i'm just imagining the scenario of a drunk person looking for a beer at 12:30.
if they're in town, they can find a bar. do i think it makes any difference if they try to get served at a bar or a store? well, you're going to run into hardasses either way, right. some bars serve anybody. some stores are pretty strict. the rules are going to be the same in either circumstance. so, what actual difference does it make? the server is a random variable, and you're just applying a prejudice towards one type or another.
you could argue that the bartender knows now much they've had to drink - which is true until they go to another bar.
maybe the more enlightened perspective is to put responsibility for drunkeness on the drunk, and not on the servers?
now, suppose this person is not in town. there may be a store a mile away, but the nearest bar is 20 miles away. is it a better idea to tell them to drive to the bar or let them pick it up at the store?
i'm not suggesting that this is a pressing issue; i'm not going to vote for or against beer in corner stores. i don't really care one way or another. but, kathleen wynne is embarrassing herself, and doing an incredible disservice to her party brand in thrusting out unfounded right-wing scare-mongering.
we need rational discourse, not the perpetuation of poorly thought through absurdities designed to act at the emotional level.
wynne isn't just running on an ndp platform, she's acting like an ndp leader. she's perpetuating all of the reasons i tend to avoid voting for this party, without really encapsulating any of the reasons i might think about it.....
even using the term "progressive" is bizarre. liberals are not "progressives", they're liberals. we fought prohibition, we didn't enact it. the ndp are progressives, in the prairie gospel sense. the conservatives are progressives in the populist farmers sense. the liberals are not and never have been nor have ever had anything to do with progressive politics.
the liberals may indeed require an extended period in the wilderness to figure out who they are. it's a shame. based purely on policy, they seemed to be doing alright. then, the writ dropped and it exposed a party that doesn't know what it is, any more.
i still don't really want to vote for the ndp. i want to vote for the liberals. but, the liberals don't seem to understand what being a liberal means any more....
i dunno what to do.
i don't think the conservatives are serious contenders in this riding, so it probably doesn't matter if i stay home.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
i stopped this morning right before i got to the end of season 5.
there's now less than 2 months and less than two hundred pages before i get to the hookup with the blog, and the project flips over to archiving...
the audio closure also began in mid 2016, meaning i should be able to do some alter-reality work soon, too.
i wanted to eat and get to looking through listings this morning. instead, i crashed hard after the smoothie and feel like i should wait until tomorrow.
i wasn't as productive over the second half of the weekend as i'd have liked to have been. and all the listings i saw last week were for july...if can get a good 24 hours in, i think that's a better use of time tonight....
how's the air quality?
it's sporadic. she smoked a nasty joint last night, and it was still lingering deep into the morning. as mentioned, i slept all day - and i'm waking up feeling pretty awful. but, what i am is dehydrated, and i actually think it's partially from the air conditioner.
we're getting some nice hot & humid days this week, so i should be able to keep the windows open to fight the air. it really hasn't been warm enough out to turn the a/c on at all this spring. again: i don't understand these people. you turn the a/c on when it's 20 degrees out? what? i'd still have the heat on...20 degrees is cold...
what i'm going to say is that she's stopped smoking, except when it's raining. of course, that's the worst, because i can't always open the windows in the rain. but, you have to keep in mind that she has no legal obligation to smoke outside, either. this is a frustrating situation where nobody seems to know what the law is, and nobody seems to much care what it would be, if they did. it makes it difficult to react legally; neither the tenants nor the landlords care about the law or behave in ways consistent with it or intend to have to deal with it. anarchism isn't the idea that we don't follow laws, it's the idea that we don't need cops to force us to, and they're actually both failing that test, here - these are people that need a state to tell them what to do, because they can't figure it out on their own.
so, the landlord is illegally asking her to smoke outside, and she's mostly doing it, but it's not any kind of real solution. when she does decide to smoke inside, it lingers for days and makes me sick. the landlord is refusing to implement a real solution, which would be patching up the holes in the floor. he's really behaving illegally towards both of us, creating this false scenario of imaginary compromise. and, i think he's clueless enough to show up in court and say "i asked her to smoke outside...." and think that absolves him of liability. it doesn't. if he's not going to fix the floors, he needs to pay me out.
so, i'm going to work until i'm so hungry i have to stop.
there's now less than 2 months and less than two hundred pages before i get to the hookup with the blog, and the project flips over to archiving...
the audio closure also began in mid 2016, meaning i should be able to do some alter-reality work soon, too.
i wanted to eat and get to looking through listings this morning. instead, i crashed hard after the smoothie and feel like i should wait until tomorrow.
i wasn't as productive over the second half of the weekend as i'd have liked to have been. and all the listings i saw last week were for july...if can get a good 24 hours in, i think that's a better use of time tonight....
how's the air quality?
it's sporadic. she smoked a nasty joint last night, and it was still lingering deep into the morning. as mentioned, i slept all day - and i'm waking up feeling pretty awful. but, what i am is dehydrated, and i actually think it's partially from the air conditioner.
we're getting some nice hot & humid days this week, so i should be able to keep the windows open to fight the air. it really hasn't been warm enough out to turn the a/c on at all this spring. again: i don't understand these people. you turn the a/c on when it's 20 degrees out? what? i'd still have the heat on...20 degrees is cold...
what i'm going to say is that she's stopped smoking, except when it's raining. of course, that's the worst, because i can't always open the windows in the rain. but, you have to keep in mind that she has no legal obligation to smoke outside, either. this is a frustrating situation where nobody seems to know what the law is, and nobody seems to much care what it would be, if they did. it makes it difficult to react legally; neither the tenants nor the landlords care about the law or behave in ways consistent with it or intend to have to deal with it. anarchism isn't the idea that we don't follow laws, it's the idea that we don't need cops to force us to, and they're actually both failing that test, here - these are people that need a state to tell them what to do, because they can't figure it out on their own.
so, the landlord is illegally asking her to smoke outside, and she's mostly doing it, but it's not any kind of real solution. when she does decide to smoke inside, it lingers for days and makes me sick. the landlord is refusing to implement a real solution, which would be patching up the holes in the floor. he's really behaving illegally towards both of us, creating this false scenario of imaginary compromise. and, i think he's clueless enough to show up in court and say "i asked her to smoke outside...." and think that absolves him of liability. it doesn't. if he's not going to fix the floors, he needs to pay me out.
so, i'm going to work until i'm so hungry i have to stop.
Monday, May 21, 2018
two sentences in the platform on the gai.
but, what we've seen from the ndp is better encapsulated in the following part of the platform:
"The focus of the social assistance system should be helping people overcome barriers, get out of poverty and participate in society. "
that is what you're going to actually get from them. and, as such, i don't really trust them to follow through on a ubi; it's not really consistent with their ideological positions.
the tendency of "progressive" parties to push producerist policy is just typical calvinist bullshit: what they support is using the government's resources to send people to work, which in the end is just a process of trying to maximize profit for investors. it's this idea that the government is a human resources department for capital, and that, ultimately, it is work that sets us free. perfectly backwards. perfectly orwellian. you might naively point to religion as some kind of force of purity, but it was marx himself that made the point that religion is the tool that capital uses to brainwash workers with, and this is the analysis that any leftist would utilize - but progressives have never been leftists, they've always been conservatives.
i happen to seek freedom from labour, i don't need or want the government to help me to find a job, i want to abolish wage slavery. as the liberals are a bourgeois party, the focus on calvinism or producerism is less, and so they do seem to appeal more to the interests of artists.
i flipped through this, and my immediate take is that most of this just isn't going to happen, or is being presented sort of bizarrely. for example, they do state in the platform that their pharmacare plan only covers 125 drugs, but then they repeatedly refer to it as "universal pharmacare", which isn't really true. the liberal plan covers less people, but offers coverage for thousands of drugs for the people it's covering.
i sent my ndp mpp an email about getting estrogen covered under odsp once and he didn't reply. it's nice to see the promise, but i wouldn't bet on it. and, i'd be better off with the gai, if i have to choose.
i also don't think their claim that the liberals have pushed through deep cuts to health care is factually accurate; they actually brought in a special health tax. i spend a lot of time in the health system, and my only complaint is that the doctors seem to be too socially conservative. i've never faced unreasonable delays or experienced any of the things that the ndp are talking about.
at the end of the day, these are specific changes that will benefit specific people, so it's less about whether one health care plan is better than the other, and more about whether you're in a specific target group. if you're in the group that the liberals are targetting, you're obviously better off with a drug plan that covers thousands of medications; if you're not, the very limited coverage being offered by the ndp is better than nothing. it's something similar with the child care. so, it's a weird election on that level - there isn't really an objectively correct choice, not even over traditionally determined demographic groups.
nobody is offering universal plans, so it comes down to who you're being targeted by. and, that's a prescription to split the vote....
i don't get the same kind of personal commitment from horwath that i get from wynne; this is almost the exact opposite of what she told us four years ago, so it's feeling like she's just making shit up to get elected. it comes off as shady, slimy & opportunistic. i'm more inclined to believe that the 2014 version was the real andrea horwath, and so i'm left to conclude that you should be expecting her to govern on her right. at least the liberals have a record you can consult to understand where they sit: horwath just tells you what she thinks you want to hear, and changes her views as quickly as she realizes it isn't.
again: i don't want a change of government right now, and i'm uneasy about believing what the ndp is telling me. i don't think that voting ndp right now is a good idea. and, i think you should read this a bit more carefully, and compare it carefully to the 2014 platform, if you're convinced that it is.
https://www.ontariondp.ca/sites/default/files/Change-for-the-better.pdf
but, what we've seen from the ndp is better encapsulated in the following part of the platform:
"The focus of the social assistance system should be helping people overcome barriers, get out of poverty and participate in society. "
that is what you're going to actually get from them. and, as such, i don't really trust them to follow through on a ubi; it's not really consistent with their ideological positions.
the tendency of "progressive" parties to push producerist policy is just typical calvinist bullshit: what they support is using the government's resources to send people to work, which in the end is just a process of trying to maximize profit for investors. it's this idea that the government is a human resources department for capital, and that, ultimately, it is work that sets us free. perfectly backwards. perfectly orwellian. you might naively point to religion as some kind of force of purity, but it was marx himself that made the point that religion is the tool that capital uses to brainwash workers with, and this is the analysis that any leftist would utilize - but progressives have never been leftists, they've always been conservatives.
i happen to seek freedom from labour, i don't need or want the government to help me to find a job, i want to abolish wage slavery. as the liberals are a bourgeois party, the focus on calvinism or producerism is less, and so they do seem to appeal more to the interests of artists.
i flipped through this, and my immediate take is that most of this just isn't going to happen, or is being presented sort of bizarrely. for example, they do state in the platform that their pharmacare plan only covers 125 drugs, but then they repeatedly refer to it as "universal pharmacare", which isn't really true. the liberal plan covers less people, but offers coverage for thousands of drugs for the people it's covering.
i sent my ndp mpp an email about getting estrogen covered under odsp once and he didn't reply. it's nice to see the promise, but i wouldn't bet on it. and, i'd be better off with the gai, if i have to choose.
i also don't think their claim that the liberals have pushed through deep cuts to health care is factually accurate; they actually brought in a special health tax. i spend a lot of time in the health system, and my only complaint is that the doctors seem to be too socially conservative. i've never faced unreasonable delays or experienced any of the things that the ndp are talking about.
at the end of the day, these are specific changes that will benefit specific people, so it's less about whether one health care plan is better than the other, and more about whether you're in a specific target group. if you're in the group that the liberals are targetting, you're obviously better off with a drug plan that covers thousands of medications; if you're not, the very limited coverage being offered by the ndp is better than nothing. it's something similar with the child care. so, it's a weird election on that level - there isn't really an objectively correct choice, not even over traditionally determined demographic groups.
