what a sick, twisted, immature buffoon.
it's the kind of thing you'd expect from a twelve year-old.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-sniper-shot-iraq-1.4179825
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
gah.
i forgot to fill in my oeptc form with my taxes. i actually kind of vaguely recall not filling it in, and wondering where the form was. it may have been absent from the package. that's a monthly tax credit i get for rent. it cuts my rent down by about $35. combined with the ostc (a sales tax credit), it means i get about $60/month in provincial credits. in my mind, this pays for most of my estrogen prescription. before i increased my dosage, it actually paid for it outright.
i edited the return online; it took a few seconds, and i should have a reassessment within a few weeks.
there's actually an upside to this: they're going to give me the sales tax part of it in a lump sum in mid-july. that's going to be $296. for this month, that will work out a little better, as i have to get $290 to loan sharks on the first. so, that will cancel out. it's also a gst month, which will make up the difference.
it's just empty accounting; i'm expecting that check from my nana, soon. but, this means i won't have to juggle it for a month or two.
the downside is that i'll be getting $25/month less. but, i shouldn't notice that until next year.
they might also correct the issue before the deposit goes through on the....oh, it's actually on the 7th. hrmph. probably not, then.
i forgot to fill in my oeptc form with my taxes. i actually kind of vaguely recall not filling it in, and wondering where the form was. it may have been absent from the package. that's a monthly tax credit i get for rent. it cuts my rent down by about $35. combined with the ostc (a sales tax credit), it means i get about $60/month in provincial credits. in my mind, this pays for most of my estrogen prescription. before i increased my dosage, it actually paid for it outright.
i edited the return online; it took a few seconds, and i should have a reassessment within a few weeks.
there's actually an upside to this: they're going to give me the sales tax part of it in a lump sum in mid-july. that's going to be $296. for this month, that will work out a little better, as i have to get $290 to loan sharks on the first. so, that will cancel out. it's also a gst month, which will make up the difference.
it's just empty accounting; i'm expecting that check from my nana, soon. but, this means i won't have to juggle it for a month or two.
the downside is that i'll be getting $25/month less. but, i shouldn't notice that until next year.
they might also correct the issue before the deposit goes through on the....oh, it's actually on the 7th. hrmph. probably not, then.
at
20:18
i don't go to pride. ever. it's a co-opted, corporatist, queer-washing waste of time.
first of all, i'd propose banning politicians. even the queer ones. sorry.
next up, i'd go after the sponsors. and, i still probably wouldn't want to go, even after that.
broadly speaking, i don't think that queer people need to compromise on their principles in order to feign inclusiveness towards groups that they know are hostile to them. when that happens, the idea loses itself. if pride is just an event where anybody that wants to be proud of something can show up, it loses it's meaning as a specifically queer event. that is called co-option.
when politicians and religious groups speak at pride, that is co-option.
the queer movement has every right to single out oppressive groups, like christians and muslims (and jews, too, although they're the lesser evil, by far), and confront them on co-opting something that is not meant for them.
unless they want me to show up at the mosque and start making out with multiple dudes up at the front, while buddy is going on about some easily debunked nonsense? i'd do it...
first of all, i'd propose banning politicians. even the queer ones. sorry.
next up, i'd go after the sponsors. and, i still probably wouldn't want to go, even after that.
broadly speaking, i don't think that queer people need to compromise on their principles in order to feign inclusiveness towards groups that they know are hostile to them. when that happens, the idea loses itself. if pride is just an event where anybody that wants to be proud of something can show up, it loses it's meaning as a specifically queer event. that is called co-option.
when politicians and religious groups speak at pride, that is co-option.
the queer movement has every right to single out oppressive groups, like christians and muslims (and jews, too, although they're the lesser evil, by far), and confront them on co-opting something that is not meant for them.
unless they want me to show up at the mosque and start making out with multiple dudes up at the front, while buddy is going on about some easily debunked nonsense? i'd do it...
at
16:36
on the question of jews and human sacrifice, though, you should watch this documentary.
it suggests that the practice was endemic to the region (the carthaginians were originally from modern day lebanon), rather than any specific ethnic group, and that the story in the bible may have been a parable to try and change existing behaviours.
