i hadn't really looked into this before.
i guess it's what you'd have to expect, really: alcohol damages your ability to take information out of ram and store it to your drive. so, you lose the session. and you eventually crash.
it's a reminder that memories aren't mysterious, metaphysical abstractions, but energy stored in chemical bonds. and that we are machines...we really are...
https://www.livescience.com/14952-alcohol-blackouts.html
Sunday, May 6, 2018
ford can say what he wants, but the reality is that the members of the party did actually just vote for her. and, the self-defeating attitude towards muslims (most of whom are conservatives.) aside, she's a far better representative of the future of conservatism in canada than he is.
the conservatives will say something about her being a distraction. that is tactically wrong: she's what the party needs to rev up it's base.
i might rather suggest that ford, or his handlers, were more concerned about the likelihood of her trying to remove ford essentially immediately. she's got palace intrigue written all over her.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4189784/tanya-granic-allen-doug-ford-ontario-pc/
the conservatives will say something about her being a distraction. that is tactically wrong: she's what the party needs to rev up it's base.
i might rather suggest that ford, or his handlers, were more concerned about the likelihood of her trying to remove ford essentially immediately. she's got palace intrigue written all over her.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4189784/tanya-granic-allen-doug-ford-ontario-pc/
i'll say something about detroit, though.
for such a large city, the various scenes are very small. maybe it's a reflection on the broader demographics; there's millions of people here, but it's the same few dozen people at all the psych concerts, the same few dozen people at all the goth clubs, the same few dozen people in the techno scene...
i listen to lots of types of music, so i get around. lots of very diverse people are going to recognize me. and the city seems a lot smaller than it is.
even in ottawa, a much smaller city, i'd go out to the same couple of bars all of the time and meet all kinds of different people; in detroit you can go to five different bars on five different nights and get the same group of people collectively bar-hopping for the bands.
and, i guess that's why so many places seem so empty when you don't go to the right party. if all the psych kids are at bar x, bar y could literally be empty - because there doesn't seem to be enough concert goers or general bar patrons to accommodate them both.
it's not too many bars. it's really not. not for the population, here.
it's just kind of a sleepy town in a lot of ways.
for such a large city, the various scenes are very small. maybe it's a reflection on the broader demographics; there's millions of people here, but it's the same few dozen people at all the psych concerts, the same few dozen people at all the goth clubs, the same few dozen people in the techno scene...
i listen to lots of types of music, so i get around. lots of very diverse people are going to recognize me. and the city seems a lot smaller than it is.
even in ottawa, a much smaller city, i'd go out to the same couple of bars all of the time and meet all kinds of different people; in detroit you can go to five different bars on five different nights and get the same group of people collectively bar-hopping for the bands.
and, i guess that's why so many places seem so empty when you don't go to the right party. if all the psych kids are at bar x, bar y could literally be empty - because there doesn't seem to be enough concert goers or general bar patrons to accommodate them both.
it's not too many bars. it's really not. not for the population, here.
it's just kind of a sleepy town in a lot of ways.
i think i remember unlocking my bike, driving past small's (which is where i left my bike to go to the after hours place) & driving past ant hall.
i may have walked the bike at points.
it's blurry.
like i say: the only other possibility is that somebody put the bike in the back of a truck, and i don't remember that at all.
i don't know who drove me back to the bicycle, but i guess that was the person that owned the sweater.
i may have walked the bike at points.
it's blurry.
like i say: the only other possibility is that somebody put the bike in the back of a truck, and i don't remember that at all.
i don't know who drove me back to the bicycle, but i guess that was the person that owned the sweater.
so, was i drunk last night?
yes.
i'll own that.
see, and you have to get this: i'm very honest. i'm admitting i was drunk last night, because i was; i'm not admitting to it on other nights, because i wasn't.
i didn't intend to go where i went, i kind of got redirected, perhaps even "picked up", and i ended up drinking something much stronger than i normally would. i normally drink beer all night, and especially after 2:00; i know i can't handle hard alcohol after hours, so the outcome was actually predictable. why would i drink it, then? because it's what was there, and i wasn't feeling drunk when i started. and it tasted good. it snuck up on me, kind of thing. but, as mentioned, a more sober analysis would have understood the idea as a bad one from the start.
i don't have any reason to think i passed out and it implicitly almost seems impossible through a little deductive reasoning around my bicycle; i think this was a classic black out, not a drunken collapse. so, i don't think i was drugged. i may have even been babysat. i'm not missing cash or items. and, i do have some blurry recollection of the night: walking past slot machines, watching somebody play pool, talking to a bouncer...
it gets blurry around 3:30. but, it's a lengthy bike ride from hamtramck to midtown, and the staff told me i came in after 6:00, so it makes sense to think i was at the bar until around 5:00, hopped a lift back to where my bicycle was and then biked to the diner. in trying to remember the bike ride, i'm producing unreliable memories: i think i remember certain things, but i might be filling in holes through projection, and imagining the memories instead. like i say, it's blurry but i think i was conscious the whole night. but i remember ordering at the diner, and i remember trying to stay awake while eating it.
my bicycle was locked outside the diner, so i must have driven it there. i guess the other possibility is that somebody drove it there.
the staff said i came in by myself, but there was a bag beside me that didn't belong to me and i was wearing a sweater that wasn't mine, either. the thing is that i had a sweater locked up at my bike, so i must have been given the sweater at the bar. i think it was warm in there, though. so, this is a part of the night that i'd maybe like to understand better: why was i wearing somebody else's sweater?
the only other anomaly was that my makeup was a little more worn than normal, suggesting i either sweat a lot somewhere or maybe washed it off.
i don't have any stains on my shirt or on my clothes, so i'm confident i didn't spill anything. that might have been a reason for a sweater, but no. that's actually unusual; on a normal night out, i inevitably spill something on me. however, i may have dipped my hair in a drink, as there's a little bit of stickiness at the tip of it.
no bruises, cuts or lacerations.
no visible signs of entry, if you get what i'm saying.
so, it may not have even been obvious that i was that drunk. how's that for ironic.
yes.
i'll own that.
see, and you have to get this: i'm very honest. i'm admitting i was drunk last night, because i was; i'm not admitting to it on other nights, because i wasn't.
i didn't intend to go where i went, i kind of got redirected, perhaps even "picked up", and i ended up drinking something much stronger than i normally would. i normally drink beer all night, and especially after 2:00; i know i can't handle hard alcohol after hours, so the outcome was actually predictable. why would i drink it, then? because it's what was there, and i wasn't feeling drunk when i started. and it tasted good. it snuck up on me, kind of thing. but, as mentioned, a more sober analysis would have understood the idea as a bad one from the start.
i don't have any reason to think i passed out and it implicitly almost seems impossible through a little deductive reasoning around my bicycle; i think this was a classic black out, not a drunken collapse. so, i don't think i was drugged. i may have even been babysat. i'm not missing cash or items. and, i do have some blurry recollection of the night: walking past slot machines, watching somebody play pool, talking to a bouncer...
it gets blurry around 3:30. but, it's a lengthy bike ride from hamtramck to midtown, and the staff told me i came in after 6:00, so it makes sense to think i was at the bar until around 5:00, hopped a lift back to where my bicycle was and then biked to the diner. in trying to remember the bike ride, i'm producing unreliable memories: i think i remember certain things, but i might be filling in holes through projection, and imagining the memories instead. like i say, it's blurry but i think i was conscious the whole night. but i remember ordering at the diner, and i remember trying to stay awake while eating it.
my bicycle was locked outside the diner, so i must have driven it there. i guess the other possibility is that somebody drove it there.
the staff said i came in by myself, but there was a bag beside me that didn't belong to me and i was wearing a sweater that wasn't mine, either. the thing is that i had a sweater locked up at my bike, so i must have been given the sweater at the bar. i think it was warm in there, though. so, this is a part of the night that i'd maybe like to understand better: why was i wearing somebody else's sweater?
the only other anomaly was that my makeup was a little more worn than normal, suggesting i either sweat a lot somewhere or maybe washed it off.
i don't have any stains on my shirt or on my clothes, so i'm confident i didn't spill anything. that might have been a reason for a sweater, but no. that's actually unusual; on a normal night out, i inevitably spill something on me. however, i may have dipped my hair in a drink, as there's a little bit of stickiness at the tip of it.
no bruises, cuts or lacerations.
no visible signs of entry, if you get what i'm saying.
so, it may not have even been obvious that i was that drunk. how's that for ironic.
but, this discussion is built on a false narrative. we start off by supposing that hillary clinton took the high road, and cite obama as evidence (?), then argue that she lost because she wasn't nasty enough.
but, this is ridiculous. in fact, clinton made every attempt that she possibly could to avoid talking about anything of substance, instead focusing almost entirely on trump's personality. one of the first things she did was attack her own potential voting base, calling them 'deplorables', and this set the tone for her own campaign, which was based on trying to find a smear against her opponent that would stick (and getting frustrated when it failed). and, she was just as nasty with bernie, too. and obama.
the miniscule bit of policy she produced was largely ignored because you couldn't believe a word out of her mouth, anyways.
further, many observers have tied these things together and suggested that her total vacuum of actual policy is what had her lose states like michigan, where trump's views on nafta managed to peel off votes by providing a substantive alternative.
i'm not sure if it was decisive, but it no doubt contributed to the loss. and, so, the proper lesson to learn from the last american election is not that clinton lost because she took the high road, but that she lost because she didn't.
i think that so long as wynne says things that are actually true, accusations of 'negative campaigning' are likely to ring hollow. it's not the tone that turns people off, it's the dishonesty you see in a lot of attacks. so, these discussions should really be about dishonesty, rather than tone.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/rhetoric-of-the-ontario-election-go-high/
but, this is ridiculous. in fact, clinton made every attempt that she possibly could to avoid talking about anything of substance, instead focusing almost entirely on trump's personality. one of the first things she did was attack her own potential voting base, calling them 'deplorables', and this set the tone for her own campaign, which was based on trying to find a smear against her opponent that would stick (and getting frustrated when it failed). and, she was just as nasty with bernie, too. and obama.
the miniscule bit of policy she produced was largely ignored because you couldn't believe a word out of her mouth, anyways.
further, many observers have tied these things together and suggested that her total vacuum of actual policy is what had her lose states like michigan, where trump's views on nafta managed to peel off votes by providing a substantive alternative.
i'm not sure if it was decisive, but it no doubt contributed to the loss. and, so, the proper lesson to learn from the last american election is not that clinton lost because she took the high road, but that she lost because she didn't.
i think that so long as wynne says things that are actually true, accusations of 'negative campaigning' are likely to ring hollow. it's not the tone that turns people off, it's the dishonesty you see in a lot of attacks. so, these discussions should really be about dishonesty, rather than tone.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/rhetoric-of-the-ontario-election-go-high/
i'm wrong all the time.
but, not when it comes to the greeks.
as an anarchist, a mathematician, a musician and a pseudo-philosopher, the greeks are a little special to me.
of the modes & the pre-socratics, behold: the ionians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia
but, not when it comes to the greeks.
as an anarchist, a mathematician, a musician and a pseudo-philosopher, the greeks are a little special to me.
of the modes & the pre-socratics, behold: the ionians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia
Saturday, May 5, 2018
so,
1) i don't believe in charity. that is, i don't believe that the right approach to addressing poverty is to hand out funds on the street, nor to throw change at people or to force them to go into a religious establishment. this is degrading, all around; it reinforces a class structure. what i do in canada when i run into pushy poor people on the street is that i initiate a conversation about the ontario disability support program. i apologize if it harms your conception of human nature, but this generally produces the honest response that they don't give to most people: paying rent means less money for drugs. they'll get higher on the street. if what they were saying was actually true, they'd do what i've done: get a diagnosis from a doctor and a check from the government every month. i understand that even getting access to a doctor is difficult in michigan, but it doesn't change my moral beliefs around the subject, which are that everybody is entitled to an amount of resources that ensures they don't have to beg on the street.
2) even if i did believe in charity, i have to reinforce the fact that i'm a recipient of it, not a producer of it. it doesn't make sense to ask people on welfare or disability to give their money to homeless people. and, i apologize if you're confused about my financial situation, but that's not my fault, either.
3) i don't enjoy pamphleteering, and i'm not really good with people face-to-face. but, if i can be of any service in arguing for an expansion of social services in detroit or in michigan through the process of essay writing or message board rhetoric, i'm willing to take requests. if i haven't just done that.
1) i don't believe in charity. that is, i don't believe that the right approach to addressing poverty is to hand out funds on the street, nor to throw change at people or to force them to go into a religious establishment. this is degrading, all around; it reinforces a class structure. what i do in canada when i run into pushy poor people on the street is that i initiate a conversation about the ontario disability support program. i apologize if it harms your conception of human nature, but this generally produces the honest response that they don't give to most people: paying rent means less money for drugs. they'll get higher on the street. if what they were saying was actually true, they'd do what i've done: get a diagnosis from a doctor and a check from the government every month. i understand that even getting access to a doctor is difficult in michigan, but it doesn't change my moral beliefs around the subject, which are that everybody is entitled to an amount of resources that ensures they don't have to beg on the street.
2) even if i did believe in charity, i have to reinforce the fact that i'm a recipient of it, not a producer of it. it doesn't make sense to ask people on welfare or disability to give their money to homeless people. and, i apologize if you're confused about my financial situation, but that's not my fault, either.
