if this (the bailouts) is going to become a political issue again, i'm going to pick back up where i left off ten years ago and fight against the demagoguery and ignorance on social media and amongst the political class in ensuring that people actually know what the facts are, and are not misled by populists inside and outside of the media.
1) the so-called bailouts were actually loans and they have been paid back. if your concern is about "taxpayer's dollars" (an ill-defined concept, at best), you should realize that the state turned a profit on the process - the bailouts were profitable for taxpayers.
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
2) the one exception is the auto-industry, which did not pay back the loans. that is where your fiscally conservative arguments should be directed at, although i would have argued for full nationalization; for the auto industry, i don't think the bailouts went far enough.
3) the consequences of pushing for a social darwinist approach to market failure need to be understood. i don't support free markets. at all. we need to support industry with government, and we need to use government as a tool to decide which industry we should be supporting.
4) the consequences of letting banks fail for the account holders needs to be understood. we're talking about defaults, bankruptcies, foreclosures...
again: i would support structural measures to make the situation less likely to occur again. but, i do not support further dismantling the safety net, which exists for good reason.
we mostly got away with this in canada. we had bank solvency issues, we had bad mortgages, etc - but it didn't take the system down. and, the reason is that we didn't dismantle the system of socialism that we built up after the depression, and we were consequently able to absorb it.
this is an issue where bernie has often sounded like an ignorant moron, and i would offer him the opportunity to correct some of his past positions on the topic, which were beyond being wrong and into the realm of demonstrating a poor understanding of the actual issues. on that level, i'd like to hear him extrapolate - and give him the opportunity to take his foot out of his mouth.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
one of my favourite twists on the jfk story is this: what if somebody from the future actually came back in time and did it?
i mean, you've heard that question. would you go back in time to kill hitler to stop world war two, if you could?
maybe somebody actually did come back to stop world war three.
i mean, you've heard that question. would you go back in time to kill hitler to stop world war two, if you could?
maybe somebody actually did come back to stop world war three.
jackie o, huh?
and, are we supposed to conclude that trudeau is secretly a philandering, drug addicted mafia stooge that needs to be removed from office before he blows up the world?
castro is rolling in his grave.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-appoints-jacqueline-oneill-as-canadas-first-ambassador-for/
i mean, surely he could pick a better role model than the person that single-handedly came closer to blowing up the world than anybody else. ever. in history.
as an aside, i don't know what to make of an ambassador for "women and peace". seems like kind of an anachronism. i guess if we're going to have an anachronism, we should give it to jackie o.
and, are we supposed to conclude that trudeau is secretly a philandering, drug addicted mafia stooge that needs to be removed from office before he blows up the world?
castro is rolling in his grave.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-appoints-jacqueline-oneill-as-canadas-first-ambassador-for/
i mean, surely he could pick a better role model than the person that single-handedly came closer to blowing up the world than anybody else. ever. in history.
as an aside, i don't know what to make of an ambassador for "women and peace". seems like kind of an anachronism. i guess if we're going to have an anachronism, we should give it to jackie o.
the idea behind separating kids from their parents at the border - which i support, when ordered by the judicial system, which is the initial context we had before us - was to put them in foster care and/or get them medical treatment when they needed it.
i don't think that bringing a sick or abused or neglected kid to the border should be a way for an adult to get a visa into the country, and especially not if the parent's neglect or abuse is responsible for the child being sick. but, i don't think you turn away the sick kid, either. so, you separate them - and, despite the howls of progressives and conservatives, i don't think this is or should be a controversial policy. at all.
but, if you're going to take the kids away, as i think you should, then you need to make sure they're actually getting the help you're taking them away to receive, and not put in a holding cell for future reference.
the reality is that the demagogic response pushed by actors in the democratic party establishment, including over social media, is partly to blame for the situation that exists today. and, the trump administration has actually attempted to use this confusion to their advantage.
we need to stop thinking that we're all immigration judges, or are all able to make worthwhile legal decisions about very complicated cases based on our kneejerk gut reactions, or broadly unsophisticated moral prerogatives. this is not a situation for zealots or activists to step up and get involved in, but a situation where the judiciary needs to be able to do it's work free from political interference, which is only going to make things worse.
so, i fully support the judicial precedent that orders the separation of children from their parents when they are in need of medical care, or are determined to be better off in foster care, and i am not on the side of the socially conservative and/or religiously progressive groups that want to put an end to that practice in order to foster "family togetherness". the judiciary made this decision with the best interests of the child in mind, and it should be advanced in good faith.
i don't think that bringing a sick or abused or neglected kid to the border should be a way for an adult to get a visa into the country, and especially not if the parent's neglect or abuse is responsible for the child being sick. but, i don't think you turn away the sick kid, either. so, you separate them - and, despite the howls of progressives and conservatives, i don't think this is or should be a controversial policy. at all.
but, if you're going to take the kids away, as i think you should, then you need to make sure they're actually getting the help you're taking them away to receive, and not put in a holding cell for future reference.
the reality is that the demagogic response pushed by actors in the democratic party establishment, including over social media, is partly to blame for the situation that exists today. and, the trump administration has actually attempted to use this confusion to their advantage.
we need to stop thinking that we're all immigration judges, or are all able to make worthwhile legal decisions about very complicated cases based on our kneejerk gut reactions, or broadly unsophisticated moral prerogatives. this is not a situation for zealots or activists to step up and get involved in, but a situation where the judiciary needs to be able to do it's work free from political interference, which is only going to make things worse.
so, i fully support the judicial precedent that orders the separation of children from their parents when they are in need of medical care, or are determined to be better off in foster care, and i am not on the side of the socially conservative and/or religiously progressive groups that want to put an end to that practice in order to foster "family togetherness". the judiciary made this decision with the best interests of the child in mind, and it should be advanced in good faith.
you know, maybe i'm being paranoid, but sometimes i can't help but think i'm being followed around by the paparazzi or something when i'm grocery shopping, and they're looking to take a choice shot of me when i'm dressed down.
listen.
i shop on a bicycle, which is strenuous exercise - so i wear gym clothes, more or less literally. my wardrobe decision generally consists of taking pyjamas out of the dirty laundry and throwing them on, because i expect to come home sopping wet and sweaty (do you like that thought?), and then hop in the shower almost right away.
i know i'm not making any best-dressed lists. and, in context, i really don't give a fuck.
so, it's not even like you're catching jennifer aniston without doing her hair, or britney without her makeup or whatever else. you're literally catching a nobody on disability wearing dirty rags as they carry out the basic necessity of purchasing various arrangements of complex sugar molecules, in order to fuel their body's metabolic combustion processes.
and, if you really are following me around and judging me on what i am or am not wearing while i do this, you're worse than paparazzi. you're pathetic.
the basic truth is that most women don't do their hair to buy tomatoes, and the ones that do have extreme self-esteem problems.
listen.
i shop on a bicycle, which is strenuous exercise - so i wear gym clothes, more or less literally. my wardrobe decision generally consists of taking pyjamas out of the dirty laundry and throwing them on, because i expect to come home sopping wet and sweaty (do you like that thought?), and then hop in the shower almost right away.
i know i'm not making any best-dressed lists. and, in context, i really don't give a fuck.
so, it's not even like you're catching jennifer aniston without doing her hair, or britney without her makeup or whatever else. you're literally catching a nobody on disability wearing dirty rags as they carry out the basic necessity of purchasing various arrangements of complex sugar molecules, in order to fuel their body's metabolic combustion processes.
and, if you really are following me around and judging me on what i am or am not wearing while i do this, you're worse than paparazzi. you're pathetic.
the basic truth is that most women don't do their hair to buy tomatoes, and the ones that do have extreme self-esteem problems.
and, i wonder: what would it feel like to be sexually undercut? and, that is an economic term, not a statement of violence, as violent as it may feel.
how would it feel to know you have to lower your price in order to compete with the corporate products?
and, you know that these companies are going to use tactics to undercut each other, too, as they establish market share and try to outcompete each other. every fifth handjob gets a free one. or, two for the price of one coupons.
and, when it's all said and done and you finally realize you can't compete, what does it feel like to give up and join the factory? to know you've been priced out? to know it's over and done?
to become an item on a menu?
"welcome to mcfucks. can i take your order please?"
yeah, i'll have, umm...wait, i missed early mornings, didn't i?
"yeah. we're doing the afternoon menu."
shit. i really wanted a before-morning-piss fuck.
"i think threesome queen does mornings until 2:00."
no. the drive thru line is always long, there. umm, can i just get a quickie, then?
"red or blonde?"
do you have brown?
"skin or hair."
both.
"yup. and, would you like anal with that?"
nah.
"that'll be $8.09. if you could drive to the next window to pick up the condom, and she'll meet you in row number three."
$8? fuck. it used to be $5.50.
"$5.47, actually. they just increased the minimum wage, so prices went up."
you're going to price me out.
"next window, please, sir."
how would it feel to know you have to lower your price in order to compete with the corporate products?
and, you know that these companies are going to use tactics to undercut each other, too, as they establish market share and try to outcompete each other. every fifth handjob gets a free one. or, two for the price of one coupons.
and, when it's all said and done and you finally realize you can't compete, what does it feel like to give up and join the factory? to know you've been priced out? to know it's over and done?
to become an item on a menu?
"welcome to mcfucks. can i take your order please?"
yeah, i'll have, umm...wait, i missed early mornings, didn't i?
"yeah. we're doing the afternoon menu."
shit. i really wanted a before-morning-piss fuck.
"i think threesome queen does mornings until 2:00."
no. the drive thru line is always long, there. umm, can i just get a quickie, then?
"red or blonde?"
do you have brown?
"skin or hair."
both.
"yup. and, would you like anal with that?"
nah.
"that'll be $8.09. if you could drive to the next window to pick up the condom, and she'll meet you in row number three."
$8? fuck. it used to be $5.50.
"$5.47, actually. they just increased the minimum wage, so prices went up."
you're going to price me out.
"next window, please, sir."
so, did i support the bailouts?
yeah.
i mean, you know they were actually loans, right?
we talk about the new deal a lot. a very important part of the new deal was the construction of what is called a lender of last resort. because, you know what happens to all of your money if the bank it's in defaults, don't you? i guess you don't like that part of the new deal.
funny. a lot of farmers liked it.
i don't think that savings banks should be gambling other people's money. but, a lender of last resort was a very important new deal reform, and i would advise keeping it in tact in case you need it again in the future.
yeah.
i mean, you know they were actually loans, right?
we talk about the new deal a lot. a very important part of the new deal was the construction of what is called a lender of last resort. because, you know what happens to all of your money if the bank it's in defaults, don't you? i guess you don't like that part of the new deal.
funny. a lot of farmers liked it.
i don't think that savings banks should be gambling other people's money. but, a lender of last resort was a very important new deal reform, and i would advise keeping it in tact in case you need it again in the future.
if you actually believe in socialism, that means you support socialism for everybody - including multinational corporations.
a socialist system is a holistic whole. it doesn't make sense to fund social security and medicare, then tell companies they need to compete over who can make the best car, and all you're going to do is threaten your social services if you insist on maintaining competitive business practices.
so, yes, i support socialism for corporations. i support socialism for everybody.
i guess you don't - because you're not really a socialist, are you?
a socialist system is a holistic whole. it doesn't make sense to fund social security and medicare, then tell companies they need to compete over who can make the best car, and all you're going to do is threaten your social services if you insist on maintaining competitive business practices.
so, yes, i support socialism for corporations. i support socialism for everybody.
i guess you don't - because you're not really a socialist, are you?
it's not that i'm going to argue with a "sex worker" that they don't own their body or they shouldn't have control over it, it's that i'm going to point out very strenuously that if they think that legalizing prostitution will give them more control over their labour rather than less control over it then they simply don't understand the reality of commodity capitalism very well.
i have said this over and over again, and i'll say it again: the legalization of prostitution will result in the reduction of prostitution to salaried wage work, at a minimum wage. being a prostitute will become just like getting a job at mcdonald's. you'll need an interview with a boss, and potentially a uniform picked out by the company. you'll report for a shift work in your room, and if you're lucky you'll get paid overtime. and, then, you'll probably want a job at mcdonald's, instead.
if you want to maintain control over your body and your labour, you want to find ways to inflate the price of your service, which means keeping it scarce, and on a black market.
the people that actually benefit from legalization are not the prostitutes, but the johns - and the pimps. and, the ancap fantasy reality that suggests otherwise is not any kind of meaningful feminism, but just another utopian application of market theory that anybody with any basic sense should be able to see through pretty clearly. when you increase the supply of something, while keeping the demand steady, you collapse the price. and, when you open the industry up to corporatization, the result is that independent contractors have little option but to become salaried employees of a capitalist class that then takes control. you don't get the choice, either; the market forces you into accepting a wage.
that is capitalism. your ancap free market fantasy reality is not.
so, my argument is that you don't understand economics very well, and need to rethink what you're proposing in order to get what you want. what i'm not doing is arguing with you about what you want, or questioning your agency in how to get there.
if you want more freedom over your body and what you claim to be your work, legalization is the last thing in the world that you want; it will give you the exact opposite of that, and play directly into the hands of the people you're trying to protect yourself from.
i have said this over and over again, and i'll say it again: the legalization of prostitution will result in the reduction of prostitution to salaried wage work, at a minimum wage. being a prostitute will become just like getting a job at mcdonald's. you'll need an interview with a boss, and potentially a uniform picked out by the company. you'll report for a shift work in your room, and if you're lucky you'll get paid overtime. and, then, you'll probably want a job at mcdonald's, instead.
if you want to maintain control over your body and your labour, you want to find ways to inflate the price of your service, which means keeping it scarce, and on a black market.
the people that actually benefit from legalization are not the prostitutes, but the johns - and the pimps. and, the ancap fantasy reality that suggests otherwise is not any kind of meaningful feminism, but just another utopian application of market theory that anybody with any basic sense should be able to see through pretty clearly. when you increase the supply of something, while keeping the demand steady, you collapse the price. and, when you open the industry up to corporatization, the result is that independent contractors have little option but to become salaried employees of a capitalist class that then takes control. you don't get the choice, either; the market forces you into accepting a wage.
that is capitalism. your ancap free market fantasy reality is not.
so, my argument is that you don't understand economics very well, and need to rethink what you're proposing in order to get what you want. what i'm not doing is arguing with you about what you want, or questioning your agency in how to get there.
if you want more freedom over your body and what you claim to be your work, legalization is the last thing in the world that you want; it will give you the exact opposite of that, and play directly into the hands of the people you're trying to protect yourself from.
