did i go over this before?

height is not thought to be entirely genetic today, at all, but determined by a complicated mix of genetic and nutritional factors - but mostly nutritional factors. and, what determines nutritional factors? the answer is cultural differences.

see, we feed girls less than we feed boys, and we expect girls to eat less than boys, too. so, we've set up a cultural input into a nutritional mechanism. and, without very rigorous controlled studies, we can't be absolutely certain what the dominant factor is - although what we know does suggest that if we control for nutrition then we should also control for height.

i believe that the classic experiment on this topic was done via a comparison of italian immigrants to the new york area. it was found that the children of italian immigrants were shorter than their parents, and this was attributed to poorer nutritional levels in new york, compared to those in italy.

to fully debunk the claim, what what we need to do here is to perform a very specific experiment, where we feed girls the same way as we feed boys right now, and we feed boys the same way as we feed girls right now. this is probably unethical, because the way we feed girls is a consequence of systemic sexist bias. however, i might suggest that we keep an eye on rising average female height - as one would expect that women should be getting taller over the next several years, or at least they should be in certain regions, as the way we feed and exercise our daughters changes to a more egalitarian basis. while this data is likely a long time coming, it is worth noting that data in countries where both sexes are very poor (like nigeria, and india) suggests that the height differences are questionably statistically significant.

to suggest i'm offended is a base strawman argument to distract from the factual question, which i dispute, and which is being stated without any convincing evidence - and contrary to the general understanding of the underlying mechanism.

is that what you wanted? good. i've got lots more. because, this is the frustrating thing - the fact is that reality has a left-wing slant to it, and not a right-wing filter on it.

and, we can debate the tabula rasa elsewhere. i'm going to follow rosseau. as i must.

"brain sex" is also a deeply debunked pseudoscience, and it is somewhat distressing to hear it referenced by a tenured professor.

the question of muscle mass needs to be investigated with controlled studies, just as height. but, again - there's little reason to think genetic factors should overpower nutritional/cultural ones.

regarding fat distribution, the mechanism is hormonal, and while this can be modified through medication, it is an understood genetic sex difference, if it is not further modified through chemistry.

mature gametes are binary, but all specialized cells can in theory be reproduced from source, so there is no reason we couldn't artificially create an egg from a male hair cell, or sperm from female skin cells. the specialization may be real, but drawing some kind of innate difference between them is anti-evolutionary.

likewise, one should note that both human sexes have x chromosomes, so we should not be talking about the difference between x and y but about the presence of a y, which is a flag - and which can be overturned via exposure to the relative sex hormones. and, you will note that i will repeatedly concede that there is a difference in chemistry, even as i reject a substantive difference in meaningful biology. this places the issue on a spectrum, as hormone levels fluctuate widely across the sexes - and are modifiable via medication.

right. and, are the overlapping bell curves determined to be causally determined by genetic sex differences, via rigorous science? (usually not). are they even statistically separable by gender? (usually not). and, are those differences in interest determined to be causally determined by genetic sex differences via rigorous science? are they even biological? (i can't come up with a single example, actually)? if not, is culture a better explanation?

the classical argument for women's rights was that women are not incapable but uneducated - that this is cultural.

ugh. this is stupid. i'm done.

and, yes - it's perfectly ok to be born xy and be disinterested in male sexuality. that's not shameful. it's not inferior. it's just variation.

"too civilized for sex".

but, honestly. they've done studies on this. did you know that testosterone spikes are actually tied to brain damage? that testosterone actually kills brain cells? that's not hyperbole. these are controlled clinical trials, here. meatheads are morons for a reason, even if they're better at passing on their genes.

steroids kill brain cells...

but, hey, nobody ever said that intelligence was selected - at least not literally. and, some prominent biologists - ernst mayr was one - have argued the opposite point, that intelligence is an evolutionary dead end.

i'm hardly the first person to articulate this idea of macho stupidity, or react against it. it's actually one of the central themes in the alternative musical culture i'm so immersed in - however outdated it might be at this point. you just need to take it to the next level of abstraction to get your head around where i am on this.

my dad was a football star when he was in high school, so i was forced to played football when i was a kid, and i probably should have been relatively good at it. i was fast, fairly fit & in good shape, overall - i've seen pictures of myself from this period and i'm actually kind of surprised by the definition around my shoulders. this was about 16-19. i started to lose weight after that. but, i actually wasn't very good at football, and the reason was that i didn't have the aggressive nature in me to hit. i was faster than most of the kids on the field, but i couldn't make a tackle. i didn't have the energy.

likewise, when they put me in karate as a kid, they were frustrated at my disinterest in sparring. i was good at the fundamentals, but i just didn't have any interest in actually fighting anybody.

that's not an argument for gender transition, in and of itself. if it's hormonal, and it probably is, then it's just the start of one. but, it does explain my disinterest in heterosexual male sexuality: i just don't have the aggression for it.

there's not a way around it: male sexuality is violent.

it is. it doesn't matter how consensual it is, it remains violent.

and, i just never developed a mean enough streak to be able to do it. it just seems stupid and ridiculous and primitive, to me. if i were to ever seriously try, i'd probably fall over laughing at the absurdity of it. i can't even imagine myself doing it. really.

i'm not an ideological pacifist, i recognize the utility of violent struggle, but i'm entirely submissive in just about any kind of personal context. and, that just doesn't make sense when attached to a heterosexual male gender role. i mean, i'm not going to bring you to orgasm with a good argument. sorry.

i guess if i could find a fully dominant female, it could work from her perspective, but it wouldn't be my fantasy. i would essentially be lending out my body, and i would remain in an impossible situation...

and, i did finish august, 2016 early this morning - i just kind of spun out right after.

i'll get to the bureaucracy after i eat.

then, it's back to the real world for a few days. and, as we can see, i'm getting anxious.

i don't think about the girl i turned down for prom very often. like i say - it was out of the blue. totally unexpected. in hindsight, there were signs, but i really didn't see it coming. at all.

so, i mean, i dunno. did she have a crush on me for a long time? was it spontaneous? i never really asked.

i told you the story about sarah from elementary school. i knew sarah for years. we had plenty of conversations. i might dare even say there was a time when we were friends. so, i was able to understand why avoidance was the best strategy - i can analyse this, in hindsight..

but, i don't even remember having more than a cordial conversation with this girl who asked me to prom. i really didn't know anything about her besides the basics of her reputation, so i don't really know how well i might have gotten along with her. she was in my classes for years, though. maybe she was paying more attention to me than i was to her...

like, i can count the number of times i remember speaking to her on one hand, kind of thing. i remember her complimenting my cover page for the oac (grade 13, pre-university) algebra project - she thought it was "clever". that could have been small talk, i guess. i remember her trying to track me down in grade 10 or 11 to get a picture of me for yearbook, because i skipped out on the school photos that year, then dodging attempts by her to follow me around to get a shot of me, then learning she got one of me sitting by the stairs. see, she was on the yearbook committee. so, i guess there was somewhat of a game there - but i don't recall so much as a fuck you in direct conversation. it was more of a tip-off that i was being stalked. and, i recall getting into an argument with her about whether she should be allowed to qualify for scholarship money, because she's upper crust, and she doesn't need it - which she was actually rather pissed off about, because her grades were nearly perfect. well, what's a scholarship for? is it merely a reward, or a way to balance the playing field? besides that, i must have walked by her a thousand times, and i don't recall so much as a tug on my tshirt.

perhaps she liked being challenged. or, perhaps the handful of encounters i had with her were that much more memorable, given a lack of contact with other boys. maybe i read the situation wrong, and she liked my hair. i dunno....

what i know is that i really had no plans to go to prom that year, and wasn't going to change my mind due to somebody asking me.

it's easy enough to call me stupid for turning down the fucking valedictorian. all i had to do was be a man, right? well, i hadn't done the experiment yet, but i still knew better. and, i frankly just simply don't know how well i might have gotten along with her, had i gone along with it, and let her drive the night.

i didn't think about it much then, and i haven't thought about it much since.

but, i do suspect that she would have gotten bored with me relatively fast.

i legit just didn't want to go - i would have found it horribly boring.

i'm just trying to imagine what it would have been like, if i had said yes.

she probably would have had to dress me, because all i owned were tshirts. i don't think i owned a single button-up shirt until years after i graduated university. i certainly didn't have any expensive clothes to wear. i probably would have grumbled something about looking like a fascist.

i didn't have a driver's license, let alone access to a vehicle. i still don't. so, i guess she would have been driving - i probably would have bicycled down to her place to meet her, i guess.

i was straight-edge at the time, so i would have been drinking water, or pop.

and, i'm a very poor conversationalist, and wholly disinterested in the pomp, so i probably would have just cordially gone through the motions and sat quietly until the end of the night.

it's easy to call me a jerk. but, i think it's better that i turned her down.

the person that i turned down was in my classes for years leading up to it, and while it certainly took me by surprise, i did suspect she had a crush on me. she was a lisa simpson type - not just straight as, but straight 99s. widely seen as the smartest kid in school. and, i might be giving it away.

she was very wealthy, and seemed to think the same thing of me - but she was very wrong to do so. the last time i remember seeing her, she was visibly annoyed at me because i was working at an a&w's for spending cash, while in my first or second year at carleton. she was apparently home from the holidays on a scholarship (i think she went to queen's), and buying expensive clothes in the mall. so, she did this walk right in front of me like she's superior thing, and i just laughed. i don't know if anybody ever told her. i wouldn't have the slightest idea what to do with a woman like that, and wouldn't have had the slightest interest in playing out any of her fantasies or designs for me.

she probably looks back at it and wonders what she was thinking, but i'll tell you what she was thinking - it was that i wasn't a shallow idiot. this was a smart, attractive, wealthy young girl with a bright future ahead of her, and she had to resort to asking somebody that she probably knew was queer, just to avoid getting shut out. the better question is what everybody else was thinking. sadly, her intelligence level made her unpopular, and it's hard to break that stigma once you pick it up without changing school districts and starting over.

i don't regret turning her down - as mentioned, i wouldn't have been able to handle the role playing, and i probably would have ruined her night, anyways. and, i don't know if she went or not.

it was a non-event...

i don't even know what i did that night.

so, take something like prom, for example.

most people that skip out on prom have a sob story about how they couldn't find anybody. that's not my experience. the fact is that i didn't go to a single school dance for the five years i went to high school, so i never really seriously contemplated it. i didn't ask anybody; the fact is, i never intended to go. i would have probably told you in grade 10 that i didn't intend to go, and fully meant it. and, while i won't name any names, i actually turned somebody down.

so, my only experience around prom is total disinterest in the entire concept of the thing. and, while i can't be sure about how i'd have felt if i was in a different gender role at the time, i suspect i may have taken a more active interest in it, if i was.

for somebody to look at me and say "but, you have these experiences...." is wrong. i don't. sorry.

the total number of sexual partners i've had is one.

one person.

that's it.

the fact is that my experiences as a male have largely been about trying to avoid women that have demonstrated an interest in me.

it's just...

there are some people that transition later in life after having normal heterosexual relationships in their birth gender, perhaps including having children. they can say they lived a life in their birth gender, had all of the normal experiences in their youth and young adulthood and then switched. i'm not one of those people. i'm somebody that should have transitioned as a child and lived my youth as a girl; i was wholly incapable of being a boy, from the start.

i did have one relationship in my early 20s (i did not date in high school, or even pretend-date in elementary school - my first kiss was at the age of 21, and she had to ask me), but it was not a normal relationship, and my experiences within it were not heterosexual in any meaningful way. this person knew i was transgendered the day we met, and the relationship existed entirely within that context. i was never interested in being this person's boyfriend, but focused from the start to the end on having her accept me as female.

so, i don't have the experiences associated with being a young male throughout high school, my 20s or my 30s. i made no attempt to pursue girls at any time throughout high school at all, whatsoever; rather, i went to some lengths to successfully avoid the interest of a few. i wasn't just not attracted to women at this age, i was actively disinterested. i have never asked a girl out on a date before; indeed, i've never actually been on a date before. it's just not a world i have the slightest interest in or the slightest understanding of. i've never approached a woman at a bar, or had a one-night stand, or made an indecent proposal or anything of the sort. so, i don't have those experiences and don't understand the world from that perspective.

i'm really without a sexual nature of any sort.

and, i'm sorry if you find that disappointing, but i've been trying to get the point across for years, and can only hope it's clear enough by now.

my orientation is currently asexual, and the truth is that it always has been.

so, why don't i have sex?

ask around - i've had plenty of chances. but, i really haven't had sex since....i don't remember if it was 2004 or 2005. i don't think it was 2006. but, it's honestly been so long that i don't even remember when.

it's certainly been well over ten years.

what's with this? am i sexually repressed, or what?

well, for the longest time it just didn't make any sense. i didn't really know if i was attracted to women or not. i knew that my experiences with women were deeply unsatisfying for both myself and my partner because she expected me to behave in a male gender role and i simply didn't want to, and i knew that my experience with putting things inside of my anus had been unpleasant up to that point, so i didn't have a lot of interest in having sex with men. so, what that left me with was sex as a kind of functional impossibility. i didn't have the right equipment.

the truth is that i made a decision around 2007 or 2008 (i don't remember, exactly) that i would refrain from any sexual intercourse until i was post-operative. now, at the time, i didn't think i'd be sitting here ten years later with a penis in my victoria's secret underwear. but, anything or everything else aside, i've simply held to a decision to avoid sex. and, frankly, i fully intend to hold to that decision indefinitely, even if i never have that operation.

i would not know how to have sex "as a male". in that sense, i'm a virgin - i've never done that, and i don't want to learn how to do that. i would be absolutely clueless as to how to proceed. sorry.

over the years, i've answered the question: i'm not just not attracted to women on a sexual level (although i hold out an abstract possibility of a potential relationship on a purely emotional level), but i'm actually rather revolted by female sexuality. i think i've had the layers pulled back on it, and had it exposed as something that is very vulgar. years ago, i may have argued that i would no doubt be sexually active if i had the correct sex organs to enjoy sex the way i've always imagined it. today, i'm not willing to make that argument - if i were to wake up tomorrow with a vagina, i don't expect i'd have much interest in using it, anymore.

my interest in hormone therapy at this point is consequently less about increasing my estrogen levels and more about reducing my testosterone levels. i'm less about actively identifying myself as female, and more about actively rejecting myself as male. so, i probably wouldn't get particularly angry if you took away my estrogen - but i may become suicidal if you took away my testosterone suppressors, because i just don't want to deal with the annoyance. at all.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-clinton-criticizing-trump.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-how-interpolating.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-trump-getting-desperate.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-contradiction-between-trust.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-internets-perversion-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-benefits-of-clinton.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-error-of-using-regression.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-social-value-of-yoga-as.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-mississippi-floods-and.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-importance-of-historic.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-looming-canada-post-strike.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-dream-about-genetic-factors.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-trumps-obvious-turn-on.html

regardless of their own education levels, it is in fact true that communists generally tend to side with exploited workers, who generally have low levels of education themselves, against an academic elite in the bourgeois institutions, like the universities. the lie is that the academy is liberal. the academy has always been very conservative.

that was the basis of so many leftists siding with uneducated, exploited black workers during the civil rights era, against the educated elite at the time, who were southern whites.

i need to make the point as clear as i can. i don't want to support the party of christianity, for obvious reasons - the exploitation there is immense. but, i'm going to go wherever it is that the workers are organizing against the elite, and if that ends up being the republican party then so be it. i guess that the next step is pushing out the christians and conservatives.

and, i'm not going to accept any shaming around being lower-class, or standing up for the rights of the lower class, as that has always been where my politics are, in the first place.

i will stand with the deplorables against the pharisees, as is required. that is where the need is for social activism, in our society, today.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-cult-of-success.html

it's not just about forcing me to do things with people that i don't like.

it's about forcing people that don't like me to do things with me, too.

