Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 3:34:17 AM
the answer is that we need to use more electricity. the policy assumed we'd be driving electric cars and running high speed rails up and down the detroit-quebec city corridor, by now.
our electricity is clean. you're not he;ping the environment by using less of it. rather, you'd be helping the environment by using more of it - and less fossil fuels.
i would support a renationalizing of the grid, and a system run at cost.
but it's backwards logic to blame the problem on the green energy act. the green energy act was massively successful - it created a large surplus of clean energy, which was going to be required to help us get off of carbon. this exists. it's in place. what has failed has been the slow adoption of electric vehicles.
...and that's been a failure, largely, at the federal level.
wynne needs to call trudeau up and get him to push some serious tax cuts for electric cars. that's the piece of policy that has been a failure. and, for obvious reasons - we just got out of ten years of petrostate politics.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electricity-ontario-1.3538157
Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 9:30:52 AM
it was always about the price of oil. the criticism was that they tied themselves too strongly to the price of oil, thereby reducing the country's fiscal situation to the whim of global investors. so, when the price of oil comes down, you get huge deficits - and when it comes up, you get huge surpluses. you fix this by recreating a stable tax base, so the country can better deal with the volatility in oil prices.
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 6:49:51 PM
i agree with council, and would add that this is an abuse of power. he has no mandate to tax people and send it out of the city as a political gimmick. that $300,000 could and should certainly go to helping the disadvantaged in sarnia.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/sarnia-mayor-s-proposal-to-send-25k-to-fort-mcmurray-falls-flat-1.3575075
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM
Mollybloom: As if -- Canadian comments on U.S. politics matter a damn to anyone south-of-us. Nevertheless, this collective purgative does have momentary solace as we stop crapping in our own backyard.
But for gawd's sake Bernie, remember Ralph and ponder whether you guys would have got anywhere near Iraq with Gore.
Me: i am absolutely certain that gore would have bombed iraq. in fact, he'd probably have also avoided the protests.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 9:18:36 AM
this media narrative is going to fall flat. the vast majority of sanders supporters don't see any material difference between clinton and trump, anyways - and may even lean a little closer to trump on foreign policy and trade. the really interesting question is whether jill stein can get these supporters, not if clinton can. but, the warped truth is that she'll probably win anyways, because republican support for trump is even lower.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
Friday, May 13, 2016 at 2:51:59 AM
who is going to do a better job fulfilling the unstated role - an by all accounts capable woman who just happens to be the prime minister's wife, or people that have some training and legitimate interest in the topic? who will be more accountable?
it's kind of a broader issue. what is more efficient: private charity (which is what she's being expected to do...) that is accountable to nobody or public servants that are accountable in the traditional manners? i vote for public sector services over private sector charity.
...which means that she should have an office, it should be accountable to the house and it should be handed over to the next wife or husband
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-overwhelmed-1.3580164
Friday, May 13, 2016 at 3:02:28 AM
you have to expect the conservatives to yell and scream and have a temper tantrum over this, because the process will rightly have the end result of removing their ability to win majorities with a minority of support (and, you can't compare the liberal's 40% to the conservatives' 40% due to the way the spectrum aligns - it's just yet another dishonest argument from tom mulcair). but, that's too bad - the liberals have a majority, here, and should use it to plow through the av as quick as possible, so that voters have time to understand it.
the worst thing that can happen is for this to drag on until a month before the election, as the backlash could push them out. they want to push it through quickly so that people have time to calm down and realize it's a net benefit to the stability of the country.
and, that's going to mean ignoring the temper tantrums, until the opposition tires itself out and goes to sleep.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-electoral-reform-1.3579651
Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 9:52:26 AM
PshyeahV2.0 : Didn't they already have equal rights?
Me: it's actually a contentious point. the previous government made the argument that gender identity came under sexual orientation, but that was actually obviously wrong. however, i've long argued that it should be covered under 'analogous grounds' - the issue has apparently never been tested in court. now it's explicit, anyways.
May 17, 2016 at 8:59:36 PM
these studies often lack a discussion of any kind of mechanism - it's just straight correlations with no attempts at explanation. as such, you don't actually learn anything.
what are potatoes? they're highly concentrated sugar. so one should expect that high potato consumption with low exercise would certainly lead to excess weight and high blood pressure. one would also expect that high potato consumption with high activity levels would lead to increased muscle mass, as your body converts the excess sugar into muscle.
you should neither be shocked nor particularly enlightened by any this.
www.cbc.ca/news/health/potato-consumption-hypertension-1.3586370
June 02, 2016 at 5:49:45 AM
this argument is actually particularly egregious given the circumstances, which is itself an argument to re-engineer society to abolish markets.
the general way to prevent scalping is to prevent people from exceeding their ticket quotas. but, i have no problem with sending cops out to arrest them, confiscating their tickets and distributing them on a needs basis.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/tragically-hip-scalper-outrage-1.3610489
June 06, 2016 at 2:09:20 PM
the government could get a majority in the senate with a stroke of a pen. there is absolutely no excuse for having their legislation gutted, and they should be loudly called out for incompetence should that be something that actually happens. there's an easy answer to avoid this: fill the senate with liberal senators immediately. it's just incompetence to leave the senate open, then complain that they can't pass legislation.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856
June 06, 2016 at 2:32:45 PM
when, i voted for the liberals it was because i wanted them to pass legislation - not because i wanted them to create a mess in the senate that would prevent them from passing legislation. it's really a comically absurd situation; he's obstructing his own agenda. the media should really be taking him to task for it. it doesn't matter what you think of the senate; this is the worst possible outcome from any perspective.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856
June 07, 2016 at 1:40:29 AM
the email scandal promises better ratings.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/sanders-clinton-nominaton-report-1.3619679
June 07, 2016 at 1:52:45 AM
if you want to put him in jail for 20 years, might i suggest contributing funds? 'cause i really don't want to pay to house, feed and entertain the guy for the second third of his life - and then repeat for the last third, because he can't find a job due to the fact that he's a convict.
listen. nobody doubts that this is a problem. but vengeance isn't an answer. deterrence doesn't work - it's just a waste of resources that could be better spent on things that actually work.
you could have a bake sale to raise money to pay for food & shelter for rapists.
www.cbc.ca/news/trending/stanford-swimmer-brock-turner-sexual-assault-father-reacts-1.3618571
June 08, 2016 at 3:02:00 AM
i'm kind of glad you posted this the way you did, so i can respond contextually in an appropriate way. you need to think of hillary like the liberals and sanders like the ndp, and then place them in a minority government - as we saw in the 60s, 70s and 00s. it worked out well in the 60s and 70s. especially the 60s. lots of people think it was our greatest parliament.....
the ndp would never just let the liberals pass whatever they want. they always demanded some influence, and when they didn't get it? they'd vote down the budget.
it's a hard game of difficult negotiations. but, it's how the parliament works.
the american punditry is going to have a hard time with this because the three-party system is foreign to most living americans. it shouldn't be, though. it happened in the 30s, when the socialist parties forced a set of concessions from fdr that is now called the new deal.
they could call a history prof and get them to explain it. or they could call a canadian. but, what we're seeing unfold in the united states right now has not happened for a century. this isn't politics as usual. this is very different. our media is uniquely positioned to understand and explain it and should take the opportunity to.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-california-primary-1.3621301
June 08, 2016 at 11:44:00 AM
"losing patience"
yeah. right. what are you going to do, hill? not get voted for?
sanders has incredible leverage, here. and, he's been pretty patient, himself. if i was him, i'd be launching an independent run right now and laying out arguments that hillary is truly no better than trump. i'd be threatening to split the democrats in half unless i got what i wanted.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-primary-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-1.3621007
June 15, 2016 at 3:18:43 AM
when will thomas mulcair endorse justin trudeau?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillary-wins-dc-primary-1.3635688
June 20, 2016 at 10:34:12 PM
the reason we have a cbs is that the red cross screwed up the blood supply. we nationalized it in response to market failure. if something happens, and it's tied to a shift in policy...
i expect the government will eventually lift the ban, but it's going to need to protect *itself* first. this is more about the history of blood services in canada than it is about homophobia. you have to understand *that* history to realize why there's push back againt anything that modifies a system that has worked well up to this point.
when the changes happen, they're going to be broader than this, too - because, as mentioned, this is symptomatic of broader, underlying systemic issues.
they should be applauded for not kneejerking, really, and holding to the script rather than being affected by political pressure.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gay-men-blood-donations-1.3643761
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 7:10:16 AM
this has been solved, from my understanding - it's a combination of the industry on the island with the salt mines under windsor. what's happening is that the vibrations are sending sound waves through the old mines, which is literally shaking the whole ground.
i'm on the other side of oullette, and i've never heard anything over here. but if i was living around lasalle, i might be more concerned about sink holes swallowing my house....
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-hum-discussion-goes-to-washington-1.3645376
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 5:15:25 PM
i think that the balance of evidence admits waukesha as a very limited special case. i haven't read the case, but if it limits the situation to the very limited special conditions then this is actually a positive precedent.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/waukesha-water-leamington-mayor-1.3646880
July 26, 2016 at 11:33:30 AM
yeah. he's got some 'splainin' to do, alright.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-clinton-speech-hillary-clinton-democrats-1.3695087
August 02, 2016 at 9:52:00 AM
why does he keep appointing conservatives?
the election results were not ambiguous. it's kind of counter to his mandate to keep stacking all these reform bodies with conservatives.
if we wanted conservatives, we would have voted for them. we voted against them. so, why is he doing this?
Lori Cameron: Did you mean, why does he keep appointing those whom he believes are the best qualified for the given positions?
me: i'm not sure how anybody comes to the conclusion that kim campbell is best qualified for anything, besides a lecture on how to preside over the worst electoral defeat in canadian history.
a supreme court advisory is not a meritocratic position, it's a partisan position. i really don't want a conservative body determining the composition of the next supreme court, and it's frankly downright enraging to see a liberal prime minister put such a thing in motion.
ironically, i don't think that this is constitutional.
Tim Saucier: What disqualifies Kim Campbell from the job, aside from being "Conservative"?
Me: considering that we elected an overwhelming liberal majority, i think that's enough.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:24:55 AM
what, exactly, was wrong with a partisan process?
Taylor Sutherland: bias.
Me: it's a court process. bias is the whole point. i don't even...
if you remove bias, what are the ruling on? corporate expediency? objective truth?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:29:00 AM
let me try this another way.
a part of the responsibility of the prime minister is to appoint the supreme court justices. this is a political process, meaning it's a part of the prime minister's mandate. not only is this process obviously unconstitutional, but it's a rejection of one of the prime minister's core job functions: to determine the justice in such a way that reflects the popular will, which is necessarily a partisan process.
the previous election was about wiping the conservatives out of power. where did all this bipartisan or nonpartisan stuff come from? there's no mandate for this.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM
when you remove partisanship, you remove democracy.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:32:29 AM
i voted for a liberal prime minister. so, i want a liberal prime minister to appoint a liberal judge.
Cindy Fordyce: I want a Liberal gov't to appoint the best person who meets the qualifications to be appointed.
Politics is not an Olympic sport and should never be made so.
Me: you're incoherent. you say you want a competition over who's "the best", then you say it's not a competition. but, you can't possibly define what "the best person" who has "the best" qualifications even *is*.
all politics is bias. and all law is politics. it's basic critical legal theory.
there is no meritocracy. there's simply a party apparatus. and, you can appoint somebody that upholds your biases or somebody that upholds somebody else's.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:32:55 AM
dale mcrobie : This is unfair to unilingual Canadian! Just because one only speaks one language they should not be penalized!
Me: how do you expect a unilingual judge to hear a case in french? this is a common sense requirement.
Michael Chong: first off they do not individually sit as judges for each case,it's a group sitting. Also why not just get language translators. If ambassadors who are sitting at the UN have them why not Canada.?
Me: so, the fiscal conservatives want to hire translators instead of just appointing a bilingual judge. curious.
with something like the supreme court, i'd suggest that we don't want translators getting in the way in the interpretation of language. rulings can turn on interpretations. so, i think it's a functional requirement that the court can understand a ruling out of quebec natively, and be able to translate it independently.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:38:07 AM
could you imagine hillary clinton making george w. bush the head of a committee to determine the next supreme court nominee?
wait. don't answer that...
it's absurd.
i'm really not opposed to a committee, but i would expect him to stack the committee with liberals - because the liberals won the election and therefore get to stack the court. that's why we had an election!
the supreme court - ironically - won't let him do this, though. the constitution is pretty clear that the prime minister has to pick the justices.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:46:19 AM
i voted for the liberals. i want them to replace every judge with a liberal. i want them to replace the conservative judges with liberals. i want them to replace the liberal judges with even more liberal judges, and the extremely liberal judges with exceedingly liberal judges. i want the court to have exactly zero conservative justices on it. that's why i voted for the liberals. what's the use in having an election, when the liberals appoint conservative judges?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 10:52:07 AM
i mean, what's really going on here? was picking a court justice interfering with his canoe time, or what?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 02, 2016 at 12:06:16 PM
it's very weird. a lot of times he seems like he doesn't want to govern.
mr. prime minister. you're the person that's supposed to govern. that means picking supreme court justices. and, you're supposed to pick the person that most accurately uphold and reflects your partisan agenda.
i don't understand where he's coming from. some kind of dark age buddhist "wisdom", or something?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
Tuesday, August 02, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM
shouldn't this be one of his biggest legacies? something he's jumping all over? he's delegating it...does he want this job?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-canada-justices-selection-1.3703779
August 05, 2016 at 3:43:25 AM
criminal negligence revolves around the concept of reasonable precaution. what is at question here is ultimately not whether he carried out an act or not, or even if he did so on purpose, but whether he took the proper precautions to ensure it didn't happen. the legal question will likely revolve around the discussion he had with the person that actual prepared the food. did he point out the allergy clearly enough on the order?
the article is poorly written - it does not provide any facts. but, if the waiter expressed the allergies with a sufficient level of force, then it falls upon the cook.
it is very difficult to see how any judge in any liberal democracy could legally fault the victim for forgetting their epipen.
a lot of how you react to this is going to depend on what kind of social contract you feel is best applied. i'm an advocate of the proudhonian social contract, but less so of the one promoted by rousseau. i do consequently think that the waiter has a moral, legal and social responsibility to ensure that he does not poison anybody, and that he should face collective punitive action by society should he not uphold that social contract.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sherbrooke-waiter-arrested-salmon-allergic-customer-negligence-1.3707667
August 06, 2016 at 8:50:53 AM
that's no fair! why can they get rid of trump, when the democrats can't get rid of hillary? just more proof that the country is slanted to monied interests....
www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-campaign-republicans-1.3708729
August 15, 2016 at 12:27:08 AM
wait. when did the election get overturned? i thought we elected the liberals in a landslide in order to undo what the conservatives have done over the last ten years. where does the media get off in pretending the election never happened?
this was a populist issue. unlike what he's dong to the senate and supreme court, this is something he has a mandate for. he should stay the course.
if rona ambrose wants to govern, she's going to need to win an election, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
August 15, 2016 at 12:28:58 AM
is trudeau as much of a fake as obama?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
August 15, 2016 at 8:04:30 PM
frankly, i don't think the prime minister actually has a choice, here. a pattern is developing of contempt for the constitution, and for constitutional norms, that can't be tolerated. so, i hope that somebody challenges the nomination.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-supreme-court-judge-atlantic-canada-1.3721255
August 16, 2016 at 4:37:38 PM
i'm confused. what does this "terrorist attack" have to do with the constitutionality of the legislation?
if it was unconstitutional last year, surely it remains unconstitutional today.
