june 26, 2014
(edit: the only world leader that i've seen try to tie al qaeda to iran is netanyahu. which is not to suggest some kind of jewish conspiracy theory, so much as to suggest that the conservative party is contracting out it's intelligence services to some very poor sources; when netanyahu said it, harper seems to have believed it.)
it seems as though the conservatives may be planning to stage an attack before the next election.
anybody telling you that al qaeda is collaborating with iran neither understands al qaeda (who are violently opposed to shiite iran) nor iran (the idea that iran would launch a terrorist attack in canada is laughable). but, the sitting government doesn't have a lot of respect for your intelligence.
if they try it, make sure it backfires, eh?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/irans-anti-canada-rhetoric-has-officials-on-guard-for-possible-ottawa-area-terror-attacks/
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
june 20, 2014
(note: yes. cops showed up at my front door as a reaction to my facebook posts. what? how? and it's not like there's a lot of options, because i had recently moved to windsor from ottawa and literally not given anybody the address. my mom denied it. there is literally not another option.
.....except the undercover cops i met at occupy.
seriously.)
lol.
some cops showed up today to talk about my suicidal facebook messages. but, the context in the messages is very clear - i'm not currently suicidal. such an autonomous decision is dependent upon the outcome of the odsp evaluation in september. i was posting to prepare others for the eventuality. further, while i'm fairly certain of the outcome, i'm actually holding out hope that it will be extended. how can i be suicidal if i'm mutedly optimistic about the future, and merely planning for the worst case should it actualize?
i've already posted my logic.
it's always interesting explaining my coldly rational, detached perspective to people that seem to think they have the ability to magically project their desires onto reality.
but, you're giving up too soon! you're young!
it's not a question of giving up. that's a subjective perspective. i'm about analyzing data and coming to objective conclusions. my attitude doesn't affect the data, which clearly demonstrates that my chances of finding employment are exceedingly low. it has nothing to do with how i feel, it's just what the data states.
but, you haven't tried.
sure i have. that's how i built up my data set. why try further when the data projects a high probability of failure? it would be *this* behaviour that would be insane.
but that was in ottawa.
the conditions here are worse than in ottawa. that's why i moved here. it follows that i should spend even less time trying here.
you're just focusing on numbers and statistics, you just need to think positively and...
no. i need to focus on data. your arguments are not convincing, because you're not challenging the data, you're merely asking me to ignore it in favour of magical thinking.
*frown*
i tried to explain it, but they didn't get it. they did, however, convince me to allow a nurse to come later today to talk to me.
btw: the correct mathematical argument against my data-driven deductions is to question whether employment data is dependent. if each process is independent of the next, my conclusions collapse.
i think there is some argument for this. in fact, it even follows that if each process is independent then the probability of eventually finding a job approaches one (because any non-zero probability implies at least one success in infinitely many trials).
however, i'm convinced that the challenges are related to personal character traits, which makes each trial dependent on the last.
(note: yes. cops showed up at my front door as a reaction to my facebook posts. what? how? and it's not like there's a lot of options, because i had recently moved to windsor from ottawa and literally not given anybody the address. my mom denied it. there is literally not another option.
.....except the undercover cops i met at occupy.
seriously.)
lol.
some cops showed up today to talk about my suicidal facebook messages. but, the context in the messages is very clear - i'm not currently suicidal. such an autonomous decision is dependent upon the outcome of the odsp evaluation in september. i was posting to prepare others for the eventuality. further, while i'm fairly certain of the outcome, i'm actually holding out hope that it will be extended. how can i be suicidal if i'm mutedly optimistic about the future, and merely planning for the worst case should it actualize?
i've already posted my logic.
it's always interesting explaining my coldly rational, detached perspective to people that seem to think they have the ability to magically project their desires onto reality.
but, you're giving up too soon! you're young!
