they got me buying my meds, and i had to go home to call them, as i don't have a cell phone. i barely made it back to the store...
i'm not going to kill anybody if i don't get my meds. but, what if i really needed them?
and, the reason for this is simply to brand the new card to the cashier. there's no other reason to force the switch.
it's irresponsible.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/former-pc-financial-customers-say-frozen-simplii-bank-accounts-causing-undue-hardship-1.4600627
Saturday, March 31, 2018
what the problem is
second-hand smoke of at least six types:
1) tobacco (confirmed) (hallway)
2) marijuana (confirmed) (downstairs unit)
3) sage/incense (confirmed) (downstairs unit)
4) an unknown sweet smell (possibly oxycontin) (downstairs unit)
5) an unknown acidic smell (possibly heroin) (downstairs unit)
6) an unknown stimulant without a strong smell (possibly crystal meth) (downstairs unit)
symptoms of the problem
- sore throat
- both an inability to sleep for days & an inability to stay awake [altered sleeping patterns]
- heart palpitations
- marijuana contact highs
- headaches
- nose bleeds
i have been to the hospital twice for heart palpitations, restlessness and nose bleeds.
the seriousness of the problem
in addition to experiencing undesired effects of these drugs, it must be stressed that smoke is the leading cause of death.
smoke is the leading cause of death.
smoke is the leading cause of death!
even in the united states, a country grappling with a severe gun violence problem, second-hand smoke kills nearly twice as many people as guns, every year.
this is not a minor annoyance or a mere inconvenience. this is a serious health concern, on the level of asbestos or lead in the unit. lead is, in fact, a component of second-hand smoke.
what the law says
20 (1) A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards. 2006, c. 17, s. 20 (1).
in the year 2018, it must be understood by everybody - landlords, tenants and the court - that a unit full of second-hand smoke is not compliant and must be repaired to prevent the smoke from entering the unit.
what has already been done
- holes have been patched over with duct tape & plastic tarps at considerable personal cost (~$300). this has been of varying effect but is ongoing. it is clear that this will not be successful in some parts of the unit, which will require deeper repairs to smoke proof the unit.
- i have asked the downstairs tenant to smoke less, to no avail.
- i have called the police, to ask them to ask her to smoke less, or outside, to no avail.
- i have left the windows in the unit wide open, to my own discomfort, to varying effect. this is currently absolutely necessary, as a starting point. unfortunately, the downstairs tenant appears to actually be purposefully smoking through my windows in a possible attempt to upset me. i am merely confused by this.
- i tried to open the window in the hallway, but this was bolted down by staff. the doors to the stairways are also repeatedly closed by cleaning staff, when i open them.
proposed solutions
- hallway: to begin with, can we leave the doors open so that the air can circulate? and, is there not a way to open the windows to facilitate air flow?
i am currently more concerned about my personal unit, and there are four potential approaches to the problem.
1) discuss the problem with the downstairs tenant, indicating the seriousness of it.
i have already tried to speak with this tenant, and have already asked the police to speak with her. in both cases, she made pledges that she has not kept. while the easiest thing to do would be to get her to smoke outside and away from the windows (which would also be good for her health, considering how much smoke she produces, and of so many different types), i understand that this comes with no enforcement mechanism, and that voluntarism is always at the whim of the volunteer. i’m willing to allow a further request to play out, though.
ultimately, success in a voluntary approach requires this tenant understanding the seriousness attached to the dangers of second-hand smoke, including to herself, which is something that both smokers & non-smokers in this society refuse to get their heads around. we are collectively deeply ignorant about this and seem to be unwilling to change or learn the facts.
2) remove the source of the smoke.
while it is difficult to remove a tenant for smoking cigarettes inside their unit in ontario, it is not impossible if it is part of a complaint by another tenant. more pertinent to the issue at hand is that this tenant does not appear to be a cigarette smoker at all, but is rather an exceedingly heavy marijuana smoker (as well as a smoker of other unknown substances). marijuana remains illegal in canada until further notice and, despite the claims of the sitting government, canada’s obligations under international law are likely to prevent full legalization; this is more likely to be a broken campaign promise than an imminent reality. as a landlord, you would be in your rights to remove this tenant for illegal behaviour. and, i can provide information about relevant police reports.
that said, i understand that this would be a difficult and lengthy process with an unclear end point. further, if this tenant were to be replaced by another heavy smoker, the whole thing would be a waste of time.
3) smoke-proof the unit.
as mentioned, a great deal of effort has already been put into duct-taping around the holes in the unit, and some plastic tarps have even been purchased to block off certain areas. but, there are many areas that cannot be approached this way, particularly areas around the cabinets and other built in features, such as the electrical box. i believe that this is a potentially successful approach, but i understand that it will come with some cost to the company.
i suppose it is up to the company to carry-out a cost-benefit analysis: is it worthwhile to smoke-proof this unit, or is the high turnover rate of a smoke-filled unit (and the subsequent legal costs attached to it...) a worthwhile cost of business?
4) end my own tenancy, with relevant compensation.
i would be willing to discuss this as an exit point, if none of the other options are considered worth pursuing. however, i would expect that such a process be carried out formally through the proper social justice tribunal, where a compensation can be agreed upon in mediation, or determined by a judge. my requests for compensation would be comprehensive, but fair.
should none of these options be pursued by this time next month, i will take the necessary legal steps to pursue one of them on my own.
second-hand smoke of at least six types:
1) tobacco (confirmed) (hallway)
2) marijuana (confirmed) (downstairs unit)
3) sage/incense (confirmed) (downstairs unit)
4) an unknown sweet smell (possibly oxycontin) (downstairs unit)
5) an unknown acidic smell (possibly heroin) (downstairs unit)
6) an unknown stimulant without a strong smell (possibly crystal meth) (downstairs unit)
symptoms of the problem
- sore throat
- both an inability to sleep for days & an inability to stay awake [altered sleeping patterns]
- heart palpitations
- marijuana contact highs
- headaches
- nose bleeds
i have been to the hospital twice for heart palpitations, restlessness and nose bleeds.
the seriousness of the problem
in addition to experiencing undesired effects of these drugs, it must be stressed that smoke is the leading cause of death.
smoke is the leading cause of death.
smoke is the leading cause of death!
even in the united states, a country grappling with a severe gun violence problem, second-hand smoke kills nearly twice as many people as guns, every year.
this is not a minor annoyance or a mere inconvenience. this is a serious health concern, on the level of asbestos or lead in the unit. lead is, in fact, a component of second-hand smoke.
what the law says
20 (1) A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards. 2006, c. 17, s. 20 (1).
in the year 2018, it must be understood by everybody - landlords, tenants and the court - that a unit full of second-hand smoke is not compliant and must be repaired to prevent the smoke from entering the unit.
what has already been done
- holes have been patched over with duct tape & plastic tarps at considerable personal cost (~$300). this has been of varying effect but is ongoing. it is clear that this will not be successful in some parts of the unit, which will require deeper repairs to smoke proof the unit.
- i have asked the downstairs tenant to smoke less, to no avail.
- i have called the police, to ask them to ask her to smoke less, or outside, to no avail.
- i have left the windows in the unit wide open, to my own discomfort, to varying effect. this is currently absolutely necessary, as a starting point. unfortunately, the downstairs tenant appears to actually be purposefully smoking through my windows in a possible attempt to upset me. i am merely confused by this.
- i tried to open the window in the hallway, but this was bolted down by staff. the doors to the stairways are also repeatedly closed by cleaning staff, when i open them.
proposed solutions
- hallway: to begin with, can we leave the doors open so that the air can circulate? and, is there not a way to open the windows to facilitate air flow?
i am currently more concerned about my personal unit, and there are four potential approaches to the problem.
1) discuss the problem with the downstairs tenant, indicating the seriousness of it.
i have already tried to speak with this tenant, and have already asked the police to speak with her. in both cases, she made pledges that she has not kept. while the easiest thing to do would be to get her to smoke outside and away from the windows (which would also be good for her health, considering how much smoke she produces, and of so many different types), i understand that this comes with no enforcement mechanism, and that voluntarism is always at the whim of the volunteer. i’m willing to allow a further request to play out, though.
ultimately, success in a voluntary approach requires this tenant understanding the seriousness attached to the dangers of second-hand smoke, including to herself, which is something that both smokers & non-smokers in this society refuse to get their heads around. we are collectively deeply ignorant about this and seem to be unwilling to change or learn the facts.
2) remove the source of the smoke.
while it is difficult to remove a tenant for smoking cigarettes inside their unit in ontario, it is not impossible if it is part of a complaint by another tenant. more pertinent to the issue at hand is that this tenant does not appear to be a cigarette smoker at all, but is rather an exceedingly heavy marijuana smoker (as well as a smoker of other unknown substances). marijuana remains illegal in canada until further notice and, despite the claims of the sitting government, canada’s obligations under international law are likely to prevent full legalization; this is more likely to be a broken campaign promise than an imminent reality. as a landlord, you would be in your rights to remove this tenant for illegal behaviour. and, i can provide information about relevant police reports.
that said, i understand that this would be a difficult and lengthy process with an unclear end point. further, if this tenant were to be replaced by another heavy smoker, the whole thing would be a waste of time.
3) smoke-proof the unit.
as mentioned, a great deal of effort has already been put into duct-taping around the holes in the unit, and some plastic tarps have even been purchased to block off certain areas. but, there are many areas that cannot be approached this way, particularly areas around the cabinets and other built in features, such as the electrical box. i believe that this is a potentially successful approach, but i understand that it will come with some cost to the company.
i suppose it is up to the company to carry-out a cost-benefit analysis: is it worthwhile to smoke-proof this unit, or is the high turnover rate of a smoke-filled unit (and the subsequent legal costs attached to it...) a worthwhile cost of business?
4) end my own tenancy, with relevant compensation.
i would be willing to discuss this as an exit point, if none of the other options are considered worth pursuing. however, i would expect that such a process be carried out formally through the proper social justice tribunal, where a compensation can be agreed upon in mediation, or determined by a judge. my requests for compensation would be comprehensive, but fair.
should none of these options be pursued by this time next month, i will take the necessary legal steps to pursue one of them on my own.
ok.
i'm finally at the point where i wanted to stop and re-evaluate: election finished, vlog begun and back to work.
the vlog & the blog merge, at this point. i quit smoking at the beginning of 2016. but i need to...
i kind of want to get a move on this. there's a thousand pages on the 2016 us election. do i really want to upload this right now?
the flip argument is that i'm kind of stuck in bed until i can get the second-hand smoke issue dealt with. the other half of the apartment is kind of a dead zone, for now.
i guess the pages split in mid-2016.
i think the signal increases, at least.
right now, i'm hungry - and i need to spend the morning writing an essay for my landlord.
i'm finally at the point where i wanted to stop and re-evaluate: election finished, vlog begun and back to work.
the vlog & the blog merge, at this point. i quit smoking at the beginning of 2016. but i need to...
i kind of want to get a move on this. there's a thousand pages on the 2016 us election. do i really want to upload this right now?
the flip argument is that i'm kind of stuck in bed until i can get the second-hand smoke issue dealt with. the other half of the apartment is kind of a dead zone, for now.
i guess the pages split in mid-2016.
i think the signal increases, at least.
right now, i'm hungry - and i need to spend the morning writing an essay for my landlord.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/10/i-complain-about-models.html
actual results:
liberal - 184 (missed by 25ish)
conservative - 99 (i nailed this)
ndp - 44 (i nailed this)
bloc - 10 (missed by 25ish)
green - 1
my argument was that the increased liberal numbers in quebec would elect a lot of bloc mps, by accident. it turns out that this was too fancy of an argument, and i would have totally nailed it had i just looked at the swings directly.
actual results:
liberal - 184 (missed by 25ish)
conservative - 99 (i nailed this)
ndp - 44 (i nailed this)
bloc - 10 (missed by 25ish)
green - 1
my argument was that the increased liberal numbers in quebec would elect a lot of bloc mps, by accident. it turns out that this was too fancy of an argument, and i would have totally nailed it had i just looked at the swings directly.