??
i mean, unless the constitution was changed at some point when we weren't paying attention.....!?
forget the ndp. the only way anything gets done in this country is through the courts. let's get a constitutional challenge, please.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-c51-terrorism-balance-rights-security-1.3723167
August 25, 2016 at 4:16:13 PM
nobody cares about $500. please report on substantive issues.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-fall-session-1.3735744
August 30, 2016 at 9:58:54 AM
my view on this is that the opposition to the changes merely demonstrate their necessity. we need to be teaching these kids secular values over the opposition of their parents - and the more the parents yell that it offends their religious values, the more necessary it is to teach their kids secular values. this should really be made clear in the immigration process, so that people are not settling here under false pretenses
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
September 06, 2016 at 6:19:58 PM
i think the point is that canadians should spend more time pressuring their own government, and less time buying into deflecting tactics in an attempt to work up anti-chinese sentiment. i agree with that, actually. we have a lot of work to do in cleaning up our mining industry, too.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-hong-kong-cemetery-war-dead-1.3749280
September 06, 2016 at 7:01:48 PM
well, if you're going to listen to your loudness-wars compressed master through your 128 kbit mp3 and your software playback replay gain limiter, why not degrade the signal that much further by going wireless and introducing every kind of interference into the signal you can imagine, all while boosting the frequency at 100 hz so loud that all you can hear is the thud, anyways? no, listen. i'm a sound design artist. and i'm making a valid point. nobody cares about sound quality anymore.
www.cbc.ca/news/technology/apple-iphone-headphone-jack-1.3750086
September 16, 2016 at 9:17:03 AM
why? so we can vote with the americans on every issue? and, think about what might happen if we don't. we should be avoiding this....there's better ways to have influence than to baldly challenge the hegemon.
also, it would be useful to acknowledge that the rise of all of this xenophobia is a consequence of the failure of the free trade regime, rather than pretend the answer is more of the problem.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-united-nations-security-council-1.3764441
October 03, 2016 at 7:36:10 PM
his platform didn't talk about carbon pricing, it talked about an investment bank for green infrastructure. if you care about something that will be *effective* in reducing emissions, the infrastructure bank in the platform was a far superior approach. in fact, it's the primary reason i voted for the liberals.
the truth is that this isn't a serious discussion. the science is in: carbon pricing doesn't work in reducing emissions. rather, this is smoke and mirrors for political purposes.
but, i'm frankly not opposed to that, if it has the effect of keeping the conservatives out of power. i don't care if they do this or not. what i want to see is that infrastructure bank set up and put in motion in actually converting infrastructure.
put another way: i don't care who pays for this. i'm tired of stalling over budgets. i want to see shovels in the ground.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-climate-change-1.3788825
October 07, 2016 at 1:49:05 AM
how about this, guys?
it doesn't make any difference at all. it's just politics. the government is pretending it's doing something about the problem, while the opposition is pretending that it's going to be a catastrophe.
if you have a lot of wealth and use a lot of energy then your taxes will go up (you're supposed to use less energy, not complain about your taxes). if you're poor and use minimal energy then you'll get a rebate. if you're in the middle, it will truly be revenue neutral. the right answer is that lisa's friends will probably get a check at the end of the month at the expense of trudeau's family, which will get a tax increase.
the media has a responsibility to explain this. but, they'll sell far more papers scare-mongering about tax increases. which is why it's essential that the government implements the policy immediately so the checks are already out by the next writ drop. which, of course, they're not doing.
so, that's the money question: as wealth is strongly correlated with energy use, the policy will redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom through the intermediary of taxation. those that are legitimately concerned about the poor should look at the policy more carefully and understand that it is in their benefit. beware of demagogues that try and take advantage of the ignorant and uneducated in order to scare them.
but, what about emissions? will it reduce them?
the answer is that this doesn't work as an emissions reduction plan. the rich eat the costs because they can afford it, anyways. again: it's going to offset with the middle classes. and, the poor (who don't use much energy...) will get checks in the mail from it.
i'm poor. i don't have a car. most of the food here is imported. i couldn't do much more to reduce emissions if i wanted to. but, i'm likely to get a nice check in the mail. to me, this is just money from the sky. it's not going to change my behaviour...
if i was in the middle class, it would balance out. i need to be clear: i don't expect this to drive inflation and nobody else does, either. you won't find a working economist that thinks prices are going up. it's just scare mongering, really. but, they'll spend a little more on energy and then get it back through tax cuts. how does that change behaviour if it comes out in the wash?
if i was rich, i'd spend a lot of money on energy and i wouldn't care if taxes go up because i have a lot of money, anyways. they don't change behaviour, either, then.
so, if nobody has a meaningful incentive to reduce their use, how do emissions reduce?
here's the thing, then - do you want some wealth redistribution? are you down with that? do you think it's a good idea to tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor? well, this is a good way to do that. it *will* work in accomplishing *this* task.
but, do you really want emissions to come down, too? are you concerned that we're not meeting our international obligations? well, you might want to push for a different policy, like direct investment in converting infrastructure.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-climate-change-trudeau-raitt-1.3792865
October 13, 2016 at 7:16:30 AM
hillary is at best a teenager. but, trump is a screaming toddler.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-ohio-voters-1.3801038
November 15, 2016 at 9:52:04 PM
i'd rather follow sarkozy's lead, pull out of nafta and put a carbon tariff up. there's more than one way to even the playing field.
the world needs to show some backbone in dealing with trump.
they don't make anything anymore, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trump-climate-change-1.3850223
November 24, 2016 at 3:55:23 PM
due to our universal health care system, obtaining voter id in canada is not the same kind of problem that is for some low income people in the united states. but, anything that makes it easier to vote is a step forwards and should be applauded.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
November 24, 2016 at 3:56:50 PM
i'd actually like to see them omnibus everything harper ever did into a giant "undo" button and then set it on fire in a public ceremony.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
November 28, 2016 at 1:59:30 PM
didn't they actually buy a drone company for delivery?
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
December 01, 2016 at 5:59:00 PM
it was an error to let the opposition members into committee, as they just obstructed it. they should have just immediately gone to work in pushing through the irv. there's still time to ram it through.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879
December 18, 2016 at 6:29:50 AM
as a transit user, i'd just like to see consistency: if you're going to charge to get on the bus, you should charge tolls to use the highways, too. if you don't want tolls on the highways, let's remove tolls on public transit, too.
January 04, 2017 at 4:21:08 PM
it's not a very complicated problem - we simply need to socialize the ownership of the machines, and stop enslaving ourselves to capitalism. we can do that now, or we can wait a little while and do it later, or we can wait a little longer and have a revolution. that's the real choice in front of the bourgeois class, which includes both liberals and conservatives.
we should not be scrounging everywhere, looking for jobs to do. we should be enjoying the abundance that technology is providing us with, and embracing a future where working is a choice rather than an obligation.
the unemployment that automation is providing is an opportunity. it's a step forwards towards freedom. it's progress. it's a wonderful thing. we just have to leave the calvinism in the past, which is where it belongs, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-progressive-trudeau-1.3919211
Wednesday, January 04, 2017 at 4:06:42 PM
Jay Dean: I'm not sure why they say that "Many Political Leaders are still trying to figure out how Trump won".
Simple really.
He Lied over 90% of the time and the simple ate it up.
Me: he didn't actually win.
...unless you call getting about 20% of the vote amidst massive voter suppression "winning".
the answer is that his opponent was unable to rally her base, and he coasted into office by default.
it had nothing to do with anything that he did or did not do. it had everything to do with apathy around clinton.
if people elsewhere want to emulate the victory, they're going to need to find a way to take control of their opponents and install a candidate that is not just uninspiring but is ideologically opposed to the crux of their party's vision. in canada, that might mean asking trudeau to step down to make way for the return of michael ignatieff.
short of that absurdity, it won't repeat itself here.
and all the democrats need to do to reverse the results is run an actual democrat.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-progressive-trudeau-1.3919211
January 10, 2017 at 5:59:04 AM
Irv Millar: The trades now have a platform by which unqualified skilled tradespeople will be performing certified work against the law. For years there was a concerted effort in Canada to end the underground economy. Now we have these platforms that are a detriment to the economy. Lost revenue to pay for the maintenance of our democracy.
The target market appears to be Gen Y. By enabling these platforms is a predatory practise whereby the laws are usurped. Who, at a young age would think about savings, a pension, benefits when they are paying off a student debt or are a senior who has little or no pension/benefits and requires medicines. Convenience costs our whole society. Just look at all the plastic water bottles blowing around.
Me: but, see, there's a twist here: this is the reason why i wouldn't use this platform - and the reason that it will probably never exit the niche market that it currently appeals to. there's lots of reasons why i'd rather call a taxi, and lots of reasons why i'd rather book a room in a hotel.
it's much to do about nothing. there's no oncoming dystopia. it's just a fad, with a long term niche market.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 6:10:36 AM
William Ben: A race to the bottom and tax avoidance there is an app for that!
This is a very slippery slope unless it can be regulated as it will cause a black market explosion of tax avoidance and dodgy uninsured workmanship.
Me: no it won't. consumers will never go for this in large enough numbers for it to exit it's niche appeal.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 6:51:53 AM
Neil Gregory: The biggest problem I see here is in determining that the person you hire is qualified and licensed to do the job. Do you really want an unqualified and/or unlicensed person working on your electrical service or plumbing or messing with the structure of you house, for example? We already have more than enough problems in that area without making it easier for more unqualified people to get in on the act.
Me: no, i don't want an unqualified person working on my electrical - which is why i wouldn't hire one. the fact that i can contact some hack for half the price on my phone doesn't mean i'm ever going to want to.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 9:26:13 AM
the idea that there's some kind of future in this is absolute nonsense; it's just a bourgeois layer for the elite, and will not be able to exist without a strong real economy underlying it.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 10, 2017 at 9:56:09 AM
the economic error underlying the analysis here and in the comments is in treating the service economy like the manufacturing economy. in manufacturing, it's just all about minimizing costs. you can literally hire anybody, including a robot, to do the work. the savings in labour will probably not have an effect on the quality of the resulting product. but, the service economy requires a different standard. yeah, maybe you could rent somebody's leaky attic for $10, but the savings in "producing" this good are going to be reflected in the quality of the good, itself. in the long run, what we will find is that this process of uberization is actually not cost effective at all, and that large amounts of resources are being pumped into services that cannot compete with the higher quality that comes with standardization.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-airbnb-mowsnowpros-tradepros-mindsea-1.3923447
January 12, 2017 at 12:30:58 PM
this wouldn't bother me much if it was posted at a right-wing rag like the national post, but it's a very poor use of state media, which should be focused on disseminating objective facts and holding the government to account with investigative journalism, rather than perpetuating vacuous partisan bickering. why are we giving this person this kind of platform to present this kind of opinion with?
i mean, if you want to talk about getting rid of capitalism, i'm willing to listen. but, this is the normal state in which the system functions.
and, no - he didn't win on a platform of transparency. that was the guy he replaced. he won on a platform of social liberalism.
it's a slow point in the news cycle. but, i hope that the cbc moves on to more pressing issues in the upcoming weeks.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-bahamas-vacation-1.3931267
January 14, 2017 at 12:50:54 PM
i think that the author needs a reality check in understanding whether phasing out the tar sands is in line with public opinion across the country or not.
phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position.
and, supporting pipelines is deeply unpopular, too. the last poll i saw had 78% of liberal voters opposed to pipeline expansions.
unfortunately, the canadian media exists in a right-wing bubble of constant old tory confirmation bias. all of the media says the same thing, so they convince themselves of it. then, the polling comes in and they don't get it, because they didn't listen to what anybody outside of their echo chamber was saying.
we saw this in the last election with the question of deficits. for years, the media pushed a message of the importance of balanced budgets. then, as a hail mary, and in the face of sagging poll numbers, the liberals went against the conventional wisdom and promised deficit spending. the numbers came in, and it was found that canadians have an overwhelming support for deficit spending. the media expressed shock, and even outrage. but, if they had taken the time to do some basic research instead of sitting on their thumbs in their echo chamber, they would have realized that we never cared about balanced budgets in the first place - we were just told that we should by the tory media establishment, who assumed we'd just repeat it because we were told it.
consult the research. please. it's not obscure. and it's very clear.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-town-halls-1.3934742
January 15, 2017 at 6:20:07 PM
the framing here is disgusting. but, it indeed demonstrates what everybody already knows: what is good for alberta, is (really) ugly for the rest of the world.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/oilsands-future-tertzakian-carbon-bitumen-1.3735773
January 16, 2017 at 7:29:02 PM
my honest opinion is that they should repeal the line in the law. it's a little draconian, don't you think?
Pat Ferraro: Sarcasm I hope? We should give them carte Blanc because well he's just so darn cute. This is your money, this is my money! We should ask and then ask again.
Me: no. i think that a total ban on air travel without request from the ethics commissioner is over-reaching the bounds of the ethics office. and, i think that addressing this point is the more concerning issue.
in the long run, i don't think that canadians are going to find the issue particularly concerning. rather, i think it's going to rub off rather poorly on the opposition. but, the liberals should take steps to address the issue, rather than let it run it's course.
i don't want to ever see another prime minister get nailed by the media for getting in a helicopter.
there is perhaps an underlying issue here that the tory media is missing in it's rush to judgement. yes: conservatives value rules and order, even when we don't like the rules or think they're silly. but, liberals see rules as subject to democratic oversight, and ultimately see them as negotiable. i'm not going to accept the authority of the "ethics office" on it's face; if i don't see a problem in the behaviour, i'm going to argue that the rules should be changed to accommodate it, rather than demand that the rules should be blindly enforced.
Mario Doucet: Why stop at one line, rewrite or just cancel all accountability or responsibility so Trudeau can do whatever he wants with our tax money, which pretty much sums up his first year in office.
Me: i hardly think that a blanket ban on air travel does much to increase accountability measures, or that many voters will frame the issue in such absurd terms. i'd be happy with an audit, myself.
to clarify: when i say that it's an overreach, what i mean is that there is no logical or otherwise causal connection between a blanket ban on air travel and financial or ethical responsibility or accountability. it's just unnecessary government interference in a personal decision that should be up to the prime minister's discretion. in the end, if voters don't like those decisions, we can vote the prime minister out. but, that's not what we're seeing in front of us. what we're seeing is the media grasping at straws, and the law giving them far too much space to grasp at them in.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/justin-trudeau-nova-scotia-ethics-concerns-1.3938433
January 28, 2017 at 12:18:09 PM
you know who was right about nafta?
pierre trudeau, jean chretien, john turner, ed broadbent....
it's scandalous how the contemporary canadian left has completely swallowed itself on this issue. they were right in the 80s and the 90s. history has proven this, clearly. they should be gloating about how right they were, and jumping at the opportunity to fix the errors of the mulroney government. instead, they've both embraced the legacy of the progressive conservative party.
if the conservatives are able to realign on this, justin trudeau and the liberals (and mulcair and the ndp) will have nobody to blame but themselves. they were right all along. all they have to do is remind people of it, and start acting like it
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-ambrose-renegotiation-caucus-friday-1.3955714
February 03, 2017 at 7:34:51 PM
this is nonsense. american law applies in us customs enclaves, including but not limited to embassies and border checkpoints.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-trump-ban-1.3965666
February 10, 2017 at 9:12:49 AM
Glen robert: So does this mean Trudeau thinks Canadians are not smart enough to keep a fringe party out.
Maybe next time we vote the liberals out and see this issue come back in his campaign platform.
Me: in 1979, the balance of power was briefly held by the social credit party in a minority parliament led by the conservatives under joe clark. they were widely accused of deep anti-semitism. joe clark was unable to pass a budget because he refused to adhere to their demands, forcing an election. trudeau won the subsequent election.
clark did the right thing in forcing an election instead of listening to their demands. but, there's no guarantee that that had to happen.
fwiw, the liberals won the popular vote that election but had less seats because the conservatives dominated in the west
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/electoral-reform-trudeau-leitch-1.3975354
February 10, 2017 at 9:15:51 AM
it's probably good news that he's gotten the message that he didn't make the argument for ranked ballots loudly enough. there was a broken promise, here, but i think it's important to get the point across that the broken promise was about ranked ballots.
Darby Boon: The promise was electoral reform, not ranked ballots. The phony union accounts posting in favour of ranked ballots tells us what they want. Liberals and unions sitting on the same side of the bargaining table with no one representing the people. That's how it works in Liberal Ontario with the government handing the unions millions for coming to the table.
Me: ranked ballots had been in the liberal platform since 2006. i guess you never read it, did you?
it was stephane dion that first put ranked ballots in the platform, and it was designed to appeal to green party voters.
i don't remember hearing ignatieff say anything about ranked ballots, but dion campaigned heavily on it. it's been the official liberal party position for over a decade, and i'm actually glad to hear that it is still favoured by the prime minister. i guess i don't have any option but to hope that they come back to it in the future.
i'm sorry if you were misinformed on this fact. but, it is very important that voters take the time to understand what they are voting for. and, the platform was absolutely clear: a vote for trudeau was a vote for ranked ballots.
perhaps voters that were misinformed should take the time to analyze their sources and question if they are trustworthy, moving into the future.
https://sdion.liberal.ca/en/news-nouvelles/p3-voting-system-canada/
February 21, 2017 at 6:29:22 PM
mulroney is the biggest loser of all time - and this policy is stupid. they're not running for re-election in california they should throw mexico under the bus.
no. it's true. mulroney is the biggest loser of all time, due to the 1993 election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-mulroney-guajardo-freeland-1.3992043
February 25, 2017 at 11:29:58 AM
the conservatives will be the third party within ten years.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/millennials-manning-conference-1.3998207
February 26, 2017 at 11:36:24 AM
"populism" on the right is always just a bunch of bankers telling voters what they want to hear in order to trick them into voting for them, then stabbing them in the back at the earliest opportunity (see: trump). it's not a movement by the people, it's a tactic by the elites. it's hegemony. that said, i have little fear that canadians are going to fall for this in large numbers. the greater issue, as always, relates to the split on the left. and, i'll be blunt: i'm not so afraid of these demagogues that i'll vote for pipeline trudeau in order to stop them.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-conservatives-populism-1.3998318
February 26, 2017 at 11:56:05 AM
i moved from ottawa to windsor for similar reasons, after calculating that it was the best way to maximize use of an odsp "income". i'm living in a two bedroom basement apartment for less than the cost of a closet in ottawa. no, seriously - you can't even find a room in ottawa for what i'm paying, here. and, it's left me with significant disposal income....
at the end of the day, the prices will come down if they can't rent the units. and, if they *can* rent the units then they won't.
just realize this: for every person like me that is escaping the high rents of the wealthier cities for the luxury of greater disposable income, there's somebody that want to buy into it for reasons of status and class. we'll all vote with our wallets as to what society we want.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/high-rent-could-make-toronto-a-generational-ghost-town-1.3999022
February 26, 2017 at 12:41:59 PM
the entire premise that ivanka trump is a strong or independent woman is a joke. what she does is sell her name for use in product placement, just like her dad. she doesn't run anything. she doesn't organize anything. she was just lucky enough to be born with a name she can sell...
so, these shoes with her name on it. what did ivanka do with these shoes. she didn't design the shoes. she didn't raise the capital to bring the shoes to market. she just accepted a check from the company, in exchange for allowing them to put her name on them. then, the product gets marked up because it has a branding attached to it. that is all.