it's not a question of giving up. that's a subjective perspective. i'm about analyzing data and coming to objective conclusions. my attitude doesn't affect the data, which clearly demonstrates that my chances of finding employment are exceedingly low. it has nothing to do with how i feel, it's just what the data states.
but, you haven't tried.
sure i have. that's how i built up my data set. why try further when the data projects a high probability of failure? it would be *this* behaviour that would be insane.
but that was in ottawa.
the conditions here are worse than in ottawa. that's why i moved here. it follows that i should spend even less time trying here.
you're just focusing on numbers and statistics, you just need to think positively and...
no. i need to focus on data. your arguments are not convincing, because you're not challenging the data, you're merely asking me to ignore it in favour of magical thinking.
*frown*
i tried to explain it, but they didn't get it. they did, however, convince me to allow a nurse to come later today to talk to me.
btw: the correct mathematical argument against my data-driven deductions is to question whether employment data is dependent. if each process is independent of the next, my conclusions collapse.
i think there is some argument for this. in fact, it even follows that if each process is independent then the probability of eventually finding a job approaches one (because any non-zero probability implies at least one success in infinitely many trials).
however, i'm convinced that the challenges are related to personal character traits, which makes each trial dependent on the last.
i quit smoking one year ago. sort of, anyways. i've bought a handful of packs over the last year, either when i had set aside all nighters for drinking or i was going through my biyearly headclear. that's certainly a lot less than 350+ packs.
350*8 = $2800. $2800/12 = $233.33/month. so, $200+/month. where did it go? the answer is that i went to more concerts, and went to more expensive concerts. i also bought some new hardware. and, i bought a lot of cigarettes for $0.50 or $1.00 a piece.
but, after a year of social smoking, i'm taking the plunge. i made this choice at the detroit bus station in october, on the way to lansing to see touche amore: i'm going zero nicotine on jan 13th, 2017.
well, i've been smoke-free since the end of the headclear, which was on dec 26th this year. so, i'm already cold turkey over the last two weeks. this has been the norm for me for the last year: zero cigarettes for several weeks, then a binge for a night or maybe two, then zero for another several weeks, etc. so, nothing changes today or this week or probably even this month.
it will be in the spring that i'll have to face going to my first concert smoke-free.
but, this is it. it was a good year for me; i made a lot of progress in breaking habits. now, i need to spend the year finishing the job.
350*8 = $2800. $2800/12 = $233.33/month. so, $200+/month. where did it go? the answer is that i went to more concerts, and went to more expensive concerts. i also bought some new hardware. and, i bought a lot of cigarettes for $0.50 or $1.00 a piece.
but, after a year of social smoking, i'm taking the plunge. i made this choice at the detroit bus station in october, on the way to lansing to see touche amore: i'm going zero nicotine on jan 13th, 2017.
well, i've been smoke-free since the end of the headclear, which was on dec 26th this year. so, i'm already cold turkey over the last two weeks. this has been the norm for me for the last year: zero cigarettes for several weeks, then a binge for a night or maybe two, then zero for another several weeks, etc. so, nothing changes today or this week or probably even this month.
it will be in the spring that i'll have to face going to my first concert smoke-free.
but, this is it. it was a good year for me; i made a lot of progress in breaking habits. now, i need to spend the year finishing the job.
i just want to say something about the genocide/isis thing, though, because the conservatives used this tactic against him when he was running for prime minister (i can't remember what it was about...) and he responded the same way both times.
broadly speaking, an opposition member wouldn't ask that question unless it was meant as a sucker punch. and, it's obvious that it was meant as a sucker punch in context, too.
if somebody asks you this question: "is isis guilty of genocide?", you're going to run off some chain of mental logic that is along the lines of "isis....bad guys...genocide....bad...bad guys...bad things....yes.". so, you'd likely respond affirmatively pretty quickly.