3) i don't enjoy pamphleteering, and i'm not really good with people face-to-face. but, if i can be of any service in arguing for an expansion of social services in detroit or in michigan through the process of essay writing or message board rhetoric, i'm willing to take requests. if i haven't just done that.
so, a woman in detroit approaches me and asks me for money. an old story.
i'm not going to quantify the likeliness of any specific human misery occurring under the decline of capitalism in detroit, as i'm sure any horrible story you can imagine has a reality to it somewhere, any horror you can imagine has no doubt been experienced, but this particularly story struck me as embellished, to say the least.
i had enough money to get into an after hours somewhere (although the one i found didn't appear to be letting people in - there seemed to be people coming out, but not in, meaning it probably wasn't an after hours) and get something to eat. and, i can't risk getting stranded in a foreign country without any change. i can't access a bank machine in detroit. i don't have a credit card. if my bicycle were to break, for example, i might need to call a cab.
the bicycle. which i paid $30 usd for to leave locked up in detroit, and is now rusted over relatively badly; the fact that i owned this bike seemed to be some kind of argument that i should give her a proportion of the $30 i had in my pocket until i could get home.
i'm not insensitive to the situation. i understand that detroit has high poverty rates, and i don't think people should live in poverty. but, america cannot be looking to canadians on disability to reverse it's poverty rates, regardless of false perceptions around the cost of the bicycle they're driving.
i've run into this before, and i don't fully understand it. i don't project myself as an affluent person. so, why am i so often misinterpreted as one?
i understand that these con artists work people like this, but i was actually kind of taken aback by it, because while i don't have a sob story, i am not much better off than her in gross financial terms.
detroit has a problem with it's taxation system, and it's creating a lot of unnecessary hardship. but, if i am of any use in reversing this, it's in helping organize a resistance and counter movement, not in sending it money that i don't have.
and, on a moral level i don't think this responsibility falls to individual citizens, either, i think it is something that should be socialized and ultimately dealt with through the redirection of resources. the process of begging should never happen, because the society should be designed to ensure people have access to resources. i reject the idea of charity; i'm an anarchist, this is quite normal. and, any disdain about the situation needs to be directed to the economic system that allows such a situation to happen.
i am lucky to be born here. but, i'm not lucky enough to be able to start handing out cash to strangers.
sorry.
i'm not going to quantify the likeliness of any specific human misery occurring under the decline of capitalism in detroit, as i'm sure any horrible story you can imagine has a reality to it somewhere, any horror you can imagine has no doubt been experienced, but this particularly story struck me as embellished, to say the least.
i had enough money to get into an after hours somewhere (although the one i found didn't appear to be letting people in - there seemed to be people coming out, but not in, meaning it probably wasn't an after hours) and get something to eat. and, i can't risk getting stranded in a foreign country without any change. i can't access a bank machine in detroit. i don't have a credit card. if my bicycle were to break, for example, i might need to call a cab.
the bicycle. which i paid $30 usd for to leave locked up in detroit, and is now rusted over relatively badly; the fact that i owned this bike seemed to be some kind of argument that i should give her a proportion of the $30 i had in my pocket until i could get home.
i'm not insensitive to the situation. i understand that detroit has high poverty rates, and i don't think people should live in poverty. but, america cannot be looking to canadians on disability to reverse it's poverty rates, regardless of false perceptions around the cost of the bicycle they're driving.
i've run into this before, and i don't fully understand it. i don't project myself as an affluent person. so, why am i so often misinterpreted as one?
i understand that these con artists work people like this, but i was actually kind of taken aback by it, because while i don't have a sob story, i am not much better off than her in gross financial terms.
detroit has a problem with it's taxation system, and it's creating a lot of unnecessary hardship. but, if i am of any use in reversing this, it's in helping organize a resistance and counter movement, not in sending it money that i don't have.
and, on a moral level i don't think this responsibility falls to individual citizens, either, i think it is something that should be socialized and ultimately dealt with through the redirection of resources. the process of begging should never happen, because the society should be designed to ensure people have access to resources. i reject the idea of charity; i'm an anarchist, this is quite normal. and, any disdain about the situation needs to be directed to the economic system that allows such a situation to happen.
i am lucky to be born here. but, i'm not lucky enough to be able to start handing out cash to strangers.
sorry.
Friday, May 4, 2018
on the flip side of it, there's always going to be some chance this woman could have a heart attack or move out or get hit by a train or something over the next couple of months.
i guess the later court date makes the potential of working with management more plausible.
but, i really don't want to stay here any more, either. everybody on this street is a drunk and an addict. i want to get into a more stable atmosphere that's more conducive of healthy living.
i don't fit in here...
i guess the later court date makes the potential of working with management more plausible.
but, i really don't want to stay here any more, either. everybody on this street is a drunk and an addict. i want to get into a more stable atmosphere that's more conducive of healthy living.
i don't fit in here...
my hearing is on july 5th, which is a major problem.
i mailed the forms on april 20th, expecting a hearing date some time at the end of may. that would give me a ruling in june, allow me to give last month's rent for july and move at the beginning of august.
i picked this timeline because the rental market is generally better for low-rent tenants in the summer. i'm competing with students.
if i cannot get the hearing until july, i am going to want to apply last month's rent to september and move on october 1st - the worst time of the year for moving.
and, i will no doubt end up in the same mess.
also, i really wanted to be out of this place before a recreational legalization date is set, as i don't want to be around these people past that date.
ugh.
i'm going to have to call them and see if i can get it moved up...
i mailed the forms on april 20th, expecting a hearing date some time at the end of may. that would give me a ruling in june, allow me to give last month's rent for july and move at the beginning of august.
i picked this timeline because the rental market is generally better for low-rent tenants in the summer. i'm competing with students.
if i cannot get the hearing until july, i am going to want to apply last month's rent to september and move on october 1st - the worst time of the year for moving.
and, i will no doubt end up in the same mess.
also, i really wanted to be out of this place before a recreational legalization date is set, as i don't want to be around these people past that date.
ugh.
i'm going to have to call them and see if i can get it moved up...
i think i've been pretty clear that what i advocate is a return to the pearsonian points system, which was a system that put a number of barriers to immigration in place, including the ability to speak the official languages (english & french) as well as a focus on educational attainment.
it sounds like ann coulter on the surface, and it actually isn't that different on paper. the difference is that the pearsonian system was designed to be "colour blind" (that is to eliminate race as a characteristic in determining immigration), while ann coulter wants to use it as a means to restrict entry. context is important, sometimes.
i'm not opposed to allowing immigration from muslim-majority countries amongst people who are atheists, or non-practicing muslims. it's a specific aversion to religion, that extends equally to christianity.
there was an ad about the niqab that said "we care what's in her head, not on it". exactly - but i'm going to twist this around, a little. it's what is in the hearts of muslims that concerns me more than what's in their heads.
the idea is that if you weed them out by education, you screen out the crazies, without having to ask them values questions - which are difficult on a number of levels. degrees are proof of an ability to think, which is most important.
i don't attach any value to tolerating the intolerance embedded within these religious systems of thought, or consider the acceptance of hateful ideologies like islam or christianity to be "diversity".
now, somebody like sam harris will tell me that that's not going to work, but i think he's wrong. i do have quite a bit of faith in our assimilation machine, and do expect most of the kids to accept western ideals, eventually, regardless. it's more a question of harm reduction.
so, i don't align with any of the parties on this. the conservatives say one thing and do another, and i neither like what they say nor what they do. trudeau has adopted traditionally ndp positions on this, while picking up on mulroney's gerry-mandering strategy (which is incoherent) - he's too open. that's actually left a hole in the middle, which is where most canadians exist.
i'd literally just like to see them revert back to the old system. as mentioned: it was designed to uphold objective criteria, in order to make the system "colour blind". it was empirical. scientific. coldly rational.
all the things i like.
we're not going to be overrun by hordes tomorrow. but, we need a course correction.
it sounds like ann coulter on the surface, and it actually isn't that different on paper. the difference is that the pearsonian system was designed to be "colour blind" (that is to eliminate race as a characteristic in determining immigration), while ann coulter wants to use it as a means to restrict entry. context is important, sometimes.
i'm not opposed to allowing immigration from muslim-majority countries amongst people who are atheists, or non-practicing muslims. it's a specific aversion to religion, that extends equally to christianity.
there was an ad about the niqab that said "we care what's in her head, not on it". exactly - but i'm going to twist this around, a little. it's what is in the hearts of muslims that concerns me more than what's in their heads.
the idea is that if you weed them out by education, you screen out the crazies, without having to ask them values questions - which are difficult on a number of levels. degrees are proof of an ability to think, which is most important.
i don't attach any value to tolerating the intolerance embedded within these religious systems of thought, or consider the acceptance of hateful ideologies like islam or christianity to be "diversity".
now, somebody like sam harris will tell me that that's not going to work, but i think he's wrong. i do have quite a bit of faith in our assimilation machine, and do expect most of the kids to accept western ideals, eventually, regardless. it's more a question of harm reduction.
so, i don't align with any of the parties on this. the conservatives say one thing and do another, and i neither like what they say nor what they do. trudeau has adopted traditionally ndp positions on this, while picking up on mulroney's gerry-mandering strategy (which is incoherent) - he's too open. that's actually left a hole in the middle, which is where most canadians exist.
i'd literally just like to see them revert back to the old system. as mentioned: it was designed to uphold objective criteria, in order to make the system "colour blind". it was empirical. scientific. coldly rational.
all the things i like.
we're not going to be overrun by hordes tomorrow. but, we need a course correction.
random example: i have two laptops on my coffee table.
one of them is a compaq evo from 2006 that has a broken video card and a 4gb of ram limit in it and is being sent out to a monitor (it's worthless.), and the other is a heavy duty compaq notebook from 1998 with 1 gb of ram and completely unserviceable parts.
i have a third laptop with a short in the system board.
you'd be lucky to get somebody to take this for free.
i have two pairs of speakers, both manufactured in the 1970s, and connected to receivers from the 1970s and the 1980s.
i have cathrode ray tube television set from the early 90s that i haven't plugged in since i moved in.
i have a jx-8p with no keys on it, and an ibanez strat copy with no electronics in it.
and, the components of my system that actually work are low end alesis units that i bought at the end of their life: a mixer that requires a firewire connection, an electronic drum kit that they stopped making in the 90s....
it's a bounty of wealth to me.
but, it's a pile of trash to the market.
one of them is a compaq evo from 2006 that has a broken video card and a 4gb of ram limit in it and is being sent out to a monitor (it's worthless.), and the other is a heavy duty compaq notebook from 1998 with 1 gb of ram and completely unserviceable parts.
i have a third laptop with a short in the system board.
you'd be lucky to get somebody to take this for free.
i have two pairs of speakers, both manufactured in the 1970s, and connected to receivers from the 1970s and the 1980s.
i have cathrode ray tube television set from the early 90s that i haven't plugged in since i moved in.
i have a jx-8p with no keys on it, and an ibanez strat copy with no electronics in it.
and, the components of my system that actually work are low end alesis units that i bought at the end of their life: a mixer that requires a firewire connection, an electronic drum kit that they stopped making in the 90s....
it's a bounty of wealth to me.
but, it's a pile of trash to the market.
fwiw, this apartment is full of broken and obsolete electronics that have virtually no resale value.
broken synthesizers, broken laptops, cheap guitars, a 15 year old pc with windows xp on it - it's not worth it.
the most valuable item in here is actually the couch.
i have no substantive income. i just buy a lot of things at pawn shops. it looks like a lot of expensive gear, but it isn't - it's a lot of hand me downs, a lot of legacy items bought on the cheap, stuff bought at pawn shops or garage sales and a lot of broken equipment waiting to be fixed.
you'd be lucky to get $500 from all of it, combined.
honestly.
the premise of a disabled person with an apartment full of expensive gear doesn't make sense; it doesn't make sense because it isn't true.
i'll point this out, though: you save a lot of money when you spend most of your life sober. you could no doubt buy some shiny things with all the money you literally burned away on drugs.
broken synthesizers, broken laptops, cheap guitars, a 15 year old pc with windows xp on it - it's not worth it.
the most valuable item in here is actually the couch.
i have no substantive income. i just buy a lot of things at pawn shops. it looks like a lot of expensive gear, but it isn't - it's a lot of hand me downs, a lot of legacy items bought on the cheap, stuff bought at pawn shops or garage sales and a lot of broken equipment waiting to be fixed.
you'd be lucky to get $500 from all of it, combined.
honestly.
the premise of a disabled person with an apartment full of expensive gear doesn't make sense; it doesn't make sense because it isn't true.
i'll point this out, though: you save a lot of money when you spend most of your life sober. you could no doubt buy some shiny things with all the money you literally burned away on drugs.
unlike you, i am a civilized and educated person that will use legal means to accomplish my goals, rather than intimidation and violence.
i did not intend to move into a drug-infested crack house.
but, i willingly concede that i don't fit in here, and am in the process of asking the court to get me out of the lease. you'll have to wait until this process completes before i can leave.
that said, your issue is with management, and not with me. i did not ask for a smoking ban, which is not legal to begin with. i asked for renovations in the unit below me, to ensure i had access to fresh air - a reasonable request in any conceivable context.
i should have been told about the nature of the building before i moved in; i would not have chosen this building had i known what it's like, here. again: this is negligence on behalf of management. and, you'll have to wait the situation out.
that said, i don't expect that the prohibition on smoking - which is not legal - will lift when i move, nor that i had anything to do with it, anyways. they were no doubt going to do this, anyways. it's a part of the new lease process, in effect on may 1st.
i might be an easy scapegoat, but you will regret any foolish behaviour. there are cameras in the building. and, there is only one suspect on this floor.
i will prosecute anybody involved to the full extent of the law.
i did not intend to move into a drug-infested crack house.
but, i willingly concede that i don't fit in here, and am in the process of asking the court to get me out of the lease. you'll have to wait until this process completes before i can leave.
that said, your issue is with management, and not with me. i did not ask for a smoking ban, which is not legal to begin with. i asked for renovations in the unit below me, to ensure i had access to fresh air - a reasonable request in any conceivable context.
i should have been told about the nature of the building before i moved in; i would not have chosen this building had i known what it's like, here. again: this is negligence on behalf of management. and, you'll have to wait the situation out.
that said, i don't expect that the prohibition on smoking - which is not legal - will lift when i move, nor that i had anything to do with it, anyways. they were no doubt going to do this, anyways. it's a part of the new lease process, in effect on may 1st.
i might be an easy scapegoat, but you will regret any foolish behaviour. there are cameras in the building. and, there is only one suspect on this floor.
i will prosecute anybody involved to the full extent of the law.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
i'm not an 'entertainer' and i've never wanted to be one, either.
i wouldn't have the slightest idea how to put together a concert, and i'd probably never get over the stage fright. the few times i've been on stage, i've tended to face away from the crowd. have you ever seen footage of robert fripp? i'm boring like that.
i don't have "charisma".
i don't enjoy being the centre of attention.
i'm a studio musician - a producer, a behind-the-scenes type. and, if i was ever going to play in a band, it would be in a supporting role, like a bassist or a keyboard player.
i've never imagined that i'm ever going to perform any of this material. it's always been intended as purely recorded music...
that said, there was a period when i considered going to a production school. i'm not sure if i regret not going, or not. i think i would have run into the same basic problem, in the end - i wouldn't have been interested in making other people's music, and i'd just have ended up with a lot of skills i was able to teach myself, anyways. i'd almost certainly be where i am today, anyways.
i don't have a barrier preventing me from dealing with people, so much as i have an actual disinterest in dealing with people - i don't want some cure to make me more social, i want supports to allow me to exist in my vacuum.
i wouldn't have the slightest idea how to put together a concert, and i'd probably never get over the stage fright. the few times i've been on stage, i've tended to face away from the crowd. have you ever seen footage of robert fripp? i'm boring like that.
i don't have "charisma".
i don't enjoy being the centre of attention.
i'm a studio musician - a producer, a behind-the-scenes type. and, if i was ever going to play in a band, it would be in a supporting role, like a bassist or a keyboard player.
i've never imagined that i'm ever going to perform any of this material. it's always been intended as purely recorded music...
that said, there was a period when i considered going to a production school. i'm not sure if i regret not going, or not. i think i would have run into the same basic problem, in the end - i wouldn't have been interested in making other people's music, and i'd just have ended up with a lot of skills i was able to teach myself, anyways. i'd almost certainly be where i am today, anyways.
i don't have a barrier preventing me from dealing with people, so much as i have an actual disinterest in dealing with people - i don't want some cure to make me more social, i want supports to allow me to exist in my vacuum.
erin weir's responsibility is to his constituents, not to the ndp politburo. so, if his constituents oppose a carbon tax, as they no doubt do, he has the responsibility to reflect that.
throwing him out of the party for his politics is one thing; making up some flimsy nonsense about sexual harassment is another.
three consequences:
1) it's just more evidence that this party has become very shady.