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
so, i want to see more punk shows and dj sets in basements, houses, abandoned factories, record stores, garages, gyms, schools, churches - anywhere you can set up and play, and people can bring their own drugs and be willing to have a good time in an autonomously run, non-policed space until 6:00 or 9:00 in the morning.
there really seems to be a general aversion to "loud music" opening up in detroit, and it's actually kind of hilarious. in fact, it might work out for the better, if this movement away from "loud music" takes out some of the more conservative elements of the scene that i'd rather not interact with, anyways.
i'm sick of there being fucking pigs everywhere, and everybody acting and thinking like a cop. the underground has turned into a fucking preschool parking lot. it's bizarre - and, of course, i'm the person that gets targeted because i'm queer. you give anybody any kind of authority at all, and the queer people get attacked first. never fails.
i'm also sick of this aversion to drunkeness, like the bars are being taken over by this coalition of christians and muslims that want to clean the space up and send people to work. i'm not interested.....
so, if the aversion to "loud music" amongst the bourgeois or hipster crowd leads to a separation of venues, that's probably a good thing. not every venue has to be a safe space for grown up children to feel secure from the scary, outside world in; i want to hang out in the dangerous bars, where these hipsters don't want to go to. so, let's let the "loud music" move to the dangerous bars that don't have pigs at the door and these scared, sheltered children inside, then - and let the hipsters define their safe spaces. let's partition the city, i love lucy style - and i'll hang with the anarchists and rebels and drunks and other scary, unsafe folk on the side of the line that says no cops allowed.
on that note, let's list the things that i would be interested in, would definitely not be interested in and might maybe be interested in.
- films. never. not a chance. ever. boring.
- poetry, spoken word or reading events. nope. never. pretentious & horribly lame.
- book clubs. maybe. if i really like the text.
- democratic party, liberal party or ndp sponsored political events. never. ever. ever. i'd feel dirty, after.
- anarchist or environmentally themed political events. i haven't lately, partly because i haven't seen anything i'm actually interested in. it's a remote possibility. my politics are completely off the spectrum nowadays, and i'm just not likely to find like-minded people much of anywhere. i need to be operating in a completely post-capitalist abstract space as a starting point, or i'm really not interested; i'm not into reformism, or incrementalism, and i've become so radical that it's hard to even express myself in english. i would actually love to find the right kind of anti-capitalist collective, but i don't think one exists, really anywhere. i'm more likely to stay aloof until i stumble upon the right messaging, and it might never happen.
- religious or charity events. (laugh track).
- comedy events. not a chance. fucking boring...
- hip-hop shows. nope. i wouldn't like the people.
- acoustic or folk shows. nope. i wouldn't like the people.
- dance parties. i would rather be at a techno club than an acoustic show, or even most rock concerts, but i would like to see more experimental types of techno in detroit.
- soul, reggae, funk or motown. i would need to be more drunk than you're used to seeing me in order to dance to this; there's no possibility i'd go to a place like that on purpose.
- jazz. yeah. i like jazz, but i like it to be complicated.
- classical performances. sure. the weirder the better.
these are just some of the things i'm seeing pushed into spaces that used to hold live music, and i'm disappointed, but it's perhaps for the best, if it leads to a proper segregation between the gentrifying areas (they can have their safe spaces and their cops at the door) and the more underground areas (which should be kept free of authority, and open to maximizing fun and expression).
i'm not going to list the venues that are changing, but you can figure out where they are by the neighbourhood they're in.
and, that's fine.
let us go our own ways, rather than pretending we're in the same space, ideologically.
i'm sick of there being fucking pigs everywhere, and everybody acting and thinking like a cop. the underground has turned into a fucking preschool parking lot. it's bizarre - and, of course, i'm the person that gets targeted because i'm queer. you give anybody any kind of authority at all, and the queer people get attacked first. never fails.
i'm also sick of this aversion to drunkeness, like the bars are being taken over by this coalition of christians and muslims that want to clean the space up and send people to work. i'm not interested.....
so, if the aversion to "loud music" amongst the bourgeois or hipster crowd leads to a separation of venues, that's probably a good thing. not every venue has to be a safe space for grown up children to feel secure from the scary, outside world in; i want to hang out in the dangerous bars, where these hipsters don't want to go to. so, let's let the "loud music" move to the dangerous bars that don't have pigs at the door and these scared, sheltered children inside, then - and let the hipsters define their safe spaces. let's partition the city, i love lucy style - and i'll hang with the anarchists and rebels and drunks and other scary, unsafe folk on the side of the line that says no cops allowed.
on that note, let's list the things that i would be interested in, would definitely not be interested in and might maybe be interested in.
- films. never. not a chance. ever. boring.
- poetry, spoken word or reading events. nope. never. pretentious & horribly lame.
- book clubs. maybe. if i really like the text.
- democratic party, liberal party or ndp sponsored political events. never. ever. ever. i'd feel dirty, after.
- anarchist or environmentally themed political events. i haven't lately, partly because i haven't seen anything i'm actually interested in. it's a remote possibility. my politics are completely off the spectrum nowadays, and i'm just not likely to find like-minded people much of anywhere. i need to be operating in a completely post-capitalist abstract space as a starting point, or i'm really not interested; i'm not into reformism, or incrementalism, and i've become so radical that it's hard to even express myself in english. i would actually love to find the right kind of anti-capitalist collective, but i don't think one exists, really anywhere. i'm more likely to stay aloof until i stumble upon the right messaging, and it might never happen.
- religious or charity events. (laugh track).
- comedy events. not a chance. fucking boring...
- hip-hop shows. nope. i wouldn't like the people.
- acoustic or folk shows. nope. i wouldn't like the people.
- dance parties. i would rather be at a techno club than an acoustic show, or even most rock concerts, but i would like to see more experimental types of techno in detroit.
- soul, reggae, funk or motown. i would need to be more drunk than you're used to seeing me in order to dance to this; there's no possibility i'd go to a place like that on purpose.
- jazz. yeah. i like jazz, but i like it to be complicated.
- classical performances. sure. the weirder the better.
these are just some of the things i'm seeing pushed into spaces that used to hold live music, and i'm disappointed, but it's perhaps for the best, if it leads to a proper segregation between the gentrifying areas (they can have their safe spaces and their cops at the door) and the more underground areas (which should be kept free of authority, and open to maximizing fun and expression).
i'm not going to list the venues that are changing, but you can figure out where they are by the neighbourhood they're in.
and, that's fine.
let us go our own ways, rather than pretending we're in the same space, ideologically.
how can i just smoke like that and then not smoke at all after?
i've broken the habit.
it helps that i tend to sleep so much when i come in, as it breaks whatever physical addiction builds up. but, i'm not feeling it because i'm used to not smoking, again. i haven't had after meal or early morning or late night smokes in 3.5 years. so, that part of my routine is cut out, and i'm making sure i don't bring it back.
my new routine is that i come in, get something to eat, take a shower and then go to bed. and, i make sure to stay out of the bedroom until i get out of the shower.
i do suspect that he caught wind of something or other and took it as permission, and it is true that it is going to take 36-48 hours for me to be able to smell anything when i come in, but there's no permission, here. nothing's changed.
if i'm here over the winter, and it comes in early, i could go from oct-mar smoke free - that's 4,5,6 months, easy. and, i'm going to get mighty pissy if i'm coughing all winter.
so, the grace period is ending, here. i just got out of the shower, and i'm going to start getting angry if the smell doesn't lift pretty much immediately.
i've broken the habit.
it helps that i tend to sleep so much when i come in, as it breaks whatever physical addiction builds up. but, i'm not feeling it because i'm used to not smoking, again. i haven't had after meal or early morning or late night smokes in 3.5 years. so, that part of my routine is cut out, and i'm making sure i don't bring it back.
my new routine is that i come in, get something to eat, take a shower and then go to bed. and, i make sure to stay out of the bedroom until i get out of the shower.
i do suspect that he caught wind of something or other and took it as permission, and it is true that it is going to take 36-48 hours for me to be able to smell anything when i come in, but there's no permission, here. nothing's changed.
if i'm here over the winter, and it comes in early, i could go from oct-mar smoke free - that's 4,5,6 months, easy. and, i'm going to get mighty pissy if i'm coughing all winter.
so, the grace period is ending, here. i just got out of the shower, and i'm going to start getting angry if the smell doesn't lift pretty much immediately.
for the sake of clarity, i have not had a cigarette since i came in on sunday afternoon and do not expect to have another one until i go back to detroit. if that takes two or three weeks, then i will not be smoking in that period. so, i expect my living space to be kept smoke free.
my habits when i leave this space do not negate the lease i signed, and i will not consider it hypocritical to smoke when i'm out and continue to demand the lease be adhered to when i'm in. i am still keeping an eye on the owner upstairs, and still intend to sue if i can prove that he's smoking.
i signed this lease because these are the conditions i want to live under, and i expect them to be upheld.
and, i frankly don't understand why this is so difficult. smoking is not binary; it is not the case that you smoke all the time, or don't smoke at all. i have in fact lived most of my life as a social smoker. and, even when i smoked habitually, i still never smoked inside the house.
so, if you are interpreting my smoking in detroit as a license to smoke at home, you are wrong - i have not been and will not be smoking in or near the house. at all. ever.
i remain asthmatic, and deeply affected by indoor second-hand smoke.
and, i expect all parties to uphold the lease agreement, under continued threat of consequence.
there is no contradiction here. deal with it.
my habits when i leave this space do not negate the lease i signed, and i will not consider it hypocritical to smoke when i'm out and continue to demand the lease be adhered to when i'm in. i am still keeping an eye on the owner upstairs, and still intend to sue if i can prove that he's smoking.
i signed this lease because these are the conditions i want to live under, and i expect them to be upheld.
and, i frankly don't understand why this is so difficult. smoking is not binary; it is not the case that you smoke all the time, or don't smoke at all. i have in fact lived most of my life as a social smoker. and, even when i smoked habitually, i still never smoked inside the house.
so, if you are interpreting my smoking in detroit as a license to smoke at home, you are wrong - i have not been and will not be smoking in or near the house. at all. ever.
i remain asthmatic, and deeply affected by indoor second-hand smoke.
and, i expect all parties to uphold the lease agreement, under continued threat of consequence.
there is no contradiction here. deal with it.
what i want is a place to see good, live rock bands in detroit, and i'm a little frustrated that there's a good venue that is falling into disuse because people decided to be stupid about it.
so, i want the venue to be used to it's full extent.
it's actually kind of a socialist thing, about use-value. i'm not an advocate of property rights, remember - i want a facility like that to be used by the people most able to use it, and have less concern about what the neighbours think than i do about maximizing the use-value of the facility. fuck the neighbours, even.
but, we know this - i'm a leftist and you're a conservative (or a progressive. same thing.).
and, i don't have to actually care about you. really. i have no obligations, here - it's enough to care about myself, in context.
so, i want the venue to be used to it's full extent.
it's actually kind of a socialist thing, about use-value. i'm not an advocate of property rights, remember - i want a facility like that to be used by the people most able to use it, and have less concern about what the neighbours think than i do about maximizing the use-value of the facility. fuck the neighbours, even.
but, we know this - i'm a leftist and you're a conservative (or a progressive. same thing.).
and, i don't have to actually care about you. really. i have no obligations, here - it's enough to care about myself, in context.
fwiw.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2015/07/excellent-production.html
that wasn't an argument i felt like having, at the time.
there is simply not and never has been any substantive art produced in the genre of hip-hop. that's how it is.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2015/07/excellent-production.html
that wasn't an argument i felt like having, at the time.
there is simply not and never has been any substantive art produced in the genre of hip-hop. that's how it is.
this stupid argument, again.
listen. i'm not an american; i can't vote in the american elections. there are good privileges attached to being a canadian, but being able to vote for the most powerful person in the world is not one of them.
i endorsed her under the argument that you're better with the devil you know, and i'm actually not convinced that that was actually the right choice, but there was no serious possibility that i was ever really going to actually vote for hillary clinton, and there's likewise not any real serious possibility that i'm going to vote for biden, warren, harris or any of the others.
so, there's this false understanding that i'd be basing my choice on sanders or one of the other democratic candidates, and that is simply not true. and, i want you to look at the history of this.
- in 2016, i endorsed clinton, but i wouldn't have actually voted for her, myself. i would have voted for stein.
- in 2012, i endorsed the green party. i did not feel that obama was a lesser evil when compared to mitt romney; they were completely identical candidates, in almost every way.
- in 2008, i endorsed the green party. i did not buy into obama. at all.
- in 2004, i endorsed john kerry. i felt that he was a lesser evil. but, i may have endorsed an intelligent capuchin monkey. bush was a total disaster.
- in 2000, i endorsed the green party. i did not feel that al gore was a substantially better choice than george w. bush, and do not think i was wrong, either. nader was the best option, and i would make that endorsement again, even knowing the outcome.
in 2020, i will either endorse bernie sanders or endorse the green party; there is no possibility that i will endorse one of the other candidates, and there was never going to be a possibility that i would have.
so, don't blame my disinterest in the field on bernie sanders. my disinterest is longstanding, and a consequence of the fact that they have shitty policies; blame them, it's their fault.
bernie is in truth opening up new voters such as myself that would have never otherwise considered voting democratic at all.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-spoilers-bernie-sanders-better-not-throw-2020-to-trump
listen. i'm not an american; i can't vote in the american elections. there are good privileges attached to being a canadian, but being able to vote for the most powerful person in the world is not one of them.
i endorsed her under the argument that you're better with the devil you know, and i'm actually not convinced that that was actually the right choice, but there was no serious possibility that i was ever really going to actually vote for hillary clinton, and there's likewise not any real serious possibility that i'm going to vote for biden, warren, harris or any of the others.
so, there's this false understanding that i'd be basing my choice on sanders or one of the other democratic candidates, and that is simply not true. and, i want you to look at the history of this.
- in 2016, i endorsed clinton, but i wouldn't have actually voted for her, myself. i would have voted for stein.
- in 2012, i endorsed the green party. i did not feel that obama was a lesser evil when compared to mitt romney; they were completely identical candidates, in almost every way.
- in 2008, i endorsed the green party. i did not buy into obama. at all.
- in 2004, i endorsed john kerry. i felt that he was a lesser evil. but, i may have endorsed an intelligent capuchin monkey. bush was a total disaster.