...and that's not anything that's being assigned to her. it's not "independence". it's not "strength". it's not "entrepreneurialism". it's parasitic, rentier capitalism and deserves a protest in and of itself for pointlessly raising costs and directing profits away from workers.
she's not a successful feminist executive, she's a princess with a revenue stream that she doesn't deserve. so, the premise that a feminist is being attacked, here, is preposterous.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ivanka-trump-grabyourwallet-boycott-feminism-1.3998601
February 27, 2017 at 6:50:38 PM
awwww. the poor landlords.
awwwww.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/go-public-medical-marijuana-landlord-tenant-insurance-pulled-1.3985875
March 02, 2017 at 11:20:56 AM
see, i'd like to see them buy out the *generation*. it's not the hydro one sale that's boosting the prices, and the sad truth is that the ndp *does* know that - they're just not willing to actually take on the electricity generators.
as frustrating as this truth is, the liberals are going to remain the better option, here, until i see a serious proposal from the ndp about taking public control of the actual generation.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-price-plan-kathleen-wynne-1.4006021
March 28, 2017 at 5:09:25 AM
that's because the right time to talk about men is international women's day.
this is gutter politics, neil. every word of it. all of it meant to distract from real issues.
you're just doing exactly what they want you to.
no one had taken the bait. we should be proud of ourselves for that - we saw through it, and we ignored it. and, we should just put this article away and continue not taking the bait and continue seeing through it and continue ignoring it.
leave the gender war debates for facebook.
just remember this, kids: while you're sitting here arguing about gender, the government is laying pipelines across the country.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/gender-based-analysis-1.4043312
April 01, 2017 at 11:17:19 AM
banks are dime a dozen and mostly the same. so, if you switch to a different bank that hires here, the increased work volume will recreate those jobs.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/cibc-ceo-outsourcing-india-1.4050248
April 04, 2017 at 2:24:00 PM
these seats weren't in play.
when turnout is very low, conservatives always do unexpectedly well. and, yes, everybody should have expected low turnout. but, should they have expected such extremely low turnout? that's what they need to analyze, and none of us have that data accessible to us.
i mean, they're going to get the breakdown and determine whether turnout amongst millennial east asians with a university degree was lower than expected, at a statistically significant level. grenier surely isn't claiming he worked that out.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-byelections-2017-1.4054337
April 07, 2017 at 2:39:01 PM
Marshall Black: I seriously question the origin of the chemical weapons attack coming from assad. Why jeopardize his position, especially when he is under microscope.
He is either really stupid, which I highly doubt.... or he is not behind the chemical attacks.
Me: assad was always a powerless figurehead. but, the russians have been making the strategic decisions there for years. so, it's not even about assad's intelligence, or even putin's intelligence. the actual question you have to ask yourself is if the russian military would launch a sarin attack, given the other tools it has at it's disposal - and this is so absurd as to not bother contemplating. but, according to the article, that's what is next.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-u-s-response-syria-attack-1.4060817
April 07, 2017 at 3:16:00 PM
so, instead of concluding that this claim of a chemical attack is nearly impossible because the russians are operating the military in syria, they're suggesting the russians are complicit in the chemical attack. how much further down the rabbit hole are we going with this?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-u-s-response-syria-attack-1.4060817
April 07, 2017 at 3:25:35 PM
so, apparently we're supposed to sympathize with the "army of islam" (cited in the article...) in their fight against secularism, and see trump's reckless attack as "raising expectations" in our solidarity with their cause.
what planet was this article written on?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-syria-attacks-stoffel-1.4060525
April 07, 2017 at 3:27:37 PM
hopefully, the russians react by escalating their campaign to wipe out groups like the army of islam. and, history will have to scold us for picking the wrong side.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-syria-attacks-stoffel-1.4060525
April 09, 2017 at 12:53:19 AM
this is propaganda.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-russia-civil-war-1.4052376
April 09, 2017 at 12:55:34 AM
the idea that russia is going to be removed from syria is delusional. but, i suppose we should not have expected different in the "post-truth" reality, although it's truly pathetic to see how quickly the media swallowed itself.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-russia-civil-war-1.4052376
April 09, 2017 at 11:46:17 PM
this monarchist propaganda is tiring.
the reality is that the british imperialists used us as cannon fodder, to protect their own troops from being in the worst positions. our lives were worthless to them. this is why our casualties were so high.
in better times, the cbc has properly explained this to younger viewers. today, it wants to push shallow jingoism to rev kids up for war.
there is no celebration, here - nothing to be proud of, nothing to elevate. the war was senseless. and, the only thing good thing that came out of it was the resistance movement in quebec, and later on in winnipeg.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vimy-anniversary-trudeau-borden-comparison-1.4062553
April 23, 2017 at 11:51:40 AM
if this manifests itself in dessert bars, you could see it replace the after work margarita, and it would be a positive twist for public health. admit it: you know somebody that would jump at the opportunity to get a spiked piece of delicious cake after work.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-legalization-marijuana-edibles-1.4079341
May 13, 2017 at 2:10:17 AM
we have no reason to station troops in latvia and should immediately withdraw.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-latvia-exercise-1.4111285
May 13, 2017 at 4:06:54 PM
we used to just print money for infrastructure projects.
i was initially under the impression that this was the purpose of the bank.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-house-sohi-infrastructure-bank-1.4113681
May 18, 2017 at 4:56:27 PM
johnny Wilkes: Why are taxpayers constantly asked to support artists and art? If there is a demand for it, people will pay for it. If there isn't, then why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize it?
me: because history teaches us that the market is almost never able to pick out good art from bad art. artists generally have a very difficult time in market economies, and need ways to escape the tyranny of market forces in order to be creative.
unfortunately, though, your premise is wrong. ideally, the state would step in and shield important artists from market forces, allowing them the freedom to be artists. in reality, these arts grants are largely just another type of corporate welfare.
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/canadian-music-videos-much-fact-1.4120454
May 18, 2017 at 6:15:39 PM
the premise of the state providing funding for artists is a positive one, but the government has this whole thing backwards. what the state should be doing is stepping in to help serious artists that are producing historically valuable art, but cannot find a market in the present - as so much historically valuable art in fact cannot. what the state does, instead, is act as a kind of taxpayer-funded venture capital to help get profitable entertainers a foot into existing markets. this is something that should be done by record labels, not by taxpayers.
and, see, i wouldn't even have a problem funding pop "artists" if real artists were equally funded, but they simply aren't. all of the money goes to incubating these poorly talented but potentially profitable entertainers, instead - with the focus being on putting the most resources into the entertainers that have the highest potential for large profits. that functionally takes money away from real arts funding. and, it's backwards, because it's not where state funds are required.
the artists that really need the funds are the ones with no commercial potential at all! that's what the artist grants are supposed to be about: giving actually important artists the ability to create art without being subject to the whims of the market.
so, sure: let's have more money for artists. i'm all for that. but, let's drop the corporate welfare disguised as arts grants, too.
Matt Helm: hard to know what art will be later seen as "historically valuable."
Me: that's a cop-out. it really isn't.
but i can be concrete: funding a silver mt zion and do make say think is funding art. but, funding cadence weapon and shawn mendes is just corporate welfare.
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/canadian-music-videos-much-fact-1.4120454
June 14, 2017 at 7:47:22 PM
Tim Bitz: "the Trudeau government's representative in the Senate"
Is this code for "Liberal senator", since Trudeau made a huge deal out of not referring to Liberal appointed senators as Liberal Senators?
Me: peter harder is a progressive/conservative, actually - as is much of trudeau's intelligentsia.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-harder-point-order-infrastructure-bank-1.4161101
June 14, 2017 at 8:07:50 PM
if they can't pass a budget, shouldn't that trigger an election?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-budget-alcohol-duty-senate-1.4160211
June 14, 2017 at 8:18:51 PM
if they can't pass a budget, shouldn't that trigger an election?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-harder-point-order-infrastructure-bank-1.4161101
June 20, 2017 at 10:32:37 AM
just sell it in the spice rack at the grocery store. no taxes on groceries, right?
i'm serious: the only way this is going to work is if they sell it in existing stores. there's no reason to create a new store. you can sell it in grocery stores, corner stores, pharmacies, the lcbo, the beer store, smoke shops, head shops - whatever. but, the store has to already exist, or the overhead will be impossible.
forget taxes. dealers don't have to pay rent. they don't have to pay salaries. they don't have to pay benefits.
the infrastructure of an existing store is imperative.
but, you put the herb in the herb section. obviously.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/provincial-marijuana-sales-retail-1.4167735
June 22, 2017 at 7:34:20 AM
how does don pittis remain employed? this is characteristic junk from him. he's reading the official unemployment rate, rather than the real one, which is still over 10%. removing workers from the market because they can't find a job doesn't mean that there's a deficit of them, it actually means that there's a tremendous surplus of them. in the current economy, you would actually expect that the pressures on wages would be downwards, which is what we're seeing.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/inflation-canada-outlook-1.4167888
Friday, June 23, 2017
on second thought, i'm actually going to get back to the concert reviews - finally.
i'll be taking this machine offline within a few weeks. i'm going to export when i sleep, so i'll set it all up. but, i'm going to focus mostly on the reviews.
i could hopefully even be finished it by the time the new machine gets here.
i'll be taking this machine offline within a few weeks. i'm going to export when i sleep, so i'll set it all up. but, i'm going to focus mostly on the reviews.
i could hopefully even be finished it by the time the new machine gets here.
it seems obvious to me that they should have asked him to move.
in the end, it's perhaps a functionally trivial difference regarding who moves and who does not, but shifting the prerogative to the religious person places the burden of the social stigma on the person that is behaving in an anti-social manner, which is where it belongs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/world/middleeast/israeli-woman-who-sued-el-al-for-sexism-wins-landmark-ruling.html
in the end, it's perhaps a functionally trivial difference regarding who moves and who does not, but shifting the prerogative to the religious person places the burden of the social stigma on the person that is behaving in an anti-social manner, which is where it belongs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/world/middleeast/israeli-woman-who-sued-el-al-for-sexism-wins-landmark-ruling.html
i think we should absolutely be treating faith as a mental health issue.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/how-do-you-distinguish-between-religious-fervor-and-mental-illness/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/how-do-you-distinguish-between-religious-fervor-and-mental-illness/
but, trying to set the issue up as religion v mental health is also missing the point.
i actually think that scientology makes a kind of deep observation in it's cynicism about the relationship between religion and mental health: religion is dangerous precisely because it exploits those of poor mental health. it's a control mechanism, after all. the difference is that the christian church has evolved from an instrument of conquest, as it certainly was, into a capitalist institution that seeks to use it's control to exploit the vulnerable into raising capital, while the muslim church remains an instrument of conquest for an elite in the arabian peninsula, who continue to spread the ideology in order to dominate resources.
that's what you can't separate: religion and mental health. religion requires a disaffected population, or disaffected members of a population, in order to thrive. and, those disaffected members of the population seek out religion as an escape from reality.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-flint-couillard-muslisms-1.4173300
i actually think that scientology makes a kind of deep observation in it's cynicism about the relationship between religion and mental health: religion is dangerous precisely because it exploits those of poor mental health. it's a control mechanism, after all. the difference is that the christian church has evolved from an instrument of conquest, as it certainly was, into a capitalist institution that seeks to use it's control to exploit the vulnerable into raising capital, while the muslim church remains an instrument of conquest for an elite in the arabian peninsula, who continue to spread the ideology in order to dominate resources.
that's what you can't separate: religion and mental health. religion requires a disaffected population, or disaffected members of a population, in order to thrive. and, those disaffected members of the population seek out religion as an escape from reality.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-flint-couillard-muslisms-1.4173300
this is remarkably stupid.
liberal voters do not want an independent senate that is going to obstruct the agenda of a liberal majority, they want hyper-partisan senators that are going to rubber stamp the parliament's initiatives. i would hope that the government is appointing liberal senators. i'd be rather upset if it turned out it wasn't.
but, who thinks that liberal senators are going to block a budget over tax increases? what so-called liberals are these? sounds pretty conservative, if you ask me.
i have no support for the government's changes in the senate, and expect that the next government will make it an immediate priority to return to a partisan senate.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-backs-down-budget-bill-1.4173090
liberal voters do not want an independent senate that is going to obstruct the agenda of a liberal majority, they want hyper-partisan senators that are going to rubber stamp the parliament's initiatives. i would hope that the government is appointing liberal senators. i'd be rather upset if it turned out it wasn't.
but, who thinks that liberal senators are going to block a budget over tax increases? what so-called liberals are these? sounds pretty conservative, if you ask me.
i have no support for the government's changes in the senate, and expect that the next government will make it an immediate priority to return to a partisan senate.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-backs-down-budget-bill-1.4173090
actually, i think that individuals going to north korea should assume their own risks.
going to north korea to "spread the gospel" and getting killed is in darwin award territory.
reminds me of the guy that wanted to preach to the lions and got mauled.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/22/trudeau-must-step-up-to-the-plate-for-pastor-jailed-in-north-korea
going to north korea to "spread the gospel" and getting killed is in darwin award territory.
reminds me of the guy that wanted to preach to the lions and got mauled.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/22/trudeau-must-step-up-to-the-plate-for-pastor-jailed-in-north-korea
Thursday, June 22, 2017
they should be focusing on reducing portion sizes and increasing exercise, not keying in on specific sources. but, they won't do that because they're lost in these right-wing ideas about human nature.
i'm not joking. it's not that the doctors and public health experts can't work out a basic conservation law, namely energy stored = energy consumed - energy spent. i mean, we're not doing nuclear reactions at the cellular level, here. it's not happening at speeds approaching the speed of light. there's no relativistic effects; the simple newtonian conservation law is plenty accurate. they know that. they passed grade 10 science.
but, they're convinced that there's essentially nothing that can be done to control for gluttony.
so, instead of telling people that it's ok to eat a double bacon cheeseburger if it's compensated for with exercise and reduced intake elsewhere, they tell people to stuff their faces with celery.
if it worked, we'd be reducing obesity levels, right? it doesn't work - because their understanding of human nature is all wrong.
we need to teach people how to budget their calories in a way that allows them to adjust their impulsive behaviour with long term planning. people are not going to stuff their face with celery all day, they're going to eat that double bacon cheeseburger. but, because the health professionals are telling them to eat celery, they don't know how to do this responsibly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-food-guide-chanages-healthy-eating-1.4170245
i'm not joking. it's not that the doctors and public health experts can't work out a basic conservation law, namely energy stored = energy consumed - energy spent. i mean, we're not doing nuclear reactions at the cellular level, here. it's not happening at speeds approaching the speed of light. there's no relativistic effects; the simple newtonian conservation law is plenty accurate. they know that. they passed grade 10 science.
but, they're convinced that there's essentially nothing that can be done to control for gluttony.
so, instead of telling people that it's ok to eat a double bacon cheeseburger if it's compensated for with exercise and reduced intake elsewhere, they tell people to stuff their faces with celery.
if it worked, we'd be reducing obesity levels, right? it doesn't work - because their understanding of human nature is all wrong.
we need to teach people how to budget their calories in a way that allows them to adjust their impulsive behaviour with long term planning. people are not going to stuff their face with celery all day, they're going to eat that double bacon cheeseburger. but, because the health professionals are telling them to eat celery, they don't know how to do this responsibly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-food-guide-chanages-healthy-eating-1.4170245
see, i don't even want to call this a religiously-motivated terror attack.
i want to call it an episode by a psychotic person.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/muslim-community-in-michigan-condemns-despicable-knife-attack-1.4172691
i want to call it an episode by a psychotic person.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/muslim-community-in-michigan-condemns-despicable-knife-attack-1.4172691
i'll be able to get the laptop that i want for $500. 8 gb expandable is fine for now; if i ever need to upgrade it, i can.
there's no use in wasting money on unnecessary frills. it's just an access point. it's just meant to type with. it's better spent on other things...
it's not that my desktop needs an upgrade. it can take a 64 bit OS. it can take 16 gb of ram. it's currently running 32 bit xp and has to for hardware reasons, but it has a huge amount of room to grow.
it's just...
...when's the next time i'll get the chance?
one thing at a time: i need a new access point. i've already had to reboot this thing three times due to the usb freezing and taking the mouse out.
there's no use in wasting money on unnecessary frills. it's just an access point. it's just meant to type with. it's better spent on other things...
it's not that my desktop needs an upgrade. it can take a 64 bit OS. it can take 16 gb of ram. it's currently running 32 bit xp and has to for hardware reasons, but it has a huge amount of room to grow.
it's just...
...when's the next time i'll get the chance?
one thing at a time: i need a new access point. i've already had to reboot this thing three times due to the usb freezing and taking the mouse out.
should i actually take the opportunity to buy a new desktop?
what i'm replacing is my typing pc. and, how did i even get to this point?
well, i initially had my 90s desktop for this purpose, but i ended up homeless, and i switched to my laptop, which was the only machine i had at all. i've been using the laptop in my bed ever since.