2) this is a reminder of what proportional representation would look like: you follow the orders at headquarters, and your constituents' voices don't matter.
3) the conservatives probably win the seat in the next election.
when people in your party dissent, you engage with them, you don't muzzle them and then purge them.
horrific mismanagement.
horrifically stupid mismanagement.
throwing him out of the party for his politics is one thing; making up some flimsy nonsense about sexual harassment is another.
three consequences:
1) it's just more evidence that this party has become very shady.
2) this is a reminder of what proportional representation would look like: you follow the orders at headquarters, and your constituents' voices don't matter.
3) the conservatives probably win the seat in the next election.
when people in your party dissent, you engage with them, you don't muzzle them and then purge them.
horrific mismanagement.
horrifically stupid mismanagement.
typical tory media idiocy - designed to emotionally manipulate you, rather than get to the facts of the situation.
yes, it's expensive.
but, the testing that's put in place isn't just designed to determine efficacy, it is also designed to determine safety, as well. we don't just not know that these drugs will help her; we don't know that they won't hurt her, either.
no doctor should be approving a drug that hasn't yet been deemed safe, or hasn't yet been deemed effective. and, this is really the point of failure, here: doctors pushing untested medication, and unrealistic expectations around that untested medication.
science is a slow, difficult process. but, the more important question isn't around coverage, it's around approval - and we simply can't be approving untested drugs until we're sure that they're safe.
wynne should not worry about this kind of anti-intellectualism in her own base. but, it's the kind of thing that destroys the ndp...
http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/braun-victoria-begs-for-her-life
yes, it's expensive.
but, the testing that's put in place isn't just designed to determine efficacy, it is also designed to determine safety, as well. we don't just not know that these drugs will help her; we don't know that they won't hurt her, either.
no doctor should be approving a drug that hasn't yet been deemed safe, or hasn't yet been deemed effective. and, this is really the point of failure, here: doctors pushing untested medication, and unrealistic expectations around that untested medication.
science is a slow, difficult process. but, the more important question isn't around coverage, it's around approval - and we simply can't be approving untested drugs until we're sure that they're safe.
wynne should not worry about this kind of anti-intellectualism in her own base. but, it's the kind of thing that destroys the ndp...
http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/braun-victoria-begs-for-her-life
well...
i was looking forward to the rain to get the woman next door off the porch.
but, it seems like that was all the woman downstairs needed to stay inside to blaze.
she coughed less when she went outside, too. now she's hacking again. secondhand smoke is terrible for you.
there's no future here. i'm going to have to start looking on monday.
i was looking forward to the rain to get the woman next door off the porch.
but, it seems like that was all the woman downstairs needed to stay inside to blaze.
she coughed less when she went outside, too. now she's hacking again. secondhand smoke is terrible for you.
there's no future here. i'm going to have to start looking on monday.
it's weird how we assign these magic properties to marijuana, isn't it?
if i told you that dandelion tea cured epilepsy, and shrugged when asked for evidence, you'd write me off as a snake oil salesperson and tell me to take a hike.
yet, we have these drastically different standards when we talk about marijuana - we're willing to assign it any magical property we can imagine, based on no evidence at all. and, normally intelligent people fall for it.
if i told you that dandelion tea cured epilepsy, and shrugged when asked for evidence, you'd write me off as a snake oil salesperson and tell me to take a hike.
yet, we have these drastically different standards when we talk about marijuana - we're willing to assign it any magical property we can imagine, based on no evidence at all. and, normally intelligent people fall for it.
but, there isn't any convincing science that demonstrates that marijuana has any effect on epilepsy, and that's the point. so, yes, they should go to the dispensary - and if they find that egregious then they should have the facts better explained to them.
these "doctors" should hand in their licenses - because this isn't an opinion, or a place where we are to be discussing opinions. if a doctor is to prescribe a medication, that medication needs clinical trials to demonstrate the value of doing so; otherwise, they are behaving negligently.
the correct legal term for the opinion that marijuana is a medicine is called negligence.
anybody convinced otherwise should get the trials running.
i'm skeptical, to say the least.
http://nationalpost.com/cannabis/medical-marijuana-producers-push-for-legitimacy-as-legalization-approaches
these "doctors" should hand in their licenses - because this isn't an opinion, or a place where we are to be discussing opinions. if a doctor is to prescribe a medication, that medication needs clinical trials to demonstrate the value of doing so; otherwise, they are behaving negligently.
the correct legal term for the opinion that marijuana is a medicine is called negligence.
anybody convinced otherwise should get the trials running.
i'm skeptical, to say the least.
http://nationalpost.com/cannabis/medical-marijuana-producers-push-for-legitimacy-as-legalization-approaches
am i going to waste my time commenting on the question of whether or not slavery is a choice?
well, what does that mean, exactly? does it mean that 51% of people made it a choice? does it mean that they made the choice free of duress? is this collective or individual?
and, i think that the difficulty of trying to figure out what the fuck it even means to ask whether slavery was a choice or not is indicative of the lack of thought put into the statement. that said, it also opens up a lot of space for careful thinking.
it's really not as insane as it appears on first glance; when they sent white people here, they often came under a concept of 'indentured servitude', which wasn't very different than slavery and was in fact some kind of a choice - perhaps not always a really free choice, but a choice between one kind of hardship and another. a serf tied to the land would have seen indentured servitude as an escape mechanism.
given that comparable systems of feudalism and slavery did exist in africa, i think the kneejerk reaction is actually fairly historically ignorant. it seems to be rooted in the idea that white people showed up in africa with fishing nets and just rounded up all the noble savages like they were bananas; this is of course patently absurd. this does nothing to deny the brutality of the whole thing, and the fact that so many people died in transit is worth pointing out. but, the buying and selling of humans in africa generally happened with some kind of negotiation process around people that were already enslaved. how many africans sold themselves into slavery in africa, with the understanding of what that meant in africa, only to be sold to american or arabic slave traders, and transited to strange lands against their will, for purposes they didn't initially agree to? then, where does that idea of choice become meaningful?
we could ignore the initial capture and talk instead about descendants, but this doesn't make the question any less complex. would a house servant be considered to have made a choice to be a slave if he rejected a slave revolt in the plantation? that's a category error, at least - these are not the same things. and, if the slaves of one master revolted due to severe mistreatment, and the slaves of another didn't due to more tolerable conditions, does that mean the slaves that did not revolt made a choice to accept the condition they did not make the choice to be born into? at what level does the question of free will becoming meaningful?
i don't think kanye has thought much about this.
and, that's unfortunate.
he's somebody that should have.
do you want my honest opinion? i think kanye should enrol at a university, take some history courses and get back to the world when he's better informed. and, i don't state that in a sardonic tone. he has an obligation to educate himself, if he's going to open his mouth and speak to the audience that he has.
well, what does that mean, exactly? does it mean that 51% of people made it a choice? does it mean that they made the choice free of duress? is this collective or individual?
and, i think that the difficulty of trying to figure out what the fuck it even means to ask whether slavery was a choice or not is indicative of the lack of thought put into the statement. that said, it also opens up a lot of space for careful thinking.
it's really not as insane as it appears on first glance; when they sent white people here, they often came under a concept of 'indentured servitude', which wasn't very different than slavery and was in fact some kind of a choice - perhaps not always a really free choice, but a choice between one kind of hardship and another. a serf tied to the land would have seen indentured servitude as an escape mechanism.
given that comparable systems of feudalism and slavery did exist in africa, i think the kneejerk reaction is actually fairly historically ignorant. it seems to be rooted in the idea that white people showed up in africa with fishing nets and just rounded up all the noble savages like they were bananas; this is of course patently absurd. this does nothing to deny the brutality of the whole thing, and the fact that so many people died in transit is worth pointing out. but, the buying and selling of humans in africa generally happened with some kind of negotiation process around people that were already enslaved. how many africans sold themselves into slavery in africa, with the understanding of what that meant in africa, only to be sold to american or arabic slave traders, and transited to strange lands against their will, for purposes they didn't initially agree to? then, where does that idea of choice become meaningful?
we could ignore the initial capture and talk instead about descendants, but this doesn't make the question any less complex. would a house servant be considered to have made a choice to be a slave if he rejected a slave revolt in the plantation? that's a category error, at least - these are not the same things. and, if the slaves of one master revolted due to severe mistreatment, and the slaves of another didn't due to more tolerable conditions, does that mean the slaves that did not revolt made a choice to accept the condition they did not make the choice to be born into? at what level does the question of free will becoming meaningful?
i don't think kanye has thought much about this.
and, that's unfortunate.
he's somebody that should have.
do you want my honest opinion? i think kanye should enrol at a university, take some history courses and get back to the world when he's better informed. and, i don't state that in a sardonic tone. he has an obligation to educate himself, if he's going to open his mouth and speak to the audience that he has.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
and, that would make crossing the border a non-issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/04/19/schumer-backs-effort-to-decriminalize-marijuana/?noredirect=on
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/04/19/schumer-backs-effort-to-decriminalize-marijuana/?noredirect=on
i think that when these christian groups start organizing more directly and more prominently with muslim groups - and this common judaic front against secular liberalism is coming soon to a jurisdiction near you - it's going to potentially be a final push factor for a lot of these "cultural christians" that are christians-in-name-only, sort of thing.
it's going to make religion seem more real and more distant at the same time.
it's going to make religion seem more real and more distant at the same time.
if catholics took their religion as seriously as muslims, they'd be just as scary.
and, we're not that historically removed from a time when they did...
...but, right now, they just don't. and it's disingenuous to suggest they do.
evangelicals, on the other hand, are comparably creepy. but, we don't have a lot of those around here.
and, we're not that historically removed from a time when they did...
...but, right now, they just don't. and it's disingenuous to suggest they do.
evangelicals, on the other hand, are comparably creepy. but, we don't have a lot of those around here.
i'm going to guess it's a sears poncho, for sure.
but, see, this is the difference between catholics and muslims.
there's another example at the halton school board in toronto, where the board had to change it's pro-life policy due to pressure from students and teachers. that's actually encouraging. but, you get the opposite from muslims: they're constantly pushing their bureaucrats to be more fundamentalist.
catholic students protest against bureaucrats trying to restrict access to sex-ed; muslim students protest against the bureaucrats not taking a strong enough stand against it.
i mean, don't misunderstand me: i think we should get rid of the catholic school board. but, the reality is that it's own students seem to agree with me.
there's not a lot of difference, at the pulpit. but, there's huge differences in the congregation - and it's the congregation that's the scary part.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2018/05/01/divine-child-prom-modesty-ponchos/570383002/
but, see, this is the difference between catholics and muslims.
there's another example at the halton school board in toronto, where the board had to change it's pro-life policy due to pressure from students and teachers. that's actually encouraging. but, you get the opposite from muslims: they're constantly pushing their bureaucrats to be more fundamentalist.
catholic students protest against bureaucrats trying to restrict access to sex-ed; muslim students protest against the bureaucrats not taking a strong enough stand against it.
i mean, don't misunderstand me: i think we should get rid of the catholic school board. but, the reality is that it's own students seem to agree with me.
there's not a lot of difference, at the pulpit. but, there's huge differences in the congregation - and it's the congregation that's the scary part.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2018/05/01/divine-child-prom-modesty-ponchos/570383002/
he hasn't spent much time in michigan bars, clearly.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/02/marijuana-spiked-beer-would-banned-under-senate-bill/572957002/
https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/02/marijuana-spiked-beer-would-banned-under-senate-bill/572957002/
*shrug*.
i'm really expecting you to need a card by the end of this process.
....which is going to be a legal nightmare for everybody.
this is bullshit, it's the treaties. we would have done this fifty years ago, but the treaties exist. and, we're really handcuffed by them.
we're going to need a president to open up the treaties before we can do this rationally.
in the mean time, i'm really more interested in what michigan is doing, anyways.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/01/marijuana-legalization-should-be-put-off-until-first-nations-tax-sharing-worked-out-senate-committee.html
i'm really expecting you to need a card by the end of this process.