nobody is offering universal plans, so it comes down to who you're being targeted by. and, that's a prescription to split the vote....
i don't get the same kind of personal commitment from horwath that i get from wynne; this is almost the exact opposite of what she told us four years ago, so it's feeling like she's just making shit up to get elected. it comes off as shady, slimy & opportunistic. i'm more inclined to believe that the 2014 version was the real andrea horwath, and so i'm left to conclude that you should be expecting her to govern on her right. at least the liberals have a record you can consult to understand where they sit: horwath just tells you what she thinks you want to hear, and changes her views as quickly as she realizes it isn't.
again: i don't want a change of government right now, and i'm uneasy about believing what the ndp is telling me. i don't think that voting ndp right now is a good idea. and, i think you should read this a bit more carefully, and compare it carefully to the 2014 platform, if you're convinced that it is.
https://www.ontariondp.ca/sites/default/files/Change-for-the-better.pdf
the liberals need to be defending their own record, and putting forth their own proposals, not playing gotcha politics over trivialities.
i actually want to vote for what the liberals have put in motion. the ndp doesn't care about the environment, and it's stuck in a producerist attitude towards labour. the ndp haven't said anything about the gai, from what i can tell. but, these constant absurd meltdowns are making it almost impossible to hold to their own vision, which they're not even trying to project any more - they're just taking ideas from the ndp and watering them down, then selling it back as ndp-lite....and then criticizing them over trivial nonsense. who the fuck thought that would work?
it's almost like they're trying to lose this election.
i actually want to vote for what the liberals have put in motion. the ndp doesn't care about the environment, and it's stuck in a producerist attitude towards labour. the ndp haven't said anything about the gai, from what i can tell. but, these constant absurd meltdowns are making it almost impossible to hold to their own vision, which they're not even trying to project any more - they're just taking ideas from the ndp and watering them down, then selling it back as ndp-lite....and then criticizing them over trivial nonsense. who the fuck thought that would work?
it's almost like they're trying to lose this election.
it just exposes that the liberals have kind of lost the plot on their own governing proposals; it's a triviality, and about the only people that are going to give it a second thought are in the conservative party base. so, are they trying to stop conservatives from voting for the ndp?
it's just tactically incoherent.
it's just tactically incoherent.
during world war one, in the british empire, only people that owned property could vote. the mass of dead conscripted soldiers lacked the most basic concepts of freedom, as we understand them today - they were impoverished cannon fodder with almost no rights, that were sent to die for no discernible reason at all.
the poppy was meant to commemorate the senselessness of this slaughter by reminding us of how so many young men became fertilizer for these flowers that grow in the cemeteries of belgium, not uphold this revisionist nonsense that anybody "died for your freedom".
the poppy was meant to commemorate the senselessness of this slaughter by reminding us of how so many young men became fertilizer for these flowers that grow in the cemeteries of belgium, not uphold this revisionist nonsense that anybody "died for your freedom".
the poppy thing is complicated.
it's not supposed to be a glorification of war; it's supposed to be a symbol of mourning. but, in practice it's absolutely a glorification of war. so, i find myself largely in agreement with the statement, with the caveat that the thing has been badly co-opted.
i don't wear them, and i strenuously avoid the people handing them out.
it's not supposed to be a glorification of war; it's supposed to be a symbol of mourning. but, in practice it's absolutely a glorification of war. so, i find myself largely in agreement with the statement, with the caveat that the thing has been badly co-opted.
i don't wear them, and i strenuously avoid the people handing them out.
this tired old media narrative from the 1970s is coming back up: that the ndp are "fiscally irresponsible". that's propaganda from like three generations ago...
the facts in canada are that the ndp tends to be the party with the strongest fiscal discipline, as demonstrated by it's strong endorsement from the fraser institute (for roy romanow). bob rae is famous for his "rae days", which were a straight out attack on workers to try and cut the deficit.
on the other hand, the conservatives are known for running the largest deficits, due to their insistence on tax cuts that create structural deficits. they get into office by bribing people with tax cuts, but then they realize nothing can be cut after all, so they just let the deficits pile up.
these are just the facts: the ndp balances budgets by cutting programs, and the conservatives run huge deficits by decreasing taxes.
the liberals tend to exist in the middle, which is really the worst if you're an ideological small-c conservative: they run deficits, because they don't cut programs. they tend to privatize, instead, when they ought to raise corporate taxes, or ask the feds to print more money.
but, the narrative the media is going to present - that the conservatives are fiscally responsible and the ndp are not - is simply a fantasy reality. it may have been true before you were born, granted. but, it hasn't been true in forty years. in the modern era, it's the exact opposite: the conservatives run the biggest deficits, and the ndp run the smallest ones.
that's just the facts. just empirical observation.
the facts in canada are that the ndp tends to be the party with the strongest fiscal discipline, as demonstrated by it's strong endorsement from the fraser institute (for roy romanow). bob rae is famous for his "rae days", which were a straight out attack on workers to try and cut the deficit.
on the other hand, the conservatives are known for running the largest deficits, due to their insistence on tax cuts that create structural deficits. they get into office by bribing people with tax cuts, but then they realize nothing can be cut after all, so they just let the deficits pile up.
these are just the facts: the ndp balances budgets by cutting programs, and the conservatives run huge deficits by decreasing taxes.
the liberals tend to exist in the middle, which is really the worst if you're an ideological small-c conservative: they run deficits, because they don't cut programs. they tend to privatize, instead, when they ought to raise corporate taxes, or ask the feds to print more money.
but, the narrative the media is going to present - that the conservatives are fiscally responsible and the ndp are not - is simply a fantasy reality. it may have been true before you were born, granted. but, it hasn't been true in forty years. in the modern era, it's the exact opposite: the conservatives run the biggest deficits, and the ndp run the smallest ones.
that's just the facts. just empirical observation.
and, of course.
victoria day is, of course, about queen victoria, the previous long-lived queen, who resided over the decay of british society into rigid, puritanical absurdity. it's not exactly her fault, but she seems to have been on board with it - as weird and hypocritical as the period was. a lot of the social norms we take for granted - and that leftists have been fighting so hard to destroy - come out of this period of resurgent conservatism.
we'd be better off forgetting about it than upholding it - and, by co-opting the weekend for feats of drinking bombast, perhaps we are on the path there.
i'd be happy to see the name of the holiday changed.
speaking of which, i had to sleep most of the day. i was home around 9:30, but didn't really get to sleep until about 17:00. i am going to spend monday rebuilding, and then get back to looking on tuesday.
victoria day is, of course, about queen victoria, the previous long-lived queen, who resided over the decay of british society into rigid, puritanical absurdity. it's not exactly her fault, but she seems to have been on board with it - as weird and hypocritical as the period was. a lot of the social norms we take for granted - and that leftists have been fighting so hard to destroy - come out of this period of resurgent conservatism.
we'd be better off forgetting about it than upholding it - and, by co-opting the weekend for feats of drinking bombast, perhaps we are on the path there.
i'd be happy to see the name of the holiday changed.
speaking of which, i had to sleep most of the day. i was home around 9:30, but didn't really get to sleep until about 17:00. i am going to spend monday rebuilding, and then get back to looking on tuesday.
i spend a lot of time in detroit, and you can get booze in the corner stores, there. they're called "party stores", rather than convenience stores - there's a specific market for it. i kid you not. given the way i transit through detroit, this is useful to me. if i get out of a concert at 12:15 and want to get to a late night destination that's a 20-30 minute bike ride away, it makes sense to grab a drink for the ride.
i know that a lot of people will frown on this, and i ended that paragraph where i did to produce a shocked reaction, but i haven't lost any limbs yet and don't intend to any time soon. my example isn't exactly widely emulated.
that said, let's address the actual point here, which is the hours that the stores are open. the reason people get frustrated is that they have to go to a bar to get a drink if they can't get to the store before 22:00, or if they just happen to run out early. is 22:00 really a reasonable closing time in 2018? could it not be extended until 2:00?
but, this is just another example of where these parties are on the spectrum: the conservatives are promising to extend the hours available for purchase, while the socialists are in favour of continuing restricted access. then, they wonder why their bases are upside down - why the socialists do better with lawyers, and the conservatives do better with workers.
i don't personally find the status quo to be particularly restrictive, because i just buy more than i need ahead of time and then drink too much.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/19/andrea-horwath-says-ndp-would-not-allow-beer-wine-sales-at-corner-stores.html
i know that a lot of people will frown on this, and i ended that paragraph where i did to produce a shocked reaction, but i haven't lost any limbs yet and don't intend to any time soon. my example isn't exactly widely emulated.
that said, let's address the actual point here, which is the hours that the stores are open. the reason people get frustrated is that they have to go to a bar to get a drink if they can't get to the store before 22:00, or if they just happen to run out early. is 22:00 really a reasonable closing time in 2018? could it not be extended until 2:00?
but, this is just another example of where these parties are on the spectrum: the conservatives are promising to extend the hours available for purchase, while the socialists are in favour of continuing restricted access. then, they wonder why their bases are upside down - why the socialists do better with lawyers, and the conservatives do better with workers.
i don't personally find the status quo to be particularly restrictive, because i just buy more than i need ahead of time and then drink too much.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/19/andrea-horwath-says-ndp-would-not-allow-beer-wine-sales-at-corner-stores.html
toronto probably needs emergency shelter to house it's native-born homeless population, anyways.
if this is an excuse to get more money into the system, that's great. and, shame on everybody for needing a refugee crisis to do it.
i mean, john tory wasn't somewhere i was expecting to find an inversion of naomi klein's logic on disaster capitalism, but ill take it: let's take advantage of this crisis to get the funds flowing where they should have been flowing years ago.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/18/toronto-may-need-emergency-centres-to-house-refugees-says-mayor-tory.html
if this is an excuse to get more money into the system, that's great. and, shame on everybody for needing a refugee crisis to do it.
i mean, john tory wasn't somewhere i was expecting to find an inversion of naomi klein's logic on disaster capitalism, but ill take it: let's take advantage of this crisis to get the funds flowing where they should have been flowing years ago.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/18/toronto-may-need-emergency-centres-to-house-refugees-says-mayor-tory.html
again: i've been pointing out for a long time that i don't want to have these arguments. i have better things to do.
really.
it would be easier if practising muslims stayed in muslim countries, and we just focused on admitting apostates and atheists by screening them for high educational standards.
but, the reality is that this has been thrust upon us, and we have no choice but to fight this out in court - because i'm not about to let my rights be trampled over out of some bullshit appeal to relativism.
this is the future. it was predictable. and, only fools couldn't see it coming.
really.
it would be easier if practising muslims stayed in muslim countries, and we just focused on admitting apostates and atheists by screening them for high educational standards.
but, the reality is that this has been thrust upon us, and we have no choice but to fight this out in court - because i'm not about to let my rights be trampled over out of some bullshit appeal to relativism.
this is the future. it was predictable. and, only fools couldn't see it coming.
what we need to do is shift the narrative.
currently, we take this position that religious diversity should be respected,and we're all entitled to our beliefs. this is often confused for a liberal perspective, but is in truth incredibly right-wing.
what we need to shift the narrative to is the idea that it is in fact true that religion often teaches discrimination, and when it does so then the specific religion is wrong to do it. that is an actual liberal perspective on the topic: it seeks out an empirical truth, and interprets it relative to egalitarian principles.