i'm an openly transgendered, vocally anarchistic, largely straight-edged nerd that doesn't have sex, doesn't watch tv, doesn't like socializing, doesn't have or want a family, etc.

i wasn't always as disinterested in society as i am now. but, at this stage, i can fully understand why nobody wants to hang out with me - i'm not a part of the dominant culture, and don't want to be. they're going to think that i'm as boring as i think that they are.

and, i don't want to lower myself to the level of the culture in order to fit in, either.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-canadas-anachronistic-but.html

and, i will tell you this: if you put me in jail, like seriously in jail, with a term, so that i lose my things, then i'm probably not going to want to leave.

at the end of the day, i would probably be happier in a padded cell with a book than i would be with a "middle class job".

i just ultimately don't know what the point of trying to force me to get a job is.

i don't want to spend my time doing that. i'm just going to end up in a situation where i'm forced to deal with people that i don't like (and that don't like me). and, i'm ultimately taking a job away from somebody that wants it.

i don't want to be a teacher. i don't want to be a lawyer. i don't want to be a programmer. i don't want to work for the government. broadly speaking, i don't want to work in an office. and, i'm not physically capable of doing manual labour. so, if you're going to force me to get a job, i'm going to be looking for something like a job as a cashier, and in the process i'm going to be taking money away from somebody that wants to save money to go to school, or that needs the extra cash to raise a family.

and, i don't want to raise a family.

i've been through this. i'm going to design my schedule so that i sleep at work, basically, because it's the least important part of the day - i want to be fresh and alert for when i go home, and am able to work on things i actually care about. i'm not going to distinguish myself as a very good employee, because i don't remotely care about doing so. i'm not going to climb ladders. i'm not going to make friends. i'm not going to meet a partner - and i'm going to forcefully reject anybody that demonstrates any interest in me, sexually. i'm probably going to get into political arguments with the people i work with.

i neither want to be there, nor are they going to want me there.

what the government is consequently doing is forcing people into an unwanted relationship, which is the opposite of any kind of market system. somebody is going to be forced to suffer me, and i'm going to be forced to suffer them. why make everybody suffer?

it's just stupid...

when people tell you that they don't want to participate in society, that should be taken seriously. it's not a ploy. and, there's not a "cure". there are only two solutions: you need to let us exist outside of society, where we want to be, or you need to put us in jail. and, putting us in jail is the far more expensive option.

i'm willing to be as frustrating as i need to be, for as long as i need to do it. if you're going to force me to waste my time for some capitalist structure, i will happily waste as much of yours as i possibly can, in joyful retaliation.

sounds like make work projects, to me.

they will literally have to come to my door and drag me out of here screaming, and then beat me when i refuse to co-operate.

https://news.ontario.ca/mcys/en/2018/11/statement-by-minister-macleod-on-social-assistance-plan.html

so, i lost a day, but i slept well and i'm awake now and want to get through august asap.

so, are the democrats going to merely waste everybody's time unearthing trump's tax records, and continuing this neo-birchite conspiracy theory about russian hacking?

i was kind of hoping that a democratic congress might be good for trade policy, healthcare, immigration and infrastructure - that this might help the democrats call trump's bluffs in a sandersesque kind of way.

whatever happened to that trillion dollar infrastructure plan? with holding the drug companies accountable? with single payer healthcare?

i just stated myself the other day that most of the democrats in the house will be indistinguishable from republicans, or vice versa if you see the world from the other direction. i'm not naive about this.

but, if they're not able to muster up something of social worth, they're going to end up back in opposition pretty quickly.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/midterms-democrats-house-trump-mueller-investigation

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-clinton-and-trump-calling.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-idea-that-ethnic-diversity.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-clintons-apparent-rejection.html

i made this suggestion at the time; it's in here, somewhere.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/oumuamua-alien-probe-harvard-intl/index.html

i wanted to go to sleep yesterday afternoon, and finish the month last night, so i could get back to real world things today. instead, i got stuck in the midterms and i'm still awake, and more awake than ever. i guess that's a positive, as it suggests the drugs are out of my system, finally - this is more normal, for me. but i need to stop pretending i'm tired or am going to sleep and just get back to work, instead.

so, it does actually follow that i do actually think that the democrats should be focusing more strongly on winning over lower class white voters in the mid-west, and should care less about winning over right-leaning identity voters, and should especially care little for the particularly right-leaning ones in the south.

sorry.

i don't want the democrats - or the liberals or the ndp - to become a party of muslim and mexicans, if you'll allow me to borrow the phrase, or of hindus and sikhs - i want a party of godless secular humanists that uphold axiomatic liberal values and empirical, scientific based reasoning, on the path to eventual full communism. and, that is probably going to be a mostly white party - not out of ideology, but as a reflection of reality.

it doesn't sound much like a republican or a conservative vision, does it? no, it's clearly a left-wing vision, but it breaks very strongly with the ideas of progressivism, which were always very christian, and in many ways always leaned rather strongly to the right.

but, it's not really a left vs right debate.

it's a science v. religion debate, and a struggle over what the left is.

so, yeah. i'm willing to declare open season on progressives. but, i'm trying to send you back to the right, where you belong - and properly reclaim the left for rational, scientific deduction, and a system of proper secularism in government.

"out of concern that the democrats were pandering to groups with violent, discriminatory views towards queer people, i joined the republican party.".

sure.

right.

rather, my focus is on convincing these bourgeois groups on the pseudo-left to stop pandering to dangerous religious groups for votes.

and, you don't really think that queers and muslims can co-exist in the same movement, do you?

c'mon.

get real.

listen: i'm openly queer. and, i don't like republicans for exactly the same reason that i don't like muslims - or catholics. i've been pretty clear on the point.

i'm also a socialist, so i care about workers. and, trump came through on the trade deal. he did. the tax cuts were nonsense, but the trade deal is substantive, and should create some upward pressure on wages for the first time in decades. i have to acknowledge that, because the democrats have historically been the lesser evil precisely because they've been the party of the working class, and if that is flipping then some reanalysis is necessary.

but, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for me to speak out against the dangers that the normalization of islam poses to the queer movement (and the wider society, in general) and then go and support the republicans. the point i've been making from the start is that they're the ones with the conservative values, so they're the ones that ought to bail to the right-wing party. and, i consequently want to have this fight on the floor of the democratic convention, and not at the ballot box, where i'm voting against my own interests.

i am certainly cognizant that if the republicans do come out of this mess as the workers party, and the democrats do end up as the new conservative party, then the fight is going to be at the republican convention rather than the democratic convention, in the end - rather than have this fight with conservative muslims, i'll have to have it with conservative christians. but, we're not there yet. the democrats are still the queer party, and the queers need to make sure the muslims know it.

so, there's no contradiction, here. what there is is a fight over the nature of the left, and whether it is to be a secular/liberal left or a "progressive"/religious one.

to me, the most interesting thing that happened was in kansas, which now has a democratic governor and a democratic congresswoman. how did that happen?

well, the district is 93% urban. and, the state is apparently rapidly urbanizing.

https://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Rural-populations-of-the-states.png

i pointed out a few years ago that the reason that colorado is now a blue state is that it's 87% urban - so denver carries the state. kansas was apparently 75% urban in 2016. if that number continues to increase, it's chances of becoming a blue state increase with it - especially if the population is localized strongly around kansas city. at the time, i was just looking at the map and thinking outloud.

it's the same thing that is happening in virginia, as well as nevada. white people don't and never did vote as a bloc, but the urban/rural split is pretty well-established, with almost no exceptions.

the democrats should be taking this as a signal that kansas is in play for the foreseeable future, so long as the trend towards concentrated urbanization in a single centre continues - because winning the city means winning the state. and, there may be signs that oklahoma is following the same path of development, although i initially pointed to nebraska as more likely. if the democrats can kind of split the map there, and separate the south from the northern plains by this kind of blue road from the west via arizona & new mexico, through colorado and kansas and nebraska and up the mississippi and back to chicago, it could break the jesusland culture. and, then, the northern plains get culturally absorbed by western canada, leaving the southeast as an isolate...