....which is going to be a legal nightmare for everybody.
this is bullshit, it's the treaties. we would have done this fifty years ago, but the treaties exist. and, we're really handcuffed by them.
we're going to need a president to open up the treaties before we can do this rationally.
in the mean time, i'm really more interested in what michigan is doing, anyways.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/01/marijuana-legalization-should-be-put-off-until-first-nations-tax-sharing-worked-out-senate-committee.html
on marijuana, it's actually the provincial regulations that i think are lacking. it's usually the other way around...
but, that new lease requirement to force tenants & landlords to come to terms on smoking is arguably a good step forward, even if it leads to a lot of people moving.
it's been very hard to enforce non-smoking policies in ontario. it's ultimately a judicial issue.
i want the stuff legal, i just want to retain control over my own interaction with it.
in my circumstance, my issue is with a "medical" user and recreational laws don't have anything to do with the problem, or anything to do with a solution. this woman should be living in a standalone dwelling, not an apartment complex; there's really no way to accommodate her. but there's no way to throw her out, either.
but, that new lease requirement to force tenants & landlords to come to terms on smoking is arguably a good step forward, even if it leads to a lot of people moving.
it's been very hard to enforce non-smoking policies in ontario. it's ultimately a judicial issue.
i want the stuff legal, i just want to retain control over my own interaction with it.
in my circumstance, my issue is with a "medical" user and recreational laws don't have anything to do with the problem, or anything to do with a solution. this woman should be living in a standalone dwelling, not an apartment complex; there's really no way to accommodate her. but there's no way to throw her out, either.
lol.
blame the indians.
see, if this was harper we'd all understand this as oil politics - divide & conquer. sadly, it doesn't seem like that's so far off the mark here, either.
there is no legal requirement to consult with first nations over marijuana laws, and not much way to make sense of the report; this should be understood as political, rather than legal.
and, we should all be disappointed if trudeau goes along with what is really a smear job, in order to make his pipeline opponents look bad in the eyes of average consumers.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-won-t-say-whether-liberals-will-delay-cannabis-legalization-1.3911891
blame the indians.
see, if this was harper we'd all understand this as oil politics - divide & conquer. sadly, it doesn't seem like that's so far off the mark here, either.
there is no legal requirement to consult with first nations over marijuana laws, and not much way to make sense of the report; this should be understood as political, rather than legal.
and, we should all be disappointed if trudeau goes along with what is really a smear job, in order to make his pipeline opponents look bad in the eyes of average consumers.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-won-t-say-whether-liberals-will-delay-cannabis-legalization-1.3911891
...and, i actually slept all day.
i clearly needed it; i was exhausted for some reason.
i don't know why.
i still don't smell drugs in here, and i'm happy about the temperature.
i guess it's possible that my cycle just got out of sync. the fact is that i usually sleep in the afternoon.
but, it doesn't explain the red eyes when i got up to urinate this morning.
i should be awake all night, tonight. we'll see what it smells like.
i clearly needed it; i was exhausted for some reason.
i don't know why.
i still don't smell drugs in here, and i'm happy about the temperature.
i guess it's possible that my cycle just got out of sync. the fact is that i usually sleep in the afternoon.
but, it doesn't explain the red eyes when i got up to urinate this morning.
i should be awake all night, tonight. we'll see what it smells like.
it's weird.
i feel hungover.
i haven't had a drink, a toke or a cigarette since april 13th, at the last concert i went to. it's been second-hand smoke since.
i think i slept through a session, but i can't remember it, so how can i react?
but i'm just dead fucking tired.
i think i should have gotten most of the way through january yesterday, so i'm ok with carrying forward.
i'm going to eat, and then focus on cleaning in the other room, regardless of the situation. hopefully that wakes me up.
we're getting rain tonight and i'm excited about it. this might be my song this summer...
i feel hungover.
i haven't had a drink, a toke or a cigarette since april 13th, at the last concert i went to. it's been second-hand smoke since.
i think i slept through a session, but i can't remember it, so how can i react?
but i'm just dead fucking tired.
i think i should have gotten most of the way through january yesterday, so i'm ok with carrying forward.
i'm going to eat, and then focus on cleaning in the other room, regardless of the situation. hopefully that wakes me up.
we're getting rain tonight and i'm excited about it. this might be my song this summer...
tonight is weird, and not useful.
the smell is faint; it could be coming from anywhere, very much unlike the nights where it's pluming in from one direction.
i feel stoned. but, i'm also dehydrated and tired, and i'm having difficulty smelling anything at all.
i should be a little tired, but not like this.
so, i can feel the effects of the drug, but i can barely smell it, i can barely smell anything, and i'm not sure where it's coming from.
i might just be tired and dehydrated. which is kind of the same thing as being stoned, right?
i passed out a few hours ago. i'm just going to drink water and get some rest.
the smell is faint; it could be coming from anywhere, very much unlike the nights where it's pluming in from one direction.
i feel stoned. but, i'm also dehydrated and tired, and i'm having difficulty smelling anything at all.
i should be a little tired, but not like this.
so, i can feel the effects of the drug, but i can barely smell it, i can barely smell anything, and i'm not sure where it's coming from.
i might just be tired and dehydrated. which is kind of the same thing as being stoned, right?
i passed out a few hours ago. i'm just going to drink water and get some rest.
i mean, i guess i didn't...
i was calling her, trying to tell her i didn't want to have sex with her. i guess that's not the most exciting thing to hear from an ex you still have feelings for, is it? and, i guess you wouldn't want other people thinking that either, would you?
it might have been kind of painful.
i didn't grasp that at all; i was just trying to win a friend back.
but, there was some kind of breaking point, because the girl i dated would have shrugged that off. that breaking point must have been more along the lines of a realization that i wasn't going to be the dude she imagined i would, after all. faced with that resignation, whatever mutual stringing along that was happening had to end...
i was calling her, trying to tell her i didn't want to have sex with her. i guess that's not the most exciting thing to hear from an ex you still have feelings for, is it? and, i guess you wouldn't want other people thinking that either, would you?
it might have been kind of painful.
i didn't grasp that at all; i was just trying to win a friend back.
but, there was some kind of breaking point, because the girl i dated would have shrugged that off. that breaking point must have been more along the lines of a realization that i wasn't going to be the dude she imagined i would, after all. faced with that resignation, whatever mutual stringing along that was happening had to end...
what i started to figure out as the saga unfolded was that the reason she was angry with me was that i just wanted to be friends.
she didn't like being friendzoned, basically, and rejected me, instead - if i wasn't going to be a man, she didn't have time for me.
meaning, the whole rejecting me thing was some kind of reverse psychology, because she herself felt rejected by my decision to go back on hormones.
and, what that exposed was that she was holding on to feelings for me the whole time, when i thought we were just friends.
again: i'm not going to pretend that this was totally unrealized, or even completely unreciprocated. i had some idea. but, i'm still kind of surprised by the fact that she wouldn't let it blow over.
she didn't like being friendzoned, basically, and rejected me, instead - if i wasn't going to be a man, she didn't have time for me.
meaning, the whole rejecting me thing was some kind of reverse psychology, because she herself felt rejected by my decision to go back on hormones.
and, what that exposed was that she was holding on to feelings for me the whole time, when i thought we were just friends.
again: i'm not going to pretend that this was totally unrealized, or even completely unreciprocated. i had some idea. but, i'm still kind of surprised by the fact that she wouldn't let it blow over.
i'm weird in a different way; i've never been sexually rejected, because i've never asked anybody for sex.
really.
never.
well, i guess i was rejected once, but that's even weirder, because i got rejected without asking. see, she thought i was calling her for sex, when i actually wasn't - and that's an exceedingly awkward argument, because you have to win it. you can't let her walk away thinking you're trying to have sex with her. you have to convince her you're not. so, i kept calling her over and over trying to convince her i wasn't interested in sex, and she just kept thinking i was more and more interested in it because i kept calling.
the frustration on my end of this was really complicated by the fact that this wasn't a casual ex; we dated for several years and lived together for most of those years, and then remained friends for years after. we hung out as friends after we broke up, so the call wasn't really weird at all. she shouldn't have thought this; she should have known better. so, i wasn't just trying to convince an ex i wasn't trying to sleep with her, i was trying to convince a friend that i valued her.
and, i did.
but, you know - somebody gets their mind made up and it doesn't matter what you tell them.
kind of heartbreaking.
the weirdest thing is that she spent years convinced i was gay, then all of a sudden totally flipped on it, and flipped on it right when i went back on hormones. see, the reason i started calling right at that point was that i was going back on hormones. like, i wanted to go shopping. that's what we did when we met, and what i missed and wanted back: a female-female friendship, not a sexual relationship. and, she randomly accuses me of trying to sleep with her and then makes a big deal out of turning me down, when i never asked her in the first place.
but, other than that weird misunderstanding (which was being driven by something else that i never quite figured out...), i've actually honestly never been sexually rejected - and it's because i've never made any sexual advances.
like, ever.
i'm the one doing all the rejecting...
there was one time i showed up at this ex' place on a dinner request (she called me and asked me over for dinner), and walked into a request for a threesome, which i turned down. i can barely handle monogamy, i'm way too shy for casual sex with a stranger and an ex like that. she's not, though; she never understood that about me, or she never understood why i seemed so shy. in hindsight, i think that was probably at the heart of it.
but, i guess i was naive about it; i thought she was really getting the wrong message. well, i kind of knew that the actual truth was the other way around. but, if you're naive and you think she really thinks that, you have to keep trying to smooth it over. and, what rule are you breaking by calling a friend to try and convince them that you don't want to have sex with them?
it didn't work out in the end. but, in hindsight, she can't have still thought i was trying to sleep with her by the end, after i'd explained to her a dozen times that i wasn't.
that's my one story of sexual rejection.
because i've honestly never felt the urge to even try.
really.
never.
well, i guess i was rejected once, but that's even weirder, because i got rejected without asking. see, she thought i was calling her for sex, when i actually wasn't - and that's an exceedingly awkward argument, because you have to win it. you can't let her walk away thinking you're trying to have sex with her. you have to convince her you're not. so, i kept calling her over and over trying to convince her i wasn't interested in sex, and she just kept thinking i was more and more interested in it because i kept calling.
the frustration on my end of this was really complicated by the fact that this wasn't a casual ex; we dated for several years and lived together for most of those years, and then remained friends for years after. we hung out as friends after we broke up, so the call wasn't really weird at all. she shouldn't have thought this; she should have known better. so, i wasn't just trying to convince an ex i wasn't trying to sleep with her, i was trying to convince a friend that i valued her.
and, i did.
but, you know - somebody gets their mind made up and it doesn't matter what you tell them.
kind of heartbreaking.
the weirdest thing is that she spent years convinced i was gay, then all of a sudden totally flipped on it, and flipped on it right when i went back on hormones. see, the reason i started calling right at that point was that i was going back on hormones. like, i wanted to go shopping. that's what we did when we met, and what i missed and wanted back: a female-female friendship, not a sexual relationship. and, she randomly accuses me of trying to sleep with her and then makes a big deal out of turning me down, when i never asked her in the first place.
but, other than that weird misunderstanding (which was being driven by something else that i never quite figured out...), i've actually honestly never been sexually rejected - and it's because i've never made any sexual advances.
like, ever.
i'm the one doing all the rejecting...
there was one time i showed up at this ex' place on a dinner request (she called me and asked me over for dinner), and walked into a request for a threesome, which i turned down. i can barely handle monogamy, i'm way too shy for casual sex with a stranger and an ex like that. she's not, though; she never understood that about me, or she never understood why i seemed so shy. in hindsight, i think that was probably at the heart of it.
but, i guess i was naive about it; i thought she was really getting the wrong message. well, i kind of knew that the actual truth was the other way around. but, if you're naive and you think she really thinks that, you have to keep trying to smooth it over. and, what rule are you breaking by calling a friend to try and convince them that you don't want to have sex with them?
it didn't work out in the end. but, in hindsight, she can't have still thought i was trying to sleep with her by the end, after i'd explained to her a dozen times that i wasn't.
that's my one story of sexual rejection.
because i've honestly never felt the urge to even try.
i don't really know anything about this, and it's not something i'm much interested in, but i just want to point out that the idea that this is some kind of consequence of the internet is ridiculous.
history is full of episodes of mass rape, and some of these episodes have dramatically altered the genetic make-up in very large regions of the world. the mongol expansion was particularly brutal. roman civilization traced it's founding to one such event, and while it may have been somewhat mythological, the broad pattern is observed through virtually all mass migration events from the steppes to the coasts and it's hard to believe that the roman invasion of italy would have been any different.
the reason that rape is so hard to defeat is precisely because it is so embedded within who we are.
to an extent, men have one task of procreation; women have the resulting task of finding the right sperm and rejecting insufficient mates. it is imperative, for the health of the genome, that women be allowed to discriminate. and, yes, this is crude; as a voluntary celibate, i don't live in this world and am the perfect example of how it's possible to get past it. but, the base genetic reality is a brutal arms race.
i have to wonder what extent that the cultural rejection of homosexuality plays into this. i suspect it's substantive, as nurturing relationships between these 'incels' is probably the best way out of this problem.
history is full of episodes of mass rape, and some of these episodes have dramatically altered the genetic make-up in very large regions of the world. the mongol expansion was particularly brutal. roman civilization traced it's founding to one such event, and while it may have been somewhat mythological, the broad pattern is observed through virtually all mass migration events from the steppes to the coasts and it's hard to believe that the roman invasion of italy would have been any different.
the reason that rape is so hard to defeat is precisely because it is so embedded within who we are.
to an extent, men have one task of procreation; women have the resulting task of finding the right sperm and rejecting insufficient mates. it is imperative, for the health of the genome, that women be allowed to discriminate. and, yes, this is crude; as a voluntary celibate, i don't live in this world and am the perfect example of how it's possible to get past it. but, the base genetic reality is a brutal arms race.
i have to wonder what extent that the cultural rejection of homosexuality plays into this. i suspect it's substantive, as nurturing relationships between these 'incels' is probably the best way out of this problem.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
the truth is that i've barely heard any prince.
a little. enough to conclude it's not my thing...and not much more.
i'm not quite that old, and it was never in the list of seminal influences of anything i really liked. i think reznor is probably the closest thing to a prince fan in my own list of influences.
so, i don't talk much about prince.
because i'm not much of a fan.
i did have a michael jackson phase when i was very young.
a little. enough to conclude it's not my thing...and not much more.
i'm not quite that old, and it was never in the list of seminal influences of anything i really liked. i think reznor is probably the closest thing to a prince fan in my own list of influences.
so, i don't talk much about prince.
because i'm not much of a fan.
i did have a michael jackson phase when i was very young.
actually, this is going to get weird, because i'm going to be reposting reposts.
for example, i reposted the following posts from 2012 in 2016:
jan 14, 2016
i'm sorting through old posts, trying to shut down my facebook politics page from 2012. it's interesting to read certain things.
16 October 2012
so, it's mcguinty v. trudeau.
there's the challenger that people were expecting. i had john manley at the top of the list, but mcguinty was never far down; despite what he's said about completing his third term, that he would run for the liberal leadership when the opportunity is right has been obvious for a while now. it's also obvious that he's doing this now precisely because he's concerned that if trudeau gets in then he'll be there for the next thirty years.
this is actually an interesting race, because it's likely going to determine if the liberals are going to present a third centre-right option or swing out to the left of the ndp. mcguinty will not be substantially different from harper or mulcair, but trudeau just might be.
28 September 2012
several years ago, before he even ran for mp, i remember seeing some old videos of justin trudeau floating around on youtube. he was doing some kind of campus speaking tour, i think some time in the late 90s. the topic was the decline of western civilization, and how young people growing up in canada need to prepare themselves for a future where the nexus of global power, wealth and influence resides in asia, rather than in america – and the consequences of such a shift. these videos no longer appear to be available on youtube, but i'm sure they'll surface over the course of the next few months as conservative attack ad fodder.
of course, it wasn't the first time i'd heard somebody say something like that, but coming from such a source (while he was not in the public eye at the time, he was still the oldest and most visible son of what amounts to canada's version of thomas jefferson), it was rather shocking. such statements would threaten to shatter the delusions that continue to be held by much of canada's middle class.