what is the bible? it's a justification for the existence of the jewish elite. it's meant to help primitive people come to terms with basic issues of social order. and, there is evidence that child sacrifice was actually a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK-I53nESw4
it suggests that the practice was endemic to the region (the carthaginians were originally from modern day lebanon), rather than any specific ethnic group, and that the story in the bible may have been a parable to try and change existing behaviours.
what is the bible? it's a justification for the existence of the jewish elite. it's meant to help primitive people come to terms with basic issues of social order. and, there is evidence that child sacrifice was actually a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK-I53nESw4
at
12:34
of course, there's always the jewish media conspiracy theory. there's one for everything. never fails.
it's kind of true, though. think about it, muslims: the jews have got you celebrating the saving of their race, and making it the center of your calendar.
http://submission.org/Abrahim_His_Son.html
it's kind of true, though. think about it, muslims: the jews have got you celebrating the saving of their race, and making it the center of your calendar.
http://submission.org/Abrahim_His_Son.html
at
12:28
besides.
shouldn't the muslims be lamenting the fact that abraham didn't kill isaac?
i mean, if abraham had killed isaac, there'd be no jews, right?
"if there were no angels, would be there no sin? better stop me before i begin...."
shouldn't the muslims be lamenting the fact that abraham didn't kill isaac?
i mean, if abraham had killed isaac, there'd be no jews, right?
"if there were no angels, would be there no sin? better stop me before i begin...."
at
12:19
the american media is strangely silent on this. it's telling.
but, what the aclu is doing, here, is upholding it's own strawman; the administration denied from the start that it was a muslim ban to begin with, and that's the crux of the ruling: the administration's actions were never intended to be a muslim ban, and can be upheld on those terms (while clarifying that a muslim ban would be unconstitutional, and the reasons why, and how to ensure that this doesn't happen).
i very rarely disagree with the aclu, or it's canadian equivalent (the ccla). i'm not even disagreeing with them, here, really. but, i'm calling them out on a dishonest presentation. this was not about civil liberties, it was about politics, and they should re-examine their mandate in the wake of their loss.
it's not the aclu, exactly, that i'm pointing fingers at, either, but the broader neo-liberal identity politics crew that jumped on this as a wedge issue and got a bunch of circuit judges on their side by gaming the media. they began by accusing the administration of all kinds of things that were obviously untrue. on the basis of these false accusations, they got injunctions they never should have gotten (but, when you yell fire in a crowded court room, that court is more likely to put down a temporary stop until the issue can be dealt with more rigorously). then, when it gets to a real hearing, they claim they've won when the court upholds that their frivolous accusations are unconstitutional - even as it upholds what the administration was actually trying to do. then, they try and spin it as a political victory, even though the administration got exactly what it actually wanted.
if you go back a few months, you'll see i analyzed this correctly at the time.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/clear-victory-president-trump-muslim-ban-20-hardly
but, what the aclu is doing, here, is upholding it's own strawman; the administration denied from the start that it was a muslim ban to begin with, and that's the crux of the ruling: the administration's actions were never intended to be a muslim ban, and can be upheld on those terms (while clarifying that a muslim ban would be unconstitutional, and the reasons why, and how to ensure that this doesn't happen).
i very rarely disagree with the aclu, or it's canadian equivalent (the ccla). i'm not even disagreeing with them, here, really. but, i'm calling them out on a dishonest presentation. this was not about civil liberties, it was about politics, and they should re-examine their mandate in the wake of their loss.
it's not the aclu, exactly, that i'm pointing fingers at, either, but the broader neo-liberal identity politics crew that jumped on this as a wedge issue and got a bunch of circuit judges on their side by gaming the media. they began by accusing the administration of all kinds of things that were obviously untrue. on the basis of these false accusations, they got injunctions they never should have gotten (but, when you yell fire in a crowded court room, that court is more likely to put down a temporary stop until the issue can be dealt with more rigorously). then, when it gets to a real hearing, they claim they've won when the court upholds that their frivolous accusations are unconstitutional - even as it upholds what the administration was actually trying to do. then, they try and spin it as a political victory, even though the administration got exactly what it actually wanted.