- in 2000, i endorsed the green party. i did not feel that al gore was a substantially better choice than george w. bush, and do not think i was wrong, either. nader was the best option, and i would make that endorsement again, even knowing the outcome.
in 2020, i will either endorse bernie sanders or endorse the green party; there is no possibility that i will endorse one of the other candidates, and there was never going to be a possibility that i would have.
so, don't blame my disinterest in the field on bernie sanders. my disinterest is longstanding, and a consequence of the fact that they have shitty policies; blame them, it's their fault.
bernie is in truth opening up new voters such as myself that would have never otherwise considered voting democratic at all.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-spoilers-bernie-sanders-better-not-throw-2020-to-trump
we now have a completely unelected body that is both dominated by
industry money and has no official ties to the government acting as a
despotic oversight committee.
we now have to get our legislation rubber stamped by the oil industry. what's next? the pharmaceutical industry?
so, welcome to the petro-state. it's here.
we now have to get our legislation rubber stamped by the oil industry. what's next? the pharmaceutical industry?
so, welcome to the petro-state. it's here.
i mean, i pointed out from the get-go that the purpose of trudeau's senate reforms was to turn it into a lobbying institution, and here we have it - legislation written by the petroleum industry, and introduced via the unelected senate over a fake bill.
these people have no oversight, by design.
my analysis is naive; i know this is being done intentionally, and i expect the government to accept the amendments. this is the whole point.
but, we can't accept this. it's essentially a bloodless coup, done under the cover of corporate language like "independence" and "bipartisanship". the fact that it was obvious and transparent, and i saw it coming, doesn't make it acceptable.
all of the work that the chretien government did to try and take money out of politics, something that harper, to his credit, did not unravel, has now been obliterated by the creation of these "independent bodies", both inside and outside of the senate. this is total industry capture, and it happened without so much as a debate.
these people have no oversight, by design.
my analysis is naive; i know this is being done intentionally, and i expect the government to accept the amendments. this is the whole point.
but, we can't accept this. it's essentially a bloodless coup, done under the cover of corporate language like "independence" and "bipartisanship". the fact that it was obvious and transparent, and i saw it coming, doesn't make it acceptable.
all of the work that the chretien government did to try and take money out of politics, something that harper, to his credit, did not unravel, has now been obliterated by the creation of these "independent bodies", both inside and outside of the senate. this is total industry capture, and it happened without so much as a debate.
it seems to me like the liberals ought to be rejecting all amendments to the bill on principle and sending it back as it was initially written. this will spark a standoff, which is necessary to assert the absolute supremacy of the house of commons.
legislation in this country is written by the lower house, not by the upper house.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/theyre-trying-to-take-the-whole-enchilada-environmentalists-cry-foul-over-industry-inspired-changes-to-bill-c-69
legislation in this country is written by the lower house, not by the upper house.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/theyre-trying-to-take-the-whole-enchilada-environmentalists-cry-foul-over-industry-inspired-changes-to-bill-c-69
just to be clear on the tanker ban bill.
i actually don't think that the outcome of the situation resolves the constitutional crisis that was created by trudeau's monkeying around with the senate. we still have a bill that's been cut up and watered down by an unelected body, and i haven't had a chance to look into it to see if it's acceptable or not.
i expect that, in the end, i'm going to call on the government to reject the senate's changes and send the bill back. the senate still has no democratic mandate to do what they did, and accepting undemocratically watered down legislation is still probably not going to be good enough. and, if the government accepts the watered down bill, i'm not going to stand up for them but am rather going to attack them for it, as they set this stupid situation up themselves.
but, i'm getting ahead of myself; i haven't read it yet.
i actually don't think that the outcome of the situation resolves the constitutional crisis that was created by trudeau's monkeying around with the senate. we still have a bill that's been cut up and watered down by an unelected body, and i haven't had a chance to look into it to see if it's acceptable or not.
i expect that, in the end, i'm going to call on the government to reject the senate's changes and send the bill back. the senate still has no democratic mandate to do what they did, and accepting undemocratically watered down legislation is still probably not going to be good enough. and, if the government accepts the watered down bill, i'm not going to stand up for them but am rather going to attack them for it, as they set this stupid situation up themselves.
but, i'm getting ahead of myself; i haven't read it yet.
yeah. this needs judicial oversight.
you expect the deep state to try to overreach, which is why we need the courts to step in and put them back in place.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5370873/canadian-military-spies-information/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
you expect the deep state to try to overreach, which is why we need the courts to step in and put them back in place.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5370873/canadian-military-spies-information/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
should there be a nuremberg-style international tribunal?
https://globalnews.ca/news/5346883/crimes-against-humanity-charges-canadians-syria/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=EditorsPick&utm_campaign=2015
https://globalnews.ca/news/5346883/crimes-against-humanity-charges-canadians-syria/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=EditorsPick&utm_campaign=2015
this will be immediately thrown out of court, and the cop should be fired for wasting everybody's time.
we really are on a one-way path to a third world country in canada. the people that live here now don't care about our laws, our traditions or our rules - they just want to live in a fascist dictatorship where everybody is kept in proper order and the trains run on time.
we are dying, up here. it's a matter of time...
but, for now, this is still preposterous, and i hope the person charged prosecutes the officer to the full extent of the law.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5360729/ayesha-curry-vulgar-comment-charged-toronto-police/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
we really are on a one-way path to a third world country in canada. the people that live here now don't care about our laws, our traditions or our rules - they just want to live in a fascist dictatorship where everybody is kept in proper order and the trains run on time.
we are dying, up here. it's a matter of time...
but, for now, this is still preposterous, and i hope the person charged prosecutes the officer to the full extent of the law.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5360729/ayesha-curry-vulgar-comment-charged-toronto-police/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
Monday, June 10, 2019
let it be known on this 10th day of june, 2019, that the island of britain will immediately and permanently forfeit all claims to being sophisticated, posh or superior should they sink to the abject level of stupidity that would be installing boris johnson as prime minister.
they will also be expected to immediately forfeit their idiosyncratic accents in favour of midwestern american ones.
you have been warned, britain.
they will also be expected to immediately forfeit their idiosyncratic accents in favour of midwestern american ones.
you have been warned, britain.
fwiw, i don't actually think that a plastic bag ought to fall in the definition of "single use plastic". you can actually recycle them at walmart. i only take small numbers of them for items that need to be protected from leakage in my school bag (like strawberries, which otherwise get messy), but what i do is hang on to them and use them as garbage bags, after i've used them repeatedly for other reasons, in some cases.
it would be useful if they were biodegradable in the end, so that they decompose in the landfill. but, it's not the same thing as straws or forks; these are not meant to be used once, and, for most people, are probably used repeatedly. there is a future for plastic bags, even when so much of this other stuff is converted or done away with.
a bigger problem than any of this is lids, and that goes for a large number of items. plastic lids are not usually recyclable. to be clear: they are in theory recyclable, but almost nobody recycles them. for years, i ignored this and sent them through the blue bin as a means of protest, hoping that if i overloaded the system then they would increase their ability. nowadays, i separate them out and hand them over to whole foods, instead. this is something that both my city and your city and all of the other cities should be dealing with, and that some agitation is required around - we should be pushing mass protests to increase our local capacities to deal with plastic, as a big part of the problem is that the recycling facilities are inadequate. they can't process things they should be able to process, so they throw it away, instead.
it would be useful if they were biodegradable in the end, so that they decompose in the landfill. but, it's not the same thing as straws or forks; these are not meant to be used once, and, for most people, are probably used repeatedly. there is a future for plastic bags, even when so much of this other stuff is converted or done away with.
a bigger problem than any of this is lids, and that goes for a large number of items. plastic lids are not usually recyclable. to be clear: they are in theory recyclable, but almost nobody recycles them. for years, i ignored this and sent them through the blue bin as a means of protest, hoping that if i overloaded the system then they would increase their ability. nowadays, i separate them out and hand them over to whole foods, instead. this is something that both my city and your city and all of the other cities should be dealing with, and that some agitation is required around - we should be pushing mass protests to increase our local capacities to deal with plastic, as a big part of the problem is that the recycling facilities are inadequate. they can't process things they should be able to process, so they throw it away, instead.
if only we could be more like rwanda.
one day.
if we put our minds to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/28/world/africa/rwanda-plastic-bags-banned.html
one day.
if we put our minds to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/28/world/africa/rwanda-plastic-bags-banned.html
this seems like an answer, right here.
...although, as a canadian, i'd like to figure out something worthwhile to do with the rest of the marijuana plant. it's really quite a wasteful industry, if left to it's own.
you should be able to do basically exactly the same thing with marijuana or hemp stalks.
https://www.businessinsider.com/loliware-plastic-straws-seaweed-edible-2019-3
...although, as a canadian, i'd like to figure out something worthwhile to do with the rest of the marijuana plant. it's really quite a wasteful industry, if left to it's own.
you should be able to do basically exactly the same thing with marijuana or hemp stalks.
https://www.businessinsider.com/loliware-plastic-straws-seaweed-edible-2019-3
and, i don't use straws myself.
at all.
about the only time i could imagine using one is buying a fountain drink at a fast food restaurant, and i essentially never do that - not even on the rare occasions when i actually go to one. if i get anything to drink at all, it's usually either a coffee or a pop or juice in a bottle.
i really can't remember the last time i drank anything out of a straw.
at all.
about the only time i could imagine using one is buying a fountain drink at a fast food restaurant, and i essentially never do that - not even on the rare occasions when i actually go to one. if i get anything to drink at all, it's usually either a coffee or a pop or juice in a bottle.
i really can't remember the last time i drank anything out of a straw.
a part of the historical liberal party strategy would be to fund r&d with government money, but with single use plastics it's actually not that complicated, we just need to change our mindset. and, i think you might get the wrong idea about this by reading the corporate press.
research into plastics is very focused on the question of longevity. i mean, that's the point - it's supposed to last forever, because it was engineered that way. so, when we talk about plastics, we have this assumption that the material should be stable at room temperature for more or less ever. chemists would broadly consider the idea of a plastic that is biodegradable at room temperature to be a kind of contradiction in terms; it's not plastic then, right?
well, maybe not.
but, that's just the point: plastic wasn't intended to be used the way we use it. it wasn't intended to get thrown out after one use, it was intended to sit in the cupboard forever; that was indeed the point, and we've lost it somewhere.
so, you'll hear people argue that plastic can't degrade at room temperature, and that's largely true, but that's not a fundamental rule of nature so much as it's a purposeful engineering choice; it doesn't decompose because we designed it not to, and companies that produce plastic are going to need an extra push to modify their thoughts about that.
so, at the end of the day, if we want sustainable single use items, you might need to learn to put your straws in the fridge, and they might have a best before date, and they might turn into mush on the counter. and, that's fine. because we should have never engineered immortal straws in the first place; that's what we should have had from the start...
for a big company like mcdonalds, it shouldn't be much of a shift. so, you ship your straws and forks frozen; they move enough units that there shouldn't be an issue with thawing them out in the morning. and, hey - would you like your utensils heated? is kind of a cool question, when you're ordering your poutine.
it's a lot easier than the oil industry wants you to think it is - the technology is here, if we choose to use it.
research into plastics is very focused on the question of longevity. i mean, that's the point - it's supposed to last forever, because it was engineered that way. so, when we talk about plastics, we have this assumption that the material should be stable at room temperature for more or less ever. chemists would broadly consider the idea of a plastic that is biodegradable at room temperature to be a kind of contradiction in terms; it's not plastic then, right?
well, maybe not.
but, that's just the point: plastic wasn't intended to be used the way we use it. it wasn't intended to get thrown out after one use, it was intended to sit in the cupboard forever; that was indeed the point, and we've lost it somewhere.
so, you'll hear people argue that plastic can't degrade at room temperature, and that's largely true, but that's not a fundamental rule of nature so much as it's a purposeful engineering choice; it doesn't decompose because we designed it not to, and companies that produce plastic are going to need an extra push to modify their thoughts about that.
so, at the end of the day, if we want sustainable single use items, you might need to learn to put your straws in the fridge, and they might have a best before date, and they might turn into mush on the counter. and, that's fine. because we should have never engineered immortal straws in the first place; that's what we should have had from the start...
for a big company like mcdonalds, it shouldn't be much of a shift. so, you ship your straws and forks frozen; they move enough units that there shouldn't be an issue with thawing them out in the morning. and, hey - would you like your utensils heated? is kind of a cool question, when you're ordering your poutine.
it's a lot easier than the oil industry wants you to think it is - the technology is here, if we choose to use it.
but i want to be clear about what i'm saying.
a ban on plastic will fail. horribly. it's a waste of time because it's a stupid approach that has no end point besides not managing to accomplish anything at all. if you ban straws and forks, people will just smuggle them back in; people aren't going to keep metal forks or metal straws in their cars, they'll just buy plastic shit in the states and bring it back.
and, what are you going to do when you catch people with plastic they smuggled in from the states? put them in jail? tie up the court systems?
do you think the cops will enforce this?
it's not enforceable; it's moronic, it won't work and we need better ideas than this.
a ban on plastic will fail. horribly. it's a waste of time because it's a stupid approach that has no end point besides not managing to accomplish anything at all. if you ban straws and forks, people will just smuggle them back in; people aren't going to keep metal forks or metal straws in their cars, they'll just buy plastic shit in the states and bring it back.
and, what are you going to do when you catch people with plastic they smuggled in from the states? put them in jail? tie up the court systems?
do you think the cops will enforce this?
it's not enforceable; it's moronic, it won't work and we need better ideas than this.
btw, if you're near detroit and you need to recycle some things that the blue bin won't take - like styrofoam or polystyrene - then this is the place to take it.
it's been a while; i'm in need of a big run. i've got piles of number 5 plastic to drop off.
most big cities will have alternative recycling plants that can more comprehensively accept waste than the city will.
i'm honestly as good as i can be. really. i mean, if you have suggestions, i'd like to hear them, but i'm doing as well as i can. the only things i haven't been able to deal with are cheese wrappers, pasta wrappers and doritos bags. if legislation can force these into biodegradable packages, then i'm down to near zero waste.
http://www.recyclehere.net/
it's been a while; i'm in need of a big run. i've got piles of number 5 plastic to drop off.
most big cities will have alternative recycling plants that can more comprehensively accept waste than the city will.
i'm honestly as good as i can be. really. i mean, if you have suggestions, i'd like to hear them, but i'm doing as well as i can. the only things i haven't been able to deal with are cheese wrappers, pasta wrappers and doritos bags. if legislation can force these into biodegradable packages, then i'm down to near zero waste.
http://www.recyclehere.net/
so, where are the liberal party apparatchiks? why is this party so devoid of policy, after having been the "party of policy" for most of the previous century? what the fuck happened?
it's tempting to compare trudeau to trump. truly.
but, the better comparison is - ironically - to what happened to the russians under stalin, although this process actually began with what we call the "martin purges" in canada. trudeau very much picked up where martin left off, in this regard.
the sad truth is that there's nobody around to write policy because they fired everybody and, like in stalinist russia, that mass purge of the party intelligentsia has led to a generation of decline and regression.
we are at least in a better state of affairs than communist russia, though - in canada, at least they're not dead. which means you could, potentially, bring them back.
trudeau had an opportunity to rebuild a dying party, and he started off the right way, but in the end just revealed himself as completely full of shit as he carried on the same mistakes that were made by his immediate predecessors. he blew it...