Friday, March 30, 2018
it's no doubt a function of the nature of the films...
the social network ost is a livelier, more engaging listen that actually holds up as one of his better records; the girl with the dragon tattoo ost is cold and disengaging, and more difficult to listen to actively, although i'm finding it functional as background music, right this moment.
i think you have to get your head around the idea that these are mostly jams, rather than compositions - you may be hearing some overdubs thrown in, but this is mostly being constructed on the fly, making it a type of twisted jazz, really. there's also a huge amount of sampling in both of these, which i'm not about to criticize from some position of purity, but do need to point out; as these are both mostly improvised works and soundtracks rather than standalone compositions, sampling exists in a different context. the reason you need to point it out, though, is that the tracks come in the form of templates.
reznor has a habit of repeating himself, and he's done the same thing with his soundtrack work - if you include ghosts, it really all bleeds into itself and starts to stagnate some time around 2012. you could argue, then, that it works best if you pull it all together into a ten or fifteen disc set and think of it as a single work.
i have no criticism beyond that point - everything he's done with ross in this style is enjoyable, as repetitive as some of it may be. but, standing in 2018, maybe it's time to move on.
the social network ost is a livelier, more engaging listen that actually holds up as one of his better records; the girl with the dragon tattoo ost is cold and disengaging, and more difficult to listen to actively, although i'm finding it functional as background music, right this moment.
i think you have to get your head around the idea that these are mostly jams, rather than compositions - you may be hearing some overdubs thrown in, but this is mostly being constructed on the fly, making it a type of twisted jazz, really. there's also a huge amount of sampling in both of these, which i'm not about to criticize from some position of purity, but do need to point out; as these are both mostly improvised works and soundtracks rather than standalone compositions, sampling exists in a different context. the reason you need to point it out, though, is that the tracks come in the form of templates.
reznor has a habit of repeating himself, and he's done the same thing with his soundtrack work - if you include ghosts, it really all bleeds into itself and starts to stagnate some time around 2012. you could argue, then, that it works best if you pull it all together into a ten or fifteen disc set and think of it as a single work.
i have no criticism beyond that point - everything he's done with ross in this style is enjoyable, as repetitive as some of it may be. but, standing in 2018, maybe it's time to move on.
i need to repeat.
if there is any discernible movement in the polling right now, it's away from the liberal party and towards the green party. and, this makes a lot of sense, given that trudeau has been a disaster for the environment, in his zeal to approve every pipeline that he can.
i'd like to see regional numbers, though, and they're not available. is this cross-country, or localized in bc?
if there is any discernible movement in the polling right now, it's away from the liberal party and towards the green party. and, this makes a lot of sense, given that trudeau has been a disaster for the environment, in his zeal to approve every pipeline that he can.
i'd like to see regional numbers, though, and they're not available. is this cross-country, or localized in bc?
federally speaking, there has not been any meaningful polling measuring a shift from the liberals to the conservatives at all. so, i'm not going to provide an explanation for something that there is no evidence of.
there has been a push by the tory media to frame a specific narrative using bunk "polling". that is all.
the liberals are down a little, but the conservatives remain flat. these votes are not moving from the liberals to the conservatives, but from the liberals to elsewhere.
the most likely explanation for this is that trudeau has not followed through on anything that he promised.
it appears that trudeau was given a longer than normal grace period to follow through, and this may have confused people into thinking that policy doesn't matter. most people don't follow the news daily, so it may have taken some time for the facts to get there. but, when reliable polling comes out and finds these lost votes floating around between "undecided", "ndp" and "green", it will be clearer that he's not losing votes on his right, but on his left.
that said, low turnout or a spike in the green vote could lead to a conservative minority.
there has been a push by the tory media to frame a specific narrative using bunk "polling". that is all.
the liberals are down a little, but the conservatives remain flat. these votes are not moving from the liberals to the conservatives, but from the liberals to elsewhere.
the most likely explanation for this is that trudeau has not followed through on anything that he promised.
it appears that trudeau was given a longer than normal grace period to follow through, and this may have confused people into thinking that policy doesn't matter. most people don't follow the news daily, so it may have taken some time for the facts to get there. but, when reliable polling comes out and finds these lost votes floating around between "undecided", "ndp" and "green", it will be clearer that he's not losing votes on his right, but on his left.
that said, low turnout or a spike in the green vote could lead to a conservative minority.
satanism only makes sense in the framework of christianity.
real atheists rejects satanists as reactionary christians - and satanism as irrational.
something should also be said about the parallels between secular humanism and natural law theory, which is a christian idea, in origin. i'm not an advocate of natural law theory, exactly; it's not scientific inquiry, and science really needs to take precedence over logic. but, you can't really understand secular humanism without having read a little aquinas.
real atheists rejects satanists as reactionary christians - and satanism as irrational.
something should also be said about the parallels between secular humanism and natural law theory, which is a christian idea, in origin. i'm not an advocate of natural law theory, exactly; it's not scientific inquiry, and science really needs to take precedence over logic. but, you can't really understand secular humanism without having read a little aquinas.
when somebody says "i'm not a christian", that doesn't only mean that they don't believe in angels and demons, or trinities, or zombies, or cannibalism.
it also means that they reject the christian value system.
of course, there are varying levels of rejection, and what that means is complicated. but, the key to understanding an atheist is removing yourself from the framework of christianity, first. it's very hard to understand the irreligious when you've spent your entire life chained in the cave of religion.
so, for something like drug addiction, a christian is going to frame the issue in terms of a value system that upholds hard work, and rejects sloth as a sin. a christian would consequently consider addiction as a "sinful" lifestyle that is rebellious, because it rejects "god". this would then be contrasted with a pious lifestyle. somebody that upholds sobriety would consequently be godly, in their rejection of sinfulness.
i've repeatedly ranted against the protestant work ethic and upheld sloth as a virtue.
but, this entire discussion exists within the framework of christianity itself, and the aim of an atheist is to reject this. a humanist would not care about what somebody might imagine that god would think of the scenario. an atheist does not believe in concepts of sin, and so does not interpret drug use or promiscuity through a filter of rebelliousness or sinfulness, but rather seeks to rationalize it by empirically analyzing it's effects on the individual's health.
so, where a christian may be tempted to certain behaviours as rebellious and sinful, because the issue was framed that way to them, an atheist is likely to flatly reject such behaviours as irrational and harmful to one's health - which is why the christians framed them that way in the first place.
this is why religion is so damaging to a healthy society, and why it is so important to rationalize away these concepts of "sin" and "rebellion", as they manufacture stupidity, rather than abolish it.
somebody rebelling against religion may consequently see an atheist and a religious conservative as somewhat equivalent, because they're telling them the same thing about their destructive behaviour. but, the truth here is that the reason this is happening is because rebellion is irrational - and the true thing to learn from this is that rebels are idiots.
it also means that they reject the christian value system.
of course, there are varying levels of rejection, and what that means is complicated. but, the key to understanding an atheist is removing yourself from the framework of christianity, first. it's very hard to understand the irreligious when you've spent your entire life chained in the cave of religion.
so, for something like drug addiction, a christian is going to frame the issue in terms of a value system that upholds hard work, and rejects sloth as a sin. a christian would consequently consider addiction as a "sinful" lifestyle that is rebellious, because it rejects "god". this would then be contrasted with a pious lifestyle. somebody that upholds sobriety would consequently be godly, in their rejection of sinfulness.
i've repeatedly ranted against the protestant work ethic and upheld sloth as a virtue.
but, this entire discussion exists within the framework of christianity itself, and the aim of an atheist is to reject this. a humanist would not care about what somebody might imagine that god would think of the scenario. an atheist does not believe in concepts of sin, and so does not interpret drug use or promiscuity through a filter of rebelliousness or sinfulness, but rather seeks to rationalize it by empirically analyzing it's effects on the individual's health.
so, where a christian may be tempted to certain behaviours as rebellious and sinful, because the issue was framed that way to them, an atheist is likely to flatly reject such behaviours as irrational and harmful to one's health - which is why the christians framed them that way in the first place.
this is why religion is so damaging to a healthy society, and why it is so important to rationalize away these concepts of "sin" and "rebellion", as they manufacture stupidity, rather than abolish it.
somebody rebelling against religion may consequently see an atheist and a religious conservative as somewhat equivalent, because they're telling them the same thing about their destructive behaviour. but, the truth here is that the reason this is happening is because rebellion is irrational - and the true thing to learn from this is that rebels are idiots.
ned would march downstairs and give these people a hug and try to get them to rehab, because their lives are valuable, and god loves them.
i'm out to destroy them and leave them for dead, because i don't fucking care about them at all.
i care about my health.
and, i'm not going to "chill out" and accept your ignorance about the dangers of second-hand smoke - i'm going to get a court to uphold my rights.
i'm out to destroy them and leave them for dead, because i don't fucking care about them at all.
i care about my health.
and, i'm not going to "chill out" and accept your ignorance about the dangers of second-hand smoke - i'm going to get a court to uphold my rights.
the flanders joke was that it's very hard (stupid, frankly) to love your neighbours, when your neighbours are people like the simpsons. but, the buffoon tries, anyways. it was a deep caricature of christianity.
a rational flanders would have built a moat between the properties, or moved away, or bombed them, or something - for the good of humanity. but, because he's a christian, he insisted on loving and forgiving and accepting them. and, that's the joke - it's about how stupid christianity is, because it would preach acceptance rather than seek to protect itself from obvious harm.
you're not supposed to identify with these people; it's satire, and they're literally cartoon characters.
a rational flanders would have built a moat between the properties, or moved away, or bombed them, or something - for the good of humanity. but, because he's a christian, he insisted on loving and forgiving and accepting them. and, that's the joke - it's about how stupid christianity is, because it would preach acceptance rather than seek to protect itself from obvious harm.
you're not supposed to identify with these people; it's satire, and they're literally cartoon characters.
i mean, i understand that there's a physical reality to the addiction.
this isn't a choice...
but i simply don't want this.
you can't even get me to watch a 30 minute tv show. how are you going to get me to waste entire weekends on drugs?
again: i'm just feeling indigestion, right now. it's not serious. i'm probably being paranoid. but, it's just not going to happen; it's not going to be a situation where i'm forcing myself to give up something i like for my health, but a situation where i'm eager to clear something i don't like out of my system, at whatever pain that comes with it.
this isn't a choice...
but i simply don't want this.
you can't even get me to watch a 30 minute tv show. how are you going to get me to waste entire weekends on drugs?
again: i'm just feeling indigestion, right now. it's not serious. i'm probably being paranoid. but, it's just not going to happen; it's not going to be a situation where i'm forcing myself to give up something i like for my health, but a situation where i'm eager to clear something i don't like out of my system, at whatever pain that comes with it.
i'm not worried about getting addicted to anything. i am worried about going through withdrawals.
and, i will go through withdrawals, however difficult they are, and repeatedly, if forced to.
i have absolutely no romantic delusions attached to drug use, at all. i understand it's a chemical dependence that my body can defeat. and, about the only thing i'm likely to find myself concerned with is in maximizing productivity - and how impossible that is under the influence of opiates.
if this somehow gets me fucked up, i'm going to hate it, and cry for however long it takes to pass through.
cocaine is something i might develop an addiction to, if i were to play with it. but, my interest in depressants is zilch.
and, i will go through withdrawals, however difficult they are, and repeatedly, if forced to.
i have absolutely no romantic delusions attached to drug use, at all. i understand it's a chemical dependence that my body can defeat. and, about the only thing i'm likely to find myself concerned with is in maximizing productivity - and how impossible that is under the influence of opiates.
if this somehow gets me fucked up, i'm going to hate it, and cry for however long it takes to pass through.
cocaine is something i might develop an addiction to, if i were to play with it. but, my interest in depressants is zilch.
how do i feel?
head is a little blurry. stomach hurts a little. it's mild - just annoying, really. more indigestion than inebriation. if i need to, i'll get to the hospital; right now, i'm more likely to eat.
fwiw, it should be obvious that i don't celebrate christian holidays. at all.
but, this woman isn't going to rise on the third day, if she goes under tonight.
head is a little blurry. stomach hurts a little. it's mild - just annoying, really. more indigestion than inebriation. if i need to, i'll get to the hospital; right now, i'm more likely to eat.
fwiw, it should be obvious that i don't celebrate christian holidays. at all.
but, this woman isn't going to rise on the third day, if she goes under tonight.
i'm very close to calling them in on heroin.
the smell is of acetic acid, and this seems to happen on friday nights, although it also sometimes smells kind of like soapy wine. again: i have no experience with heroin and would not be able to identify it, but research tells me that it smells like vinegar due to the cutting agents.
if anybody ever offered me heroin, it is unlikely that i would be able to refrain myself from beating the shit out of them.
i'm not sure why else there would be repeated vinegar smells rising from downstairs. on weekends. it seems obvious.
tonight is a thursday, but it's a long weekend. and, i'm holding back because i don't want an ambulance to wake her up.
it would be the easiest solution, wouldn't it? and, wouldn't it be a matter of time, anyways?
the smell is of acetic acid, and this seems to happen on friday nights, although it also sometimes smells kind of like soapy wine. again: i have no experience with heroin and would not be able to identify it, but research tells me that it smells like vinegar due to the cutting agents.
if anybody ever offered me heroin, it is unlikely that i would be able to refrain myself from beating the shit out of them.
i'm not sure why else there would be repeated vinegar smells rising from downstairs. on weekends. it seems obvious.
tonight is a thursday, but it's a long weekend. and, i'm holding back because i don't want an ambulance to wake her up.
it would be the easiest solution, wouldn't it? and, wouldn't it be a matter of time, anyways?
yeah, my dad was a metalhead.
he was more into prog-metal, but he was a metalhead - he followed prog into metal when prog died. well, metal and blues. there was a lot of high-end blues done in the 80s.
and, my mom is really a metalhead. my dad just wanted the musicianship; he was less of a nerd than me, but leaned that way. my mom is full into satan-worship, leather jackets, motorcycles, gratuitous drug use and forehead beer can smashing. she's a stereotype.
and, it's absolutely the reason why i grew up hating metal.
but, this is a normal gen x reaction to the excesses of the baby boomers.
he was more into prog-metal, but he was a metalhead - he followed prog into metal when prog died. well, metal and blues. there was a lot of high-end blues done in the 80s.
and, my mom is really a metalhead. my dad just wanted the musicianship; he was less of a nerd than me, but leaned that way. my mom is full into satan-worship, leather jackets, motorcycles, gratuitous drug use and forehead beer can smashing. she's a stereotype.
and, it's absolutely the reason why i grew up hating metal.
but, this is a normal gen x reaction to the excesses of the baby boomers.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
what wynne is doing is actually more harperesque than trudeau-lite: it's micro-targetting, but in the form of very targetted social programs rather than in the form of boutique tax credits. and, the bulk of it actually seems kind of poorly thought out.
one hopes that wynne's goal is eventually universal drug coverage. and, even if the thing ends up overseen nationally, it is going to be administered provincially - this is a constitutional reality. so, a universal drug coverage bill would certainly mean universal coverage for seniors. but, we already have an income-tested system for seniors - meaning what wynne's bill does is give free coverage to people that have already been determined to be able to afford it. it is literally a bribe...
again: if the end goal is universal coverage, then this happens, one day. but, the way she's doing it is really kind of slimy.
one could say the same thing about socialized babysitting for people between 2.5 and 4. it's designed to appeal to young mothers, many of whom may have never voted before. tactical. cynical. kind of slimy.
but, i wouldn't vote against any of it, either.
i'm actually all about the status quo, this time around. i'd just like to keep things moving as they are.
so, i'd really like to hear an update on the plan to get organic waste out of landfills - which is due any day, now. and, some kind of report on the ubi would be interesting, too.
one hopes that wynne's goal is eventually universal drug coverage. and, even if the thing ends up overseen nationally, it is going to be administered provincially - this is a constitutional reality. so, a universal drug coverage bill would certainly mean universal coverage for seniors. but, we already have an income-tested system for seniors - meaning what wynne's bill does is give free coverage to people that have already been determined to be able to afford it. it is literally a bribe...
again: if the end goal is universal coverage, then this happens, one day. but, the way she's doing it is really kind of slimy.
one could say the same thing about socialized babysitting for people between 2.5 and 4. it's designed to appeal to young mothers, many of whom may have never voted before. tactical. cynical. kind of slimy.
but, i wouldn't vote against any of it, either.
i'm actually all about the status quo, this time around. i'd just like to keep things moving as they are.
so, i'd really like to hear an update on the plan to get organic waste out of landfills - which is due any day, now. and, some kind of report on the ubi would be interesting, too.
yeah.
what i'm going to do for this month is just level with her - put the facts down on the table and let them determine what way they want to go.
they have three options:
1) prosecuting the tenant below me for illegal behaviour. that is going to be expensive, and they may even lose the court case. but, she may leave on her own rather than fight. even so, what happens if another smoker moves in?
