it's not surprising at all. the poli sci major analysts just didn't understand how to read the polls.
clinton was less popular with both blacks & latinos than obama, and biden is even less popular than clinton. that is true across the south. so, why did clinton's numbers go up in the south? because she did better with white southerners than obama did. there's some logic in that, as she was first lady of arkansas for 8 years, and then first lady of the country for 8 more. also, she was white. i actually thought she underperformed amongst southern whites....
so, it is true that the demographics are moving in a direction that should benefit the democrats, but it is also true that the democrats have been running candidates that are not appealing to those demographics. so, what's actually setting in is not a democratic supermajority in the south but rather widespread apathy at the paucity of the options. what's the point of voting democrat if you just get a republican?
but, very old white people, who live in larger percentages in the rust belt, love joe biden, presumably because he looks like them and seems to think like them, too - just like donald trump seemed to four years ago.
it wasn't young blacks or latinos in the sun belt that won biden the primary, it was old white people in the rust belt. and, they seem to be sticking with their guy. if they do, he should easily swing these states back. i'm worried, though, that he'll do everything he can to undo that, in a misguided strategy pushed by a bad analysis.
so, as it was in 2016, this election is likely going to be decided by white retirees, not by young people. they seem to prefer biden to trump, and if that holds, biden will win.
how do we get out of this? the answer is to address voter apathy in the younger generation, which requires running candidates that are on the left of the party. yes: the party is going to run up against a brick wall in the black church, but it has to find some way around or over it. luckily, these churches may be dying of old age in high numbers, and less of a factor in the near future. that should make it easier to elect a more liberal candidate in the south, on the backs of younger people.
but, it would seem to be that, as long as the party runs conservatives in their 70s, young liberals in the sun belt are going to express apprehension about supporting them. and, i don't know why that's surprising.
the party should be trying to build a coalition of white liberals as it's base, and using minority groups to supplement that base, not trying to build a base of minorities and hoping white liberals sign up for it. it's just numbers....there's just way more white liberals....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/politics/2020-election-biden-trump-states/index.html
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
Monday, September 7, 2020
a lot of it comes down to priorities, rather than disagreements.
if my primary concern is foreign policy, i may see trump as the lesser evil, because i'm concerned about biden's bellicose, pro-war rhetoric and history of supporting major armed conflicts. i might even win that debate with a jello, who i know is not kind to liberal interventionists. but, he might counter that climate change is more important, and biden offers a marginal improvement; a point i may concede in theory, even if i think it's unlikely to actually manifest itself in reality.
so, we're not really disagreeing on policy, or even on who is worse in specific contexts.
we're disagreeing on the ballot question, and that's the difference between my own suggestion to vote green in protest against biden, and his to join the choir and hold his nose to push out trump.
like i say: if somebody wants to have that debate, send me an email and we'll have it.
if my primary concern is foreign policy, i may see trump as the lesser evil, because i'm concerned about biden's bellicose, pro-war rhetoric and history of supporting major armed conflicts. i might even win that debate with a jello, who i know is not kind to liberal interventionists. but, he might counter that climate change is more important, and biden offers a marginal improvement; a point i may concede in theory, even if i think it's unlikely to actually manifest itself in reality.
so, we're not really disagreeing on policy, or even on who is worse in specific contexts.
we're disagreeing on the ballot question, and that's the difference between my own suggestion to vote green in protest against biden, and his to join the choir and hold his nose to push out trump.
like i say: if somebody wants to have that debate, send me an email and we'll have it.
there are a few people i've listened to for decades that might find me maddening and be unable to find common ground with me. i'll grant that.
but, most of what i'm posting here is coming from roughly the same far left perspective, and i think a healthy discussion would result in more agreement than disagreement, broadly speaking.
but, most of what i'm posting here is coming from roughly the same far left perspective, and i think a healthy discussion would result in more agreement than disagreement, broadly speaking.
if trump was running for the democrats, and biden was running for the republicans (both of which are probably more natural fits for both men), i'd probably endorse trump, in this election.
the reasoning is that trump scares me less than his party, and the only reason i'd even look at biden is that he represents his party.
but, that's not the option. well..
if there's a tie in the electoral college, we could get trump-harris. and, that's probably better than either of them winning, outright.
the reasoning is that trump scares me less than his party, and the only reason i'd even look at biden is that he represents his party.
but, that's not the option. well..
if there's a tie in the electoral college, we could get trump-harris. and, that's probably better than either of them winning, outright.
listen - i think i've been clear that i don't like either option.
trump scares me less than his party (and less than a cruz or a rubio, or a romney or a kasich), but i'm not naive - i know the party wins these debates in the end.
but, i simply don't think that biden is an acceptable option, under any context, not even this one.
so, i'm advocating voting for the greens.
my opinions are consistently to the left of the spectrum. i may often side with trump over biden on specific issues, but it's because biden is falling all over himself to run to trump's right, and i'm purposefully poking fingers in his eyes for doing it. that's not acceptable to me, disqualifies him as a candidate in my estimation and needs to be called out absolutely clearly.
so, i'm attacking biden from the left, over and over, and i think that's clear enough.
it may be that trump is the lesser evil, at the end of the day, but when both candidates are this bad, it's hard to even define the terms. what i'm not doing and will not do is fall into line on partisan grounds. i'm going to continue to think critically.
so, if somebody associated with the music i'm posting has some concerns about being associated with a contrarian that has up to this point and will continue to viciously attack biden from the left, as well as point out examples of how he might end up the more right-wing of the choices in some ways if allowed to govern [while being aware of counter-examples where the party dominates the decision making], i'd invite you to open a line of communication. i'd like to have that discussion.
but, this isn't a conservative blog, and i'm not a trump supporter; this is a socialist blog, and i'm an anarchist that is deconstructing the entire spectrum from a far left perspective that sees both parties as unacceptable.
i just post tunes that i like as i find them relevant, mostly because i'm listening to them....
trump scares me less than his party (and less than a cruz or a rubio, or a romney or a kasich), but i'm not naive - i know the party wins these debates in the end.
but, i simply don't think that biden is an acceptable option, under any context, not even this one.
so, i'm advocating voting for the greens.
my opinions are consistently to the left of the spectrum. i may often side with trump over biden on specific issues, but it's because biden is falling all over himself to run to trump's right, and i'm purposefully poking fingers in his eyes for doing it. that's not acceptable to me, disqualifies him as a candidate in my estimation and needs to be called out absolutely clearly.
so, i'm attacking biden from the left, over and over, and i think that's clear enough.
it may be that trump is the lesser evil, at the end of the day, but when both candidates are this bad, it's hard to even define the terms. what i'm not doing and will not do is fall into line on partisan grounds. i'm going to continue to think critically.
so, if somebody associated with the music i'm posting has some concerns about being associated with a contrarian that has up to this point and will continue to viciously attack biden from the left, as well as point out examples of how he might end up the more right-wing of the choices in some ways if allowed to govern [while being aware of counter-examples where the party dominates the decision making], i'd invite you to open a line of communication. i'd like to have that discussion.
but, this isn't a conservative blog, and i'm not a trump supporter; this is a socialist blog, and i'm an anarchist that is deconstructing the entire spectrum from a far left perspective that sees both parties as unacceptable.
i just post tunes that i like as i find them relevant, mostly because i'm listening to them....
actually, it seems like round two finally got him.
for this man, who is seen as a musical genius by those who know his work, to die of a heart attack in two movements is so bizarrely surreal, and yet so incredibly appropriate, that i'm just going to leave it as it is.
it's sad to have to let go. but, i wonder if ten years wasn't enough time to suffer through a horrible brain condition, and i wonder if it wasn't a release, in the end.
let us hope that he does rest in peace, although we know he never will.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/9422351/tim-smith-dead-cardiacs-singer-dies
for this man, who is seen as a musical genius by those who know his work, to die of a heart attack in two movements is so bizarrely surreal, and yet so incredibly appropriate, that i'm just going to leave it as it is.
it's sad to have to let go. but, i wonder if ten years wasn't enough time to suffer through a horrible brain condition, and i wonder if it wasn't a release, in the end.
let us hope that he does rest in peace, although we know he never will.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/9422351/tim-smith-dead-cardiacs-singer-dies
On August 14, 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, speaking at Chautauqua, N. Y., said in part:
"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing up their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead In the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen two hundred limping, exhausted men come out of line, the survivors of a regiment of one thousand that went forward forty-eight hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."
that's what a president sounds like.
biden might want to take some notes.
"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing up their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead In the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen two hundred limping, exhausted men come out of line, the survivors of a regiment of one thousand that went forward forty-eight hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."
that's what a president sounds like.
biden might want to take some notes.
i need to double down on what i just said about trump's war comments.
in the article, he says things like "i don't get it. what's in it for them?".
and, they slammed him for not understanding sacrifice, which is absolutely bizarre.
rather, to me, and i went over this in 2016 too, but, to me, it's refreshing to hear a politician talk about war in more sombre and reflective terms, like that. because, i don't get it, either. and, none of the authors i read get it, and none of the movies i watch get it, and none of my friends have ever gotten it.
and, i've participated in anti-war movements that don't get it.
those comments were humanizing, they were flattering to trump's intelligence (even in the face of so much which isn't) and they were reassuring.
i want a commander-in-chief that doesn't understand why anybody would sign up for a war, not one that talks about sacrificing our children, and criticizes people that think that that's insane.
in the article, he says things like "i don't get it. what's in it for them?".
and, they slammed him for not understanding sacrifice, which is absolutely bizarre.
rather, to me, and i went over this in 2016 too, but, to me, it's refreshing to hear a politician talk about war in more sombre and reflective terms, like that. because, i don't get it, either. and, none of the authors i read get it, and none of the movies i watch get it, and none of my friends have ever gotten it.
and, i've participated in anti-war movements that don't get it.
those comments were humanizing, they were flattering to trump's intelligence (even in the face of so much which isn't) and they were reassuring.
i want a commander-in-chief that doesn't understand why anybody would sign up for a war, not one that talks about sacrificing our children, and criticizes people that think that that's insane.
ok, so i'm out of the shower and feeling a bit better than i did the last few days. if i did indeed pick up a virus, i think i've already cleared it.
i think it was something else...some combination of pollution from upstairs and carbohydrate withdrawal...but i'll volunteer for an antibody test when they're available...
i'm healthy; i wouldn't expect it to affect me, except as a possible complication of this potential multiple sclerosis onset that i've been dancing with for so long. and, indeed, i may have even being having a mild ms attack, rather than anything else.
the other thing is that i drank a lot of water and it really is baffling how often it is that drinking a lot of water basically fixes everything. why is that? why am i chronically dehydrated?
i'm going to pick up back on the diet first (the story is coming. i am, indeed, still processing.), and do a really thorough review, including amino acids and everything. this is likely going to be permanent until the spring, at least, so i want to get it right.
right now, i'm looking at introducing a salad bowl as a complement to the fruit bowl, which may mean tweaking the fruit bowl. ideally, i'd have fruit in the morning & salad at night, then eggs every second day. so, i need to ask sombre questions like:
1) can i cut the salami out and get enough b12 from the eggs?
2) am i better off trying for some other kind of b12?
3) are some of these fruits superfluous? are other fruits a better idea?
4) how exactly should i compose my salad to get my daily rdis?
5) how often should i eat eggs, for real?
& etc.
i'll post it in a series of tables & charts...
i think it was something else...some combination of pollution from upstairs and carbohydrate withdrawal...but i'll volunteer for an antibody test when they're available...
i'm healthy; i wouldn't expect it to affect me, except as a possible complication of this potential multiple sclerosis onset that i've been dancing with for so long. and, indeed, i may have even being having a mild ms attack, rather than anything else.
the other thing is that i drank a lot of water and it really is baffling how often it is that drinking a lot of water basically fixes everything. why is that? why am i chronically dehydrated?
i'm going to pick up back on the diet first (the story is coming. i am, indeed, still processing.), and do a really thorough review, including amino acids and everything. this is likely going to be permanent until the spring, at least, so i want to get it right.
right now, i'm looking at introducing a salad bowl as a complement to the fruit bowl, which may mean tweaking the fruit bowl. ideally, i'd have fruit in the morning & salad at night, then eggs every second day. so, i need to ask sombre questions like:
1) can i cut the salami out and get enough b12 from the eggs?
2) am i better off trying for some other kind of b12?
3) are some of these fruits superfluous? are other fruits a better idea?
4) how exactly should i compose my salad to get my daily rdis?
5) how often should i eat eggs, for real?