...and the party is on the brink of being back where it was in 2011.
it's tempting to compare trudeau to trump. truly.
but, the better comparison is - ironically - to what happened to the russians under stalin, although this process actually began with what we call the "martin purges" in canada. trudeau very much picked up where martin left off, in this regard.
the sad truth is that there's nobody around to write policy because they fired everybody and, like in stalinist russia, that mass purge of the party intelligentsia has led to a generation of decline and regression.
we are at least in a better state of affairs than communist russia, though - in canada, at least they're not dead. which means you could, potentially, bring them back.
trudeau had an opportunity to rebuild a dying party, and he started off the right way, but in the end just revealed himself as completely full of shit as he carried on the same mistakes that were made by his immediate predecessors. he blew it...
...and the party is on the brink of being back where it was in 2011.
i'm going to state this another way.
you would expect the ndp to support a single-use plastic ban. that's their realm, and it's what their voters would be yelling for.
but, people that are actually intelligent have historically voted for the liberals in the expectation that they'll come up with policies that are better than that.
and, we can do better than a plastic ban, we can write policies that will actually work, if we want to.
you would expect the ndp to support a single-use plastic ban. that's their realm, and it's what their voters would be yelling for.
but, people that are actually intelligent have historically voted for the liberals in the expectation that they'll come up with policies that are better than that.
and, we can do better than a plastic ban, we can write policies that will actually work, if we want to.
so, no - i don't support banning single-use plastic.
rather, i support policies that provide businesses with incentives to purchase plant-based plastics as often as possible.
and, yes, we have plant-based plastic, it's readily available, and it's not even that expensive.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/are-bioplastics-made-from-plants-better-for-environment-ocean-plastic/
rather, i support policies that provide businesses with incentives to purchase plant-based plastics as often as possible.
and, yes, we have plant-based plastic, it's readily available, and it's not even that expensive.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/are-bioplastics-made-from-plants-better-for-environment-ocean-plastic/
it baffles my mind that it's 2019 and "progressives" are still talking about banning things, as though they think that is going to work.
i use very little plastic, and almost none of it purposefully or consciously. for example, i bought some eggs sunday morning and they gave me a plastic fork, but i didn't ask for it - and i actually brought it home and plan to reuse it. i have a number of them in my utensil drawer, actually. the reality is that we can't get through life without throwing away some plastic, but i'm about as good about it as a person can be, and the little pile with my name on it is comparable to people living in the third world.
that's really not relevant, though. if people were going to change their habits, they would have done so by now. all that banning things is going to do is create a black market; people will cross the border to buy plastic and bring it back. don't laugh, they will. prohibiting the sale and purchase of things is just not how you actually solve actual problems in the real world, you have to actually find a way to change how people think and behave and act. laws don't change anybody's behaviour - they never have, and they never will.
the root cause of the problem is really actually not in people's consumption habits. i'm not a luddite; i don't have a problem with the use of commodities. humans have always used things and then thrown them away, as evidenced by the mountains of up to ten thousand year old garbage we can unearth in archaeological digs. that is normal human behaviour, and attempting to modify it is a foolish waste of time, not to mention not particularly desirable. i mean, i don't see any broader philosophical value in trying to get people to be less wasteful, for the sake of it. there's nothing wrong with consumption, in itself.
the root cause of the problem is the material that we make plastic out of, namely oil, which is important because what the government is doing is trying to distract from it's failed carbon reduction policies with a litter policy; it's a bait and switch, and actually exactly what doug ford just did. there's no longer a lot of substantive differences between the conservatives and the liberals in canada, unfortunately - this is a recent change, but it's the new reality that we need to get used to. so, they're trying to change the topic, and switch the discussion to waste policy instead of carbon reduction. i guess they don't realize that plastic is made out of oil.
what we need are policies that convince companies to purchase more sustainable types of plastic. so, i ask the following question: if they pass a single-use plastic ban, would the restaurant be able to give me a fork made out of hemp plastic? or would they tell me i have the choice between dirtying a fork in their restaurant or waiting until i got home to eat?
and, what are the ways that you convince the market to move to plant-based plastic? well, you can provide subsidies to specific companies, you can create a targeted small-business tax break, you can create an attitude-changing marketing strategy, etc.
but, just banning things is stupid.
and, you're stupid if you support it.
again: we have a serious problem in search of serious policies, and you're not going to get them from this government.
i use very little plastic, and almost none of it purposefully or consciously. for example, i bought some eggs sunday morning and they gave me a plastic fork, but i didn't ask for it - and i actually brought it home and plan to reuse it. i have a number of them in my utensil drawer, actually. the reality is that we can't get through life without throwing away some plastic, but i'm about as good about it as a person can be, and the little pile with my name on it is comparable to people living in the third world.
that's really not relevant, though. if people were going to change their habits, they would have done so by now. all that banning things is going to do is create a black market; people will cross the border to buy plastic and bring it back. don't laugh, they will. prohibiting the sale and purchase of things is just not how you actually solve actual problems in the real world, you have to actually find a way to change how people think and behave and act. laws don't change anybody's behaviour - they never have, and they never will.
the root cause of the problem is really actually not in people's consumption habits. i'm not a luddite; i don't have a problem with the use of commodities. humans have always used things and then thrown them away, as evidenced by the mountains of up to ten thousand year old garbage we can unearth in archaeological digs. that is normal human behaviour, and attempting to modify it is a foolish waste of time, not to mention not particularly desirable. i mean, i don't see any broader philosophical value in trying to get people to be less wasteful, for the sake of it. there's nothing wrong with consumption, in itself.
the root cause of the problem is the material that we make plastic out of, namely oil, which is important because what the government is doing is trying to distract from it's failed carbon reduction policies with a litter policy; it's a bait and switch, and actually exactly what doug ford just did. there's no longer a lot of substantive differences between the conservatives and the liberals in canada, unfortunately - this is a recent change, but it's the new reality that we need to get used to. so, they're trying to change the topic, and switch the discussion to waste policy instead of carbon reduction. i guess they don't realize that plastic is made out of oil.
what we need are policies that convince companies to purchase more sustainable types of plastic. so, i ask the following question: if they pass a single-use plastic ban, would the restaurant be able to give me a fork made out of hemp plastic? or would they tell me i have the choice between dirtying a fork in their restaurant or waiting until i got home to eat?
and, what are the ways that you convince the market to move to plant-based plastic? well, you can provide subsidies to specific companies, you can create a targeted small-business tax break, you can create an attitude-changing marketing strategy, etc.
but, just banning things is stupid.
and, you're stupid if you support it.
again: we have a serious problem in search of serious policies, and you're not going to get them from this government.
i am broadly in support of this, and while i would not consider it to be a ballot issue, i would warn opposition groups against making yourself come off as being in favour of puritanism, temperance or islamism by trying to make it an issue. conservatives won't vote for you, but leftists are likely to react with cynicism and disdain. conservatives are supposed to be the ones making it harder to get alcohol, not leftists. if this issue realigns, so that liberals or new democrats are seen as supporting increased restrictions to access alcohol, it will result in drastic harm to the left in the long run.
the only serious problem i've ever had with access to alcohol in ontario was that things are closed on sundays, and the previous government mostly fixed that. it's a solution without a problem.
so, while it's not a ballot issue, a reaction against it might become one, in the sense that i could see myself voting green if the liberals and ndp decide to be "progressive" about it.
half of me expects the ndp to take the puritanical road of christian temperance. that is the ndp's history, after all. if they do, this could potentially be a strong wedge issue for the liberals. but, they have to take the right position on it, first.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-beer-sales-convenience-stores-official/
the only serious problem i've ever had with access to alcohol in ontario was that things are closed on sundays, and the previous government mostly fixed that. it's a solution without a problem.
so, while it's not a ballot issue, a reaction against it might become one, in the sense that i could see myself voting green if the liberals and ndp decide to be "progressive" about it.
half of me expects the ndp to take the puritanical road of christian temperance. that is the ndp's history, after all. if they do, this could potentially be a strong wedge issue for the liberals. but, they have to take the right position on it, first.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-beer-sales-convenience-stores-official/
this kind of interference is an abuse of power, and threatens to devolve our system of government into the kind of gridlock that exists in the disastrous american system.
if the province is going to do this kind of bullshit, we need to look at opening up the constitution to remove the province's oversight and give municipalities more independence.
the city of toronto rejected doug ford as mayor. he has no mandate for this.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-government-wants-change-hundreds-future-plans-toronto/
if the province is going to do this kind of bullshit, we need to look at opening up the constitution to remove the province's oversight and give municipalities more independence.
the city of toronto rejected doug ford as mayor. he has no mandate for this.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-government-wants-change-hundreds-future-plans-toronto/
so, i made a choice around 9:00 this morning that it seemed like it was going to rain pretty hard - the wind was picking up, and the temperature dropped very suddenly - and i'd better get me and my bike home before it did.
that turned out to be a bad choice, as it cleared up early in the afternoon. what seemed like it was going to be a cold and wet day turned into a humid, overcast one - and i like humid, overcast days. it would have been a good afternoon for a beer outside, if there was indeed a good place to find one, which was less clear. that food truck was penciled in as a kind of a joke.
so, i didn't make it to the end of the day symphony, but i'm going to figure this out, eventually. in some sense, it's still early in the year. but, where's the place that is open not just until 6:00 but until 12:00? even accepting that it's a good idea to put an hour or two aside to eat, if i want to get to these sunday afternoon or evening shows i need something better to do on sunday morning.
hey, maybe i'll start going to church.
(laugh track)
i missed everything in the afternoon, but i got some nice biking in. the early show ran late, meaning i only caught around 10 minutes of the last show, which was also early. the early show was mildly entertaining, but i was more interested in the second show, and i should have left early, but i actually didn't realize it was that late (although, again, the second show was also early). i'm not really fans of either act, so it's not that catastrophic, really, but i would have ideally been able to have caught most of oozing wound. alas. the first dance club was empty a little before midnight and the music wasn't interesting enough to shrug it off, so i did leave early, and ended up at menjo's a little before midnight. the bartender at r&r seemed to think i was drunk, but the bartender at menjo's served me. i guess the best way to answer the question is that i was certainly under the influence of alcohol, but i don't think i was too drunk to serve; r&r was wrong, here, and menjo's was right. and, they waived me cover again (that's three times in the last month). i guess i had three drinks at menjo's before going back to r&r, and i did eventually convince them to serve me, just further demonstrating that the initial decision not to serve me was wrong - if i was too drunk to serve when i came in, how could i be less drunk three drinks later? the event listing said 7:00, but i didn't expect them to be open later than 5:00, and they had the place cleared by 5:30.
see, i wasn't sure what the right logic would be about the gay complex on pride weekend. i want to be clear here: there were a lot of disappointed people walking out of that place at 5:30, many of whom clearly thought they'd be there a lot later than that. there was a general consensus that the other place would be closed right at 6:00. a lot of bars will stay open all morning on movement, so why not stay open all day on pride? you can start serving again at 7:00! and, there were 300 people there that didn't want to leave. so, i was hoping, with little supporting evidence, that they'd be open very late - but i just ended up as one of a large number of people that was pushed out earlier than they wanted.
there's another complex opening up in the west end and i need to make a point that should be obvious: if you hire a dj to spin at 7:00 am until noon or three or four in the afternoon on the sunday of pride weekend, you will attract hundreds of people that want to be there. my search for a more general early sunday morning dance party may be a little obscure, but i was hooked into the gay zeitgeist this week, anyways.
i want to make a general statement about alcohol: i don't think there's anything wrong with being drunk. i don't drink when i'm at home, but when i'm out partying, i enjoy being drunk, and drink because i like it. i have no shame in these truths, and would behoove you to change your attitude, if you do. so, i have no response to people pushing temperance other than to tell them to proselytize to somebody else - i have no interest in your politics or your morals or your worldview in general, so fuck off.
regarding my alcohol intake, we all screw up once in a while, but i can actually generally handle my alcohol quite well. i mean, you're looking at a 95% success rate in terms of making it home without blacking out. so, you play the odds, and tell me what the right answer is. further, i am absolutely certain that i was drugged on at least two of those nights (one of them because he told me as much). the only times i've ever run into actual confirmed alcohol problems are when i'm taking shots or otherwise drinking strong drinks; so long as i'm drinking beer, i'm able to essentially drink all night, and i will if you let me.
the thing that tends to knock me on my ass is actually not alcohol but marijuana. alcohol is a cns depressant, but it is also a racing buzz - it makes you want to get up and dance. good pot will amplify the effects of alcohol, but if you take a pass on somebody's sativa, or eat a brownie somebody made in their kitchen, you could find yourself in need of a couch. please be clear on this point: if you find me sitting down somewhere, it's probably (like, 95 out of a 100 times) not because i'm drunk but because i'm stoned and i'll probably be fine once it wears off a little. and, so long as i smoked it rather than ate it, you're probably looking at ten minutes before i'm up and ready to go.
storefront marijuana stores in michigan are coming soon, and, when they are, i should be able to minimize this problem by ensuring that i'm only smoking high-thc indica. in the meantime, it's an environmental hazard i have to deal with: people are going to pass me shit that is going to make me need to sit down, and i'm going to need to do it, when they do.
that turned out to be a bad choice, as it cleared up early in the afternoon. what seemed like it was going to be a cold and wet day turned into a humid, overcast one - and i like humid, overcast days. it would have been a good afternoon for a beer outside, if there was indeed a good place to find one, which was less clear. that food truck was penciled in as a kind of a joke.
so, i didn't make it to the end of the day symphony, but i'm going to figure this out, eventually. in some sense, it's still early in the year. but, where's the place that is open not just until 6:00 but until 12:00? even accepting that it's a good idea to put an hour or two aside to eat, if i want to get to these sunday afternoon or evening shows i need something better to do on sunday morning.
hey, maybe i'll start going to church.