if you go back a few months, you'll see i analyzed this correctly at the time.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/clear-victory-president-trump-muslim-ban-20-hardly
at
10:53
i mean, if you think voting for a guy that wears eid socks to the pride parade is going to do anything to advance queer issues, you need to pull your head out of your ass.
do you know what eid al-adha is? it's the other eid, granted. but, look it up. it's 2017, and people are still celebrating this?
it's mass insanity is what it is. and, any concept of progressive politics that is worth advocating should be looking to stamp this out, not uphold it or normalize it.
if somebody came to you and told you that god told him to sacrifice his son, would you throw a feast or call the police? i'd put the sick, twisted fucker in jail. and, i'd denounce anybody that suggested otherwise.
out of all the stupid religious nonsense out there, this is the dumbest and, frankly, the most offensive.
queer rights are judicial issues. and, this governmnt hasn't done anything for queer rights that it wasn't ordered to do by the courts. you're out to fucking lunch if you think otherwise.
do you know what eid al-adha is? it's the other eid, granted. but, look it up. it's 2017, and people are still celebrating this?
it's mass insanity is what it is. and, any concept of progressive politics that is worth advocating should be looking to stamp this out, not uphold it or normalize it.
if somebody came to you and told you that god told him to sacrifice his son, would you throw a feast or call the police? i'd put the sick, twisted fucker in jail. and, i'd denounce anybody that suggested otherwise.
out of all the stupid religious nonsense out there, this is the dumbest and, frankly, the most offensive.
queer rights are judicial issues. and, this governmnt hasn't done anything for queer rights that it wasn't ordered to do by the courts. you're out to fucking lunch if you think otherwise.
at
10:14
i bet trudeau would walk out on the country if he got offered an acting job in hollywood. or maybe a tv spot.
that's what he always really wanted.
and, that's basically his job: he's a pretty-boy paid front for corporate lobbyists. he's reagan on the surface, but without the baggage of broken altruism, and instead with the cold cynicism of a clintonian worldview.
i'm just saying that he would probably leave if you offered him a big enough check, and a glossy enough photographer, to follow him around california and take sexy enough shots.
i'm not hinting at anything.
not giving anybody any ideas...
but, i look forward to running against him from the left, and mercilessly tearing him down, as i do.
if i get my way, he will lose in 2019. and i don't even care if that means andrew scheer wins. there's no meaningful difference on any issue i care about that the courts won't act as the only meaningful arbiter of protection on, anyways. there really isn't.
that's what he always really wanted.
and, that's basically his job: he's a pretty-boy paid front for corporate lobbyists. he's reagan on the surface, but without the baggage of broken altruism, and instead with the cold cynicism of a clintonian worldview.
i'm just saying that he would probably leave if you offered him a big enough check, and a glossy enough photographer, to follow him around california and take sexy enough shots.
i'm not hinting at anything.
not giving anybody any ideas...
but, i look forward to running against him from the left, and mercilessly tearing him down, as i do.
if i get my way, he will lose in 2019. and i don't even care if that means andrew scheer wins. there's no meaningful difference on any issue i care about that the courts won't act as the only meaningful arbiter of protection on, anyways. there really isn't.
at
09:50
name one concrete thing that trudeau has done that justifies voting liberal to keep the conservatives out.
can't, can you?
can't, can you?
at
09:23
another corporatist policy that puts the liberals to the right of the conservatives. the conservatives never took ridiculous positions like this.
this is daily, now.
i look forward to splitting the left.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spam-computers-law-trudeau-1.4179066
this is daily, now.
i look forward to splitting the left.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spam-computers-law-trudeau-1.4179066
at
09:21
so, the 6400 is actually the best ram the board in the vista machine can take. ok.
that leaves me with amazon as my only option, as even hp no longer carries the part. at least it's cheap.
i also need to get a new battery for this machine.
updated total:
phone (amazon): $105
2 gb laptop ram (amazon): $2x15
battery (amazon): $27
< 140 gb ide hds (found, not confirmed) (kijiji): $2x10
1 tb laptop sshds (best buy): $2x90
==================
$362
so, i'm committing to spending a total of $147 to fix this laptop. cheaper than a new buy, for sure.