that's where this war is going to be fought: on the west of the mississippi delta, in the space between the river and the rockies.

and, that being said, i'm continually disappointed by missouri, but i understand that the state is undergoing such a process of decay. i keep thinking that it's a matter of time before it reverses itself, and st. louis rises from the dead. kansas city is also in missouri, which i've never understood, but if kansas is swinging, it could help. but, if it doesn't get an intervention of some sort, it's going to get swallowed by arkansas...

i'm not as excited about texas as others, and the reason is that those mexicans are catholics. i understand that they don't like trump, but this is not a particularly rational reaction to that - they didn't like obama, either. and, they don't like abortion. or gays. they're on the wrong side of the culture war, and that's going to eventually assert itself. texas is a melting pot; it's the south, and if it becomes more hispanic, we will end up with more hispanic conservatives, who in the end will stay to the right. i think the same thing is true of georgia. they need more than demographic changes, they need a cultural shift; texas is the counter-example, as it is already largely urbanized. rather than being on the brink of a shift, texas may be the last major state to swing, as these hispanics are slowly converted into republicans, as they are slowly americanized. and, georgia may end up as the epi-centre of a black conservative movement, in the end.

it's what happened in kansas that is more substantive, and the opening of a serious battle that will have longer term implications in shifting the map - so long as these trends of centralization and urbanization continue in the deep mid-west.

personally, i think it's a matter of time before the idea of marijuana as a medicine is essentially laughed out of court. it's kind of astounding that it ever ended up viewed that way in the first place, really. we may have to wait for rigorous studies that tie habitual marijuana use, specifically, to things like lung cancer and heart disease.

the problem is that you have to smoke the stuff, and that people are so used to the onset of instant effects. if your neighbour is a drunk, they might be loud sometimes, but the habit doesn't directly affect you. if your neighbour is a pothead, that is going to have a direct impact on you, and it's not in any way reasonable to suggest that they should be able to avoid liability for it.

it is true that i like to smoke pot at live music events a couple of times a year, away from the house, and with long periods of time in between. but, i learned first-hand just how psychologically, mentally and intellectually damaging that living downwind from a pothead can actually be, and i came out of the experience starkly convinced that serious regulations are required to protect the health and mental well-being of people dealing with chronic, unwanted exposure.

it's not ok to just smoke up and tell your neighbours to fuck off if they don't like it. you should be liable for the consequences of that, via some kind of tort process or broader negligence claim.

https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/opinion/2018/09/28/clearing-the-smoke-on-condo-no-smoking-rules.html

"she doesn't even smoke drugs. pfft. what a loser."

right.

i repeat: i have not bought any legal marijuana in canada, and currently don't plan to at any time in the future.

i will probably buy legal pot in michigan before i buy it in canada, if i ever buy it in canada at all.

and, yes - i am far more excited about legalizing marijuana in michigan than i am about legalizing it in canada, because i only smoke pot at concerts, and windsor does not have a music scene worth engaging with.

being able to buy a pre-roll before the show is going to make things a lot easier for me.

fwiw, i currently have every intention of remaining fully straight-edge until the spring. i'm never going to lift my opposition to marijuana use in residential areas - it's a health issue, and a quality of life issue.

the right to sobriety and a smoke-free, healthy living arrangement is an actual, real right that legalization should help to better enforce, by placing reasonable regulations around areas where people are permitted to smoke drugs and areas where they are not.

it's like these people that go on about how gore wouldn't have invaded iraq, ignoring the fact that gore wrote op-eds in major papers supporting the war in iraq, was the architect of the policies under clinton in the 90s that devastated the country, loudly supported the first gulf war in 1991 and even advocated bombing saddam hussein in the fucking 80s. the facts actually suggest that gore would have probably bombed iraq without even needing 9/11 as an excuse.

but, we live in this collective fantasy reality where, wherever we are on the spectrum, we buy into this right-wing media narrative and all imagine that the democrats are these idealistic leftists. and, the facts don't matter.

it doesn't matter how much death and destruction the democrats cause, they're still seen as pacifists that are weak on national security.

it doesn't matter how many austerity budgets they push, they're still seen as tax & spend.

it doesn't matter how many people they deport, they're still seen as being on the side of migrants.

it doesn't matter how many schools they defund or how many social programs they slash, they're still seen as less racist.

& etc.

the frames are constant, and it's a fact-free world in the media.

i've been over this repeatedly - the idea that hillary clinton is a pro-choice warrior or a crusader for women's rights is actually just right-wing propaganda. really. and, it forms a part of a canon of myths about the democratic party.

another is that the democrats are less violent on immigration; of course, they aren't. obama deported more people than any other president in history. he set up a quota system, for fuck's sake.

a third is that they're pacifists, or anti-war.

so, it makes sense to send people that think she would have been better on abortion to the same debunking web sites that you send people that think she eats babies, because it's actually the same source of misinformation:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/boycott36-clinton-sanders-late-term-abortion/

she actually mentioned her support for a ban on late-term abortions (with the usual republican list of exceptions for rape and health) several times during the last campaign, including as answers in several televised debates. this is very well-known.

now, it's easy to say something like "this is reasonable. it's moderate. nobody likes abortions. safe, accessible and rare is just being a decent person, who opposes that?".

...except that when you really take a look at what she says, you realize that there's very little daylight between where she stands and where the mainstream of the republican party is.

most republicans don't support a full ban, and because roe v wade is settled english common law, you need to be extremely cynical to suggest a court can just overturn it outright. that is scare-mongering. if the republicans get their way on this, it's going to be some kind of partial personhood amendment with the list of exceptions - pretty much exactly what clinton proposes.

i support abortion rights. fully. abortion is a choice, and it is the choice that needs to be upheld. and that was one of the reasons i opposed clinton - she doesn't agree with that.

i need to state again that i didn't analyse the polls leading into the election, i was simply expressing some concern surrounding things like voter id laws, based on what i learned in 2016.

and, what happened tonight?

well, it seems like the democrats did find a way to win back some white voters, after all. watching the early results come in, it looked like a replay of 2016, but when the numbers come in, you're going to see that the important swing is amongst whites in the midwest, not amongst blacks or hispanics in the south.

the irony with kobeck losing is that his tactics weren't applicable to his own district, out in cornfield, kansas, where there weren't any duplicate mexican names to purge. oops.

so, understand this: if the plan was to win a lot of seats in the south on the strength of minority voters, as has been broadcasted for the last several cycles, then that appears to have failed, yet again. they may have flipped a few, but just barely - they lost almost all of the seats that they were relying on minority strength to win. the more convincing wins are in the mostly white rust belt, and i guess you'll have to ask the voters there why they flipped back. you'd think these people would be broadly happy with the new trade deal. isn't that why they voted for trump in the first place? and, perhaps you may find that these particular democrats are more likely to back it, whether the voters realized it or not.

so, if one accepts the idea that trump's strength in the region was due to his opposition to nafta (even if he won due to voter suppression tactics - and, yes, there's plenty of documented evidence of this), it may seem like a strange reward to lose the house, when he delivered on something better - but when you realize that a democratic controlled house is more likely to ratify the new agreement than a republican one, it turns the logic on it's head. after all, trump is governing more like a democrat than a republican. and, like i say, who really knows if this is conscious or not.

regardless, it seems like the balance of power in the new democratic house is actually going to be disproportionately white, and operate disproportionately in the interests of rust belt workers, who have demonstrated themselves as the most important swing in the country. so, it's going to be interesting to see how well trump can work with the house - and whether or not he finds it easier to deal with a democratic house than he does with a republican senate.

i went over a lot of this in my analysis of the 2016 election, which i've been sprinkling into the page over the last several months, and i'm now almost caught up with. seems like i may have jumped the gun a little.

fwiw, i don't think that clinton would have picked somebody less conservative than kavanaugh. she is, after all, on the record as supporting a constitutional amendment to restrict abortion rights for essentially her whole life, and very purposefully picked a pro-life running mate to get the point across. those are the facts, here. sorry.

but, weren't the seats they needed to flip mostly in the southeast and midwest?