(laugh track)
i missed everything in the afternoon, but i got some nice biking in. the early show ran late, meaning i only caught around 10 minutes of the last show, which was also early. the early show was mildly entertaining, but i was more interested in the second show, and i should have left early, but i actually didn't realize it was that late (although, again, the second show was also early). i'm not really fans of either act, so it's not that catastrophic, really, but i would have ideally been able to have caught most of oozing wound. alas. the first dance club was empty a little before midnight and the music wasn't interesting enough to shrug it off, so i did leave early, and ended up at menjo's a little before midnight. the bartender at r&r seemed to think i was drunk, but the bartender at menjo's served me. i guess the best way to answer the question is that i was certainly under the influence of alcohol, but i don't think i was too drunk to serve; r&r was wrong, here, and menjo's was right. and, they waived me cover again (that's three times in the last month). i guess i had three drinks at menjo's before going back to r&r, and i did eventually convince them to serve me, just further demonstrating that the initial decision not to serve me was wrong - if i was too drunk to serve when i came in, how could i be less drunk three drinks later? the event listing said 7:00, but i didn't expect them to be open later than 5:00, and they had the place cleared by 5:30.
see, i wasn't sure what the right logic would be about the gay complex on pride weekend. i want to be clear here: there were a lot of disappointed people walking out of that place at 5:30, many of whom clearly thought they'd be there a lot later than that. there was a general consensus that the other place would be closed right at 6:00. a lot of bars will stay open all morning on movement, so why not stay open all day on pride? you can start serving again at 7:00! and, there were 300 people there that didn't want to leave. so, i was hoping, with little supporting evidence, that they'd be open very late - but i just ended up as one of a large number of people that was pushed out earlier than they wanted.
there's another complex opening up in the west end and i need to make a point that should be obvious: if you hire a dj to spin at 7:00 am until noon or three or four in the afternoon on the sunday of pride weekend, you will attract hundreds of people that want to be there. my search for a more general early sunday morning dance party may be a little obscure, but i was hooked into the gay zeitgeist this week, anyways.
i want to make a general statement about alcohol: i don't think there's anything wrong with being drunk. i don't drink when i'm at home, but when i'm out partying, i enjoy being drunk, and drink because i like it. i have no shame in these truths, and would behoove you to change your attitude, if you do. so, i have no response to people pushing temperance other than to tell them to proselytize to somebody else - i have no interest in your politics or your morals or your worldview in general, so fuck off.
regarding my alcohol intake, we all screw up once in a while, but i can actually generally handle my alcohol quite well. i mean, you're looking at a 95% success rate in terms of making it home without blacking out. so, you play the odds, and tell me what the right answer is. further, i am absolutely certain that i was drugged on at least two of those nights (one of them because he told me as much). the only times i've ever run into actual confirmed alcohol problems are when i'm taking shots or otherwise drinking strong drinks; so long as i'm drinking beer, i'm able to essentially drink all night, and i will if you let me.
the thing that tends to knock me on my ass is actually not alcohol but marijuana. alcohol is a cns depressant, but it is also a racing buzz - it makes you want to get up and dance. good pot will amplify the effects of alcohol, but if you take a pass on somebody's sativa, or eat a brownie somebody made in their kitchen, you could find yourself in need of a couch. please be clear on this point: if you find me sitting down somewhere, it's probably (like, 95 out of a 100 times) not because i'm drunk but because i'm stoned and i'll probably be fine once it wears off a little. and, so long as i smoked it rather than ate it, you're probably looking at ten minutes before i'm up and ready to go.
storefront marijuana stores in michigan are coming soon, and, when they are, i should be able to minimize this problem by ensuring that i'm only smoking high-thc indica. in the meantime, it's an environmental hazard i have to deal with: people are going to pass me shit that is going to make me need to sit down, and i'm going to need to do it, when they do.
Saturday, June 8, 2019
it's starting to maybe become a bit more clear that a part of the problem in detroit - not the whole problem, but a part of it - is that it's lost in a state of social development that marx (or engels) called utopian socialism. they're essentially lost in ignorance and for that reason lack the ability to govern themselves, but i guess that's what happens when you stop funding the school systems.
throughout history, socialism has usually been "utopian" in this way, in the sense that it is small-minded, insular and focused solely on what is directly in front of it. and, because it comes out of desperation and poverty, it centers itself around religious institutions, or whatever functions as a religious institution in the relevant culture.
i am not a politician, i'm just an astute analyst. i observe, i take notes - but i watch from the sidelines, i don't participate. i'm neither a leader nor a follower but an observer; i'm outside the crowd, aloof, and unable to exist on a social level that can lead.
but, my very marxist analyst is that detroit is ripe for strong, focused and scientifically leftist leadership. you'll have to fight with the religious bureaucracy when you get here, but the people here seem to know that socialism is what they want - they just don't know how to do it.
throughout history, socialism has usually been "utopian" in this way, in the sense that it is small-minded, insular and focused solely on what is directly in front of it. and, because it comes out of desperation and poverty, it centers itself around religious institutions, or whatever functions as a religious institution in the relevant culture.
i am not a politician, i'm just an astute analyst. i observe, i take notes - but i watch from the sidelines, i don't participate. i'm neither a leader nor a follower but an observer; i'm outside the crowd, aloof, and unable to exist on a social level that can lead.
but, my very marxist analyst is that detroit is ripe for strong, focused and scientifically leftist leadership. you'll have to fight with the religious bureaucracy when you get here, but the people here seem to know that socialism is what they want - they just don't know how to do it.
broadly speaking, the united states does not have a problem with food production, but rather has a problem with food distribution. in fact, the united states has a problem with over-production - you produce too much food, and you waste tonnes if it every day. we waste a lot of food in canada, too, but at least we maintain some concept of supply management (although this is under constant threat).
in that sense, community gardening is kind of a solution without a problem, and i would consider it to belong to a list of upper class bourgeois liberal do-gooder policies that are more about feeling good about yourself than doing anything substantive.
it would be more worthwhile to fight for common ownership of the actual grain basket.
in that sense, community gardening is kind of a solution without a problem, and i would consider it to belong to a list of upper class bourgeois liberal do-gooder policies that are more about feeling good about yourself than doing anything substantive.
it would be more worthwhile to fight for common ownership of the actual grain basket.
the thing with farming in the city - and especially a city with such an industrial history as detroit - is that the soil and air you're growing in is very likely to be contaminated and polluted. if you grow in dirty air and/or dirty soil, all the pollution will get stored in the plant; if you then eat that plant, you'll get sick from the pollution that it sucked out of the air. so, if you want to set up a carrot garden in your front yard, you need to understand that your carrots are probably going to be pulling in automotive emissions from the atmosphere and sucking up centuries of industrial waste from the ground. if your city has ever had acid rain, you want to think twice before planting in your yard.
it's not that the farm out of town doesn't have the same problems, on a lower scale, it's that they understand that it's a problem and do regular testing for it. you probably just don't have the resources or know-how to make sure you're doing this safely, but if you do then power to you. but, please understand what you're doing, and the risks you pose to the people that you're feeding if you don't. if you just start growing randomly downtown, those vegetables could very well end up as concentrated carcinogenic poison, in addition to being carbon sinks.
my suggestion - and i've made this over and over again in public spaces - is that you should leave outdoor growing explicitly for carbon sinks, meaning trees and non-edible plants, and that if you want to do urban farming then you should keep it to a controlled, indoor environment with fresh soil and minimal access to outside air. greenhouses are a bit more of an investment and require a bit more upkeep, but if you're doing this for the quality of the food then you should try not to be stupid or hypocritical about it.
it's not that the farm out of town doesn't have the same problems, on a lower scale, it's that they understand that it's a problem and do regular testing for it. you probably just don't have the resources or know-how to make sure you're doing this safely, but if you do then power to you. but, please understand what you're doing, and the risks you pose to the people that you're feeding if you don't. if you just start growing randomly downtown, those vegetables could very well end up as concentrated carcinogenic poison, in addition to being carbon sinks.
my suggestion - and i've made this over and over again in public spaces - is that you should leave outdoor growing explicitly for carbon sinks, meaning trees and non-edible plants, and that if you want to do urban farming then you should keep it to a controlled, indoor environment with fresh soil and minimal access to outside air. greenhouses are a bit more of an investment and require a bit more upkeep, but if you're doing this for the quality of the food then you should try not to be stupid or hypocritical about it.
and, before you ask the question, yes - the best way to see rachmaninov is shit-faced drunk.
...because he was one himself.
that said, i am fully aware that americans tend to ruin rachmaninov by converting his angry, drunken russian romps into posh bourgeois slop, but we'll see how well they do soon enough.
ideally, you want to listen to rachmaninov in a bar full of rowdy people, and not in a concert hall full of snobs. but, i can behave for a few hours. promise.
...because he was one himself.
that said, i am fully aware that americans tend to ruin rachmaninov by converting his angry, drunken russian romps into posh bourgeois slop, but we'll see how well they do soon enough.
ideally, you want to listen to rachmaninov in a bar full of rowdy people, and not in a concert hall full of snobs. but, i can behave for a few hours. promise.
i've pointed this out before - americans have a big problem with walking. they seem to think it's medieval, or something.
where
are all my virile, fit gay boys at? c'mon. it's literally around the
corner. what's the point? you bros don't even lift, do you?
we should be marching to ferndale and back, dammit.
so, i'm not marching across the street. it's symbolic, sure, but rather silly, in truth.
i actually took an unexpect nap this afternoon and ended up staying in tonight. that means i get to take the long option for tomorrow. and it is long...
the actual event at the plaza is just over-priced drinks and bad music. so, i'm going to be a good queer and get some actual culture in and do this instead, tentatively:
11:00-12:00 - windsor poutine festival. cost of food. riverside marina, windsor.
13:00-15:00 - akropolis pop-up. experimental classical music. free. dequindre cut.
15:30 - 16:30 - belle isle dance performance. ambient music. belle isle nature centre.
16:30 - 17:00 - exploring belle isle for the first time on a bicycle.
18:00 - 19:30 - having a beer or two somewhere in hamtramck.
19:30-22:00 - facs. no wave art rock. free. painted lady.
22:15-00:00 - oozing wound. thrash pronk. $10. sanctuary.
00:15-02:00 - ufos on the floor. experimental techno. free. high dive.
03:00-07:00++ - "after thots" queer dance party. free. eagle of detroit.
++07:00-11:00-- ?
--11:00-14:00 - hangover brunch. free (+ the cost of food, presumably). detroit shipping co.
15:00-18:00 - rachmaninov/bartok/paganini. legit high art. $15. dso.
catch me if you can.
we should be marching to ferndale and back, dammit.
so, i'm not marching across the street. it's symbolic, sure, but rather silly, in truth.
i actually took an unexpect nap this afternoon and ended up staying in tonight. that means i get to take the long option for tomorrow. and it is long...
the actual event at the plaza is just over-priced drinks and bad music. so, i'm going to be a good queer and get some actual culture in and do this instead, tentatively:
11:00-12:00 - windsor poutine festival. cost of food. riverside marina, windsor.
13:00-15:00 - akropolis pop-up. experimental classical music. free. dequindre cut.
15:30 - 16:30 - belle isle dance performance. ambient music. belle isle nature centre.
16:30 - 17:00 - exploring belle isle for the first time on a bicycle.
18:00 - 19:30 - having a beer or two somewhere in hamtramck.
19:30-22:00 - facs. no wave art rock. free. painted lady.
22:15-00:00 - oozing wound. thrash pronk. $10. sanctuary.
00:15-02:00 - ufos on the floor. experimental techno. free. high dive.
03:00-07:00++ - "after thots" queer dance party. free. eagle of detroit.
++07:00-11:00-- ?
--11:00-14:00 - hangover brunch. free (+ the cost of food, presumably). detroit shipping co.
15:00-18:00 - rachmaninov/bartok/paganini. legit high art. $15. dso.
catch me if you can.
Friday, June 7, 2019
to be clear...
i still have absolutely no idea who caroline chevalier is. i could bump into her tonight or some other night and not know it. i don't know what she looks like, i don't know how old she is, and i don't even really know what country she lives in. it's really just a name on a screen.
but, i will state this clearly: what she did is wrong, and anybody that is unclear about the point should understand that. she essentially filed a false police report, that led to a comprehensive trampling over all of my relevant rights. justice won out in the end, but you can't do what she did without consequences. and, she will need to defend herself in court in due time.
she will have her day in court, and her ability to make her argument. but, i am filing a very serious lawsuit, here. and, if you think this was some kind of prank, you should be aware that it's going to cost her tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs, whether she wins in the end or not.
and, if i win the case, you're looking at a $50,000+ settlement. a discrimination lawsuit is a big deal in canada, and my case against her is very, very strong. if i lose the case, it's going to cost her that in legal fees, and she'll never recover them.
so, i mean, laugh it up. but, i'll be laughing in the end. i just need to wait for the cops to finish the investigation into the officer, first - or not. this will be filed by early september at the very latest.
and the solution is that you shouldn't discriminate against people, or file false police reports to try and cover your ass for it.
i still have absolutely no idea who caroline chevalier is. i could bump into her tonight or some other night and not know it. i don't know what she looks like, i don't know how old she is, and i don't even really know what country she lives in. it's really just a name on a screen.
but, i will state this clearly: what she did is wrong, and anybody that is unclear about the point should understand that. she essentially filed a false police report, that led to a comprehensive trampling over all of my relevant rights. justice won out in the end, but you can't do what she did without consequences. and, she will need to defend herself in court in due time.
she will have her day in court, and her ability to make her argument. but, i am filing a very serious lawsuit, here. and, if you think this was some kind of prank, you should be aware that it's going to cost her tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs, whether she wins in the end or not.
and, if i win the case, you're looking at a $50,000+ settlement. a discrimination lawsuit is a big deal in canada, and my case against her is very, very strong. if i lose the case, it's going to cost her that in legal fees, and she'll never recover them.
so, i mean, laugh it up. but, i'll be laughing in the end. i just need to wait for the cops to finish the investigation into the officer, first - or not. this will be filed by early september at the very latest.
and the solution is that you shouldn't discriminate against people, or file false police reports to try and cover your ass for it.
and, yes, i have the opposite problem with women - i interpret women as friends, and they interpret me sexually or romantically; i interpret men sexually or romantically, whereas they interpret me as friends. it creates an impossible dynamic, all around, so i have to shove my tits in your face for you to get the point.
so, i know it seems weird to show up to this room full of straight guys in a tanktop and makeup.
but, i'm there to see the band just like they are, and i need the people around me to interpret me properly when i'm there. we don't get anywhere in pretending that i'm somebody that i'm not in order to fit in.
it's the only rational approach, if you think it through.
but, i'm there to see the band just like they are, and i need the people around me to interpret me properly when i'm there. we don't get anywhere in pretending that i'm somebody that i'm not in order to fit in.
it's the only rational approach, if you think it through.
in fact, the places i hang out at are mostly full of straight white men in their 30s-50s.