& etc.
i'll post it in a series of tables & charts...
i'm actually going to state something that everybody knows but people are afraid to come to terms with: americans don't care about veterans.
that sounds bizarre. everybody knows that 'merica is all about war. and, the polling will uphold the point, if you ask facile enough questions, sure. but, it's a lie - they don't care, and you just need to look at who wins office and who doesn't.
bill clinton was a draft dodger, and they nailed him mercilessly for it; if anything, most people seemed to think it was funny.
so was dubya - and he beat a legit war hero in 2004. nobody cared.
nobody cared about john mccain's war record, either.
nobody cared when hillary sent that gold star general after trump, and nobody seems to be caring much about when he called them suckers; if anything, reliant leftists like myself seem to find it a little refreshing to hear, in contrast to the jingoism and chauvinist chest-beating coming from biden (which we find nauseating).
there's other ways to come to this conclusion, as well. they get half blown up protecting an illegal drug shipment, and come home and get subpar health care, and nobody really cares. they kill each other, or their families, and people shrug it off; this is something that should justify major levels of social spending, and people just look the other way. they can't get the psychological care they need, and nobody really lets it bother them.
so why don't they care about veterans anymore, in a country that is built on militaristic jingoism and global hegemony?
i think the answer is tied into conscription. back when people were shipped off to fight (and often die. whatever. actually, i was going to post this on the sole video: kurt vonnegut is dead? so it goes.) whether they wanted to go or not, they aroused a lot of sympathy, perhaps more due to the tyranny of sending them than any legit feelings of gratitude for safety. i mean, most people know better; they have some idea of imperialism, even if it's blurry. they know they're being fed bullshit, and left to generate fungi in the dark. but, when they're sent out at gunpoint, it's kind of not their fault, and it's hard to blame them for what they did, within reason. with a volunteer force, they do it to themselves, and there's good reason to lose sympathy...and even empathy...for people that seem to want to go slaughter others, out of their own free will.
i don't think anybody else has really put this together before; it's just unquestioned that you win elections by rallying the troops.
but, the evidence doesn't really uphold it.
people don't seem to give a fuck.
that sounds bizarre. everybody knows that 'merica is all about war. and, the polling will uphold the point, if you ask facile enough questions, sure. but, it's a lie - they don't care, and you just need to look at who wins office and who doesn't.
bill clinton was a draft dodger, and they nailed him mercilessly for it; if anything, most people seemed to think it was funny.
so was dubya - and he beat a legit war hero in 2004. nobody cared.
nobody cared about john mccain's war record, either.
nobody cared when hillary sent that gold star general after trump, and nobody seems to be caring much about when he called them suckers; if anything, reliant leftists like myself seem to find it a little refreshing to hear, in contrast to the jingoism and chauvinist chest-beating coming from biden (which we find nauseating).
there's other ways to come to this conclusion, as well. they get half blown up protecting an illegal drug shipment, and come home and get subpar health care, and nobody really cares. they kill each other, or their families, and people shrug it off; this is something that should justify major levels of social spending, and people just look the other way. they can't get the psychological care they need, and nobody really lets it bother them.
so why don't they care about veterans anymore, in a country that is built on militaristic jingoism and global hegemony?
i think the answer is tied into conscription. back when people were shipped off to fight (and often die. whatever. actually, i was going to post this on the sole video: kurt vonnegut is dead? so it goes.) whether they wanted to go or not, they aroused a lot of sympathy, perhaps more due to the tyranny of sending them than any legit feelings of gratitude for safety. i mean, most people know better; they have some idea of imperialism, even if it's blurry. they know they're being fed bullshit, and left to generate fungi in the dark. but, when they're sent out at gunpoint, it's kind of not their fault, and it's hard to blame them for what they did, within reason. with a volunteer force, they do it to themselves, and there's good reason to lose sympathy...and even empathy...for people that seem to want to go slaughter others, out of their own free will.
i don't think anybody else has really put this together before; it's just unquestioned that you win elections by rallying the troops.
but, the evidence doesn't really uphold it.
people don't seem to give a fuck.
just a point about opening up the border to labour mobility in north america v. europe: (1) i'd only support it if it were total and (2) generally, you want to avoid breaking down borders with large disparities in living conditions across them, as that just gives capital a freer hand.
so, i'm actually less opposed to the part of the border that keeps people out and more opposed to the part that keeps people in. if we had real labour mobility, i am sure i'd move south to a climate i like better, in search of a lower cost of living. canada is exorbitantly expensive, nowadays, and housing is very scarce, here.
but, it's not that easy...
so, i'm actually less opposed to the part of the border that keeps people out and more opposed to the part that keeps people in. if we had real labour mobility, i am sure i'd move south to a climate i like better, in search of a lower cost of living. canada is exorbitantly expensive, nowadays, and housing is very scarce, here.
but, it's not that easy...
i agree that it would be unconscionable to give an untested vaccine for a new variant of the common cold to kids.
but, i insist that it would be equally unconscionable to deny access to that untested vaccine to seniors that need it immediately.
and, those arguing that we must wait for the trials to finish before we distribute to the most vulnerable have doused themselves in the blood of those who will die unnecessarily as a result of their political grandstanding, and should ultimately be held accountable for it.
but, i insist that it would be equally unconscionable to deny access to that untested vaccine to seniors that need it immediately.
and, those arguing that we must wait for the trials to finish before we distribute to the most vulnerable have doused themselves in the blood of those who will die unnecessarily as a result of their political grandstanding, and should ultimately be held accountable for it.
so, we may have been given advance warning of an october surprise, and all i have to say is this: anybody standing between a high risk individual and an untested vaccine that is probably safe with an exceedingly high likelihood for political reasons should really be ashamed of themselves.
i'm probably not going to ever get vaccinated for this.
but, anything in late stage trials should be available on demand; people should be allowed to assume the risk.
i'm probably not going to ever get vaccinated for this.
but, anything in late stage trials should be available on demand; people should be allowed to assume the risk.
listen, i don't doubt this, and i don't think serious complications are likely.
personally? i'll pass.
but, i'm not 75 years old, and i'm not diabetic and ...
if i were? i think i'd be a little more risk adverse, and willing to take a chance - and pretty pissed off at anybody telling me i can't, for my own good.
there is always some minimal chance of complications, but i wouldn't expect a high chance of serious ones.
i will say this, though: you'd better hope it doesn't mutate. that's a far more serious concern...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54036221
personally? i'll pass.
but, i'm not 75 years old, and i'm not diabetic and ...
if i were? i think i'd be a little more risk adverse, and willing to take a chance - and pretty pissed off at anybody telling me i can't, for my own good.
there is always some minimal chance of complications, but i wouldn't expect a high chance of serious ones.
i will say this, though: you'd better hope it doesn't mutate. that's a far more serious concern...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54036221
wait, so brexit didn't get done?
i guess it's time for borisexit, instead, then.
my argument from the start was that this whole thing is stupid, and that the choices being presented to british voters were disingenuous. it's taken way too long for the country to realize that the premise that it could just walk out of the eu and into a world defined by giant trade blocs doesn't make any sense. it has to join a club.
so, my analysis is that brexit really isn't about brexit, but more about england being pried away from an increasingly independent germany. the americans cannot lose england to germany. so, england will now be a province of canada, instead.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/j-reacts-to-brexit-from-long-view-of.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/27-06-2016-j-reacts-to-idea-that-brexit.html
i guess it's time for borisexit, instead, then.
my argument from the start was that this whole thing is stupid, and that the choices being presented to british voters were disingenuous. it's taken way too long for the country to realize that the premise that it could just walk out of the eu and into a world defined by giant trade blocs doesn't make any sense. it has to join a club.
so, my analysis is that brexit really isn't about brexit, but more about england being pried away from an increasingly independent germany. the americans cannot lose england to germany. so, england will now be a province of canada, instead.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/j-reacts-to-brexit-from-long-view-of.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/27-06-2016-j-reacts-to-idea-that-brexit.html
i'm almost in favour of artists abandoning the city, at this point. it's so expensive as to be unliveable.
let it be boring, if that's what they want.
let's band together and rebuild somewhere else - waterloo, hamilton, oshawa....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sneaky-dees-demolished-replaced-condo-building-1.5714330
let it be boring, if that's what they want.
let's band together and rebuild somewhere else - waterloo, hamilton, oshawa....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sneaky-dees-demolished-replaced-condo-building-1.5714330
"the virgin mary" was an archetype, built on existing greek motifs; a syncretic combination of existing stories and memes, put together in a way that was appealing to a specific audience, as a work of fiction.
the idea that this was an actual person that existed in real life, at all, is absolutely ridiculous.
so, how can a work of fiction appear as an apparition in a field?
i'm waiting for the retrospective on jesus in the potato chips, a hundred years from now - based on a true story!
the idea that this was an actual person that existed in real life, at all, is absolutely ridiculous.
so, how can a work of fiction appear as an apparition in a field?
i'm waiting for the retrospective on jesus in the potato chips, a hundred years from now - based on a true story!
why is the cbc trying so hard to convince me that a bunch of illiterate peasants in portugal saw a vision of a woman that never existed in the first place, let alone gave birth to a child without having sex, in a farmer's field over a hundred years ago?
i mean, how would they even know it was her? did she have a name tag on?
so, a true story, huh.
listen: it's the fucking cbc, it should be banned on separation of church and state grounds.
and, i can't even x the ad out, either. so, what i'm doing is minimizing the browser and moving the window to the side so i don't have to look at their stupid, ignorant faces.
i mean, how would they even know it was her? did she have a name tag on?
HI!
MY NAME IS....
MARY
listen: it's the fucking cbc, it should be banned on separation of church and state grounds.
and, i can't even x the ad out, either. so, what i'm doing is minimizing the browser and moving the window to the side so i don't have to look at their stupid, ignorant faces.
so, i got five faxes out to six doctors and i'll have to get back to it tomorrow.
three of them are white, one of them is indian and two of them are muslim. i don't know if it's fair to make assumptions about people based on their names or not, but canadian doctors tend to flee the country for higher wages, while doctors from less liberal countries tend to come in, looking for whatever they're looking for. see, i know that some of them are coming here to get away from oppressive regimes; i know some of them are not just on my side, but here for that precise, exact reason. it's just a process of trial and error, and it has to be.
i don't care if i offend anybody; they can fuck off.
but, let's hope i get a good response and get these things out before the harvest, to make the sacrificial offering to demeter that much more appropriate.
three of them are white, one of them is indian and two of them are muslim. i don't know if it's fair to make assumptions about people based on their names or not, but canadian doctors tend to flee the country for higher wages, while doctors from less liberal countries tend to come in, looking for whatever they're looking for. see, i know that some of them are coming here to get away from oppressive regimes; i know some of them are not just on my side, but here for that precise, exact reason. it's just a process of trial and error, and it has to be.
i don't care if i offend anybody; they can fuck off.
but, let's hope i get a good response and get these things out before the harvest, to make the sacrificial offering to demeter that much more appropriate.
why demeter?
because she needs to be reunited with persephone.
https://www.infoplease.com/culture-entertainment/mythology-folklore/classical-mythology-hades-takes-wife-persephone
because she needs to be reunited with persephone.
https://www.infoplease.com/culture-entertainment/mythology-folklore/classical-mythology-hades-takes-wife-persephone
it's labour day in canada...nobody's open....
i sent this fax out:
hi.
my name is jessica. i called earlier because i forgot it was labour day, but i'm going to follow through with this.
i would prefer communication over email:
death.to.koalas@gmail.com
you can also leave me a voice message at xxxxxxxxx, and i can call you back.
i am a male-to-female transgendered person that has been on hormone treatment for most of the last 20 years, and on the maximum prescribable dosage of 100 mg/day of cyproterone acetate since 2009. over the last few years, i have noticed that this medication has been losing it's efficacy as a testosterone suppressor, leading to a detransitioning effect. i first approached my family doctor about a precautionary orchidectomy in early 2017, but due to various delays, i did not get funding until mid 2020. by this time, the drug had began to lose it's effectiveness.
while i self-medicated an increase in the drug at the beginning of june to 200 mg/day under the understanding that it was safe (according to the data sheet of the medication), i was not able to get a doctor to prescribe that amount and have been forced to retreat back to 100 mg/day. my request is consequently somewhat urgent, and i may face the reality of self-harm due to the onset of extreme depression if i can't get the issue dealt with soon. that is, i'm in a race against time to get these horrible things destroyed.
i would like the testicles returned to me so that i can sacrifice them to demeter in a bog (ie burn them in a ritual). this is silly, but i think it's a therapeutic process.
i have funding from the ministry, and a rec from dr.==========. i'm being proactive in finding the doctor myself.
i understand that this is a minimally invasive surgery that takes a few minutes and can be scheduled on very short notice. if there is any way to get this done asap, please let me know.
if not, i would appreciate a response to let me know.
i sent this fax out:
hi.
my name is jessica. i called earlier because i forgot it was labour day, but i'm going to follow through with this.
i would prefer communication over email:
death.to.koalas@gmail.com
you can also leave me a voice message at xxxxxxxxx, and i can call you back.
i am a male-to-female transgendered person that has been on hormone treatment for most of the last 20 years, and on the maximum prescribable dosage of 100 mg/day of cyproterone acetate since 2009. over the last few years, i have noticed that this medication has been losing it's efficacy as a testosterone suppressor, leading to a detransitioning effect. i first approached my family doctor about a precautionary orchidectomy in early 2017, but due to various delays, i did not get funding until mid 2020. by this time, the drug had began to lose it's effectiveness.
while i self-medicated an increase in the drug at the beginning of june to 200 mg/day under the understanding that it was safe (according to the data sheet of the medication), i was not able to get a doctor to prescribe that amount and have been forced to retreat back to 100 mg/day. my request is consequently somewhat urgent, and i may face the reality of self-harm due to the onset of extreme depression if i can't get the issue dealt with soon. that is, i'm in a race against time to get these horrible things destroyed.
i would like the testicles returned to me so that i can sacrifice them to demeter in a bog (ie burn them in a ritual). this is silly, but i think it's a therapeutic process.
i have funding from the ministry, and a rec from dr.==========. i'm being proactive in finding the doctor myself.
i understand that this is a minimally invasive surgery that takes a few minutes and can be scheduled on very short notice. if there is any way to get this done asap, please let me know.
if not, i would appreciate a response to let me know.
i can't find any clear evidence linking k to strokes, but i think there's grounds to be careful.