...but it was initially supposed to be the old machine that i used for this reason.
nowadays, i'm using it as an access point, for the reason that i know that my connection is monitored and i want to keep my data off the network.
what i'm thinking is that i've learned that laptops are much harder to service and prone to breaking in ways that desktops aren't. i'm a little bit apprehensive about buying another one.
i do want to have a laptop that i can take from a to b, but i can use the vista laptop for that reason.
as an access point, i don't need a really heavy duty laptop. i just need a sufficient amount of space and enough ram to stop firefox from crashing.
i should do this one thing at a time. but, i'm probably going to buy a large amount of inexpensive gear rather than a top of the line new machine. it's just going to get me what i actually want, better.
first thing is the access point, and if i can get more for less with a desktop then i should do that, instead.
what i'm replacing is my typing pc. and, how did i even get to this point?
well, i initially had my 90s desktop for this purpose, but i ended up homeless, and i switched to my laptop, which was the only machine i had at all. i've been using the laptop in my bed ever since.
...but it was initially supposed to be the old machine that i used for this reason.
nowadays, i'm using it as an access point, for the reason that i know that my connection is monitored and i want to keep my data off the network.
what i'm thinking is that i've learned that laptops are much harder to service and prone to breaking in ways that desktops aren't. i'm a little bit apprehensive about buying another one.
i do want to have a laptop that i can take from a to b, but i can use the vista laptop for that reason.
as an access point, i don't need a really heavy duty laptop. i just need a sufficient amount of space and enough ram to stop firefox from crashing.
i should do this one thing at a time. but, i'm probably going to buy a large amount of inexpensive gear rather than a top of the line new machine. it's just going to get me what i actually want, better.
first thing is the access point, and if i can get more for less with a desktop then i should do that, instead.
i'm not seeing any upside to 10, at all.
i think i'll stick with 7...
in fact, i even have extra keys for it.
can i get a laptop with a pen input? i've been wanting that forever. it's not just the math, it's the music, too. i don't need or want a touchscreen, i want to be able to scrawl in equations and notation in real time and have it convert it into math fonts. i know a lot of the technology is about text-to-speech, but what i really want is to write, not to talk.
i'm a nerd. sorry.
with the amount of cash she's given me, i'd might as well up everything to the max, but the key thing i want is lots of ram. i think the processors nowadays are all ridiculous. and, i'll be happy with a few hundred gb of actual space, given that i'm moving the editing off to a different machine.
i think i'll stick with 7...
in fact, i even have extra keys for it.
can i get a laptop with a pen input? i've been wanting that forever. it's not just the math, it's the music, too. i don't need or want a touchscreen, i want to be able to scrawl in equations and notation in real time and have it convert it into math fonts. i know a lot of the technology is about text-to-speech, but what i really want is to write, not to talk.
i'm a nerd. sorry.
with the amount of cash she's given me, i'd might as well up everything to the max, but the key thing i want is lots of ram. i think the processors nowadays are all ridiculous. and, i'll be happy with a few hundred gb of actual space, given that i'm moving the editing off to a different machine.
"is $5000 enough?"
thanks, nana.
i'm actually going to put that money to good use. i'm counter-intuitive: the more money you give me, the more responsible i am about it. and, i have a number of projects to deal with. this is going to take a while and will be the focus of the rest of the summer, but things will be better when it gets done.
1) i need a new hard drive for my media/tv pc. i'm not yet ready to retire it altogether. this will be very cheap, if i can even find an ide drive at all.
2) my 90s laptop is still humming, with no reasons to mod it.
3) but i should fix up my vista laptop, which might mean upgrading past vista, to start with. i want to eventually convert this into a music processor. it will need a new hard drive, a new dvd and 2 gb of ram. that should be around $100.
4) my windows 7 laptop will, in fact, be converted into an editing station. i'm going to get at least 4 gb of ram for it. that's actually good enough for now, beyond getting some better software.
5) i'm going to get some kind of phone so that she can call me. i'll have to research this. it may be an ip phone, or may be an unlocked smart phone.
6) i'm going to finally get my strat fixed.
7) i'm also going to look into a starter tablet. i mean a tablet, specifically: a device i can write onto with a pen. remember, kids: i have a math degree.
8) i'm going to get a new primary laptop, for sure. i'm mostly going to be focusing on a machine with high ram capabilities. i need to do a huge amount of research into this, as well. how bad is windows 10? should i stick with 7? i'm ok with 7. should i even finally focus on linux? and, no, i do not want a mac.
9) i should also get my bicycle fixed.
10) anything remaining can be reasonably focused on furniture.
$5000 is a ridiculous sum, for me. it's probably 5x what i need. but, i'll take my good fortune with the proper responsibility and make sure i put it to good use.
i need to do a lot of research...
thanks, nana.
i'm actually going to put that money to good use. i'm counter-intuitive: the more money you give me, the more responsible i am about it. and, i have a number of projects to deal with. this is going to take a while and will be the focus of the rest of the summer, but things will be better when it gets done.
1) i need a new hard drive for my media/tv pc. i'm not yet ready to retire it altogether. this will be very cheap, if i can even find an ide drive at all.
2) my 90s laptop is still humming, with no reasons to mod it.
3) but i should fix up my vista laptop, which might mean upgrading past vista, to start with. i want to eventually convert this into a music processor. it will need a new hard drive, a new dvd and 2 gb of ram. that should be around $100.
4) my windows 7 laptop will, in fact, be converted into an editing station. i'm going to get at least 4 gb of ram for it. that's actually good enough for now, beyond getting some better software.
5) i'm going to get some kind of phone so that she can call me. i'll have to research this. it may be an ip phone, or may be an unlocked smart phone.
6) i'm going to finally get my strat fixed.
7) i'm also going to look into a starter tablet. i mean a tablet, specifically: a device i can write onto with a pen. remember, kids: i have a math degree.
8) i'm going to get a new primary laptop, for sure. i'm mostly going to be focusing on a machine with high ram capabilities. i need to do a huge amount of research into this, as well. how bad is windows 10? should i stick with 7? i'm ok with 7. should i even finally focus on linux? and, no, i do not want a mac.
9) i should also get my bicycle fixed.
10) anything remaining can be reasonably focused on furniture.
$5000 is a ridiculous sum, for me. it's probably 5x what i need. but, i'll take my good fortune with the proper responsibility and make sure i put it to good use.
i need to do a lot of research...
how does don pittis remain employed? this is characteristic junk from him. he's reading the official unemployment rate, rather than the real one, which is still over 10%. removing workers from the market because they can't find a job doesn't mean that there's a deficit of them, it actually means that there's a tremendous surplus of them. in the current economy, you would actually expect that the pressures on wages would be downwards, which is what we're seeing.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/inflation-canada-outlook-1.4167888
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/inflation-canada-outlook-1.4167888
the other thing that happened yesterday is an escalation with the property owners over how to deal with removing cat feces from my window. they put some soil there, and the cats have been attracted to it. they don't want me to remove the soil, but i cannot have cat shit wafting through the screen. so, i appear to be headed back towards litigation. i'm going to be more quiet, this time, until it goes through, other than to say that it is the same basic legal question.
so, i got everything up and running only it for to crash on contact with the internet. i remain convinced that us intelligence is annoyingly concerned with me...i vlog....i'm an open book....this is stupid...
nonetheless, it seems to be what is.
i slept through a chkdsk yesterday morning, and it appears to have largely resolved the situation. i hope. i then slept a lot this morning, as well.
so, the laptop has the screen removed - like, unscrewed. it's just the bottom. it's out to a monitor. i haven't set up a mic yet. everything works except a usb in, but i sort of expected that, too (the ribbon won't stay in).
do i call my grandmother and telll her? now, i want a new laptop :\.
i should be honest.
as i'm concerned about cia interference, i'll be falling offline in the next few hours, after i do little research on some things. this machine will render 5x times faster. i'll be back up in no time.
nonetheless, it seems to be what is.
i slept through a chkdsk yesterday morning, and it appears to have largely resolved the situation. i hope. i then slept a lot this morning, as well.
so, the laptop has the screen removed - like, unscrewed. it's just the bottom. it's out to a monitor. i haven't set up a mic yet. everything works except a usb in, but i sort of expected that, too (the ribbon won't stay in).
do i call my grandmother and telll her? now, i want a new laptop :\.
i should be honest.
as i'm concerned about cia interference, i'll be falling offline in the next few hours, after i do little research on some things. this machine will render 5x times faster. i'll be back up in no time.
i don't want to make it seem like i'm taking this lightly.
but, this is the capital city of one of the most barbaric regimes that the world has seen since the second world war. when the numbers are counted, isis is going to have a special place in infamy for it's near genocide on a dozen ethnic groups, and soulless persecution of everything to the left of genghis khan.
...and, the reality is that the civilians in the region supported this.
there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see cities getting bombed. all i can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep this kind of barbarism at check than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of real justice.
this is the right choice.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-us-is-destroying-raqqa-in-order-to-save-it-and-civilians-be-damned
but, this is the capital city of one of the most barbaric regimes that the world has seen since the second world war. when the numbers are counted, isis is going to have a special place in infamy for it's near genocide on a dozen ethnic groups, and soulless persecution of everything to the left of genghis khan.
...and, the reality is that the civilians in the region supported this.
there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see cities getting bombed. all i can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep this kind of barbarism at check than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of real justice.
this is the right choice.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-us-is-destroying-raqqa-in-order-to-save-it-and-civilians-be-damned
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
so, what's the lesson?
i need to be clear: i've worked tech support. in fact, i've worked hardware replacement tech support for the exact company that manufactured my laptop. if somebody else did exactly what i did, and called in, i could have been on the other end of the phone. and, i'll tell you: none of this should have happened. i knew what i was doing, and i didn't do anything wrong.
the lesson is that laptops can be exceedingly finicky when you take them apart. small buildups of static and imperceptible shifts in grounding can alter what is a complicated and not always properly shielded signal path. it could have even gotten hit by the magnetic field in the apartment.
what happened to me is proof that disassembling a laptop is inherently dangerous and should be avoided unless you're highly technical and highly confident in it.
i need to be clear: i've worked tech support. in fact, i've worked hardware replacement tech support for the exact company that manufactured my laptop. if somebody else did exactly what i did, and called in, i could have been on the other end of the phone. and, i'll tell you: none of this should have happened. i knew what i was doing, and i didn't do anything wrong.
the lesson is that laptops can be exceedingly finicky when you take them apart. small buildups of static and imperceptible shifts in grounding can alter what is a complicated and not always properly shielded signal path. it could have even gotten hit by the magnetic field in the apartment.
what happened to me is proof that disassembling a laptop is inherently dangerous and should be avoided unless you're highly technical and highly confident in it.
i've made massive progress in reclaiming my broken primary laptop this morning.
so, back at the very start of may, i took the laptop apart to clean the fan. i couldn't get the thing to turn back on, but it didn't make any sense to me, unless it was some kind of ground issue. so, i let it sit plugged in, hoping the electricity could find it's way to where it needed to.
it actually did, giving me an opportunity to find the short, which i determined was either in the video out or in the screen. all i know for sure is that plugging the video card in shorts the whole board out. then, i lost power again, so i left it to sit plugged in, again...
the first week didn't get me the signal back, so i put a few extras screws in and the signal did in fact reappear when i got back from detroit on saturday morning. i've been able to reconstruct the machine and send it out into an external monitor. i'm not done testing because the bios doesn't seem to like the hard drive i'm testing with, and the hard drive that comes with the machine is currently in use. if it boots, i have my machine back.
sort of.
see, i'm afraid to even plug the screen back in. the entire screen is off the thing altogether. that means i've lost the screen and what is in it: wireless (never use...), a webcam (never use...) and a microphone (which i use quite a bit - it's my phone).
or, at least i *think* that the microphone is in the screen. we'll find out soon.
i have it connected to the monitor that i bought in november, which i needed to replace anyways because the resolution is bad with cubase. it's not so bad for video editing, though.
...and my grandmother wants to buy me a new laptop so i can call her, which will have a microphone in it.
what all of this means, for me, is that i might be in the process of spinning this laptop off into a video editing device. in fact, it just clicked that i can use one of my external webcams as a microphone, anyways. that hadn't clicked. ok...so i have a microphone anyways....
the other benefit of the board i just fixed is that it has 4 gb of ram and is expandable to, i think, 16. i'll have to check. the backup machine i'm on is 4 max and currently has 2.
i don't even need a new laptop to spin the other machine off. what i need is this:
1) a new/used monitor for my desktop. $30.
2) some more ram for the editing machine. $20.
3) some better evaluation software for editing, which will actually make sense if i dedicate the machine. i've been doing this long enough now to get some real software. $0.
4) a new hard drive for the backup machine, which will become my internet access point. $100.
5) some more ram for the access point. $10.
i mean, i'll take the laptop. i could use it, sure. but, i've hacked something out for now....
in the long run, i'll obviously want to put the screen back on the laptop. i don't actually think i damaged anything, i think it was grounded poorly due to some dangling wires or removed electrical tape or something. i'm going to want to carefully read up on this.
for now, i'm ok with the monitor out and webcam mic.
it should be reassembled properly by this afternoon.
so, back at the very start of may, i took the laptop apart to clean the fan. i couldn't get the thing to turn back on, but it didn't make any sense to me, unless it was some kind of ground issue. so, i let it sit plugged in, hoping the electricity could find it's way to where it needed to.
it actually did, giving me an opportunity to find the short, which i determined was either in the video out or in the screen. all i know for sure is that plugging the video card in shorts the whole board out. then, i lost power again, so i left it to sit plugged in, again...
the first week didn't get me the signal back, so i put a few extras screws in and the signal did in fact reappear when i got back from detroit on saturday morning. i've been able to reconstruct the machine and send it out into an external monitor. i'm not done testing because the bios doesn't seem to like the hard drive i'm testing with, and the hard drive that comes with the machine is currently in use. if it boots, i have my machine back.
sort of.
see, i'm afraid to even plug the screen back in. the entire screen is off the thing altogether. that means i've lost the screen and what is in it: wireless (never use...), a webcam (never use...) and a microphone (which i use quite a bit - it's my phone).
or, at least i *think* that the microphone is in the screen. we'll find out soon.
i have it connected to the monitor that i bought in november, which i needed to replace anyways because the resolution is bad with cubase. it's not so bad for video editing, though.
...and my grandmother wants to buy me a new laptop so i can call her, which will have a microphone in it.
what all of this means, for me, is that i might be in the process of spinning this laptop off into a video editing device. in fact, it just clicked that i can use one of my external webcams as a microphone, anyways. that hadn't clicked. ok...so i have a microphone anyways....
the other benefit of the board i just fixed is that it has 4 gb of ram and is expandable to, i think, 16. i'll have to check. the backup machine i'm on is 4 max and currently has 2.
i don't even need a new laptop to spin the other machine off. what i need is this:
1) a new/used monitor for my desktop. $30.
2) some more ram for the editing machine. $20.
3) some better evaluation software for editing, which will actually make sense if i dedicate the machine. i've been doing this long enough now to get some real software. $0.
4) a new hard drive for the backup machine, which will become my internet access point. $100.