2) spend what will probably be thousands of dollars smoke-proofing this unit, after i force them to via court order. my attempts to smoke-proof the unit have not been successful.
3) just let me break the lease and leave. although i'm going to ask for financial compensation (in the form of moving costs), and it means re-opening a vacancy, this is by far the cheapest option.
we can talk further in april.
what i'm going to do for this month is just level with her - put the facts down on the table and let them determine what way they want to go.
they have three options:
1) prosecuting the tenant below me for illegal behaviour. that is going to be expensive, and they may even lose the court case. but, she may leave on her own rather than fight. even so, what happens if another smoker moves in?
2) spend what will probably be thousands of dollars smoke-proofing this unit, after i force them to via court order. my attempts to smoke-proof the unit have not been successful.
3) just let me break the lease and leave. although i'm going to ask for financial compensation (in the form of moving costs), and it means re-opening a vacancy, this is by far the cheapest option.
we can talk further in april.
i'm not doing this right now, but i'm going to have to search the case law for examples where second-hand smoke - and specifically second-hand marijuana smoke - is considered an "uninhabitable" situation.
A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.
i don't know if there is precedent around this, but i'm willing to make a novel argument - and push it to divisional court - if i have to.
a unit full of second-hand smoke should be considered unfit for habitation.
A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.
i don't know if there is precedent around this, but i'm willing to make a novel argument - and push it to divisional court - if i have to.
a unit full of second-hand smoke should be considered unfit for habitation.
what i'm going to have to do is give the landlord an ultimatum:
- take my smoke complaint seriously, and take steps to remove the tenant below me, or
- fight me in court, understanding that i'm trying to get out of the lease.
they're going to lose a tenant, either way. do they want to lose a law-abiding non-smoker that cares about respecting the building and the other tenants, or a disgusting, filthy ashtray of a person that doesn't care about anybody but herself?
i actually suspect they'll chose the smoker.
and, that's just confirmation that i need to get out.
this is the snoop-turing thesis.
- take my smoke complaint seriously, and take steps to remove the tenant below me, or
- fight me in court, understanding that i'm trying to get out of the lease.
they're going to lose a tenant, either way. do they want to lose a law-abiding non-smoker that cares about respecting the building and the other tenants, or a disgusting, filthy ashtray of a person that doesn't care about anybody but herself?
i actually suspect they'll chose the smoker.
and, that's just confirmation that i need to get out.
this is the snoop-turing thesis.
my lease here is until december.
i'm starting to realize that i'm going to have to move if i want to maintain my mental health.
this place is going to drive me insane.
it's a shame; the problem isn't the building, it's the tenants. i like the location...
i'm going to have problems with smokers regardless of where i move, this is true. but i probably have the most disgusting person in the city below me. it's just constant - this person is chain-smoking 24/7. and, i have no serious legal options available to me to stand up for myself.
i don't want to be the person that dedicates my life to winning tenants rights for non-smokers. i have better things to do.
so, i'm going to file a smoke complaint with the intent of getting the board to cancel the lease and have the property manager pay my moving costs out. the landlord is really correct when she says that she can't do anything. but, that means that she should be liable to help me move, then.
if i file a smoke complaint, the landlord is required to make a good faith effort to address it. but, if she's telling me right off the bat that there is no solution to this, then that good faith effort should be interpreted as a way to help me move.
she should have told me that there were smokers in the building and that the place is uninhabitable for non-smokers.
i'm starting to realize that i'm going to have to move if i want to maintain my mental health.
this place is going to drive me insane.
it's a shame; the problem isn't the building, it's the tenants. i like the location...
i'm going to have problems with smokers regardless of where i move, this is true. but i probably have the most disgusting person in the city below me. it's just constant - this person is chain-smoking 24/7. and, i have no serious legal options available to me to stand up for myself.
i don't want to be the person that dedicates my life to winning tenants rights for non-smokers. i have better things to do.
so, i'm going to file a smoke complaint with the intent of getting the board to cancel the lease and have the property manager pay my moving costs out. the landlord is really correct when she says that she can't do anything. but, that means that she should be liable to help me move, then.
if i file a smoke complaint, the landlord is required to make a good faith effort to address it. but, if she's telling me right off the bat that there is no solution to this, then that good faith effort should be interpreted as a way to help me move.
she should have told me that there were smokers in the building and that the place is uninhabitable for non-smokers.
these people are continuing to go out of their way to eject smoke into my apartment, and i'm just left with two conclusions:
1) it's hard to believe that they're so pathetic that they enjoy this, but it must be because they have some kind of incredibly immature crush on me. i believe it's well understood that marijuana leads to arrested development. but, this is grade school type behaviour. they're acting like a couple of little girls teasing the boy they like.
2) i need to be extra careful to ignore them, as they seem to be feeding on the lack of consent.
(as readers here know, i'm not actively attracted to women, and consider myself asexual.)
but, i kind of want to tell them to go smoke somebody that wants it; i figure they owe me $1000 in labour for cleaning up their constant stream of filth, but they could easily argue that they've paid it off in marijuana that i don't want....maybe i'll just lean over the window and breath the next time i do want to get baked...
1) it's hard to believe that they're so pathetic that they enjoy this, but it must be because they have some kind of incredibly immature crush on me. i believe it's well understood that marijuana leads to arrested development. but, this is grade school type behaviour. they're acting like a couple of little girls teasing the boy they like.
2) i need to be extra careful to ignore them, as they seem to be feeding on the lack of consent.
(as readers here know, i'm not actively attracted to women, and consider myself asexual.)
but, i kind of want to tell them to go smoke somebody that wants it; i figure they owe me $1000 in labour for cleaning up their constant stream of filth, but they could easily argue that they've paid it off in marijuana that i don't want....maybe i'll just lean over the window and breath the next time i do want to get baked...
i actually felt that how to destroy angels was...
she's a better front than him, for the style. my thought at the time was that if reznor is bent on being a pop star then this is a way better way to do it.
that said, i was also hoping that this pop outlet would help him focus on a more serious streak, and in a sense i guess it did - although it all came out in soundtrack work.
it's not his best work. but, i'll take the htda stuff over with teeth or the slip - absolutely.
but, you could make either argument (that it killed him & that it saved him) and be right.
she's a better front than him, for the style. my thought at the time was that if reznor is bent on being a pop star then this is a way better way to do it.
that said, i was also hoping that this pop outlet would help him focus on a more serious streak, and in a sense i guess it did - although it all came out in soundtrack work.
it's not his best work. but, i'll take the htda stuff over with teeth or the slip - absolutely.
but, you could make either argument (that it killed him & that it saved him) and be right.
so, how bad is the slip?
i don't think i listened to it all the way through, on release. it was that bad: i couldn't make it through it...
in hindsight, i understand that it wasn't meant for me. this is a record that was meant for people ten years younger than me, that had interacted with reznor in a completely different way and wanted something from him that was almost the diametric opposite of what i wanted from him.
it's a sort of a greatest hits record, in the sense that every track on the record recalls one of his hit tracks from previous years. you can call it a summary if you want; a retrospective. i actually think it's more of a rebranding - for that younger audience. these seem like replacements.
and, replacements for what? well, it's also very clearly a record that is designed primarily for a live audience.
i don't know how calculated it was, but it was probably thought through at some point: the purpose of the slip appears to have been to replace old songs in the setlist with new songs that are vaguely equivalent. the purpose of this was probably primarily lyrical. and, i'm not getting anything more or less out of it.
i kind of liked the old songs, though, and have never warmed to the record.
it's maybe not technically as bad as with teeth, but i tend to rank it at the very bottom of the list, anyways.
i don't think i listened to it all the way through, on release. it was that bad: i couldn't make it through it...
in hindsight, i understand that it wasn't meant for me. this is a record that was meant for people ten years younger than me, that had interacted with reznor in a completely different way and wanted something from him that was almost the diametric opposite of what i wanted from him.
it's a sort of a greatest hits record, in the sense that every track on the record recalls one of his hit tracks from previous years. you can call it a summary if you want; a retrospective. i actually think it's more of a rebranding - for that younger audience. these seem like replacements.
and, replacements for what? well, it's also very clearly a record that is designed primarily for a live audience.
i don't know how calculated it was, but it was probably thought through at some point: the purpose of the slip appears to have been to replace old songs in the setlist with new songs that are vaguely equivalent. the purpose of this was probably primarily lyrical. and, i'm not getting anything more or less out of it.
i kind of liked the old songs, though, and have never warmed to the record.
it's maybe not technically as bad as with teeth, but i tend to rank it at the very bottom of the list, anyways.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
the reason that nobody talks to america anymore is that nobody trusts america anymore.
so, everybody appears to be operating around their airspace without telling them what they're doing. all of these alliances and strategic operations are taking place, and the americans are just out of the loop.
this has just left america grasping for a light switch in the dark.
they need to get out pronto. asap. now.
so, everybody appears to be operating around their airspace without telling them what they're doing. all of these alliances and strategic operations are taking place, and the americans are just out of the loop.
this has just left america grasping for a light switch in the dark.
they need to get out pronto. asap. now.
the state department is clueless; the united states has no idea what's going on, anymore.
sadly, what's unfolding in the united states state department right now is justifying the kinds of arguments that authoritarian states - like russia and turkey - use to discredit democracy.
it's chaos. insanity. disorder.
tillerson was clueless enough, himself, and never should have been put into this position. now, the department is falling apart, you've got the second major turnover in months...and they can't do basic analysis any more...
is trump at least smart enough to realize he should recuse his country from a conflict that it no longer understands?
http://www.newsweek.com/us-actually-agrees-iran-syria-says-turkey-helping-isis-attacking-afrin-852159
sadly, what's unfolding in the united states state department right now is justifying the kinds of arguments that authoritarian states - like russia and turkey - use to discredit democracy.
it's chaos. insanity. disorder.
tillerson was clueless enough, himself, and never should have been put into this position. now, the department is falling apart, you've got the second major turnover in months...and they can't do basic analysis any more...
is trump at least smart enough to realize he should recuse his country from a conflict that it no longer understands?
http://www.newsweek.com/us-actually-agrees-iran-syria-says-turkey-helping-isis-attacking-afrin-852159
i still think the qs is poised for a major break through, and that the harder couilliard fights on his right, the larger the swing will be. these four-party spectrums get so messy.
the quebec liberals are too right-wing for my tastes. i would like to see qs cut substantively into their voting base, especially with recent immigrants.
but, if couilliard wants to split the caq vote up a bit, he might want to go out of his way to remind everybody that legault has renounced sovereigntism, making him a local representative of the federal conservative party.
this is no doubt the opposite of what he is thinking.
the quebec liberals are too right-wing for my tastes. i would like to see qs cut substantively into their voting base, especially with recent immigrants.
but, if couilliard wants to split the caq vote up a bit, he might want to go out of his way to remind everybody that legault has renounced sovereigntism, making him a local representative of the federal conservative party.
this is no doubt the opposite of what he is thinking.
i'm going to print this off and leave it on a few doors.
i'm not convinced that first-hand vaping is much better than smoking. but i've been around the pens at bars, and they don't produce the same level of second-hand smoke.
http://stonerpros.com/reasons-to-vape/
i'm not convinced that first-hand vaping is much better than smoking. but i've been around the pens at bars, and they don't produce the same level of second-hand smoke.
http://stonerpros.com/reasons-to-vape/
even norml comes right out and says it, although they're also being confusing, and it's kind of maddening.
there have been studies that have suggested that the active ingredients in marijuana - thc & cbd - may have anti-oxidant properties, but the way this is presented pretty much everywhere is grossly misleading.
some of the studies have even gone so far as to suggest that thc might shrink tumours, it is true, but what these studies did is inject the compound directly into the tumour at concentrations that are beyond anything we could imagine. you'd have to condense thousands and thousands of joints worth of thc into a syringe to get these kinds of properties. the amount of thc you get from smoking bud is absolutely clinically useless.
so, these reports say things like "it's true that marijuana smoke has been found to produce pre-cancerous cells...but it also has thc", with the implication that it balances out. but, that is dishonest. marijuana smoke has carcinogens in very, very high concentrations (equivalent or higher than tobacco smoke) and trace amounts of anti-oxidants. they don't balance out.
in very, very high concentrations, nicotine could potentially reverse ageing. but, nobody talks about that when discussing the effects of smoking.
you can wait fifty years for these studies to come back, but unless you've smoked yourself retarded, you know it's going to give you cancer - and there's no use in pretending you don't.
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk
there have been studies that have suggested that the active ingredients in marijuana - thc & cbd - may have anti-oxidant properties, but the way this is presented pretty much everywhere is grossly misleading.
some of the studies have even gone so far as to suggest that thc might shrink tumours, it is true, but what these studies did is inject the compound directly into the tumour at concentrations that are beyond anything we could imagine. you'd have to condense thousands and thousands of joints worth of thc into a syringe to get these kinds of properties. the amount of thc you get from smoking bud is absolutely clinically useless.
so, these reports say things like "it's true that marijuana smoke has been found to produce pre-cancerous cells...but it also has thc", with the implication that it balances out. but, that is dishonest. marijuana smoke has carcinogens in very, very high concentrations (equivalent or higher than tobacco smoke) and trace amounts of anti-oxidants. they don't balance out.
in very, very high concentrations, nicotine could potentially reverse ageing. but, nobody talks about that when discussing the effects of smoking.
you can wait fifty years for these studies to come back, but unless you've smoked yourself retarded, you know it's going to give you cancer - and there's no use in pretending you don't.