this question of whether the democrats need to reach out or rev up their base is missing the point. obviously, it's better to rev up your base - and if you lean left, it's easy to understand why you'd prefer it, even if it's a bad tactic. do you want this because you think it's going to work better, or do you want this because you want this.

the point is that the votes aren't being counted. you can rev the base up all you want, it means nothing if they get to the station and can't vote, or can't get to the station to vote at all. and, standing in california - or in canada - it is hard to understand how hard it is for the base to actually vote in the south, and increasingly in the midwest.

obviously, you want to fight for these people to be able to vote. but, you have to win the elections, first. even if you get the buses out and everything else, you still can't be sure the votes are going to count - or enough of them will, anyways.

so, this isn't a choice.

the democrats must find a way to win back enough white voters to flip enough districts to undo the longterm damage.

another way to understand what i just said is to point out that this approach has a wide error bar, and is consequently only able to present a wide range of results. so, depending on how it is being presented, it can appear to be very wrong, without being wrong at all. you just have to understand how to read it correctly.

it seems like they're trying to fit national data for the house races, and using local data for the gubernatorial ones. they probably should have used the same methodology for the house (and senate.) that they're using for the governor races. and, given that this data probably exists here - as opposed to in a presidential election, where it might not - they probably have less of an argument about a deficit of data.

this is the same argument i've been making for years.

and i have no understanding at all about what affect it may have on the outcome.

one possibility that you could see is that millennial turnout may end up very high in already-leaning democratic districts. if that happens, the election results will be spitting on a fish, and not a lot of seats will flip. the popular vote will end up as a mirage. that is probably the most extreme type of error, but how unlikely is it, really? i mean, if what's driving this is saturday night live, the polls may be broadcasting a kind of circle jerk in the easily led "still watches tv in 2018" demographic - even if these are the same people annoying you on facebook with dubious articles from vox.

again: i have no understanding of what the numbers say. i'm not suggesting that this will affect the accuracy of the outcome. but, you should expect a model like this to be off by quite a bit - it can't be anything better than a crude guess.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-final-forecast-in-the-senate-house-and-gubernatorial-races/

ok, so, i think i finally understand what was wrong with those airwalks.

they were slippers. that is, they were made out of felt. apparently, converse does this, too. they apparently don't have to pay as many taxes that way - which makes it that much more shady.

these airwalk ones are supposedly the real deal - for the same $30 i paid for the classics, with the felt bottoms. let's hope they are.

then, do i keep the vans? i dunno. probably not. i don't need four pairs of sneakers....but maybe i can come up with an excuse.

so, i just bought two pairs of airwalk ones. in 2018. they were cheap - i'm interpreting it as 2-for-1. one in red and one in the classic grey & white. these are the suede & rubber shoes that i've been looking at puma to emulate.

see, i don't know the exact history, but i suspect the airwalks were aping on the pumas in the first place. regardless, it's the airwalks i wanted. so, why not go for it.

they say the soles are rubber; we'll find out when they get here. if they are, and these are really just like the old airwalks, then i got two pairs of good shoes for cheap. it seems like this is the right time, as they were limited edition and not being re-run. if these are good shoes, i might have fluked out. if the soles are pvc or something, i can use them as very comfortable throwaways.

i guess it puts the vans on notice if these are good shoes, because i'll want to keep the platforms as dress shoes. i dunno, though. i may just keep them, too. it rules out the extra pumas, for now. probably.

and, if they end up as throwaways, then i'm done, save for a potential trip to the puma store, probably in the spring.

to be clear: i wanted classic airwalk-style, well built comfortable skate shoes. i don't care what the brand name is. i ended up getting some weird mid-top vans as a compromise because i needed shoes, but the only thing i could really find in the style i wanted were pumas, and the store didn't have them in my size. so, i ordered some pumas in my size when i got home and they are, in fact, exactly what i wanted. and, now i've ordered some throwback airwalks, too, after all - potentially in the last few days that i could. if that works out, i probably won't want the vans anymore. but, if they get here and they're shit, i'll use them as throwaway and keep the vans...and maybe get another pair of pumas, too.

i'm finding myself choosing between airwalk classics and puma classics here, and it's not because i'm attached to the style or the past - it's because i want some well made shoes. i may have fluked out and found what i really wanted, but in the long run i'm probably going to be defaulting to those pumas...

my shoes also came in today, and they fit perfectly. that's a size 7 kids shoe.

so, i ended up with

1) size 7 kids pink puma classics with what is a questionable sole for girlishness use. the ad said rubber, but i think it's pvc. disappointing. i'm going to keep these because they're cute, but i may get an adult pair, too.
2) size 9 women's black suede rubber platforms, which are sort of dressier. i wanted these to be walking shoes due to the huge rubber soles, but they're kind of too nice to trudge around in and i think i'm going to put them aside.
3) size 8.5 women's mid-top black canvas vans, with rubber sole & pink laces. these are probably better for long walks, even if the soles aren't quite as thick. i would see these as more expendable.
4) size 7 men's waterproof hiking boots, brownish, ozark trail. these are for walking around in the slush. growing up in ottawa, i've usually had a pair of boots like this, but i initially decided i wouldn't need them in windsor. i'm hoping these last a while and can be pulled out when useful.

i already had

5) size 6 children's rain boots, bluish. these should last for years.
6) size 6 children's winter boots, black. i'm going to need to touch these up a little as there's some hairline cracks in the front, but these are what i'll use to go out in the actual snow, if or when i have to. if i can fix the cracks and just wear them when necessary, these could last years and years.
7) falling apart airwalk classics that were size 9 women's.
8) some falling apart walking shoes i bought at the dollar store.

outside of potentially buying a second pair of puma classics in search of more clearly rubber soles, the last thing i'm going to want is a pair of super cheap shoes for bicycling. i considered shoe gooing the airwalks, but the bottoms are just trash - which is frustrating because the shoes themselves are otherwise so much better built than any of the others around the heel and the toe. if i could find another pair of them, and just replace the sole altogether, though...

and, i think that should probably last me quite a long time, hopefully. i mean, that's the intent; this isn't frivolous. i'm trying to figure out my footwear needs for the next several years now, while i have a good opportunity, and then ensure i don't have to worry about it for a while. i now have rain boots, snow boots, slush boots, cute running shoes (with a skate rubber sole), dressy platform shoes and what seem like pretty comfortable utility shoes (also with a skate rubber sole). i can probably benefit from a second pair of decently built running shoes, and i need some kind of cheap throwaways for utility. but, that should do me. really. for a while..

i'm 5' 8", i don't feel i need heels or pumps. and, i don't exist in the business world, either. i've had these discussions with people at bars "i wish i wore more comfortable shoes". i wish you did, too. really. i have some girlier shoes, but i don't have a lot of opportunities to wear them, and don't see the use in spending money on them.

i didn't get started on this again until after midnight, so i only picked up a few things.

so, the coffee machine is about 0.18. i've never noticed it as a problem, previously.

the 150 W bulb is the 3:00 reading, suggesting it's about 0.15 if run alone. i think a 0.01-0.02 fluctuation is acceptable noise. this is far too much for one light, either way - and is consistent enough.

and, it would seem as though the fan is running at 0.1/hr or so. this is kind of an unavoidable cost, i was more interested in getting the fan alone so i can get a clean reading on the heat lamp.

i measured the fan with the heat lamp & the fan with the led this morning, which i'll be able to compare tomorrow afternoon.

i've also uploaded three blog posts that i wrote in 2016 and i'm dating to 1996. these were written for the liner notes for inri000 & the music blog in general; while i won't be mirroring here, i will be reconstructing this page from 1996-2013 as a part of the alter-reality, and uploading various historical writings, as they come up. that should separate out over 1997, which was supposed to happen over 2017. i will need to track down my old usenet posts...

it was when i moved across town that i got internet access in my room, and i started posting to usenet.