we don't have an obligation to tolerate intolerance. when religion is intolerant, it needs to be called out for it. and, when religious beliefs lead people to break the law, they need to be held accountable for it, too.
it is ok to tell somebody that their religion is wrong.
currently, we take this position that religious diversity should be respected,and we're all entitled to our beliefs. this is often confused for a liberal perspective, but is in truth incredibly right-wing.
what we need to shift the narrative to is the idea that it is in fact true that religion often teaches discrimination, and when it does so then the specific religion is wrong to do it. that is an actual liberal perspective on the topic: it seeks out an empirical truth, and interprets it relative to egalitarian principles.
we don't have an obligation to tolerate intolerance. when religion is intolerant, it needs to be called out for it. and, when religious beliefs lead people to break the law, they need to be held accountable for it, too.
it is ok to tell somebody that their religion is wrong.
when you're being accused of discrimination, and your response is "but, religion.", you're not actually presenting a defence - you're just explaining why you're guilty of discrimination.
and, i consequently think the correct thing for a judge to do is be explicit about it, in identifying the religion as the source of discrimination, and causally deducing the reality of discrimination from the religious principle, itself; if the judge wanted to really do this right, it would find the precise place that the discrimination is written into the muslim scriptures, and begin the argument from that point.
the correct answer is that islam is an inherently discriminatory system of thought, and muslims need to be held accountable for it when they follow through with it.
i've been clear about this: i think that s. 2a of the charter was a mistake. it's not going to be easy to strike it out. but, for right now, anyways, judges have a responsibility to ensure that it isn't used a tool to circumvent the charter, altogether - which is what a judge would be doing in ruling that muslims have the right to discriminate against trans people, via conscience of religion. i just can't accept that argument; it's the religion that needs to be put on trial here, not the complainant.
and, i consequently think the correct thing for a judge to do is be explicit about it, in identifying the religion as the source of discrimination, and causally deducing the reality of discrimination from the religious principle, itself; if the judge wanted to really do this right, it would find the precise place that the discrimination is written into the muslim scriptures, and begin the argument from that point.
the correct answer is that islam is an inherently discriminatory system of thought, and muslims need to be held accountable for it when they follow through with it.
i've been clear about this: i think that s. 2a of the charter was a mistake. it's not going to be easy to strike it out. but, for right now, anyways, judges have a responsibility to ensure that it isn't used a tool to circumvent the charter, altogether - which is what a judge would be doing in ruling that muslims have the right to discriminate against trans people, via conscience of religion. i just can't accept that argument; it's the religion that needs to be put on trial here, not the complainant.
this sounds like a complicated case, and the facts are also in dispute. it's not going to be clear what the right answer is until the facts come out in a trial. but, my understanding of the general legal question is this:
is waxing a "general service" or a "specific service"? it might seem like it's a specific service, but there's some ambiguity if it's a general package.
a general service is something like picking something off of a menu. so, if you go into a restaurant and order the #2 special, denial of service on enumerated and analogous grounds would be a rights violation. but, if you order a #2 special with a list of specific modifications, that is a specialized service, and the owner has the right to refuse.
if the facts in the end demonstrate that this woman walked in and requested a wax job off of a menu, i would uphold the idea that this is discrimination - and i would not take the religious defense seriously. i don't think that citing religious observance is an excuse to deny service that is advertised; religion is the reason we have human rights in the first place. if the owner wins this case by citing "religious freedom", then that is just some kind of orwellian destruction of the concept of human rights - that would be upholding the right to discriminate, which is upholding the right to ignore human rights.
but, given that waxing services are widespread, i have a hard time understanding the claim to a $50,000 payment as a consequence of that discrimination. i would think that the complainant would have to demonstrate more concrete fiscal costs to be awarded a claim of this sort, or tie it to some kind of lost revenue. she's basically asking for $50,000 because somebody hurt her feelings.
it's going to come down to a bias in the judicial process, as these things generally do. but, even if she wins the argument, i don't think she wins the claims. and, it's consequently one of those weird scenarios where the judge would be justified in granting her the point - but forcing her to pay costs, anyways.
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/human-rights-application-launched-against-windsor-body-waxing-business-by-transgender-woman-1.3925911
is waxing a "general service" or a "specific service"? it might seem like it's a specific service, but there's some ambiguity if it's a general package.
a general service is something like picking something off of a menu. so, if you go into a restaurant and order the #2 special, denial of service on enumerated and analogous grounds would be a rights violation. but, if you order a #2 special with a list of specific modifications, that is a specialized service, and the owner has the right to refuse.
if the facts in the end demonstrate that this woman walked in and requested a wax job off of a menu, i would uphold the idea that this is discrimination - and i would not take the religious defense seriously. i don't think that citing religious observance is an excuse to deny service that is advertised; religion is the reason we have human rights in the first place. if the owner wins this case by citing "religious freedom", then that is just some kind of orwellian destruction of the concept of human rights - that would be upholding the right to discriminate, which is upholding the right to ignore human rights.
but, given that waxing services are widespread, i have a hard time understanding the claim to a $50,000 payment as a consequence of that discrimination. i would think that the complainant would have to demonstrate more concrete fiscal costs to be awarded a claim of this sort, or tie it to some kind of lost revenue. she's basically asking for $50,000 because somebody hurt her feelings.
it's going to come down to a bias in the judicial process, as these things generally do. but, even if she wins the argument, i don't think she wins the claims. and, it's consequently one of those weird scenarios where the judge would be justified in granting her the point - but forcing her to pay costs, anyways.
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/human-rights-application-launched-against-windsor-body-waxing-business-by-transgender-woman-1.3925911
Sunday, May 20, 2018
i went out in search of one thing last night and found something else instead, which worked out just fine.
saajtak was a good set. & i spent the rest of the night in a park. i was looking for a noise festival, but found a dance party instead.
the night is crystal clear, despite the fact that i took something from somebody that reminded me rather uncannily of an old friend of mine. and, i feel i came to terms with the utter triviality of satan as a concept, in the context of the judeo-christian mythology. i still think satanism is silly; just be a fucking atheist, y'know? but, even in this make-believe realm of metaphysical fantasy, satan is really easily disarmed as indiscernible from a metaphor for reality, and there's simply no value in being schizophrenic about it. strictly logically speaking, satan can never be any threat to you, unless you allow the fear to consume you.
so, if you ever find yourself face to face with satan, you should just ask for a smoke, and perhaps share a glass of whatever you're drinking. the only thing to fear is fear itself.
i may not have let on that i was deep in thought for much of the night. i didn't see any floating colours, but, i had an introspective moment.
introverts. you just don't know what the fuck's going on in there. really.
saajtak was a good set. & i spent the rest of the night in a park. i was looking for a noise festival, but found a dance party instead.
the night is crystal clear, despite the fact that i took something from somebody that reminded me rather uncannily of an old friend of mine. and, i feel i came to terms with the utter triviality of satan as a concept, in the context of the judeo-christian mythology. i still think satanism is silly; just be a fucking atheist, y'know? but, even in this make-believe realm of metaphysical fantasy, satan is really easily disarmed as indiscernible from a metaphor for reality, and there's simply no value in being schizophrenic about it. strictly logically speaking, satan can never be any threat to you, unless you allow the fear to consume you.
so, if you ever find yourself face to face with satan, you should just ask for a smoke, and perhaps share a glass of whatever you're drinking. the only thing to fear is fear itself.
i may not have let on that i was deep in thought for much of the night. i didn't see any floating colours, but, i had an introspective moment.
introverts. you just don't know what the fuck's going on in there. really.
i like that she's flipping the narrative on him.
it's a triviality. that doesn't matter. i have no idea what's going to happen, after this.
but, it will be a clear signal: if they don't react to this, they're beyond discourse.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/19/wynne-calls-for-police-probe-into-pc-nominations.html
it's a triviality. that doesn't matter. i have no idea what's going to happen, after this.
but, it will be a clear signal: if they don't react to this, they're beyond discourse.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/19/wynne-calls-for-police-probe-into-pc-nominations.html
Saturday, May 19, 2018
something the conservatives learned in 2011 was that the only way to get a majority for the conservatives in the 905 is to boost ndp support in key ridings at the expense of the liberals - that is, they have no choice but to try and split the vote.
the conservatives cannot win here without splitting the vote.
now, in that particular election, it was kind of what had to happen. there was no excuse to vote for ignatieff. if that was what the liberals were going to run, you had an obligation to vote ndp. there's no lesser evil calculation in voting for ignatieff over harper; the lesser evil may have even been harper. i'm not aware of harper condoning torture. ever. and, it seems unlikely and out of character; i'd be surprised to hear it, frankly.
we all knew the conservatives would win, but you had to do it, because the liberal leader was a war criminal waiting to happen.
in this particular election, that logic does not hold. wynne is about as far left as liberals come; she's maybe even an anachronism in that sense, as the other provincial liberal parties exist firmly on the center-right, nowadays.
regardless, it's easy to understand what the tory media is doing, in pushing for the ndp: it's trying to split the vote to open up ridings they wouldn't otherwise have a chance in. there is no other way for them to win.
now, don't misunderstand me: i'm not suggesting that the liberals are in good shape, here. the liberals are certainly on the brink of catastrophe. but, they've been on this precipice for months, and we don't seem to want to push them off.
i've pointing out forever, now, that wynne's big problem is on her left. but, this movement to the ndp is not happening. the polls just don't uphold the idea that liberals are moving to the ndp; what liberal voters are actually telling pollsters is that they don't know what to do.
so, we remain in this holding pattern, with the conservatives running in the mid to high 30s (which is no doubt inflated...) and the ndp run in the mid to low 20s, but the liberal base unwilling to make a choice.
as mentioned previously: if these voters decide to stay home, in the end, the liberals will be decimated by voter apathy, produced by a media intent on destroying them. this will be manufactured dissent.
but, i don't see any reason to think they're going to move to the ndp now, when they haven't yet, either.
if, in the end, the liberals can keep their base in toronto, then not a lot of seats are going to change hands - even if the numbers in front of us fluctuate wildly.
we're not seeing a groundswell of ndp support. i actually wish we were. but we're not.
what we're seeing is liberal party voters turn inwards, due to being beaten down by a hostile media that has convinced it that it's leader is incompetent. a sad truth, as she is anything but.
liberals have failed at controlling the message. but, the other parties have failed to capitalize on it, with the tories running an obvious buffoon and the dippers running a sleazy used car salesperson with minimal believability.
again: the media wants to split the vote. but, the electorate is hesitant to follow. and it's consequently still anybody's election to win.
the conservatives cannot win here without splitting the vote.
now, in that particular election, it was kind of what had to happen. there was no excuse to vote for ignatieff. if that was what the liberals were going to run, you had an obligation to vote ndp. there's no lesser evil calculation in voting for ignatieff over harper; the lesser evil may have even been harper. i'm not aware of harper condoning torture. ever. and, it seems unlikely and out of character; i'd be surprised to hear it, frankly.
we all knew the conservatives would win, but you had to do it, because the liberal leader was a war criminal waiting to happen.
in this particular election, that logic does not hold. wynne is about as far left as liberals come; she's maybe even an anachronism in that sense, as the other provincial liberal parties exist firmly on the center-right, nowadays.
regardless, it's easy to understand what the tory media is doing, in pushing for the ndp: it's trying to split the vote to open up ridings they wouldn't otherwise have a chance in. there is no other way for them to win.
now, don't misunderstand me: i'm not suggesting that the liberals are in good shape, here. the liberals are certainly on the brink of catastrophe. but, they've been on this precipice for months, and we don't seem to want to push them off.