"civilizations rise and fall.".
he was elected as an mp not long after i saw those videos. over the last few years, he's played the media fairly well. his supposedly controversial statements have in fact been widely popular, and when pushed his responses have been both surprisingly phrased to appeal to an extremely socially liberal audience as well as surprisingly nuanced.
the point i'm getting to is that i think that baby trudeau is a bigger wild card than many observers will recognize on first glance because he has the potential to eat back into the ndp; when contrasted against mulcair's cold, business-person exterior the flippant trudeau is going to come off very, very well with younger voters. the newspapers are going to write him off as a liberal aristocrat, being floated by the party leadership. it remains to see if this is going to be the case or not. however, he really hasn't seriously defined his political stances yet, so it's going to be hard to determine if the commentary is accurate or sensational on a wide variety of topics. however, this is where the next few months of campaigning for the liberal leadership are going to be very interesting - he's going to have to finally do precisely that. judging from those clips i saw on that campus tour, as well as the select commentary he's provided, i think there may be more of interest in his views than one might expect.....
there have been multiple polls suggesting that if an election were to be held tomorrow and baby trudeau were to be the liberal party candidate then we'd be back at a liberal majority. the liberal party may be currently broken, but it's still the most successful democratic political apparatus (measured in terms of political wins) that's ever existed, anywhere. as i've said repeatedly: it's the fucking british liberal party. it's not going to pass up on that kind of opportunity.
the question is whether or not it realizes that trudeau's popularity is due partly to his name and partly to his attitude, the precise attitude that the press is going to deride him for. given that we're talking about the liberal party, and it's long history of charismatic leaders, i'm sure it does.
a couple of key policy differences, accompanied with the ndp's move to the right, could position the liberals to their left. judging from what i've heard so far from baby trudeau, i think that's where his mind just might be.
so, this is going to get interesting.
for example, i reposted the following posts from 2012 in 2016:
jan 14, 2016
i'm sorting through old posts, trying to shut down my facebook politics page from 2012. it's interesting to read certain things.
16 October 2012
so, it's mcguinty v. trudeau.
there's the challenger that people were expecting. i had john manley at the top of the list, but mcguinty was never far down; despite what he's said about completing his third term, that he would run for the liberal leadership when the opportunity is right has been obvious for a while now. it's also obvious that he's doing this now precisely because he's concerned that if trudeau gets in then he'll be there for the next thirty years.
this is actually an interesting race, because it's likely going to determine if the liberals are going to present a third centre-right option or swing out to the left of the ndp. mcguinty will not be substantially different from harper or mulcair, but trudeau just might be.
28 September 2012
several years ago, before he even ran for mp, i remember seeing some old videos of justin trudeau floating around on youtube. he was doing some kind of campus speaking tour, i think some time in the late 90s. the topic was the decline of western civilization, and how young people growing up in canada need to prepare themselves for a future where the nexus of global power, wealth and influence resides in asia, rather than in america – and the consequences of such a shift. these videos no longer appear to be available on youtube, but i'm sure they'll surface over the course of the next few months as conservative attack ad fodder.
of course, it wasn't the first time i'd heard somebody say something like that, but coming from such a source (while he was not in the public eye at the time, he was still the oldest and most visible son of what amounts to canada's version of thomas jefferson), it was rather shocking. such statements would threaten to shatter the delusions that continue to be held by much of canada's middle class.
"civilizations rise and fall.".
he was elected as an mp not long after i saw those videos. over the last few years, he's played the media fairly well. his supposedly controversial statements have in fact been widely popular, and when pushed his responses have been both surprisingly phrased to appeal to an extremely socially liberal audience as well as surprisingly nuanced.
the point i'm getting to is that i think that baby trudeau is a bigger wild card than many observers will recognize on first glance because he has the potential to eat back into the ndp; when contrasted against mulcair's cold, business-person exterior the flippant trudeau is going to come off very, very well with younger voters. the newspapers are going to write him off as a liberal aristocrat, being floated by the party leadership. it remains to see if this is going to be the case or not. however, he really hasn't seriously defined his political stances yet, so it's going to be hard to determine if the commentary is accurate or sensational on a wide variety of topics. however, this is where the next few months of campaigning for the liberal leadership are going to be very interesting - he's going to have to finally do precisely that. judging from those clips i saw on that campus tour, as well as the select commentary he's provided, i think there may be more of interest in his views than one might expect.....
there have been multiple polls suggesting that if an election were to be held tomorrow and baby trudeau were to be the liberal party candidate then we'd be back at a liberal majority. the liberal party may be currently broken, but it's still the most successful democratic political apparatus (measured in terms of political wins) that's ever existed, anywhere. as i've said repeatedly: it's the fucking british liberal party. it's not going to pass up on that kind of opportunity.
the question is whether or not it realizes that trudeau's popularity is due partly to his name and partly to his attitude, the precise attitude that the press is going to deride him for. given that we're talking about the liberal party, and it's long history of charismatic leaders, i'm sure it does.
a couple of key policy differences, accompanied with the ndp's move to the right, could position the liberals to their left. judging from what i've heard so far from baby trudeau, i think that's where his mind just might be.
so, this is going to get interesting.
so, the next period is from jan 10th to june 19th, when the music blog reappears, and it's about 500 pages, mostly from the primary phase of the election.
i found the primaries more interesting than the general; i didn't tune out entirely after bernie lost, but i never really saw trump as substantively different than clinton, or clinton as worth supporting for any other reason than to beat trump, so i more or less gave up on the election having an acceptable outcome when the candidates were announced.
i suspect a lot of americans had that feeling, too - and it's probably why trump won.
we'll see in the end if i want to carry through with this or not, but i should at least get a skeleton up.
remember that the main focus is the master list for the aleph discs.
i found the primaries more interesting than the general; i didn't tune out entirely after bernie lost, but i never really saw trump as substantively different than clinton, or clinton as worth supporting for any other reason than to beat trump, so i more or less gave up on the election having an acceptable outcome when the candidates were announced.
i suspect a lot of americans had that feeling, too - and it's probably why trump won.
we'll see in the end if i want to carry through with this or not, but i should at least get a skeleton up.
remember that the main focus is the master list for the aleph discs.
you're supposed to think i'm wrong; that's how this works - if what i was saying was conventional, i wouldn't be interesting.
and, i might be wrong. sure.
we'll find out.
but, i'm used to being written off; don't think that's going to phase me.
please recognize that the idea is that you're supposed to follow the argument and decide what you think, not take me on authority. i'm not producing decrees, here. and i'm not looking for mindless followers.
and, i might be wrong. sure.
we'll find out.
but, i'm used to being written off; don't think that's going to phase me.
please recognize that the idea is that you're supposed to follow the argument and decide what you think, not take me on authority. i'm not producing decrees, here. and i'm not looking for mindless followers.
well...
there's currently not any smoke coming up from downstairs.
the woman next door is, however, chain smoking outside my window.
she appears to have been drunk before noon - cigarettes and vodka, the breakfast of champions.
this place is full of real winners.
so, i'm going to have to wait a few hours to clean up the bedroom. i've cleaned up the kitchen.
i want to start looking for something, but i'm going to give the situation one more chance. i could still cancel the application, remember.
and, i think i need to know how they're going to be admitting new tenants. are they going to make new tenants sign a no smoking clause? i didn't know this was coming, and it might be what she was talking about; while there is not a new law banning smokers, she may have been referring to the company's new lease policy when she was talking about a "law banning smoking inside" and how "existing tenants are grandfathered". i mean, she sounded like she was just full of shit. but, i can at least put together a broken thought, now. if so, i like my chances on this space becoming more habitable. because this is also a screen - smokers are bad tenants, all around. they're bad people, broadly speaking. a no smoking policy is going to mean a safer building, all around.
i would expect that rents in non-smoking buildings will be higher than rents in smoking buildings.
and, that smoking buildings are going to be horrifically disgusting carcinogenic tinder boxes....
there's currently not any smoke coming up from downstairs.
the woman next door is, however, chain smoking outside my window.
she appears to have been drunk before noon - cigarettes and vodka, the breakfast of champions.
this place is full of real winners.
so, i'm going to have to wait a few hours to clean up the bedroom. i've cleaned up the kitchen.
i want to start looking for something, but i'm going to give the situation one more chance. i could still cancel the application, remember.
and, i think i need to know how they're going to be admitting new tenants. are they going to make new tenants sign a no smoking clause? i didn't know this was coming, and it might be what she was talking about; while there is not a new law banning smokers, she may have been referring to the company's new lease policy when she was talking about a "law banning smoking inside" and how "existing tenants are grandfathered". i mean, she sounded like she was just full of shit. but, i can at least put together a broken thought, now. if so, i like my chances on this space becoming more habitable. because this is also a screen - smokers are bad tenants, all around. they're bad people, broadly speaking. a no smoking policy is going to mean a safer building, all around.
i would expect that rents in non-smoking buildings will be higher than rents in smoking buildings.
and, that smoking buildings are going to be horrifically disgusting carcinogenic tinder boxes....
we'll have to see how the courts interpret this, but the intent seems to be to make it easier for the landlord to evict smokers.
the residential tenancies act says nothing about smoke, and this observation is actually explicitly stated in the new lease. but, by including a smoking section in the lease, the landlord can conceivably remove a tenant for breaching the lease.
further, the smoking section is explicitly treated differently than the pets section; prohibition against pets is explicitly stated as void.
so, the government appears to be telling the courts that landlords have the right to discriminate on these grounds - and that is the appropriate legal language. we'll see what the courts say.
but, i don't expect that this new lease process will withhold a legal challenge - i expect that the court will strike down the smoking provision as overly broad.
unfortunately.
www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/047-2229E~2/$File/2229E(Static).pdf
the residential tenancies act says nothing about smoke, and this observation is actually explicitly stated in the new lease. but, by including a smoking section in the lease, the landlord can conceivably remove a tenant for breaching the lease.
further, the smoking section is explicitly treated differently than the pets section; prohibition against pets is explicitly stated as void.
so, the government appears to be telling the courts that landlords have the right to discriminate on these grounds - and that is the appropriate legal language. we'll see what the courts say.
but, i don't expect that this new lease process will withhold a legal challenge - i expect that the court will strike down the smoking provision as overly broad.
unfortunately.
www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/047-2229E~2/$File/2229E(Static).pdf
well, she's right.
i'm not sure how much of a ballot issue it is, though.
it might help her keep some of those seats in toronto - but they probably weren't going to swing, anyways.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/01/wynne-denounces-fords-plan-to-develop-greenbelt-as-wrong-on-so-many-levels.html
i'm not sure how much of a ballot issue it is, though.
it might help her keep some of those seats in toronto - but they probably weren't going to swing, anyways.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/01/wynne-denounces-fords-plan-to-develop-greenbelt-as-wrong-on-so-many-levels.html
i needed to catch up on some sleep. i'm awake now....
it actually seems pleasant in here, right now.
you don't learn a lot from a physical. my blood pressure is 110/70, after a brisk walk on a nice day, so that's in a healthy range. i'll get my blood work done at the end of the week and go back mid-month.
he's never heard of estradiol hemihydrate and can't comment on the chemical differences. he'd refer me to the specialist in town, but the specialist in town won't talk to me, because he doesn't think i'm effeminate enough. *shrug*.
i'm not going to switch meds without a good talk with somebody. i might call the specialist myself.
i got my puffer refilled...
the rest of the day was spent grocery shopping, and i got a lot of the month's purchasing done, as lots of things were on sale. but, i can't find any chocolate soy.
i crashed in the evening and again overnight. i wanted to clean in here this morning but will do it today, instead.
i also woke up to a familiar annoyance: an air conditioner.
:(.
i don't understand why people don't enjoy the heat. we're tropical animals. we're supposed to like it when it's 30 degrees out.
right now, i'm in the frustrating scenario of having to deal with smokers outside and an a/c downstairs, and i don't know what is going to be worse. am i going to want to keep the windows closed because of the smokers, or open them because of the a/c?
this is such a disgusting, saddening scenario. and, again: i like the space, but the problem is the people around me.
it would be nice if i could just open the window - a/c or not - to let the fresh air in. you'd think that's a pretty basic human request. alas...
at least i have the bay windows. i'm hoping the temperature comes up nicely due to the sunlight through the glass fairly soon.
it actually seems pleasant in here, right now.
you don't learn a lot from a physical. my blood pressure is 110/70, after a brisk walk on a nice day, so that's in a healthy range. i'll get my blood work done at the end of the week and go back mid-month.
he's never heard of estradiol hemihydrate and can't comment on the chemical differences. he'd refer me to the specialist in town, but the specialist in town won't talk to me, because he doesn't think i'm effeminate enough. *shrug*.
i'm not going to switch meds without a good talk with somebody. i might call the specialist myself.
i got my puffer refilled...
the rest of the day was spent grocery shopping, and i got a lot of the month's purchasing done, as lots of things were on sale. but, i can't find any chocolate soy.
i crashed in the evening and again overnight. i wanted to clean in here this morning but will do it today, instead.
i also woke up to a familiar annoyance: an air conditioner.
:(.
i don't understand why people don't enjoy the heat. we're tropical animals. we're supposed to like it when it's 30 degrees out.
right now, i'm in the frustrating scenario of having to deal with smokers outside and an a/c downstairs, and i don't know what is going to be worse. am i going to want to keep the windows closed because of the smokers, or open them because of the a/c?
this is such a disgusting, saddening scenario. and, again: i like the space, but the problem is the people around me.
it would be nice if i could just open the window - a/c or not - to let the fresh air in. you'd think that's a pretty basic human request. alas...
at least i have the bay windows. i'm hoping the temperature comes up nicely due to the sunlight through the glass fairly soon.
it's less that ford's strategy is bad, and more that it's a lot more forward thinking than his detractors might imagine and that it actually needs more time than this to unravel.
ford might not win this election, or stick around to fight the next one. but, he might be laying the groundwork for the next fifty years of politics in the province. and, he might relegate the liberal party of ontario to the kind of upper class ivory tower that the lib dems live in, in the process.
the liberals really do need those immigrant votes. but, the immigrants are conservatives. #.
...which isn't to give him too much credit: he's an effect and not a cause. but, if he can convincingly swing all these conservative immigrants, they might be very hard to swing back.
and, we might have little choice but to support the ndp to hold off the conservatives, everywhere outside of that ivory tower.
ford might not win this election, or stick around to fight the next one. but, he might be laying the groundwork for the next fifty years of politics in the province. and, he might relegate the liberal party of ontario to the kind of upper class ivory tower that the lib dems live in, in the process.
the liberals really do need those immigrant votes. but, the immigrants are conservatives. #.