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk
“Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand,”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cancer-cannabis/cannabis-bigger-cancer-risk-than-cigarettes-study-idUSHKG10478820080129
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cancer-cannabis/cannabis-bigger-cancer-risk-than-cigarettes-study-idUSHKG10478820080129
i don't know why they attribute this to a conservative blowhard,
rather than a humanist scientist; it's a scientific fact, not a
religious opinion.
but it's true.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/
but it's true.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/
"they're not hurting anybody, police resources should be deployed towards people that are harming others."
https://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2013/dec/18/cigarettes-or-war-which-is-the-biggest-killer
https://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2013/dec/18/cigarettes-or-war-which-is-the-biggest-killer
so, what's the way out of this?
it's edibles.
if i were a sitting senator, i might contemplate sending the bill back in order to relegislate the issue around making access to edibles easier, and access to bud almost impossible.
as a society, we really ought to be coercing people to start eating it and stop smoking it - not just for the benefit of users, but also for the health of everybody else.
it's edibles.
if i were a sitting senator, i might contemplate sending the bill back in order to relegislate the issue around making access to edibles easier, and access to bud almost impossible.
as a society, we really ought to be coercing people to start eating it and stop smoking it - not just for the benefit of users, but also for the health of everybody else.
so, when you recognize that complications from smoke inhalation is the leading cause of death in society, what does it mean to argue that the cops are wasting their time dealing with smoke inhalation issues?
smoke kills more people than guns, gangs, alcohol, sexual violence & virtually everything else you can come up with, combined.
if we were to be rational about the data, we would have to conclude that the primary purpose of the police should be to ensure that people aren't smoking anywhere near where it can be inhaled by anybody. they should be in special facilities, that you need to put hazmat suits on to enter.
i need to repeat this: smoke is the leading cause of death.
smokers kill more people than gangs.
smoke is more dangerous than guns.
we've got this all backwards.
but, how can we be so ignorant? what's underlying this absurdity?
it's probably some good old fashioned toxic masculinity. for, while it may be true that smoke is more dangerous than guns, fighting smokers isn't quite like fighting gangs. it doesn't have that combat component, that feeling of danger.
but, we need to be more rational about this - and that means getting more strict on smokers, not less strict.
smoke kills more people than guns, gangs, alcohol, sexual violence & virtually everything else you can come up with, combined.
if we were to be rational about the data, we would have to conclude that the primary purpose of the police should be to ensure that people aren't smoking anywhere near where it can be inhaled by anybody. they should be in special facilities, that you need to put hazmat suits on to enter.
i need to repeat this: smoke is the leading cause of death.
smokers kill more people than gangs.
smoke is more dangerous than guns.
we've got this all backwards.
but, how can we be so ignorant? what's underlying this absurdity?
it's probably some good old fashioned toxic masculinity. for, while it may be true that smoke is more dangerous than guns, fighting smokers isn't quite like fighting gangs. it doesn't have that combat component, that feeling of danger.
but, we need to be more rational about this - and that means getting more strict on smokers, not less strict.
there's this idea that marijuana doesn't kill anybody. i've stated it myself. but it's wrong.
if you were to claim that tobacco doesn't create overdoses, you'd be correct. so, would you then claim that tobacco doesn't kill anybody?
overdose deaths from tobacco: 0.
in fact, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death.
one of the things about prohibition is that it skews the statistics, and i'll admit that it's never going to be easy to separate deaths caused by tobacco from deaths caused by marijuana, because it's such a heavy overlap. when a marijuana smoker gets lung cancer, or heart disease, it's never going to be clear if the primary cause is the marijuana or the tobacco that this person also smokes, along with the unhealthy diet and the sedentary lifestyle. what we can say, right now, is that prohibition removes marijuana from the statistics.
full legalization should hopefully allow us to better understand marijuana smoke as a risk factor for heart disease, for cancer, for emphysema, for diabetes, for stroke - for all the things we've tied so heavily to tobacco.
and, in a decade or two, this idea that marijuana doesn't kill anybody is going to be a surreal joke about how ignorant we were.
if you were to claim that tobacco doesn't create overdoses, you'd be correct. so, would you then claim that tobacco doesn't kill anybody?
overdose deaths from tobacco: 0.
in fact, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death.
one of the things about prohibition is that it skews the statistics, and i'll admit that it's never going to be easy to separate deaths caused by tobacco from deaths caused by marijuana, because it's such a heavy overlap. when a marijuana smoker gets lung cancer, or heart disease, it's never going to be clear if the primary cause is the marijuana or the tobacco that this person also smokes, along with the unhealthy diet and the sedentary lifestyle. what we can say, right now, is that prohibition removes marijuana from the statistics.
full legalization should hopefully allow us to better understand marijuana smoke as a risk factor for heart disease, for cancer, for emphysema, for diabetes, for stroke - for all the things we've tied so heavily to tobacco.
and, in a decade or two, this idea that marijuana doesn't kill anybody is going to be a surreal joke about how ignorant we were.
09/15 is finally done, and it was something like 3-4 months in size.
october should be much, much less intense.
this may end up being a short day, or i might just be taking a nap. the air in here is far better than before, but i had to hover over a space to block it and it's not clear at this point if it's made me tired, or if i'm just agitated and drained.
i wanted to make some calls but slept all day - again, possibly due to air pollution. hopefully, it's just a nap so i can get on to things tomorrow...
...but, i'm into the last few weeks of the election, now.
october should be much, much less intense.
this may end up being a short day, or i might just be taking a nap. the air in here is far better than before, but i had to hover over a space to block it and it's not clear at this point if it's made me tired, or if i'm just agitated and drained.
i wanted to make some calls but slept all day - again, possibly due to air pollution. hopefully, it's just a nap so i can get on to things tomorrow...
...but, i'm into the last few weeks of the election, now.
regarding the "free syrian army".
you need to be careful with videos coming to you from the region, because it's 98% propaganda, and intended to sway western attitudes. but, these aren't good guys, and they're going to do bad things.
the difference between the saudi-backed groups and the turkish-backed groups, however, is that the saudi-backed groups are being funded by people that want to set up these systems permanently, while the turkish-backed groups are foreign mercenaries being used as muscle - and the eventual intent is to clear them out and restore order.
so, yes: they are more or less the same thing, on the ground. but, the people paying them have almost diametrically different intentions. back when this was a turkish-saudi proxy war to take over the space left vacant by russian influence, there was little reason to think the turks would have supported anything other than a democratic transition, while the saudi aim appears to have been to prevent a democratic transition.
what the kurds were trying to do in the area was not sustainable, and not an intelligent approach, in the long run. they can't fight professional armies, like this. as a taz it served it's purpose; now, it's time to pack their things and start over somewhere else. and that is what this was - a taz. it could have never been permanent.
permanent change must be structural.
so, it's crazy to suggest they won't get slaughtered, if they stay.
the way to get rid of the fsa, from here on in, is through syrian law enforcement. expect the turks to cut the cord fairly soon.
you need to be careful with videos coming to you from the region, because it's 98% propaganda, and intended to sway western attitudes. but, these aren't good guys, and they're going to do bad things.
the difference between the saudi-backed groups and the turkish-backed groups, however, is that the saudi-backed groups are being funded by people that want to set up these systems permanently, while the turkish-backed groups are foreign mercenaries being used as muscle - and the eventual intent is to clear them out and restore order.
so, yes: they are more or less the same thing, on the ground. but, the people paying them have almost diametrically different intentions. back when this was a turkish-saudi proxy war to take over the space left vacant by russian influence, there was little reason to think the turks would have supported anything other than a democratic transition, while the saudi aim appears to have been to prevent a democratic transition.
what the kurds were trying to do in the area was not sustainable, and not an intelligent approach, in the long run. they can't fight professional armies, like this. as a taz it served it's purpose; now, it's time to pack their things and start over somewhere else. and that is what this was - a taz. it could have never been permanent.
permanent change must be structural.
so, it's crazy to suggest they won't get slaughtered, if they stay.
the way to get rid of the fsa, from here on in, is through syrian law enforcement. expect the turks to cut the cord fairly soon.
so, the kurds would be wise to retreat to safer areas, to let the turks run through. erdgan is a belligerent fool with a military force that cannot be effectively resisted. but, once the region is returned to assad, they will no doubt be allowed to return.
and, again: it defies reason to suggest that the turks have any interest in annexing this region, or in provoking a wider conflict with the kurds in the region.
the area on the other side of the euphrates is more complex, as it is not clear if or when the united states intends to leave. nobody wants the turks to get into a fight with the americans. but, the russians are going to agitate for the territorial integrity of the syrian state.
nor is the obvious solution of partition acceptable to the turks, because it would be a kurdish state.
it's consequently hard to see a way out of this: unless america acknowledges defeat and withdraws, turkey is on the path to direct conflict with the united states over a plot of land with virtually no strategic value to the empire at all.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/ypg-pushed-out-tal-rifaat.html
and, again: it defies reason to suggest that the turks have any interest in annexing this region, or in provoking a wider conflict with the kurds in the region.
the area on the other side of the euphrates is more complex, as it is not clear if or when the united states intends to leave. nobody wants the turks to get into a fight with the americans. but, the russians are going to agitate for the territorial integrity of the syrian state.
nor is the obvious solution of partition acceptable to the turks, because it would be a kurdish state.
it's consequently hard to see a way out of this: unless america acknowledges defeat and withdraws, turkey is on the path to direct conflict with the united states over a plot of land with virtually no strategic value to the empire at all.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/ypg-pushed-out-tal-rifaat.html
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
the spokesperson of my generation is not a dead musician, or a profound writer, or a fashion icon or an entrepreneur...
it's conan o'brien.
this guy.
nobody else permeates our thoughts the way that conan does.
and, this is how you know you're gen x - when the conan jokes flow like water, and the people around you get it instantly, and effortlessly join in.
it's conan o'brien.
this guy.
nobody else permeates our thoughts the way that conan does.
and, this is how you know you're gen x - when the conan jokes flow like water, and the people around you get it instantly, and effortlessly join in.
this is an essential services that sufficient tax revenue must be generated to fund.
next.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/recycling-blue-box-challenges-evolving-tonne-1.4584484
next.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/recycling-blue-box-challenges-evolving-tonne-1.4584484
john bolton is very scary, and i don't want to temper anything he's said - it's every bit as outrageous as anybody is saying.
(although he happens to be correct about china, which should be obvious to anybody with a pulse.)
but, he's the national security advisor and not the national security dictator. and, we know that trump is ultimately inadvisable.
trump may very well be looking to start a war. but, there's not a lot of places to bomb right now. and, i suspect that when he finally does it, it will look more like the falklands than it does like fallujah.
the reality is that the left media has a narrative to uphold, here. it needs dollars, too.
(although he happens to be correct about china, which should be obvious to anybody with a pulse.)
but, he's the national security advisor and not the national security dictator. and, we know that trump is ultimately inadvisable.
trump may very well be looking to start a war. but, there's not a lot of places to bomb right now. and, i suspect that when he finally does it, it will look more like the falklands than it does like fallujah.
the reality is that the left media has a narrative to uphold, here. it needs dollars, too.
if the public school system had started at the same age as the catholic school system, i would have never been baptized, and would have been sent to a public school.
my maternal grandmother is an anglican; my mother isn't even really an atheist, so much as she's just disinterested in the topic altogether. my dad would have probably baptized me, but my mom didn't want me anywhere near the catholic church, as she was convinced all the priests were gay paedophiles. she was less pro-atheist and more anti-catholic.
but, the fact that she agitated for me to be baptized as a way to get me to school quicker indicates the deep disinterest in religion that i was raised into.
i vaguely remember it - i was just instructed to sit still while he sprinkled some water on me. i mean, it was kind of scary - i was old enough to be cognizant of what was happening, without being old enough to understand it. she attached absolutely no meaning to it, whatsoever.
my paternal grandmother (who is probably part genetically jewish, but was raised italian catholic) always saw me as a heathen.
my maternal grandmother is an anglican; my mother isn't even really an atheist, so much as she's just disinterested in the topic altogether. my dad would have probably baptized me, but my mom didn't want me anywhere near the catholic church, as she was convinced all the priests were gay paedophiles. she was less pro-atheist and more anti-catholic.
but, the fact that she agitated for me to be baptized as a way to get me to school quicker indicates the deep disinterest in religion that i was raised into.
i vaguely remember it - i was just instructed to sit still while he sprinkled some water on me. i mean, it was kind of scary - i was old enough to be cognizant of what was happening, without being old enough to understand it. she attached absolutely no meaning to it, whatsoever.
my paternal grandmother (who is probably part genetically jewish, but was raised italian catholic) always saw me as a heathen.
my mom sent me to pre-school because she was a negligent alcoholic that didn't want to take care of me. and, then she had me baptized at the age of four three to send me to a catholic school for the same reason (the public schools at the time only had kindergarten starting at age five).
but, i wasn't born smart. i'm a statistical norm; i got a head start.
but, i wasn't born smart. i'm a statistical norm; i got a head start.
i mean, i guess you can look at it two ways.
- is this designed to help mothers enter the workforce?
- is this designed to help kids achieve their full potential?
while both things are important, i'm kind of more interested in the latter. and, i guess the plan that was announced was more focused on the former.
i just don't know why you'd do this without focusing on the former though - it's kind of missing the broader point, in just focusing on the moms.
i liked the martin/dryden plan a lot, which would have ensured that we're not merely leaving kids with babysitters, but leaving them with licensed learning professionals that can help put them on the right path at an early age. studies are crystal clear that kids that go to pre-school are better positioned to learn as they advance through life.
if that is actually what is being proposed, wynne should announce it. i'm not directly affected by socialized babysitting; i wouldn't vote for or against it. but, the pre-school component is a broader social engineering change that i'd have a stronger level of direct support for, as it affects everybody's future in a positive way.
- is this designed to help mothers enter the workforce?