5) some more ram for the access point. $10.
i mean, i'll take the laptop. i could use it, sure. but, i've hacked something out for now....
in the long run, i'll obviously want to put the screen back on the laptop. i don't actually think i damaged anything, i think it was grounded poorly due to some dangling wires or removed electrical tape or something. i'm going to want to carefully read up on this.
for now, i'm ok with the monitor out and webcam mic.
it should be reassembled properly by this afternoon.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
when we started this process, i didn't really care who sold the stuff. i'm approaching this entirely from the perspective of liberalizing access. i don't care about keeping it away from kids (kids will smoke if they want to), about shutting down criminal sellers (i know that this is mostly based around lies) or ensuring a safe product (unlike the kinds of drugs that are synthesized in the bathroom sink, weed is actually rarely tampered with and easy to find in a pure state). but, if the government insisted on selling it as a monopoly, whatever...
as time has gone on, and the process has unfolded, the government has demonstrated itself as too right-wing to do this effectively. i want to be clear: it's not that i don't think government, as an abstract, can do this well. it's that i don't think that this particular, right-of-center government can do this well, because it's approaching the issue from the viewpoints of all of these conservative value systems, rather than the simple task of liberalizing access. doing this right would require a much more liberal government with a very different set of priorities.
as such, i'm agreeing with the market institute, but only as a consequence of the circumstances: i don't necessarily think that the market ought to be able to do this better, but i think the market will do this better than this government, which just wants to pander to the right at the expense of liberalizing access.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/privatize-marijuana-sales-to-avoid-conflict-of-interest-between-public-health-and-profit-c-d-howe-says-in-letter-to-bill-blair/wcm/881ab02c-fbc3-4fc0-8e40-ecef67054fd0
as time has gone on, and the process has unfolded, the government has demonstrated itself as too right-wing to do this effectively. i want to be clear: it's not that i don't think government, as an abstract, can do this well. it's that i don't think that this particular, right-of-center government can do this well, because it's approaching the issue from the viewpoints of all of these conservative value systems, rather than the simple task of liberalizing access. doing this right would require a much more liberal government with a very different set of priorities.
as such, i'm agreeing with the market institute, but only as a consequence of the circumstances: i don't necessarily think that the market ought to be able to do this better, but i think the market will do this better than this government, which just wants to pander to the right at the expense of liberalizing access.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/privatize-marijuana-sales-to-avoid-conflict-of-interest-between-public-health-and-profit-c-d-howe-says-in-letter-to-bill-blair/wcm/881ab02c-fbc3-4fc0-8e40-ecef67054fd0
i think that the correct way for me to respond to this is to put out a request to the pmo to actually read up on what effects climate change is going to have on germany.
here's the thing: nobody familiar with this government thinks they actually care about climate change. on that level, this is a non-story. doesn't she know she has a social license? i mean, they have carbon taxes in germany, right?
no. the story is that the pmo was so ignorant of germany's stance on the topic, and what germany has to lose should we reach a tipping point, that they had the temerity, dare i even say insolence, to ask them to pull back on it.
and, what you should take away from it is this: while it may not be news that trudeau has no interest in emissions reduction, it is news that he doesn't even seem to understand the consequences of that policy position.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/06/19/news/despite-denial-explosive-report-about-trudeau-and-merkel-still-standing
here's the thing: nobody familiar with this government thinks they actually care about climate change. on that level, this is a non-story. doesn't she know she has a social license? i mean, they have carbon taxes in germany, right?
no. the story is that the pmo was so ignorant of germany's stance on the topic, and what germany has to lose should we reach a tipping point, that they had the temerity, dare i even say insolence, to ask them to pull back on it.
and, what you should take away from it is this: while it may not be news that trudeau has no interest in emissions reduction, it is news that he doesn't even seem to understand the consequences of that policy position.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/06/19/news/despite-denial-explosive-report-about-trudeau-and-merkel-still-standing
just sell it in the spice rack at the grocery store. no taxes on groceries, right?
i'm serious: the only way this is going to work is if they sell it in existing stores. there's no reason to create a new store. you can sell it in grocery stores, corner stores, pharmacies, the lcbo, the beer store, smoke shops, head shops - whatever. but, the store has to already exist, or the overhead will be impossible.
forget taxes. dealers don't have to pay rent. they don't have to pay salaries. they don't have to pay benefits.
the infrastructure of an existing store is imperative.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/provincial-marijuana-sales-retail-1.4167735
i'm serious: the only way this is going to work is if they sell it in existing stores. there's no reason to create a new store. you can sell it in grocery stores, corner stores, pharmacies, the lcbo, the beer store, smoke shops, head shops - whatever. but, the store has to already exist, or the overhead will be impossible.
forget taxes. dealers don't have to pay rent. they don't have to pay salaries. they don't have to pay benefits.
the infrastructure of an existing store is imperative.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/provincial-marijuana-sales-retail-1.4167735
i don't normally comment on the kardashians, but i just want to point out that i've run into this issue myself. people don't instantly know my genetic background, and i don't know how relevant it really is anyway, but if i meet somebody in march, they're likely to get confused by the time july hits, when i've darkened five or six tones. with me, it's really ridiculously dramatic. i'll go from pasty white to east african almost overnight. in fact, it's going to come up in the vlogs...
i've only been accused of 'blackface' once. it was around occupy. this white upper class dude noticed i was all of a sudden darker than an egyptian (she was clearly actually turkic.) woman, and accused me of blackface. but, nope - i was just out protesting in the sun all day. sorry.
but, i have memories my whole life of walking into classes in september and getting hit on by italian girls until roughly december, when i'd start getting hit on by polish girls, instead. it was the neighbourhood i went to school in.
so, you want to cut her a little slack on this one. skin colour isn't static, and those of us that are of mixed race often actually find it fairly malleable.
http://people.com/style/kim-kardashian-west-blackface-kkw-beauty/
i've only been accused of 'blackface' once. it was around occupy. this white upper class dude noticed i was all of a sudden darker than an egyptian (she was clearly actually turkic.) woman, and accused me of blackface. but, nope - i was just out protesting in the sun all day. sorry.
but, i have memories my whole life of walking into classes in september and getting hit on by italian girls until roughly december, when i'd start getting hit on by polish girls, instead. it was the neighbourhood i went to school in.
so, you want to cut her a little slack on this one. skin colour isn't static, and those of us that are of mixed race often actually find it fairly malleable.
http://people.com/style/kim-kardashian-west-blackface-kkw-beauty/
i find it hard to condemn the indiscriminate attacks.
i wouldn't have opposed the fire-bombing of dresden, either.
there are certain regimes that are so heinous that, when civilians support them, they need to be treated as extensions of them and wiped off the face of the earth along with them.
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/10/25/iraqi-kurd-official-isis-enjoys-considerable-support-among-civilians_641947
i wouldn't have opposed the fire-bombing of dresden, either.
there are certain regimes that are so heinous that, when civilians support them, they need to be treated as extensions of them and wiped off the face of the earth along with them.
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/10/25/iraqi-kurd-official-isis-enjoys-considerable-support-among-civilians_641947
i don't think this topic can move beyond speculation. this is probably about the best summary of the reality of things that you'll find:
Although the Russian military has been slow to embrace cyber for both structural and doctrinal reasons, the Kremlin has signaled that it intends to bolster the offensive as well as the defensive cyber capabilities of its armed forces.
i might add that it has probably been slow to adopt cyber warfare for simple technical reasons, as well.
i know it's hard to drop the idea of the superior or at least comparable russian threat, but the reality is that it was always nonsense. they were stuck in the dark ages up to world war one, and only got out of it due to a lot of fdi from american capital. in world war two, they couldn't compete with the germans on technological terms; they just (eventually) overran them with sheer force, and, again, with a lot of help from the united states (lend-lease). during the war, the russians captured a substantial number of the best german scientists and kept them working on the space program for decades afterwards. but, they also carried out a lot of espionage. there was certainly not a lot of space for technology to flourish after the fall of communism; what you had, instead, was widespread theft and piracy of western technology, with little innovation in the region, itself. if the russians have cyberwarfare capabilities, they would have been built from scratch over the last ten years, and would necessarily be still playing catch-up. but, the russians have been playing catch-up the whole time...
i mean, you'll note that putin runs windows on his desktop, right?
i'm picking up on an idea that has been expanded upon by a number of writers. to be balanced, i'll cite both sutton and chomsky. they were always years - decades - behind us. this is the reality: the russians have been chasing the west since napoleon, at least.
there was a section in the oliver stone interview where oliver stone seems convinced that putin is hiding something. that's not exactly what i picked up. but, if you want to use that language, then what he's hiding is that there isn't a substantial russian cyberwarfare program - because they don't have the capability to construct one that is competitive with the real players: the united states, israel and china.
i didn't get a lot out of the series. but, it wasn't meant for me.
Although the Russian military has been slow to embrace cyber for both structural and doctrinal reasons, the Kremlin has signaled that it intends to bolster the offensive as well as the defensive cyber capabilities of its armed forces.
i might add that it has probably been slow to adopt cyber warfare for simple technical reasons, as well.
i know it's hard to drop the idea of the superior or at least comparable russian threat, but the reality is that it was always nonsense. they were stuck in the dark ages up to world war one, and only got out of it due to a lot of fdi from american capital. in world war two, they couldn't compete with the germans on technological terms; they just (eventually) overran them with sheer force, and, again, with a lot of help from the united states (lend-lease). during the war, the russians captured a substantial number of the best german scientists and kept them working on the space program for decades afterwards. but, they also carried out a lot of espionage. there was certainly not a lot of space for technology to flourish after the fall of communism; what you had, instead, was widespread theft and piracy of western technology, with little innovation in the region, itself. if the russians have cyberwarfare capabilities, they would have been built from scratch over the last ten years, and would necessarily be still playing catch-up. but, the russians have been playing catch-up the whole time...
i mean, you'll note that putin runs windows on his desktop, right?
i'm picking up on an idea that has been expanded upon by a number of writers. to be balanced, i'll cite both sutton and chomsky. they were always years - decades - behind us. this is the reality: the russians have been chasing the west since napoleon, at least.
there was a section in the oliver stone interview where oliver stone seems convinced that putin is hiding something. that's not exactly what i picked up. but, if you want to use that language, then what he's hiding is that there isn't a substantial russian cyberwarfare program - because they don't have the capability to construct one that is competitive with the real players: the united states, israel and china.
i didn't get a lot out of the series. but, it wasn't meant for me.
one of these days, the crisis will not be averted.
when will the prime minister admit his senate reforms have been a disaster and a mistake and reverse course?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senate-votes-against-splitting-up-liberals-budget-bill/article35390179/
when will the prime minister admit his senate reforms have been a disaster and a mistake and reverse course?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senate-votes-against-splitting-up-liberals-budget-bill/article35390179/
although, i should point out that all evidence i've seen suggests that the policy makers in the government continue to hold to the complete myth that marijuana is addictive.
if you think marijuana is addictive, mail order makes sense, because everybody is smoking an ounce a month.
but, this is ridiculous.
the reality is that pot is used the same way that alcohol is. people that smoke everyday are not the norm, but the marijuana equivalent of alcoholics, and they need help, not cheap weed. the vast majority of users smoke on weekends, holidays, events and the odd week night if they're out with friends. they consequently have no use for a mail order system, and you should not expect them to use it.
if you think marijuana is addictive, mail order makes sense, because everybody is smoking an ounce a month.
but, this is ridiculous.
the reality is that pot is used the same way that alcohol is. people that smoke everyday are not the norm, but the marijuana equivalent of alcoholics, and they need help, not cheap weed. the vast majority of users smoke on weekends, holidays, events and the odd week night if they're out with friends. they consequently have no use for a mail order system, and you should not expect them to use it.
nonono, the british have the perfect plan.
what you need to do is this: put all of the muslims on one side of the road, and all of the christians on the other, and work this out with a giant game of chicken. we've got organ donation cards over here, folks - don't forget to fill one out before you race!
let them kill each other off. and, good riddance to the lot of them.
what you need to do is this: put all of the muslims on one side of the road, and all of the christians on the other, and work this out with a giant game of chicken. we've got organ donation cards over here, folks - don't forget to fill one out before you race!
let them kill each other off. and, good riddance to the lot of them.
A U.S. warplane shot
down a Syrian army jet on Sunday in the southern Raqqa countryside,
with Washington saying the jet had dropped bombs near U.S.-backed forces
and Damascus saying the plane was downed while flying a mission against
Islamic State militants.
there's no contradiction, there.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN1990XI
there's no contradiction, there.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN1990XI
but, this is merely the status quo. anybody can get a medical card.
as mentioned, it's fine if you smoke an ounce/week or something. but, most marijuana users don't smoke like that. most users are not habitual, but sporadic and spontaneous. social, even.
my consumption patterns would be on the lines of a gram or two a month, and not necessarily every month. so, i'm not going to plan my consumption patterns out. it's just not realistic.
so, this isn't a backup plan, unless you're medical, which is the status quo.
again: i will not mail order in bulk. i will continue to buy small amounts locally.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cannabis-backup-plan-in-the-works-morneau-tells-provinces/article35383802/
as mentioned, it's fine if you smoke an ounce/week or something. but, most marijuana users don't smoke like that. most users are not habitual, but sporadic and spontaneous. social, even.
my consumption patterns would be on the lines of a gram or two a month, and not necessarily every month. so, i'm not going to plan my consumption patterns out. it's just not realistic.
so, this isn't a backup plan, unless you're medical, which is the status quo.
again: i will not mail order in bulk. i will continue to buy small amounts locally.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cannabis-backup-plan-in-the-works-morneau-tells-provinces/article35383802/
Monday, June 19, 2017
i'd rather buy it on the street than buy it online. the problem is the time lag.
listen: if i wanted to buy it through the mail, i'd just get a medical card. but, then i need to make guesses on how much i want to buy over the course of a month. in the process, i'm going to end up smoking more than i want to. i won't do this; i'll continue to buy it underground, where i can get smaller amounts immediately on demand.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/06/15/dont-expect-legal-pot-stores-by-canada-day-2018-industry-expert-says
listen: if i wanted to buy it through the mail, i'd just get a medical card. but, then i need to make guesses on how much i want to buy over the course of a month. in the process, i'm going to end up smoking more than i want to. i won't do this; i'll continue to buy it underground, where i can get smaller amounts immediately on demand.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/06/15/dont-expect-legal-pot-stores-by-canada-day-2018-industry-expert-says
Also, conservatives in Canada's Parliament have brought up two notable
concerns with legalization that could be difficult to overcome. For
starters, lawmakers worry about how to keep marijuana out of the hands
of children. An at-home grow provision, they argue, would make it easy
for children to get hold of cannabis. The other issue being that there's
no way to accurately test for cannabis impairment while behind the
wheel. Without any sort of baseline impairment figure, it's difficult to
see how conservatives in Canada's Parliament are going to be satisfied
with this legislation.
but, conservatives have no power in canada's parliament, right now. a strict party vote would be 239-99. it's not even close.
....unless they mean the senate, but the conservatives do not have a majority in the senate either, no matter how you skew the numbers.
this worries me, though. it suggests that the liberals are floating flawed information to the press, with an attempt to engineer the defeat of the bill.
but, conservatives have no power in canada's parliament, right now. a strict party vote would be 239-99. it's not even close.
....unless they mean the senate, but the conservatives do not have a majority in the senate either, no matter how you skew the numbers.
this worries me, though. it suggests that the liberals are floating flawed information to the press, with an attempt to engineer the defeat of the bill.
"but you can't say that homosexuality is a choice, because then religious fascists will be justified in arguing that it's ok to forcibly convert them."
what?
it's one of those weird "progressive" positions that only makes sense if you're a conservative pretending to be a "left-wing christian", as though such a thing is even possible.
i actually want to forget about the obvious logical problems with this, as though forced conversion ("gay therapy") is ever somehow justified. i mean, i'll be clear: "gay therapy" is never justified. it doesn't matter if it's a choice, it's still an egregious rights infringement, and your religion can go fuck itself up the ass. yeah, how about that, huh? it's especially egregious when applied towards children; it's child abuse. if you're out there walking around thinking that "gay therapy" would be perfectly ok if homosexuality were only a choice, but, alas, it isn't, so we should resist it because it won't work anyways then...!?!?...
...i don't know what side you think you're on....?
but, that's not even what i want to say. you've got the logic fucked, anyways.
let's say we get this gay guy tied down and try and brainwash him, clockwork orange style, into being straight. we already know this doesn't work. yet, you want to argue that it doesn't work because he doesn't have a choice?
no. ...
if he really didn't have a choice, that is if it was really hardwired somewhere into his brain, you should be able to "flip the switch". otherwise, being gay would be pretty much singularly unique, wouldn't it? i mean, you can flip just about any switch you can imagine. with the right images, you can get an army sergeant in a ballerina dress, singing rocket man. rocket mensch, probably.
is it just a wild coincidence that homosexuality is pretty much the only thing we've ever found that you can't flip? really?
i might suggest that the reason the brainwashing is so ineffective in most gay people is that they're able to reject it for the precise reason that it is a conscious choice and, further, that if it weren't a conscious choice then the brainwashing would largely work.
what?
it's one of those weird "progressive" positions that only makes sense if you're a conservative pretending to be a "left-wing christian", as though such a thing is even possible.
i actually want to forget about the obvious logical problems with this, as though forced conversion ("gay therapy") is ever somehow justified. i mean, i'll be clear: "gay therapy" is never justified. it doesn't matter if it's a choice, it's still an egregious rights infringement, and your religion can go fuck itself up the ass. yeah, how about that, huh? it's especially egregious when applied towards children; it's child abuse. if you're out there walking around thinking that "gay therapy" would be perfectly ok if homosexuality were only a choice, but, alas, it isn't, so we should resist it because it won't work anyways then...!?!?...