these are the three posts, which are creative writing, but are politically relevant.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/05/really-enjoying-new-soundgarden-record.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/06/the-quake-soundtrack-is-really-really.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/1996/07/scenery-and-fish-and-building-rooms-in.html

so, that gets me through season 9, which is most of the way through august, 2016. i need to have a big meal before i finish the rest of the month, and then get to real world stuff for tomorrow morning. i think the lights were seriously the last thing to build for the bathroom; the next step is to set up the dining/living room, which will also act as a side library. that should take me through the rest of the week, meaning i should be able to get started on season 10 by the weekend, hopefully.

i just need to keep working and get through it as quickly as i can.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-stop-white-people.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/so-what-is-barack-obamas-legacy-i-might.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-trumps-appeal-to-inner-city.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-trudeaus-curious-decision.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-long-term-consequences-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-medias-curious-focus-on.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-inexcusable-use-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-daily-shows-cyclical-stunt.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-tragically-hip-trigger.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-importance-of-past-and.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-example-of-how-trudeau-is.html

listen: it's less that i'm not on either side of the election, although i suppose that is a technical truth. it's more that i take a kind of classical anarchist position: it is the democrats and republicans that are actually on the same side, which is the side of capitalism. the side i am on is the side that opposes both parties, and broadly equally so.

from about 1930-1990 or so, the democrats were usually the least evil option. the lines started to blur with clinton, and the spectrum may be shifting with trump.

but, realizing that the republicans may be becoming the lesser evil is not to take their side against the democrats, or switch sides, because i was never on the side of the democrats in the first place, and the republicans are still very evil.

races for the senate and the house and the governor and etc are going to more individualistic. as an anarchist, i would have never presented a party preference; the reality is that the vast majority of these races are inconsequential, and the candidates will end up with virtually indistinguishable voting records. in some cases, there may be democratic candidates worth supporting; in others, there may be republican candidates worth supporting. but, broadly speaking, i am more likely to support an independent or third party candidate than i am to support either of the two major parties, who i see as broadly interchangeable.

to an extent, i guess if the republicans think i'm secretly a democrat and the democrats think i'm secretly a republican then the conclusion is that i must be a fair voice - and not one in the centre (the centre of a one-party state is the one-party state, itself), but one outside of the spectrum. and, i often place myself outside of the discourse - because the side i'm on is the one that opposes the two of them equally, as a two-headed monster.

the facts on the ground are that the republicans are engaging in massive, widespread vote suppression tactics, and that the effects of these efforts have been decisive in multiple contests over the last several years, including the last presidential election. any polling analysis consequently needs to be very careful that it isn't overestimating support amongst groups that are going to have difficulty voting.

and, that is truly the extent of my analysis.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/ft_17-05-10_voter-turnout/

this has become commonplace, and he's projecting.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/5/18064610/trump-midterm-elections-voter-suppression

i have not been following the midterms and do not have any suggestions. but, i again must point to the dominant factor in the previous cycle: if you are a poor person or a minority in a district held by the republicans at the state level, your ability to actually cast a ballot is, at this stage in history, actually quite precarious. it's gotten to the point where polling firms actually have to scale back their numbers to account for voter suppression tactics. and, what happened in 2016 is that they didn't scale it back far enough - even as i was arguing that they were manipulating data to absurd extremes. to properly account for the range of tactics that republicans are using to prevent people from voting nowadays, you need to perform surgery on the sample.

what that means is that the democrats are going to have to eat into the republican base if they want to actually win seats in these regions. it's not enough to work up minorities and poor people, because when they get to the polling places, they won't be allowed to vote. they have to make the ground up amongst demographic groups that are actually allowed to vote.

i don't know what the data says on this point because i haven't been following it. but, don't be surprised if you hear things like there was "low turnout amongst hispanics and african-americans".

so, this is the first round of experiments.

as is clear, the base/background rate is constant around 0.14. some fluctuations are going to happen, but that's the background noise.

the spike at 20:00 is from having both of the type j bulbs running, which was 250 W, in total. these remain small numbers as isolated spikes, but an extra 0.24 is significantly higher than the base rate, which includes two led bulbs. and, running .24 for 5 hours a day adds up to 35 kwh/month - nearly a third of my target.

the spike at 11:00 is from running the 100 W bulb, which took up 0.11 of the 0.24, indicating that the 150 W bulb took up 0.13. see, that's counter-intuitive, and part of what i wanted to check. i'll verify that tomorrow afternoon.

the new bulbs should be running at roughly a tenth of the power, and if i can cut that 35 down to 4 then i'm most of the way towards renormalizing my usage.

i'll check the other switch tonight, after 19:00.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-rare-election-poll-from-pew.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/if-donald-trump-thinks-his-wife-is.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/im-confused.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-twitter-use-as-trumps.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-tactic-of-calling-hillary.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-effects-of-terrorism-on.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-malia-obama-not-knowing-how.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-arguments-used-to-claim-we.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-dangers-of-modelling-with.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-question-of-whether-bds-is.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-rob-ford-video-crack-is.html

but, "cultural marxism" is not a conspiracy theory. it is the same thing as "neo-conservatism"; remember - these people were all trostykists. were. and, that is the error that the right makes - they get the whole thing backwards. and, don't they always?

these are the same types of people that think that removing the state will lead to a spontaneous mass respect towards property rights, because they don't understand that the state doesn't just happen to uphold those rights but exists for that exact purpose.

it's no secret that the people that build the world we live in today were, in fact, marxists in the past. the blueprint is in the pnac. and, they've been open about their utilization of marxist theory to advance their imperialist agenda.

nor is this without historical precedent, as was documented by the likes of quigley and sutton - both of whom had access to deep resources in order to understand what was happening around them. nor has it escaped the understanding of prominent leftist historians, like zinn and chomsky, both of whom have written extensively on the topic, but who understand the idea as a vulgar marxism rather than as cultural marxism.

zizek in a lot of ways is a good example of "cultural marxism" in the actual sense, as he is a leftist academic that has moved hard to the right, albeit for financial gain. a more disappointing example was christopher hitchens.

nor is the confusion around the situation new, either, as this is the same thesis put forward by the john birch society in the middle of the last century, which is the ideological origins of the koch brothers.

and, who came up with the idea that the illuminati is a satanic group, or that freethinkers and masons were in league with the devil? it was the catholic church, who were seeking to fight back against a movement that it saw as a threat to it's own power - and rightly so, as the liberalism expounded by these groups eventually did the church in, didn't it?

it is a measurable phenomenon over what is now the last several decades, more than the last century, that powerful capitalists have found insights within marx that they've understood are ways to better help them win the class war. we used to call this vulgar. today, we call it cultural.

read sutton and move forwards; he understood this quite well. so, for example, he understood that when the rockefellers and the morgan interests generously funded the bolsheviks, it was not out of any affinity with marxism, but because they wanted to capture the russian market, which was newly opening up out of czarist backwardsness. by putting a one party dictatorship in power, they could avoid the waste and bureaucracy associated with free markets, and jump directly to an efficient domination over russian consumption. and, that is, in fact broadly what happened - and what defines our understanding of this concept of "state capitalism".

likewise, any good conservative capitalist standing in 2018 should be well aware of the necessity of religion in upholding a system that is fraying at the seams. i have repeatedly posted a fragment from socialism: utopian and scientific that goes over the differences in the british and german bourgeoisie, in relation to the maintenance of a religious middle class. it was, after all, the socialists that argued that if religion is allowed to collapse then capitalism will collapse with it - this was not initially a hegelian warning from nietszche, but a socialist tactic. and, so, should we be surprised that capital seeks to replace the dying culture of christianity with a model that appears to be so much more successful? and, might these useful idiots on the left ought to be more in opposition than the reactionary christians, about it?

was marx himself not a capitalist? and did he not utilize his own tools in this manner, as well? was marx himself not the first vulgar marxist?

see, it's one thing to redirect these people towards better sources of information, but it's another to shut them down altogether. what's happening is that they're being effectively co-opted, and in that sense peterson is no less ignorant than his followers are. there's a worthwhile observation in there. indeed, the conspiracy theory is intended to obscure this worthwhile observation - as all good conspiracy theories are.

ok. so, that should deal with that problem, even if the lights don't get here until next month.