but, in the mind of stephane dion - and in fact most academics - this is a legal accusation that requires evidence and due process. the question of whether isis is guilty of genocide or not is reduced to the question of whether they have been found guilty of genocide in a court of law, and after due process. the accusations may exist - wildly, i may add - but no process has ever occurred to determine the accuracy of them. so, in his mind, the most uncontroversial response is going to be the one with the least number of assumptions. and, surely, we can't have a canadian minister of foreign affairs libeling a foreign group before the process of establishing guilt has been carried out.
and, i ask you: what court of law has found isis guilty of genocide?
so, we run into this problem. where dion is technically correct, and is responding in the way that he would be expected to in the circles he exists within, the response is considered to be outrageous by the general public. how can he not know if isis is guilty of genocide? doesn't he watch tv? doesn't he understand the propaganda? why isn't he repeating it? what a fool!
but, what i wanted to draw attention to was the reality that he got suckered and may still not fully know it - because it happened (at least) twice.
broadly speaking, an opposition member wouldn't ask that question unless it was meant as a sucker punch. and, it's obvious that it was meant as a sucker punch in context, too.
if somebody asks you this question: "is isis guilty of genocide?", you're going to run off some chain of mental logic that is along the lines of "isis....bad guys...genocide....bad...bad guys...bad things....yes.". so, you'd likely respond affirmatively pretty quickly.
but, in the mind of stephane dion - and in fact most academics - this is a legal accusation that requires evidence and due process. the question of whether isis is guilty of genocide or not is reduced to the question of whether they have been found guilty of genocide in a court of law, and after due process. the accusations may exist - wildly, i may add - but no process has ever occurred to determine the accuracy of them. so, in his mind, the most uncontroversial response is going to be the one with the least number of assumptions. and, surely, we can't have a canadian minister of foreign affairs libeling a foreign group before the process of establishing guilt has been carried out.
and, i ask you: what court of law has found isis guilty of genocide?
so, we run into this problem. where dion is technically correct, and is responding in the way that he would be expected to in the circles he exists within, the response is considered to be outrageous by the general public. how can he not know if isis is guilty of genocide? doesn't he watch tv? doesn't he understand the propaganda? why isn't he repeating it? what a fool!
but, what i wanted to draw attention to was the reality that he got suckered and may still not fully know it - because it happened (at least) twice.
and, regarding trump getting blackmailed by russia? i obviously have no inside information.
but, i set down my narrative quite a while ago and it's unfolding more or less as i suggested it would.
0) of course, they had to get rid of sanders first. that was the primary imperative.
1) but, then, the deep state saw both candidates as national security threats, and preferred trump to clinton rather overwhelmingly - largely because they managed to get pence on the ticket.
2) so, they rigged the election for trump.
3) but, they did it in such a way (leaking documents and blaming it on russia) that they could take him down afterwards.
4) now that clinton and sanders are both defeated, they are taking trump down as was planned all along.
5) the ultimate goal is to install not just mike pence as president, but also ted cruz as vice president. it was ted cruz that was the deep state's real preference.
this will recreate a proper republican party, with conservatives all the way down.
i can't prove any of this. it's just built up on a combination of intuition and deductive reasoning. but, i keep being right about it.
i don't know if they want to impeach trump early, force him to stand down before or close to the 20th or even assassinate him.
but, i think that this is orchestrated - and that, this time, trump is right in his paranoid claims. i'll forgive you for not believing him. but, i'll plead with you to listen to what i'm saying.
but, i set down my narrative quite a while ago and it's unfolding more or less as i suggested it would.
0) of course, they had to get rid of sanders first. that was the primary imperative.
1) but, then, the deep state saw both candidates as national security threats, and preferred trump to clinton rather overwhelmingly - largely because they managed to get pence on the ticket.
2) so, they rigged the election for trump.
3) but, they did it in such a way (leaking documents and blaming it on russia) that they could take him down afterwards.
4) now that clinton and sanders are both defeated, they are taking trump down as was planned all along.