...because that's what i'm actually attracted to.
duh?
about the last thing in the world that i'd want to do is hang out in a space full of cis-women, as they have nothing to offer me. i've learned that; i may have thought differently when i was younger, but i know better, now. nowadays, i purposefully avoid places that are full of women.
so, why not just be a gay male then? because i'm not attracted to gay men, i'm attracted to straight men. it's a big difference. and, if i were to show up presenting myself as a dude, i'd be being dishonest.
so, for example, i'm probably going to some rock shows this weekend, to take advantage of the weather, while i can. i've pointed out several times that i'm expecting a shitty summer; it's at least going to be nice this weekend. almost all women at these spaces are going to be somebody's girlfriend, and there in that capacity - that's the reality of the types of rock bands i'll be checking out. it just is. really.
so, i'm going to check out some guitar music with a nearly exclusively straight white male audience.
if i were to show up to these spaces in a male-presenting way and try and interact with the people there, they would assume that i'm like them - a straight white male. but, in fact, the truth is that i'm checking them out. they may even think i'm a "cool guy" because i'm at a lot of the same shows as them, and try and build a friendship with me on that basis - but i'm going to be consistently interpreting them sexually and/or romantically, and not reciprocating in their desire for basic friendship. and, i know this because i've been through it when i was younger. they will eventually figure this out, and the end result is a lot of wasted time for everybody involved, if not something more dangerous or uncomfortable than that.
the most honest thing for me to do is present myself as what i am, which is a female-identifying person that is attracted to straight men. it's then up to them to decide how they want to react to that. but, i'd rather get a negative reaction up front then string people along on a charade of friendship, only for them to realize in the end that i want to sleep with them.
i'm very keen on honesty, and this is just consistent with that.
i have the intuition that there's a larger and/or different audience here than there used to be, and much of it may be confused by the events i actually go to. you might be expecting me to go places where there are lots of younger women, for one reason or another. but, you're wrong - check the event history. i've usually gone to shows full of straight men for years, and that isn't going to change, now.
but, i need the people there to interpret me properly from the start. i've had enough problems with making friends with straight men, who misinterpret me via first impression and then get turned off when they realize the truth of what i'm actually like.
...because that's what i'm actually attracted to.
duh?
about the last thing in the world that i'd want to do is hang out in a space full of cis-women, as they have nothing to offer me. i've learned that; i may have thought differently when i was younger, but i know better, now. nowadays, i purposefully avoid places that are full of women.
so, why not just be a gay male then? because i'm not attracted to gay men, i'm attracted to straight men. it's a big difference. and, if i were to show up presenting myself as a dude, i'd be being dishonest.
so, for example, i'm probably going to some rock shows this weekend, to take advantage of the weather, while i can. i've pointed out several times that i'm expecting a shitty summer; it's at least going to be nice this weekend. almost all women at these spaces are going to be somebody's girlfriend, and there in that capacity - that's the reality of the types of rock bands i'll be checking out. it just is. really.
so, i'm going to check out some guitar music with a nearly exclusively straight white male audience.
if i were to show up to these spaces in a male-presenting way and try and interact with the people there, they would assume that i'm like them - a straight white male. but, in fact, the truth is that i'm checking them out. they may even think i'm a "cool guy" because i'm at a lot of the same shows as them, and try and build a friendship with me on that basis - but i'm going to be consistently interpreting them sexually and/or romantically, and not reciprocating in their desire for basic friendship. and, i know this because i've been through it when i was younger. they will eventually figure this out, and the end result is a lot of wasted time for everybody involved, if not something more dangerous or uncomfortable than that.
the most honest thing for me to do is present myself as what i am, which is a female-identifying person that is attracted to straight men. it's then up to them to decide how they want to react to that. but, i'd rather get a negative reaction up front then string people along on a charade of friendship, only for them to realize in the end that i want to sleep with them.
i'm very keen on honesty, and this is just consistent with that.
i have the intuition that there's a larger and/or different audience here than there used to be, and much of it may be confused by the events i actually go to. you might be expecting me to go places where there are lots of younger women, for one reason or another. but, you're wrong - check the event history. i've usually gone to shows full of straight men for years, and that isn't going to change, now.
but, i need the people there to interpret me properly from the start. i've had enough problems with making friends with straight men, who misinterpret me via first impression and then get turned off when they realize the truth of what i'm actually like.
how is it with the a/c in here, so far? i don't think it's been warm enough to turn the a/c on yet this year, at all, but it's not comparable to the previous basement. i've been less frustrated with the a/c and more frustrated with the fact that it's just cold out; it's been cooling down to around ten degrees at night, and barely making it to twenty degrees during the day. so, even if you think room temperature is 21 - and i'd like it closer to 25 - it's been barely even making it to 21 most days.
there was an a/c in here when i moved in, but i uninstalled it and i don't plan on reinstalling it ever. but, i wouldn't even think to turn an a/c on until it got to at least 30 degrees. if i had central air, i'd set it to around 27 or 28. it's just a last resort.
the guy upstairs from the previous basement had the temperature set to something like 17 degrees. it was just uninhabitable; i would wake up shivering with the windows open in mid-august. i had to resort to cranking the heater all summer. i'm sure he likes the cold summer we're having, but he probably still has the a/c cranked. and, it's not because he's male, it's because he's obese - or was. the guy had months left to live when i moved out, because that much extra weight is a death sentence.
it doesn't seem like the guy upstairs is anything like this. he's a little bit fat, but it's roughly normal for his age; he's not obese, he's just in poor shape. it's not yet an issue, but you'll definitely hear me complain about it if it becomes one.....
i think i'm more likely to get annoyed by his dehumidifier than by his a/c, but we'll see what happens. i don't know why people can't just relax and enjoy the fucking summer....it's so short, here.....
there was an a/c in here when i moved in, but i uninstalled it and i don't plan on reinstalling it ever. but, i wouldn't even think to turn an a/c on until it got to at least 30 degrees. if i had central air, i'd set it to around 27 or 28. it's just a last resort.
the guy upstairs from the previous basement had the temperature set to something like 17 degrees. it was just uninhabitable; i would wake up shivering with the windows open in mid-august. i had to resort to cranking the heater all summer. i'm sure he likes the cold summer we're having, but he probably still has the a/c cranked. and, it's not because he's male, it's because he's obese - or was. the guy had months left to live when i moved out, because that much extra weight is a death sentence.
it doesn't seem like the guy upstairs is anything like this. he's a little bit fat, but it's roughly normal for his age; he's not obese, he's just in poor shape. it's not yet an issue, but you'll definitely hear me complain about it if it becomes one.....
i think i'm more likely to get annoyed by his dehumidifier than by his a/c, but we'll see what happens. i don't know why people can't just relax and enjoy the fucking summer....it's so short, here.....
Thursday, June 6, 2019
the heat randomly turned on this morning. it's cold out, but not more so than other days, recently. it's actually welcome, as i've been cold down here in the morning lately, and don't want to ask him to turn on the heat in mid june (especially considering that he seems to be running the a/c during parts of the day), but it is unusual, and is just making me wonder what exactly is going on up there. i mean, yeah, it's june, but i'm in a basement with black drapes over all of the windows during an unseasonably cold snap; he's at least on ground level, so he should be getting sunlight in his unit. there's no way around it: it's weird.
anyways, what am i doing?
i was initially going to work through this huge list of shows from may 10-23 and then move on to the next pile, but i think this is a recipe for endless frustration, as i'll never really catch up. further, what am i doing next, once i've caught up? well, i need to actually do the paperwork for the four lawsuits and i need to get back to the liner notes. so, i'm going to do something else instead: i'm going to just convert all of the facebook listings into bandcamp or soundcloud sites in tabs, and then try to keep up on it daily. then, i can listen to these hundreds of records as i'm actually working. it's going to start off slow, but it should be a better way to multitask in the long run.
i haven't made any calls yet. i dunno. soon. it's a big deal for me, picking up the phone. i hate doing it; i'd rather just communicate over email.
anyways. last night, i got through the list of tabs i had open, which was may 10-23. now, i need to get through the last two weeks, and i'm going to try to make the process faster. i'm going to need to look a little bit ahead as well, before i get back to the writing.
anyways, what am i doing?
i was initially going to work through this huge list of shows from may 10-23 and then move on to the next pile, but i think this is a recipe for endless frustration, as i'll never really catch up. further, what am i doing next, once i've caught up? well, i need to actually do the paperwork for the four lawsuits and i need to get back to the liner notes. so, i'm going to do something else instead: i'm going to just convert all of the facebook listings into bandcamp or soundcloud sites in tabs, and then try to keep up on it daily. then, i can listen to these hundreds of records as i'm actually working. it's going to start off slow, but it should be a better way to multitask in the long run.
i haven't made any calls yet. i dunno. soon. it's a big deal for me, picking up the phone. i hate doing it; i'd rather just communicate over email.
anyways. last night, i got through the list of tabs i had open, which was may 10-23. now, i need to get through the last two weeks, and i'm going to try to make the process faster. i'm going to need to look a little bit ahead as well, before i get back to the writing.
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
so, what do i think they should do with the al aqsa / temple mount complex, for example?
what i actually think is that they should turn it into a museum, and i'm not really interested in having a discussion about competing religious access to different crumbling walls here in the 21st century. it's a ridiculous discussion to have, and i'll get up and walk out of the room if it erupts. these people are all idiots that aren't worth listening to.
we need to look towards the future, and leave religion in the past as we walk forwards as equals together.
i've mused in the past about creating a new religion, but it's just a social engineering ploy. it's worthwhile to contemplate it, though. i mean, they say that most of the region converted to christianity, and that was probably something that was invented by roman social engineers to create unity. it worked, for a while. ironically, the muslim invasions would have likely failed if it weren't for theological debates about things like monophysitism, which alienated the egyptians and the descendants of the hebrews, but you learn from your mistakes, right? it did work for a while.
so, if you could create some new messianic religion and then convert both the palestinians (who are the descendants of the jews, remember.) and the jews to it, you could conceivably eliminate most of the root causes of the existing problems, even if you end up creating more in the long run. at the least, prying people away from their existing mythologies is probably a positive step towards an atheistic future.
but, i'm only half serious. and i am half serious.
i don't want to tear it down, it has value to archaeologists, historians and anthropologists. but, we need to find a way to leave this debate behind, because it's really, actually a pretty stupid and backwards thing to be fighting about.
what i actually think is that they should turn it into a museum, and i'm not really interested in having a discussion about competing religious access to different crumbling walls here in the 21st century. it's a ridiculous discussion to have, and i'll get up and walk out of the room if it erupts. these people are all idiots that aren't worth listening to.
we need to look towards the future, and leave religion in the past as we walk forwards as equals together.
i've mused in the past about creating a new religion, but it's just a social engineering ploy. it's worthwhile to contemplate it, though. i mean, they say that most of the region converted to christianity, and that was probably something that was invented by roman social engineers to create unity. it worked, for a while. ironically, the muslim invasions would have likely failed if it weren't for theological debates about things like monophysitism, which alienated the egyptians and the descendants of the hebrews, but you learn from your mistakes, right? it did work for a while.
so, if you could create some new messianic religion and then convert both the palestinians (who are the descendants of the jews, remember.) and the jews to it, you could conceivably eliminate most of the root causes of the existing problems, even if you end up creating more in the long run. at the least, prying people away from their existing mythologies is probably a positive step towards an atheistic future.
but, i'm only half serious. and i am half serious.
i don't want to tear it down, it has value to archaeologists, historians and anthropologists. but, we need to find a way to leave this debate behind, because it's really, actually a pretty stupid and backwards thing to be fighting about.
there's not going to be a two-state solution in israel. it's not a question of what you like or don't like, it's a question of what's realistic and what isn't.
that said, i'm not shy in pointing out that i don't like ethnic nationalism and i don't like the idea of the nation state and i don't want the world cut up into segregated, ethnic enclaves. however, that's secondary to what the reality on the ground is at this point, which is that israel controls almost all of the west bank, leaving nowhere left to actually put a palestinian state.
i understand that this is hard for people of a certain age, that have been pushing this idea at least since camp david. that was 40 years ago. the facts on the ground have changed, since then.
we can do better than jared kushner, but this is something that's going to require a fresh and new perspective on, and it's inevitably going to come via generational change.
as stated previously, i support a single state with equal rights for everybody. i know this is hard, but it's the only realistic choice in front of us - whether i like it better or not.
that said, i'm not shy in pointing out that i don't like ethnic nationalism and i don't like the idea of the nation state and i don't want the world cut up into segregated, ethnic enclaves. however, that's secondary to what the reality on the ground is at this point, which is that israel controls almost all of the west bank, leaving nowhere left to actually put a palestinian state.
i understand that this is hard for people of a certain age, that have been pushing this idea at least since camp david. that was 40 years ago. the facts on the ground have changed, since then.
we can do better than jared kushner, but this is something that's going to require a fresh and new perspective on, and it's inevitably going to come via generational change.
as stated previously, i support a single state with equal rights for everybody. i know this is hard, but it's the only realistic choice in front of us - whether i like it better or not.
i don't often have time for historical ceremonies, but d-day is something we should maintain some collective memory of.
to begin with, it's probably the only time in history that britain invaded france. even the plantaganets were already there.
jokes aside (yes, that was a joke. sorry.), if you know or knew or heard about somebody that died that day, you have a right to pride regarding it. and, that's a rare statement coming from an anarchist.
there have been very few wars in history that had to be fought; this was one of them. and, we should remember the singularity of it as much as we remember the thing itself, as it should help us to see the triviality of the next war we have thrust upon us.
to begin with, it's probably the only time in history that britain invaded france. even the plantaganets were already there.
jokes aside (yes, that was a joke. sorry.), if you know or knew or heard about somebody that died that day, you have a right to pride regarding it. and, that's a rare statement coming from an anarchist.
there have been very few wars in history that had to be fought; this was one of them. and, we should remember the singularity of it as much as we remember the thing itself, as it should help us to see the triviality of the next war we have thrust upon us.
so, is hate speech free speech?
yes.
but, all that means is that the government shouldn't be regulating speech, even if it's "hateful". that doesn't mean that the "hateful" speaker has a right to be heard. free speech also means that protestors have the right to drown out the "hateful" person, and prevent them from being heard, if they really insist - so long as they are not being threatening or harassing, themselves.
what free speech really means is that the government needs to back off, that it shouldn't pick a side, and that it's neither there to police nor protect free expression: this is up to us, as citizens, to work out.
so, as a free speech activist, what i want to see is protestors yelling down ann coulter while the cops sit quietly and watch. should the yelling turn to violence, she would then deserve protection. but, she does not have the right to be heard over the crowd, if the crowd decides otherwise - she only has the right to be drowned out.
in order to gain control over the space, she would need to be asserting property rights, which is a different concept than free speech. once she is in a private space, she can use private security to assert her privilege - not her right - to be heard in a space she has property rights over, or that an owner is asserting property rights over on her behalf. and, i actually don't like that, either, but i'll respect it as the existing legal order in most cases.
generally, a public speaker would not have these kinds of property rights at a public university, and should not, either. the public university should be seen as a state institution, and should not be regulating expression one way or another.
