ford can say what he wants, but the reality is that the members of the party did actually just vote for her. and, the self-defeating attitude towards muslims (most of whom are conservatives.) aside, she's a far better representative of the future of conservatism in canada than he is.

the conservatives will say something about her being a distraction. that is tactically wrong: she's what the party needs to rev up it's base.

i might rather suggest that ford, or his handlers, were more concerned about the likelihood of her trying to remove ford essentially immediately. she's got palace intrigue written all over her.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4189784/tanya-granic-allen-doug-ford-ontario-pc/

i'll say something about detroit, though.

for such a large city, the various scenes are very small. maybe it's a reflection on the broader demographics; there's millions of people here, but it's the same few dozen people at all the psych concerts, the same few dozen people at all the goth clubs, the same few dozen people in the techno scene...

i listen to lots of types of music, so i get around. lots of very diverse people are going to recognize me. and the city seems a lot smaller than it is.

even in ottawa, a much smaller city, i'd go out to the same couple of bars all of the time and meet all kinds of different people; in detroit you can go to five different bars on five different nights and get the same group of people collectively bar-hopping for the bands.

and, i guess that's why so many places seem so empty when you don't go to the right party. if all the psych kids are at bar x, bar y could literally be empty - because there doesn't seem to be enough concert goers or general bar patrons to accommodate them both.

it's not too many bars. it's really not. not for the population, here.

it's just kind of a sleepy town in a lot of ways.

i think i remember unlocking my bike, driving past small's (which is where i left my bike to go to the after hours place) & driving past ant hall.

i may have walked the bike at points.

it's blurry.

like i say: the only other possibility is that somebody put the bike in the back of a truck, and i don't remember that at all.

i don't know who drove me back to the bicycle, but i guess that was the person that owned the sweater.

so, was i drunk last night?

yes.

i'll own that.

see, and you have to get this: i'm very honest. i'm admitting i was drunk last night, because i was; i'm not admitting to it on other nights, because i wasn't.

i didn't intend to go where i went, i kind of got redirected, perhaps even "picked up", and i ended up drinking something much stronger than i normally would. i normally drink beer all night, and especially after 2:00; i know i can't handle hard alcohol after hours, so the outcome was actually predictable. why would i drink it, then? because it's what was there, and i wasn't feeling drunk when i started. and it tasted good. it snuck up on me, kind of thing. but, as mentioned, a more sober analysis would have understood the idea as a bad one from the start.

i don't have any reason to think i passed out and it implicitly almost seems impossible through a little deductive reasoning around my bicycle; i think this was a classic black out, not a drunken collapse. so, i don't think i was drugged. i may have even been babysat. i'm not missing cash or items. and, i do have some blurry recollection of the night: walking past slot machines, watching somebody play pool, talking to a bouncer...

it gets blurry around 3:30. but, it's a lengthy bike ride from hamtramck to midtown, and the staff told me i came in after 6:00, so it makes sense to think i was at the bar until around 5:00, hopped a lift back to where my bicycle was and then biked to the diner. in trying to remember the bike ride, i'm producing unreliable memories: i think i remember certain things, but i might be filling in holes through projection, and imagining the memories instead. like i say, it's blurry but i think i was conscious the whole night. but i remember ordering at the diner, and i remember trying to stay awake while eating it.

my bicycle was locked outside the diner, so i must have driven it there. i guess the other possibility is that somebody drove it there.

the staff said i came in by myself, but there was a bag beside me that didn't belong to me and i was wearing a sweater that wasn't mine, either. the thing is that i had a sweater locked up at my bike, so i must have been given the sweater at the bar. i think it was warm in there, though. so, this is a part of the night that i'd maybe like to understand better: why was i wearing somebody else's sweater?

the only other anomaly was that my makeup was a little more worn than normal, suggesting i either sweat a lot somewhere or maybe washed it off.

i don't have any stains on my shirt or on my clothes, so i'm confident i didn't spill anything. that might have been a reason for a sweater, but no. that's actually unusual; on a normal night out, i inevitably spill something on me. however, i may have dipped my hair in a drink, as there's a little bit of stickiness at the tip of it.

no bruises, cuts or lacerations.

no visible signs of entry, if you get what i'm saying.

so, it may not have even been obvious that i was that drunk. how's that for ironic.

but, this discussion is built on a false narrative. we start off by supposing that hillary clinton took the high road, and cite obama as evidence (?), then argue that she lost because she wasn't nasty enough.

but, this is ridiculous. in fact, clinton made every attempt that she possibly could to avoid talking about anything of substance, instead focusing almost entirely on trump's personality. one of the first things she did was attack her own potential voting base, calling them 'deplorables', and this set the tone for her own campaign, which was based on trying to find a smear against her opponent that would stick (and getting frustrated when it failed). and, she was just as nasty with bernie, too. and obama.

the miniscule bit of policy she produced was largely ignored because you couldn't believe a word out of her mouth, anyways.

further, many observers have tied these things together and suggested that her total vacuum of actual policy is what had her lose states like michigan, where trump's views on nafta managed to peel off votes by providing a substantive alternative.

i'm not sure if it was decisive, but it no doubt contributed to the loss. and, so, the proper lesson to learn from the last american election is not that clinton lost because she took the high road, but that she lost because she didn't.

i think that so long as wynne says things that are actually true, accusations of 'negative campaigning' are likely to ring hollow. it's not the tone that turns people off, it's the dishonesty you see in a lot of attacks. so, these discussions should really be about dishonesty, rather than tone.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/rhetoric-of-the-ontario-election-go-high/

i'm wrong all the time.

but, not when it comes to the greeks.

as an anarchist, a mathematician, a musician and a pseudo-philosopher, the greeks are a little special to me.

of the modes & the pre-socratics, behold: the ionians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia