it's not like nobody predicted that we'd be in bad shape if oil prices came down, or like nobody criticized the harper government for focusing on a single industry at the expense of everything else. we have a historical record. the criticisms were pointed, and brutal - and are proving to be astute and forward thinking and correct, while the government's vision is demonstrating itself as narrow and delusional and just flat out wrong.

better ideas have existed the whole time. nobody expected the conservatives to listen. but, we expect better from the liberals.

this budget will save the government, or break it. let's hope it puts a serious focus on diversification, and isn't just full of buzzwords to drive the news cycle.

these articles are starting to pop up, but i haven't seen a single one draw the obvious conclusion that oil is obviously a shitty way to build an economy, isn't it?

maybe we should build our economy on something else?

marijuana? ethanol? solar? wind? hydro?

if you just read the news and take it at face value, we're fucked and can't do anything about it until the prices come back.

what if they don't come back?

and, how did our government become this overtly idiotic? i mean systemically. we've had changes in government in ottawa and edmonton, and yet they're pushing the same stupid line.

the petro-state is failing. do something about it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oilpatch-ottawa-budget-morneau-1.4029620

i'm actually really not ashamed to make the point - i've made it before, and i'll make it again.

the reason so many transwomen end up in these aggressive, dominatrix or porn star type roles is that they're actually hyper-dominant, ultra-patriarchal dudes that see female sexuality as the ultimate means of control.

the truth is that the psychology of the thing is supposed to categorize this type of trans person as a crossdresser and try to talk them out of it. what defines a crossdresser is some kind of arousal from women's clothing, which can and often does take the form of empowerment. transgendered people, on the other hand, don't get aroused by crossdressing, they feel normalized by it.

it's just kind of complicated to even have this discussion right now, because you'll get accused of promoting conversion therapy. but, the truth is that there are two different phenomena here, and conflating them is going to lead to false diagnoses.

on the other hand, who's to tell a crossdresser not to do it if they really get that much of a power trip out of it? so long as they're not hurting anybody - and i should point out that this is the precise scenario where there is a nontrivial possibility that they might be hurting somebody - then who is to tell them what to do with their own body?

but, it's important to understand the difference, and analyze it carefully relative to what you see in front of you. one is essentially a compulsion disorder, and may often be associated with aspects of narcissism. applying hormones in this scenario may not be the best idea. the other is rooted in a feeling of social ostracism, and a desire to belong to a group that better fits existing personality traits.

but, yeah - the trans stereotype of projecting sexual power is what it is for the most obvious reason possible. it's so obvious, you probably missed it.

just look what meth does to you.

because what the world needs is more k-tards.

what the actual fuck?

they describe it as a "popular club drug". right. ahahahaha.....

k-tards, in fact, tend to hang out in backyards. they may intend to make it to the club, but never do because they can't figure out how to tie their shoelaces. they may from time to time have such a difficult time that they trip on the way there, and spend the rest of the night in the ditch.

on the rare occasions that they do make it to the club, they can usually be seen congregating in small groups of men (general attire: basketball shirts & backwards hats) and talking about video games.

the article should say "universally acknowledged drug for complete losers".

next, they'll be prescribing meth. because that's what the really, really cool kids are into: meth.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/20/520169959/ketamine-for-severe-depression-how-do-you-not-offer-this-drug-to-people

this is such utter stupidity.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/will-bill-morneau-save-13000-lives-with-a-levy-on-sugary-drinks/article34336836/

i don't think the government has any kind of social obligation to run seaports or airports. i've only been in a canadian airport twice (had to leave and come back), and i'll probably never be in one ever again. there's a large percentage of canadians that will never even take a flight at all.

but, insofar as this is a public resource, i would like to see any money raised from it invested, rather than used for "debt relief" which is just unnecessary. there's no reason to pay down the debt....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-plans-for-airport-sales-in-liberals-federal-budget/article34358267/

looks like putin bought a crappy puppet, if you ask me.

everything i said would happen is happening. it's not my fault. it was just obvious...

i'm not brilliant; you're retarded.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8444/israel-warns-it-will-destroy-syrias-air-defenses-without-thinking-twice

the thing that bothers me most about this case is that she felt the need to flee to india in order to protect herself from her family in canada.

how have things managed to get so backwards?

they should be extradited.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/honour-killing-sidhu-extradition-india-1.4032318

i just want to explore the point, to kind of demonstrate the reality of things. i know this isn't a dating site. and, this isn't an ad - don't reply to it. but, what does my ideal partner actually look like?