so, we're going to x out the dandelions due to excessive k and a bad 3:6 ratio:
https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2441/2
and really double down on the broccoli leaves:
https://www.expertbulletin.com/broccoli-leaves-nutrition-facts-and-calories-information/
the self database is missing a lot of data, and it seems like it has a ? for the e content of the leaves rather than a 0, so i don't think there's a contradiction. but, that study i posted is clearer:
The recommended intake of vitamin E is 15 mg/day for adults according to the USDA nutrient database [39]. A 100 g portion of fresh florets, stems, or leaves of broccoli can provide 0.15, 0.14, or 19.9% of the RDA, respectively.
so, it's the leaves that get you the e.
and, it seems to be, by far, the best way to get e without caving in to what are very, very high amounts of omega-6s or questionable fats.
i just need to find somebody that sells the leaves as some kind of salad base. is it going to be as hard as finding raspberry leaves?
so, we're going to x out the dandelions due to excessive k and a bad 3:6 ratio:
https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2441/2
and really double down on the broccoli leaves:
https://www.expertbulletin.com/broccoli-leaves-nutrition-facts-and-calories-information/
the self database is missing a lot of data, and it seems like it has a ? for the e content of the leaves rather than a 0, so i don't think there's a contradiction. but, that study i posted is clearer:
The recommended intake of vitamin E is 15 mg/day for adults according to the USDA nutrient database [39]. A 100 g portion of fresh florets, stems, or leaves of broccoli can provide 0.15, 0.14, or 19.9% of the RDA, respectively.
so, it's the leaves that get you the e.
and, it seems to be, by far, the best way to get e without caving in to what are very, very high amounts of omega-6s or questionable fats.
i just need to find somebody that sells the leaves as some kind of salad base. is it going to be as hard as finding raspberry leaves?
ok, maybe this isn't too bad...
if i have the fruit bowl in the morning two days in a row, that's 50%. then, if i have the eggs at night, i'm up to 100-110%; let's say 105%. so, i need each of these salads to have 95/2 = 47.5%. let's say around 50%.
and, i'm already at 25-35%:
- one small red pepper [50% a, lots of c, 10% e, some b]
- one small tomato [less of everything, 5% e. lycopene. high in omega-6.]
- some broccoli [50% a, lots of c, lots of omega-3, some b, variable estimates for e, 5%?]
- caesar dressing [some e, actually. ]
- chopped cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
how can this be tweaked?
well, the broccoli can be microwaved to as much as double it's e content, according to this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6049644/
that's easy enough to get me up a bit, to 30-35%.
on top of that, adding broccoli leaves (20% rdi/100g) & dandelion leaves (15%/100g) can introduce the balance, which i can then take over the top with some roasted soy beans, which still have a bad omega ratio, but nowhere near as bad as the other options.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6017511/
https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Dandelion_greens%2C_raw_nutritional_value.html
the broccoli has a lot of omega-3, so it should potentially offset the other problems.
what i'm more concerned about with this is that the leaves have a very, very high vitamin k amount, so i'm going to want to research estrace & vitamin k after i take a short nap.
if i have the fruit bowl in the morning two days in a row, that's 50%. then, if i have the eggs at night, i'm up to 100-110%; let's say 105%. so, i need each of these salads to have 95/2 = 47.5%. let's say around 50%.
and, i'm already at 25-35%:
- one small red pepper [50% a, lots of c, 10% e, some b]
- one small tomato [less of everything, 5% e. lycopene. high in omega-6.]
- some broccoli [50% a, lots of c, lots of omega-3, some b, variable estimates for e, 5%?]
- caesar dressing [some e, actually. ]
- chopped cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
how can this be tweaked?
well, the broccoli can be microwaved to as much as double it's e content, according to this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6049644/
that's easy enough to get me up a bit, to 30-35%.
on top of that, adding broccoli leaves (20% rdi/100g) & dandelion leaves (15%/100g) can introduce the balance, which i can then take over the top with some roasted soy beans, which still have a bad omega ratio, but nowhere near as bad as the other options.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6017511/
https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Dandelion_greens%2C_raw_nutritional_value.html
the broccoli has a lot of omega-3, so it should potentially offset the other problems.
what i'm more concerned about with this is that the leaves have a very, very high vitamin k amount, so i'm going to want to research estrace & vitamin k after i take a short nap.
so, what's the deal with nuts?
well, if you normally eat a diet high in cow and lard, then perhaps moving to nuts may be less bad. but, that's like suggesting that paint thinner is less toxic than heroin.
if you're an actually healthy person, you should avoid nuts like they're poison, because they are. and, outside of the e, they have no real nutritional value that isn't easily found elsewhere.
well, if you normally eat a diet high in cow and lard, then perhaps moving to nuts may be less bad. but, that's like suggesting that paint thinner is less toxic than heroin.
if you're an actually healthy person, you should avoid nuts like they're poison, because they are. and, outside of the e, they have no real nutritional value that isn't easily found elsewhere.
no, on second thought, i misread the source; almond milk is still crammed with omega-6, whic is what i thought they stripped out.
dammit.
so, how do you get the vitamin e without the omega-6, and without the saturated fats?
https://www.caltonnutrition.com/say-no-to-nut-milks/
dammit.
so, how do you get the vitamin e without the omega-6, and without the saturated fats?
https://www.caltonnutrition.com/say-no-to-nut-milks/
now that i've adjusted my diet so i get more vitamin a and less sugar (even if i think i'm coming down from the pasta and may be for a bit), is there anything else i should look at?
i think i'm getting enough b-complexes from a combination of soy milk, whole wheat bread (which is replacing the fortified pasta), salami, berries, bananas, eggs, cheese & olive oil margarine. i guess most people get their b in the form of big chunks of meat, which i do not ever eat. i might eat a chicken sandwich once in a while...but i haven't had a steak in like 20 years...and i rarely even eat burgers, anymore. so, the b comes in in fragments, but i do honestly think it's enough.
the a was low, but i fixed it by replacing green peppers with red peppers, mostly, and also by replacing pasta with eggs. i also get smaller amounts of a from ice cream, cheese, tomatoes, kiwis & the eggs, themselves. i think this is ok, now. i'm still thinking about the carrot juice...
i get something like 1000% of the rdi for c, and i like it that way. kiwi, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, apple or orange juice, peppers, tomatoes, etc are all very high in c. it's probably why i look like i'm 39 going on 13.
i get a fair amount of d from the soy, but i also get some from the eggs. the best way to get d is to go outside, and i admit that's been a struggle for me lately, and may get worse over the next few months. i'll need to keep an eye on that.
i actually get enough omega-3s from the soy as well, which is also low in omega-6s. but, there's also the eggs for that. my understanding is that we actually can't even metabolize things like flax seed, so these high omega-3 diets are just pseudo-science. the daily recommended intake for most people is 1.5 g, and you get that in a glass of soy milk; the rest of it is gravy, and too much of it is probably useless. there's 10x that in a red pepper, so what do you need fish for? but, my cholesterol levels are actually in the dangerously low category, so i'm doing something right.
with fat, it's more about total intake; keep your calories down by avoiding junk and you don't need to worry about that too much. and, you may even do weird things like realize that there's 80 mg of omega-6 in a green pepper and freak out unnecessarily.
as mentioned, i'm not concerned about counting calories or reducing fat intake - with the exception of watching my saturated fats, which is pretty low. i'm not concerned about sugar or salt, either. i just mostly eat actual food, and not too much, and i think that's enough to not concern myself with that.
i actually want to hold off on the k a little due to the high amounts of estrace i'm taking, i think. it's one of the reasons i avoid cow's milk.
what about e? that might be the last thing...
i've added it up, and it seems to be like the b; it comes in in a trickle, and it's not terrible, but i'd kind of like a specific source for it. the problem seems to be that it mostly comes in via nuts, which are something that i actually do avoid due to the high fat content. i'm getting some from the peppers, some from the kiwi, some from the eggs, some from the meat, some from the bread, some from the cheese, some from the olive oil margarine, etc....but where else can i get some....?
nuts & seeds don't seem worth the trade off with saturated fats, and you'd actually have to eat a lot of them to make it worthwhile. avocados, as well. so, no thanks.
likewise, stuff like spinach and broccoli seems to be overrated; you'd need to eat a whole bowl of leafy greens to get the daily amount, and i'm not adding a regular salad to my fruit salad. well, not yet, anyways. actually, i think i just planted a seed, there....hrmmn....
there's more e & c in a kiwi than in the equivalent amount of broccoli, fwiw. i'd really just be replicating a less nutritious fruit bowl, and i'd probably be better off having two fruit bowls than supplementing with a salad bowl.
well, unless i moved the peppers and tomatoes into the salad and went back to having fried eggs. in fact, i'm a little worried about cooking the peppers & tomatoes and missing the point.
if i did that, i'd put
- one small red pepper [50% a, lots of c, 10% e, some b]
- one small tomato [less of everything, 5% e. lycopene. high in omega-6.]
- some broccoli [50% a, lots of c, lots of omega-3, some b, variable estimates for e, 5%?]
- some carrots [high in a, but also high in omega-6. doesn't seem worth it.]
- caesar dressing [some e, actually. ]
- chopped cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
======================
all of the c, 25-35% of the e & all of the a, at least. + extra b. almost no d. hrmmn....
then, i'd still have my fruit bowl
- six strawberries [lots of c, some b, ~4% e]
- 1 banana [some a, some b, ~1% e]
- 1 kiwi [lots of c, some b, some a, ~10% e (with skin)]
- 20 blueberries [some c, some b, some a, antioxidants & ~1% e]
- 10 raspberries [some c, some b, some a, antioxidants, phytoestrogens & ~1% e]
- 1 serving of soy milk [some c, lots of b, lots of d]
- ice cream [some a, some b, 4% e]
=====================
all of the c, not much a, ~25% e, half of the d, some b.
so, that's only 50-60%.
if i add the eggs:
- 4 eggs [lots of b, choline, 50% a, 15% e, 25% d]
- salami [lots of b, 4% e]
- olive oil margarine [20-30% e, some a, some d?]
- cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
- bread [lots of b, 2% e]
=======================
50-60% e, all of the b?, most of the a, not much c, a third of the d,
so, over two days, i'd get 150%, meaning i'm getting 75%.
and i am, in truth, a little low on the e. hrmmn.
i'm also a little low on the d, but all i can do is go outside.
the internet is telling me that most people aren't low on e, but i'm looking through this and i can't figure out how to get enough without overeating. even the fish (which i'm avoiding due to mercury) doesn't really have much e, at all. and, you'd have to eat enough nuts to give yourself a heart attack; 100 g of almonds is only 65% of the dri!
unfortunately, soy nuts don't have much e. it's 3-4% the rdi for a reasonable serving. they have isoflavones :). not much e...
so, how? they'd have to eat fortified cereal, from what i can tell. there's no other way. well, that or molly, i guess. i know; wrong e.
i'm going to guess, then, that most people probably actually don't get enough e. hrmmn.
there is one sneaky answer i can see: almond milk. the way they process the almonds maintains the vitamin e, while throwing away the saturated fat.
i've checked the side of the cartons, and almond milk isn't anything close to a replacement for soy milk. the b complex vitamins just aren't there. no d. etc.
but, i can think of two ways to work some almond milk into my diet:
1) i could use it with coffee.
2) i could use it as salad dressing on these hypothetical salads.
i'm going to throw this out there to soy milk companies - why don't you add some vitamin e? contrary to what appears to be the popular myth, it seems like we don't have a lot of natural sources for this essential nutrient that don't come with their own serious health risks. i guess if you eat too much in general, you're accidentally getting enough of it by brute force. but, the irony here is that, the healthier you are, the less likely you probably are to get enough e.
i don't want to buy supplements, so i'm going to look at the almond milk as really the only answer i can find. and, this works for me, because my chocolate soy brand (so good) seems to be disappearing, and i'm trying to resist moving to this other brand (silk) that has a shitty selection of b complexes in it; the so good is legitimately healthful, and has even won awards, and the silk that is replacing it seems to essentially be junk food, marketed as a "soy drink" - itself an apparent step down from what it was a few months ago. it's depressing. so, i've been drinking my coffee black for weeks. at least moving to almond gives me a potential source of e....
i need to post this and start a new post.
i think i'm getting enough b-complexes from a combination of soy milk, whole wheat bread (which is replacing the fortified pasta), salami, berries, bananas, eggs, cheese & olive oil margarine. i guess most people get their b in the form of big chunks of meat, which i do not ever eat. i might eat a chicken sandwich once in a while...but i haven't had a steak in like 20 years...and i rarely even eat burgers, anymore. so, the b comes in in fragments, but i do honestly think it's enough.
the a was low, but i fixed it by replacing green peppers with red peppers, mostly, and also by replacing pasta with eggs. i also get smaller amounts of a from ice cream, cheese, tomatoes, kiwis & the eggs, themselves. i think this is ok, now. i'm still thinking about the carrot juice...
i get something like 1000% of the rdi for c, and i like it that way. kiwi, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, apple or orange juice, peppers, tomatoes, etc are all very high in c. it's probably why i look like i'm 39 going on 13.
i get a fair amount of d from the soy, but i also get some from the eggs. the best way to get d is to go outside, and i admit that's been a struggle for me lately, and may get worse over the next few months. i'll need to keep an eye on that.