i've pointing out forever, now, that wynne's big problem is on her left. but, this movement to the ndp is not happening. the polls just don't uphold the idea that liberals are moving to the ndp; what liberal voters are actually telling pollsters is that they don't know what to do.
so, we remain in this holding pattern, with the conservatives running in the mid to high 30s (which is no doubt inflated...) and the ndp run in the mid to low 20s, but the liberal base unwilling to make a choice.
as mentioned previously: if these voters decide to stay home, in the end, the liberals will be decimated by voter apathy, produced by a media intent on destroying them. this will be manufactured dissent.
but, i don't see any reason to think they're going to move to the ndp now, when they haven't yet, either.
if, in the end, the liberals can keep their base in toronto, then not a lot of seats are going to change hands - even if the numbers in front of us fluctuate wildly.
we're not seeing a groundswell of ndp support. i actually wish we were. but we're not.
what we're seeing is liberal party voters turn inwards, due to being beaten down by a hostile media that has convinced it that it's leader is incompetent. a sad truth, as she is anything but.
liberals have failed at controlling the message. but, the other parties have failed to capitalize on it, with the tories running an obvious buffoon and the dippers running a sleazy used car salesperson with minimal believability.
again: the media wants to split the vote. but, the electorate is hesitant to follow. and it's consequently still anybody's election to win.
the new mainstreet poll is the same as the previous one, relative to the margin of error.
the headlines are bunk: there's no narrowing of any gap, there's just stasis.
but, the clock is ticking. everybody is running out of time to prevent a conservative minority that's unlikely to pass a budget, if it's even allowed to form a government.
the headlines are bunk: there's no narrowing of any gap, there's just stasis.
but, the clock is ticking. everybody is running out of time to prevent a conservative minority that's unlikely to pass a budget, if it's even allowed to form a government.
i had migraines for months after this, but i haven't had a single one since i moved.
i just want to tie two things together. i was convinced that this space was under the influence of some kind of magnetic interference, and it was fucking with my headphones making it impossible to mix; aphasia is thought to be the result of a wave of energy running through your brain, and disrupting certain functions. are these consequences of the same thing?
and, if so, was i being attacked for demonstrating that clinton was rigging the primary?
it's a strange thing to film your life, and piece together the oddities after the fact.
but, i keep pointing out that if this is what is happening then it is utterly foolish; the best way to deal with me was always to ignore me. if i just could have been mixing over this period, none of this would have happened. and, i might be done period 3.
i just want to tie two things together. i was convinced that this space was under the influence of some kind of magnetic interference, and it was fucking with my headphones making it impossible to mix; aphasia is thought to be the result of a wave of energy running through your brain, and disrupting certain functions. are these consequences of the same thing?
and, if so, was i being attacked for demonstrating that clinton was rigging the primary?
it's a strange thing to film your life, and piece together the oddities after the fact.
but, i keep pointing out that if this is what is happening then it is utterly foolish; the best way to deal with me was always to ignore me. if i just could have been mixing over this period, none of this would have happened. and, i might be done period 3.
so, should i be celebrating victoria day here in canada?
meh.
listen, i don't really have much to say about the queen one way or the other. about the only ritual i have attached to this day is posting the sex pistols classic somewhere or other. no future for you.
but, that is widespread, here. nobody much cares about the royal family, outside of very old tories, so old that they're starting to disappear.
the general idea on the "2-4 weekend" is that you get a case of beer - they come in cases of 24 - and go find a cottage somewhere to get drunk at. this is the canadian tradition. you're supposed to spend it arguing about hockey, too - and transitioning into the summer. but, it's frankly not really my idea of a good time. i'm not going to pretend i have access to such a cottage, but i probably wouldn't go, if i did.
if there were open air festivals around here, i might go to one. but, the victoria day weekend is actually a strangely insular thing - we interpret it as a family event, rather than a public one. it's about those cottages. as such, the bars here are actually likely to be fairly empty. the city doesn't pick up on victoria day; it actually shuts down.
on top of that, there's a local "art party" taking place that has occupied the interests of much of the local scene. that's where a lot of the city is going to be. but, i'm not generally into drinking in alleys, either - or at least not before 3:00 am. there will be a dj set, but it's more about sitting around and talking. i get that a lot of people would actually prefer that, but it's not my thing.
i checked the local venues and there's nothing much going on to get excited about.
so, i'm not going to just stay here for the sake of it. it's a fading imperial holiday that we mostly just use as an excuse to get drunk.
however, if the rain clears out late, it's possible i could just hit up phog - if i decide to go anywhere at all.
meh.
listen, i don't really have much to say about the queen one way or the other. about the only ritual i have attached to this day is posting the sex pistols classic somewhere or other. no future for you.
but, that is widespread, here. nobody much cares about the royal family, outside of very old tories, so old that they're starting to disappear.
the general idea on the "2-4 weekend" is that you get a case of beer - they come in cases of 24 - and go find a cottage somewhere to get drunk at. this is the canadian tradition. you're supposed to spend it arguing about hockey, too - and transitioning into the summer. but, it's frankly not really my idea of a good time. i'm not going to pretend i have access to such a cottage, but i probably wouldn't go, if i did.
if there were open air festivals around here, i might go to one. but, the victoria day weekend is actually a strangely insular thing - we interpret it as a family event, rather than a public one. it's about those cottages. as such, the bars here are actually likely to be fairly empty. the city doesn't pick up on victoria day; it actually shuts down.
on top of that, there's a local "art party" taking place that has occupied the interests of much of the local scene. that's where a lot of the city is going to be. but, i'm not generally into drinking in alleys, either - or at least not before 3:00 am. there will be a dj set, but it's more about sitting around and talking. i get that a lot of people would actually prefer that, but it's not my thing.
i checked the local venues and there's nothing much going on to get excited about.
so, i'm not going to just stay here for the sake of it. it's a fading imperial holiday that we mostly just use as an excuse to get drunk.
however, if the rain clears out late, it's possible i could just hit up phog - if i decide to go anywhere at all.
Friday, May 18, 2018
i expected to stay in tonight. it's cold & rainy.
i was hoping to get out tomorrow; it's iffy.
and, i've missed this band like a dozen times, too.
if i have to stay in tomorrow, this is what i'm missing.
i was up in the afternoon, but went back to sleep; i'm up now. i made a few calls, but nobody expects much of a market on the victoria day weekend. that said, i'm going to see something in the morning...
i won't understand the market until next week.
for tonight, i'm rebuilding. really.
i was hoping to get out tomorrow; it's iffy.
and, i've missed this band like a dozen times, too.
if i have to stay in tomorrow, this is what i'm missing.
i was up in the afternoon, but went back to sleep; i'm up now. i made a few calls, but nobody expects much of a market on the victoria day weekend. that said, i'm going to see something in the morning...
i won't understand the market until next week.
for tonight, i'm rebuilding. really.
better get rid of voting altogether - too dangerous.
and, better to keep your kid home. they didn't do a security check on the bus driver, and there are coyotes around. also, lightning. what is a parent to do in the perpetual threat of lightning? we can't send our kids around in faraday cages.
does she really think you can plan to stop school shooters? that they need invitations?
how do these people manage to dress themselves in the morning?
http://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/05/18/students-risk-vote-parents/
and, better to keep your kid home. they didn't do a security check on the bus driver, and there are coyotes around. also, lightning. what is a parent to do in the perpetual threat of lightning? we can't send our kids around in faraday cages.
does she really think you can plan to stop school shooters? that they need invitations?
how do these people manage to dress themselves in the morning?
http://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/05/18/students-risk-vote-parents/
thirlwell is shock rock; that tune was a little more offensive than i remembered it, so i feel the need to write this.
he's in character. you're not supposed to identify with it, so much as you're supposed to interpret it as a character attached to the music. and, this is often the case with thirlwell, who writes a lot of music that has felt rather exotic in the last quarter of the twentieth century, and the first quarter of this one. he doesn't just put it out there, he narrates it from this historical understanding of it, helping you see it from that first-person perspective, rather than just interpreting it as a product of a distant culture.
swing music was all about male energy and macho swagger on the floor. there's a kind of revisionist slant on this. and, women were more free in the 20s and 30s than they were immediately after the war, too, remember, when this kind of insular conservatism set in as a reaction to the depravity of what had just happened - and the promiscuity inherent to years away from your partner. so, a swing party was hunting grounds for consensual encounters. and, that's what he's trying to get across - without revisionist filters.
is he a historian, then? i dunno. but, it's a kind of satire, with it's wry humour, as it narrates that history.
and it's agit-prop.
so, i'm consequently not going to argue with you if you find his work offensive; his work is offensive, and you're supposed to be offended by it. he agrees it's offensive. but, then you're supposed to do something about it, or reflect on it, or just call it what it is.
you're not supposed to just tell him to stop offending you; that's not activism, it's a reactionary type of conservatism. activists dismantle things, they don't censor them.
personally? i'm going to agree he goes a little overboard. the "sister could you spare a suck?" part was a little gauche. now, as mentioned, you could and probably should make the opposite argument - that to be an authentic expression of the character of a swing dancer, you need to be crass like that. but, that doesn't mean it's enjoyable to listen to as music. so, what you end up doing is kind of overlooking these kinds of moments.
but, there's an argument that thirlwell realized that, too - the track was released as a side project on a small label. it's been out of print for years. you'll never find it for sale anywhere. if he had confidence in the presentation, he would have put it on an album....
in later years, thirlwell would seem to present the perspective that he got to a point where he was sick of people reacting negatively to what he was doing and stepped away from doing it. it's hard to blame him for giving up. but, he was really misunderstood from the start.
he's in character. you're not supposed to identify with it, so much as you're supposed to interpret it as a character attached to the music. and, this is often the case with thirlwell, who writes a lot of music that has felt rather exotic in the last quarter of the twentieth century, and the first quarter of this one. he doesn't just put it out there, he narrates it from this historical understanding of it, helping you see it from that first-person perspective, rather than just interpreting it as a product of a distant culture.
swing music was all about male energy and macho swagger on the floor. there's a kind of revisionist slant on this. and, women were more free in the 20s and 30s than they were immediately after the war, too, remember, when this kind of insular conservatism set in as a reaction to the depravity of what had just happened - and the promiscuity inherent to years away from your partner. so, a swing party was hunting grounds for consensual encounters. and, that's what he's trying to get across - without revisionist filters.
is he a historian, then? i dunno. but, it's a kind of satire, with it's wry humour, as it narrates that history.
and it's agit-prop.
so, i'm consequently not going to argue with you if you find his work offensive; his work is offensive, and you're supposed to be offended by it. he agrees it's offensive. but, then you're supposed to do something about it, or reflect on it, or just call it what it is.
you're not supposed to just tell him to stop offending you; that's not activism, it's a reactionary type of conservatism. activists dismantle things, they don't censor them.
personally? i'm going to agree he goes a little overboard. the "sister could you spare a suck?" part was a little gauche. now, as mentioned, you could and probably should make the opposite argument - that to be an authentic expression of the character of a swing dancer, you need to be crass like that. but, that doesn't mean it's enjoyable to listen to as music. so, what you end up doing is kind of overlooking these kinds of moments.
but, there's an argument that thirlwell realized that, too - the track was released as a side project on a small label. it's been out of print for years. you'll never find it for sale anywhere. if he had confidence in the presentation, he would have put it on an album....
in later years, thirlwell would seem to present the perspective that he got to a point where he was sick of people reacting negatively to what he was doing and stepped away from doing it. it's hard to blame him for giving up. but, he was really misunderstood from the start.
i like idm & industrial; when i listen to house, it's, like float-house. dream-house. house-gaze? i think you get the point.
i'm actually going to get a bit of all of that.
but, i'm not one for the booty shakin', or the dub step, or the autotune or the minimal house beats. it's a shame the leland show sold out so fast, but i actually don't think i'm missing out on anything.
and, i expect to spend the weekend with local underground detroit techno people, not with tourists and smug-ass rich kids.
i'm actually going to get a bit of all of that.
but, i'm not one for the booty shakin', or the dub step, or the autotune or the minimal house beats. it's a shame the leland show sold out so fast, but i actually don't think i'm missing out on anything.
and, i expect to spend the weekend with local underground detroit techno people, not with tourists and smug-ass rich kids.
yeah.
i've got everything condensed into two crazy days.
i'm skipping out on chrome on thursday. it's true that they're ancient, and it's not the same band. but i just don't want to blow the cash, really. and i'm going to get stuck over night, too. it would be one of those things you get to say you did, but it's too much of a hassle.
the weekend starts on friday at 16:00 at el club and runs until i get home on saturday morning. i will need to pay cover at the second venue, but it's relatively cheap. the first venue is free. and, i may need to get a coffee at the end. this should cost less than $50 usd + border fees. if i don't drink too much, it could be more like $30.
saturday starts at 22:00 and runs until sunday afternoon, at least. i will need to pay cover at the first venue, and it's a little steep (not exorbitant.) but it looks like the best party. i'm going to skip out on this weather warlock thing because...if it was closer to the venue i'd do it, but i don't see the need to rush to get to hamtramck for 21:00, then rush to the party for 22:00 after - that's a lot of hassle and expense for little purpose. i can see a thrown together jam band some other night. the second and third parts of this are without cover, and it appears i may get a free meal out of it. score. so, the initial cover was a little steep, but it shouldn't work out to much more than $50 usd, either - maybe $60 usd.
i'm planning to spend sunday sleeping, but if i change my mind i'l hit the free party in mexicantown. unlikely. but, that would start at 20:00 and technically go until 14:00 the next day.
i'm more interested in going to a techno showcase on monday afternoon. i'll have to check the bus schedule. but, if i can do something like get to mexicantown for 7:00 am, i could handle a very long day over monday night, to get home for tuesday morning. or, i could do the all night in mexicantown and leave the techno revue a little early. we'll see how things like cash look....
friday & saturday are pretty set & sunday revolves around the most reasonable way to hit the revue on monday.
i've got everything condensed into two crazy days.
i'm skipping out on chrome on thursday. it's true that they're ancient, and it's not the same band. but i just don't want to blow the cash, really. and i'm going to get stuck over night, too. it would be one of those things you get to say you did, but it's too much of a hassle.
the weekend starts on friday at 16:00 at el club and runs until i get home on saturday morning. i will need to pay cover at the second venue, but it's relatively cheap. the first venue is free. and, i may need to get a coffee at the end. this should cost less than $50 usd + border fees. if i don't drink too much, it could be more like $30.
saturday starts at 22:00 and runs until sunday afternoon, at least. i will need to pay cover at the first venue, and it's a little steep (not exorbitant.) but it looks like the best party. i'm going to skip out on this weather warlock thing because...if it was closer to the venue i'd do it, but i don't see the need to rush to get to hamtramck for 21:00, then rush to the party for 22:00 after - that's a lot of hassle and expense for little purpose. i can see a thrown together jam band some other night. the second and third parts of this are without cover, and it appears i may get a free meal out of it. score. so, the initial cover was a little steep, but it shouldn't work out to much more than $50 usd, either - maybe $60 usd.
i'm planning to spend sunday sleeping, but if i change my mind i'l hit the free party in mexicantown. unlikely. but, that would start at 20:00 and technically go until 14:00 the next day.
i'm more interested in going to a techno showcase on monday afternoon. i'll have to check the bus schedule. but, if i can do something like get to mexicantown for 7:00 am, i could handle a very long day over monday night, to get home for tuesday morning. or, i could do the all night in mexicantown and leave the techno revue a little early. we'll see how things like cash look....
friday & saturday are pretty set & sunday revolves around the most reasonable way to hit the revue on monday.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
i mean, if you're from out of town, you might not realize it...
....but you're paying $40 for dj sets you can see on any detroit night for $5-10, or you're paying airfare for german djs to come in. hey, if you have the cash, you don't care. cool. whatever.
but, you're consequently going to end up with these bars full of very wealthy tourists that are being herded to where they'll spend cash; the real detroit techno parties, with the local detroit techno personalities, are going to be happening in parks or warehouses for less than $20. the bars are going to fill up with what are basically yuppies.
those expensive parties mostly really aren't the ones you want to be at at all.
there's one expensive show i think i want to hit. it's the one by the best local promoter. but, if i do that, then i'm skipping a noise show. i dunno. i'll see how i feel.
....but you're paying $40 for dj sets you can see on any detroit night for $5-10, or you're paying airfare for german djs to come in. hey, if you have the cash, you don't care. cool. whatever.
but, you're consequently going to end up with these bars full of very wealthy tourists that are being herded to where they'll spend cash; the real detroit techno parties, with the local detroit techno personalities, are going to be happening in parks or warehouses for less than $20. the bars are going to fill up with what are basically yuppies.
those expensive parties mostly really aren't the ones you want to be at at all.
there's one expensive show i think i want to hit. it's the one by the best local promoter. but, if i do that, then i'm skipping a noise show. i dunno. i'll see how i feel.
i'm still awake.
it's a nice change...
i'm working down my movement....movements....and i've got a pretty wacky weekend lined up, but the key thing about it is that it's mostly low cover.
i didn't have a bicycle last year, so what i wanted was to just find the place open all night and park myself there. so, i showed up to the after hour party at like 9:00. and, while i deny that i was too drunk, i don't deny that i was in fact pretty drunk, sure. and, i'm not ashamed of that.
but, for example, i skipped the trip metal festival because it made more sense to me to just go to the works. this is going to be different this year...i'm going to get out to a number of noise acts...and to a number of actually free parties....
the local bar parties seem to be a bit better, though, too - less booty shaking and more atmospheric. in fact, i'm not having the difficulties this year that i usually do.
it's a swell path.
but i'm not publishing it.
i'll tell you about it after.
it's a nice change...
i'm working down my movement....movements....and i've got a pretty wacky weekend lined up, but the key thing about it is that it's mostly low cover.
i didn't have a bicycle last year, so what i wanted was to just find the place open all night and park myself there. so, i showed up to the after hour party at like 9:00. and, while i deny that i was too drunk, i don't deny that i was in fact pretty drunk, sure. and, i'm not ashamed of that.
but, for example, i skipped the trip metal festival because it made more sense to me to just go to the works. this is going to be different this year...i'm going to get out to a number of noise acts...and to a number of actually free parties....
the local bar parties seem to be a bit better, though, too - less booty shaking and more atmospheric. in fact, i'm not having the difficulties this year that i usually do.
it's a swell path.
but i'm not publishing it.
i'll tell you about it after.
so, i got a start on it - sent some emails, left some messages. i don't expect to hear back from anybody until tuesday.
the market is sort of what i expected - it's not awful, but it seems like it's thin. i think it should open up next week.
i have not technically given notice, but i've asked for the lease to be broken on august 1st. so, i can play this both ways.
how's the air? well, i have the windows wide open. i can smell it, but it's not affecting me. i can't always have the windows open...
i've actually had a long day, which is nice, although i've spent a lot of it blaring merzbow at the neighbour sitting outside, to get her to smoke somewhere else.
it's a shitty situation. if i close the windows, i get overwhelmed by the pot (& the a/c). if i keep them open, i have to deal with the neighbour smoking - literally right underneath the window. there's no reason she has to smoke right there, and i've asked her not to, but she's just a worthless, selfish piece of shit that doesn't care - so i can't care about her, if she won't care about me. so, i'm just blaring merzbow out the window whenever she goes out to get her to fuck off - and it's definitely getting to her. like, i think i saw her crying. good.
i'll be happy to get the fuck out of here.
for right now, the day is over and i'm still awake, so i'm going to get to rebuilding, i guess. i don't want to eat again until the morning. and i have no idea how long i'll stay awake for.
the market is sort of what i expected - it's not awful, but it seems like it's thin. i think it should open up next week.
i have not technically given notice, but i've asked for the lease to be broken on august 1st. so, i can play this both ways.
how's the air? well, i have the windows wide open. i can smell it, but it's not affecting me. i can't always have the windows open...
i've actually had a long day, which is nice, although i've spent a lot of it blaring merzbow at the neighbour sitting outside, to get her to smoke somewhere else.
it's a shitty situation. if i close the windows, i get overwhelmed by the pot (& the a/c). if i keep them open, i have to deal with the neighbour smoking - literally right underneath the window. there's no reason she has to smoke right there, and i've asked her not to, but she's just a worthless, selfish piece of shit that doesn't care - so i can't care about her, if she won't care about me. so, i'm just blaring merzbow out the window whenever she goes out to get her to fuck off - and it's definitely getting to her. like, i think i saw her crying. good.
i'll be happy to get the fuck out of here.
for right now, the day is over and i'm still awake, so i'm going to get to rebuilding, i guess. i don't want to eat again until the morning. and i have no idea how long i'll stay awake for.
i was as excited about el club as everybody else, but the programming has really taken a nose dive, hasn't it? it's become magic stick 2.0.
there were a few nights that i was there last year when the place was just dead. but, it just closes too early. and it's in a bad neighbourhood....
this is going to be the summer of hamtramck, methinks. so long as that bicycle holds out, anyways.
when i eventually replace it, i'll start bringing the replacement back to canada with me. but i just don't want that much rust in the house, and it's as safe where it is as it would be anywhere else.
i'll be lucky if it lasts the year. and, if it does, i'll just take the lock back with me and leave it somewhere for parts.
there were a few nights that i was there last year when the place was just dead. but, it just closes too early. and it's in a bad neighbourhood....
this is going to be the summer of hamtramck, methinks. so long as that bicycle holds out, anyways.
when i eventually replace it, i'll start bringing the replacement back to canada with me. but i just don't want that much rust in the house, and it's as safe where it is as it would be anywhere else.
i'll be lucky if it lasts the year. and, if it does, i'll just take the lock back with me and leave it somewhere for parts.
well, i didn't get any work done, but i got a handle on what's going on this weekend...
all the after hours spots seem to have stopped updating around november. i don't know if the weather hit them or what, but i'm kind of blinded. how many are just quiet, and how many are defunct? there's a few that i'm pretty sure are still running, but none seem to be running this weekend...
*shrug*
- i don't remember the last time i went out, which was a saturday. so, i don't know if my goto spot was still there or not. i think they're only there on saturdays.
- i remember the friday previous, but...it was weird. i'm outside a bar with a 4:00 am license a little after 3:00 or so. it was late, legit. i asked somebody if they're done, and he said he was, but, in hindsight, i think it was the sound guy - i actually think i've talked to this guy a bunch of times because he's the sound guy. brain freeze. then, i sat around and hung out with people waiting for cabs ("ubers") for like an hour. but, it seemed like the place was still open. i'm too shy in these situations - i should have asked point blank. it was just weird. i thought i was told no, and didn't want to be pushy, but i'm not sure that this was true. you have to understand that i'm really neurotic about not appearing aggressive when i'm drinking. i'm the most passive drunk in the world, and i exaggerate it because i hate violence - i'm paranoid i'm going to get into a fight. the flip side is that they can't charge me cover at 3:30, right. so, i dunno. the intent was to hang out there until around 4:30. and i was in fact there until a little after 4:00, it's just that i was just hanging around outside....and i would have probably been out on the patio had i gone in. but, either way that's not the late night i was looking for, and i knew it wasn't going to be. but i'm going to blame myself for being too shy, rather than give up on the path. i might do this again some other friday night....
- i actually made it home on the night of the screaming females concert. i'd had plenty to drink. that was the right choice. but, like... i made it. i knew it was time to go home.
- the sunsquabi show was also a friday, and i can confirm that my goto spot was closed. friday. but also april.
so, i dunno. i guess i might have to ask around a bit more. on a friday, finding somewhere open until 4:30 is largely good enough, as the bus comes at 6:00. but, on a saturday, the bus doesn't come until 8:30. i need to find the spots open until 7:00...
all the after hours spots seem to have stopped updating around november. i don't know if the weather hit them or what, but i'm kind of blinded. how many are just quiet, and how many are defunct? there's a few that i'm pretty sure are still running, but none seem to be running this weekend...
*shrug*
- i don't remember the last time i went out, which was a saturday. so, i don't know if my goto spot was still there or not. i think they're only there on saturdays.
- i remember the friday previous, but...it was weird. i'm outside a bar with a 4:00 am license a little after 3:00 or so. it was late, legit. i asked somebody if they're done, and he said he was, but, in hindsight, i think it was the sound guy - i actually think i've talked to this guy a bunch of times because he's the sound guy. brain freeze. then, i sat around and hung out with people waiting for cabs ("ubers") for like an hour. but, it seemed like the place was still open. i'm too shy in these situations - i should have asked point blank. it was just weird. i thought i was told no, and didn't want to be pushy, but i'm not sure that this was true. you have to understand that i'm really neurotic about not appearing aggressive when i'm drinking. i'm the most passive drunk in the world, and i exaggerate it because i hate violence - i'm paranoid i'm going to get into a fight. the flip side is that they can't charge me cover at 3:30, right. so, i dunno. the intent was to hang out there until around 4:30. and i was in fact there until a little after 4:00, it's just that i was just hanging around outside....and i would have probably been out on the patio had i gone in. but, either way that's not the late night i was looking for, and i knew it wasn't going to be. but i'm going to blame myself for being too shy, rather than give up on the path. i might do this again some other friday night....
- i actually made it home on the night of the screaming females concert. i'd had plenty to drink. that was the right choice. but, like... i made it. i knew it was time to go home.
- the sunsquabi show was also a friday, and i can confirm that my goto spot was closed. friday. but also april.
so, i dunno. i guess i might have to ask around a bit more. on a friday, finding somewhere open until 4:30 is largely good enough, as the bus comes at 6:00. but, on a saturday, the bus doesn't come until 8:30. i need to find the spots open until 7:00...
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
if you're lucky, and the setting is right, i might let you have your way with me, kind of thing. this would require a careful combination of aggressive tactics and subtle manipulation, on your behalf. and, you'd ultimately need to have the right kind of personality for it, which i don't run into very often any more.
but, that hasn't happened in a really, really long time - and may very well never happen again.
i'm simply not going to fuck you - or make any attempt to seduce you at all.
at all.
ever.
but, that hasn't happened in a really, really long time - and may very well never happen again.
i'm simply not going to fuck you - or make any attempt to seduce you at all.
at all.
ever.
so, i ended up crashing this morning again.
i was up in the afternoon; the day is over.
i'm going to spend a few hours working, and get to checking listings around midnight, with the intent to start calling in the morning.
it's a long weekend in canada, and i can't find anything fun to do, so i'll probably stay in. but, it's a kind of calendar-changing date, too. i expect that the market will change next week.
i was up in the afternoon; the day is over.
i'm going to spend a few hours working, and get to checking listings around midnight, with the intent to start calling in the morning.
it's a long weekend in canada, and i can't find anything fun to do, so i'll probably stay in. but, it's a kind of calendar-changing date, too. i expect that the market will change next week.
of course i don't know how to fuck; i've spent my whole life fantasizing about having vaginal intercourse. why would you expect that i'd know how to fuck? or that i'd have any interest in learning how?
that's the whole point, you fucking idiot.
it's like asking a car why it can't fly. it's a fucking car; of course it can't fly. and, it probably wouldn't want to fly, if it had a personality. it'd just want to drive all day long.
it's been many years, but i have experience in lesbian-style sex. girl on girl. grinding. oral. i got some strong feedback on it. i don't think i was bad at it.
but, if you want to have sex with a transwoman, you'd better be willing to take control of the situation, because you're not going to get fucked the way you might imagine you would. you're going to be on top. you're going to be the one in charge; she's the one that's going to be bored. that's the point you're not getting.
if you want to get reamed by somebody with breasts and lipstick, you'd be better off asking a lady friend to use a strap-on.
that's the whole point, you fucking idiot.
it's like asking a car why it can't fly. it's a fucking car; of course it can't fly. and, it probably wouldn't want to fly, if it had a personality. it'd just want to drive all day long.
it's been many years, but i have experience in lesbian-style sex. girl on girl. grinding. oral. i got some strong feedback on it. i don't think i was bad at it.
but, if you want to have sex with a transwoman, you'd better be willing to take control of the situation, because you're not going to get fucked the way you might imagine you would. you're going to be on top. you're going to be the one in charge; she's the one that's going to be bored. that's the point you're not getting.
if you want to get reamed by somebody with breasts and lipstick, you'd be better off asking a lady friend to use a strap-on.
yesterday was a long day, and it seems like i crashed pretty hard. i've been reacting to the sun this year in ways i never did previously, so maybe that has something to do with it. i was up in the evening to get a smoothie, but i ended up crashing for the night.
i think i'm up now.
so, i can't comment on the air quality last night, but i woke up with a cough and a headache. there is the smell of a drier, lower quality herb coming up; i don't want to quite call it 'shake', but it's being smoked past it's best-before date. it has more of that chocolate-oregano smell (somebody might have also made coffee.) than the skunk that usually comes up from below me, so i'm actually thinking it's from one of the other units, although i don't know which one. i guess the other possibility is that it's third hand smoke, mixed with the coffee aroma.
she seems to usually be smoking outside, at this point. which is appreciated, but not good enough. and, if it's coming from every which way at this concentration, that's just more reason to leave, too
the fact that i'm tired after a walk in the sun yesterday could have multiple causes. and i'm clearly dehydrated. but, that cough is from breathing in the smoke...and it's not a pleasant thing to wake up to at all...
i was just confirmed as being in optimal health, yet again. i don't need this shit making me sick.
i was hoping to rebuild a little over night, but that opportunity is past. so, i'm going to get something to eat and get a start on looking for some other place to live.
i think i'm up now.
so, i can't comment on the air quality last night, but i woke up with a cough and a headache. there is the smell of a drier, lower quality herb coming up; i don't want to quite call it 'shake', but it's being smoked past it's best-before date. it has more of that chocolate-oregano smell (somebody might have also made coffee.) than the skunk that usually comes up from below me, so i'm actually thinking it's from one of the other units, although i don't know which one. i guess the other possibility is that it's third hand smoke, mixed with the coffee aroma.
she seems to usually be smoking outside, at this point. which is appreciated, but not good enough. and, if it's coming from every which way at this concentration, that's just more reason to leave, too
the fact that i'm tired after a walk in the sun yesterday could have multiple causes. and i'm clearly dehydrated. but, that cough is from breathing in the smoke...and it's not a pleasant thing to wake up to at all...
i was just confirmed as being in optimal health, yet again. i don't need this shit making me sick.
i was hoping to rebuild a little over night, but that opportunity is past. so, i'm going to get something to eat and get a start on looking for some other place to live.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
i need to be clear: while there was a component of ochlocratic terror to the chants at the trump rallies, and they got out of hand a few times, i don't have a basic opposition to calling your opponent a criminal, when the fact of the matter is that she actually is one. that's just calling a spade a spade.
and, the primary was almost certainly rigged, so you can't really blame democrats for nominating a criminal, either.
it's just bizarre to throw that at wynne, who has nothing approaching any criminal accusations directed at her.
and, the primary was almost certainly rigged, so you can't really blame democrats for nominating a criminal, either.
it's just bizarre to throw that at wynne, who has nothing approaching any criminal accusations directed at her.
well, what law is she accused of breaking?
clinton, on the other hand, is a war criminal.
it's a dumb comparison.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/15/wynne-blasts-ford-for-stoking-trump-style-lock-her-up-rhetoric.html
clinton, on the other hand, is a war criminal.
it's a dumb comparison.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/15/wynne-blasts-ford-for-stoking-trump-style-lock-her-up-rhetoric.html
ok, that gets me right through to the end of march
the air quality over the last 24 hours was better; i could smell it, but it wasn't coming up in plumes. it may have been third hand smoke. i don't know.
let's see how far into season 5 that i can get before i stop.
there's less than 200 pages left in the document, from april 1st to june 19th. i could do that in a weekend. so, this is nearly done.
the air quality over the last 24 hours was better; i could smell it, but it wasn't coming up in plumes. it may have been third hand smoke. i don't know.
let's see how far into season 5 that i can get before i stop.
there's less than 200 pages left in the document, from april 1st to june 19th. i could do that in a weekend. so, this is nearly done.
so, your parents came over here with a good education, got a swank job and raised you in a middle class suburb. you studied hard and went to a good school, where you learned about white people in a sociology class.
but, how many white people do you actually know, though?
have ever gone out to where they live and talked to them? listened to their music? hung out with them?
the critical race theory is useful in a very narrow context: it describes the relationship behind powerful landowners and slaves in the southern us, and the contemporary consequences of that historical system. it's about the legacy of slavery in a very limited geographical area.
the error you make when you take that very narrow theory and try to apply it the broader world around you is called generalizing the specific and is endemic in the social sciences.
and, it really fails the most basic empirical tests. but, if all you know about white people is what you've learned in a classroom - if you have no real direct experience with them - then you can't see how absurd the whole thing really is.
so, go out to a trailer park or a subsidized housing unit some time. spend an afternoon with some white people in the wild. see what they're really like.
but, how many white people do you actually know, though?
have ever gone out to where they live and talked to them? listened to their music? hung out with them?
the critical race theory is useful in a very narrow context: it describes the relationship behind powerful landowners and slaves in the southern us, and the contemporary consequences of that historical system. it's about the legacy of slavery in a very limited geographical area.
the error you make when you take that very narrow theory and try to apply it the broader world around you is called generalizing the specific and is endemic in the social sciences.
and, it really fails the most basic empirical tests. but, if all you know about white people is what you've learned in a classroom - if you have no real direct experience with them - then you can't see how absurd the whole thing really is.
so, go out to a trailer park or a subsidized housing unit some time. spend an afternoon with some white people in the wild. see what they're really like.
i want to clarify that my argument was that blue states are leaning sanders and red states are leaning clinton, so why didn't i argue that hawaii is a blue state and therefore should lean sanders?
at the time, i decided that this pattern was only going to be applicable in the lower 48, and i'd have to look at something else for hawaii. so, i looked at the data for samoa. in hindsight, i think that was silly; i shouldn't have treated hawaii differently, i should have just treated it like a blue state.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2016/03/j-reacts-to-mar-26-primary-results.html
at the time, i decided that this pattern was only going to be applicable in the lower 48, and i'd have to look at something else for hawaii. so, i looked at the data for samoa. in hindsight, i think that was silly; i shouldn't have treated hawaii differently, i should have just treated it like a blue state.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2016/03/j-reacts-to-mar-26-primary-results.html
this is not to discount my identification as female.