i should address gender first, obviously. i'm what you call pansexual. i mean, i'm functionally asexual, but it's a consequence of basically hating everybody. my actual position on the matter is that it doesn't matter what your gender is, so much as it matters whether i like you: i want to fuck your personality, not your body. so, i'm not at all driven by hormones; i'm not at all excited by physical sex. you don't go more than ten years without even trying, unless you're just not that into it, right?

but, that doesn't mean i'm interested in both genders equally. i'm not bisexual, or not in the sense that i see boys and girls as equally attractive and things to enjoy in different ways. i'm going to lean overwhelmingly towards a kind of sexless femininity, and i want to be careful about how i describe this.

i consider madonna, for example, to be exceedingly masculine. the ideal of the strong, dominant sexually aggressive female is as unattractive to me as the ideal of the strong, dominant sexually aggressive male. when i say i'm attracted to a sexless femininity, i mean i'm attracted to very submissive people. i'm an anarchist: i reject hierarchy and i reject dominance. i want complete equality. not a pretension towards equality. not "equity". fucking equality.

so, it could be either gender, but it's certainly a non-aggressive, passive, low-key ultra-beta personality type.

attached to that, i would prefer a musician but i would insist on an artist, at least. i would want somebody that i can create with. that would, in fact, be the basis of the relationship - a shared interest in creating. i would even go so far as to say i would be bored with just about anything else.

while the person does not need to actually be unemployed, i would not want somebody that is attached to their career. i know i come off as an introvert, but that's partly due to shielding. i don't want to date. i don't want to be in a relationship where we each have our own lives and just meet up from time to time to get drunk and fuck. i have to be the center of attention at all times (and will reciprocate). so, there cannot be time for a career, because we'll be too busy focusing on creating things. there cannot be time for other friends. there cannot be time for family. we're going to shower and shit together, or i'm going to start to feel neglected. i am absurdly high maintenance. so, this person needs to either be unemployed and on disability or independently wealthy or living through some other arrangement that does not see them disappear for long periods to participate in some useless market bullshit.

i don't want kids. and, i don't want this person to have kids, either. not even if they're adults. obviously, this person has to not want kids.

this person is probably older than me.

perhaps the incompatibilities are more obvious at this point, now that i've told you more clearly about what i would actually want. but, perhaps you can also see some of the points of overlap that existed.

the arabs tried to invade italy repeatedly, but constructing racial arguments around it is anachronistic. the revisionism is not in rejecting the racial narrative, but in constructing it.

the empire was not a roman concept, it was a persian one. the king of kings was the persian emperor. the empire had a kind of feudal structure beneath, where rulers of client states like armenia could refer to themselves as kings, so long as they accepted the king of kings - the persian emperor. when alexander broke persian power, he left a series of weak states that ended up warring with each other. the seleucids often styled themselves king-of-kings but it was never in reality. as the hellenic period fell apart, random despots started using the title - much as random despots today use the term caliph (itself a conceptual descendant of the persian hegemony). a part of the reason that the romans were able to absorb the levant so easily is that they were looking for a stable overlord, and entrance in a stable empire. in half of the persian lands, the roman emperor became the king-of-kings - but the persians never liked this much, and they fought for a thousand years over who got to be the true hegemon.

but, all of this fighting between rome and persia for hegemony over the middle east just recreated the same problem that existed at the end of hellenism. the people wanted a stable empire to exist within, so that they could trade and drink wine and carry out their rituals. islam was maybe not what they asked for, but it was at least a unifying force. and, so, the caliph became the king of kings and the emperor must be forced to submit.

in fact, it is the emperor's refusal to submit that is unique in history. the greeks conquered the persians, and the romans conquered the greeks. the arabs were not able to fully conquer the romans. and, so, what was one civilization broke apart into two.

so, when the arabs were carrying out months or years long seiges on constantinople, and launching their thirteenth invasion of italy or whatever it was, they weren't seeing it as invading a foreign land. to them, they were completing their conquest of the single empire that had always existed.

and, likewise, the crusaders did not see themselves as stealing land from arabs, but as taking what was rightfully theirs - because there was no concept of christianity and islam as separate cultures, but only of a broader western culture seized by civil war.

the consensus amongst roman historians for the first century or so of islam was actually that it was what was called a heresy, which is a very technical term, in context. muslims weren't seen as a different religion, but merely as confused christians that had deviated from orthodoxy.

centuries later, the turkish sultan was still insisting on calling himself not just the caliph, but also the roman emperor and, still, the king-of-kings - as these were all one and the same thing. and, this idea of christians and muslims as culturally separate is really a consequence of the renaissance.