i actually get enough omega-3s from the soy as well, which is also low in omega-6s. but, there's also the eggs for that. my understanding is that we actually can't even metabolize things like flax seed, so these high omega-3 diets are just pseudo-science. the daily recommended intake for most people is 1.5 g, and you get that in a glass of soy milk; the rest of it is gravy, and too much of it is probably useless. there's 10x that in a red pepper, so what do you need fish for? but, my cholesterol levels are actually in the dangerously low category, so i'm doing something right.
with fat, it's more about total intake; keep your calories down by avoiding junk and you don't need to worry about that too much. and, you may even do weird things like realize that there's 80 mg of omega-6 in a green pepper and freak out unnecessarily.
as mentioned, i'm not concerned about counting calories or reducing fat intake - with the exception of watching my saturated fats, which is pretty low. i'm not concerned about sugar or salt, either. i just mostly eat actual food, and not too much, and i think that's enough to not concern myself with that.
i actually want to hold off on the k a little due to the high amounts of estrace i'm taking, i think. it's one of the reasons i avoid cow's milk.
what about e? that might be the last thing...
i've added it up, and it seems to be like the b; it comes in in a trickle, and it's not terrible, but i'd kind of like a specific source for it. the problem seems to be that it mostly comes in via nuts, which are something that i actually do avoid due to the high fat content. i'm getting some from the peppers, some from the kiwi, some from the eggs, some from the meat, some from the bread, some from the cheese, some from the olive oil margarine, etc....but where else can i get some....?
nuts & seeds don't seem worth the trade off with saturated fats, and you'd actually have to eat a lot of them to make it worthwhile. avocados, as well. so, no thanks.
likewise, stuff like spinach and broccoli seems to be overrated; you'd need to eat a whole bowl of leafy greens to get the daily amount, and i'm not adding a regular salad to my fruit salad. well, not yet, anyways. actually, i think i just planted a seed, there....hrmmn....
there's more e & c in a kiwi than in the equivalent amount of broccoli, fwiw. i'd really just be replicating a less nutritious fruit bowl, and i'd probably be better off having two fruit bowls than supplementing with a salad bowl.
well, unless i moved the peppers and tomatoes into the salad and went back to having fried eggs. in fact, i'm a little worried about cooking the peppers & tomatoes and missing the point.
if i did that, i'd put
- one small red pepper [50% a, lots of c, 10% e, some b]
- one small tomato [less of everything, 5% e. lycopene. high in omega-6.]
- some broccoli [50% a, lots of c, lots of omega-3, some b, variable estimates for e, 5%?]
- caesar dressing [some e, actually. ]
- chopped cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
======================
all of the c, 25-35% of the e & all of the a, at least. + extra b. almost no d. hrmmn....
then, i'd still have my fruit bowl
- six strawberries [lots of c, some b, ~4% e]
- 1 banana [some a, some b, ~1% e]
- 1 kiwi [lots of c, some b, some a, ~10% e (with skin)]
- 20 blueberries [some c, some b, some a, antioxidants & ~1% e]
- 10 raspberries [some c, some b, some a, antioxidants, phytoestrogens & ~1% e]
- 1 serving of soy milk [some c, lots of b, lots of d]
- ice cream [some a, some b, 4% e]
=====================
all of the c, not much a, ~25% e, half of the d, some b.
so, that's only 50-60%.
if i add the eggs:
- 4 eggs [lots of b, choline, 50% a, 15% e, 25% d]
- salami [lots of b, 4% e]
- olive oil margarine [20-30% e, some a, some d?]
- cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
- bread [lots of b, 2% e]
=======================
50-60% e, all of the b?, most of the a, not much c, a third of the d,
so, over two days, i'd get 150%, meaning i'm getting 75%.
and i am, in truth, a little low on the e. hrmmn.
i'm also a little low on the d, but all i can do is go outside.
the internet is telling me that most people aren't low on e, but i'm looking through this and i can't figure out how to get enough without overeating. even the fish (which i'm avoiding due to mercury) doesn't really have much e, at all. and, you'd have to eat enough nuts to give yourself a heart attack; 100 g of almonds is only 65% of the dri!
unfortunately, soy nuts don't have much e. it's 3-4% the rdi for a reasonable serving. they have isoflavones :). not much e...
so, how? they'd have to eat fortified cereal, from what i can tell. there's no other way. well, that or molly, i guess. i know; wrong e.
i'm going to guess, then, that most people probably actually don't get enough e. hrmmn.
there is one sneaky answer i can see: almond milk. the way they process the almonds maintains the vitamin e, while throwing away the saturated fat.
i've checked the side of the cartons, and almond milk isn't anything close to a replacement for soy milk. the b complex vitamins just aren't there. no d. etc.
but, i can think of two ways to work some almond milk into my diet:
1) i could use it with coffee.
2) i could use it as salad dressing on these hypothetical salads.
i'm going to throw this out there to soy milk companies - why don't you add some vitamin e? contrary to what appears to be the popular myth, it seems like we don't have a lot of natural sources for this essential nutrient that don't come with their own serious health risks. i guess if you eat too much in general, you're accidentally getting enough of it by brute force. but, the irony here is that, the healthier you are, the less likely you probably are to get enough e.
i don't want to buy supplements, so i'm going to look at the almond milk as really the only answer i can find. and, this works for me, because my chocolate soy brand (so good) seems to be disappearing, and i'm trying to resist moving to this other brand (silk) that has a shitty selection of b complexes in it; the so good is legitimately healthful, and has even won awards, and the silk that is replacing it seems to essentially be junk food, marketed as a "soy drink" - itself an apparent step down from what it was a few months ago. it's depressing. so, i've been drinking my coffee black for weeks. at least moving to almond gives me a potential source of e....
i need to post this and start a new post.
Sunday, September 6, 2020
so, is the cfr a better or worse source than the atlantic? i don't know. that's a pretty daunting insult directed at the atlantic...
if this is the way things are, that is good, as it's also how things ought to be.
again: there's ways to sort of try to blunt the effects on bangladesh by trying to scatter them around a little - to pakistan, to the middle east and, in some small numbers, perhaps to canada, as well.
but, that line was drawn to give the buddhists in the former empire a homeland of their own, and the muslims don't get to encroach on it just because they overbred. they don't get lebensraum by default, just because they're muslims, or because they're brown.
they need to get their population levels under control, not argue that overpopulation gives them some kind of right to spill over into neighbouring regions. and, whatever the solution to easing the existing issues are, they should come with the acceptance that the country was partitioned for a reason, and muslims need to stay out of the buddhist regions.
....at least for now. we don't talk like that on this side of the world, but it's because we've reached a different cultural plateau. and, some level of atheism in the region, an inevitable consequence of higher standards of living, is likely the way to get to a more substantive level of peace.
for now, these religious groups don't like each other, and their various autonomy needs to be respected.
i'd say the same thing if you flipped the situation over.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-happens-if-rohingya-stay-bangladesh-forever
if this is the way things are, that is good, as it's also how things ought to be.
again: there's ways to sort of try to blunt the effects on bangladesh by trying to scatter them around a little - to pakistan, to the middle east and, in some small numbers, perhaps to canada, as well.
but, that line was drawn to give the buddhists in the former empire a homeland of their own, and the muslims don't get to encroach on it just because they overbred. they don't get lebensraum by default, just because they're muslims, or because they're brown.
they need to get their population levels under control, not argue that overpopulation gives them some kind of right to spill over into neighbouring regions. and, whatever the solution to easing the existing issues are, they should come with the acceptance that the country was partitioned for a reason, and muslims need to stay out of the buddhist regions.
....at least for now. we don't talk like that on this side of the world, but it's because we've reached a different cultural plateau. and, some level of atheism in the region, an inevitable consequence of higher standards of living, is likely the way to get to a more substantive level of peace.
for now, these religious groups don't like each other, and their various autonomy needs to be respected.
i'd say the same thing if you flipped the situation over.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-happens-if-rohingya-stay-bangladesh-forever
i just got out of the shower and had a random urge for a fruit drink i used to consume large amounts of when i was a kid.
i was a big fan of this film when i was very small, and used to run and around screaming...number 5 is alive...number 5...is....alive....
input.
need.
innnnnpppuuuuuut.
you can imagine that it was both exceedingly cute and incredibly irritating at the same time.
so, you can imagine how i reacted the first time my dad dropped this on me, as a tongue-in-cheek joke:
i haven't had any in years; it just snuck up on me, for no real reason, besides maybe that i'm thirsty.
but, i remember it being a little watery the last time i had one, too.
i was a big fan of this film when i was very small, and used to run and around screaming...number 5 is alive...number 5...is....alive....
input.
need.
innnnnpppuuuuuut.
you can imagine that it was both exceedingly cute and incredibly irritating at the same time.
so, you can imagine how i reacted the first time my dad dropped this on me, as a tongue-in-cheek joke:
but, i remember it being a little watery the last time i had one, too.
i would support a move away from the disastrous & murderous monroe doctrine and a re-embrace of the good neighbour policy, which is quite a few steps to the left of biden (as usual).
but, i'm not sure that cuban-americans are going to agree with me about that.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/biden-slams-trump-abject-failure-venezuela-well-cuba-policies-n1239356
but, i'm not sure that cuban-americans are going to agree with me about that.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/biden-slams-trump-abject-failure-venezuela-well-cuba-policies-n1239356
no, listen: i'm firm on this. anybody arguing that myanmar should carve out an islamic state on it's border are on the wrong side of history, here. the burmese have the right to self-determination, and the right to defend their borders.
but, let's take a step back and remember how the region became the way it did, and why it became the way it did, as well.
so, this is a history lesson post...
most people know the british were in india until gandhi threw them out (i'm being facetiously simple). but, let's remember what the map of british india looked like:
british india, of which the british monarch declared itself emperor (and emperess as it may be), was not merely what we today think of as "india", but also included:
1) pakistan
2) bangladesh
3) burma (now called myanmar)
4) nepal
5) bhutan
this is a huge area, with a very large number of people in it.
even back then, the british fought conflicts in afghanistan against the russians and iranians, in an attempt to expand influence into central asia and cut off the russians from the indian ocean - which the chinese are attempting to gain access to through myanmar, today.
when the country was partitioned in 1948, it was very purposefully split into three regions, as demonstrated by the following map:
the partitions were as follows:
1) green is muslim
2) orange is hindu
3) blue is buddhist
now, there are still muslims in india and burma, it is true, but the reason it was partitioned this way was to give primacy to specific religious groups in the various areas.
so, when the country of canada walks into this space and starts undoing the partition, and trying to bully the burmese into opening up an extra space for muslims, they should rightfully be seen as an imperial agent trying to reassert the primacy of british colonialism.
an area for muslims was already cut out - it's the green area. and, if muslims in the blue area want self-determinancy, they should move to the green areas.
but, let's take a step back and remember how the region became the way it did, and why it became the way it did, as well.
so, this is a history lesson post...
most people know the british were in india until gandhi threw them out (i'm being facetiously simple). but, let's remember what the map of british india looked like:
british india, of which the british monarch declared itself emperor (and emperess as it may be), was not merely what we today think of as "india", but also included:
1) pakistan
2) bangladesh
3) burma (now called myanmar)
4) nepal
5) bhutan
this is a huge area, with a very large number of people in it.
even back then, the british fought conflicts in afghanistan against the russians and iranians, in an attempt to expand influence into central asia and cut off the russians from the indian ocean - which the chinese are attempting to gain access to through myanmar, today.
when the country was partitioned in 1948, it was very purposefully split into three regions, as demonstrated by the following map:
the partitions were as follows:
1) green is muslim
2) orange is hindu
3) blue is buddhist
now, there are still muslims in india and burma, it is true, but the reason it was partitioned this way was to give primacy to specific religious groups in the various areas.
so, when the country of canada walks into this space and starts undoing the partition, and trying to bully the burmese into opening up an extra space for muslims, they should rightfully be seen as an imperial agent trying to reassert the primacy of british colonialism.
an area for muslims was already cut out - it's the green area. and, if muslims in the blue area want self-determinancy, they should move to the green areas.
myanmar was lost to the chinese fifty years ago.
and, we have no business there, and never did - not even to back continued arab colonization in the region.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/has-the-us-lost-myanmar-to-china/
and, we have no business there, and never did - not even to back continued arab colonization in the region.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/has-the-us-lost-myanmar-to-china/
there's even an angle with the gambia thing, regarding the struggle between the west and the chinese for control of resource extraction in africa, although the gambians seem to be playing both sides.
there's a link to a video in here somewhere where obama stands in front of a group of african emissaries and states, without blinking, that america does not intend to steal or extract resources from africa. it's perhaps one of the funniest things i've ever seen.
there's a link to a video in here somewhere where obama stands in front of a group of african emissaries and states, without blinking, that america does not intend to steal or extract resources from africa. it's perhaps one of the funniest things i've ever seen.
again: the atlantic is not a very good source, but they get the basic point, here.
islam is a violent system of brutal colonization, and it's quite understandable that myanmar is beyond apprehensive about opening the doors - it knows that they will take over, if they'e allowed to, and no educated person can really dispute the point, everybody realizes that truth. so, the indigenous burmese have an absolute right to protect themselves from muslim colonization in the form of bangladeshi encroachment into the region. that's not an act of repression; that's self-defence.
but, you have to work in the various alliances here, as well. while there was some thought that this aung san suu kyi character may provide an opening for the west in myanmar, the country in truth remains under a chinese-backed military dictatorship, which she is mostly playing ball with. so, western support for this group has the effect of destabilizing myanmar for western geostrategic gains, and the canadian intervention may be seen as something less than altruistic when interpreted that way - it's more like we're brown-nosing the cia, which is consistent with the turn we've taken under freeland's foreign policy direction. human rights are just an excuse to curry american favour.
