oil geopolitics in north america

so, on the eve of a new administration that is not bound by lip service to environmentalism, let's ask a blunt question: what are american interests regarding canadian energy exports?

you need to take two major factors into consideration. the first is the need for america to control the supply of energy. the second is the reality that america wants to be an exporter, and is now in competition with other exporters.

canada's major energy export market is china - a market that american exporters may be interested in. so, is helping canada get it's resources to market (in china) something that sounds consistent with the goals of a trump administration?

let's rewind back to keystone.

the media presented keystone as an environmental policy debate. in doing so, it failed to report that the decision was being made by the state department. the state department does not generally make decisions about resource management. rather, the state department makes decisions about national security. and, hence, the decision was one of national security. and, how so?

again: the media presents these different pipelines as though they're a part of a comprehensive plan to achieve a monolithic end goal. the idea that approval of one pipeline may be contingent on the approval of another is never discussed. but, this is america's basic logic: if canada is going to try and export through british columbia, it is in america's interest to coerce the oil southwards, to cushing. and, if canada is not going to try and export through british columbia, it is in america's interest to block exports altogether, and present their own preferentially.

if you were paying careful attention, you may have noticed that the decision to block keystone was made after it seemed clear that the pacific route was blocked. and, any decision to revisit keystone will likewise be dependent on the credibility of threats to export to east asia. do you see how this works, now?

i know it's easy to get lost in the bubble. but, north america is only a theatre. and, canada is a foreign country. take a look around the world and digest the lengths that america will go to to control the supply of energy. look at what america does to control pipelines. and, do not trick yourself into thinking that this country is in any way special.

it follows that threatening to build transmountain may very well be a bluff to get keystone flowing. and, that's an offer that the president can't refuse.

moving the rants over here

i have no patience for a platform that deletes post. i don't care why. so, i'm moving over here for now. and we'll see if posts get deleted or not...

i suppose it's an opportunity to finalize the pivot.

i will eventually reconstruct a journal going back as far as i can, but this is a post-discography project. for now, i just need a secure scratchpad. which is the most basic thing possible, right?

ugh.

and the reason i don't go to gay bars - ever - is that i don't want to get hit on.

think of it like this: if you ever do go to a gay bar, you're going to find a group of straight women, there. always. every time. and, if you ask them why they're in the gay bar, they'll tell you that they just want to go out and dance and have fun without getting hit on.

that's exactly why i go to straight bars: because i just want to go out and dance and have fun without getting hit on.

i was at a straight bar that night. it was a friendly atmosphere. but it was not a gay club.

and the reason i'm pretty sure that the guy i regained consciousness next to did not touch me was that he was initially unaware of my anatomical configuration. that is, he thought i was a cis-female.

so, that's another reason it doesn't add up. if i was sober, and i was going to go along with it for some reason, i would have told him immediately. before any touching at all. and i was in a primarily straight club.

that doesn't make it impossible, of course. it just makes it that much more complicated, and that much more unlikely.

ok.

according to this site, which is not the best site but good enough in context, i do not need to have had recent contact with the virus to test positive. those antibodies are always there. that's a big relief in understanding what's going on.

that means there are five possibilities.

1) i got vaccinated in the eighth grade. although i don't recall doing a three-part vaccination and would probably remember it.
2) i picked it up something like ten years ago and either fought it off and am now immune or am now a carrier. i'll at least accept this as possible. although, as mentioned, she should have been vaccinated. so, i don't think this is likely...
3) i picked it up in the blackout. that means i'd have to have instantaneously dropped years of internalized oppression around sex and i can't believe this. maybe blackouts are that powerful. i'm skeptical enough to push back.
4) i got infected at the blood lab via dirty needle or eugenics program. i am at very high risk of being targeted.
5) false positive.

i'm going to want to do more precise research before i get more blood work done. which means i want the report.

http://www.hepatitiscentral.com/hcv/hbv/hepatitis-b-basics/

this is what i'm going to do.

1) i'm going to finish the record.
2) i'm going to do a compost run some time next week.
3) on the way back from the compost run, i will pick up a photocopy of the blood test.
4) i will research from there.

i reiterate: there is no likely source of infection. and i am consequently very suspicious of the company.

and, i guess there's always the possibility of a false-positive, too. these tests are not as reliable as you think.

no. no. i think i need to better understand the immune system before i go any further.

if i had received a vaccination in the eighth grade, would there be antibodies in a random blood sample? or would i have had to have come in contact with the virus for the antibodies to be produced?

and, hence, does the presence of antibodies mean i must have been in contact with the virus?

in which case, i call bullshit immediately.

just if you're curious: anal sex for me is basically a no-go. i don't enjoy it. and i think it's kind of gross. i mean, i've stuck some things up there to poke around and it just hurts. i've refused it. yes, i lost a few hours, and i know what i said, but i still can't imagine i'd go through with it. and there were really no signs of struggle. no residue. even if it was quasi-consensual, you'd think there would be residue. something. there's nothing. it just doesn't add up. and, i'm consequently going to destroy this lab to the best of my ability if it comes back positive.

i've never identified as a gay male. i've never had a relationship with a male. i've never had "gay sex".

i identify as an asexual to heterosexual female. and i made a decision a long time ago that i would wait until after the operation.

losing four hours like that throws everything out the window. i understand this. and i've never met myself in a blackout. but i couldn't imagine things playing out as they would need to in order to come to this conclusion.

i've constructed my entire existence around abstention. my personality. my individuality. i've avoided and rejected every single person who's advanced. why would i be different in a blackout?

you'd have to accept the premise that i've spent the last ten years doing everything i can to not have sex, and then changed my mind when i was drunk. why would that be?

i mean, i've been drunk enough that i know that you lose your inhibitions a little. but you don't lose your personality. you don't become a different person.

if you don't like broccoli when you're sober, you don't like it when you're drunk, either.

and if you don't like sex when you're sober, it's hard to see why you'd want it when you're blacked out.

my mom has hep c, not hep b.

i consequently have no likely means of transmission, and must deduce that the antibodies are from a vaccination that i cannot recall having. i will be using a different lab to test. and if they tell me i have contracted the disease, i will have to take legal action against the lab that gave it to me.

i reiterate: i am not sexually active and have not been for around ten years. i could not have picked up an std, because i have not had sex.

i mean, where would i get it from? a stork?

no sex means no stds. not complicated.

it's a grim statement. but, i'm not going to lament the end of the baby boomers, or cry about it happening faster than initially projected.

go ahead, gramps. wash down that double bacon cheese burger with a bottle of wine. and follow it up with that sniffly trip to the bathroom. wink. you can always get another mortgage, right?

good riddance.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds

actually, i think this is a useful tool. my worry is more that not enough people will fill it out to build a large enough sample.

and, i don't like the way they're interpreting some of my responses. they seem to claim that i'm in favour of equality of opportunity because i don't believe in identity politics. i guess that the logic is that i think that equality of outcome is determined by political representation? that if women and minorities are represented in the parliament then they're equal in society? this is specious, and that it is specious underlies so much of the opposition to it. i don't think that a view on identity politics informs a view on wealth distribution. but, readers here know i'm a communist...

but, i think that the reaction to this is absurd. if trudeau's basic perception is that elizabeth may & nathan cullen are poor representatives of popular opinion on electoral reform and he needs better data, then he's right. and i don't see anything particularly egregious about collecting information in this manner.

https://www.mydemocracy.ca/results/97883e96-5ead-4881-aaa4-e1d464c3bf13