5) the ultimate goal is to install not just mike pence as president, but also ted cruz as vice president. it was ted cruz that was the deep state's real preference.
this will recreate a proper republican party, with conservatives all the way down.
i can't prove any of this. it's just built up on a combination of intuition and deductive reasoning. but, i keep being right about it.
i don't know if they want to impeach trump early, force him to stand down before or close to the 20th or even assassinate him.
but, i think that this is orchestrated - and that, this time, trump is right in his paranoid claims. i'll forgive you for not believing him. but, i'll plead with you to listen to what i'm saying.
i just want to...
i'm not mad about dion, or something. as though i knew him? of course, i didn't.
i'm surprised, but not mad. what i'm surprised about is the decision to offer him a position outside of parliament. but, i don't think that the prime minister was being snide when he pointed out that the ambassadorship to the eu is not an unimportant job, either.
i offer no opposition to the removal of the exact portfolio. frankly, it's not the job i would have given him to begin with, and for a lot of the reasons that are being presented in his removal. rather, i would have given him a technocratic domestic portfolio from the get go. and, when his name came up, it was where i was expecting him to be shuffled in to. i may have even offered him a position as a parliamentary secretary. these are where his strengths are, after all. his english is terrible, and he's horribly awkward, but he's brutally smart. you want this guy writing policy papers, not giving speeches.
maybe you can see why i like the guy? it's for all of the same reasons so many people hate him. i have a similar temperament and similar strengths and weaknesses. so, i found something inspiring in him, when so many people just saw him as a hapless nerd. and, i haven't been shy about my contempt for jocks, either.
again: i grasp that the point of sending him to the eu is that he's a political appointee. you don't send him to brussels to never hear from him. you send him to brussels so that brussels has a direct line to ottawa. i pointed out that the media hates him for the reasons i like him, so the way they're spinning it as a deep demotion was predictable. it isn't. it's a move sideways, and it will better utilize his strengths.
but, i'm still surprised at the decision to take him out of parliament. as mentioned: he has a lot of respect in the party, and it's well deserved. you want his input on policy, even if you don't want to let him speak to the crowd. so, i would not have expected that to have been in the list of contemplated options.
but, i'll acknowledge that he might be offering me the explanation in his reaction. that is to say that he might not have accepted the offer, or may have brought an unwelcome attitude in if he did.
i'm not mad about dion, or something. as though i knew him? of course, i didn't.
i'm surprised, but not mad. what i'm surprised about is the decision to offer him a position outside of parliament. but, i don't think that the prime minister was being snide when he pointed out that the ambassadorship to the eu is not an unimportant job, either.
i offer no opposition to the removal of the exact portfolio. frankly, it's not the job i would have given him to begin with, and for a lot of the reasons that are being presented in his removal. rather, i would have given him a technocratic domestic portfolio from the get go. and, when his name came up, it was where i was expecting him to be shuffled in to. i may have even offered him a position as a parliamentary secretary. these are where his strengths are, after all. his english is terrible, and he's horribly awkward, but he's brutally smart. you want this guy writing policy papers, not giving speeches.
maybe you can see why i like the guy? it's for all of the same reasons so many people hate him. i have a similar temperament and similar strengths and weaknesses. so, i found something inspiring in him, when so many people just saw him as a hapless nerd. and, i haven't been shy about my contempt for jocks, either.
again: i grasp that the point of sending him to the eu is that he's a political appointee. you don't send him to brussels to never hear from him. you send him to brussels so that brussels has a direct line to ottawa. i pointed out that the media hates him for the reasons i like him, so the way they're spinning it as a deep demotion was predictable. it isn't. it's a move sideways, and it will better utilize his strengths.
but, i'm still surprised at the decision to take him out of parliament. as mentioned: he has a lot of respect in the party, and it's well deserved. you want his input on policy, even if you don't want to let him speak to the crowd. so, i would not have expected that to have been in the list of contemplated options.
but, i'll acknowledge that he might be offering me the explanation in his reaction. that is to say that he might not have accepted the offer, or may have brought an unwelcome attitude in if he did.
most of my songs begin as conventional guitar songs before they get
ripped apart and demented into various abstract concoctions. that means
that a lot of my pieces have two different versions. i've always
deferred the raw guitar versions to eventual live performances, but i'm
at a space in life where i realize that these live performances are not
likely to ever materialize. so, i'm going to compile the live/guitar
versions of my larger pieces here.
it's unclear to me at this point where i will space this in my discography, but it will probably be around 2008.
it's unclear to me at this point where i will space this in my discography, but it will probably be around 2008.
Jun 12, 2014
what they don't realize is that they are liberals and what they think is liberalism is actually a type of right-wing populism pushed historically by the progressive party, often as a front for christian groups. liberals are all about free speech, free markets and individual rights. crucially, they're strongly in favour of a separation of church and state.
what these idiots have succeeded in is little more than to confuse people about words and concepts that they don't actually have a good understanding of. if you watch the show, you're left to conclude that liberals are a type of fundamentalist christian.
rather, a liberal is exactly what stone and parker are, and their target of ridicule is religiosity - bordering on what engels called utopian socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriKiBbw3nU
what they don't realize is that they are liberals and what they think is liberalism is actually a type of right-wing populism pushed historically by the progressive party, often as a front for christian groups. liberals are all about free speech, free markets and individual rights. crucially, they're strongly in favour of a separation of church and state.
what these idiots have succeeded in is little more than to confuse people about words and concepts that they don't actually have a good understanding of. if you watch the show, you're left to conclude that liberals are a type of fundamentalist christian.
rather, a liberal is exactly what stone and parker are, and their target of ridicule is religiosity - bordering on what engels called utopian socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriKiBbw3nU
june 12, 2014
it's actually fairly common here to see unifor banners paired with conservative party yard signs (you know the ones, they're standard across north america) on the lawns of upper middle class houses. unifor is the big auto/energy union. i've been aware of this connection for a while, but i kind of expected it to be an under the rug thing rather than something openly flaunted. it's surreal to see how normal it is.
it doesn't make sense on first glance, but it does when you work the politics out in more detail. big union members in southern ontario are very well paid. they're more worried about their taxes being too high then they are about their collective bargaining rights and their political choices reflect that economic comfort. it's no longer "the bosses are stealing my wages to live in luxury" but "the government is stealing my wages to distribute to the community". the difference in function is less important than the perceived lost wages, regardless of the comfort they live in.
nobody wants to talk about it, though. the conservatives don't want to risk losing one of their most effective attack mechanisms, so they keep attacking them. the ndp don't want to come off as utterly irrelevant, so they keep acting like they represent them. but it's all a charade...
there's an election today. i'm not voting. i do sometimes, i don't sometimes. for today, i'm in a relatively new riding and i simply don't know the local candidates or local issues well enough.
i don't expect much to change, though.
it's actually fairly common here to see unifor banners paired with conservative party yard signs (you know the ones, they're standard across north america) on the lawns of upper middle class houses. unifor is the big auto/energy union. i've been aware of this connection for a while, but i kind of expected it to be an under the rug thing rather than something openly flaunted. it's surreal to see how normal it is.
it doesn't make sense on first glance, but it does when you work the politics out in more detail. big union members in southern ontario are very well paid. they're more worried about their taxes being too high then they are about their collective bargaining rights and their political choices reflect that economic comfort. it's no longer "the bosses are stealing my wages to live in luxury" but "the government is stealing my wages to distribute to the community". the difference in function is less important than the perceived lost wages, regardless of the comfort they live in.
nobody wants to talk about it, though. the conservatives don't want to risk losing one of their most effective attack mechanisms, so they keep attacking them. the ndp don't want to come off as utterly irrelevant, so they keep acting like they represent them. but it's all a charade...
there's an election today. i'm not voting. i do sometimes, i don't sometimes. for today, i'm in a relatively new riding and i simply don't know the local candidates or local issues well enough.
i don't expect much to change, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)