when i brought in the student loan forms, the psychiatrist and nurse practitioner got into an argument as to who ought to fill them out.

i don't blame them. the language is over the top. i would have a hard time declaring myself "severely permanently disabled", as well. the truth is that i'm really just an anarchist.

i left them with the forms. i have no idea if they'll fill them out. and, to be frank, i would not begrudge them for refusing to.

i may have to get used to living on $60/month less. if i'm not smoking, that's entirely feasible.

i called the student loan people today and they extended the waiver, meaning i'm good for another two months, anyways.

the psychiatrist also claims that he can't fill out hormone prescriptions - i don't think that's actually true. the nurse practitioner will do it, but only on the instruction of an endocrinologist. and, i don't think i'm likely to get through to this guy in london again. he's going to look into it. i don't want to go to toronto, but if i have to...

i was hoping this would just be dealt with yesterday, i'll be back on the 15th and have to make decisions about things as they come up.

as i've posted here before, the feminizing hormones are kind of secondary to me at this point. the more important thing is that i'm able to keep taking the testosterone suppressors. i'm more into rejecting sexual identity altogether. it's not that the identification has changed, i will continue to identify as mentally female whether i'm on the hormones or not, it's more that i'm at a point in my life where i've accepted that my gender identity is almost entirely irrelevant, because i'm going to spend the rest of my life by myself in my bedroom. it's hard to care about how you present yourself when you're not presenting yourself anywhere. but, the testosterone reduction is very intellectually liberating and of extreme importance. i never, ever think about sex anymore. i'd like to maintain that. i'm not a sexual creature. returning testosterone levels are just likely to be an annoyance and a distraction.

worst case scenario, i could probably get the testosterone suppressors prescribed by carrying out some kind of deviant sex act, like hanging out downtown naked for as long as it takes to get arrested. it would of course be a non-aggressive act. just enough to get the prescription.

mmp has been thoroughly rejected by voters, and for good reasons: it creates party lists, which is really *less* democratic. this would turn the mp selection process into something similar to the senate selection process. it can maybe work in very small countries. like luxembourg. germany, even, is really pushing it. it makes no sense in canada. the entire political system would become a game of insider politics in ottawa.

i prefer the ranked ballots option, and would wholeheartedly vote for it. stephane dion was pushing this in 2008. it's probably what the liberals would come up with. but, i don't pretend it's perfect. after all, liberal party support for this is likely not coincidental; they would benefit dramatically from it, as they get disproportionately high second-choice votes from both of the other parties. then again, that merely suggests that the liberals are consistently the best compromise choice and the other parties have work to do if they want to fight that reality. and, there's not really a perfect system.

i'm somewhat of an anarchist; i'd ideally like to see more referendums - direct democracy. but, that's not on the table. or at least it doesn't seem like it is. trudeau's father proposed this early in his career. i think it will likely at least be discussed, and a little pressure could move on it. this would be a much bigger change, though. it would squeeze the individual mp out, between the roles of direct voting, the civil service and the executive branch. it's really the constitutional changes it would require that put it off in the distance a little. i would at least like to see it seriously analyzed. in the mean time, i'm willing to support ranked ballots ("preferential voting") and would not support any form of proportional representation, due to the party list issue.

something that would be very interesting in a preferential system is that it would reveal opinions that are currently kept under wraps. for example, an anti-abortion voter could rank the chp at the top and the conservative party second without fear that they're wasting their ballot. the resulting data would be immensely useful in setting policy, even if it doesn't elect anybody from the smaller parties - it would give the larger parties a better idea of where their voters really are and what's really driving them,

as stated, i'm an anarchist. i don't support any of the parties (i've voted for both the ndp and the liberals in the past for a variety of shifting reasons, and am undecided this election between the greens and the liberals; the ndp have taken themselves out of the running via their openly right-wing positions and their choice of candidate in my riding, who is basically a rubber stamp for the party). and i repeat that party lists are deeply undemocratic. you want mike duffy or pamela wallin in the house? that's what mmp will get you. it will reward party loyalty at the expense of independent representation.

it matters little whether you have an open list, a closed list, whatever.

there may be the odd example where a specific individual may rise up the list on their merits. elizabeth may might be such an example. these are going to be exceedingly rare. the way this would work in practice is that people will vote based on a party representative that is located in ottawa and serves the interests of ottawa. they will not take the time to sort this out. and the parties will quickly learn to exploit this.

advocates of these systems are the type of people that see a parliament as a collection of voting blocks that vote their respective party lines, rather than a collection of individuals. and, this is a fine system if that is what you want. but, if you're looking to break down the party system and reassert a more accountable parliament with more independent mps that more frequently vote against their own party, then mmp is a step in the exact wrong direction.