but i do wonder, sometimes, how functionally different i really am from a eunuch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
but i do wonder, sometimes, how functionally different i really am from a eunuch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
Monday, May 14, 2018
the term "corporate democrats" conjures up a disconnect between finance and populism, and that makes sense in the united states.
but, what if the corporate democrats were actually pretty liberal about it? i mean, the new deal wasn't charity for the sake of it - it was intended to promote a corporate agenda.
i've hit back at elizabeth warren pretty hard for being too right-wing, but that's in a spectrum where you only have two parties, and you consequently need to pull the democrats as far left as is potentially possible. in a three-party spectrum, you have that centrist path.
kathleen wynne is more like elizabeth warren than she is like hillary clinton. and, elizabeth warren is in truth a wall street democrat. they share the idea that finance doesn't need to be abolished, it can be regulated for the public good. and, they both think like corporate tax lawyers.
the ndp tend to be more fiscally conservative, because workers movements have always had that conservative strain. it's ultimately a religious thing, and there's a few different levels to it. but, it's rooted in some anachronistic worldviews about the source of wealth in the economy - anachronistic worldviews that are widespread amongst workers on both sides of the border of this continent. sanders also had that fiscally conservative streak, if you listened to him carefully, and he was just as wrong about it as the ndp broadly are.
i would have easily supported sanders over warren, but the context is dramatically different. the united states does not have a single-payer system, for example, and warren was flaky on that - as i actually expect wynne would be, if it didn't already exist. so, it's not as simple as just lining up positions.
but, this is the dynamic: the liberals are a corporatist party, and they think like a corporation does, but their perspective on the value of government is more like adam smith than it is like milton friedmann; the ndp are a populist worker's party, and that seems attractive at first glance, but what that means is that they don't always fully understand what they're talking about at the same level as the lawyers in the liberal party do.
i'm an educated lower class anarchist. i don't fully identify with either. but, my brain usually tells me that the liberals are a better idea, in the context of what already exists.
but, what if the corporate democrats were actually pretty liberal about it? i mean, the new deal wasn't charity for the sake of it - it was intended to promote a corporate agenda.
i've hit back at elizabeth warren pretty hard for being too right-wing, but that's in a spectrum where you only have two parties, and you consequently need to pull the democrats as far left as is potentially possible. in a three-party spectrum, you have that centrist path.
kathleen wynne is more like elizabeth warren than she is like hillary clinton. and, elizabeth warren is in truth a wall street democrat. they share the idea that finance doesn't need to be abolished, it can be regulated for the public good. and, they both think like corporate tax lawyers.
the ndp tend to be more fiscally conservative, because workers movements have always had that conservative strain. it's ultimately a religious thing, and there's a few different levels to it. but, it's rooted in some anachronistic worldviews about the source of wealth in the economy - anachronistic worldviews that are widespread amongst workers on both sides of the border of this continent. sanders also had that fiscally conservative streak, if you listened to him carefully, and he was just as wrong about it as the ndp broadly are.
i would have easily supported sanders over warren, but the context is dramatically different. the united states does not have a single-payer system, for example, and warren was flaky on that - as i actually expect wynne would be, if it didn't already exist. so, it's not as simple as just lining up positions.
but, this is the dynamic: the liberals are a corporatist party, and they think like a corporation does, but their perspective on the value of government is more like adam smith than it is like milton friedmann; the ndp are a populist worker's party, and that seems attractive at first glance, but what that means is that they don't always fully understand what they're talking about at the same level as the lawyers in the liberal party do.
i'm an educated lower class anarchist. i don't fully identify with either. but, my brain usually tells me that the liberals are a better idea, in the context of what already exists.
in corporate finance, when a company identifies a means of maximizing profit, and does not do so, it is considered lost revenue. it's a part of the trade agreements built into the new world order; if a province passes an environmental regulation that prevents future profits, the province becomes liable for "lost profit" - and merely demonstrating the potential for lost profit is enough to win a settlement in these clown courts set up by the agreements.
the liberals are reversing this logic, here - they're claiming that not implementing spending increases is the same thing as implementing cuts. and, while your average pleb may scratch their head at this, it is entirely consistent with the type of logic utilized in corporate finance.
i'm not sure if it's going to connect with voters, who may find the argument a little too abstract.
that being said, there's something a little bit unsettling about the provincial ndp using the same fiscal arguments that stephen harper used against a very similar, if admittedly somewhat convoluted, attack from the corresponding liberals.
the takeaway is that the liberals are in fact going to spend more money on these particular programs, and the ndp admit that.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-liberals-attack-on-ndp-platform-error-a-graze-not-a-direct-hit
the liberals are reversing this logic, here - they're claiming that not implementing spending increases is the same thing as implementing cuts. and, while your average pleb may scratch their head at this, it is entirely consistent with the type of logic utilized in corporate finance.
i'm not sure if it's going to connect with voters, who may find the argument a little too abstract.
that being said, there's something a little bit unsettling about the provincial ndp using the same fiscal arguments that stephen harper used against a very similar, if admittedly somewhat convoluted, attack from the corresponding liberals.
the takeaway is that the liberals are in fact going to spend more money on these particular programs, and the ndp admit that.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-liberals-attack-on-ndp-platform-error-a-graze-not-a-direct-hit
but, yeah...
it's a guess. i don't have detailed data on undecideds.
but, i think that what's happening is that a lot of liberal voters are carefully studying the situation, and essentially trying to avoid splitting the vote, and that this is the only serious poll movement right now.
that's exactly what i'm doing, too.
the danger is that, if this is true, then there's enough people trying to avoid splitting the vote that we could swing it. oops.
your riding is unique. you can't generalize the specific; you can't take province-wide polls and try to cram them into your riding, with whatever local issues exist amongst whatever demographics. you need to know your riding's voting history (wikipedia helps.) and try and figure out what the zeitgeist is in it, right now. talk to your neighbours.
but, if your riding is a traditional liberal-tory battleground, then it probably still is, and you're probably better off voting liberal. and, if the ndp usually polls better, you shouldn't expect that to change now, either.
where we all need to be extra careful is in ridings where the liberals and ndp are usually at the top, and the conservatives are down a bit. a bad read could accidentally elect conservatives in these kinds of ridings.
but, there is not currently a strong argument that the kind of large shifts that we saw in the last federal election are happening in ontario right now. that could change. however, the evidence right now is toward stasis, even if people wish that the options were better.
don't believe the media. don't believe the hype.
it's a guess. i don't have detailed data on undecideds.
but, i think that what's happening is that a lot of liberal voters are carefully studying the situation, and essentially trying to avoid splitting the vote, and that this is the only serious poll movement right now.
that's exactly what i'm doing, too.
the danger is that, if this is true, then there's enough people trying to avoid splitting the vote that we could swing it. oops.
your riding is unique. you can't generalize the specific; you can't take province-wide polls and try to cram them into your riding, with whatever local issues exist amongst whatever demographics. you need to know your riding's voting history (wikipedia helps.) and try and figure out what the zeitgeist is in it, right now. talk to your neighbours.
but, if your riding is a traditional liberal-tory battleground, then it probably still is, and you're probably better off voting liberal. and, if the ndp usually polls better, you shouldn't expect that to change now, either.
where we all need to be extra careful is in ridings where the liberals and ndp are usually at the top, and the conservatives are down a bit. a bad read could accidentally elect conservatives in these kinds of ridings.
but, there is not currently a strong argument that the kind of large shifts that we saw in the last federal election are happening in ontario right now. that could change. however, the evidence right now is toward stasis, even if people wish that the options were better.
don't believe the media. don't believe the hype.
the media has been telling us for months that the liberals are going to lose, with little evidence to back it up.
so, liberal voters are now uncommitted.
but, neither of the other parties are actually gaining any support - liberal voters are just panicking that their party is going to lose and intent on voting strategically, to make the best of a bad situation. pragmatic. careful. very liberal, in canada.
if the liberals can get this across to them, they'll get those votes back. but, that's hard to do in a few weeks.
what is happening is really a powerful example of what happens when you have a media oligopoly focused on the interests of a specific party. and, the lesson that the liberals need to learn is that they can't let the tory media dominate the narrative like they have been.
so, liberal voters are now uncommitted.
but, neither of the other parties are actually gaining any support - liberal voters are just panicking that their party is going to lose and intent on voting strategically, to make the best of a bad situation. pragmatic. careful. very liberal, in canada.
if the liberals can get this across to them, they'll get those votes back. but, that's hard to do in a few weeks.
what is happening is really a powerful example of what happens when you have a media oligopoly focused on the interests of a specific party. and, the lesson that the liberals need to learn is that they can't let the tory media dominate the narrative like they have been.
mainstreet does good polling, so long as they publish the full results.
this is some reliable polling. finally.
and, this is what the headlines should say.
the conservative numbers are about where they always are; it's not at all clear that ford has expanded outside of the traditional tory base at all, but i do suspect you've seen some swapping in and out amongst the specific demographics i've pointed to: less upper class white voters, more middle class urban ethnic voters.
the ndp, once again, seem to be about steady.
but, the liberal support is caving - albeit not in any direction. and, this is the major thing that is happening: the conservatives and ndp seem to be holding steady to their base, while the liberal vote is really totally up in the air.
i normally talk about how not publishing the undecideds inflates conservative support, but, in this election, it appears to be inflating ndp support as well.
so, here's my conclusions about this poll:
1) the media narrative seems to be getting to liberal voters, who are being led to believe that they will need to vote for a different party if they want their vote to matter. they are not committing to anybody. but, they will decide the election - and they could still stick with the liberals, in the end.
2) this swath of undecided liberal voters is inflating numbers for both of the other parties.
but, this is the same place we were at six months ago.
i don't know who these undecided liberals are, so i don't have a lot of suggestions on what to do to get them. in past elections, it's been clear that we've been dealing with the disillusioned left of the party, but, right now, this appears to be manufactured dissent: voters in a panic to make sure their votes count, as a consequence of their preferred party unravelling.
the media created this story as a self-fulfilling prophesy, and here it is happening, in front of us.
there is some chance they could settle down, that they're just panicking.
one would actually expect the undecideds to start falling right now, not start increasing. the pollsters may tell you it's weak support, but it may be more about weak confidence than weak support. liberals are going to be a little less ideological and a little more pragmatic, because that's what they are; but, that pragmatism could lead them back rather than pull them away, in the end.
i have no deep insight into this other than to state it bluntly: liberal voters are up for grabs right now, and it's not entirely clear what they want.
but, they might be more afraid of ford than anything else.
this is some reliable polling. finally.
and, this is what the headlines should say.
the ndp, once again, seem to be about steady.
but, the liberal support is caving - albeit not in any direction. and, this is the major thing that is happening: the conservatives and ndp seem to be holding steady to their base, while the liberal vote is really totally up in the air.
i normally talk about how not publishing the undecideds inflates conservative support, but, in this election, it appears to be inflating ndp support as well.
so, here's my conclusions about this poll:
1) the media narrative seems to be getting to liberal voters, who are being led to believe that they will need to vote for a different party if they want their vote to matter. they are not committing to anybody. but, they will decide the election - and they could still stick with the liberals, in the end.