it's time to sleep.
that leaves me with amazon as my only option, as even hp no longer carries the part. at least it's cheap.
i also need to get a new battery for this machine.
updated total:
phone (amazon): $105
2 gb laptop ram (amazon): $2x15
battery (amazon): $27
< 140 gb ide hds (found, not confirmed) (kijiji): $2x10
1 tb laptop sshds (best buy): $2x90
==================
$362
so, i'm committing to spending a total of $147 to fix this laptop. cheaper than a new buy, for sure.
it's time to sleep.
at
02:12
just for some context: the laptop that i shorted when i cleaned the fan because it wouldn't turn on unless i did, which is the reason i'm getting sent money for a new laptop, has actually never left my apartment.
it's been sitting in exactly the same place for almost four years.
i need a desktop...
it's been sitting in exactly the same place for almost four years.
i need a desktop...
at
00:29
i have three hp/compaq laptops. two of them were given to me. i bought the other one refurbished on a whim, mostly for school. my heavy laptop use was fully circumstantial. they were here, so i used them.
but, i've learned a good lesson, right?
when will i need to be mobile, as an individual? the answer is that i might need to be mobile some time in the distant future, if i ever end up moving to waterloo. waterloo, ontario. there's a good math school there. i'll be old if i ever end up there...
it's so distant.
right now, today, i have no reason to be mobile. if i need to, the vista laptop that i bought refurbished for school will be mobile. and, i'm buying a phone.
what i need, right now, today, is an access point that will let me leave open lots of tabs indefinitely and blow away ram on youtube.
what i need is a cheap desktop with a ton of ram.
but, i've learned a good lesson, right?
when will i need to be mobile, as an individual? the answer is that i might need to be mobile some time in the distant future, if i ever end up moving to waterloo. waterloo, ontario. there's a good math school there. i'll be old if i ever end up there...
it's so distant.
right now, today, i have no reason to be mobile. if i need to, the vista laptop that i bought refurbished for school will be mobile. and, i'm buying a phone.
what i need, right now, today, is an access point that will let me leave open lots of tabs indefinitely and blow away ram on youtube.
what i need is a cheap desktop with a ton of ram.
at
00:20
i'll almost certainly go to a store and build it myself.
but, this is far closer to what i actually want.
and, let this sink in:
- quad core 3.5
- tb hd
- 12 gb ram
- $500
a laptop with those specs would be over $1000, and have a quarter of the lifespan. it would be stupid of me to throw it away. it really would.
plus, the desktop has no wireless in it.
i didn't ask for that sum. she generated it on her own. and, i told her it was more than i need. but, she'll be happy to see what i'm doing with it: buying phones, buying bicycles, buying furniture, buying clothes, fixing guitars, etc.
she's getting older and she has a lot of money and she wanted to throw some at me. i'm fortunate....well, let's not get carried away, but i could be a lot worse off. and, i'm not being dishonest.
ok.
back to rebuilding the vista machine.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/acer-acer-aspire-tc-desktop-pc-amd-a10-7800-1tb-hdd-12gb-ram-amd-radeon-r7-graphics-windows-10-atc-280-eb11/10587600.aspx?
but, this is far closer to what i actually want.
and, let this sink in:
- quad core 3.5
- tb hd
- 12 gb ram
- $500
a laptop with those specs would be over $1000, and have a quarter of the lifespan. it would be stupid of me to throw it away. it really would.
plus, the desktop has no wireless in it.
i didn't ask for that sum. she generated it on her own. and, i told her it was more than i need. but, she'll be happy to see what i'm doing with it: buying phones, buying bicycles, buying furniture, buying clothes, fixing guitars, etc.
she's getting older and she has a lot of money and she wanted to throw some at me. i'm fortunate....well, let's not get carried away, but i could be a lot worse off. and, i'm not being dishonest.
ok.
back to rebuilding the vista machine.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/acer-acer-aspire-tc-desktop-pc-amd-a10-7800-1tb-hdd-12gb-ram-amd-radeon-r7-graphics-windows-10-atc-280-eb11/10587600.aspx?
at
00:10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)