but, i don't think that's our ultimate angle. while everybody else in the world is concerned about overpopulation and carrying capacities, we seem to delusionally want to increase our population levels by bringing in anybody we can. we don't seem to have learned the lesson of ellis island, or the extreme levels of poverty and inequality that such a policy produces. you give us your huddled masses, and they starve here instead; we don't have the infrastructure to be the world's dumping ground.
but, powerful people at the top of our hierarchy want us to be, in conjunction with arab blood money.
my request is that you educate yourself on the topic before you sprout the propaganda that ultimately comes from arab oil sheikhs and bankers pushing for colonization by rohingyas as a way to muslimify the region, at the end of the day - and that we support to contain the chinese, to curry american favour. you may find that the truth is not quite what it seems.
but, we should step back if we're a hindrance to the progress of getting these people a state in the end, even if that state should not be in the geographic area called myanmar.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/rohingyas-burma/540513/
islam is a violent system of brutal colonization, and it's quite understandable that myanmar is beyond apprehensive about opening the doors - it knows that they will take over, if they'e allowed to, and no educated person can really dispute the point, everybody realizes that truth. so, the indigenous burmese have an absolute right to protect themselves from muslim colonization in the form of bangladeshi encroachment into the region. that's not an act of repression; that's self-defence.
but, you have to work in the various alliances here, as well. while there was some thought that this aung san suu kyi character may provide an opening for the west in myanmar, the country in truth remains under a chinese-backed military dictatorship, which she is mostly playing ball with. so, western support for this group has the effect of destabilizing myanmar for western geostrategic gains, and the canadian intervention may be seen as something less than altruistic when interpreted that way - it's more like we're brown-nosing the cia, which is consistent with the turn we've taken under freeland's foreign policy direction. human rights are just an excuse to curry american favour.
but, i don't think that's our ultimate angle. while everybody else in the world is concerned about overpopulation and carrying capacities, we seem to delusionally want to increase our population levels by bringing in anybody we can. we don't seem to have learned the lesson of ellis island, or the extreme levels of poverty and inequality that such a policy produces. you give us your huddled masses, and they starve here instead; we don't have the infrastructure to be the world's dumping ground.
but, powerful people at the top of our hierarchy want us to be, in conjunction with arab blood money.
my request is that you educate yourself on the topic before you sprout the propaganda that ultimately comes from arab oil sheikhs and bankers pushing for colonization by rohingyas as a way to muslimify the region, at the end of the day - and that we support to contain the chinese, to curry american favour. you may find that the truth is not quite what it seems.
but, we should step back if we're a hindrance to the progress of getting these people a state in the end, even if that state should not be in the geographic area called myanmar.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/rohingyas-burma/540513/
but, if involving ourselves slows the process down, it's self-serving and should be resisted.
i don't know what you do in this situation. the countries around them don't want them for various reasons, and (unlike canada, which is a colonial state) myanmar does have some self-determinancy in the matter; there's no valid reason why they ought to be forced to integrate a large group of foreign refugees that are not indigenous to the region and that they don't want, and there's valid accusations of continuing colonialism underlying demands by a country like canada that they should.
it's really the bangladeshis that deserve the higher levels of criticism here for kicking out their own, not myanmar that deserves the criticism for refusing them entry. some kind of proper solution really involves working with the bangladeshis to integrate the kind of population that the country was created to absorb, not pushing continuing muslim and indian colonization of what is a buddhist and ethnically different territory.
perhaps the pakistanis could offer them asylum.
but, if canada's ultimate angle here is that it sees them as a source of migration, then it should just start lifting them out and stop interfering in a legal process that it's just making worse by meddling in.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-myanmar-court-intervention-1.5714246
i don't know what you do in this situation. the countries around them don't want them for various reasons, and (unlike canada, which is a colonial state) myanmar does have some self-determinancy in the matter; there's no valid reason why they ought to be forced to integrate a large group of foreign refugees that are not indigenous to the region and that they don't want, and there's valid accusations of continuing colonialism underlying demands by a country like canada that they should.
it's really the bangladeshis that deserve the higher levels of criticism here for kicking out their own, not myanmar that deserves the criticism for refusing them entry. some kind of proper solution really involves working with the bangladeshis to integrate the kind of population that the country was created to absorb, not pushing continuing muslim and indian colonization of what is a buddhist and ethnically different territory.
perhaps the pakistanis could offer them asylum.
but, if canada's ultimate angle here is that it sees them as a source of migration, then it should just start lifting them out and stop interfering in a legal process that it's just making worse by meddling in.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-myanmar-court-intervention-1.5714246
yeah, i'd be more likely to blame it on the instruments being contaminated.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/it-shouldn-t-exist-rust-found-on-the-moon-puzzles-scientists-1.5093822
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/it-shouldn-t-exist-rust-found-on-the-moon-puzzles-scientists-1.5093822
and, no, i don't want to run for office.
i decided i didn't want to be a scientist anymore because i found the formality of the writing too stifling; i wanted more space to express myself, and realized i'd prefer creative writing to technical writing. it just wasn't for me - i wouldn't be happy if i walked down that path, i'd just feel stifled and wasted and end up going postal.
likewise, i'd prefer to criticize the government than participate in it.
and, you can call me names for that preference if you want, but the world needs critics and outsiders in it, too; not everybody can be an actor, some people need to stand outside and dissent from a healthy distance.
you may find me frustrating, but that means what i'm doing is working; i'm a net benefit to democracy, and the world would be worse off without me.
i decided i didn't want to be a scientist anymore because i found the formality of the writing too stifling; i wanted more space to express myself, and realized i'd prefer creative writing to technical writing. it just wasn't for me - i wouldn't be happy if i walked down that path, i'd just feel stifled and wasted and end up going postal.
likewise, i'd prefer to criticize the government than participate in it.
and, you can call me names for that preference if you want, but the world needs critics and outsiders in it, too; not everybody can be an actor, some people need to stand outside and dissent from a healthy distance.
you may find me frustrating, but that means what i'm doing is working; i'm a net benefit to democracy, and the world would be worse off without me.
if i were driven by profit, i wouldn't live on odsp in some stranger's basement, and spend my entire existence in my own head, trying to evade the world and existence as much as i can. i'm highly educated. if i were driven by money, i'd go out and get it.
i'm not.
i'm driven by freedom, by ideas and by ideals, not by slavery to markets, or corruption by dollars.
i'm not.
i'm driven by freedom, by ideas and by ideals, not by slavery to markets, or corruption by dollars.
why do i do this, then?
because i'm an activist, a leftist, a socialist.
i write about the world the way i see it, and the way i want it to be, out of altruism and a legitimate desire for change - and also for public education, to undo the lies pushed by corporate media.
i'm a "true believer" if you will.
you can keep your dirty ad revenue, i don't want it.
because i'm an activist, a leftist, a socialist.
i write about the world the way i see it, and the way i want it to be, out of altruism and a legitimate desire for change - and also for public education, to undo the lies pushed by corporate media.
i'm a "true believer" if you will.
you can keep your dirty ad revenue, i don't want it.
to clarify a point, though...
there are zero ads on this page, anywhere.
i don't even have an adsense account in my name. at all.
i have made a total of $0.00 by posting to this blog, and google has actually been on my ass about paying them for hosting fees for my appspot site, although they haven't extracted anything yet.
so, i do not have a profit motive in posting here, i do not make any money by posting here and i do not have any money to give to journalists, because i'm not making anything from it. nor is google making anything off of this blog, although they may be making money off of other blogs.
so, if you want to force me to hand over some percentage of $0.00 worth of advertising revenue, i can write you a check for x% of 0 if you really insist.
i will admit that i'm drawing attention to myself, but the product for sale is at bandcamp and is music, it is not ad revenue and not available here.
and, i wish i could say that i sold a lot of downloads, but i just don't. it's actually been years since i made a transaction.
and, why are there no ads here? the reason is that i'm ideologically opposed to the model. you've seen idiocracy by now. i don't want to live in a world where people exchange access to services in exchange for corporate brainwashing, and i'm actually on the side of people that want to restrict or eliminate that. i run ad blockers, and don't want dirty ad money.
i would actually like to see the government, itself, provide some open space for writing. we should all be allowed 50 gb of online space, or something, ad free, and to do what we will with, as a birthright, or a privilege of citizenship. that would put speech enforcement directly at the hands of government, and eliminate a profit revenue from anybody posting.
the internet is not currently a public square, but i wish it was, and would support reforms to make it one - because that would increase speech rights, not diminish them.
there are zero ads on this page, anywhere.
i don't even have an adsense account in my name. at all.
i have made a total of $0.00 by posting to this blog, and google has actually been on my ass about paying them for hosting fees for my appspot site, although they haven't extracted anything yet.
so, i do not have a profit motive in posting here, i do not make any money by posting here and i do not have any money to give to journalists, because i'm not making anything from it. nor is google making anything off of this blog, although they may be making money off of other blogs.
so, if you want to force me to hand over some percentage of $0.00 worth of advertising revenue, i can write you a check for x% of 0 if you really insist.
i will admit that i'm drawing attention to myself, but the product for sale is at bandcamp and is music, it is not ad revenue and not available here.
and, i wish i could say that i sold a lot of downloads, but i just don't. it's actually been years since i made a transaction.
and, why are there no ads here? the reason is that i'm ideologically opposed to the model. you've seen idiocracy by now. i don't want to live in a world where people exchange access to services in exchange for corporate brainwashing, and i'm actually on the side of people that want to restrict or eliminate that. i run ad blockers, and don't want dirty ad money.
i would actually like to see the government, itself, provide some open space for writing. we should all be allowed 50 gb of online space, or something, ad free, and to do what we will with, as a birthright, or a privilege of citizenship. that would put speech enforcement directly at the hands of government, and eliminate a profit revenue from anybody posting.
the internet is not currently a public square, but i wish it was, and would support reforms to make it one - because that would increase speech rights, not diminish them.
see, and that's the thing, right?
some nazi bureaucrat working for the banking clique that runs the liberal party, or some corporate fascist working at some social media firm, or even some ignorant journalist with their head in their ass, may insist on shutting me down.
but, that's really just their opinion, and i'm absolutely confident they're legally wrong, so long as the issue is up to the courts to work out.
if you let the corporation make the choice, i have no speech rights. this is their server. it's their platform. i use the service at their privilege, and i can (and will.) go rant somewhere else if they don't like it.
but, if you let the courts make the choice, i have way more rights than any of those fascists want to grant me.
so, i would rather go to court than leave it up to the corporations - i know what system will uphold my rights, and what system won't.
some nazi bureaucrat working for the banking clique that runs the liberal party, or some corporate fascist working at some social media firm, or even some ignorant journalist with their head in their ass, may insist on shutting me down.
but, that's really just their opinion, and i'm absolutely confident they're legally wrong, so long as the issue is up to the courts to work out.
if you let the corporation make the choice, i have no speech rights. this is their server. it's their platform. i use the service at their privilege, and i can (and will.) go rant somewhere else if they don't like it.
but, if you let the courts make the choice, i have way more rights than any of those fascists want to grant me.
so, i would rather go to court than leave it up to the corporations - i know what system will uphold my rights, and what system won't.
do i think there's anything wrong with what i'm posting here?
no.
i'd say this to biden's face if i could, and hope he cries when i did; it's clear that i don't like him very much, and am not concerned about his feelings. and, i think he deserves what i'm posting here.
there's nothing here that's off-limits, nothing that breaks any laws, nothing that would be prosecuted as harassment, nothing that would qualify as hate.
so, bring it on - let's get the courts to strengthen speech protections, and the snowflakes to shut the fuck up.
no.
i'd say this to biden's face if i could, and hope he cries when i did; it's clear that i don't like him very much, and am not concerned about his feelings. and, i think he deserves what i'm posting here.
there's nothing here that's off-limits, nothing that breaks any laws, nothing that would be prosecuted as harassment, nothing that would qualify as hate.
so, bring it on - let's get the courts to strengthen speech protections, and the snowflakes to shut the fuck up.
ok, but what i want is a right to appeal those decisions in court.
that's what is wrong with the existing system - there is no legal process underlying it.
so, if we're going to bring in a legal process, that means we need things like court injunctions to limit rulings by bureaucrats, appeal mechanisms, etc.
i am confident that the courts would undo most of what the fake liberal government fascists and nazi snowflakes want to impose, not uphold it. so, i welcome more legal involvement as a way to increase speech rights.
if they don't do this right, they're going to end up with a series of charter challenges that will ultimately undo any unconstitutional restrictions, and they'll need to do it right, in the end.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7316532/facebook-regulation-canada-steven-guilbeault/
that's what is wrong with the existing system - there is no legal process underlying it.
so, if we're going to bring in a legal process, that means we need things like court injunctions to limit rulings by bureaucrats, appeal mechanisms, etc.
i am confident that the courts would undo most of what the fake liberal government fascists and nazi snowflakes want to impose, not uphold it. so, i welcome more legal involvement as a way to increase speech rights.
if they don't do this right, they're going to end up with a series of charter challenges that will ultimately undo any unconstitutional restrictions, and they'll need to do it right, in the end.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7316532/facebook-regulation-canada-steven-guilbeault/
when you pick up a loaf of pumpernickel, and check the side, it looks like this:
where are the b vitamins?