2) this swath of undecided liberal voters is inflating numbers for both of the other parties.
but, this is the same place we were at six months ago.
i don't know who these undecided liberals are, so i don't have a lot of suggestions on what to do to get them. in past elections, it's been clear that we've been dealing with the disillusioned left of the party, but, right now, this appears to be manufactured dissent: voters in a panic to make sure their votes count, as a consequence of their preferred party unravelling.
the media created this story as a self-fulfilling prophesy, and here it is happening, in front of us.
there is some chance they could settle down, that they're just panicking.
one would actually expect the undecideds to start falling right now, not start increasing. the pollsters may tell you it's weak support, but it may be more about weak confidence than weak support. liberals are going to be a little less ideological and a little more pragmatic, because that's what they are; but, that pragmatism could lead them back rather than pull them away, in the end.
i have no deep insight into this other than to state it bluntly: liberal voters are up for grabs right now, and it's not entirely clear what they want.
but, they might be more afraid of ford than anything else.
if horwath has no interest in a coalition government with the liberals, it logically follows that she will allow a conservative minority government to take power - that's what she's saying, that if we're in a scenario where she's monarch-maker, she will pick the conservatives over the liberals.
if you've been following horwath's career, you actually shouldn't be surprised by this.
but, i find the pledge to be very disappointing.
and, it may be a defining reason to vote liberal, in the end.
i know that the campaigns want to defy reality and project their own, but i'm not interested in this kind of magical thinking. we will have a conservative government or a coalition government. and, if horwath is ruling out a coalition government, and ensuring a conservative government, then that's a reason to ensure her party remains in third place.
if she's bluffing, she still has several weeks to face up to reality and produce a more honest reaction. but, i have no reason not to take her at her word, on this.
if you've been following horwath's career, you actually shouldn't be surprised by this.
but, i find the pledge to be very disappointing.
and, it may be a defining reason to vote liberal, in the end.
i know that the campaigns want to defy reality and project their own, but i'm not interested in this kind of magical thinking. we will have a conservative government or a coalition government. and, if horwath is ruling out a coalition government, and ensuring a conservative government, then that's a reason to ensure her party remains in third place.
if she's bluffing, she still has several weeks to face up to reality and produce a more honest reaction. but, i have no reason not to take her at her word, on this.
i'm a post-feminist in a patriarchal society, a society that seems more intent on redefining language than it is in redefining behaviour.
but, i'm also a liberal. and, that means that i don't take responsibility for your emancipation - i expect that you will take the initiative to fight for it, yourself.
and, if you won't, that's not my concern.
my concern is myself, and my own behaviour, and my own emancipation from patriarchy.
but, i'm also a liberal. and, that means that i don't take responsibility for your emancipation - i expect that you will take the initiative to fight for it, yourself.
and, if you won't, that's not my concern.
my concern is myself, and my own behaviour, and my own emancipation from patriarchy.
Aug 31, 2011
so, i experienced the princess paradox today.
again.
it's something i have to deal with fairly often. *most* men will likely have to deal with it at least a few times in the course of their life, but i get it on a weekly basis. it's likely the result of the obvious gender identification mismatch, it's exaggeration with princesses and the irrational things that princesses do to men's brains. i'll get to this...
for now, what is the princess paradox? i'll provide a definition and an example to explain it.
definition: the princess paradox is the condition where princesses demand unequal treatment from men and cry sexism when they don't receive that unfair treatment. it is a neat label to describe how it is that treating princesses with regular levels of egalitarian respect is paradoxically perceived by them as sexist, likely largely due to their conditioning of being treated with superiority due to their status as princesses. only exceptionally good treatment from men, which is by definition non-egalitarian, is perceived by them as not being sexist.
example...
so, this is what happened today.
i walk into a bank with a cheque. i want that cheque cashed immediately. i can't use a machine because they'll hold it. so, i bring the check and my card up to the counter. counter attendant? princess.
"i need to check to see if your name's on a list. you've been through this before, right? should just take a second."
"what? uh, no. why would you need to check if my name's on a list?"
"i can't cash government checks unless you're on the list."
"well, nobody's ever had to do that before. is it a new procedure?"
"just wait here while i check if your name's on the list."
(i wait a few minutes)
"your name isn't on the list. have you ever cashed a check here before?"
"listen, i don't think you need to check if my name's on a list. can you ask somebody for some help?"
now, my tone of voice was admittedly a little bitchy, and there was "you don't know what you're doing" tonality to it. you know what? she *didn't* know what she was doing, and she *did* need to ask somebody for some help.
regardless, that was a sin. men are allowed to question the competency of other men, and even of less attractive women, but never of princesses as that obviously implies superiority, regardless of the level of incompetency.
in the background a second princess chirps in...
"you don't have to be so patronizing, she's just learning."
a strong man appears out of nowhere..
(i'm exaggerating slightly)
man: "hi sweetie. is this horrible man bothering you?"
princess: "i think i can hand..."
man (to me): "if you don't stop giving her a hard time, we'll have you thrown out of here and banned forever. she's a new employee and she just needed a little help."
me: "well, yeah, that's what i suggested."
man: "do you understand me?"
(pause)
me: "no, not really. she needed some..."
man: "if you don't stop being such an asshole.."
me: "listen, i don't really know what you're talking about. can you help her cash the check?"
princess (to man): "i mean, i didn't even say i wouldn't cash it."
man (to me): "can't you see what you've done?"
(pause)
me: "accomplish my task of getting somebody to help her with cashing the check?"
man: "if you don't show some more respect i'm going to throw you out of here."
me: "listen, i just want to get the transaction done with quickly and get out of here."
as mentioned, i've exaggerated slightly, but you can see the underlying point: even fairly timid, indirect levels of frustration that would be totally normal in a female-female professional conversation are completely taboo in a male-princess conversation. i run into this all of the time: princesses that get upset when i talk to them like adults rather than like children.
this is a slightly boring example, too. i have one very vivid recollection of a princess walking into a door because i didn't hold it for her as she expected and then *yelling at me*, *blaming me for it* as though it was my fault that she didn't look where she was going, as though she *didn't* make the stupid, entitled assumption that it was my responsibility to hold the door for her.
i bet that would be a neat experiment, actually. how many women would follow what they think is a nice gentlemanly boy into work, make the assumption that the door will be held and then literally walk into it when it isn't?
what underlies this? what causes the princess paradox?
i've dealt with it enough to come up with some conclusions.
basically, i think that princesses are so used to being talked down to by men that when one *doesn't* it's such a strange occurrence that they don't know how to parse it. it's just a once in a blue moon thing for them. they're so used to men grovelling and trying to get laid that they interpret the lack of grovelling as a lack of respect. it's quite amazing really; those rare circumstances of communication with actual egalitarians become painful loss-of-status experiences, with the point of torture itself being precisely what they experience so rarely: somebody that sees them on an even level and isn't talking down to them in the expected, safe way. it's the very process of humanization itself that seems alien.
...and, it's actually quite sad when placed in that context.
it probably, ultimately, stems from sexist fathers.
i think that, within the princess' response, there may also be a bit of a reflexive psychological defense mechanism to attempt to masculinize me as my perceived feminine guyness would be naturally and instinctively interpreted as a trojan horse, due to a least risk algorithm, and rejected as anomalous. so, not only is the princess paradox demanding of unequal treatment, it is possibly suspicious of movements that promise equality under the fear that they will lead to inequality at less advantageous terms.
that's a complicated pseudo-syndrome.
so, i experienced the princess paradox today.
again.
it's something i have to deal with fairly often. *most* men will likely have to deal with it at least a few times in the course of their life, but i get it on a weekly basis. it's likely the result of the obvious gender identification mismatch, it's exaggeration with princesses and the irrational things that princesses do to men's brains. i'll get to this...
for now, what is the princess paradox? i'll provide a definition and an example to explain it.
definition: the princess paradox is the condition where princesses demand unequal treatment from men and cry sexism when they don't receive that unfair treatment. it is a neat label to describe how it is that treating princesses with regular levels of egalitarian respect is paradoxically perceived by them as sexist, likely largely due to their conditioning of being treated with superiority due to their status as princesses. only exceptionally good treatment from men, which is by definition non-egalitarian, is perceived by them as not being sexist.
example...
so, this is what happened today.
i walk into a bank with a cheque. i want that cheque cashed immediately. i can't use a machine because they'll hold it. so, i bring the check and my card up to the counter. counter attendant? princess.
"i need to check to see if your name's on a list. you've been through this before, right? should just take a second."
"what? uh, no. why would you need to check if my name's on a list?"
"i can't cash government checks unless you're on the list."
"well, nobody's ever had to do that before. is it a new procedure?"
"just wait here while i check if your name's on the list."
(i wait a few minutes)
"your name isn't on the list. have you ever cashed a check here before?"
"listen, i don't think you need to check if my name's on a list. can you ask somebody for some help?"
now, my tone of voice was admittedly a little bitchy, and there was "you don't know what you're doing" tonality to it. you know what? she *didn't* know what she was doing, and she *did* need to ask somebody for some help.
regardless, that was a sin. men are allowed to question the competency of other men, and even of less attractive women, but never of princesses as that obviously implies superiority, regardless of the level of incompetency.
in the background a second princess chirps in...
"you don't have to be so patronizing, she's just learning."
a strong man appears out of nowhere..
(i'm exaggerating slightly)
man: "hi sweetie. is this horrible man bothering you?"
princess: "i think i can hand..."
man (to me): "if you don't stop giving her a hard time, we'll have you thrown out of here and banned forever. she's a new employee and she just needed a little help."
me: "well, yeah, that's what i suggested."
man: "do you understand me?"
(pause)
me: "no, not really. she needed some..."
man: "if you don't stop being such an asshole.."
me: "listen, i don't really know what you're talking about. can you help her cash the check?"
princess (to man): "i mean, i didn't even say i wouldn't cash it."
man (to me): "can't you see what you've done?"
(pause)
me: "accomplish my task of getting somebody to help her with cashing the check?"
man: "if you don't show some more respect i'm going to throw you out of here."
me: "listen, i just want to get the transaction done with quickly and get out of here."
as mentioned, i've exaggerated slightly, but you can see the underlying point: even fairly timid, indirect levels of frustration that would be totally normal in a female-female professional conversation are completely taboo in a male-princess conversation. i run into this all of the time: princesses that get upset when i talk to them like adults rather than like children.
this is a slightly boring example, too. i have one very vivid recollection of a princess walking into a door because i didn't hold it for her as she expected and then *yelling at me*, *blaming me for it* as though it was my fault that she didn't look where she was going, as though she *didn't* make the stupid, entitled assumption that it was my responsibility to hold the door for her.
i bet that would be a neat experiment, actually. how many women would follow what they think is a nice gentlemanly boy into work, make the assumption that the door will be held and then literally walk into it when it isn't?
what underlies this? what causes the princess paradox?
i've dealt with it enough to come up with some conclusions.
basically, i think that princesses are so used to being talked down to by men that when one *doesn't* it's such a strange occurrence that they don't know how to parse it. it's just a once in a blue moon thing for them. they're so used to men grovelling and trying to get laid that they interpret the lack of grovelling as a lack of respect. it's quite amazing really; those rare circumstances of communication with actual egalitarians become painful loss-of-status experiences, with the point of torture itself being precisely what they experience so rarely: somebody that sees them on an even level and isn't talking down to them in the expected, safe way. it's the very process of humanization itself that seems alien.
...and, it's actually quite sad when placed in that context.
it probably, ultimately, stems from sexist fathers.
i think that, within the princess' response, there may also be a bit of a reflexive psychological defense mechanism to attempt to masculinize me as my perceived feminine guyness would be naturally and instinctively interpreted as a trojan horse, due to a least risk algorithm, and rejected as anomalous. so, not only is the princess paradox demanding of unequal treatment, it is possibly suspicious of movements that promise equality under the fear that they will lead to inequality at less advantageous terms.
that's a complicated pseudo-syndrome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)