...which isn't to give him too much credit: he's an effect and not a cause. but, if he can convincingly swing all these conservative immigrants, they might be very hard to swing back.
and, we might have little choice but to support the ndp to hold off the conservatives, everywhere outside of that ivory tower.
mild correction: it seems like what i was imagining already happened.
my hypothetical riding ceased to exist a cycle or two ago. the ndp have already won all of those ridings, and the liberals are already polling third in a lot of places.
that means that a tory swing of this nature may have the potential of being absolutely trivial. or, it could let horwath come up the middle in certain places.
my riding should be being targetted by ford. it has a large conservative muslim minority that has succeeded in electing a right-wing lebanese mayor, amongst other things. the conservatives are running a right-wing muslim in the riding that is no doubt opposed to teaching sex ed. so, this is the kind of audience that ford's message is designed for.
the riding was held by liberals for years, until the ndp finally broke through; these were the results of the last election:
ndp - 41
liberals - 38
conservatives - 14
given that the ndp are holding steady, or even up, the conservatives would need an almost total collapse in liberal support to win this riding. they'd need more than ten points just to come in second.
but, there is some reason to think that they may, in fact, be running more than ten points up.
if the result of the election is this:
ndp - 39
conservatives - 35
liberals - 19
...then that ends up as a big boost in conservative support, on paper. but, the ndp hold the riding.
london north is another example where the liberals have already ceded ground over the last few cycles, but they still hold the seat. this is the result of the last election:
liberals - 36
ndp - 30
conservatives - 27
if the liberals lose ten points here, and 6 of it goes to ford, you end up with:
ndp - 34
conservatives - 33
liberals - 26
and, that is one of ford's better chances for a pick-up. even the numbers in brampton and etobicoke and mississauga, ford nation, are pretty daunting, for the conservatives - they need 15-20% swings, and are often in third place.
i had my numbers out of date. but, the idea stands: if you go through and look at the ridings one-by-one, it becomes clear that if this swing is localized amongst urban immigrants (ford's base.) *and* ndp support holds then the number of ridings where conservatives can win seats by attracting liberal voters is actually quite low.
so, even if the popular vote does shoot up, it might not lead to much of a substantive difference.
ford needs to hold that old tory demographic, and swing seats in the liberal fortress, if he wants to actually win. those are the seats the conservatives might actually flip. and, all evidence i've seen suggests that he's not doing well in this demographic of rich white liberals - or that he ever has done well with them.
my hypothetical riding ceased to exist a cycle or two ago. the ndp have already won all of those ridings, and the liberals are already polling third in a lot of places.
that means that a tory swing of this nature may have the potential of being absolutely trivial. or, it could let horwath come up the middle in certain places.
my riding should be being targetted by ford. it has a large conservative muslim minority that has succeeded in electing a right-wing lebanese mayor, amongst other things. the conservatives are running a right-wing muslim in the riding that is no doubt opposed to teaching sex ed. so, this is the kind of audience that ford's message is designed for.
the riding was held by liberals for years, until the ndp finally broke through; these were the results of the last election:
ndp - 41
liberals - 38
conservatives - 14
given that the ndp are holding steady, or even up, the conservatives would need an almost total collapse in liberal support to win this riding. they'd need more than ten points just to come in second.
but, there is some reason to think that they may, in fact, be running more than ten points up.
if the result of the election is this:
ndp - 39
conservatives - 35
liberals - 19
...then that ends up as a big boost in conservative support, on paper. but, the ndp hold the riding.
london north is another example where the liberals have already ceded ground over the last few cycles, but they still hold the seat. this is the result of the last election:
liberals - 36
ndp - 30
conservatives - 27
if the liberals lose ten points here, and 6 of it goes to ford, you end up with:
ndp - 34
conservatives - 33
liberals - 26
and, that is one of ford's better chances for a pick-up. even the numbers in brampton and etobicoke and mississauga, ford nation, are pretty daunting, for the conservatives - they need 15-20% swings, and are often in third place.
i had my numbers out of date. but, the idea stands: if you go through and look at the ridings one-by-one, it becomes clear that if this swing is localized amongst urban immigrants (ford's base.) *and* ndp support holds then the number of ridings where conservatives can win seats by attracting liberal voters is actually quite low.
so, even if the popular vote does shoot up, it might not lead to much of a substantive difference.
ford needs to hold that old tory demographic, and swing seats in the liberal fortress, if he wants to actually win. those are the seats the conservatives might actually flip. and, all evidence i've seen suggests that he's not doing well in this demographic of rich white liberals - or that he ever has done well with them.
it is possible that the tories could be running at 45% and not only lose but barely pick up a few seats. and it is possible that the ndp could even go down a few points and still win a dozen seats.
this is first past the past in a multi-party system.
but, as mentioned - i don't think the evidence that they're even running at 40% is really very strong.
this is first past the past in a multi-party system.
but, as mentioned - i don't think the evidence that they're even running at 40% is really very strong.
given that my hypothetical riding looks like windsor or london or waterloo, it's entirely possible for the conservatives to be up by 5-10% in "southwestern ontario" and not actually win any seats - because they already have all the rural seats, and they'd need to be up by 15-20% to actually swing any urban seats.
these are rough numbers, but the point i'm making is accurate.
so, these regional polling categories have the potential to be deeply misleading.
these are rough numbers, but the point i'm making is accurate.
so, these regional polling categories have the potential to be deeply misleading.
we're dealing with small movements within low-balled margins of error here, but if i'm correct that the tory numbers are being inflated in the media due to unreported high levels of undecideds, then you would expect to see the conservative numbers fall over the next few weeks - and that would not mean that they're losing ground, or that the other parties are gaining, but just that the undecideds are slowly registering properly in the sample.
so, you should indeed expect the race to narrow; you shouldn't interpret that as the race changing.
i'm more interested in the following observations:
1) everybody is starting to run out of time, here.
2) when you see both parties inch up by about the same amount, it suggests a high potential for vote splitting.
as mentioned: ontario actually tends to split rather nicely. don't get complacent, but don't start freaking out yet, either. it's hard for conservatives to win here....
the conservatives dominate the rural areas, and the ndp & liberals have their own regions of strength, depending mostly on class demographics. there's not a lot of battlegrounds. so, the traditional fear of a split vote is actually rather minimal, here - i would suspect there's actually a larger swing between the ndp and conservatives than between the ndp and liberals in much of upper middle class fortress toronto, meaning that if the liberals lose these seats it's not going to be due to the split but due to rich liberals voting for ford, an unlikely scenario.
the situation is rather that ford's unusually strong appeal to recent immigrants is going to pull from both parties in areas where the conservatives aren't usually considered competitive - like here in windsor - thereby creating the appearance of a split. and, this could indeed no doubt be largely resolved by consensus candidates. but, it's not quite the same thing as we usually talk about.
further, the ndp are actually up relative to where they've been over most of the last twenty years. so, i suspect that a closer analysis of the data is going to mostly suggest a collapse in the multicultural component of the liberal vote in these urban ridings, with stasis or even gains for the ndp. so, you need to ask where the liberal vote is really coming from and really going. and, there are a few spots where this could even counter-intuitively help the ndp.
consider an urban riding where the last election had this result:
liberals: 38
ndp: 33
conservatives: 21
greens - 8
an eight point swing from the liberals to the conservatives in this riding, along with a two point swing from the liberals to the ndp, would have the following outcome:
ndp: 35
conservatives: 29
liberals: 28
greens: 8
(and the greens do in fact do that well in many urban ontario ridings at the provincial level)
an eight point swing in an urban space would be a huge accomplishment for the tories in ontario. but it wouldn't be enough. and, this is what the numbers aren't taking into account: the tories win seats in the sticks by huge margins, and are uncompetitive in the cities, so they need to make up a very large amount of ground in order to actually swing seats.
it doesn't seem likely that ford is going to swing 15-20% in urban ridings, especially not with goofy candidates, and he'd have to do it to win.
i would like to see more targetted data on exactly where these swings are happening; i'm assuming that the swing is mostly happening in urban ridings, and amongst recent immigrants, but this is a deduction based on what we know about the candidates, and not hard empirical data. if the swing is actually happening in more affluent neighbourhoods, then this could be a harder election. but, the liberals are apparently still ahead in toronto.
i'm still predicting a coalition government.
but i'm still pointing out that the data isn't so great.
so, you should indeed expect the race to narrow; you shouldn't interpret that as the race changing.
i'm more interested in the following observations:
1) everybody is starting to run out of time, here.
2) when you see both parties inch up by about the same amount, it suggests a high potential for vote splitting.
as mentioned: ontario actually tends to split rather nicely. don't get complacent, but don't start freaking out yet, either. it's hard for conservatives to win here....
the conservatives dominate the rural areas, and the ndp & liberals have their own regions of strength, depending mostly on class demographics. there's not a lot of battlegrounds. so, the traditional fear of a split vote is actually rather minimal, here - i would suspect there's actually a larger swing between the ndp and conservatives than between the ndp and liberals in much of upper middle class fortress toronto, meaning that if the liberals lose these seats it's not going to be due to the split but due to rich liberals voting for ford, an unlikely scenario.
the situation is rather that ford's unusually strong appeal to recent immigrants is going to pull from both parties in areas where the conservatives aren't usually considered competitive - like here in windsor - thereby creating the appearance of a split. and, this could indeed no doubt be largely resolved by consensus candidates. but, it's not quite the same thing as we usually talk about.
further, the ndp are actually up relative to where they've been over most of the last twenty years. so, i suspect that a closer analysis of the data is going to mostly suggest a collapse in the multicultural component of the liberal vote in these urban ridings, with stasis or even gains for the ndp. so, you need to ask where the liberal vote is really coming from and really going. and, there are a few spots where this could even counter-intuitively help the ndp.
consider an urban riding where the last election had this result:
liberals: 38
ndp: 33
conservatives: 21
greens - 8
an eight point swing from the liberals to the conservatives in this riding, along with a two point swing from the liberals to the ndp, would have the following outcome:
ndp: 35
conservatives: 29
liberals: 28
greens: 8
(and the greens do in fact do that well in many urban ontario ridings at the provincial level)
an eight point swing in an urban space would be a huge accomplishment for the tories in ontario. but it wouldn't be enough. and, this is what the numbers aren't taking into account: the tories win seats in the sticks by huge margins, and are uncompetitive in the cities, so they need to make up a very large amount of ground in order to actually swing seats.
it doesn't seem likely that ford is going to swing 15-20% in urban ridings, especially not with goofy candidates, and he'd have to do it to win.
i would like to see more targetted data on exactly where these swings are happening; i'm assuming that the swing is mostly happening in urban ridings, and amongst recent immigrants, but this is a deduction based on what we know about the candidates, and not hard empirical data. if the swing is actually happening in more affluent neighbourhoods, then this could be a harder election. but, the liberals are apparently still ahead in toronto.
i'm still predicting a coalition government.
but i'm still pointing out that the data isn't so great.
Monday, April 30, 2018
see, this is more along the lines of what i want to hear - as opposed to these expensive money sinks to futilely treat drug addiction.
you will probably get cancer. and, you will probably die from it, too.
that's where the bulk of the money and research should be going.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/30/take-home-cancer-drugs-will-be-covered-under-ohip-if-new-democrats-win-the-june-7-election-andrea-horwath.html
you will probably get cancer. and, you will probably die from it, too.
that's where the bulk of the money and research should be going.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/30/take-home-cancer-drugs-will-be-covered-under-ohip-if-new-democrats-win-the-june-7-election-andrea-horwath.html
ok.
i'm at the exit point i wanted, which is when i finished my first record and then quit smoking.
i don't get back to the music again until june. there will no doubt be some posts made - to the alter-reality, reviews, show nights - but the music vlog is actually pretty much done. like, it's filled in the way i wanted it to be, from 2013--->2016.
that leaves me with roughly 1000 word doc pages left to rebuild the rest of 2016 with, most of it for the politics site, and i'm questioning whether i want to do this now or not. i have to at least sort through it. but i may be a little but picky about what i'm posting to the politics site, leaving the full rebuild for later.
i don't know what to expect this morning. i'm going to hand this woman a check and a letter, and tell her that the tenant below me is completely ignoring the new non-smoking policy, and continuing to chain smoke marijuana inside - as expected. i shouldn't expect her to do anything about this. but, then, why did she go around and hand out these notices?
the reason she did this was that the tenant below me was complaining that it wasn't fair that everybody else was allowed to smoke and she wasn't - again, just total grade school reasoning. but, they wanted to appear fair. so, they put this rule in place. and, now she's the only one not following it.
if i was the owner, that would really piss me off - you put a policy in place to accommodate her, and she just spits in your face. that would tell me that she has no interest in working with management.
but, it's not clear what they can substantively do about it, due to the absurd laws in this province that make it nearly impossible to throw her out.
it's a really surreal situation. this nihilistic drug addict has got us all held hostage, and the law is designed to facilitate it.
but, i'm starting to recognize that my time here may not include any actual recording. and, if that is the case, i may just go ahead and rebuild.
if i can get through the next section quickly, the next thing to do is to start writing for the alter-reality: 2017 & the first half, now, of 2018. this will permanently close my first 15 releases, or so.
i'm at the exit point i wanted, which is when i finished my first record and then quit smoking.
i don't get back to the music again until june. there will no doubt be some posts made - to the alter-reality, reviews, show nights - but the music vlog is actually pretty much done. like, it's filled in the way i wanted it to be, from 2013--->2016.
that leaves me with roughly 1000 word doc pages left to rebuild the rest of 2016 with, most of it for the politics site, and i'm questioning whether i want to do this now or not. i have to at least sort through it. but i may be a little but picky about what i'm posting to the politics site, leaving the full rebuild for later.
i don't know what to expect this morning. i'm going to hand this woman a check and a letter, and tell her that the tenant below me is completely ignoring the new non-smoking policy, and continuing to chain smoke marijuana inside - as expected. i shouldn't expect her to do anything about this. but, then, why did she go around and hand out these notices?
the reason she did this was that the tenant below me was complaining that it wasn't fair that everybody else was allowed to smoke and she wasn't - again, just total grade school reasoning. but, they wanted to appear fair. so, they put this rule in place. and, now she's the only one not following it.
if i was the owner, that would really piss me off - you put a policy in place to accommodate her, and she just spits in your face. that would tell me that she has no interest in working with management.
but, it's not clear what they can substantively do about it, due to the absurd laws in this province that make it nearly impossible to throw her out.
it's a really surreal situation. this nihilistic drug addict has got us all held hostage, and the law is designed to facilitate it.
but, i'm starting to recognize that my time here may not include any actual recording. and, if that is the case, i may just go ahead and rebuild.
if i can get through the next section quickly, the next thing to do is to start writing for the alter-reality: 2017 & the first half, now, of 2018. this will permanently close my first 15 releases, or so.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
"so why don't you just be an effiminate dude?"
well, to a certain extent, i guess i am, right?
at the end of the day, i don't care whether you want to call me a trans-female or a total fag. these are just labels. boxes. and, i don't really see why you'd treat me any differently if you thought i was merely a complete fag, rather than a woman.
so, you can ask me: what's the difference?
well, i dunno. you're the one that's insisting on it, not me.
well, to a certain extent, i guess i am, right?
at the end of the day, i don't care whether you want to call me a trans-female or a total fag. these are just labels. boxes. and, i don't really see why you'd treat me any differently if you thought i was merely a complete fag, rather than a woman.
so, you can ask me: what's the difference?
well, i dunno. you're the one that's insisting on it, not me.
the thing is that there wasn't another option: all of the parties supported the pipelines.
so, if you were standing on the environmental left, you found yourself forced to choose between an ndp that wanted to ramp up production to tax the hell out of it (ala rachel notley, who isn't even actually taxing it...), and a liberal party that was making promises about converting infrastructure.
don't misunderstand anything i said: the liberals sounded awful. and, i told you that at the time. i told you we were going to have to fight these pipelines in court, and on the ground, if they won. and, i was right.
but, they are actually taking baby steps towards transition, as well - steps that there is really no evidence that thomas mulcair had any intent of taking. we'll see in a few months if they've made any concrete steps towards reducing emissions or not.
it's cynical, perhaps. but, the reality does remain that the atmosphere isn't picky about where reductions come from. so long as a market exists, it's naive to expect our political leaders to oppose extraction - that would be a hippie position that ignores the systemic realities of capitalism, and the inherent nature of canada as a colonial state. change of this nature will never come by swapping figureheads, it has to be more profound than that.
the best we could ever do was fight this in court, and hope the right hand loses track of what the left hand is really up to, in the zeal to push the shit through.
it's the nature of a lesser evil calculation. and, the bastards can do it, when there's not an actual good option.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/04/28/881947/
so, if you were standing on the environmental left, you found yourself forced to choose between an ndp that wanted to ramp up production to tax the hell out of it (ala rachel notley, who isn't even actually taxing it...), and a liberal party that was making promises about converting infrastructure.
don't misunderstand anything i said: the liberals sounded awful. and, i told you that at the time. i told you we were going to have to fight these pipelines in court, and on the ground, if they won. and, i was right.
but, they are actually taking baby steps towards transition, as well - steps that there is really no evidence that thomas mulcair had any intent of taking. we'll see in a few months if they've made any concrete steps towards reducing emissions or not.
it's cynical, perhaps. but, the reality does remain that the atmosphere isn't picky about where reductions come from. so long as a market exists, it's naive to expect our political leaders to oppose extraction - that would be a hippie position that ignores the systemic realities of capitalism, and the inherent nature of canada as a colonial state. change of this nature will never come by swapping figureheads, it has to be more profound than that.
the best we could ever do was fight this in court, and hope the right hand loses track of what the left hand is really up to, in the zeal to push the shit through.
it's the nature of a lesser evil calculation. and, the bastards can do it, when there's not an actual good option.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/04/28/881947/
so, i'm half expecting these idiots to do something stupid tonight.
let it be written here that i might have overheard a threat to knock the door down.
see, the thing is that i'm not sure what i heard, and i didn't see anybody say it. if i had, i'd be contacting the police.
i have no patience for macho bullshit, and i don't suffer stupidity at all.
but, let it be known that i am not a bleeding heart, and that i am not afraid to seriously hurt anybody willing to enter my apartment using force. in fact, i'm likely to kill that person with my bare hands, rip out their heart with my teeth and shit on their remains.
you only think i'm exaggerating.
let it be written here that i might have overheard a threat to knock the door down.
see, the thing is that i'm not sure what i heard, and i didn't see anybody say it. if i had, i'd be contacting the police.
i have no patience for macho bullshit, and i don't suffer stupidity at all.
but, let it be known that i am not a bleeding heart, and that i am not afraid to seriously hurt anybody willing to enter my apartment using force. in fact, i'm likely to kill that person with my bare hands, rip out their heart with my teeth and shit on their remains.
you only think i'm exaggerating.
Saturday, April 28, 2018
while i think that trump is probably right in deducing that promoting peace will make him more popular than beating the drums of war, i don't imagine that an american pullout from south korea is at all imminent.
see, here's the thing: when it was about war it was smoke & mirrors. and, when it's about peace, it will be smoke & mirrors, too.
i could be wrong; maybe, i missed something. but, the situation in korea is really pretty intractable. and, it would require a major shift in thinking from one or both sides to break through it.
that said, you don't need a peace agreement to increase trade, and that's what everybody should really be concerning itself with.
see, here's the thing: when it was about war it was smoke & mirrors. and, when it's about peace, it will be smoke & mirrors, too.
i could be wrong; maybe, i missed something. but, the situation in korea is really pretty intractable. and, it would require a major shift in thinking from one or both sides to break through it.
that said, you don't need a peace agreement to increase trade, and that's what everybody should really be concerning itself with.
one of the things the liberals should be doing right now is trying to point out that doug ford isn't much of a conservative at all, with the hopes of promoting voter apathy.
we know he's going to run huge deficits. they should make sure everybody realizes this quite clearly.
and, see, there's a difference between being a liberal and pushing fiscal restraint, and being a liberal and pointing out that your opponent doesn't care about fiscal restraint.
liberals don't win elections by being conservatives. but, conservatives don't want to vote for fiscally irresponsible neo-liberals like doug ford, either - despite the fact that they keep getting tricked into it.
we know he's going to run huge deficits. they should make sure everybody realizes this quite clearly.
and, see, there's a difference between being a liberal and pushing fiscal restraint, and being a liberal and pointing out that your opponent doesn't care about fiscal restraint.
liberals don't win elections by being conservatives. but, conservatives don't want to vote for fiscally irresponsible neo-liberals like doug ford, either - despite the fact that they keep getting tricked into it.
and, we forget that what happened to mike harris is that he turned into stephen harper.
i guess this will help trudeau balance his budget?
it won't help ford balance his, that's for sure.
but, nobody really expects neo-liberals to balance budgets, do they? the federal conservatives have never balanced a budget.
c'mon, you dummies. you're being played. and bought off with your own cash, so this guy can sell off what's left of the commons to his banking buddies.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-pcs-announce-child-care-tax-rebate-for-low-income-families/
i guess this will help trudeau balance his budget?
it won't help ford balance his, that's for sure.
but, nobody really expects neo-liberals to balance budgets, do they? the federal conservatives have never balanced a budget.
c'mon, you dummies. you're being played. and bought off with your own cash, so this guy can sell off what's left of the commons to his banking buddies.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-pcs-announce-child-care-tax-rebate-for-low-income-families/
i really never saw myself as a smoker. i mean, i acknowledged i was. but, i never intended to start smoking habitually, and i was basically in the process of quitting from the time i realized i was.
i started smoking to stay awake because i was working and going to school at the same time. it was either nicotine or cocaine. i think i picked the better option.
and, it really does keep you awake and alert. it's the best stimulant there is. really.
so, how do you quit smoking when you have exams next week? you can't; you need to study, so you need to stay awake, so you need to smoke.
and, then how do you quit when you're working two jobs? or...
i would routinely quit for three-four weeks at a time, over and over again. so, it's really more accurate for me to say something like that i was a smoker around 70% of the time, between 2002-2016 - and a non-smoker about 30% of the time.
i never tried to rationalize it; i knew it was unhealthy, but i'd always quit next week. and, i was never happy about it, but i had to find some way to stay awake, whether i liked it or not.
whenever i had a down period, i'd get most of the way there. but, as soon as i had anything substantive to do, the smoking would start up again.
so, nobody should be surprised by how militant i'm being about this: even when i smoked, i was very anti-smoking, as weird as that sounds.
i started smoking to stay awake because i was working and going to school at the same time. it was either nicotine or cocaine. i think i picked the better option.
and, it really does keep you awake and alert. it's the best stimulant there is. really.
so, how do you quit smoking when you have exams next week? you can't; you need to study, so you need to stay awake, so you need to smoke.
and, then how do you quit when you're working two jobs? or...
i would routinely quit for three-four weeks at a time, over and over again. so, it's really more accurate for me to say something like that i was a smoker around 70% of the time, between 2002-2016 - and a non-smoker about 30% of the time.
i never tried to rationalize it; i knew it was unhealthy, but i'd always quit next week. and, i was never happy about it, but i had to find some way to stay awake, whether i liked it or not.
whenever i had a down period, i'd get most of the way there. but, as soon as i had anything substantive to do, the smoking would start up again.
so, nobody should be surprised by how militant i'm being about this: even when i smoked, i was very anti-smoking, as weird as that sounds.
if i end up going to court with this, all parties should expect an affidavit from me, declaring the following:
1) i finally definitively quit smoking cigarettes as a habit at the beginning of 2016, after smoking habitually from 2002-2016, with many attempts to quit over the period.
2) i have never been a habitual marijuana smoker.
3) i have never had a medical marijuana card.
4) as a rule, i have never smoked inside of any dwelling that i've inhabited; i've always smoked outside. i have not smoked anything - at all - inside of the apartment in question.
5) while i may have relapsed a couple of times due to overwhelming stress, including at the end of 2017, because quitting smoking is hard, those relapses have been short-lived and are not evidence of hidden habits. all relapses have been carried out exclusively outside of the dwelling in question.
6) i acknowledge that i may continue to smoke casually when i'm drinking, meaning when i'm at the bar. this is infrequent and likewise does not suggest habitual use - it is behaviour relegated strictly to bar patios and other places of alcohol consumption.
those are the facts.
you don't have to like them.
but please stop disputing them.
1) i finally definitively quit smoking cigarettes as a habit at the beginning of 2016, after smoking habitually from 2002-2016, with many attempts to quit over the period.
2) i have never been a habitual marijuana smoker.
3) i have never had a medical marijuana card.
4) as a rule, i have never smoked inside of any dwelling that i've inhabited; i've always smoked outside. i have not smoked anything - at all - inside of the apartment in question.
5) while i may have relapsed a couple of times due to overwhelming stress, including at the end of 2017, because quitting smoking is hard, those relapses have been short-lived and are not evidence of hidden habits. all relapses have been carried out exclusively outside of the dwelling in question.
6) i acknowledge that i may continue to smoke casually when i'm drinking, meaning when i'm at the bar. this is infrequent and likewise does not suggest habitual use - it is behaviour relegated strictly to bar patios and other places of alcohol consumption.
those are the facts.
you don't have to like them.
but please stop disputing them.
clearly, i crashed.
i need to get some work done today.
it's clear that she's still smoking inside, but less clear whether she's leaving or not. i woke up to an overhang of tobacco smoke, and have noticed some minor plumes. but, i continue to hear a lot of banging downstairs.
i guess if she's leaving then she'll want to be out by the first.
and, i'll wait until the first before i start making daily complaints. it's just going to be something like:
"yeah. she's still smoking. *click*."
again: you can't just order an addict to stop.
i need to get some work done today.
it's clear that she's still smoking inside, but less clear whether she's leaving or not. i woke up to an overhang of tobacco smoke, and have noticed some minor plumes. but, i continue to hear a lot of banging downstairs.
i guess if she's leaving then she'll want to be out by the first.
and, i'll wait until the first before i start making daily complaints. it's just going to be something like:
"yeah. she's still smoking. *click*."
again: you can't just order an addict to stop.
well, i'll acknowledge that this is a better approach than modelling for this election, as there is a potential for a large swing. but, i'll point out again that when you take a lot of crap and average it out, you're left with an average amount of crap.
i don't think the evidence that the pcs are polling over 40 right now is very strong.
what i want to point out, instead, is that this is the kind of headline the liberals would love to see replicated and picked up on. because the truth is that a lot of people are still voting against harris, rather than in favour of any specific liberal idea. these people are aging, though, too.
is there some value in the idea? i'm going to suggest that there is. harris was a brash neo-liberal that didn't give a fuck. ford is very much in the same mold.
the difference is that harris was still a tory, and was still able to hold a large amount of the old tory base. it took time for that to disintegrate, in revulsion at the shift towards markets (and just as a consequence of dying off). ford may do well amongst newer canadians, and that is a game changer, but he's going to have a harder time holding that red tory swing, which is still key in ontario for at least a little while longer. and, this is a cultural thing rather than a political thing - old tories are going to simply dislike him.
in the end, the election may depend on whether ford can hold his own party's traditional base or not, even as he makes large advances into traditional liberal voter territory. trump managed to do this. we'll see if ford can or not.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ford-harris-1.4636845
i don't think the evidence that the pcs are polling over 40 right now is very strong.
what i want to point out, instead, is that this is the kind of headline the liberals would love to see replicated and picked up on. because the truth is that a lot of people are still voting against harris, rather than in favour of any specific liberal idea. these people are aging, though, too.
is there some value in the idea? i'm going to suggest that there is. harris was a brash neo-liberal that didn't give a fuck. ford is very much in the same mold.
the difference is that harris was still a tory, and was still able to hold a large amount of the old tory base. it took time for that to disintegrate, in revulsion at the shift towards markets (and just as a consequence of dying off). ford may do well amongst newer canadians, and that is a game changer, but he's going to have a harder time holding that red tory swing, which is still key in ontario for at least a little while longer. and, this is a cultural thing rather than a political thing - old tories are going to simply dislike him.
in the end, the election may depend on whether ford can hold his own party's traditional base or not, even as he makes large advances into traditional liberal voter territory. trump managed to do this. we'll see if ford can or not.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ford-harris-1.4636845
unfortunately, when your apartment constantly smells like drugs and
smoke, it's hard to see the value in things like laundry and showering
because everything smells bad again in minutes, anyways.
i'm going to have to redo the last load i did.
but i'm coming up against my own stench, right now.
and i actually think that's a good sign - if i can smell myself over the background radiation.
i'm going to have to redo the last load i did.
but i'm coming up against my own stench, right now.
and i actually think that's a good sign - if i can smell myself over the background radiation.
i've been sitting here for hours, unsure if i'm going to fall asleep or not.
either i'll get to work or i'll fall asleep.