...i don't know what side you think you're on....?
but, that's not even what i want to say. you've got the logic fucked, anyways.
let's say we get this gay guy tied down and try and brainwash him, clockwork orange style, into being straight. we already know this doesn't work. yet, you want to argue that it doesn't work because he doesn't have a choice?
no. ...
if he really didn't have a choice, that is if it was really hardwired somewhere into his brain, you should be able to "flip the switch". otherwise, being gay would be pretty much singularly unique, wouldn't it? i mean, you can flip just about any switch you can imagine. with the right images, you can get an army sergeant in a ballerina dress, singing rocket man. rocket mensch, probably.
is it just a wild coincidence that homosexuality is pretty much the only thing we've ever found that you can't flip? really?
i might suggest that the reason the brainwashing is so ineffective in most gay people is that they're able to reject it for the precise reason that it is a conscious choice and, further, that if it weren't a conscious choice then the brainwashing would largely work.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
this is a bunch of neo-liberal bullshit.
frankly, i always considered laci green to be a conservative, to begin with.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/on-laci-green-and-white-womens-betrayal_us_5941a92be4b0d99b4c9210ef
frankly, i always considered laci green to be a conservative, to begin with.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/on-laci-green-and-white-womens-betrayal_us_5941a92be4b0d99b4c9210ef
the design of the study is very poor, if the intent is to measure criminality in mtfs. this is from the study:
"Each individual contributed person-time from study entry (for exposed: date of sex reassignment; for unexposed: date of sex reassignment of matched case) until date of outcome event, death, emigration, or end of study period (31 December 2003), whichever came first. The association between exposure (sex reassignment) and outcome (mortality, morbidity, crime) was measured by hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs, taking follow-up time into account. HRs were estimated from Cox proportional hazard regression models, stratified on matched sets (1∶10) to account for the matching by sex, age, and calendar time (birth year). We present crude HRs (though adjusted for sex and age through matching) and confounder-adjusted HRs [aHRs] for all outcomes."
what they're doing, here, is determining whether taking estrogen is a hazard to increasing crime; by coming back with null results, they are confirming that estrogen will not make transwomen *more* violent. they are not measuring whether it may make them *less* violent, so their statement about transwomen retaining criminality is not justified by their own research.
in fact, it's actually a classical fallacy.
worse, they are also including suicide as a crime. nobody is surprised to hear that suicide rates are higher amongst trans people, trans women especially. but, to argue that elevated suicide risks should be included in a study measuring criminality is not acceptable. it's not hard to see that it's obvious that if the study concludes stasis when suicide rates are included, it should also produce lower levels of criminality when they are not. this data should, in truth must, be re-evaluated to no longer treat suicide as a violent crime.
that said, this flaw is really over the question of estrogen, which should not be modelled as a risk for violence. testosterone should be modelled that way. and, the general process should be modelled in terms of risk hazards for suicide or depression, as well - that all makes sense.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016885
"Each individual contributed person-time from study entry (for exposed: date of sex reassignment; for unexposed: date of sex reassignment of matched case) until date of outcome event, death, emigration, or end of study period (31 December 2003), whichever came first. The association between exposure (sex reassignment) and outcome (mortality, morbidity, crime) was measured by hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs, taking follow-up time into account. HRs were estimated from Cox proportional hazard regression models, stratified on matched sets (1∶10) to account for the matching by sex, age, and calendar time (birth year). We present crude HRs (though adjusted for sex and age through matching) and confounder-adjusted HRs [aHRs] for all outcomes."
what they're doing, here, is determining whether taking estrogen is a hazard to increasing crime; by coming back with null results, they are confirming that estrogen will not make transwomen *more* violent. they are not measuring whether it may make them *less* violent, so their statement about transwomen retaining criminality is not justified by their own research.
in fact, it's actually a classical fallacy.
worse, they are also including suicide as a crime. nobody is surprised to hear that suicide rates are higher amongst trans people, trans women especially. but, to argue that elevated suicide risks should be included in a study measuring criminality is not acceptable. it's not hard to see that it's obvious that if the study concludes stasis when suicide rates are included, it should also produce lower levels of criminality when they are not. this data should, in truth must, be re-evaluated to no longer treat suicide as a violent crime.
that said, this flaw is really over the question of estrogen, which should not be modelled as a risk for violence. testosterone should be modelled that way. and, the general process should be modelled in terms of risk hazards for suicide or depression, as well - that all makes sense.
so, what the study actually says is this:
1) administering testosterone to biological females increases their risk of violence &
2) administering estrogen to biological men does not increase their risk of violence.
by dishonestly interpreting a high suicide rate amongst transwomen as violent and criminal behaviour, it then bizarrely concludes that transwomen are no less violent than cismen.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016885
Saturday, June 17, 2017
so, my laptop went at the beginning of may. i might still be able to fix it, but it's going to be of reduced value to me because i'm probably going to lose the microphone (which is in the screen). if you take the microphone out, the only other benefit of fixing it is that the board is expandable to 16 gb of ram. the board on the backup laptop is only good for 4 gb, which is a low limit for 2017. right now, i'm scraping by with 2.
the other day, i had to send an email to my maternal grandmother - a septuagenarian with an impressive stock portfolio and an ottawa construction magnate millionaire very longterm boyfriend - explaining that i couldn't call her back because i don't have a microphone in my backup laptop. i'll either have to find a way to fix my board, or get a microphone, and there's nothing i can do until then.
so, she's going to send me a check for a new laptop so i can call her over google voice.
thanks nana :)
the other day, i had to send an email to my maternal grandmother - a septuagenarian with an impressive stock portfolio and an ottawa construction magnate millionaire very longterm boyfriend - explaining that i couldn't call her back because i don't have a microphone in my backup laptop. i'll either have to find a way to fix my board, or get a microphone, and there's nothing i can do until then.
so, she's going to send me a check for a new laptop so i can call her over google voice.
thanks nana :)
so, what's the story about last night? i haven't had a night like
that in a while; i used to narrate these kinds of evenings, when they
happened more frequently. so, i'll tell you the story of last night...
i started off the night at an art show that kind of quickly descended into absurdity. it was supposed to be a performance of cage pieces, and began that way, but quickly collapsed into something that seemed only very loosely attached to cage. basically, they had two djs spinning for what seemed like an hour. the music wasn't the problem; there should have been people dancing. but, the combination of a pretentious art crowd and an unlicensed space sucked the life out of the party. i want to be clear that it was a contradiction, rather than a failure. people wanted to sit in their chairs and observe, but there wasn't a lot to observe; the venue wanted people up and dancing, but that doesn't happen after having a few red bulls at 8:30, as a stop on your way home from your practicum. it didn't make any sense.
i initially thought the dj set would finish relatively quickly, so i went outside for a smoke. i bumped into an older black guy out front that was also smoking, but smoking a different and more fragrant substance. he shared a little of that. we talked a few minutes. i mentioned i was going to the gay club (near the boundary between city and suburb) for the night, as it was open late on this night. i went back in without him, and left to catch the bus on woodward about a half an hour later.
he must have waited outside and followed me. stalked me, essentially. and, it almost failed. see, i got to the bus stop the moment the bus was pulling in; this was coincidental, not planned, so i didn't have the fare ready and i had to sort through my pockets for the right change, which left the bus sitting for a few seconds. this was long enough for him to catch up behind me, get on the bus after me and attempt to pay the busfare for me. i didn't look up to see who dropped the dollar in, and just went with it.
i did sit beside him; sort of - across the aisle, anyways. he wanted to talk about music from the 60s-80s period, which is a topic i'm known to engage in, but he was mostly name dropping things i've generally been disinterested in (hall & oates, depeche mode) or things i actively dislike (yes, elp). he was rambling, really. once in a while, he got around to a few things i could engage in (peter gabriel, john lennon), so i humoured him out of politeness. but, i mean what does one really do when this old guy wants to talk to you about music from before you were born? you either sit and listen politely, or you be rude and get up and move, but you probably sit and listen politely. he initially made it seem as though he was going to ferndale, which is just outside technical detroit, but slowly shifted his destination to align with mine. it was when i was sitting on the bus that i first realized i was dealing with a stalker.
my initial reaction was to get away, so i got up and walked to the front of the bus and stood beside the bus driver, feigning an unclear sense of direction. he quickly got up, walked to the front of the bus and indicated that he was getting off at the same stop, so i should go back and sit with him.
i did not go back and sit with him. however, he did follow me off of the bus.
i need to clarify a few things at this point, as you may be skeptical that he actually followed me across detroit to a gay bar. how do i know he wasn't going there, anyways? well, to begin with, he indicated he was heterosexual, but extremely trans-curious; it had something to do with a transgendered girlfriend that he had back in the 70s. i have no way to know if he was really partying with david bowie at the time, or if he really works for the pop artist he claims he works for. second, he indicated repeatedly that he hadn't been in this space for a long time, so long that he wasn't sure how long. 25 years? 30? 35? he couldn't remember, and wasn't consistent. but, he made it clear he didn't frequent the area. third, i found out in the course of the night that he's 66 years old. for reference, my father would be 60 years old today, if he were still alive.
the truth is that he all but admitted to following me, and i believe i had already made it clear, through body language, that i wasn't happy about it.
he nonetheless seemed to think he was doing me a favour in escorting me from the bus stop to the bar. my assessment of the neighbourhood was far less dire than his - as is the case of most places in detroit, the area struck me as more empty than dangerous. he gave me a bit of a history lesson, though. he saw the clash in that building, which is now decaying ruins. there was a muhammad ali title fight in that other building, which is boarded up. and, over there is where the bookies used to work, which was the reason people came to this street. it seems like the gay bar is the only thing left standing, and he seemed a little taken aback by it.
this is what will be left when the society collapses: gay bars, coney islands and churches.
this 'gay bar' in detroit is actually three bars that are interconnected. the area i wanted to move to was running late, so i went into the main complex to wait. he instantly offered to buy me a pitcher, which i clearly declined. i obviously can't be accepting alcohol from strangers, as it is not clear if it's tampered with or not. the situation made it a real no-brainer; it was something i couldn't even contemplate. this is in addition to the obvious signalling problems attached to accepting beer from strangers that are following you...
it was at this point that i made it clear to him that i needed some space, that i came to the bar to dance by myself and that whatever altruism he thought he was engaging in was converting itself from misguided to problematic. i bought my own beer and walked to the dance floor.
he followed me and tried to dance with me. i stepped away; he continued. so, i went out to the patio. he followed me out there, too.
the patio allowed me to renormalize the situation by expanding the conversation to include several other people. i was able to talk to other people; he found himself talking to other people. it was a more healthy environment for everybody.
unfortunately, he tried to give me another drink by buying it and placing it in front of me. i again refused, and explained to him why - he went away and came back with a drink and put it in front of me. i'd be insane to drink that. it could have anything in it, from ghb to cyanide. he was obviously hitting on me. and, i mean, what if he's some kind of cia agent trying to take me out and make it look clean? i'm serious. i don't know that he isn't. why would i take that risk?
a little before midnight, i got up to take some pills and when i came back, he was gone. he didn't finish his smoke; he thought i had left and went outside to look for me. i was actually planning on moving to the other side of the complex. as happened with the bus, he walked in as i was paying and offered to pay cover for me.
that's the third time, now. i was starting to get pissed off.
"NO. please don't."
he again followed me on to the dance floor, and i again ignored him, but he did actually disappear after about an hour or so; i think he was gone before 1:00. i made it a priority to make sure he could overhear me when i claimed i would be there until 5:00. and, perhaps he had a wife at home and a consequent functional curfew...
i spent the rest of the night apprehensive about leaving. i had given him a third of my cigarettes, and had consequently run low, but i didn't want to walk out for more, because i wasn't sure he wasn't still out there. and, what had i learned about this guy over the last couple of hours?
1) he follows people around in the shadows, then sneaks up on them.
2) he doesn't listen when you say "no".
so, i ended up bumming smokes.
i had decided at some point that if he was around then he probably meant to catch up to me on woodward, so i planned to circle around the block instead. but, the bartender saw the situation as it was unfolding and, on his own volition, offered to gave me a lift home instead. we stopped for eggs first. and, i caught the 5:55 bus by a hair. props to the bartender....
i need to be clear that i didn't pick this guy up at the gay bar; i picked this guy up at the art show. he wouldn't have gone anywhere near the gay bar if he hadn't trailed me there. so, if there's somewhere i need to avoid, it was the first location. but, i don't think that's entirely fair, either.
i started off the night at an art show that kind of quickly descended into absurdity. it was supposed to be a performance of cage pieces, and began that way, but quickly collapsed into something that seemed only very loosely attached to cage. basically, they had two djs spinning for what seemed like an hour. the music wasn't the problem; there should have been people dancing. but, the combination of a pretentious art crowd and an unlicensed space sucked the life out of the party. i want to be clear that it was a contradiction, rather than a failure. people wanted to sit in their chairs and observe, but there wasn't a lot to observe; the venue wanted people up and dancing, but that doesn't happen after having a few red bulls at 8:30, as a stop on your way home from your practicum. it didn't make any sense.
i initially thought the dj set would finish relatively quickly, so i went outside for a smoke. i bumped into an older black guy out front that was also smoking, but smoking a different and more fragrant substance. he shared a little of that. we talked a few minutes. i mentioned i was going to the gay club (near the boundary between city and suburb) for the night, as it was open late on this night. i went back in without him, and left to catch the bus on woodward about a half an hour later.
he must have waited outside and followed me. stalked me, essentially. and, it almost failed. see, i got to the bus stop the moment the bus was pulling in; this was coincidental, not planned, so i didn't have the fare ready and i had to sort through my pockets for the right change, which left the bus sitting for a few seconds. this was long enough for him to catch up behind me, get on the bus after me and attempt to pay the busfare for me. i didn't look up to see who dropped the dollar in, and just went with it.
i did sit beside him; sort of - across the aisle, anyways. he wanted to talk about music from the 60s-80s period, which is a topic i'm known to engage in, but he was mostly name dropping things i've generally been disinterested in (hall & oates, depeche mode) or things i actively dislike (yes, elp). he was rambling, really. once in a while, he got around to a few things i could engage in (peter gabriel, john lennon), so i humoured him out of politeness. but, i mean what does one really do when this old guy wants to talk to you about music from before you were born? you either sit and listen politely, or you be rude and get up and move, but you probably sit and listen politely. he initially made it seem as though he was going to ferndale, which is just outside technical detroit, but slowly shifted his destination to align with mine. it was when i was sitting on the bus that i first realized i was dealing with a stalker.
my initial reaction was to get away, so i got up and walked to the front of the bus and stood beside the bus driver, feigning an unclear sense of direction. he quickly got up, walked to the front of the bus and indicated that he was getting off at the same stop, so i should go back and sit with him.
i did not go back and sit with him. however, he did follow me off of the bus.
i need to clarify a few things at this point, as you may be skeptical that he actually followed me across detroit to a gay bar. how do i know he wasn't going there, anyways? well, to begin with, he indicated he was heterosexual, but extremely trans-curious; it had something to do with a transgendered girlfriend that he had back in the 70s. i have no way to know if he was really partying with david bowie at the time, or if he really works for the pop artist he claims he works for. second, he indicated repeatedly that he hadn't been in this space for a long time, so long that he wasn't sure how long. 25 years? 30? 35? he couldn't remember, and wasn't consistent. but, he made it clear he didn't frequent the area. third, i found out in the course of the night that he's 66 years old. for reference, my father would be 60 years old today, if he were still alive.
the truth is that he all but admitted to following me, and i believe i had already made it clear, through body language, that i wasn't happy about it.
he nonetheless seemed to think he was doing me a favour in escorting me from the bus stop to the bar. my assessment of the neighbourhood was far less dire than his - as is the case of most places in detroit, the area struck me as more empty than dangerous. he gave me a bit of a history lesson, though. he saw the clash in that building, which is now decaying ruins. there was a muhammad ali title fight in that other building, which is boarded up. and, over there is where the bookies used to work, which was the reason people came to this street. it seems like the gay bar is the only thing left standing, and he seemed a little taken aback by it.
this is what will be left when the society collapses: gay bars, coney islands and churches.
this 'gay bar' in detroit is actually three bars that are interconnected. the area i wanted to move to was running late, so i went into the main complex to wait. he instantly offered to buy me a pitcher, which i clearly declined. i obviously can't be accepting alcohol from strangers, as it is not clear if it's tampered with or not. the situation made it a real no-brainer; it was something i couldn't even contemplate. this is in addition to the obvious signalling problems attached to accepting beer from strangers that are following you...
it was at this point that i made it clear to him that i needed some space, that i came to the bar to dance by myself and that whatever altruism he thought he was engaging in was converting itself from misguided to problematic. i bought my own beer and walked to the dance floor.
he followed me and tried to dance with me. i stepped away; he continued. so, i went out to the patio. he followed me out there, too.
the patio allowed me to renormalize the situation by expanding the conversation to include several other people. i was able to talk to other people; he found himself talking to other people. it was a more healthy environment for everybody.
unfortunately, he tried to give me another drink by buying it and placing it in front of me. i again refused, and explained to him why - he went away and came back with a drink and put it in front of me. i'd be insane to drink that. it could have anything in it, from ghb to cyanide. he was obviously hitting on me. and, i mean, what if he's some kind of cia agent trying to take me out and make it look clean? i'm serious. i don't know that he isn't. why would i take that risk?
a little before midnight, i got up to take some pills and when i came back, he was gone. he didn't finish his smoke; he thought i had left and went outside to look for me. i was actually planning on moving to the other side of the complex. as happened with the bus, he walked in as i was paying and offered to pay cover for me.
that's the third time, now. i was starting to get pissed off.
"NO. please don't."
he again followed me on to the dance floor, and i again ignored him, but he did actually disappear after about an hour or so; i think he was gone before 1:00. i made it a priority to make sure he could overhear me when i claimed i would be there until 5:00. and, perhaps he had a wife at home and a consequent functional curfew...
i spent the rest of the night apprehensive about leaving. i had given him a third of my cigarettes, and had consequently run low, but i didn't want to walk out for more, because i wasn't sure he wasn't still out there. and, what had i learned about this guy over the last couple of hours?
1) he follows people around in the shadows, then sneaks up on them.
2) he doesn't listen when you say "no".
so, i ended up bumming smokes.
i had decided at some point that if he was around then he probably meant to catch up to me on woodward, so i planned to circle around the block instead. but, the bartender saw the situation as it was unfolding and, on his own volition, offered to gave me a lift home instead. we stopped for eggs first. and, i caught the 5:55 bus by a hair. props to the bartender....
i need to be clear that i didn't pick this guy up at the gay bar; i picked this guy up at the art show. he wouldn't have gone anywhere near the gay bar if he hadn't trailed me there. so, if there's somewhere i need to avoid, it was the first location. but, i don't think that's entirely fair, either.
Friday, June 16, 2017
so, what's going on with me in terms of productivity and actual attempts to actually do something?
it's been hardware crashes. the big one was the laptop failing at the beginning of may. since then, i've been trying to catch up, and been slowed down by all kinds of errors.
the most recent was a processor crash last week that took my hard drive down with it. i was able to recover the data with a chkdsk, but it took me all week to figure that out.
i've just finished the season 14 (mar 19th - may 1st) process. i was hoping that would buy me some time before i got into season 15. but, i'm going to have to dump the card again soon in the next few days, meaning i'm going to have to get through season 15 before i can get back to the concert reviews.
this machine is markedly slower, and cannot multitask. so, i should rephrase this: i'll be working out season 15 renders overnight, and am probably just about ready to get back to the concert reviews starting early next week.
the short in the broken laptop seems to be in the monitor out, so i'm thinking about converting it into an editing station with a remote monitor attached to the out; that is, taking the lid off of the laptop altogether and just using it as the bottom of a tower. i'll need to get the board to power up first...
it's been a year of setbacks. see, and here's the thing: my lifestyle has been a consequence of this. i couldn't have been more productive given the technological bottlenecks, so why not go drinking? but, hopefully, i'm close to getting back on track.
it's been hardware crashes. the big one was the laptop failing at the beginning of may. since then, i've been trying to catch up, and been slowed down by all kinds of errors.
the most recent was a processor crash last week that took my hard drive down with it. i was able to recover the data with a chkdsk, but it took me all week to figure that out.
i've just finished the season 14 (mar 19th - may 1st) process. i was hoping that would buy me some time before i got into season 15. but, i'm going to have to dump the card again soon in the next few days, meaning i'm going to have to get through season 15 before i can get back to the concert reviews.
this machine is markedly slower, and cannot multitask. so, i should rephrase this: i'll be working out season 15 renders overnight, and am probably just about ready to get back to the concert reviews starting early next week.
the short in the broken laptop seems to be in the monitor out, so i'm thinking about converting it into an editing station with a remote monitor attached to the out; that is, taking the lid off of the laptop altogether and just using it as the bottom of a tower. i'll need to get the board to power up first...
it's been a year of setbacks. see, and here's the thing: my lifestyle has been a consequence of this. i couldn't have been more productive given the technological bottlenecks, so why not go drinking? but, hopefully, i'm close to getting back on track.
i'm agreeing with this guy quite a bit.
https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/walter-benn-michaels-the-trouble-with-diversity-election/Content?oid=24418522
https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/walter-benn-michaels-the-trouble-with-diversity-election/Content?oid=24418522
this is really accurate, i think. it's a good summary of what i've been trying to say here for quite a while.
i picked most of this up not by reading but by experiencing protest movements first-hand. they erect their own hierarchy, which is pretty much a reflection of society's, and then they label the act of adhering to it as "intersectional anti-oppression". i mean, it took me months to really get my head around it. but, it kind of hit me like a sack of bricks when i did. and, all i got in return for pointing it out was this perception that i didn't understand it - that sitting around and living a burkean fantasy is actually deconstructing it, via foucault, and not just upholding it through construction - and if there was a deconstruction underlying the construction, it was something inverted that i maybe didn't understand, but i must object and claim it wasn't actually there!
there's an essay out there explaining how foucault was basically just restating burke. unfortunately, most foucaldians are just going to react by reading up on burke, right - it almost doesn't matter, because they don't have the slightest idea who he was, anyways. and, if they learn they're conservatives in the end, they're just going to change the letter on their lapel. but, it might do us a lot of good if they do.
he's right: the left neo-liberals just don't understand that they're neo-liberals.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/
i picked most of this up not by reading but by experiencing protest movements first-hand. they erect their own hierarchy, which is pretty much a reflection of society's, and then they label the act of adhering to it as "intersectional anti-oppression". i mean, it took me months to really get my head around it. but, it kind of hit me like a sack of bricks when i did. and, all i got in return for pointing it out was this perception that i didn't understand it - that sitting around and living a burkean fantasy is actually deconstructing it, via foucault, and not just upholding it through construction - and if there was a deconstruction underlying the construction, it was something inverted that i maybe didn't understand, but i must object and claim it wasn't actually there!
there's an essay out there explaining how foucault was basically just restating burke. unfortunately, most foucaldians are just going to react by reading up on burke, right - it almost doesn't matter, because they don't have the slightest idea who he was, anyways. and, if they learn they're conservatives in the end, they're just going to change the letter on their lapel. but, it might do us a lot of good if they do.
he's right: the left neo-liberals just don't understand that they're neo-liberals.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/
Thursday, June 15, 2017
where were my ancestors in 1776?
well, there would have been a lot of them alive at the time, and they would have been in a lot of different places.
my direct patrilineal descent is actually not clear; we're all pretty sure that there was some cree in there at some point, and these tribes would have been independent, still, and loosely aligned with the loyalists, albeit quite a distance from any fighting. there may also be some african in there (two of my aunts married fully black africans and i have completely black cousins), but to what depth is not clear, either. 1776 is long enough ago these potential ancestors may have still been in africa. if they were in america, these ancestors would have likely been enslaved, but on what side of the conflict is not clear to me. my grandfather was a mason, as was his own grandfather, apparently. i have no meaningful memory of him. that may suggest a northern ancestry is more likely. but, african-canadians were rare things in the first half of the twentieth century, too, and hard to place anywhere near bytowne. the two most likely paths would have been either from nova scotia (settled by black loyalists) or from detroit, via the underground railroad. this is all pure supposition...
besides some native ancestry, the only other certainty on my paternal grandfather's side is that somebody married a french woman at some point. i do not know if these french ancestors would have been in canada or france in 1776, and keep in mind that french canada stretched from montreal to new orleans at the time. regardless, they are the most likely candidates to have aligned with the united states, up to this point, via proxy with a common enemy or not. but, perhaps they had a personal entente cordiale. i can't know.
my paternal grandmother's ancestors would have certainly been scattered across the eastern mediterranean, mostly in italy and sicily. however, she would also have had some ashkenazi ancestors somewhere as well, most likely in eastern europe.
my maternal grandmother's ancestors would have been across a crescent in northern europe: ireland, norway, sweden and finland. i suspect, at this time, that my ancestors may have existed even further east, as well, stretching through russia and into ukraine. they would have been light-skinned, with flaxen hair and blue eyes. but, i do not suspect that they would have held strong opinions about the revolutionary war in the colony.
my maternal grandfather's ancestors may have actually been in canada, and served as loyalists, but i do not know. they would have been of mixed scottish/welsh heritage, and british citizens since the acts of union. there is some evidence that my maternal grandfather was in a line of petty, distant aristocrats that held office through law enforcement. but, i never found the missing link to demonstrate as much.
we are not our ancestors. but, when i say i would have found little in the american revolution to support, and much to directly oppose, i speak on behalf of my own. if i was on this continent at the time, i would have certainly been a loyalist.
sorry.
well, there would have been a lot of them alive at the time, and they would have been in a lot of different places.
my direct patrilineal descent is actually not clear; we're all pretty sure that there was some cree in there at some point, and these tribes would have been independent, still, and loosely aligned with the loyalists, albeit quite a distance from any fighting. there may also be some african in there (two of my aunts married fully black africans and i have completely black cousins), but to what depth is not clear, either. 1776 is long enough ago these potential ancestors may have still been in africa. if they were in america, these ancestors would have likely been enslaved, but on what side of the conflict is not clear to me. my grandfather was a mason, as was his own grandfather, apparently. i have no meaningful memory of him. that may suggest a northern ancestry is more likely. but, african-canadians were rare things in the first half of the twentieth century, too, and hard to place anywhere near bytowne. the two most likely paths would have been either from nova scotia (settled by black loyalists) or from detroit, via the underground railroad. this is all pure supposition...
besides some native ancestry, the only other certainty on my paternal grandfather's side is that somebody married a french woman at some point. i do not know if these french ancestors would have been in canada or france in 1776, and keep in mind that french canada stretched from montreal to new orleans at the time. regardless, they are the most likely candidates to have aligned with the united states, up to this point, via proxy with a common enemy or not. but, perhaps they had a personal entente cordiale. i can't know.
my paternal grandmother's ancestors would have certainly been scattered across the eastern mediterranean, mostly in italy and sicily. however, she would also have had some ashkenazi ancestors somewhere as well, most likely in eastern europe.
my maternal grandmother's ancestors would have been across a crescent in northern europe: ireland, norway, sweden and finland. i suspect, at this time, that my ancestors may have existed even further east, as well, stretching through russia and into ukraine. they would have been light-skinned, with flaxen hair and blue eyes. but, i do not suspect that they would have held strong opinions about the revolutionary war in the colony.
my maternal grandfather's ancestors may have actually been in canada, and served as loyalists, but i do not know. they would have been of mixed scottish/welsh heritage, and british citizens since the acts of union. there is some evidence that my maternal grandfather was in a line of petty, distant aristocrats that held office through law enforcement. but, i never found the missing link to demonstrate as much.
we are not our ancestors. but, when i say i would have found little in the american revolution to support, and much to directly oppose, i speak on behalf of my own. if i was on this continent at the time, i would have certainly been a loyalist.
sorry.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
i'm not joking, here.
it's unprecedented. but it should trigger an election. i think i said something about this months ago, but don't ask me to remember how i framed it.
we all knew that trudeau wasn't usually the smartest person in the room. but, he may have just found a way to take his own majority government down, mid-mandate. that's like drowning in the desert. if there's natural selection in politics, he deserves a darwin award.
it really should trigger an election...
it's unprecedented. but it should trigger an election. i think i said something about this months ago, but don't ask me to remember how i framed it.
we all knew that trudeau wasn't usually the smartest person in the room. but, he may have just found a way to take his own majority government down, mid-mandate. that's like drowning in the desert. if there's natural selection in politics, he deserves a darwin award.
it really should trigger an election...
wait...
if the senate votes down the budget, that should trigger an election.
i mean, this doesn't happen in this country. but that should be the result...
canada doesn't have a collaborative budget amendment process. the government presents the budget. it might get slightly modified in committee, but it probably won't. it will just get passed. and, if it doesn't get passed, it means that the government is unable to command the confidence of the house, and an election is required.
it should follow that if the government can't command the confidence of the senate, there should be an election as well. although, as mentioned, this is crazy talk, in this country.
if the senate votes down the budget, that should trigger an election.
i mean, this doesn't happen in this country. but that should be the result...
canada doesn't have a collaborative budget amendment process. the government presents the budget. it might get slightly modified in committee, but it probably won't. it will just get passed. and, if it doesn't get passed, it means that the government is unable to command the confidence of the house, and an election is required.
it should follow that if the government can't command the confidence of the senate, there should be an election as well. although, as mentioned, this is crazy talk, in this country.
this is the right article for the topic, but i just want to add a sobering thought of my own: the question of whether trudeau's senate amendments will outlive him or not reduces to how responsibly they abuse their power (for any use of power, in context, is an abuse of it). i'm convinced that this is a kind of an insane ploy to let him promise the sky at election time and get shot down between elections, and insofar as that is true it is just a waste of everybody's time. but, no future government is going to be obligated to entertain the whims and fancies of a senate full of unelected independents that was appointed as some kind of twisted joke.
undoing this mess that he's made of the senate may very well be the first thing that his successor does - even or perhaps especially if that successor is a liberal.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/mr-trudeaus-frankensenate-its-alive-and-its-dangerous/article35309120/
undoing this mess that he's made of the senate may very well be the first thing that his successor does - even or perhaps especially if that successor is a liberal.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/mr-trudeaus-frankensenate-its-alive-and-its-dangerous/article35309120/
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
i don't think that either of the reactions are wrong, per se, although i don't think it's reasonable to use language about "safety" or language about transphobia, unless the language about transphobia is directed at language about "safety", in which case it's true.
it's a comfort issue. frankly, i wouldn't want to go to a women's spa and end up around people with penises, either. that said, that's my own comfort level. i mean, we're talking about full nudity, here.
here's how this ought to work: it ought to be up to the community that frequents the facility to decide what they feel comfortable within. unfortunately, we don't live in a society that upholds co-operative ideas, so it has to fall upon the business owner to make decisions regarding what she wants to allow in her business, and up to clients to vote with their feet. she may want to consider surveying her customers, of course. but, if another spa opens up across the street with a more liberal access policy, and it attracts a lot of business, then the people have spoken regarding their comfort level; if that business fails, they will have as well.
i would suspect that the business with the stricter definition will be more successful due to the nature of the service, and i don't hold that truth against anybody. trans people have an obligation to respect certain boundaries. she should back off on this.
further, this is access to a spa. it's just about the definition of non-essential. and, i do not believe that a court in canada would argue it has jurisdiction to interfere.
if this upsets you, you have the right to start your own spa with different rules, but i don't think you have the right to tell this business owner how to run hers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/body-blitz-transgender-policy-1.4158397
it's a comfort issue. frankly, i wouldn't want to go to a women's spa and end up around people with penises, either. that said, that's my own comfort level. i mean, we're talking about full nudity, here.
here's how this ought to work: it ought to be up to the community that frequents the facility to decide what they feel comfortable within. unfortunately, we don't live in a society that upholds co-operative ideas, so it has to fall upon the business owner to make decisions regarding what she wants to allow in her business, and up to clients to vote with their feet. she may want to consider surveying her customers, of course. but, if another spa opens up across the street with a more liberal access policy, and it attracts a lot of business, then the people have spoken regarding their comfort level; if that business fails, they will have as well.
i would suspect that the business with the stricter definition will be more successful due to the nature of the service, and i don't hold that truth against anybody. trans people have an obligation to respect certain boundaries. she should back off on this.
further, this is access to a spa. it's just about the definition of non-essential. and, i do not believe that a court in canada would argue it has jurisdiction to interfere.
if this upsets you, you have the right to start your own spa with different rules, but i don't think you have the right to tell this business owner how to run hers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/body-blitz-transgender-policy-1.4158397
this is kind of a naive article. harper left a lot of vacant spaces for his successor to fill, but he could very well have stacked the court - at the lower level. the reason that harper had a bunch of liberals to promote was that it was what years of liberal dominance left him with.
it is true that we don't have the politicized judicial system here that we might have, but it is a function of the way the system works rather than an aspect of the system itself. we can imagine scenarios where this would happen.
trudeau is, in fact, going to have to steer around the harper appointees at the lower level. or, at least you would think that he would. unfortunately, i actually suspect that trudeau will end up preferring harper's appointees over those of his liberal predecessors, as he is ideologically closer to harper than he is to them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stacking-the-supreme-court-1.4157799
it is true that we don't have the politicized judicial system here that we might have, but it is a function of the way the system works rather than an aspect of the system itself. we can imagine scenarios where this would happen.
trudeau is, in fact, going to have to steer around the harper appointees at the lower level. or, at least you would think that he would. unfortunately, i actually suspect that trudeau will end up preferring harper's appointees over those of his liberal predecessors, as he is ideologically closer to harper than he is to them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stacking-the-supreme-court-1.4157799
this is a non-starter, it can't happen, and he should immediately ask them to resign.
i won't even analyse the proposal, because it's impossible.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andre-pratte-infrastructure-bank-split-1.4158429
i won't even analyse the proposal, because it's impossible.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andre-pratte-infrastructure-bank-split-1.4158429
i'm not the first person that's put together a comparison between the naive pro-communist protestors of the previous generation and the naive pro-islam protestors of the current one.
bin-saud! bin-saud! binsaud! binsaud! binsaud! binsaud!
"take a holiday in arabia,
where you'll not kiss ass or get cracked..."
bin-saud.
bin-saud! bin-saud! binsaud! binsaud! binsaud! binsaud!