- is this designed to help kids achieve their full potential?
while both things are important, i'm kind of more interested in the latter. and, i guess the plan that was announced was more focused on the former.
i just don't know why you'd do this without focusing on the former though - it's kind of missing the broader point, in just focusing on the moms.
i liked the martin/dryden plan a lot, which would have ensured that we're not merely leaving kids with babysitters, but leaving them with licensed learning professionals that can help put them on the right path at an early age. studies are crystal clear that kids that go to pre-school are better positioned to learn as they advance through life.
if that is actually what is being proposed, wynne should announce it. i'm not directly affected by socialized babysitting; i wouldn't vote for or against it. but, the pre-school component is a broader social engineering change that i'd have a stronger level of direct support for, as it affects everybody's future in a positive way.
i'm unclear - is this socialized babysitting, or is it an expansion of the school system?
i would strongly support expanding the school system, but i....why promote socialized babysitting when you can expand the school system?
i guess the difference is that i'd actively support expanding the school system, and be more or less indifferent to socialized babysitting.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/03/27/ontario-budget-to-fund-free-child-care-for-preschoolers-by-2020-as-part-of-22-billion-plan.html
i would strongly support expanding the school system, but i....why promote socialized babysitting when you can expand the school system?
i guess the difference is that i'd actively support expanding the school system, and be more or less indifferent to socialized babysitting.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/03/27/ontario-budget-to-fund-free-child-care-for-preschoolers-by-2020-as-part-of-22-billion-plan.html
trudeau no doubt thinks that complying will take the issue off the table - because he doesn't realize that trump is just fucking around with him, anyways.
donald trump doesn't actually think that anybody is flooding the canadian market with anything. but, he does think that justin trudeau is a complete idiot. and, trudeau's reactions are, unfortunately, just proving trump right.
not only will trump not react positively to the concessions, he will hold them over trudeau as evidence that he was right all along - that canada really is getting flooded with cheap metals, as can be seen by the steps taken to prevent it.
but, we must not take this as evidence of trump's strategic brilliance - we must take it as evidence of trudeau's absolute idiocy.
for, it is easy for a bully to take advantage of a moron.
they should not be negotiating with trump at all; canada should refuse to negotiate with terrorists.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-gives-border-security-extra-powers-to-crack-down-on-cheap-steel-aluminum-1.3860246
donald trump doesn't actually think that anybody is flooding the canadian market with anything. but, he does think that justin trudeau is a complete idiot. and, trudeau's reactions are, unfortunately, just proving trump right.
not only will trump not react positively to the concessions, he will hold them over trudeau as evidence that he was right all along - that canada really is getting flooded with cheap metals, as can be seen by the steps taken to prevent it.
but, we must not take this as evidence of trump's strategic brilliance - we must take it as evidence of trudeau's absolute idiocy.
for, it is easy for a bully to take advantage of a moron.
they should not be negotiating with trump at all; canada should refuse to negotiate with terrorists.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-gives-border-security-extra-powers-to-crack-down-on-cheap-steel-aluminum-1.3860246
i'm just not somebody that wants to smoke pot at home; i'm somebody that likes to smoke pot when i'm out at a concert, or out dancing.
it's a social drug - very much like alcohol. and, the only people that smoke alone, at home, are the marijuana equivalents of sad alcoholics. losers. hopeless losers...
the vast majority of people are going to want to smoke with people, at a party, or at a bar.
all the concerts and parties are in detroit. it follows that it's actually detroit that i'm more interested in, when it comes to legalization; legalizing it here is actually kind of useless to me.
given where windsor is on the map, legalization in michigan will make going to windsor flat out stupid, because it will require passing the border twice. and, as everybody knows, the worse direction is on the way into the united staes.
no sane american would cross the canadian border to get stoned, and then go back through american customs. they'd be setting themselves up for detention. it would be far less dangerous to buy it illegally. but, if michigan legalizes, the decision to cross to be legal moots itself.
it's a social drug - very much like alcohol. and, the only people that smoke alone, at home, are the marijuana equivalents of sad alcoholics. losers. hopeless losers...
the vast majority of people are going to want to smoke with people, at a party, or at a bar.
all the concerts and parties are in detroit. it follows that it's actually detroit that i'm more interested in, when it comes to legalization; legalizing it here is actually kind of useless to me.
given where windsor is on the map, legalization in michigan will make going to windsor flat out stupid, because it will require passing the border twice. and, as everybody knows, the worse direction is on the way into the united staes.
no sane american would cross the canadian border to get stoned, and then go back through american customs. they'd be setting themselves up for detention. it would be far less dangerous to buy it illegally. but, if michigan legalizes, the decision to cross to be legal moots itself.
Monday, March 26, 2018
if i haven't been clear - and i think i have been - i have absolutely no opposition to gmos, and in fact tend to get rather snotty with people that think they pose some kind of threat. there is no logical reason to think they might, and the science is crystal clear that they don't.
if you want to have your food labelled, i don't have any particular opposition to this, but it's not something i'd think twice about. and, it's not my issue to fight.
to the contrary, i'm likely to get rather squeamish when i hear people repeating the same scaremongering, anti-science nonsense.
that said, i'm not happy about patenting grains, either. but, that's a separate issue than the safety concerns, which are as specious as anything you hear coming from anti-vaxxers.
if you want to have your food labelled, i don't have any particular opposition to this, but it's not something i'd think twice about. and, it's not my issue to fight.
to the contrary, i'm likely to get rather squeamish when i hear people repeating the same scaremongering, anti-science nonsense.
that said, i'm not happy about patenting grains, either. but, that's a separate issue than the safety concerns, which are as specious as anything you hear coming from anti-vaxxers.
"alleged incident of Qur'an-ripping"
it's all right-wing tory media, to this point, that's pushing this - media with very conservative perspectives. more balanced media sources haven't picked up on this, yet.
but, the language is highly concerning: as though disrespecting the koran is now being treated as a crime. is this where the conservatives are leading us?
i'm not there, yet. and, i'm trying not to kneejerk to the media coverage - i'm trying not to get alarmist. but, if this turns into something, we're going to have to organize a national day of koran ripping, in protest.
free speech is fundamental to a free society. it's one thing when it's just some religious people in a mosque or a church yelling at each other; it's another when the cops get involved.
nobody would think twice about it if they were ripping pages out of a bible....which is how it should be...
it's all right-wing tory media, to this point, that's pushing this - media with very conservative perspectives. more balanced media sources haven't picked up on this, yet.
but, the language is highly concerning: as though disrespecting the koran is now being treated as a crime. is this where the conservatives are leading us?
i'm not there, yet. and, i'm trying not to kneejerk to the media coverage - i'm trying not to get alarmist. but, if this turns into something, we're going to have to organize a national day of koran ripping, in protest.
free speech is fundamental to a free society. it's one thing when it's just some religious people in a mosque or a church yelling at each other; it's another when the cops get involved.
nobody would think twice about it if they were ripping pages out of a bible....which is how it should be...
no, navdeep.
the charter doesn't say you have the right to worship without criticism from private citizens. the freedom of assembly applies in this situation, not the right to religious freedom - and it applies equally to both parties. most importantly is the right to free expression, which is what the charter truly upholds, here.
this is a common mistake made by people without legal backgrounds.
what it says is that the state can't discriminate against people on the basis of religion.
somebody needs to give navdeep a crash course in constitutional law, clearly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-police-incidents-islamic-centres-hate-motivated-mischief-mosques-1.4592993
the charter doesn't say you have the right to worship without criticism from private citizens. the freedom of assembly applies in this situation, not the right to religious freedom - and it applies equally to both parties. most importantly is the right to free expression, which is what the charter truly upholds, here.
this is a common mistake made by people without legal backgrounds.
what it says is that the state can't discriminate against people on the basis of religion.
somebody needs to give navdeep a crash course in constitutional law, clearly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-police-incidents-islamic-centres-hate-motivated-mischief-mosques-1.4592993
two minutes of googling presents this, but it seems to be at some kind of an official event.
surely somebody has a picture of them. i don't mean in the act, i just mean at all.
here's the thing: when somebody frequently has sex for money over decades, it's easy to believe they would claim they had sex...for money. which isn't to say that she's lying, exactly, so much as it is to say that a prudent individual would require independent verification before taking her seriously, because who knows, really?
i'm just saying it's fishy. i have no idea. and i ultimately don't care.
surely somebody has a picture of them. i don't mean in the act, i just mean at all.
here's the thing: when somebody frequently has sex for money over decades, it's easy to believe they would claim they had sex...for money. which isn't to say that she's lying, exactly, so much as it is to say that a prudent individual would require independent verification before taking her seriously, because who knows, really?
i'm just saying it's fishy. i have no idea. and i ultimately don't care.
this is embarrassing.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/anti-islamic-pamphleteer-gets-nine-months-for-promoting-hate-but-can-still-hand-out-flyers/article17760151/
i mean, the court got it right in throwing out the charges (minus time served - which he should have been compensated for), but to think they locked him up for nine months for free speech is outrageous...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/anti-islamic-pamphleteer-gets-nine-months-for-promoting-hate-but-can-still-hand-out-flyers/article17760151/
i mean, the court got it right in throwing out the charges (minus time served - which he should have been compensated for), but to think they locked him up for nine months for free speech is outrageous...
could you imagine a dystopian future where the left leads the fight against pamphleteering?
that wouldn't be a left at all - that would be an authoritarian right. no left worth calling itself such would support any legal action against pamphleteering whatsoever.
i'm not being alarmist, or perhaps i'm being proactively alarmist; i understand that the police need to investigate a complaint, and i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be doing so.
but, the police should be coming back to the mosque with some stern words about freedom of expression - and a clear explanation that this type of behaviour is constitutionally protected in this country.
that wouldn't be a left at all - that would be an authoritarian right. no left worth calling itself such would support any legal action against pamphleteering whatsoever.
i'm not being alarmist, or perhaps i'm being proactively alarmist; i understand that the police need to investigate a complaint, and i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be doing so.
but, the police should be coming back to the mosque with some stern words about freedom of expression - and a clear explanation that this type of behaviour is constitutionally protected in this country.
"possible mischief with a hate bias"
what?
you can't arrest people for pamphleteering.
ever.
no exceptions.
and, canadians need to freak out if this ever starts happening.
islam must find a way to adjust to a free society; i'm not throwing away freedom of speech because some people find it upsetting.
right now, all i see is some police carrying out a report. they have a responsibility to the community to do this, on request. but, civil liberties groups need to be on stand by to mobilize against a possible assault on free expression, here.
what?
you can't arrest people for pamphleteering.
ever.
no exceptions.
and, canadians need to freak out if this ever starts happening.
islam must find a way to adjust to a free society; i'm not throwing away freedom of speech because some people find it upsetting.
right now, all i see is some police carrying out a report. they have a responsibility to the community to do this, on request. but, civil liberties groups need to be on stand by to mobilize against a possible assault on free expression, here.
i might suggest a more productive use of her time, but i'm going to freak out if somebody gets charged for desecrating the koran in canada.
that's not a 'hate crime'. that's the literal definition of free speech.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4103314/peel-police-investigating-hate-motivated-incident-islamic-centre/
that's not a 'hate crime'. that's the literal definition of free speech.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4103314/peel-police-investigating-hate-motivated-incident-islamic-centre/
again: the idea that the liberals were going to walk into the next election with 50% support was always absurd.
so long as they are polling in the 40+% range, they're outperforming realistic expectations.
they're not going to get more than 40% of the vote; don't imagine they are.
they will get somewhere in the mid to high 30s; that's a more realistic goal.
few people expected them to win a majority, in the first place, and they should probably not expect to hold on to it, either - unless they can sweep quebec. that's their only serious chance of holding on...
a realistic expectation is that they're going to lose seats in the east, in alberta and probably also in ontario. the only place for growth is quebec.
but, i would welcome a coalition government; it's what i wanted in the first place.
so long as they are polling in the 40+% range, they're outperforming realistic expectations.
they're not going to get more than 40% of the vote; don't imagine they are.
they will get somewhere in the mid to high 30s; that's a more realistic goal.
few people expected them to win a majority, in the first place, and they should probably not expect to hold on to it, either - unless they can sweep quebec. that's their only serious chance of holding on...
a realistic expectation is that they're going to lose seats in the east, in alberta and probably also in ontario. the only place for growth is quebec.
but, i would welcome a coalition government; it's what i wanted in the first place.
the vikings were really remarkably successful, weren't they?
maybe, a little too successful, if you see what i mean.
there's a developing understanding that the viking attack on europe was a reaction to the advance of christianization, and that the historical sources (written almost entirely by the church...) just kind of "forgot" to record that fact. but, you have to understand that the scale of devastation that the spread of christianity brought to northern europe was many times worse than anything the vikings produced. charlemagne literally slaughtered entire castes of people. again: the records are poor, but it could have been in the hundreds of thousands, in an era where the population was much, much lower than today.
if you're standing in denmark, and you're watching what's happening directly to your south, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want to respond. and, the culture to the north was shared, so the danes were capable of a call to arms.
again: this much is developing scholarship. i'm not making this up. this is not novel.
what i'm willing to put forward is the idea that they may have even been interpreted as liberators by a european population that was struggling against colonization by the roman/christian church. the vikings very specifically targeted the christians, pretty much everywhere they went, which is why the texts, written by monks, demonized them so terribly. and, sure - they burnt down a fair number of churches. the traditional explanation was that they were pillaging, although, as mentioned, this is evolving to the idea that the vikings were carrying out what they saw as acts of self-defense.
but, there are these reports of continuing odinism deep in england and france well into the enlightenment. the old religion really went underground. as far as anybody knows, it eventually disappeared; at the least, if they're still out there, it would be useful for them to inform the views of these "neo-pagans" that have as much in common with the indigenous european religions as harry potter - the old religion is lost to history. but, we know damned well that it survived way, way longer than history officially records.
and, even if the western europe of the time was pious to the church, what allegiance ought it have had to these frankish warlords, that ruled through tyranny and heavy taxation, as they put in motion the beginnings of feudalism? at least the vikings believed in democracy.
it's just hard to read the history critically without coming to the conclusion that there were substantive parts of these populations that helped the invasions. the timelines are incredible: paris conquered as quickly as it took to sail up the seine. how does that happen without local support?
but, the idea is taboo.
i would request that more serious historians look into this more carefully.
maybe, a little too successful, if you see what i mean.