i don't know why, but the fixtures in here are very diverse. i have lights around the apartment that take normal bulbs, and got a deal on them at canadian tire - $0.50/bulb. so, i have a lot of led lights - but i also have a great need for them, as there are 14 sockets in the unit, including the stove and two lamps. i'm only usually going to have two-four on at one time.

there is also a total of five spotlights in the unit - three in the front hallway and two in the kitchen. two of these burnt out quite quickly, and i bought some at canadian tire, for $4 each. i had a stranded $31 sitting in my ebay account, so i spent $11 on 5 replacement spotlights. that's half-price, but they might not be here until january. it will cut 50W bulbs down to 9W. i'll have to test these switches, too.

somebody on e-bay had exactly the right replacement for the type j bulbs for me - 18 mm across to replace the standard 16/17 halogens. everything on amazon was pushing 25 mm. i got 4 of them for the two sockets, a fresh pair plus a replacement, for $13. so, my $31 is now $7, but my actual account has been spared - it feels free, but i will need to transfer the money back in over time (this is leftover money from sales at my bandcamp site). this is going to replace a 100 W and a 150 W bulb with two 15 W bulbs. so, it should still be very bright, but at a tenth of the cost. some time before january...

and, i got a 2-pack of led par20s for the bathroom. this is going to take me from 175 W all the way down to 9 W and should be here much sooner. $17, so $8.50 each. but, again: i had a $23 credit at amazon that was actually put there by accident, so these light bulbs are actually free.

i may put the other par 20 on the front step; again, i'll have to test the switch

i'll do all the right testing once the new bulbs come in, and we'll see what the difference is.

well, i found exactly what i wanted for dirt cheap on ebay, instead.

it should be here next month.

until then, i'll probably just take the bulbs right out.

on third thought, i should be able to get what i want in there.

i have about 5 mms from the base of the fixture to the socket for the bulb. but, then i have another 5 mm to play with to get to the center of the socket. so, anything with about ten cm from the socket should fit - and i did see some of these

i still have a $25 credit at amazon, so that's probably the best way to approach this.

i've been shopping for bulbs all night.

on second thought, it seems like these bulbs may be difficult to replace due to the geometry of the fixture. i only have a few mm to play with, and the replacements are all quite wide. i might not be able to find a bulb that fits.

we'll see what kind of data comes back. what i did was turn everything off except the background use - two led bulbs in the bedroom, appliances (including the modem) and the laptop/monitor setup in the bedroom -  and leave the lights in the bathroom on for one hour each, over three combinations - both bulbs, and then each separately. that should let me understand what kind of usage i can assign directly to the bulbs, and whether it's really as bad as it seems. the background is about 0.15. the two of them running together is probably going to be as high as 0.5, indicating that each of them is equal to the background. and, when a single bulb is equal to all of the appliances, two led bulbs and a computer, that bulb is a problem that needs to go.

if it's as bad as i think, i may just take the bulbs out and buy a lamp, instead. or, if i can find an led floodlight, i could just stick with that.

i now need to test the other switch through three combinations - just the fan, the fan & the led and the fan & the ir light. this will help me understand just how bad the ir light is, and whether it's really worthwhile to replace it or not.

i think zizek has admitted that he's a nihilistic capitalist that is selling marxism to idiots, for a nice profit.

peterson is really a nihilistic post-modernist that is selling conservative christianity to idiots, for a nice profit.

zizek is of course a master of projection.

but, he beat me to the claim of dishonesty.

and, this might be the only argument i ever take his side on.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

i would watch peterson v. zizek, though.

that would be good for a laugh.

the person that peterson reminds me of most is zizek - he appeals mostly to uneducated white men who never went to university, who get some kind of ego boost from thinking that they're finally being allowed to engage in a debate that they were never previously permitted to engage in, because nobody ever thought they were intelligent enough to engage in it. but, there's essentially nothing of substance to what he's saying, and when he's not being dishonest, he's being distracting.

and, he is deeply dishonest.

the surreal thing is that you'll see him being presented on the other side of the argument - as though freud or jung should be taken more seriously than derrida or lacan, or foucault. you've just moved across the rhine. it's the same bullshit. and, the guy really belongs in the same category as much of what his proponents are trying to contrast him against.

as mentioned: i don't want to engage in this debate, because i don't think it's worth my time. other than to clarify the facts of the situation when he attempts to distort them, that is to fact check him, he's really broadly not worth responding to.

and, that is my suggestion to dealing with him - don't bother engaging him. just fact check him and leave it at that.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-right-wing-medias-play-on.html

again: i knew those lights were going to be a problem for the electrical, i just underestimated it. i should have looked at them more closely.

so, i'm going to need to replace all of the lighting in the bathroom. in addition to the 175 W bulb, it turns out that the two fixtures both have type j bulbs in them, of 100 W and 130 W, respectively. so, even taking that big bulb out still leaves me with over 200 W worth of lighting in the bathroom. it was over 400 W initially...and, together, this may have been the cause of the spikes....

i can't just put a bulb into those type j fixtures. i think i can order led replacements, but i'm running a test right now to see if it's cost effective.

i might also be able to get a better replacement for that 175 W bulb.

that will be the last thing to do in the bathroom....but i really want to get through august, first.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-challenge-of-low-functional.html

i don't want to watch his videos.

i don't want to read his writings.

i don't want to debate his ideas, or debunk his nonsense.

i simply don't want to acknowledge he exists - because he shouldn't exist. not in the 21st century, anyways. the 1st, maybe - but not the 21st.

call me post-millennial, but i'm baffled that anybody could take him seriously - and i refuse to do it.

i would rather impale myself with a rusty umbrella than suffer through the pronouncements of a fundamentalist buffoon like jordan peterson. i've been clear about this in the past: i have better things to do.

he is in the category of demagogic troll that is best left ignored until he goes away.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-liberal-egalitarianism-from.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-elizabeth-may-distracting.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-potential-of-trump-being.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-who-is-at-fault-for-vote.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/there-have-been-persistent-rumours.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-tries-to-react-to-trumps-taxspend.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-way-to-understand-why-tpp.html

the reality is that cenk is a republican, so the fact that he's arguing from the right here is not surprising - he usually argues from the right of the spectrum. and, the reason tucker carlson is so dangerous is that he isn't stupid. but, however disingenuously, or however capriciously, or however tactically, tucker is actually taking the left side of the debate, here. and, i'm left to wonder - how much of a pattern is this? are the post-ideological nihilists in the republican intelligentsia actually purposefully taking advantage of the democratic party's re-embrace of conservative values, to try and reposition themselves as the populist left, as they were in the nineteenth century? has the spectrum flipped that dramatically?

i mean, i'm used to recoiling against cenk for pretending he's a representative of the left, and coming off as a liberal republican - because that's what he is. but, i'm also used to being revolted by tucker carlson for being a post-ideological nihilist. so, i should know better. but, i can nonetheless see the truth as clearly as it exists.

but, it's typical of a post-modern epistemology to ignore the facts and focus on the perceptions, isn't it? this rovian idea that the facts don't matter, that masquerades on the left but belongs to the hard right.

you will excuse me for reasserting enlightenment values and insisting upon a return to empiricism; if you want to change perceptions, you really need to focus on changing the facts that produced them.

but, i've pointed this out repeatedly - we should not be looking to the liberals to support social housing, or take advantage of the surge in refugees to fix the pre-existing housing crisis. we should expect the liberals to sound like liberals, and push for what benefits capital - and excess population levels always benefit capital by driving down labour costs.  that's why the democrats support migrant inflows. this is all very easily understandable. at best, we should expect the liberals to put in place social systems that benefit capital, and that benefit all of us in the process - because we should at least expect the liberals to be smart about it, from a capitalist perspective.

nor are the conservatives going to do anything for the poor, either; that idea is comical.

we should be looking to the ndp for this. and, it's their rhetoric - which is trying to outliberal the liberals - that is what is so staunchly disappointing.

there was a great opportunity to take advantage of a crisis here, and they squandered it.

you don't get it, ahmed.

i don't care about refugees. at all. what i care about is housing.

