has an extremely blatant pro-iran bias. i'm not interested. i'd rather read something else.

i'm not exactly in favour of banning media. i think we should unban rt. but if we're going to ban rt, i don't understand why we continue to allow al jazeera, as it's infinitely worse than rt in terms of biased reports, inaccurate information and outright spewing of blatant propaganda. 

al jazeera is amongst the least credible sources of information on the planet. yet, i can't figure out how to get it out of my newsfeed. i've been ignoring it for years, and google keeps bombarding me with it. sometimes, the google news results will have ten or fifteen stories by al jazeera in a row, and, no, i'm not clicking  on them.

so, i want to ask a blunt and cogent question.

how much of a threat is al jazeera on the integrity of fact finding operation amongst employees in the canadian government, and should access to it be restricted in relation to employment activities, in order to ensure it is not confusing or misleading people with bad information?

it would seem as though canada has aligned itself with the axis of evil when nobody was paying attention and is now a full-throated ally of the irgc.

then, when i listen to my foreign minister speak, she is consistently repeating iranian talking points, and both ignoring the american talking points and ignoring the perspectives of the countries in the gulf, who she sometimes has the arrogance to purport to speak for while she is regurgitating iranian talking points.

maybe somebody could explain this to me.

when i turn on canadian state media, i see a lot of video of hezbollah terrorists speaking, often unedited, in arabic, but i see no video of american generals speaking in english.

can somebody explain that to me?

i find it very confusing, and it's making me wonder if we need an armed revolution in canada to chase the fascists out of government.

right. so she has a criminal record and therefore can't enter canada. pretty basic.

but our state media company is generating anti-semitic conspiracy theories and accusing the government of speech suppression, in ignorance of the obvious basic facts.

it's worth noting that what is called 'far left' in contemporary european discourse is in truth almost identical to historical fascism and should in truth be labelled the extreme right in historical context. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/rita-hassan-far-left-politician-refused-entry-canada-9.7146419

asimov's fiction is full of allegories about the dichotomy of what he called progressive politicians, who were in support of space travel and science, and conservative politicians, who were earth-first and opposed space exploration. he reflects the way the words were understood in his day.

my point is just to draw attention to the spectrum reversal.

nowadays, politicians that call themselves progressive are the loudest opponents of science and are almost identical to what asimov ridiculed as conservatives. they really ought to do themselves a favour and get new branding, because they are not what they think they are.

gas prices have little effect on me. i don't drive a car and i'm shielded from inflation. i benefit when prices come back down. rent increases effect me, but rent inflation has nothing to do with gas, it has to do with overpopulation.

that said, it's a good time for politicians to go on tv and talk about sacrifices for the greater good, in eradicating a deep threat to human freedom. we will all have to make some kind of sacrifices, to ensure that the religious extremists in iran are destroyed.

if the ndp were very smart, they might be able to position themselves as a new liberal party right now, as the liberals swing so hard to the right, and electing an upper class elitist like avi lewis with bad economic policies and good social policies would be a good step on that path towards appealing to liberal voters. liberals annoyed with mark carney should like avi lewis in principle, until they dig under the surface.

the things that liberals won't like about avi lewis are not up for debate and won't be addressed, and he will struggle with them for that reason.

but that is the obvious tactic the ndp needs to try. they're going to fail. but they need to cut their losses with working class voters and go hard after upper middle class voters, instead. that's who elected avi lewis, and it's who is going to vote for him, if anybody does.

so, what do i do?

well, i'm not going to vote for the conservatives, either.

i have tended to vote green or not at all. the rise of avi lewis won't alter that, for me. right now, i'm likely to continue to not vote.

would i vote for avi lewis?

i might support some of his positions on social issues, but his economic policies seem designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. for example, he actually wants to increase the number of temporary residents, and the number of foreign students. those decisions would severely harm me, and are not in my class interest.

the answer is that i probably wouldn't, for that reason.

the italian prime minister is a retard and nobody expects her to say anything intelligent.

but macron will bitch and moan that "freedom of religion" must be respected in jerusalem, then support banning the jews from mumbling at their own fucking wall. and he's supposed to be the secularist, and they're supposed to be the lunatics. get your head around that kind of hypocrisy.

frankly, i didn't realize it was easter, either, and just googled it.

i mean, it changes on a yearly basis. it's not fixed. you'd have to tell me, or i wouldn't know, because i don't give a fuck.

i think they should bulldoze all of the religious sites in jerusalem and build a city park in their place.

while it seemed somewhat uncharacteristic of israel to restrict christians from going to church, and i was curious as to why, i have absolutely no solidarity for christian worship and would largely support restrictions on public masses in jerusalem during easter. but israel is not a secular state.

i find the statements by macron alarming in the context of laicite and would hope he receives backlash from french voters for it.

it turns out it was a security restriction and the jewish police, on account of being jewish, didn't realize it was easter or plan for it. 

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/religion/artc-israel-faces-backlash-after-church-leaders-blocked-from-the-holy-sepulchre

trump didn't want a war with iran, and they might have prevented one if they had acted more rationally, but they acted irrationally and now they've sealed their own fate. there may have been a path to a deal previously but there is not one now. they may have been able to avoid regime change before, but they can't now. 

it's all over for iran.

their behaviour, and their rhetoric, necessitates their permanent destruction.

yeah, something is leaving me dead bugs as gifts. 

spiders.

boxelder bugs.

the first roach i've ever seen in here.

what is the difference between a mouse and a cat, besides size? mice are clearly more intelligent. cats are basically large rodents.

i don't want to jump to conclusions, but this mouse is very generous with it's gift-giving, and i've just never seen it.

it doesn't really make sense to have the ndp as what it is anymore.

i hope they consider merging with the greens.

...before they become irrelevant.