there's a developing understanding that the viking attack on europe was a reaction to the advance of christianization, and that the historical sources (written almost entirely by the church...) just kind of "forgot" to record that fact. but, you have to understand that the scale of devastation that the spread of christianity brought to northern europe was many times worse than anything the vikings produced. charlemagne literally slaughtered entire castes of people. again: the records are poor, but it could have been in the hundreds of thousands, in an era where the population was much, much lower than today.
if you're standing in denmark, and you're watching what's happening directly to your south, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want to respond. and, the culture to the north was shared, so the danes were capable of a call to arms.
again: this much is developing scholarship. i'm not making this up. this is not novel.
what i'm willing to put forward is the idea that they may have even been interpreted as liberators by a european population that was struggling against colonization by the roman/christian church. the vikings very specifically targeted the christians, pretty much everywhere they went, which is why the texts, written by monks, demonized them so terribly. and, sure - they burnt down a fair number of churches. the traditional explanation was that they were pillaging, although, as mentioned, this is evolving to the idea that the vikings were carrying out what they saw as acts of self-defense.
but, there are these reports of continuing odinism deep in england and france well into the enlightenment. the old religion really went underground. as far as anybody knows, it eventually disappeared; at the least, if they're still out there, it would be useful for them to inform the views of these "neo-pagans" that have as much in common with the indigenous european religions as harry potter - the old religion is lost to history. but, we know damned well that it survived way, way longer than history officially records.
and, even if the western europe of the time was pious to the church, what allegiance ought it have had to these frankish warlords, that ruled through tyranny and heavy taxation, as they put in motion the beginnings of feudalism? at least the vikings believed in democracy.
it's just hard to read the history critically without coming to the conclusion that there were substantive parts of these populations that helped the invasions. the timelines are incredible: paris conquered as quickly as it took to sail up the seine. how does that happen without local support?
but, the idea is taboo.
i would request that more serious historians look into this more carefully.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
so, what is ghosts?
at the time, people were comparing it to the tail end of the aphex twin's career, even though reznor had been playing with the style for over a decade. it was a reflection of a deficit of context.
what reznor did with ghosts is kind of sneaky, as he would have released it with the title etudes in a previous era. and, i think that in order to understand what ghosts is you need to go to look into the genre itself, perhaps beginning with debussy's livres.
when you put it into this correct context, ghosts actually becomes an academic exploration of his composition style. reznor has a kind of idiosyncratic approach to tonality, defined by a highly minimalistic approach to dissonance. so, he uses a lot of pedal tones, and then sprinkles "wrong notes" over them in predictably calculated ways. that's the crux of his style, stated in easy to understand terms.
when understood this way, you can actually identify ghosts as somewhat of a pivot in his career. broadly speaking, these are not new themes. but, the disc defines the approach he's taken to soundtrack music, since.
if year zero was both a comeback and a coming-back-down-to-earth, ghosts was the logical conclusion of that process, in charting a new direction for his creative output. and, while i haven't followed this new direction as closely as i followed the previous one, or at least haven't up to this point, it is certainly a turn towards the tasteful that is worth respecting.
at the time, people were comparing it to the tail end of the aphex twin's career, even though reznor had been playing with the style for over a decade. it was a reflection of a deficit of context.
what reznor did with ghosts is kind of sneaky, as he would have released it with the title etudes in a previous era. and, i think that in order to understand what ghosts is you need to go to look into the genre itself, perhaps beginning with debussy's livres.
when you put it into this correct context, ghosts actually becomes an academic exploration of his composition style. reznor has a kind of idiosyncratic approach to tonality, defined by a highly minimalistic approach to dissonance. so, he uses a lot of pedal tones, and then sprinkles "wrong notes" over them in predictably calculated ways. that's the crux of his style, stated in easy to understand terms.
when understood this way, you can actually identify ghosts as somewhat of a pivot in his career. broadly speaking, these are not new themes. but, the disc defines the approach he's taken to soundtrack music, since.
if year zero was both a comeback and a coming-back-down-to-earth, ghosts was the logical conclusion of that process, in charting a new direction for his creative output. and, while i haven't followed this new direction as closely as i followed the previous one, or at least haven't up to this point, it is certainly a turn towards the tasteful that is worth respecting.
the language the cop used was "nice".
it was,
i talked to the tenant downstairs, and she seems really nice.
the cop then underhandedly implied i was a fag for trying to throw her out, rather than trying to get to know her. and, he was absolutely right, although i'd reject the implication that there's something wrong with that.
a lot of people of either gender are going to interpret a 30-something curvy pothead as "hot", and i don't doubt this. but, everything about what's happening is utterly revolting to me.
this is not my type, and never was.
i'm not likely to date anybody of either gender again, but i'd be more likely to go for an underweight straight-edge vegan than a pothead that looks like a stripper. insofar as i am attracted to women, or ever was, i definitely have always preferred the modern yoga body to the traditional hour-glass...
i'm actually just likely to interpret curvy women as overweight. that whole culture around large asses is just gross, to me, and i've always felt the same way about large breasts.
but, regardless, i wouldn't date a pothead. it would have been easier to stomach when i was a smoker, but now that i'm not, it's really a non-starter. it's just not a quality i'd want out of somebody i'm spending a lot of time with...
it was,
i talked to the tenant downstairs, and she seems really nice.
the cop then underhandedly implied i was a fag for trying to throw her out, rather than trying to get to know her. and, he was absolutely right, although i'd reject the implication that there's something wrong with that.
a lot of people of either gender are going to interpret a 30-something curvy pothead as "hot", and i don't doubt this. but, everything about what's happening is utterly revolting to me.
this is not my type, and never was.
i'm not likely to date anybody of either gender again, but i'd be more likely to go for an underweight straight-edge vegan than a pothead that looks like a stripper. insofar as i am attracted to women, or ever was, i definitely have always preferred the modern yoga body to the traditional hour-glass...
i'm actually just likely to interpret curvy women as overweight. that whole culture around large asses is just gross, to me, and i've always felt the same way about large breasts.
but, regardless, i wouldn't date a pothead. it would have been easier to stomach when i was a smoker, but now that i'm not, it's really a non-starter. it's just not a quality i'd want out of somebody i'm spending a lot of time with...
the reason i was thinking about sarah last night was that i had to call the cops, not once but twice. i was supposed to write this up a little, but the smoke has been so thick in here that i've been having trouble staying awake since i finally crashed on saturday morning...
i think i'm awake, now.
the cops think i'm wasting their time, but i don't remotely agree. libertarians might present arguments about legalization leading to less policing, but this is a guess - and i'm not sure an evidence-based analysis would uphold it. regardless, that has nothing to do with the reasons marijuana is being legalized, here. the government has been clear that the purpose of legalization is to reduce use - especially amongst youth - and not to promote wider use.
the government of canada recognizes that recreational marijuana use is a substantive health problem and is adjusting it's approach to the drug in order to reduce use. nothing in the changes to the laws sanctions or promotes consensual drug use, or ignores the damages created by second-hand smoke - especially to those that do not consent to be influenced by it.
if you think otherwise, you need to educate yourself on what is actually happening.
and, i don't expect it to be legalized, anyways.
if somebody put drugs in my drink that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody put drugs in my air supply?
if somebody was burning paint thinner in the apartment downstairs, that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody is burning marijuana?
we have these irrational ideas attached to consumption. but, if somebody makes a choice to burn any other carcinogenic chemical inside, we reference their choice in the matter as a legal concept called mens rea. that's all i'm getting out of this - that they're making the choice to pollute the air and make me sick, i.e. they're not doing it by accident and are consequently liable for the consequences.
but, drug addicts see themselves at the centre of the universe. they think everything is about them. no; this is about me, this is about my air, this is about my rights.
i was able to get the cops out here late on friday night and early on saturday night, so there will be two reports for me to reference to the landlord. the tenants eventually promised to smoke outside; we'll see if they do or not. evidence right now is sketchy. i'll make the foia request for data tomorrow.
i'll also be getting the hospital records from the times i went in for observation.
the cops kept telling me to call the landlord, but they appear to have gotten the process backwards. the cops are right that there's little they can do, and i understand that, but a warning from the cops is actually less of an escalation than a formal complaint. so, if i'm going to be doing this proportionately and fairly, i need to call the cops in to talk to them before i agitate for eviction. and, if they change their habits to smoking outside, then that request will have worked - they will have saved themselves from eviction, even if what that means is giving them more time to find a different place.
if they don't change their habits, i'll be able to present evidence to the landlord that the police officer identified the smell of marijuana, that the tenant admitted to smoking inside the unit (!) and that there is consequently grounds for eviction, due to illegal behaviour on the premises of the property.
i think i'm awake, now.
the cops think i'm wasting their time, but i don't remotely agree. libertarians might present arguments about legalization leading to less policing, but this is a guess - and i'm not sure an evidence-based analysis would uphold it. regardless, that has nothing to do with the reasons marijuana is being legalized, here. the government has been clear that the purpose of legalization is to reduce use - especially amongst youth - and not to promote wider use.
the government of canada recognizes that recreational marijuana use is a substantive health problem and is adjusting it's approach to the drug in order to reduce use. nothing in the changes to the laws sanctions or promotes consensual drug use, or ignores the damages created by second-hand smoke - especially to those that do not consent to be influenced by it.
if you think otherwise, you need to educate yourself on what is actually happening.
and, i don't expect it to be legalized, anyways.
if somebody put drugs in my drink that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody put drugs in my air supply?
if somebody was burning paint thinner in the apartment downstairs, that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody is burning marijuana?
we have these irrational ideas attached to consumption. but, if somebody makes a choice to burn any other carcinogenic chemical inside, we reference their choice in the matter as a legal concept called mens rea. that's all i'm getting out of this - that they're making the choice to pollute the air and make me sick, i.e. they're not doing it by accident and are consequently liable for the consequences.
but, drug addicts see themselves at the centre of the universe. they think everything is about them. no; this is about me, this is about my air, this is about my rights.
i was able to get the cops out here late on friday night and early on saturday night, so there will be two reports for me to reference to the landlord. the tenants eventually promised to smoke outside; we'll see if they do or not. evidence right now is sketchy. i'll make the foia request for data tomorrow.
i'll also be getting the hospital records from the times i went in for observation.
the cops kept telling me to call the landlord, but they appear to have gotten the process backwards. the cops are right that there's little they can do, and i understand that, but a warning from the cops is actually less of an escalation than a formal complaint. so, if i'm going to be doing this proportionately and fairly, i need to call the cops in to talk to them before i agitate for eviction. and, if they change their habits to smoking outside, then that request will have worked - they will have saved themselves from eviction, even if what that means is giving them more time to find a different place.
if they don't change their habits, i'll be able to present evidence to the landlord that the police officer identified the smell of marijuana, that the tenant admitted to smoking inside the unit (!) and that there is consequently grounds for eviction, due to illegal behaviour on the premises of the property.
and, what did i really think of sarah over all of those years?
i thought the idea was toxic; it could have only ended tragically. i was, frankly, morbidly afraid of impregnating her. it's a hard thing to articulate: it could have been a sweetheart story, and maybe in some ways even should have been, but it would never have lasted. she became sort of unstable in high school; i might have seriously damaged her. i actually think i did the right thing for both of us in avoiding her.
but, if you could have wiped away those memories, i might have accepted the advances.
you could write a movie about this and only scratch the surface, and it's not what i want to be ranting about tonight, which i've mostly spent cleaning.
i dated a different sarah in the early 00s. there's some substantive overlap in personality, beyond the given name.
i thought the idea was toxic; it could have only ended tragically. i was, frankly, morbidly afraid of impregnating her. it's a hard thing to articulate: it could have been a sweetheart story, and maybe in some ways even should have been, but it would never have lasted. she became sort of unstable in high school; i might have seriously damaged her. i actually think i did the right thing for both of us in avoiding her.
but, if you could have wiped away those memories, i might have accepted the advances.
you could write a movie about this and only scratch the surface, and it's not what i want to be ranting about tonight, which i've mostly spent cleaning.
i dated a different sarah in the early 00s. there's some substantive overlap in personality, beyond the given name.
actually, i should point out that sarah is responsible for one of the most profound & defining things that anybody has ever said to me, and she probably doesn't remember it - although she probably does remember most of the other things i've posted here.
it was on the bus. we only took the bus together for a few years, so it must have been between grades 6-8.
she sat down beside me - with a shirt on - and actually addressed me fairly sternly, using my full name, as per usual, which essentially nobody else ever did:
jason, everything in life is a joke to you, isn't it? you just refuse to take anything seriously. you think every single possible thing that happens is always a joke of some sort. but, there are things in life that are serious.
i'm not sure she was right about the second part. but, the first part allowed me to see myself in the mirror in a way i hadn't seen myself before, and it's stuck with me all these years for that reason....
it was on the bus. we only took the bus together for a few years, so it must have been between grades 6-8.
she sat down beside me - with a shirt on - and actually addressed me fairly sternly, using my full name, as per usual, which essentially nobody else ever did:
jason, everything in life is a joke to you, isn't it? you just refuse to take anything seriously. you think every single possible thing that happens is always a joke of some sort. but, there are things in life that are serious.
i'm not sure she was right about the second part. but, the first part allowed me to see myself in the mirror in a way i hadn't seen myself before, and it's stuck with me all these years for that reason....
i don't think sarah's crush on me ever receded, but rather went through a number of weird phases, all of which were no doubt outside of any reasonable approximation of reality, but purely in the realm of her own fantasy.
so, there was a period in the eighth grade where she'd take her shirt off and sit beside me on the school bus, or even sit in the seat in front of me and hover her bra an inch from my nose. i was the only 'boy' left on the bus for the rest of the ride; through whatever mix of coercion and thrill, she had a couple of her friends mimic her, as well. the game was that i had to keep ignoring her - but she was also no doubt demonstrating that she'd grown a pair, since she was little. i was always well trained, and fully capable of continuing to ignore her...but this went on for months....
it wasn't until the twelfth grade that she finally snapped. i had moved across town, so we weren't on the same bus, any more. we hadn't been in any of the same classes in years, either. but, i happened to get on a (city) bus she was also on; we made eye contact, and so i instantly stopped and sat a distance away from her, as i always did. she leaped up and came storming across the bus, screaming at me, startling confused passengers...
you're a fucking idiot. you know that? you think you're so damned smart, but you're just stupid. you're so stupid. so, so, so stupid.
my best guess is that she finally realized at that point that i was never going to stop ignoring her - and i never was.
i don't think i've seen her since.
so, there was a period in the eighth grade where she'd take her shirt off and sit beside me on the school bus, or even sit in the seat in front of me and hover her bra an inch from my nose. i was the only 'boy' left on the bus for the rest of the ride; through whatever mix of coercion and thrill, she had a couple of her friends mimic her, as well. the game was that i had to keep ignoring her - but she was also no doubt demonstrating that she'd grown a pair, since she was little. i was always well trained, and fully capable of continuing to ignore her...but this went on for months....
it wasn't until the twelfth grade that she finally snapped. i had moved across town, so we weren't on the same bus, any more. we hadn't been in any of the same classes in years, either. but, i happened to get on a (city) bus she was also on; we made eye contact, and so i instantly stopped and sat a distance away from her, as i always did. she leaped up and came storming across the bus, screaming at me, startling confused passengers...
you're a fucking idiot. you know that? you think you're so damned smart, but you're just stupid. you're so stupid. so, so, so stupid.
my best guess is that she finally realized at that point that i was never going to stop ignoring her - and i never was.
i don't think i've seen her since.