immigration is not a ballot question and will not affect my voting decisions. but, access to housing is an important election question for people living on the margins.

it is true that the housing problem already existed. but, it's also true that the existing housing problem made housing the influx of refugees next to impossible, and turned an existing problem into a full-on crisis for the native-born population. it's perhaps not the refugees' fault, but that's not a reason to stop them from flowing in - whether they're to blame for it or not, their presence is continuing to exacerbate the problem. i'm not interested in assigning blame, i'm interested in finding a solution. and, you can't deport canadians to make way for nigerians, even if i suspect that's what you'd really like to do.

so, i don't want you to launch a pr campaign to help soften the image of refugees; i want you to fix the social housing problem. and, nothing short of fixing the housing problem is going to change the perception that they're creating an unwanted strain - because it happens to be an objective fact that they actually are.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-hussen-immigration-matters-campaign-1.4887252

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-mess-that-pmo-is-making-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-dream-about-being.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-term-ableism-as-producerist.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-confusion-over-who-has.html

yeah, it's that damned light bulb - not twice as much, but five times as much. and, there were no spikes yesterday evening, so we'll have to see if it stays that way.

presuming there are no unaccounted for spikes, i should be able to keep the bill under $50 by keeping the usage low for the next week. and, the oesp kicks in on the 26th, meaning i should get about half the month covered.

as of right now, i expect that i'll pay the set up cost and push the rest over. and, if i can really keep to an average of 4 kwh/day for the winter, it should be paid down by the new year.

i didn't check my email yesterday, but i finally got a response from the police complaint i made in mid sept. they are launching an investigation under the lead of the windsor police; i responded back with a request for an independent review, as there's a conflict of interest on the file. we'll see how they react to that.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-clinton-showing-up-to-work.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-trump-admitting-that-pence.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-two-more-decent-polls.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-picture-served-up-to-me-by.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-idea-of-buying-out.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-obvious-superiority-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-criminal-negligence-in.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-trump-as-american-gorbachev.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-another-useless-polling-firm.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-question-of-self-interest.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-comment-by-thomas-friedman.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-usefulness-of-fox-polling.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-possible-plot-twist-around.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/both-of-them-will-fast-track-tpp-should.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-trumps-flailing-against.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-election-as-choice-between.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-helicopter-surgeries-on.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-some-more-polls-with.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-continued-cringey-optics-in.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-level-of-discourse-we.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/08/j-reacts-to-some-new-polls-their.html

that being said, i can deal with placing that $25 under court order costs, as the reason i did all that laundry was to wash the smoke out of my clothes.

regarding the smoke down here.

i dunno.

i'm still cleaning up the dust from having the dryer on for the last two weeks. i'm coughing as a consequence of something or other, but i can't get a clean signal, yet.

it seems to get better when i lysol the surfaces around the bed - and it's certainly picking up a lot of dust, of unclear origin (although the dryer is a clear partial source).

i have no clear determination yet, but that's something else i'll be checking for over the weekend.

now, regarding how i'm going to deal with this...

i had a $270 credit in the last apartment, and i'm not sure if they should have cut me a check or not. they didn't. i'm going to have to call the program on monday to find out. but, it indicates that i shouldn't expect to be paying much for hydro, if anything at all, once i get used to where the costs are in this unit. i expect to rebuild that credit.

in the short term, i need to figure out whether i am really paying for hot water or not. if i am, i'm going to have to change the terms of the credit to the intensive service, which is an extra $20 a month.

regardless, i'm going to behave as though the credit is retroactive, even though everybody insists that it isn't. so, if i ended up with a $70 bill, and i think i'm paying hot water, i will put in a payment for $2 and wait until the credit builds up to take care of the costs - or $25 if i'm convinced that i'm not.

if i'm not on the hot water circuit, i expect the bills down here to be in the $30-40 range, so it will take a few months to catch up. otherwise, i guess i'm expecting it to be in the $50-60 range, and will need to get on the appropriate program to adjust.

so, i got my cleaning done - the bathroom and kitchen are both totally done, cleaned and completed for long term tenancy. it's actually a very nice bathroom, and i'm happy about that. next up will be the second bedroom, which i'm using as a dining/living room & library. it's big enough for a couch and a table with a laptop/tv on it - and some shelves in the corner. but, i'm going to get through 08/16 first. hopefully, i can get a good chuck down by the end of the weekend.

i also got my first electricity bill and was a little thrown off by it.

i was expecting something a little higher due to the fact that i've done something like 40 loads of laundry this month. but, a closer look at the information pulled out a lot of spikes that i can't currently account for and i'm going to have to figure out why. my immediate suspicion is that i may have the hot water tank attached to my circuit, meaning i'd be paying for heating...

frankly, that's not the end of the world. i don't mind paying my own hot water in theory, it's just that the lease says the landlord is supposed to pay for it. so, if i can convince myself that this is actually what's happening, i guess we need to figure out if it's intentional or not, first. but, i may actually prefer to see a small rent reduction - $20 or $30 - and send the cost to the oesp, instead. due to the way the system works, i'd rather take the costs on my myself, because i can offload them. i just wish he was upfront about it.

i need to be clear: i haven't convinced myself of this, yet. i'm going to need to check the hourly usage and piece it together. but, it is the initial hypothesis.

the background rate also seemed unusually high. in my last apartment, i was using 3-5 kwh base - meaning things like lights and appliances, and the laptop that i have on pretty much all of the time. it's more like 8 here. that's almost twice as much, and there isn't a good reason for it.

the only thing that i can finger as the cause - and the data seems to support it - is the light bulb in the bathroom. i guessed that this thing might be a little more powerful than i'd like, but i seem to have drastically underestimated it. it turns out that it's actually a "heat lamp" rather than a bulb. 175 W. i didn't really look at it or analyze it, but now that i am doing so, having this one bulb on for a few hours a day may have literally doubled my base electrical costs.

i took it out this evening and replaced it with a regular bulb. we'll see what kind of difference that makes over time.

so, i'll be in bed for the next few days, focusing on the rebuild - and carefully keeping track of my electricity usage.

if they want to save money on social assistance, what should they actually do? and, i support some of these things for other reasons. remember: as a recipient, it is also in my interests to reduce the number of people on assistance, as i get better access to the services, that way.

1) better access to abortion and contraception services, including working to remove stigmas around abortion and contraception that are erected by conservative religious groups. whether we're talking about welfare or disability, it is the perpetuation of the cycle of poverty and addiction that is the biggest factor creating dependence. reducing birth rates amongst people that live on social assistance should be the dominant priority, as the science is clear that most of the people born into the system will in fact remain within it.

2) renegotiate resettlement terms with the federal government to take in more immigrants and fewer refugees. single able-bodied male refugees should be given higher priority for resettlement than families or dependent women and children. listen: if you want to save costs, this is something that will actually work. the liberal theory here is wrong - most of these kids will end up dependent.

3) build more subsidized housing. in the long run, this will reduce costs related to transient housing, including running shelters and food banks, and transfer costs from providing services for vagrants to giving them money to spend, which cycles money back into the economy, producing multiplier effects.

4) provide greater access to secular addictions counselling. the 12-step program is a cult that fosters dependency on itself. we have a lot of science on the topic at our disposal; we should stop relying on these religious groups and start using it.

5) reduce barriers to accessing education, including the costs to education.

if they're serious about this on a fiscal level - and not just appealing to the base calivinistic instincts that dominate in the lowest common denominator of society - then simply cutting rates would be devastatingly stupid, as they're going to spend twice as much on policing and court costs (as well as incarceration costs) from the increase in crime that follows. and, we don't have a slave labour prison system, so the incentive towards mass incarceration doesn't exist, either - except at the complex level. we do have some privately owned prisons. i guess putting us all in jail would require building more prisons...

the thing is that we already know that this government is, in fact, devastatingly stupid - and will do many devastatingly stupid things until we can get rid of them.

i think what you should expect is some kind of workfare. that might not save any money in the end, but it won't cost them anything, and it's the most direct way to play to their base of religious fundamentalists.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-social-assistance-100-day-review-1.4884242