"take a holiday in arabia,
where you'll not kiss ass or get cracked..."
bin-saud.
so, the upper class white kids yelling down the christian preachers at the pro-muslim rally...
these kids are vulnerable, yes. but what you're really seeing is the racism of low expectations. the white christian preacher is held to a higher standard, while the primitive sand niggers should be left to their own: a principle of anthropological research, a prime directive. they do not know better. so, it is ok when they do it; they should not be disturbed in their capsule, or held to the standards of the more advanced society. leave their culture alone, it's existence justifies our own superiority.
that is privilege.
if they have the capability to understand this, they'll walk away on their own. if they don't, they're of no consequence, anyway.
these kids are vulnerable, yes. but what you're really seeing is the racism of low expectations. the white christian preacher is held to a higher standard, while the primitive sand niggers should be left to their own: a principle of anthropological research, a prime directive. they do not know better. so, it is ok when they do it; they should not be disturbed in their capsule, or held to the standards of the more advanced society. leave their culture alone, it's existence justifies our own superiority.
that is privilege.
if they have the capability to understand this, they'll walk away on their own. if they don't, they're of no consequence, anyway.
it wasn't just the slaves, though. i've gotten push back for talking about "communists" in the eighteenth century, and i half agree, but they certainly weren't liberals; they were peasants looking mostly for land reforms. i guess the difference between an african slave and a european serf at this point was sort of blurry, anyways. they had the same masters and the same goals, which is why the american elite had to invent racism to get them in conflict with each other.
the other reason there is a second amendment is that the elites thought it better to let the settlers kill each other in fits of passion than be controlled by a commander that would distribute arms in order to kill them. put another way, it was meant to prevent the monopolization of arms by revolutionary factions.
but, it was largely about controlling labour.
so, when you see these militia groups working with the cops, you should not be surprised. you do not need to conjure up imagery of brown shirts, or references to hitler. this is what america always was.
it is your visions of america as something different than this that need to be adjusted.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
the other reason there is a second amendment is that the elites thought it better to let the settlers kill each other in fits of passion than be controlled by a commander that would distribute arms in order to kill them. put another way, it was meant to prevent the monopolization of arms by revolutionary factions.
but, it was largely about controlling labour.
so, when you see these militia groups working with the cops, you should not be surprised. you do not need to conjure up imagery of brown shirts, or references to hitler. this is what america always was.
it is your visions of america as something different than this that need to be adjusted.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
so, are alcohol users more aggressive than marijuana users? that's floating around, right now. i may have perpetuated it myself a little, in musing that i hope that legalization converts some alcoholics into potheads, and pointing out the public health benefits. but, i actually think that legalization is likely to bust that myth.
to be clear: yes, alcohol is a more dangerous substance, if consumed excessively. marijuana doesn't produce blackouts, or damage reasoning skills the way that alcohol does. nor does it present the same kind of long term health problems.
but, ultimately, alcohol is a cns depressant. it's the stimulants - like cocaine - that pose the largest threats for violence. alcohol consumption is clearly tied to violence (correlation), but there's not really any good reason to tie alcohol use to violence (doesn't necessarily imply causation) the same way that there is to tie cocaine use to violence (it's a stimulant). so, what's going on here?
i think that what you're going to see come out of the legalization process is the deconstruction of this myth that alcohol users are more violent and marijuana users are less violent and the realization that alcohol is more often tied to violence for the simple reason that it is more readily available to violent people. your archetypal dumb jock can walk into a bar and pound a few, then look for somebody to fight. he doesn't need contacts or friends to find beer the same way that he does to find pot. once pot is as readily available to the archetypal dumb jock as alcohol, the rate of violence observed amongst marijuana users will no doubt find itself in alignment with that observed by alcohol users. long time users of both drugs in diverse situations will recognize this as obvious, because it was never the alcohol that made the dumb jock so dangerous in the first place. what makes the dumb jock dangerous is that he is dumb.
in the process, alcohol may experience somewhat of a revival in reputation.
i'm hard on alcohol, but i'm not shy to use it, because i know how to use it safely (despite the inaccurate claims of others). and, it can be used safely, nobody doubts this. see, a big part of this is my disposition, though. it should shock nobody to learn that i'm a passive drunk. but, it seems to be harder for people to understand that i'm a passive drunk because i'm opposed to violence when i'm sober. this shouldn't be hard to put together, but alcohol seems to have really taken a beating, lately.
i was at an underground party on saturday night and they were freely selling a substance that is supposed to be safer than alcohol. perhaps my eyes were lying to me. but, it seemed to me that the people that were only drinking were able to dance on their own with reasonable stamina, while the people inhaling this supposedly safer substance limped around looking like they had multiple sclerosis. i stopped and watched one guy for a good five or six minutes. he was clearly having the kind of motor difficulties that you would normally assign to somebody going through the advanced stages of dementia. i hope he didn't suffer permanent nerve damage.
my point is just that you need to look at context. you need to be careful with alcohol, especially if you are thin like i am: you need to consume it in small amounts over a long time, rather than all at once. but, it's not going to turn you into somebody that you aren't. once we have equal access to intoxication sources, we'll see those numbers even out and begin to realize that the root causes are underlying.
to be clear: yes, alcohol is a more dangerous substance, if consumed excessively. marijuana doesn't produce blackouts, or damage reasoning skills the way that alcohol does. nor does it present the same kind of long term health problems.
but, ultimately, alcohol is a cns depressant. it's the stimulants - like cocaine - that pose the largest threats for violence. alcohol consumption is clearly tied to violence (correlation), but there's not really any good reason to tie alcohol use to violence (doesn't necessarily imply causation) the same way that there is to tie cocaine use to violence (it's a stimulant). so, what's going on here?
i think that what you're going to see come out of the legalization process is the deconstruction of this myth that alcohol users are more violent and marijuana users are less violent and the realization that alcohol is more often tied to violence for the simple reason that it is more readily available to violent people. your archetypal dumb jock can walk into a bar and pound a few, then look for somebody to fight. he doesn't need contacts or friends to find beer the same way that he does to find pot. once pot is as readily available to the archetypal dumb jock as alcohol, the rate of violence observed amongst marijuana users will no doubt find itself in alignment with that observed by alcohol users. long time users of both drugs in diverse situations will recognize this as obvious, because it was never the alcohol that made the dumb jock so dangerous in the first place. what makes the dumb jock dangerous is that he is dumb.
in the process, alcohol may experience somewhat of a revival in reputation.
i'm hard on alcohol, but i'm not shy to use it, because i know how to use it safely (despite the inaccurate claims of others). and, it can be used safely, nobody doubts this. see, a big part of this is my disposition, though. it should shock nobody to learn that i'm a passive drunk. but, it seems to be harder for people to understand that i'm a passive drunk because i'm opposed to violence when i'm sober. this shouldn't be hard to put together, but alcohol seems to have really taken a beating, lately.
i was at an underground party on saturday night and they were freely selling a substance that is supposed to be safer than alcohol. perhaps my eyes were lying to me. but, it seemed to me that the people that were only drinking were able to dance on their own with reasonable stamina, while the people inhaling this supposedly safer substance limped around looking like they had multiple sclerosis. i stopped and watched one guy for a good five or six minutes. he was clearly having the kind of motor difficulties that you would normally assign to somebody going through the advanced stages of dementia. i hope he didn't suffer permanent nerve damage.
my point is just that you need to look at context. you need to be careful with alcohol, especially if you are thin like i am: you need to consume it in small amounts over a long time, rather than all at once. but, it's not going to turn you into somebody that you aren't. once we have equal access to intoxication sources, we'll see those numbers even out and begin to realize that the root causes are underlying.
Monday, June 12, 2017
the refugees have been burning shit all night, and it's...
i don't care what your mythology says. as far as i'm concerned, this is just unnecessary pollution, and it should be regulated by city anti-pollution, and anti-smoking, by-laws.
but, why should i have to call somebody to get an enforcement? why is it not obvious that if you're going to sit outside and create carcinogenic smoke all day then you should leave a residential area in order to do so? how does this evade a person's basic intuition?
or is the truth that they just don't give a fuck?
"muh religion!"
i'm going to forget about it for the night, but they can't keep doing this, either. the next time, i'll have to start off by going over and having a talk and asking them to either burn their shit inside or go to a public park.
but, the first thing i want to do is understand what they're actually doing, and why.
my initial guess was that they were celebrating the full moon. now, the full moon was on friday, but i know that their calendar is pre-modern, so it's going to generally be off by a day or two. so, i reasoned that they probably thought the full moon was tonight. but, i can't find any support for the idea that they'd burn incense on the full moon.
it's also nearing the end of ramadan, and while i can't find a religious significance for burning shit at the end of ramadan, it does appear to be a cultural thing, which just makes it that much less acceptable. if that's it, it's not even "muh religion". it's just "i'm breaking by-laws and stinking up the neighbourhood for no good reason.".
but, i found this while googling, and it made me chuckle. esophagus, trachea - same thing, right?
There is nothing wrong with a fasting person smelling good smells, from food, perfume etc, but he should not inhale bukhoor (incense) or the steam coming out of the cooking pot because these have particles which may reach his stomach.
i don't care what your mythology says. as far as i'm concerned, this is just unnecessary pollution, and it should be regulated by city anti-pollution, and anti-smoking, by-laws.
but, why should i have to call somebody to get an enforcement? why is it not obvious that if you're going to sit outside and create carcinogenic smoke all day then you should leave a residential area in order to do so? how does this evade a person's basic intuition?
or is the truth that they just don't give a fuck?
"muh religion!"
i'm going to forget about it for the night, but they can't keep doing this, either. the next time, i'll have to start off by going over and having a talk and asking them to either burn their shit inside or go to a public park.
but, the first thing i want to do is understand what they're actually doing, and why.
my initial guess was that they were celebrating the full moon. now, the full moon was on friday, but i know that their calendar is pre-modern, so it's going to generally be off by a day or two. so, i reasoned that they probably thought the full moon was tonight. but, i can't find any support for the idea that they'd burn incense on the full moon.
it's also nearing the end of ramadan, and while i can't find a religious significance for burning shit at the end of ramadan, it does appear to be a cultural thing, which just makes it that much less acceptable. if that's it, it's not even "muh religion". it's just "i'm breaking by-laws and stinking up the neighbourhood for no good reason.".
but, i found this while googling, and it made me chuckle. esophagus, trachea - same thing, right?
There is nothing wrong with a fasting person smelling good smells, from food, perfume etc, but he should not inhale bukhoor (incense) or the steam coming out of the cooking pot because these have particles which may reach his stomach.
again: bill casey sat as a conservative for a really long time. he had a fight with the previous government. the liberals saw an opportunity to take the seat, as he was more popular in the riding than the prime minister. but, it's just another example of how the conservatives have taken over the most important positions in the liberal party.
the future of marijuana legalization in canada has been put in the hands of a 72 year-old conservative. nobody should be surprised if it gets bogged down in committee, as he is claiming.
http://dankr.ca/news/standing-committee-health-preparing-discuss-bill-c-45-cannabis-act
the future of marijuana legalization in canada has been put in the hands of a 72 year-old conservative. nobody should be surprised if it gets bogged down in committee, as he is claiming.
http://dankr.ca/news/standing-committee-health-preparing-discuss-bill-c-45-cannabis-act
i like the insight into the economic backwardsness that seems so strongly correlated with the baby boomer generation.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/08/taxation-government-spending-the-national-debt-and-mmt.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/08/taxation-government-spending-the-national-debt-and-mmt.html
Sunday, June 11, 2017
i just want to point something out about what mmt advocates and other broadly new left, keynesian type economic advocates don't argue for in order to clarify a point.
keynesians have a reputation for supporting "tax and spend" economic positions, which are supposed to be opposed by free market advocates. so, what is this about mmt supporting the abolition of taxes? it's a caricature created by this army of zombie followers that mmt has developed, because they think it gives them an academic argument to just let the printing press run forever. i don't have this research, but i'd strongly suspect that your average mmt cheerleader is somebody who spent a large amount of their childhood being told that they can't have things due to the existence of artificial financial restraints imposed by parents who thought they were teaching them "values". i'm not talking about poor kids. i'm talking about parents that had means and denied it to their kids in order to "build character". this kind of parenting always fails. and, what happened to these kids? they became these mmt zombies, convinced that we can have everything in exchange for nothing...
if the government can create as much money as it wants, what do we need taxes for? and, yeah: mmt does make this argument, so long as it's at the federal level. but, it also argues that adjusting tax rates is a useful way to stimulate the economy, or to slow it down. i think the evidence does uphold this, but only on the condition that it is targeted. so, a policy of adjusting tax rates to stop or start the economy should be geared mostly at the middle class, not at the rich. this isn't a free market position, it's a realist position around the value of fiat money: yeah, we can just print it at will in order to pay for stuff. sure. so, if your concern is around spending, there's no reason at all to think you need to collect the money in order to spend it - and if your argument is that taxes need to be high in order to pay for spending, or that we cannot increase spending without increasing taxes, then that argument is invalid.
but, even that is not an argument for the total abolition of taxes. it is at best an argument for the abolition of federal taxes. while it is theoretically possible that the federal government could oversee all spending in the country, that it is not the way that any modern country works. existing, real-life countries mostly fund social services out of money that is taxed at the state/provincial or municipal level. mmt does not in any way advocate for the abolition of these taxes. in fact, the left has historically seen property taxes as one of the most progressive types of taxation.
keynesians have a reputation for supporting "tax and spend" economic positions, which are supposed to be opposed by free market advocates. so, what is this about mmt supporting the abolition of taxes? it's a caricature created by this army of zombie followers that mmt has developed, because they think it gives them an academic argument to just let the printing press run forever. i don't have this research, but i'd strongly suspect that your average mmt cheerleader is somebody who spent a large amount of their childhood being told that they can't have things due to the existence of artificial financial restraints imposed by parents who thought they were teaching them "values". i'm not talking about poor kids. i'm talking about parents that had means and denied it to their kids in order to "build character". this kind of parenting always fails. and, what happened to these kids? they became these mmt zombies, convinced that we can have everything in exchange for nothing...
if the government can create as much money as it wants, what do we need taxes for? and, yeah: mmt does make this argument, so long as it's at the federal level. but, it also argues that adjusting tax rates is a useful way to stimulate the economy, or to slow it down. i think the evidence does uphold this, but only on the condition that it is targeted. so, a policy of adjusting tax rates to stop or start the economy should be geared mostly at the middle class, not at the rich. this isn't a free market position, it's a realist position around the value of fiat money: yeah, we can just print it at will in order to pay for stuff. sure. so, if your concern is around spending, there's no reason at all to think you need to collect the money in order to spend it - and if your argument is that taxes need to be high in order to pay for spending, or that we cannot increase spending without increasing taxes, then that argument is invalid.
but, even that is not an argument for the total abolition of taxes. it is at best an argument for the abolition of federal taxes. while it is theoretically possible that the federal government could oversee all spending in the country, that it is not the way that any modern country works. existing, real-life countries mostly fund social services out of money that is taxed at the state/provincial or municipal level. mmt does not in any way advocate for the abolition of these taxes. in fact, the left has historically seen property taxes as one of the most progressive types of taxation.
the narrative that john mccain is senile is actually intended to protect
him from more direct criticism. his intent was transparently to carry
out a bait and switch, to make it seem like comey is biased towards the
democrats and that the investigation consequently carries no value.
now, it may be the case that mccain has lost a few steps, sure; if you
are informed, you need to do some mental gymnastics, sure, but if
you're not informed, or perhaps don't know much about the process, you
could conceivably be confused by the obfuscation. the thing is that this
is so transparent relative to the reality that it exposes mccain as
hopelessly and unworkably dishonest. so, you should not give him a pass
on this - you should call him out for his malicious level of dishonesty,
rather than pretend he doesn't know what he's doing.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
as these incidents build, it's becoming more and more obvious - beyond dispute - that when "russian hackers" are blamed, the real perpetrators are always in the united states intelligence appratus - cia, fbi, nsa, etc.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-07/russian-hacking-in-qatar-and-putin-s-ambitions
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-07/russian-hacking-in-qatar-and-putin-s-ambitions
the qataris just rejected an invitation to meet with trump.
you should jump to conclusions.
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201706091054466060-russia-qatar-talks-issues/
you should jump to conclusions.
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201706091054466060-russia-qatar-talks-issues/
Friday, June 9, 2017
america...
you need to have an advisor with the president at all times. you can't let him go and talk to the saudis - or the israelis or the russians - by himself. there has to be somebody there to help him.
yeah, well, i didn't vote for him.
get some funding passed for primary education, for fuck's sake.
you need to have an advisor with the president at all times. you can't let him go and talk to the saudis - or the israelis or the russians - by himself. there has to be somebody there to help him.
yeah, well, i didn't vote for him.
get some funding passed for primary education, for fuck's sake.
see, this was my initial intuition. after so many years of multidimensional chess - itself often overanalysed - analysts want to come up with some kind of plan.
i don't think there's any evidence for this, or at least not on the us side. everybody else has an agenda. for trump, i think it's as simple as the article presents it.
trump wanted to know who was funding extremists. the saudis told him the qataris are. he believed them. so, they tricked him into isolating the qataris. then, when he got home, he was told they weren't honest and he's changing his mind.
...because trump is not a ruthless dictator. he's a hapless fool.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/trump-may-not-have-known-us-has-11000-troops-in-qatar-when-he-bashed-country-on-twitter-report/
i don't think there's any evidence for this, or at least not on the us side. everybody else has an agenda. for trump, i think it's as simple as the article presents it.
trump wanted to know who was funding extremists. the saudis told him the qataris are. he believed them. so, they tricked him into isolating the qataris. then, when he got home, he was told they weren't honest and he's changing his mind.
...because trump is not a ruthless dictator. he's a hapless fool.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/trump-may-not-have-known-us-has-11000-troops-in-qatar-when-he-bashed-country-on-twitter-report/
they're at -14 and it's looking like it's going to be more like -20 by the end of the night.
the sinn fein seats do not exist, as they will not sit in parliament - unless corbyn can convince them to, which is highly unlikely. that's 7.
so, they need to get to -22 before they can consider voting in corbyn as prime minister. that would be a labour government with support from the scottish & welsh parties (which i think is proper...and would think an irish party would be proper, too, if they wanted to be in the uk in the first place), as well as the lib dems and one wayward irish unionist mp that leans left.
-22.
i actually think it's going to happen.
anything between -15 and -22 will give the lib dems the balance of power, unless corbyn can convince sinn fein to sit.
the sinn fein seats do not exist, as they will not sit in parliament - unless corbyn can convince them to, which is highly unlikely. that's 7.
so, they need to get to -22 before they can consider voting in corbyn as prime minister. that would be a labour government with support from the scottish & welsh parties (which i think is proper...and would think an irish party would be proper, too, if they wanted to be in the uk in the first place), as well as the lib dems and one wayward irish unionist mp that leans left.
-22.
i actually think it's going to happen.
anything between -15 and -22 will give the lib dems the balance of power, unless corbyn can convince sinn fein to sit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)