the answer is that they're in there in theory, but they aren't regulated. so, you don't really know. it doesn't say there aren't b vitamins, like it does for c and a. but, there's no actual meaningful evidence that your whole grain bread has any vitamins in it at all - it's something you have to take on empty faith. i would strongly advise against that.
compare that to cheap selection brand (food basics) 100% whole wheat bread (including the germ), which i can't find a picture of, but has the following for two slices:
calories: 170 g (but healthy people don't care about calories, they care about nutrition, because they burn calories, daily)
fat: 3%
fibre: 18%
protein: 7g
sodium: 10%
potassium: 4%
calcium: 4%
iron: 10%
thiamine: 15%
riboflavin: 6%
niacin: 25%
b6: 6%
folate: 5%
pantothenate: 8%
phosphorus: 14%
magnesium: 17%
zinc: 14%
selenium: 55%
maganese: 67%
molybdenum: 59%
i presume that molybdenum is for a nice, healthy glow.
you'll also note that the picture is for five slices, so you'd actually want to cut the percentage of calcium & iron down to two fifths of it to get a fair comparison, which is only 2.4%.
does the pumpernickel lack all of this good stuff? is it just empty calories? supposedly, it doesn't, but nobody measures it, so you don't know what you're buying.
the 100% whole wheat is consequently a far safer choice than the whole grain, if you're concerned about nutrient concentration, because you actually know what's in it because it's measured and regulated. you have no actual idea whether the whole grain bread you're buying has anything of value in it or not - it might very well just be empty sugar. you could never prove otherwise. you just have to take it on faith, which is the lowest form of reasoning. i'll take the fortified whole wheat over the unfortified whole grain, any day.
where are the b vitamins?
the answer is that they're in there in theory, but they aren't regulated. so, you don't really know. it doesn't say there aren't b vitamins, like it does for c and a. but, there's no actual meaningful evidence that your whole grain bread has any vitamins in it at all - it's something you have to take on empty faith. i would strongly advise against that.
compare that to cheap selection brand (food basics) 100% whole wheat bread (including the germ), which i can't find a picture of, but has the following for two slices:
calories: 170 g (but healthy people don't care about calories, they care about nutrition, because they burn calories, daily)
fat: 3%
fibre: 18%
protein: 7g
sodium: 10%
potassium: 4%
calcium: 4%
iron: 10%
thiamine: 15%
riboflavin: 6%
niacin: 25%
b6: 6%
folate: 5%
pantothenate: 8%
phosphorus: 14%
magnesium: 17%
zinc: 14%
selenium: 55%
maganese: 67%
molybdenum: 59%
i presume that molybdenum is for a nice, healthy glow.
you'll also note that the picture is for five slices, so you'd actually want to cut the percentage of calcium & iron down to two fifths of it to get a fair comparison, which is only 2.4%.
does the pumpernickel lack all of this good stuff? is it just empty calories? supposedly, it doesn't, but nobody measures it, so you don't know what you're buying.
the 100% whole wheat is consequently a far safer choice than the whole grain, if you're concerned about nutrient concentration, because you actually know what's in it because it's measured and regulated. you have no actual idea whether the whole grain bread you're buying has anything of value in it or not - it might very well just be empty sugar. you could never prove otherwise. you just have to take it on faith, which is the lowest form of reasoning. i'll take the fortified whole wheat over the unfortified whole grain, any day.
but, what i really want is some fortified pumpernickel, with those kind of numbers on the side.
should you eat rye or whole wheat?
that's a can of worms, from what i can tell....
in theory, rye may be preferable, but it doesn't seem to be fortified. so, if you take a loaf of $5.00 rye bread and put it side by side with a loaf of $0.99 whole wheat bread, and you check the nutrient content on the side of the packaging, you may be surprised to see that the whole wheat bread actually blows the rye away. but, this is because the whole wheat is regulated here in canada, so nutrients are added to it, and the rye is not. it's consequently misleading, and i know that.
i switched to the whole wheat more due to cost; when i was eating a few slices of bread a week, i didn't mind shelling out for fancy rye or pumpernickel, but now that eggs are being eaten every second day, roughly, i'm tripling or quadrupling the amount of bread i'm consuming, and the fact that the brown broad is a fifth of the price was very appealing to me.
what i wish was that the fancier breads were better regulated so i could do an apples-to-apples comparison regarding vitamins and other nutrients. general statements about rye flour may or may not be particular to specific brands; i don't want to make assumptions about the milling process, and what actually does or doesn't exist in any particular loaf.
the whole wheat is the safer bet, in that sense.
but, i'm going to continue to keep my eye out for a rye alternative that is properly fortified.
that's a can of worms, from what i can tell....
in theory, rye may be preferable, but it doesn't seem to be fortified. so, if you take a loaf of $5.00 rye bread and put it side by side with a loaf of $0.99 whole wheat bread, and you check the nutrient content on the side of the packaging, you may be surprised to see that the whole wheat bread actually blows the rye away. but, this is because the whole wheat is regulated here in canada, so nutrients are added to it, and the rye is not. it's consequently misleading, and i know that.
i switched to the whole wheat more due to cost; when i was eating a few slices of bread a week, i didn't mind shelling out for fancy rye or pumpernickel, but now that eggs are being eaten every second day, roughly, i'm tripling or quadrupling the amount of bread i'm consuming, and the fact that the brown broad is a fifth of the price was very appealing to me.
what i wish was that the fancier breads were better regulated so i could do an apples-to-apples comparison regarding vitamins and other nutrients. general statements about rye flour may or may not be particular to specific brands; i don't want to make assumptions about the milling process, and what actually does or doesn't exist in any particular loaf.
the whole wheat is the safer bet, in that sense.
but, i'm going to continue to keep my eye out for a rye alternative that is properly fortified.
ok, i finally got those noisetrade.com links updated to smashwords, lulu, bandcamp & drive links. that was time consuming, but it's done.
i need to really write that story next. it's coming.
i'm scatter-brained, and i'm having difficulty figuring out if i picked up a cold (it could be anything, there's no reason to assume it's covid-19, and i have no intention of quarantining myself over the common cold, so i'm not getting tested. there's nothing i can accomplish by presenting myself to the medical authorities. i'll just stay in for a few days, thanks.) or if i'm reacting to the smoker(s) upstairs, but the decrease in temperature outside is helping clear the air out in here a little and it's definitely waking me up a bit. i feel like i'm in a smoky room, and have a dry cough and a sore throat, but i can't smell it or identify the direction. but, if i stick my nose in something with a strong odour, i can smell it, clearly.
i'm also wondering if i'm having a glycemic reaction to my change in diet. i've been eating mostly pasta for years, now; i've now switched to a diet composed solely of omelettes and fruit. i also switched from rye to whole wheat bread. my sugar levels were fine, if bumping a little, when i tested them a few months ago, but that was before i switched. what i'm feeling is consistent with an onset of diabetes, which i have no evidence of in terms of sugar levels, but i'm consistently concerned about in the context of actual symptoms and what i think is a slow onset of ms, and which i know i can't do anything about. to be clear: my concern is i may be developing diabetes as a complication of a slow onset of ms, rather than as a result of diet, but that the switch in diet (to less glucose, actually.) may be messing with me. if i'm concerned about diabetes, and i slightly am, then the new diet is about as good as i can get. the fruit i eat - blueberries, strawberries, bananas, kiwis, raspberries - are all actually relatively low in glycemic index. it was my reliance on cheap pasta that was the more likely complicating factor, and switching to eggs is consequently actually a good idea, so long as i can manage to get used to it.
put another way, i may be sort of coming down from a pasta dependence and going through glucose withdrawals, which is potentially dangerous but probably good in the long run.
so, i'm feeling like i might be bedridden for a few days, but i'm not sure why, yet.
one story coming up...
...and, then i can get back to consolidating the four blogs from april 1 to present, and recalibrating myself and what i'm doing.
i need to really write that story next. it's coming.
i'm scatter-brained, and i'm having difficulty figuring out if i picked up a cold (it could be anything, there's no reason to assume it's covid-19, and i have no intention of quarantining myself over the common cold, so i'm not getting tested. there's nothing i can accomplish by presenting myself to the medical authorities. i'll just stay in for a few days, thanks.) or if i'm reacting to the smoker(s) upstairs, but the decrease in temperature outside is helping clear the air out in here a little and it's definitely waking me up a bit. i feel like i'm in a smoky room, and have a dry cough and a sore throat, but i can't smell it or identify the direction. but, if i stick my nose in something with a strong odour, i can smell it, clearly.
i'm also wondering if i'm having a glycemic reaction to my change in diet. i've been eating mostly pasta for years, now; i've now switched to a diet composed solely of omelettes and fruit. i also switched from rye to whole wheat bread. my sugar levels were fine, if bumping a little, when i tested them a few months ago, but that was before i switched. what i'm feeling is consistent with an onset of diabetes, which i have no evidence of in terms of sugar levels, but i'm consistently concerned about in the context of actual symptoms and what i think is a slow onset of ms, and which i know i can't do anything about. to be clear: my concern is i may be developing diabetes as a complication of a slow onset of ms, rather than as a result of diet, but that the switch in diet (to less glucose, actually.) may be messing with me. if i'm concerned about diabetes, and i slightly am, then the new diet is about as good as i can get. the fruit i eat - blueberries, strawberries, bananas, kiwis, raspberries - are all actually relatively low in glycemic index. it was my reliance on cheap pasta that was the more likely complicating factor, and switching to eggs is consequently actually a good idea, so long as i can manage to get used to it.
put another way, i may be sort of coming down from a pasta dependence and going through glucose withdrawals, which is potentially dangerous but probably good in the long run.
so, i'm feeling like i might be bedridden for a few days, but i'm not sure why, yet.
one story coming up...
...and, then i can get back to consolidating the four blogs from april 1 to present, and recalibrating myself and what i'm doing.
so, these are my priorities:
1) we need increases in spending, not cuts. government spending is far too low.
2) we don't really need to balance the budget, but we need to be careful that the debt doesn't get too out of control because the imf will come in with restructuring programs if we're not careful.
3) the structural deficit was created by foolish tax cuts - the gst cut, corporate tax cuts, tax cuts on the rich. it should be fixed by restoring tax rates to historically normal levels.
4) the boomers have been living for free for essentially their whole lives, and it's time to send the tax collectors after them to have them pay their fair share into the system.
1) we need increases in spending, not cuts. government spending is far too low.
2) we don't really need to balance the budget, but we need to be careful that the debt doesn't get too out of control because the imf will come in with restructuring programs if we're not careful.
3) the structural deficit was created by foolish tax cuts - the gst cut, corporate tax cuts, tax cuts on the rich. it should be fixed by restoring tax rates to historically normal levels.
4) the boomers have been living for free for essentially their whole lives, and it's time to send the tax collectors after them to have them pay their fair share into the system.
history is actually really clear on this point, though: if you elect the conservatives, they won't actually balance the budget, they'll just cut taxes even further and make the problem even worse.
and, when the imf comes banging on the door looking for your pensions because you spent your whole life avoiding taxes, and are now too old to fend for yourself, don't expect your kids to rally around you, and don't say we didn't warn you.
and, when the imf comes banging on the door looking for your pensions because you spent your whole life avoiding taxes, and are now too old to fend for yourself, don't expect your kids to rally around you, and don't say we didn't warn you.
government spending is definitely not too high in this country. if anything, the raft of social issues we have in front of us indicate that spending is nowhere near what it should be. and, let's be clear here - markets don't solve problems, they just make everything worse.
if there's a dramatic disconnect between revenue and spending, it's because taxes are way too low to cover the spending we need to undertake to balance out inequalities and make everybody's lives liveable.
there's lots of smart ways to raise taxes. we could undo the stupid gst cut that harper did, for starters, and that created a structural deficit that's never really been addressed. we could bring in a transaction tax on internet purchases, to try to adjust to the changes in consumer behaviour. i'm an advocate of an increase in property taxes to help municipalities. corporate taxes have been moving in the wrong direction for decades, and need to be brought back. and, taxes on the wealthy are obscenely low.
if the conservatives really care about the budget deficit, that is what needs to be done - not further cuts in a society that has already been cut to the bone, and is leaking marrow, as it is.
if there's a dramatic disconnect between revenue and spending, it's because taxes are way too low to cover the spending we need to undertake to balance out inequalities and make everybody's lives liveable.
there's lots of smart ways to raise taxes. we could undo the stupid gst cut that harper did, for starters, and that created a structural deficit that's never really been addressed. we could bring in a transaction tax on internet purchases, to try to adjust to the changes in consumer behaviour. i'm an advocate of an increase in property taxes to help municipalities. corporate taxes have been moving in the wrong direction for decades, and need to be brought back. and, taxes on the wealthy are obscenely low.
if the conservatives really care about the budget deficit, that is what needs to be done - not further cuts in a society that has already been cut to the bone, and is leaking marrow, as it is.
you know, we could erase this tomorrow at the stroke of a pen.
i've been saying for years that nobody cares, and i still think that's true, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. i'm not running over this again, but it's just a question of keeping the imf away.
and, to the extent that i do care, i want to see higher taxes to offset the spending, not cuts in spending to reduce the deficit.
https://www.mitchelladvocate.com/opinion/kurl-lessons-for-erin-otoole-canadians-care-about-the-deficit-but-they-care-about-covid-impact-more/wcm/7ea11443-7369-46a9-9702-4fbe8cce1fc1
i've been saying for years that nobody cares, and i still think that's true, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. i'm not running over this again, but it's just a question of keeping the imf away.