i think that when i do crash, i'll be happy to get something a little less broken.
the air is better tonight, but we'll see how long that lasts. i'm even considering showering...
either i'll get to work or i'll fall asleep.
i think that when i do crash, i'll be happy to get something a little less broken.
the air is better tonight, but we'll see how long that lasts. i'm even considering showering...
i actually don't have the slightest idea why anybody would think i've ever been a modern hardcore fan.
i don't, and never did, have any patience for that kind of thing.
i met some friends near the end of high school that knew i had a large cd collection. i didn't realize it for several years, but they thought i had hundreds of metal cds; in fact, i had hundreds of techno cds. well, industrial & techno.
warp records stuff. nettwerk records stuff. wax trax stuff. nin. thirlwell. coil. electronic pop, like bowie or oldfield. electronic post-rock, like tortoise. kraut/kosmische, like tangerine dream. keyboard-driven prog. goth. new wave.
the balance was mostly psychedelic music, itself often fairly electronic.
and, yeah, there were a few dozen punk discs from the 80s and 90s, as well.
i bought a late megadeath album on cassette once, but sold it within a few months. and, i flirted a little with korn, because they were weird.
but i never listened to, like, refused or anything like that. no "emo" (until the 2010s, when there was that brief moment of arty screamo). never liked that van halen, protest the hero kind of thing. was never my thing. i was listening to instrumental music at the time.
sorry.
i don't, and never did, have any patience for that kind of thing.
i met some friends near the end of high school that knew i had a large cd collection. i didn't realize it for several years, but they thought i had hundreds of metal cds; in fact, i had hundreds of techno cds. well, industrial & techno.
warp records stuff. nettwerk records stuff. wax trax stuff. nin. thirlwell. coil. electronic pop, like bowie or oldfield. electronic post-rock, like tortoise. kraut/kosmische, like tangerine dream. keyboard-driven prog. goth. new wave.
the balance was mostly psychedelic music, itself often fairly electronic.
and, yeah, there were a few dozen punk discs from the 80s and 90s, as well.
i bought a late megadeath album on cassette once, but sold it within a few months. and, i flirted a little with korn, because they were weird.
but i never listened to, like, refused or anything like that. no "emo" (until the 2010s, when there was that brief moment of arty screamo). never liked that van halen, protest the hero kind of thing. was never my thing. i was listening to instrumental music at the time.
sorry.
Friday, April 27, 2018
and, let me say this: any yankee who agrees with canada's position on pharmaceutical generic pricing should feel free to gather in their public squares, to voice their opinions in protests that are however violent they decide that they should be.
diversity of tactics.
we need a united front. the people need to stand united, across these borders, against corporate greed. when donald trump stands in collusion with the drug companies and attacks foreign countries for regulating their prices, everybody loses - on both sides of all borders. for, that is no doubt the true aim: to prevent americans from being able to afford the medications they need.
diversity of tactics.
we need a united front. the people need to stand united, across these borders, against corporate greed. when donald trump stands in collusion with the drug companies and attacks foreign countries for regulating their prices, everybody loses - on both sides of all borders. for, that is no doubt the true aim: to prevent americans from being able to afford the medications they need.
pulling out of syria is the right thing to do; i pointed it out here some time ago.
yes - russia is likely to gain the upper hand inside syria. but, that's inevitable. whatever objectives existed in 2011 are no longer meaningful.
the major objectives for america in the region need to be the following:
1) maintain and rebuild the turkish alliance.
2) minimizing iranian influence in the halls of power in turkey & iraq, rather than on the battlefield. you can't fight this war when every government in the region is against you. the way to contain iran right now is to rebuild bridges in iraq - and in turkey.
3) a reanalysis of russian capabilities, and an acceptance of the return of russian power.
at the end of the day, we might end up lucky that it isn't hillary clinton making these choices.
it's saigon all over again.
and, they can lose this war the easy way or the hard way.
yes - russia is likely to gain the upper hand inside syria. but, that's inevitable. whatever objectives existed in 2011 are no longer meaningful.
the major objectives for america in the region need to be the following:
1) maintain and rebuild the turkish alliance.
2) minimizing iranian influence in the halls of power in turkey & iraq, rather than on the battlefield. you can't fight this war when every government in the region is against you. the way to contain iran right now is to rebuild bridges in iraq - and in turkey.
3) a reanalysis of russian capabilities, and an acceptance of the return of russian power.
at the end of the day, we might end up lucky that it isn't hillary clinton making these choices.
it's saigon all over again.
and, they can lose this war the easy way or the hard way.
this is outrageous.
the rest of the world should issue a joint statement denouncing america as a rogue state and telling it to fuck off and mind it's own business.
america has no right to deregulate drug prices outside it's borders; this is an absurd attack on our sovereignty, and should be met with the harshest response possible.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4172723/trump-administration-canada-intellectual-property/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
the rest of the world should issue a joint statement denouncing america as a rogue state and telling it to fuck off and mind it's own business.
america has no right to deregulate drug prices outside it's borders; this is an absurd attack on our sovereignty, and should be met with the harshest response possible.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4172723/trump-administration-canada-intellectual-property/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
so, i'm going to start listening to hip-hop eventually, right?
i need hip-hop to have a punk phase, first, is what i think.
see, i've said this repeatedly: if i was alive in the 60s, i would have hated rock music. i would have despised the rolling stones, looked down on the doors with utter contempt, pointed out that bob dylan wasn't actually a musician, argued the byrds and the velvets were boring...
i would have liked zappa, but he wasn't really a rock musician. and, i would have recognized the value in the the production team headed by george martin, rather than liked the actual beatles.
but, i would have actually been into jazz and classical music. where i reached into rock would have been through blues - so i would have appreciated hendrix as a blues guitarist. but, you'd have been more likely to find me at a john mclaughlin concert, or a philip glass opera or some early prog festival.
stated honestly and bluntly and tersely: i would have thought rock music was stupid, that rock musicians were depraved and that rock culture was nihilistic.
and, that's kind of what i think about hip-hop.
punk changed this narrative, by co-opting what was really a corporate brainwashing tool (they keep you doped on religion, and sex and tv - and rock 'n' roll, too) into a kind of agit-prop. and, that's what i can't find in hip-hop, and what i would need to get interested in it.
because i've also thought that jim morrison was a retard, and been far more interested in jello biafra.
maybe it's already happened and i missed it. but, i suspect that it's probably something that happens when hip-hop moves on, when the suits and dancers have gone on to the next thing, and all that's left are the nerds.
i need hip-hop to have a punk phase, first, is what i think.
see, i've said this repeatedly: if i was alive in the 60s, i would have hated rock music. i would have despised the rolling stones, looked down on the doors with utter contempt, pointed out that bob dylan wasn't actually a musician, argued the byrds and the velvets were boring...
i would have liked zappa, but he wasn't really a rock musician. and, i would have recognized the value in the the production team headed by george martin, rather than liked the actual beatles.
but, i would have actually been into jazz and classical music. where i reached into rock would have been through blues - so i would have appreciated hendrix as a blues guitarist. but, you'd have been more likely to find me at a john mclaughlin concert, or a philip glass opera or some early prog festival.
stated honestly and bluntly and tersely: i would have thought rock music was stupid, that rock musicians were depraved and that rock culture was nihilistic.
and, that's kind of what i think about hip-hop.
punk changed this narrative, by co-opting what was really a corporate brainwashing tool (they keep you doped on religion, and sex and tv - and rock 'n' roll, too) into a kind of agit-prop. and, that's what i can't find in hip-hop, and what i would need to get interested in it.
because i've also thought that jim morrison was a retard, and been far more interested in jello biafra.
maybe it's already happened and i missed it. but, i suspect that it's probably something that happens when hip-hop moves on, when the suits and dancers have gone on to the next thing, and all that's left are the nerds.
yeah, i got the regular estrace and paid the difference.
the physical is on monday.
the blood test will be some time next week.
and, we can talk about dosages and medication decisions when the results come back, in mid-may.
i could very well switch, in the end; this is just not the right time to play with this.
the physical is on monday.
the blood test will be some time next week.
and, we can talk about dosages and medication decisions when the results come back, in mid-may.
i could very well switch, in the end; this is just not the right time to play with this.
i'm apprehensive about this.
since i had my dosage increased a little over two years ago, i haven't felt as though my estrogen levels were low.
and, i feel that this should be measured empirically, rather than guessed at.
i will have a blood test this upcoming week; this is the wrong time for this experiment. it's just going to fuck up the test results.
so, i'm going to take the pills back and ask for the estrace, and then act as though i missed a dose.
since i had my dosage increased a little over two years ago, i haven't felt as though my estrogen levels were low.
and, i feel that this should be measured empirically, rather than guessed at.
i will have a blood test this upcoming week; this is the wrong time for this experiment. it's just going to fuck up the test results.
so, i'm going to take the pills back and ask for the estrace, and then act as though i missed a dose.
wait.
this isn't a generic estrace, it's a hemihydrate.
the difference appears to be that the regular estrace needs to go through your liver, whereas the hemi-hydrate is just estrogen surrounded by water, and so absorbs on contact. but, if you take estrogen like this, you get a spike of estrogen and then a fall - which is likely to lead to mood swings. and, i kind of don't like the idea of taking estrogen like a drug. i want constant and stable levels, not to get high on hormones and then crash.
i know that i don't want to this through absorption - i want my liver to regulate it - but i don't know if it's going to be as effective, taken orally. logic kind of tells me that it's going to get ruined in my stomach, if it's just estrogen surrounded by water.
i have an appointment on monday...
but, let's see what i can learn about this in the short run.
this isn't a generic estrace, it's a hemihydrate.
the difference appears to be that the regular estrace needs to go through your liver, whereas the hemi-hydrate is just estrogen surrounded by water, and so absorbs on contact. but, if you take estrogen like this, you get a spike of estrogen and then a fall - which is likely to lead to mood swings. and, i kind of don't like the idea of taking estrogen like a drug. i want constant and stable levels, not to get high on hormones and then crash.
i know that i don't want to this through absorption - i want my liver to regulate it - but i don't know if it's going to be as effective, taken orally. logic kind of tells me that it's going to get ruined in my stomach, if it's just estrogen surrounded by water.
i have an appointment on monday...
but, let's see what i can learn about this in the short run.
hey, here's some good news - new ownership at the local shopper's has got my pills down in cost by ~25%.
they claim it's due to moving to generics.
here's the thing: i knew generics were less expensive the whole time, and i actually shopped around a few years ago, but everybody gave me the same price. the price went up a lot at one point at the beginning of 2016, and the answer i got had to do with the brand switching. i explicitly asked for generics, and they told me something about distributors. now, the pharmacist randomly switches me back to generics and is claiming he always had generics.
?
$20+/month over two years adds up to around $500. i should probably be kind of irked.
and, i know that the previous management didn't like the fact that she couldn't refuse me service, or set her own prices to get me out of the store. she seemed to be both religious + very pro-market. but, she bought a chain store in canada, inheriting two layers of strict rules. she really didn't have the right to discriminate against me, and nobody was going to let her do it - not even her employees.
i'm going to guess that they probably did run out of generics at some point two years ago, and they didn't switch me back when the generics came back in. the new management noticed the problem, and fixed it.
so, thanks. i guess.
i don't have an argument for a claim, because i received what i paid for. i don't think the store made anything from it - it was more about enforcing a value system than making a profit.
*shrug*.
let's just look forwards...
they claim it's due to moving to generics.
here's the thing: i knew generics were less expensive the whole time, and i actually shopped around a few years ago, but everybody gave me the same price. the price went up a lot at one point at the beginning of 2016, and the answer i got had to do with the brand switching. i explicitly asked for generics, and they told me something about distributors. now, the pharmacist randomly switches me back to generics and is claiming he always had generics.
?
$20+/month over two years adds up to around $500. i should probably be kind of irked.
and, i know that the previous management didn't like the fact that she couldn't refuse me service, or set her own prices to get me out of the store. she seemed to be both religious + very pro-market. but, she bought a chain store in canada, inheriting two layers of strict rules. she really didn't have the right to discriminate against me, and nobody was going to let her do it - not even her employees.
i'm going to guess that they probably did run out of generics at some point two years ago, and they didn't switch me back when the generics came back in. the new management noticed the problem, and fixed it.
so, thanks. i guess.
i don't have an argument for a claim, because i received what i paid for. i don't think the store made anything from it - it was more about enforcing a value system than making a profit.
*shrug*.
let's just look forwards...
like, she seems to have reacted to the situation this afternoon by turning the cure up really loud and going in her room and pouting.
as though she'd been grounded.
"it's not fair!" - with eyeliner picking up marijuana smoke, running amuck through kyoto song.
the thing is that she's like 45.
arrested development. entitlement. just a spoiled brat. call it what you will. but, it has to end soon, one way or another.
as though she'd been grounded.
"it's not fair!" - with eyeliner picking up marijuana smoke, running amuck through kyoto song.
the thing is that she's like 45.
arrested development. entitlement. just a spoiled brat. call it what you will. but, it has to end soon, one way or another.
you're going to get arguments like "but it was after midnight" or
"but it was after 4:00", like that matters - because, in her warped
concept of logic, it actually does, because that's when her parents went to sleep and she could do what she wants.
this is what i'm dealing with, here.
there's no logic to it.
this is what i'm dealing with, here.
there's no logic to it.
it's been mostly ok most of the night, but she seems to be smoking right now.
it's not exactly overwhelming. yet.
but, it demonstrates the problem, which is the addiction itself. she doesn't think she's doing anything wrong. so, she's going to push it and push it until we're back where we were. and, that's why i had to file to the board - she's just not interested in making the choice of complying.
she's like a 12 year old. really.
that said, i think i overheard her say she was moving in with her daughter.
that would be nice...
it's not exactly overwhelming. yet.
but, it demonstrates the problem, which is the addiction itself. she doesn't think she's doing anything wrong. so, she's going to push it and push it until we're back where we were. and, that's why i had to file to the board - she's just not interested in making the choice of complying.
she's like a 12 year old. really.
that said, i think i overheard her say she was moving in with her daughter.
that would be nice...
how about this for an attack ad?
"with his support for free market reforms, and his insistence on keeping our children ignorant of their own sexuality, doug ford will turn ontario's economy into that of mexico's - and our schools into muslim madrassas.
want to live like muslims in mexico? then vote for doug ford."
"with his support for free market reforms, and his insistence on keeping our children ignorant of their own sexuality, doug ford will turn ontario's economy into that of mexico's - and our schools into muslim madrassas.
want to live like muslims in mexico? then vote for doug ford."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)