Saturday, March 24, 2018
when i was in the third grade, there was a girl that had a crush on me named sarah. i didn't realize it at the time, but, in hindsight, i'm sure that she picked me out because we both had vaguely latin backgrounds - she was hispanic, even had a very latin name, and i guess i was the only kid around for miles that looked a little like her. i can't remember what country in central america that her parents were from....
she was an awkward kid - quite dominant, in fact. she was a bit of a star hockey player, and known for it. so, she was quite fit - in very good shape. when she wanted something, she took control of the situation and went and got it; that was entirely natural to her....
i was a bookworm - and not interested. she kept trying various tactics, and i kept ignoring her. i don't know if i ever admitted to her that i was actually ignoring her, or if she just always thought i didn't notice; she doesn't seem to have figured it out on her own. she always got what she wanted by taking it, remember. in fact, she ended up escalating quite dramatically, by shooting elastic bands at me.
you know the way: elastic hand gun. you pull the trigger by removing your finger and it flies...
see, as mentioned, i fully well knew that she was trying to get my attention - and i wasn't at all interested. she really wasn't my type; i just saw her as a dumb jock. so, i went and told the teacher that she was shooting elastics at me.
he looked at me like i didn't have a father. "jason, when.."
"yeah, i know", i told him rather brusquely, "but i'm more concerned about my eyes.".
he rolled his own, and separated her from me. i was happy that she left me alone - but she confronted me about it afterwards, with tears in her eyes.
"jason, don't you know why i.."
"yeah, i do know." - i said, while walking away.
in the end, i gave in and let her take me to the dance. in the process, she probably became the first person to realize that i'm transgendered - before i even really did myself; she ended up crudely fag hagging me at eight years old, in the girls' washroom at the elementary school dance before leaving me there to go dance with some actual boys.
this is maybe the first of a dozen similar stories. and, all i can say is that past behaviour is a strong predictor of future behaviour.
she was an awkward kid - quite dominant, in fact. she was a bit of a star hockey player, and known for it. so, she was quite fit - in very good shape. when she wanted something, she took control of the situation and went and got it; that was entirely natural to her....
i was a bookworm - and not interested. she kept trying various tactics, and i kept ignoring her. i don't know if i ever admitted to her that i was actually ignoring her, or if she just always thought i didn't notice; she doesn't seem to have figured it out on her own. she always got what she wanted by taking it, remember. in fact, she ended up escalating quite dramatically, by shooting elastic bands at me.
you know the way: elastic hand gun. you pull the trigger by removing your finger and it flies...
see, as mentioned, i fully well knew that she was trying to get my attention - and i wasn't at all interested. she really wasn't my type; i just saw her as a dumb jock. so, i went and told the teacher that she was shooting elastics at me.
he looked at me like i didn't have a father. "jason, when.."
"yeah, i know", i told him rather brusquely, "but i'm more concerned about my eyes.".
he rolled his own, and separated her from me. i was happy that she left me alone - but she confronted me about it afterwards, with tears in her eyes.
"jason, don't you know why i.."
"yeah, i do know." - i said, while walking away.
in the end, i gave in and let her take me to the dance. in the process, she probably became the first person to realize that i'm transgendered - before i even really did myself; she ended up crudely fag hagging me at eight years old, in the girls' washroom at the elementary school dance before leaving me there to go dance with some actual boys.
this is maybe the first of a dozen similar stories. and, all i can say is that past behaviour is a strong predictor of future behaviour.
Friday, March 23, 2018
the reason i got out of it was the echo chamber effect, combined with the authoritarian power of the written media. but, both of these problems do have a solution - critical thinking skills. it's only when you add the third ingredient of a public school system that has minimized the importance of critical thinking that we end up with the problems we're facing, today.
apparently, studies suggest that people don't read the articles before they share them, but just get the information out of the headlines. headlines are even more authoritarian than stories, partly because they're so short.
what i found was that it was almost impossible to argue with people using facts once they fell down this rabbit hole of accepting headlines as authoritarian sources of knowledge. they would just respond by repeating more authoritarian headlines. or, the lovely "i don't believe your facts because they contradict the memes.".
i had to stop because i was driving myself crazy. my feed was just full of trash, and i had to debunk it, because i'm like that. so i found myself spending hours educating people that refused to be educated, and eventually gave up altogether.
if we can get to the kids then this shall pass. if we can't? it could be a problem.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-pessimists-might-be-right-social-media-may-have-plunged-us-into-a-new-dark-age
apparently, studies suggest that people don't read the articles before they share them, but just get the information out of the headlines. headlines are even more authoritarian than stories, partly because they're so short.
what i found was that it was almost impossible to argue with people using facts once they fell down this rabbit hole of accepting headlines as authoritarian sources of knowledge. they would just respond by repeating more authoritarian headlines. or, the lovely "i don't believe your facts because they contradict the memes.".
i had to stop because i was driving myself crazy. my feed was just full of trash, and i had to debunk it, because i'm like that. so i found myself spending hours educating people that refused to be educated, and eventually gave up altogether.
if we can get to the kids then this shall pass. if we can't? it could be a problem.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-pessimists-might-be-right-social-media-may-have-plunged-us-into-a-new-dark-age
what anarchists believe is that our rights end where the rights of others begin.
and, that is simply a statement that respect is the fundamental idea that society should be built around.
nihilism is consequently the anti-thesis of anarchism. and, as much as the new left is increasingly libertarian, the new right is increasingly nihilist...
and, that is simply a statement that respect is the fundamental idea that society should be built around.
nihilism is consequently the anti-thesis of anarchism. and, as much as the new left is increasingly libertarian, the new right is increasingly nihilist...
there's a broad consistency around these positions taken by these alt-right political commentators. on almost every single issue, the thing reduces to a refusal to behave respectfully - and this inherently american idea that freedom means the ability to be disrespectful towards the people around you.
it's this kind of evolution of thatcherism, this neo-randianism, this coalescence of these ideas that selfishness is a virtue and society doesn't exist, into this vehement insistence of the right to be disrespectful as a fundamental speech issue.
and, there probably isn't a solution besides treating these people the way that they insist on treating others, and hoping their nihilism means they die quickly.
it's this kind of evolution of thatcherism, this neo-randianism, this coalescence of these ideas that selfishness is a virtue and society doesn't exist, into this vehement insistence of the right to be disrespectful as a fundamental speech issue.
and, there probably isn't a solution besides treating these people the way that they insist on treating others, and hoping their nihilism means they die quickly.
tory media,
can you write me an essay explaining to me why it is that you have such a hard time understanding why it's disrespectful to gender people without their permission? in the process, can you explain to me what the purpose of nonchalantly gendering people as an irrelevant triviality in unrelated conversations is in the first place?
the last part is important.
thanks,
dtk
can you write me an essay explaining to me why it is that you have such a hard time understanding why it's disrespectful to gender people without their permission? in the process, can you explain to me what the purpose of nonchalantly gendering people as an irrelevant triviality in unrelated conversations is in the first place?
the last part is important.
thanks,
dtk
i'm going to file a formal complaint for the tenants downstairs due to the smoke, but i'm going to wait until they're not expecting it.
i'm not sure when.
i'm not broadcasting it...
they're growing plants in there. i want to make sure the landlord catches them red-handed.
in the mean time, i'm going to be very quiet, and just carefully go about doing things that are designed to upset them - because i'm convinced that their behaviour is malicious, at this point.
i'm not sure when.
i'm not broadcasting it...
they're growing plants in there. i want to make sure the landlord catches them red-handed.
in the mean time, i'm going to be very quiet, and just carefully go about doing things that are designed to upset them - because i'm convinced that their behaviour is malicious, at this point.
it's perhaps useful to enumerate the ways in which a chinese presence exists here, but it's disingenuous to suggest that the russian influence here is much less - or that our own influence in asia is much different.
the fundamental difference is how they see us.
russia views canada as an old british colony - a former ally against the nazis, and, as a descendant of roman christianity, a cultural cousin. russia legitimately wants peace. russia truly wants friendship.
the chinese view canada as a satellite of the united states, and the continent of north america, more broadly, as an open land to colonize - not dissimilarly to how europeans once saw this continent.
so, the russians seek co-existence; the chinese seek control and dominance.
might that change? it's unlikely, really, because it's cultural. the chinese are supremacists. they want to dominate the world, and subjugate everybody else. we were once like that, too, but we only changed by assimilating the conquered peoples - which means that if the chinese are to follow us into cosmopolitanism, they will have to defeat us, first.
i don't think there's some easy solution. china prides itself on the age of it's civilization, but that perception of itself as central to history is exactly what the problem is.
china probably has to be destroyed.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/china-is-a-bigger-threat-than-russia-but-you-wont-hear-trudeau-say-it/
the fundamental difference is how they see us.
russia views canada as an old british colony - a former ally against the nazis, and, as a descendant of roman christianity, a cultural cousin. russia legitimately wants peace. russia truly wants friendship.
the chinese view canada as a satellite of the united states, and the continent of north america, more broadly, as an open land to colonize - not dissimilarly to how europeans once saw this continent.
so, the russians seek co-existence; the chinese seek control and dominance.
might that change? it's unlikely, really, because it's cultural. the chinese are supremacists. they want to dominate the world, and subjugate everybody else. we were once like that, too, but we only changed by assimilating the conquered peoples - which means that if the chinese are to follow us into cosmopolitanism, they will have to defeat us, first.
i don't think there's some easy solution. china prides itself on the age of it's civilization, but that perception of itself as central to history is exactly what the problem is.
china probably has to be destroyed.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/china-is-a-bigger-threat-than-russia-but-you-wont-hear-trudeau-say-it/
Thursday, March 22, 2018
year zero is a come back record, but it's also a coming-back-down-to-earth record.
at that stage in somebody's career, it's usually enough to get a solid record, and that's exactly what it is. it's just hard to put it in the right context, because it reaches so far beyond what it actually accomplishes. so, it kind of gets forgotten...
at that stage in somebody's career, it's usually enough to get a solid record, and that's exactly what it is. it's just hard to put it in the right context, because it reaches so far beyond what it actually accomplishes. so, it kind of gets forgotten...
so, the question du jour in the media is trying to figure out why wynne is so unpopular. and, a lot of people are going to come up with these cause and effect arguments, trying to find some mistake.
but, as everybody keeps pointing out, her policies are popular.
the hydro one thing was stupid, but it was only stupid because it let the opposition frame her so badly. and, i think that's the real crux of the problem: she didn't spin herself well. or, said differently, she doesn't have the media reach required to spin herself well...
this is a big problem in canada. the conservatives own all the media, define the narrative and may be finally starting to elect governments. the only thing that's prevented us from becoming a play thing of murdoch wannabes is the fact that we seem to know better - and, perhaps, the existence of the toronto star.
but, the liberals need to be more media savvy, moving forwards. nobody watches ctv or reads asper media, any more. they can and should be hitting people over the internet, to try and avoid or pervert the dominance of the old tory guard in the traditional media.
in the short run, wynne may end up as a casualty of her refusal to define her own narrative. and, the liberals need to learn from this, not complain about it.
but, as everybody keeps pointing out, her policies are popular.
the hydro one thing was stupid, but it was only stupid because it let the opposition frame her so badly. and, i think that's the real crux of the problem: she didn't spin herself well. or, said differently, she doesn't have the media reach required to spin herself well...
this is a big problem in canada. the conservatives own all the media, define the narrative and may be finally starting to elect governments. the only thing that's prevented us from becoming a play thing of murdoch wannabes is the fact that we seem to know better - and, perhaps, the existence of the toronto star.
but, the liberals need to be more media savvy, moving forwards. nobody watches ctv or reads asper media, any more. they can and should be hitting people over the internet, to try and avoid or pervert the dominance of the old tory guard in the traditional media.
in the short run, wynne may end up as a casualty of her refusal to define her own narrative. and, the liberals need to learn from this, not complain about it.
trump may not really be getting the plot about why china has tariffs on american goods but america doesn't have tariffs on chinese goods (hint: they're largely american goods made in china, rather than chinese goods), but i actually applaud any steps taken to erect trade barriers that put an end to the existing relationship, which is both unjust and unsustainable.
the consequences of his actions might not be what he's thinking, either, but they'll no doubt be for the greater good, in the end.
the consequences of his actions might not be what he's thinking, either, but they'll no doubt be for the greater good, in the end.
i'm not a prophet, i'm a logician.
and, none of this makes any sense - unless the plan was to derail it from the start.
so, don't be a sap and blame the tories. trudeau set this up. it's his fault.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-cannabis-bill-live-die-vote-1.4586113
and, none of this makes any sense - unless the plan was to derail it from the start.
so, don't be a sap and blame the tories. trudeau set this up. it's his fault.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-cannabis-bill-live-die-vote-1.4586113
so, if gender is just a choice, should i be allowed in exclusive gendered spaces, then?