and, to the extent that i do care, i want to see higher taxes to offset the spending, not cuts in spending to reduce the deficit.
https://www.mitchelladvocate.com/opinion/kurl-lessons-for-erin-otoole-canadians-care-about-the-deficit-but-they-care-about-covid-impact-more/wcm/7ea11443-7369-46a9-9702-4fbe8cce1fc1
Saturday, September 5, 2020
yes, i can present an obvious source of the error in the modeling, otoh, and that's actually with black voters.
now, i'm just hypothesizing this; i'll leave it to somebody else to look it up. but, black turnout in 2008 was through the roof, and he got more than 99% of it. i can't imagine any modelling that would have given any candidate 99% of anything, or at least not anywhere west of moscow.
and, that might be an ironic part of the answer - it could be that a part of the reason the wilder effect didn't show up with obama is because he overpowered it with exceedingly strong black support.
you'd have to look at the old models and crunch the numbers and figure it out, but i'd guess you can get a substantive amount of the discrepancy that way, without even looking at whether white voters lied to pollsters or not.
now, i'm just hypothesizing this; i'll leave it to somebody else to look it up. but, black turnout in 2008 was through the roof, and he got more than 99% of it. i can't imagine any modelling that would have given any candidate 99% of anything, or at least not anywhere west of moscow.
and, that might be an ironic part of the answer - it could be that a part of the reason the wilder effect didn't show up with obama is because he overpowered it with exceedingly strong black support.
you'd have to look at the old models and crunch the numbers and figure it out, but i'd guess you can get a substantive amount of the discrepancy that way, without even looking at whether white voters lied to pollsters or not.
i'm sure that the internet just imploded.
listen - he's the only blackish looking candidate i know of, ever, that made sure to tell everybody he was half white, every time he spoke. generally, black politicians run as being black, and embrace their blackness, and make it a part of their campaign. obama didn't do that - he ran as biracial, and put it at the very front of his messaging.
so, at the least, it's an apples and oranges comparison, because he really wasn't like somebody like jesse jackson, who was 130% black and wouldn't go five minutes without asserting it.
a lot was written about obama being a blank slate - voters projected what they wanted on to him. so, he was a socialist, if you wanted him to be, and a conservative if you wanted that, too - or he was what you most feared, if you leaned towards the opposing team.
i don't think it's such a stretch to think that a substantive number of white voters took his arguments for post-racialism, and his biography as growing up the son of a white woman from kansas, the way they wanted to, and projected an essentially white image of him.
you can agree with me or not, but i think it should be acknowledged, at least, that obama was different than virtually any other black politician in terms of his identity, and it makes a great deal of sense to tie things like an absence of the bradley effect to that rather clear matter-of-fact.
listen - he's the only blackish looking candidate i know of, ever, that made sure to tell everybody he was half white, every time he spoke. generally, black politicians run as being black, and embrace their blackness, and make it a part of their campaign. obama didn't do that - he ran as biracial, and put it at the very front of his messaging.
so, at the least, it's an apples and oranges comparison, because he really wasn't like somebody like jesse jackson, who was 130% black and wouldn't go five minutes without asserting it.
a lot was written about obama being a blank slate - voters projected what they wanted on to him. so, he was a socialist, if you wanted him to be, and a conservative if you wanted that, too - or he was what you most feared, if you leaned towards the opposing team.
i don't think it's such a stretch to think that a substantive number of white voters took his arguments for post-racialism, and his biography as growing up the son of a white woman from kansas, the way they wanted to, and projected an essentially white image of him.
you can agree with me or not, but i think it should be acknowledged, at least, that obama was different than virtually any other black politician in terms of his identity, and it makes a great deal of sense to tie things like an absence of the bradley effect to that rather clear matter-of-fact.
why didn't the bradley effect apply to obama?
i don't know.
one hypothesis is that, at least in the primary, clinton's own bradley effect (as a woman) was actually more powerful, and that the sexism overpowered the racism. that might actually be true, but you're stacking hypotheticals. who knows, really.
another thing to point out is that the nature of obama's coalition was hard to poll, in the first place. my memory of 2008 was that obama's vote was incredibly efficient, so you just might end up accidentally undoing a bradley effect by weighting the polls badly, in trying to peg his support, which was very intensely concentrated in urban regions.
a third suggestion is that he was just an enigma; every rule has exceptions.
but, i'm actually going to throw this out there: barack obama is actually white. well, it's true - he's white in almost every way. you have to bring in jim crow laws to decide he's black. i know a lot of people won't really like this analysis, but the fact is that he massively played up his kansas roots & his white mother, and while he can "pass as black" when he has to, he's more comfortable in an essentially culturally white exterior.
so, it could be that the bradley effect didn't apply to obama because voters didn't really interpret him as black.
i don't know.
one hypothesis is that, at least in the primary, clinton's own bradley effect (as a woman) was actually more powerful, and that the sexism overpowered the racism. that might actually be true, but you're stacking hypotheticals. who knows, really.
another thing to point out is that the nature of obama's coalition was hard to poll, in the first place. my memory of 2008 was that obama's vote was incredibly efficient, so you just might end up accidentally undoing a bradley effect by weighting the polls badly, in trying to peg his support, which was very intensely concentrated in urban regions.
a third suggestion is that he was just an enigma; every rule has exceptions.
but, i'm actually going to throw this out there: barack obama is actually white. well, it's true - he's white in almost every way. you have to bring in jim crow laws to decide he's black. i know a lot of people won't really like this analysis, but the fact is that he massively played up his kansas roots & his white mother, and while he can "pass as black" when he has to, he's more comfortable in an essentially culturally white exterior.
so, it could be that the bradley effect didn't apply to obama because voters didn't really interpret him as black.
"before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.”
it's a cliche, and one of the first memes i saw back in the day.
but, it's true.
and, i'm pretty sure my problem is the latter, not the former.
so, i don't need drugs; i need a safe place to exist, where i never have to deal with other people ever again...
it's a cliche, and one of the first memes i saw back in the day.
but, it's true.
and, i'm pretty sure my problem is the latter, not the former.
so, i don't need drugs; i need a safe place to exist, where i never have to deal with other people ever again...
i should post the record.
and, maybe it'll chill me out a little.
this is kind of a lost classic. somebody might correct me, but i believe this is the first thing that the singer from skinny puppy did after the band imploded c. 1995. there was a slew of key/goettel releases directly after goettel died....of a heroin overdose....but ogre was quiet for a while. he may have been on tour with ministry and/or pigface...kmfdm, even?
this was with martin atkins, mostly, although mark walk was also involved.
it's a concept record that is critical of ritalin use in children.
and, maybe it'll chill me out a little.
this is kind of a lost classic. somebody might correct me, but i believe this is the first thing that the singer from skinny puppy did after the band imploded c. 1995. there was a slew of key/goettel releases directly after goettel died....of a heroin overdose....but ogre was quiet for a while. he may have been on tour with ministry and/or pigface...kmfdm, even?
this was with martin atkins, mostly, although mark walk was also involved.
it's a concept record that is critical of ritalin use in children.
it's easy to see why we have such a problem with opiates in this country: the doctors prescribe it like it's candy, even when people vehemently scream that they don't want it.
that wasn't the first time that er tried to give me opiates.
it wasn't even the second.
it was actually the third.
and, you'd have to tie me down and inject it, because that's one of the very few ways to generate violence in me; i'm a passive, non-violent person, but you put that shit near me, and you'd better be wearing head gear, cause i'm going to react like a hungry cougar and go for your eyes and your neck...
that wasn't the first time that er tried to give me opiates.
it wasn't even the second.
it was actually the third.
and, you'd have to tie me down and inject it, because that's one of the very few ways to generate violence in me; i'm a passive, non-violent person, but you put that shit near me, and you'd better be wearing head gear, cause i'm going to react like a hungry cougar and go for your eyes and your neck...
i am not going to be a friendly person for the next little while, as i'm going to be dealing with hormonal changes that i don't want and don't expect i'll be able to process without fits of violence.
but, what the hospital is telling me is that i have to actually have a reaction before it will treat me, that it won't act preventatively.
...because they're a bunch of fucking idiots.
and, i hope every single one of them dies a horrible death. and soon.
but, what the hospital is telling me is that i have to actually have a reaction before it will treat me, that it won't act preventatively.
...because they're a bunch of fucking idiots.
and, i hope every single one of them dies a horrible death. and soon.
the emergency supply of testosterone blockers was at half the dosage i've been taking since june. it's not going to be enough, and i'm going to need to act aggressively to get the surgery; in the meantime, i should expect severe levels of depression as a result of the rising t-levels that i've been trying to avoid.
and, i can only hope that it's enough to survive until i can chop them out and sacrifice them to demeter.
that ritual will happen, btw - i will get these horrible things in a jar, and take them to a field and burn them.
and, i can only hope that it's enough to survive until i can chop them out and sacrifice them to demeter.
that ritual will happen, btw - i will get these horrible things in a jar, and take them to a field and burn them.
again: i don't think i suffer from a physical form of depression.
but, people bum me out; i can't deal with the selfishness, the stupidity and the ignorance. it just makes me want to roll up in a ball and cry.
what i need is a way to avoid people, and all of the treatment options are built around trying to get me to interact with them.
i'm as happy as i can be when i don't have to deal with the consequences of other people's stupidity. so, if i could build an isolation chamber that was big enough to hold my things, and prevented me from interacting with everybody else in the world in any way, i'd be ecstatic, really.
it's not realistic, obviously.
all i can do is yell and scream and create conflict and piss people off enough that they do what i need; it's the only way to exist in a society like ours, where everybody's such a piece of shit.
i have a story to write...
but, people bum me out; i can't deal with the selfishness, the stupidity and the ignorance. it just makes me want to roll up in a ball and cry.
what i need is a way to avoid people, and all of the treatment options are built around trying to get me to interact with them.
i'm as happy as i can be when i don't have to deal with the consequences of other people's stupidity. so, if i could build an isolation chamber that was big enough to hold my things, and prevented me from interacting with everybody else in the world in any way, i'd be ecstatic, really.
it's not realistic, obviously.
all i can do is yell and scream and create conflict and piss people off enough that they do what i need; it's the only way to exist in a society like ours, where everybody's such a piece of shit.
i have a story to write...
so, i've got my head in too many places at once and trying to do everything and succeeding at nothing. i've been eating, typing and cleaning, without much of a clear plan; i do that when i'm in shock, or otherwise weirded out, and i think that's the right way to describe reality right now. i thought i had to get downtown to present myself for the ticket, but of course it's closed and operating over email instead, so i should be inside until i have to get more estrace mid-month.
i'll need to make some calls on monday regarding a number of things.
i want to do some major cleaning in here, but it's pointless if the pig is smoking. i'm not going to do laundry and scrub down the walls if it's just going to emit more pollution, what's the point? i'll be cleaning 20 hours a day, with no end. i'd might as well sit in my own filth, instead.
i at least got some fans set up in here, and it's making somewhat of a difference, but i'm going to need to wait until the temperature comes way, way down before i'm able to do a serious overturn. it was nice for a few weeks in the late spring but, as it is, opening the window in this neighbourhood just makes things worse.
so, i feel like i'm tied to my bedpost with no meaningful way out. it's deeply depressing.
i should try to get back to what i was doing and react to the pollution from upstairs as it presents itself. it may mean running the shower for long periods, but so be it.
once i've got that under control, i can make an analysis regarding what to do about cleaning in here, and whether i think it's a waste of time or not.
i'll need to make some calls on monday regarding a number of things.
i want to do some major cleaning in here, but it's pointless if the pig is smoking. i'm not going to do laundry and scrub down the walls if it's just going to emit more pollution, what's the point? i'll be cleaning 20 hours a day, with no end. i'd might as well sit in my own filth, instead.
i at least got some fans set up in here, and it's making somewhat of a difference, but i'm going to need to wait until the temperature comes way, way down before i'm able to do a serious overturn. it was nice for a few weeks in the late spring but, as it is, opening the window in this neighbourhood just makes things worse.
so, i feel like i'm tied to my bedpost with no meaningful way out. it's deeply depressing.
i should try to get back to what i was doing and react to the pollution from upstairs as it presents itself. it may mean running the shower for long periods, but so be it.
once i've got that under control, i can make an analysis regarding what to do about cleaning in here, and whether i think it's a waste of time or not.
this article is overthinking it, i think.
i don't think anybody thinks biden is responsible for the looting, or that trump could do much to stop it, either. i mean, what could trump do? he could declare martial law, that's about it. i don't think wisconsites want that.
it's more of a question of how people organize and separate on the ground; you vote with or against your uncle, or your friends on facebook, and these sort of group mentalities take over, in absence of any really clear logical answer. i mean, what's the answer here? nobody's talking about that, they're just concerned about the fallout, and for good reason; it's not clear what you actually do about this. i'd like to get rid of the cops, but i know that's unlikely, and that trying is full of likely potential pitfalls that could make the issue far worse.
it consequently doesn't help for biden to distance himself from the situation if people are ultimately voting against that frenemy on facebook that, to them, represents biden, rather than against biden, himself.
and, like i say: you only need small numbers of defectors to be decisive in close races, especially given that what's happening is so unlikely to swing voters from trump to biden. like the bet soros made so many years ago, trump has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
i stated before that this isn't biden's fault, but i don't think what he's doing is going to help much.