so, again: if you have a speaker at a public university being drowned out by protestors, then that is not a violation of speech rights but an expression of it. if you disagree then, at best, you're confusing property rights with speech rights.
the only way that a speech violation can occur here is if the police come in and try and control the situation, as the government is then taking a side in a debate that they are obligated to avoid taking a side on.
yes.
but, all that means is that the government shouldn't be regulating speech, even if it's "hateful". that doesn't mean that the "hateful" speaker has a right to be heard. free speech also means that protestors have the right to drown out the "hateful" person, and prevent them from being heard, if they really insist - so long as they are not being threatening or harassing, themselves.
what free speech really means is that the government needs to back off, that it shouldn't pick a side, and that it's neither there to police nor protect free expression: this is up to us, as citizens, to work out.
so, as a free speech activist, what i want to see is protestors yelling down ann coulter while the cops sit quietly and watch. should the yelling turn to violence, she would then deserve protection. but, she does not have the right to be heard over the crowd, if the crowd decides otherwise - she only has the right to be drowned out.
in order to gain control over the space, she would need to be asserting property rights, which is a different concept than free speech. once she is in a private space, she can use private security to assert her privilege - not her right - to be heard in a space she has property rights over, or that an owner is asserting property rights over on her behalf. and, i actually don't like that, either, but i'll respect it as the existing legal order in most cases.
generally, a public speaker would not have these kinds of property rights at a public university, and should not, either. the public university should be seen as a state institution, and should not be regulating expression one way or another.
so, again: if you have a speaker at a public university being drowned out by protestors, then that is not a violation of speech rights but an expression of it. if you disagree then, at best, you're confusing property rights with speech rights.
the only way that a speech violation can occur here is if the police come in and try and control the situation, as the government is then taking a side in a debate that they are obligated to avoid taking a side on.
and, at least somebody is taking the right perspective on this.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/social-media-blackouts-are-authoritarian-power-move
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/social-media-blackouts-are-authoritarian-power-move
and, yes, our own idiot in toronto has picked this up entirely, backwards framing and all.
again: it is the students that have actual speech rights here, and they should be launching a constitutional challenge against the orwellian "free speech" policy. but, they've bought right into the narrative, and seem to actually believe that they're opposed to free speech.
...because they're fucking idiots.
https://www.marxist.com/canada-student-protests-suppressed-under-guise-of-free-speech.htm
again: it is the students that have actual speech rights here, and they should be launching a constitutional challenge against the orwellian "free speech" policy. but, they've bought right into the narrative, and seem to actually believe that they're opposed to free speech.
...because they're fucking idiots.
https://www.marxist.com/canada-student-protests-suppressed-under-guise-of-free-speech.htm
we need the aclu to start doing mass teach-ins or something.
really.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters
really.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters
of all the idiocy we see before us, of all the orwellian backwardsness, of all of the dystopic screwiness, the way the speech debate is framed is the single, worst offender. nothing is this vacuous.
it is tragic that the discourse is so poor. truly. it's depressing, really.
and, i will slam you both, at every opportunity.
it is tragic that the discourse is so poor. truly. it's depressing, really.
and, i will slam you both, at every opportunity.
if you've been following my writing for any length of time, you already know that i think that the contemporary debate on free speech in the united states is incoherent, and i'm not on either side of the debate.
i've already posted this in many places, but i'll summarize my perspective here.
i do not think that a posh for-profit speaker can claim "freedom of speech" to silence a crowd that is opposing it. rather, it is the crowd that is exercising the freedom of speech in drowning out the posh speaker. so, the crowd has speech rights, here, not the speaker.
but, the issue has been framed in a way that is legally, philosophically and rationally bankrupt, in attempting to argue that the protestors are infringing on the for-profit speaker's right to speak - something that exists nowhere in any law at all.
insofar as the constitution of either the united states or canada is relevant, it has nothing to say about the rights of for profit speakers to speak at universities. what it has to say is that the government cannot interfere to control the outcome. what that means is that the only group that is guilty of breaking the constitution is the police.
i haven't had the occasion to involve myself in these debates, up to this point, but what these students should be doing is launching constitutional grievances against the relevant police forces. but, they're so horribly ignorant that they don't even understand what they're actually doing, or what is actually being done to them.
i will gleefully make you look stupid if you try and paint me on one side of this debate that is incoherent through and through, and that i am viciously in opposition to both sides on. so, don't bother.
i've already posted this in many places, but i'll summarize my perspective here.
i do not think that a posh for-profit speaker can claim "freedom of speech" to silence a crowd that is opposing it. rather, it is the crowd that is exercising the freedom of speech in drowning out the posh speaker. so, the crowd has speech rights, here, not the speaker.
but, the issue has been framed in a way that is legally, philosophically and rationally bankrupt, in attempting to argue that the protestors are infringing on the for-profit speaker's right to speak - something that exists nowhere in any law at all.
insofar as the constitution of either the united states or canada is relevant, it has nothing to say about the rights of for profit speakers to speak at universities. what it has to say is that the government cannot interfere to control the outcome. what that means is that the only group that is guilty of breaking the constitution is the police.
i haven't had the occasion to involve myself in these debates, up to this point, but what these students should be doing is launching constitutional grievances against the relevant police forces. but, they're so horribly ignorant that they don't even understand what they're actually doing, or what is actually being done to them.
i will gleefully make you look stupid if you try and paint me on one side of this debate that is incoherent through and through, and that i am viciously in opposition to both sides on. so, don't bother.
this is a perfectly orwellian article: protecting free speech is equated with dismantling it.
the freedom to speak does not imply the right to be heard, and the only entity in society that has any obligation to uphold speech rights is the state - but it is important to recognize that the state is unique, and imperative that we don't attempt to draw parallels between the special obligation that the state has to protect speech and the behaviour of private citizens.
free speech is the right to yell in a crowd, not the right to speak on a stage.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/now-that-justin-trudeau-has-tasted-de-platforming-directly-he-should-help-stop-it
the freedom to speak does not imply the right to be heard, and the only entity in society that has any obligation to uphold speech rights is the state - but it is important to recognize that the state is unique, and imperative that we don't attempt to draw parallels between the special obligation that the state has to protect speech and the behaviour of private citizens.
free speech is the right to yell in a crowd, not the right to speak on a stage.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/now-that-justin-trudeau-has-tasted-de-platforming-directly-he-should-help-stop-it
was jesus gay?
well, i don't think he even existed at all. but, it's a question that is more interesting than may initially appear obvious, in the sense that it can help us understand how wrong our current mainstream (not scientific. mainstream.) understanding of homosexuality is.
you usually start this off by appealing to his band of merry men, and claiming that it's kind of obvious that somebody that asks grown men to denounce their possessions and follow him around the countryside must be gay. i mean, what did they do when they weren't creating bread out of thin air?
but, you're kind of missing the broader historical point, and the reality that sex between men was pretty normal in the greek world, which is the actual world that jesus lived in, rather than a jewish one. the jews were allowed to return to israel by the persians (or were perhaps actually first settled there by them.), but then they fell to alexander, and when the romans moved in it was just as the hegemon - the area was really deeply greek from the time of alexander to the years immediately preceding the crusades, which was nearly 1500 years.
in classical greece, as in classical rome, sex was something buddies did with each other to prove they were friends. so, you have propaganda about roman emperors that "wore their male partners out", which was just mean to broadcast their strength and dominance and virility. in america, we had "don't ask, don't tell"; in the ancient world, sex between soldiers was encouraged by the leadership to demonstrate fraternity and equality, as they fought to uphold a warped concept of liberty. and, the mystery cults that were dominant at the time of jesus would have been full of all kinds of sex, with all kinds of people, including those we would today consider to be far too young to consent. if the mass has a memory of bacchian ritual embedded within it, it's worthwhile to ask what part of the body you're consuming.
it's easy to forget that these categories we have - "gay" and "straight" - didn't exist until the victorian period, and are a consequence of exiting the dark ages, where they'd burn you at the stake for sodomy. before the rise of christianity, people didn't think in these categorical ways, or try to find an answer as to why people were "different" - because they weren't. homosexual sex was perfectly normal.
so, you hear this sarcastic question - "when did you decide you were straight?" - as though you can't answer that, and it therefore follows that you didn't decide you were gay, either. but, you did decide you were straight, as a part of a process of socialization and normalization growing up in childhood. you weren't born that way, it's not a default, it's not inherent or more normal.
so, did jesus have sex with his apostles? i think you should assume that this is obvious, and the burden of proof is on demonstrating that he didn't.
well, i don't think he even existed at all. but, it's a question that is more interesting than may initially appear obvious, in the sense that it can help us understand how wrong our current mainstream (not scientific. mainstream.) understanding of homosexuality is.
you usually start this off by appealing to his band of merry men, and claiming that it's kind of obvious that somebody that asks grown men to denounce their possessions and follow him around the countryside must be gay. i mean, what did they do when they weren't creating bread out of thin air?
but, you're kind of missing the broader historical point, and the reality that sex between men was pretty normal in the greek world, which is the actual world that jesus lived in, rather than a jewish one. the jews were allowed to return to israel by the persians (or were perhaps actually first settled there by them.), but then they fell to alexander, and when the romans moved in it was just as the hegemon - the area was really deeply greek from the time of alexander to the years immediately preceding the crusades, which was nearly 1500 years.
in classical greece, as in classical rome, sex was something buddies did with each other to prove they were friends. so, you have propaganda about roman emperors that "wore their male partners out", which was just mean to broadcast their strength and dominance and virility. in america, we had "don't ask, don't tell"; in the ancient world, sex between soldiers was encouraged by the leadership to demonstrate fraternity and equality, as they fought to uphold a warped concept of liberty. and, the mystery cults that were dominant at the time of jesus would have been full of all kinds of sex, with all kinds of people, including those we would today consider to be far too young to consent. if the mass has a memory of bacchian ritual embedded within it, it's worthwhile to ask what part of the body you're consuming.
it's easy to forget that these categories we have - "gay" and "straight" - didn't exist until the victorian period, and are a consequence of exiting the dark ages, where they'd burn you at the stake for sodomy. before the rise of christianity, people didn't think in these categorical ways, or try to find an answer as to why people were "different" - because they weren't. homosexual sex was perfectly normal.
so, you hear this sarcastic question - "when did you decide you were straight?" - as though you can't answer that, and it therefore follows that you didn't decide you were gay, either. but, you did decide you were straight, as a part of a process of socialization and normalization growing up in childhood. you weren't born that way, it's not a default, it's not inherent or more normal.
so, did jesus have sex with his apostles? i think you should assume that this is obvious, and the burden of proof is on demonstrating that he didn't.
what i've been doing, and the test results justify this, is taking extra androgen blockers as i feel i need them.
and, i think what i was tying to cortisol is probably actually testosterone. i didn't end up with the cortisol test, because it doesn't make sense relative to my schedule, and i was smoking drugs at the bar last week.
so, if i'm feeling anxious or agitated, i just take an extra one. for now.
once they're gone, though, i'll be off the cyproterate altogether.
and, i think what i was tying to cortisol is probably actually testosterone. i didn't end up with the cortisol test, because it doesn't make sense relative to my schedule, and i was smoking drugs at the bar last week.
so, if i'm feeling anxious or agitated, i just take an extra one. for now.
once they're gone, though, i'll be off the cyproterate altogether.
if i'm removing my testicles largely out of concern for my liver, shouldn't i be switching to injections?
my primary concern about the injections was always that they were carcinogenic, and i'm not sure that recent studies uphold this concern, but you have to understand the difference between the way this works.
if i start getting injections, what happens is they give me enough estrogen for a month all at once, and it slowly gets metabolized and excreted. so, i have a maximum estrogen level a short time after the injection, and then decreasing levels for weeks. functionally speaking, what that means is that the actual experience i'd be undergoing is near constant estrogen withdrawal, which is kind of missing the point. i haven't seen anybody make the link, but i wonder if the high suicide rate in mtf trans people could in some way be tied to these injections, as withdrawal is...well, it's the hormonal reaction associated with menstruation, but literally on steroids. again, the thought process is that the actual experience of having injections is a short "high" followed by weeks of withdrawal. you would also expect to see bursts of physical effects, followed by decreases; for example, you might see a brief and rapid increase in breast growth (often cited as the reason people want injections), but this would be followed by decline, and then another spurt, and you'd kind of have to get used to that every month - which i suspect would be very difficult.
injections of modern estrogens, do, however, come without the stress on the liver, which has side effects of blood clots from coagulation factors. but, i should point out that these risk factors were mostly tied to what is called conjugated estrogen, that is estrogen that the human liver has difficulty metabolizing. what i and most people take is a middle risk factor - not as dangerous as the old horse estrogen that they used to take in the 60s and 70s, but not free of the risk factor the way that the injections are (as they bypass the liver).
if you take them orally, it's a different game - rather than load yourself up with an absurd amount of estrogen and then wait for it to metabolize, what you do is take small amounts constantly, to maintain a constant hormone level. that actually means that i don't have a cycle at all, i'm just on estrogen all of the time, similar to women taking birth control pills, which, let's be honest, is really a modern woman, isn't it? the difference is that i'm taking something like 150-200x as much as estrogen as women on the strongest pills are. well, i'm on 8 mg/day, now - you do the math. and, the more you take, the worse off it is on your liver...
removing my testicles will increase the efficacy of the estrace because it won't be fighting with what's left of the testosterone anymore, and fwiw my testosterone test came back at 0.4 - clinically acceptable, but just barely. it was lower than that last year. it's still in the range of "chemically castrated", but at the very upper end of it. it's just tolerance, like anything else, and you would expect to have to increase your dosage over time. i want it closer to 0.1, but i don't want to increase my dosage, because the cyproterate is legitimately hard on your liver. when i get the testicles out, that should fall back to negligible levels again.
i don't expect to actually cut my estrogen, but taking the testicles out should remove the need for another dose increase for quite a while.
my primary concern about the injections was always that they were carcinogenic, and i'm not sure that recent studies uphold this concern, but you have to understand the difference between the way this works.
if i start getting injections, what happens is they give me enough estrogen for a month all at once, and it slowly gets metabolized and excreted. so, i have a maximum estrogen level a short time after the injection, and then decreasing levels for weeks. functionally speaking, what that means is that the actual experience i'd be undergoing is near constant estrogen withdrawal, which is kind of missing the point. i haven't seen anybody make the link, but i wonder if the high suicide rate in mtf trans people could in some way be tied to these injections, as withdrawal is...well, it's the hormonal reaction associated with menstruation, but literally on steroids. again, the thought process is that the actual experience of having injections is a short "high" followed by weeks of withdrawal. you would also expect to see bursts of physical effects, followed by decreases; for example, you might see a brief and rapid increase in breast growth (often cited as the reason people want injections), but this would be followed by decline, and then another spurt, and you'd kind of have to get used to that every month - which i suspect would be very difficult.
injections of modern estrogens, do, however, come without the stress on the liver, which has side effects of blood clots from coagulation factors. but, i should point out that these risk factors were mostly tied to what is called conjugated estrogen, that is estrogen that the human liver has difficulty metabolizing. what i and most people take is a middle risk factor - not as dangerous as the old horse estrogen that they used to take in the 60s and 70s, but not free of the risk factor the way that the injections are (as they bypass the liver).
if you take them orally, it's a different game - rather than load yourself up with an absurd amount of estrogen and then wait for it to metabolize, what you do is take small amounts constantly, to maintain a constant hormone level. that actually means that i don't have a cycle at all, i'm just on estrogen all of the time, similar to women taking birth control pills, which, let's be honest, is really a modern woman, isn't it? the difference is that i'm taking something like 150-200x as much as estrogen as women on the strongest pills are. well, i'm on 8 mg/day, now - you do the math. and, the more you take, the worse off it is on your liver...
removing my testicles will increase the efficacy of the estrace because it won't be fighting with what's left of the testosterone anymore, and fwiw my testosterone test came back at 0.4 - clinically acceptable, but just barely. it was lower than that last year. it's still in the range of "chemically castrated", but at the very upper end of it. it's just tolerance, like anything else, and you would expect to have to increase your dosage over time. i want it closer to 0.1, but i don't want to increase my dosage, because the cyproterate is legitimately hard on your liver. when i get the testicles out, that should fall back to negligible levels again.
i don't expect to actually cut my estrogen, but taking the testicles out should remove the need for another dose increase for quite a while.