globalnews.ca/news/2196914/election-primer-what-are-canadas-electoral-reform-options-and-how-might-they-work/

this is such an absurd narrative. an election is not a soap opera, it is a time to discuss serious issues. and, we're frankly better off if the nature of the election turns the sports fans off. sorry: if you need a salacious story to get you out, you're not informed.

hey, it's not long before the puck drops.

this is really moaning by the media that they don't have the type of story that they want.

here's an idea: cover the issues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/john-doyle-we-got-the-election-campaign-we-deserve-bland/article26180279/

i called this. and, with 16% undecided, the liberals are likely doing better than reported.

these numbers suggest that mulcair's seat is in serious jeopardy.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/national/ndp-in-virtual-tie-with-liberals-on-montreal-island-conservatives-bloc-slipping-poll

there was a battles video a while back...

but i wouldn't want to be accused of missing the point, would i?

yes, that's gary numan ^.

"liberal party makes ad about income inequality.

twitter users make memes that demonstrate an inability to grasp the point."

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-escalator-ad-commercial-twitter-1.3212676

well, i took a look at the list of ridings, and it's all presented nicely in tabular form. it's a list of 51 ridings. but, they are further broken up into three categories, and the number that they estimate that they can seriously influence is much less than that.

it's hard to argue directly, based on the numbers provided. but a little caution is required.

for example, you could look at a riding that was won last election by 79 votes. could higher aboriginal turnout have affected the outcome? sure.

but, and i by no means wish to trivialize, the margin of 79 votes is small enough that mobilizing virtually any demographic could have been enough to swing it. the same logic holds whether the margin was 79 or 790 or 1790. and, then it gets a little too big

i stand by my initial points: the aboriginal population in canada is quite small, and scattered across the country in such a way that it would be unable to make a difference much of anywhere; there are a handful of exceptions in some remote regions. population growth is also higher in the prairies, but it's still not really at swing-level numbers.

but, sure. in theory. if a specific party that starts with a c won by a small margin in 2011, they could certainly wipe that small margin out, if they vote as a bloc with that purpose in mind - presuming all other things stay equal.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-assembly-first-nations-bellegarde-1.3212551

you know, i wonder if workers in bc's largest industry would actually prefer decriminalization to legalization.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-bc-sep1-1.3211266

the conservatives designed a system where they use targeted tax cuts to reward voters that vote for them and punish voters that vote against them. whether we like it or not, such a system now exists. the liberals are simply playing by the rules the conservatives put in place. and, the ndp will do the same thing, too.

hopefully, a liberal government will smash the whole thing to pieces, in time; you don't get to change the rules from opposition. but this is legitimately the kind of thing you have to do slowly. harper has set up a system of state dependency to socially engineer voting patterns towards him; it's an abuse of power, really. it's less that cutting the cord is going to make voters angry. it's more that it's inhumane to do it without easing it out.

in the meantime, this is in the rule book. so long as it's there, it's reasonable to make it more fair and target it at the groups that actually deserve tax credits, rather than use it as a way to bribe already rich people into voting for them.

i know that if we want to break this election down to a choice between tax credits for teachers and tax credits for ceos, canadians will overwhelmingly make the obvious choice.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-s-fuzzy-logic-on-tax-credits-1.3211998

white canadians simply don't understand the issues, and there's really not any use in trying to get them to understand them. they're so mentally enslaved that they're incapable of considering a reality outside of wage slavery. the only answer from their perspective is assimilation. and, one could expect little else from a population of brainwashed conformists.

i left a more detailed comment on the american site. it pointed out that white canadians don't understand this. we see conformation of this in these comments.

we've stolen their resources, tried to force them into working for us for a wage and then called them names when they reject the arrangement. and, we broadly don't understand what's wrong with this - because we can't see beyond the social arrangement we inhabit.

for starters, most canadians would be outright shocked if they knew the laws that existed as a consequence of the transfer agreements. these laws need to go. that would actually get us a good ways forward. second, do you have any idea what reparations would look like? i'd say that putting some services in place and having some respect for local sovereignty is a helluva bargain, in comparison. and, yes, the locals that want to take part will take part.

reparations in canada would not be billions.

it would be trillions.

trillionS.

access to services is the least we can do. literally.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/31/native-vote-canada-elections_n_8044958.html

do you not see somewhat of a problem with showing up from the other side of the world and forcing people to conform to an alien social arrangement, then calling them names when they don't do so?

did it cross your mind that the natives you refer to are not lazy so much as they reject the structural foundations of western culture?

show up to work? right. for whose benefit? you see freedom before your eyes and you are so unable to understand it that you call it sloth.