biden's best tactic here is neither to distance himself from nor align himself with these protests, but to try to change the topic to something he has an advantage in, like health care.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/what-biden-understands-left-does-not/616000/
i don't think anybody thinks biden is responsible for the looting, or that trump could do much to stop it, either. i mean, what could trump do? he could declare martial law, that's about it. i don't think wisconsites want that.
it's more of a question of how people organize and separate on the ground; you vote with or against your uncle, or your friends on facebook, and these sort of group mentalities take over, in absence of any really clear logical answer. i mean, what's the answer here? nobody's talking about that, they're just concerned about the fallout, and for good reason; it's not clear what you actually do about this. i'd like to get rid of the cops, but i know that's unlikely, and that trying is full of likely potential pitfalls that could make the issue far worse.
it consequently doesn't help for biden to distance himself from the situation if people are ultimately voting against that frenemy on facebook that, to them, represents biden, rather than against biden, himself.
and, like i say: you only need small numbers of defectors to be decisive in close races, especially given that what's happening is so unlikely to swing voters from trump to biden. like the bet soros made so many years ago, trump has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
i stated before that this isn't biden's fault, but i don't think what he's doing is going to help much.
biden's best tactic here is neither to distance himself from nor align himself with these protests, but to try to change the topic to something he has an advantage in, like health care.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/what-biden-understands-left-does-not/616000/
hydro has some issues, but we can fix them, and it is legitimately clean & renewable when done well. it's also a major potential export. it's baffling that this resource has been left undeveloped for so long.
nuclear, oil, coal, etc have issues that can't be fixed.
and wind & solar are useful as supplementary, but not primary, sources.
if we get fusion or anti-matter one day, great; for now, hydro is the best thing we've got.
nuclear, oil, coal, etc have issues that can't be fixed.
and wind & solar are useful as supplementary, but not primary, sources.
if we get fusion or anti-matter one day, great; for now, hydro is the best thing we've got.
he died of cancer at an absurdly young age.
if the cause of his cancer was ultimately some kind of exposure in iraq - something that is noted by researchers but poorly understood - then that would make him about as stupid a person as has ever existed, given he had no reason to put himself at that kind of risk, as the son of a sitting senator and eventual vice-president.
i don't know if i'd call him a sucker..
i think i'd give him a darwin award, though.
if the cause of his cancer was ultimately some kind of exposure in iraq - something that is noted by researchers but poorly understood - then that would make him about as stupid a person as has ever existed, given he had no reason to put himself at that kind of risk, as the son of a sitting senator and eventual vice-president.
i don't know if i'd call him a sucker..
i think i'd give him a darwin award, though.
here's some takedowns of mccain from the left:
1) https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/john-mccain-was-not-hero-obituary-war-racism-sexism
2) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B0q8mquH_7YJ:https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-mccain-death-legacy-trump-us-senator-vietnam-war-a8511441.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
3) https://www.commondreams.org/news/2008/10/07/mccain-linked-private-iran-contra-group
if you think i'm supposed to get teary-eyed about a viciously misogynistic, racist, lying, crooked, war mongering piece of shit like john mccain...
bomb-bomb-bomb...bomb-bomb-bomb his grave.....
1) https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/john-mccain-was-not-hero-obituary-war-racism-sexism
2) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B0q8mquH_7YJ:https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-mccain-death-legacy-trump-us-senator-vietnam-war-a8511441.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
3) https://www.commondreams.org/news/2008/10/07/mccain-linked-private-iran-contra-group
if you think i'm supposed to get teary-eyed about a viciously misogynistic, racist, lying, crooked, war mongering piece of shit like john mccain...
bomb-bomb-bomb...bomb-bomb-bomb his grave.....
this is what john mccain should really be remembered for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
right.
so, we're all going to have to adapt, now.
you can't hide in your basement from the bogeyman, forever - you need to go out and face the world and take risks.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-provides-list-of-47-schools-with-covid-19-cases
so, we're all going to have to adapt, now.
you can't hide in your basement from the bogeyman, forever - you need to go out and face the world and take risks.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-provides-list-of-47-schools-with-covid-19-cases
"progressives" are so fucking ignorant....
game theory is not about "playing games". in fact, it's of almost no use, whatsoever, in trying to win things like poker, or do well with stocks. the right branch of mathematics to maximize your chances in competitive sports tournaments is probability theory.
what game theory does is mathematically model conflict between two or more actors, and it's mostly used in the fields of applied psychology, political science, economics and evolutionary biology.
all that a "progressive" is telling you when they say "they don't play games" when game theory is invoked to study any sort of conflict is "i'm too ignorant to follow the conversation, and i'm too uneducated to understand the language you're utilizing".
they literally don't understand the words being said to them, it's that simple.
but, when a trained economist reacts that way, they're merely being disingenuous, because they do understand the language, and so should be labeled dishonest rather than ignorant - and cast aside as a demagogue, trying to confuse you. that is, the economist knows full well why that kind of response is just base ignorance - but they think you don't, and are trying to confuse or mislead you with lies.
game theory is not about "playing games". in fact, it's of almost no use, whatsoever, in trying to win things like poker, or do well with stocks. the right branch of mathematics to maximize your chances in competitive sports tournaments is probability theory.
what game theory does is mathematically model conflict between two or more actors, and it's mostly used in the fields of applied psychology, political science, economics and evolutionary biology.
all that a "progressive" is telling you when they say "they don't play games" when game theory is invoked to study any sort of conflict is "i'm too ignorant to follow the conversation, and i'm too uneducated to understand the language you're utilizing".
they literally don't understand the words being said to them, it's that simple.
but, when a trained economist reacts that way, they're merely being disingenuous, because they do understand the language, and so should be labeled dishonest rather than ignorant - and cast aside as a demagogue, trying to confuse you. that is, the economist knows full well why that kind of response is just base ignorance - but they think you don't, and are trying to confuse or mislead you with lies.
that said - and i've said this a few times - i understand that i'm arguing in favour of a strawman.
i'm still expecting an austerity budget at it's core, and that any attempts to address climate change will, while attacked vehemently by the right, ultimately be of minimal actual impact.
this government has been trying to walk a line on this, and ultimately has neither succeeded in assuaging conservatives nor in subduing environmentalists. they're just squeezing themselves out....
i'm open-minded, and i'd like to see what they say before i react. but, my expectations are startlingly low, and i don't expect to be able to support the budget at all.
i'm still expecting an austerity budget at it's core, and that any attempts to address climate change will, while attacked vehemently by the right, ultimately be of minimal actual impact.
this government has been trying to walk a line on this, and ultimately has neither succeeded in assuaging conservatives nor in subduing environmentalists. they're just squeezing themselves out....
i'm open-minded, and i'd like to see what they say before i react. but, my expectations are startlingly low, and i don't expect to be able to support the budget at all.
ford did not win due to the electricity fiasco, although it didn't help. ford won by swinging muslim votes in key ridings, due to the sex ed curriculum.
but, there is indeed a stark warning, and that stark warning should be heeded: lies often win over truth.
don't expect truth to win by default - you have to fight the liars at every turn.
but, there is indeed a stark warning, and that stark warning should be heeded: lies often win over truth.
don't expect truth to win by default - you have to fight the liars at every turn.
i've been clear that i support renationalizing the grid in ontario, and going back to selling it to us at cost.
the way forward in this province is properly designed hydro-electric power systems, that are created in a way that minimizes or eliminates concerns for wildlife in the surrounding areas. this is perfectly feasible, it just needs to be done correctly, in ensuring that the priorities of all species up and down stream are accounted for, at the expense of profiting from the system.
energy production in ontario should belong to ontarians and be produced for ontarians' use-value, not belong to corporations and be produced for surplus-value for elites and foreigners.
the way forward in this province is properly designed hydro-electric power systems, that are created in a way that minimizes or eliminates concerns for wildlife in the surrounding areas. this is perfectly feasible, it just needs to be done correctly, in ensuring that the priorities of all species up and down stream are accounted for, at the expense of profiting from the system.
energy production in ontario should belong to ontarians and be produced for ontarians' use-value, not belong to corporations and be produced for surplus-value for elites and foreigners.
the idea that energy costs in ontario increased due to the embrace of windmills & solar panels as a source into the system is a lie pushed by the right.
the reason that prices have gone up is that the system was deregulated and privatized, and the villain is mike harris, not dalton mcguinty.
prices are set by the ontario energy board and not by the market, and ford himself has demonstrated as much by legislating stronger controls (something wynne should have done, but chose not to; she brought in rebate programs to target the most vulnerable and let the wealthy take it on the chin, instead).
prices have increased due to greed by the corporate sector, and they just blamed it on the environmentalists as an easy scapegoat.
it's just greed.
that is all.
however, there is a cautionary tale for the liberals, here, in how lies spread through media can become compelling, if they are not properly countered. and, that warning is indeed stark: if they allow the dirty-oil backed media to frame a false narrative, they could see history repeat itself.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7316275/justin-trudeau-spending-throne-speech/
the reason that prices have gone up is that the system was deregulated and privatized, and the villain is mike harris, not dalton mcguinty.
prices are set by the ontario energy board and not by the market, and ford himself has demonstrated as much by legislating stronger controls (something wynne should have done, but chose not to; she brought in rebate programs to target the most vulnerable and let the wealthy take it on the chin, instead).
prices have increased due to greed by the corporate sector, and they just blamed it on the environmentalists as an easy scapegoat.
it's just greed.
that is all.
however, there is a cautionary tale for the liberals, here, in how lies spread through media can become compelling, if they are not properly countered. and, that warning is indeed stark: if they allow the dirty-oil backed media to frame a false narrative, they could see history repeat itself.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7316275/justin-trudeau-spending-throne-speech/
if you have a liberal arts degree, or lower, it's important to ensure that you get somebody that knows how to read the polls to read them for you.
don't just read the headlines in the paper - they're frequently misleading. and, don't think you can wing it. you can't.
if you failed grade 10 math and haven't tried since, even if you're a lawyer, then step back and defer.
remember the cliche: lies, damned lies....and statistics.
i'm offering this service for free because i'm an altruist, because i believe in general public education (maybe i've read too much dawkins.) and because i have nothing better to do.
don't just read the headlines in the paper - they're frequently misleading. and, don't think you can wing it. you can't.
if you failed grade 10 math and haven't tried since, even if you're a lawyer, then step back and defer.
remember the cliche: lies, damned lies....and statistics.
i'm offering this service for free because i'm an altruist, because i believe in general public education (maybe i've read too much dawkins.) and because i have nothing better to do.
listen: the only people supporting this shit are psychologically damaged people. this isn't black v white, or right v left; it's sane v crazy.
most of the activists on the ground don't even support what's happening.
and, as mentioned, you just need a very minor swing to be decisive - 1%. that's it.
so, if you're going to throw an internet poll at me that completely counter-intuitively has biden up by 6% (with an 8% margin of error) in the presence of an obvious bradley effect, i'm just going to shrug it off and tell you to wait for better data.
most of the activists on the ground don't even support what's happening.
and, as mentioned, you just need a very minor swing to be decisive - 1%. that's it.
so, if you're going to throw an internet poll at me that completely counter-intuitively has biden up by 6% (with an 8% margin of error) in the presence of an obvious bradley effect, i'm just going to shrug it off and tell you to wait for better data.
again: i'm going to point to the low quality of the polling right now, more than anything else.
but, when polling white liberals in states like wisconsin around things like race riots, you have to understand a concept called a bradley effect. that is, most white liberals are not as honest as i am - white liberals tend to tell white lies when confronted with issues around race.
this is a well established phenomenon, and one that is still very real. i suspect it's happening right in front of you with the polling you're seeing, but you need an actual ballot before you can diagnose it; otherwise, it's just an educated guess to try to make sense of numbers that don't really add up. this is really an obvious classic bradley effect! it's just that you have to do the experiment to be sure.
the most recent measurable bradley effect we saw was in the 2019 canadian election, where last minute polling registered a "surge" for the ndp that was completely absent on the actual ground. this led to poor modelling predictions that should have really been caught by a savvy analyst.
if biden's numbers have improved upon the democratic party's numbers in the region since 2016, it's because he walked into this more appealing to white liberals than clinton was. and, if he wants to flip these states, he needs to do so by holding on to that white liberal support.
anything that has the potentiality to erode that support is going to hurt him in these states - and this has a tremendous potential to, even if respondents have been conditioned by the media to feel ashamed about it, and lie when asked about it.
but, when polling white liberals in states like wisconsin around things like race riots, you have to understand a concept called a bradley effect. that is, most white liberals are not as honest as i am - white liberals tend to tell white lies when confronted with issues around race.
this is a well established phenomenon, and one that is still very real. i suspect it's happening right in front of you with the polling you're seeing, but you need an actual ballot before you can diagnose it; otherwise, it's just an educated guess to try to make sense of numbers that don't really add up. this is really an obvious classic bradley effect! it's just that you have to do the experiment to be sure.
the most recent measurable bradley effect we saw was in the 2019 canadian election, where last minute polling registered a "surge" for the ndp that was completely absent on the actual ground. this led to poor modelling predictions that should have really been caught by a savvy analyst.
if biden's numbers have improved upon the democratic party's numbers in the region since 2016, it's because he walked into this more appealing to white liberals than clinton was. and, if he wants to flip these states, he needs to do so by holding on to that white liberal support.
anything that has the potentiality to erode that support is going to hurt him in these states - and this has a tremendous potential to, even if respondents have been conditioned by the media to feel ashamed about it, and lie when asked about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)