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
as per usual, my health is absurdly ideal - glucose levels lined up directly with the averages, and cholesterol levels on the dangerously low side.
the doctor is continually flabbergasted by the cholesterol, stating things like "these are the lowest cholesterol numbers i've ever seen". he keeps asking me about my diet. but, the real answer is not what i eat but how much; my cholesterol is low because i keep excess storage to a minimum, by not eating more than i need and getting enough exercise to burn off or convert storage when it appears. it really is just a conservation law.
physics is all.
i will have an interview with a nurse in july to get a rec to get my balls out. literally. i'll keep the sac though, as they'll use it to build a vagina, one day. they're just going to make a little cut, sever them from the pipeline up and pop 'em out. voila - no more testosterone. so, that will likely not be until early in the year, or late in this one.
i'm also upping my estrogen from 6 mg/day to 8 mg/day, and i'm not sure how i want to do it, yet. probably every six hours, but maybe 4 every 12. i dunno.
for now, i have enough groceries to last some time, so i am taking a showering and heading to sleep, with the intent to catch up and then some before i leave the house next.
the doctor is continually flabbergasted by the cholesterol, stating things like "these are the lowest cholesterol numbers i've ever seen". he keeps asking me about my diet. but, the real answer is not what i eat but how much; my cholesterol is low because i keep excess storage to a minimum, by not eating more than i need and getting enough exercise to burn off or convert storage when it appears. it really is just a conservation law.
physics is all.
i will have an interview with a nurse in july to get a rec to get my balls out. literally. i'll keep the sac though, as they'll use it to build a vagina, one day. they're just going to make a little cut, sever them from the pipeline up and pop 'em out. voila - no more testosterone. so, that will likely not be until early in the year, or late in this one.
i'm also upping my estrogen from 6 mg/day to 8 mg/day, and i'm not sure how i want to do it, yet. probably every six hours, but maybe 4 every 12. i dunno.
for now, i have enough groceries to last some time, so i am taking a showering and heading to sleep, with the intent to catch up and then some before i leave the house next.
i was expecting to need to do some write-ups for my appointment tomorrow (about an orchiectomy), but what he gave me was a form letter for the doctor to fill in, and i'm not going to do that. i mean, i can't write a letter for the doctor. if that's what he wants me to do, i'll have to tell him i misunderstood.
testicular removal is a very minor step in transition, and usually isn't done alone but rather as a part of a larger surgery, like a vaginoplasty. the thing is that, for right now, i feel like i'm plateauing. it is true that i try to live in a female identity full time, but i have to temper the statement by pointing to physical reality: i know i don't exactly pull it off. so, i'm in an awkward position where i want to be living full time, but know i'm not fooling anybody.
what removing the testicles will do is completely eliminate testosterone production, which will do three things for me. the first is the obvious, namely that i will become unable to produce testosterone. however, i already produce very little testosterone due to the large amounts of anti-androgens i'm on, so that itself is not going to be experiential, except that i won't have to experience the annoyance of resetting every time i'm late on a dose. if i sleep in or otherwise am 4-5 hours late on a pill, i can feel it in my pants, and i want that to stop. the second is that it will take a huge strain off of my liver, and that is actually my primary concern: i don't want to be doing this to my liver any more. the third is that eliminating this battle between the androgens and anti-androgens that is constantly raging inside me should actually allow the estrogen to work more effectively, which should allow things like larger breast growth. i can't continue to increase my estrogen every 12 months, either, i need to deal with the source of testosterone.
it's only going to be after i've gone through another lengthy period with zero testosterone that i'm going to feel comfortable with taking final steps to full transition. if i had started this process in my teens, or kept to it in my early 20s, things would be different. but, as it is, for me, what i'm hoping is that removing the testicles will be enough that i can really be convincing enough to be living full time, and then take it to the next step from there.
if not? well, i know i don't want kids, and i don't have any interest in women. i'd rather be a eunuch than a cis-male, and if that's what i have to settle for, i can deal with it.
testicular removal is a very minor step in transition, and usually isn't done alone but rather as a part of a larger surgery, like a vaginoplasty. the thing is that, for right now, i feel like i'm plateauing. it is true that i try to live in a female identity full time, but i have to temper the statement by pointing to physical reality: i know i don't exactly pull it off. so, i'm in an awkward position where i want to be living full time, but know i'm not fooling anybody.
what removing the testicles will do is completely eliminate testosterone production, which will do three things for me. the first is the obvious, namely that i will become unable to produce testosterone. however, i already produce very little testosterone due to the large amounts of anti-androgens i'm on, so that itself is not going to be experiential, except that i won't have to experience the annoyance of resetting every time i'm late on a dose. if i sleep in or otherwise am 4-5 hours late on a pill, i can feel it in my pants, and i want that to stop. the second is that it will take a huge strain off of my liver, and that is actually my primary concern: i don't want to be doing this to my liver any more. the third is that eliminating this battle between the androgens and anti-androgens that is constantly raging inside me should actually allow the estrogen to work more effectively, which should allow things like larger breast growth. i can't continue to increase my estrogen every 12 months, either, i need to deal with the source of testosterone.
it's only going to be after i've gone through another lengthy period with zero testosterone that i'm going to feel comfortable with taking final steps to full transition. if i had started this process in my teens, or kept to it in my early 20s, things would be different. but, as it is, for me, what i'm hoping is that removing the testicles will be enough that i can really be convincing enough to be living full time, and then take it to the next step from there.
if not? well, i know i don't want kids, and i don't have any interest in women. i'd rather be a eunuch than a cis-male, and if that's what i have to settle for, i can deal with it.
when they bring out the cowboys, you know it's getting real.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1124685/spain-usa-cuba-venezuela-donald-trump-helmes-burton-act
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1124685/spain-usa-cuba-venezuela-donald-trump-helmes-burton-act
Monday, June 3, 2019
well, it's a bullshit poll.
the right answer - that socialism is when the workers take control of the means of production - is not listed in the responses. so, how do you react to a poll that gives people a multiple choice set of responses, without providing the correct response?
to be clear,
1) "government ownership of some aspects of the economy" is a wrong answer. socialism is about the people running the economy, as a transitional phase to communism, which is when the state is abolished altogether. you should be exceedingly suspicious of anybody trying to tell you that socialism is about government control over the economy, as that is little more than a right-wing talking point.
2) "abolishing private property" is the closest thing to the right answer, but it is not the same thing as seizing control over production. there is a substantial intersection. i mean, if forced, i'd pick this one, while realizing it's lacking.
3) "lack of civil liberties" has nothing to do with socialism. wrong. right-wing talking point.
4) "end poverty and provide access to services" is a corollary, but not a definition. socialism would aspire to this, and it would be true in a functional socialist system, but it is not the definition of socialism.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/446377-20-percent-of-americans-cant-define-socialism-even-as-its
the right answer - that socialism is when the workers take control of the means of production - is not listed in the responses. so, how do you react to a poll that gives people a multiple choice set of responses, without providing the correct response?
to be clear,
1) "government ownership of some aspects of the economy" is a wrong answer. socialism is about the people running the economy, as a transitional phase to communism, which is when the state is abolished altogether. you should be exceedingly suspicious of anybody trying to tell you that socialism is about government control over the economy, as that is little more than a right-wing talking point.
2) "abolishing private property" is the closest thing to the right answer, but it is not the same thing as seizing control over production. there is a substantial intersection. i mean, if forced, i'd pick this one, while realizing it's lacking.
3) "lack of civil liberties" has nothing to do with socialism. wrong. right-wing talking point.
4) "end poverty and provide access to services" is a corollary, but not a definition. socialism would aspire to this, and it would be true in a functional socialist system, but it is not the definition of socialism.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/446377-20-percent-of-americans-cant-define-socialism-even-as-its
"and, now i would like to introduce our keynote speaker, jim balsilly, who is going to speak about how to make a competitive firm uncompetitive."
why not put him on an expert panel with kim campbell and michael cowpland?
there's a junta for canadian success, if i've ever seen one.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/is-it-time-to-delete-facebook-1.5155783/they-re-exploiting-a-regulatory-gap-former-rim-ceo-calls-for-penalties-on-social-media-companies-1.5159551
why not put him on an expert panel with kim campbell and michael cowpland?
there's a junta for canadian success, if i've ever seen one.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/is-it-time-to-delete-facebook-1.5155783/they-re-exploiting-a-regulatory-gap-former-rim-ceo-calls-for-penalties-on-social-media-companies-1.5159551
i've actually been arguing for a very long time that the liberals need to do something about the tory media in this country. but, i don't think that a bailout package is nearly enough or nearly understands the depth of the problem.
it is typical of this government to think you can get what you want by sucking up to people, and it's tempting to read something into trudeau's privileged upbringing; is the crux of the matter that the most important thing that trudeau learned from his father was how to butter him up to get what he wants? but, your dad is probably mostly on your side anyways, whereas the president of a neighbouring state and an inherently hostile media are not.
we have too much media concentration in this country, and some steps to break up the big companies and reduce their market share would be a big step in the right direction. ideally, that market share would be gobbled up by independent bloggers on the internet.
but, trudeau doesn't really want a diversity of sources - he wants to capture the industry, and use it to his advantage, much as his predecessor didn't want to shut down the cbc, so much as he wanted to take control of it (and did).
if harper's attempt to control the state media was frightening in it's authoritarianism, what do you say about trudeau's attempt to control private sector media?
as is the case with so many things right now, this is a serious issue in search of a serious policy maker to tackle.
it is typical of this government to think you can get what you want by sucking up to people, and it's tempting to read something into trudeau's privileged upbringing; is the crux of the matter that the most important thing that trudeau learned from his father was how to butter him up to get what he wants? but, your dad is probably mostly on your side anyways, whereas the president of a neighbouring state and an inherently hostile media are not.
we have too much media concentration in this country, and some steps to break up the big companies and reduce their market share would be a big step in the right direction. ideally, that market share would be gobbled up by independent bloggers on the internet.
but, trudeau doesn't really want a diversity of sources - he wants to capture the industry, and use it to his advantage, much as his predecessor didn't want to shut down the cbc, so much as he wanted to take control of it (and did).
if harper's attempt to control the state media was frightening in it's authoritarianism, what do you say about trudeau's attempt to control private sector media?
as is the case with so many things right now, this is a serious issue in search of a serious policy maker to tackle.
this is a sad, embarrassing day to be a canadian.
i mourn for the loss of my country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-venezuela-embassy-1.5159498
i mourn for the loss of my country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-venezuela-embassy-1.5159498
this appears to be a fact-based analysis of bernie's historical income sources and levels, and how many houses he's owned. and, it's actually rather flattering to him.
the idea that it is anti-semitic is desperate and wrong and should not be repeated further, as it harms the credibility of people making the claim.
you sound stupid, stop saying it.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982
the idea that it is anti-semitic is desperate and wrong and should not be repeated further, as it harms the credibility of people making the claim.
you sound stupid, stop saying it.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982
this is a projecting article, and i pointed this out weeks or even months ago.
i don't think the data is there, yet. but, this is what the establishment wants - it wants you to support warren instead of sanders, and it wants you to do that because her policies don't threaten it. they've been setting this up from the start.
she does not support single payer health care, and her industry reforms are all in the form of setting up bodies that can be easily captured to avoid serious oversight.
she's exactly what the bankers want, right now - and that's why she gets such glowing media praise.
the establishment candidate is not joseph biden, and in fact they don't like him. the establishment candidate is elizabeth warren.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/as-sanders-reprises-greatest-hits-elizabeth-warren-is-surging
i don't think the data is there, yet. but, this is what the establishment wants - it wants you to support warren instead of sanders, and it wants you to do that because her policies don't threaten it. they've been setting this up from the start.
she does not support single payer health care, and her industry reforms are all in the form of setting up bodies that can be easily captured to avoid serious oversight.
she's exactly what the bankers want, right now - and that's why she gets such glowing media praise.
the establishment candidate is not joseph biden, and in fact they don't like him. the establishment candidate is elizabeth warren.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/as-sanders-reprises-greatest-hits-elizabeth-warren-is-surging
this is very silly, at this stage in the race.
in order for her to win the riding, she'd have to swing conservatives. ndp voters aren't going to be happy with her record on things like marijuana legalization, breathalyzers and assisted dying; conservatives might be, but they're viciously partisan, so it's a non-starter.
i actually think she would have probably been a liability in that riding to the liberals; i wouldn't have voted for her as a liberal, even before snc.
we will have to see who else ends up running. but, she will probably play spoiler, it's just not clear yet to whom.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/
in order for her to win the riding, she'd have to swing conservatives. ndp voters aren't going to be happy with her record on things like marijuana legalization, breathalyzers and assisted dying; conservatives might be, but they're viciously partisan, so it's a non-starter.
i actually think she would have probably been a liability in that riding to the liberals; i wouldn't have voted for her as a liberal, even before snc.
we will have to see who else ends up running. but, she will probably play spoiler, it's just not clear yet to whom.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)