well, it's 2018. why are we still gendering spaces?
so, what i'd actually tell you is this: if you're intent on gendering the space, i can almost guarantee you i don't want to enter it.
but, i believe in democracy, which means i believe it's up to the people that inhabit the space to determine entry on whatever criteria they want, and not up to a legislature to enforce rules from a distance under the threat of coercion or force. i'd just ask them to question the value of their criteria...and to recognize the consequences of being exclusive....
any group that wishes to be exclusive can always be mirrored by a group that aims for inclusion.
now, that said, there's some spaces where exclusion does make some sense, and i would respect whatever decisions exist, should i be excluded, for whatever reason. but, i'd also probably be able to figure that out on my own, without having to be told.
well, it's 2018. why are we still gendering spaces?
so, what i'd actually tell you is this: if you're intent on gendering the space, i can almost guarantee you i don't want to enter it.
but, i believe in democracy, which means i believe it's up to the people that inhabit the space to determine entry on whatever criteria they want, and not up to a legislature to enforce rules from a distance under the threat of coercion or force. i'd just ask them to question the value of their criteria...and to recognize the consequences of being exclusive....
any group that wishes to be exclusive can always be mirrored by a group that aims for inclusion.
now, that said, there's some spaces where exclusion does make some sense, and i would respect whatever decisions exist, should i be excluded, for whatever reason. but, i'd also probably be able to figure that out on my own, without having to be told.
it is the hornone itself that exists in a spectrum. this is the part so few people grasp.
have you ever wondered why some women are curvy bombshells and others look like boys their whole lives? some get more estrogen than others. it's complicated - genetics, environment, experience, diet - but there's not a gene for huge breasts or a gene for manly calves. it's just hormones. it's just chemistry.
all of these questions - not homosexuality, mind you, but gender - revolve around these hormones, what proportion of them we have and what proportion of them we want.
my first shrink tried to get me to answer why i didn't want to just take steroids, if i was unhappy with my body image - and i had no meaningful answer for him, other than that i didn't want to. there isn't one....
have you ever wondered why some women are curvy bombshells and others look like boys their whole lives? some get more estrogen than others. it's complicated - genetics, environment, experience, diet - but there's not a gene for huge breasts or a gene for manly calves. it's just hormones. it's just chemistry.
all of these questions - not homosexuality, mind you, but gender - revolve around these hormones, what proportion of them we have and what proportion of them we want.
my first shrink tried to get me to answer why i didn't want to just take steroids, if i was unhappy with my body image - and i had no meaningful answer for him, other than that i didn't want to. there isn't one....
"so why can't i identify as a chair or a couch?"
so, what you're saying is that you want me to sit on your face, then?
"no, i'm just..."
you're obviously not a chair.
"you're obviously not a woman."
and, why is that obvious?
"well, you've said that you don't have a vagina."
but, that can be altered, if desired. you acknowledge, then, that gender is fluid, rather than fixed.
"but you don't have..."
i can get anything i don't have, alright? and, i can get rid of anything i don't want, too.
"not genes."
we can actually edit our genes, in theory. not much longer. but, you don't know what the genes code for do, you?
*pause*
"not exactly."
it's hormones. that's all.
sex is not innate. it's just chemistry. and, you can swap it back and forth all you want.
so, what you're saying is that you want me to sit on your face, then?
"no, i'm just..."
you're obviously not a chair.
"you're obviously not a woman."
and, why is that obvious?
"well, you've said that you don't have a vagina."
but, that can be altered, if desired. you acknowledge, then, that gender is fluid, rather than fixed.
"but you don't have..."
i can get anything i don't have, alright? and, i can get rid of anything i don't want, too.
"not genes."
we can actually edit our genes, in theory. not much longer. but, you don't know what the genes code for do, you?
*pause*
"not exactly."
it's hormones. that's all.
sex is not innate. it's just chemistry. and, you can swap it back and forth all you want.
the green bonds and the infrastructure bank both just evaporated. they were in the platform, but there's no trace of them, now, anywhere.
no denials. no 'splaining. just nothing.
mulcair would have been as bad as notley....
it's less that i saw trudeau as some kind of saviour; they all supported the pipelines. they were all pro-oil. but, trudeau was at least presenting feasible ideas to shift.
what i was hoping was that we'd get both: we might have to stomach trudeau's support for pipelines (and fight it in court), while they put the money down on a proper transition strategy at the same time. if your goal is profit maximization, there's no contradiction in funding both sides. and, that seemed to be the best option.
instead, we got neither - and a real do-nothing parliament, all-around.
they sent dion packing a few months in and are unlikely to campaign on this again; either way, it would be hard to take them seriously.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/09/ive-been-leading-up-to-this-for-while.html
no denials. no 'splaining. just nothing.
mulcair would have been as bad as notley....
it's less that i saw trudeau as some kind of saviour; they all supported the pipelines. they were all pro-oil. but, trudeau was at least presenting feasible ideas to shift.
what i was hoping was that we'd get both: we might have to stomach trudeau's support for pipelines (and fight it in court), while they put the money down on a proper transition strategy at the same time. if your goal is profit maximization, there's no contradiction in funding both sides. and, that seemed to be the best option.
instead, we got neither - and a real do-nothing parliament, all-around.
they sent dion packing a few months in and are unlikely to campaign on this again; either way, it would be hard to take them seriously.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/09/ive-been-leading-up-to-this-for-while.html
see, and this is the wildcard in provincial elections - rino is popular, here.
this could be a three-way race. ford will do well with all the recent immigrants, the ndp will hold their own with older voters and rino will do well with the hipsters and students.
i dunno yet..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/rino-bortolin-liberals-windsor-west-1.4587488
this could be a three-way race. ford will do well with all the recent immigrants, the ndp will hold their own with older voters and rino will do well with the hipsters and students.
i dunno yet..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/rino-bortolin-liberals-windsor-west-1.4587488
this is something approaching reliable polling, and the first thing i've seen in months - although it appears to have been taken over march break, which no doubt exaggerates the inherent pc bias in phone polling.
but, this is what the poll says:
cons - 40.7
libs - 22.2
undecided - 15.6
ndp - 15.1
greens - 5.3
correcting for the bias puts the conservatives a few points under 40, but it's not clear where it goes.
in our spectrum, conservatives tend to have a very hard time gaining undecided voters and as hard a time keeping leaning voters. their base is solid, but they don't usually move far out of it; the undecideds tend to lean heavily to the left. you can't distribute undecideds in canada. but, i'm willing to take this as the first valid snap shot in months.
and, what it suggests is that traditional liberal voters are currently disengaged. if they swing hard to the ndp, they could win a surprise victory - but, again, it's hard to understand what's taking them so long. if they vote liberal in the end, she has a chance. and, if they split, or stay home, then the conservatives win.
this is not dissimilar to what we saw in the last federal election, where the conservatives polled ahead until the last weeks, when the undecideds finally decided in favour of the liberals. i'm not convinced that we'll see the same end, but it's the same set-up: mass apathy across the spectrum, with two broad camps - the hardcore conservative base, and everybody else (which remains broadly abc in mindset).
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ford-pcs-21-point-lead-wynne-liberals/
but, this is what the poll says:
cons - 40.7
libs - 22.2
undecided - 15.6
ndp - 15.1
greens - 5.3
correcting for the bias puts the conservatives a few points under 40, but it's not clear where it goes.
in our spectrum, conservatives tend to have a very hard time gaining undecided voters and as hard a time keeping leaning voters. their base is solid, but they don't usually move far out of it; the undecideds tend to lean heavily to the left. you can't distribute undecideds in canada. but, i'm willing to take this as the first valid snap shot in months.
and, what it suggests is that traditional liberal voters are currently disengaged. if they swing hard to the ndp, they could win a surprise victory - but, again, it's hard to understand what's taking them so long. if they vote liberal in the end, she has a chance. and, if they split, or stay home, then the conservatives win.
this is not dissimilar to what we saw in the last federal election, where the conservatives polled ahead until the last weeks, when the undecideds finally decided in favour of the liberals. i'm not convinced that we'll see the same end, but it's the same set-up: mass apathy across the spectrum, with two broad camps - the hardcore conservative base, and everybody else (which remains broadly abc in mindset).
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ford-pcs-21-point-lead-wynne-liberals/
grenier is always wrong. he shouldn't have his job, any more.
his weighted average of polls has been wrong, wrong and wronger for years. the reason is that he mixes up good polls and bad polls, which just has the effect of polluting the data. he includes every poll he can find under the argument that it's a crapshoot anyways, and then gets essentially what he assumes.
are the liberals in worse shape than before? i don't know. because i haven't seen any reliable polling. and, that's the actually correct answer right now - we haven't seen any reliable polling so we don't know where the numbers are.
when we finally do get some reliable polling, it could be shocking because you've been conditioned to a foregone conclusion by all this tory media propaganda. but, you shouldn't be shocked - you should just learn the lesson you won't learn, which is that online "polling" isn't polling
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ontario-polls-comebacks-1.4585921
his weighted average of polls has been wrong, wrong and wronger for years. the reason is that he mixes up good polls and bad polls, which just has the effect of polluting the data. he includes every poll he can find under the argument that it's a crapshoot anyways, and then gets essentially what he assumes.
are the liberals in worse shape than before? i don't know. because i haven't seen any reliable polling. and, that's the actually correct answer right now - we haven't seen any reliable polling so we don't know where the numbers are.
when we finally do get some reliable polling, it could be shocking because you've been conditioned to a foregone conclusion by all this tory media propaganda. but, you shouldn't be shocked - you should just learn the lesson you won't learn, which is that online "polling" isn't polling
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ontario-polls-comebacks-1.4585921
no.
the ban on smoking near buildings is municipal, and windsor is one of the few cities that doesn't have one.
and, smoking out of a window is most like smoking on a balcony, which is not addressed anywhere - and would be difficult to argue.
there's no such thing as a non-smoking building, here. somebody could put it in a lease, but it's non-enforceable. so, i have no choice but to fight.
at the moment, i don't have an actionable complaint; i will no doubt be told to close the window, which i can't/won't do. i need a large amount of fresh air intake into the unit...
i know this is being done to irk me. so, i've done what i can to mitigate, and i'm going to have to wait them out. they don't want to smoke outside, and will eventually stop doing it.
the ban on smoking near buildings is municipal, and windsor is one of the few cities that doesn't have one.
and, smoking out of a window is most like smoking on a balcony, which is not addressed anywhere - and would be difficult to argue.
there's no such thing as a non-smoking building, here. somebody could put it in a lease, but it's non-enforceable. so, i have no choice but to fight.
at the moment, i don't have an actionable complaint; i will no doubt be told to close the window, which i can't/won't do. i need a large amount of fresh air intake into the unit...
i know this is being done to irk me. so, i've done what i can to mitigate, and i'm going to have to wait them out. they don't want to smoke outside, and will eventually stop doing it.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
the heat turned on before 11:00.
after i had blocked every hole in the apartment, they started blowing it in the windows. that's just a lack of respect. i mean, it's one thing when we're talking about competing rights and seeking mutual co-existence; it's another when you're taking about an infringement of personal space. so, i had to threaten the crackheads with police action. it seems to have worked, for now.
it's probably the only thing they would have responded to; i probably didn't have another option. i hate cops, but i also hate crackheads. i don't know who i hate more.
the law in ontario is that you need to go eight feet away from a public building. most people don't follow that, but i'm willing to enforce it. does that mean i can force them to close the window? i need to look into that.
if i can get through the night without being bothered, i might change my mind. but, as of right now, i've resolved to filing a complaint with the landlord tomorrow morning.
after i had blocked every hole in the apartment, they started blowing it in the windows. that's just a lack of respect. i mean, it's one thing when we're talking about competing rights and seeking mutual co-existence; it's another when you're taking about an infringement of personal space. so, i had to threaten the crackheads with police action. it seems to have worked, for now.
it's probably the only thing they would have responded to; i probably didn't have another option. i hate cops, but i also hate crackheads. i don't know who i hate more.
the law in ontario is that you need to go eight feet away from a public building. most people don't follow that, but i'm willing to enforce it. does that mean i can force them to close the window? i need to look into that.
if i can get through the night without being bothered, i might change my mind. but, as of right now, i've resolved to filing a complaint with the landlord tomorrow morning.
what a disaster.
i spent all day taping the windows open, only to have the heat turn off this afternoon, which is not legal.
i repeat: the windows are taped open. they won't be closed again until november.
it's just below freezing. so, if the heat doesn't turn on soon, it's going to be cold in here tonight....
i spent all day taping the windows open, only to have the heat turn off this afternoon, which is not legal.
i repeat: the windows are taped open. they won't be closed again until november.
it's just below freezing. so, if the heat doesn't turn on soon, it's going to be cold in here tonight....
again: my experiences with the mental health system aren't that it needs more funding, but that it needs better standards.
all these years later, and i've been unable to get a serious diagnosis. i'm obviously crazy, right? well, i can't get a doctor to acknowledge it. they're all convinced there's nothing wrong with me.
or, to put it in more honest terms: they're all convinced that i'm white. if i'm white, i must be privileged. so, i'm not crazy. i'm just a whiner.
the problem is in the academic system.
all these years later, and i've been unable to get a serious diagnosis. i'm obviously crazy, right? well, i can't get a doctor to acknowledge it. they're all convinced there's nothing wrong with me.
or, to put it in more honest terms: they're all convinced that i'm white. if i'm white, i must be privileged. so, i'm not crazy. i'm just a whiner.
the problem is in the academic system.
some of these people are professors, and have some grounds to claim they are presenting controversial academic topics.
but, the ones like goldy that are just idiot trolls should be told to go speak in an elementary school cafeteria, or a legion hall, instead.
she's making a mockery of academia.
but, this is the school's responsibility to prevent, and it is the school's fault for not stepping in and upholding some concept of rigour.
but, the ones like goldy that are just idiot trolls should be told to go speak in an elementary school cafeteria, or a legion hall, instead.
she's making a mockery of academia.
but, this is the school's responsibility to prevent, and it is the school's fault for not stepping in and upholding some concept of rigour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)