hey, if i'm here this weekend maybe i can heckle bernie when he comes over to get discount insulin.

"go home yankee, back where you come from!"

i'd probably get a shoe thrown at me for that one, right?

well, you know it's a thing in a lot of the world to tell americans to go back where they came from, right? sometimes with good reason. like, in japan, for instance. those military guys over there (and there's like 50,000 of them. still.) have kind of a bad reputation with the locals. because they tend to rape them.

or, in much of latin america, where chants of "yanqui go home!" are pretty common place. well, they keep showing up with guns and slaughtering them. i'd tell people with guns that are there to slaughter me to go back where they came from, too.

i actually have no interest in defending what trump said, and that's not what i meant to do. it was a verbose, stupid remark. i just tend to have this tendency to kneejerk against kneejerks, and i'll hold to my analysis - it was a stupid way to say something that maybe actually ought to be said.

so long as we have enough insulin to go around, i'm not opposed to sharing it with the yankees. really. it would be better if they'd fix their own system, but all i can offer is words. and, i'm sure they'll find their way home soon enough.

if i drop by, i'll behave. promise.

i'm going to do a quick grocery run, and..

...well, i might get some work done over the next few days. how 'bout that?

so, do i think this is a coincidence?

no.

i think they want to keep this out of court and they thought they could sit on it. so, what i did worked, basically, in getting them to get a move on it.

but, for them, it's more about positioning. if i go in there and nail them on a report that's 100, 120 days late, the judge is going to take my side, off the bat. they know that. so, it was a dumb tactic, they thought they were calling my bluff, and now they're backtracking...

again: i'll have to read the report. i guess there's an infinitesimal chance it's the end.

but, we're almost certainly going to court.

i should be able to use most of what i typed up today, in the end.

and, i guess the other two cases can wait...

well...

i was just finishing my form 68a, and i got an email indicating to me that the review is completed and will get to me next week.

so, what does that mean?

well i don't expect it to say what i want it to say. let's not be naive about that. i have to let it finish, but i know better.

it does mean i can't file anything until i read it, and if i do, it won't be until mid-august at the earliest.

*shrug*.

so be it.

i'll have to find another show to go to, i guess.

for those that aren't familiar how this works, there's actually this rule book that you have to abide by, like you're playing an exotic board game.

"can you move backwards?"
"shit. i dunno. where's the rules?"
"over there.."

(pause)

"did you use the rule book for filter? fucker."
"i just used the back"
"still. whatever, let's just make it up. let's vote. who says we can move backwards?"

(pause)

"so we can move backwards."

but, you can't fuck with these rules, or at least not unless it says you can fuck with the rules in the rules and you're the judge. these rules are set.

and, they're set in legislation called the rules of civil procedure.

this is a common question, so you expect a clear answer:

Place of Hearing

(1.1) The application shall be heard in the county where the proceeding was commenced or to which it has been transferred under rule 13.1.02, unless the court orders otherwise.  O. Reg. 438/08, s. 38.

well, that's pretty obvious, but where was this commenced?

- the incident happened in windsor.

- i filed in windsor.

- they accepted it from toronto.

- the report was done in windsor.

- i asked for a review from windsor.

- they accepted the review in toronto.

and, as i'm asking for them to pull the review, that should be the proceeding, and it should be in toronto.

if the judge wants to transfer to london, she can do that.

ok.

that'll save me some time & money.

wait.

so, should i be filing in toronto or london?

well, if i don't have to go to london, i can save some time and money, right; i could come in for sunrise, serve in the morning, file in the afternoon, catch a show and come back on the overnight bus. that's a 25 hour day instead of a 40 hour day, and it'll cost me less on bus fare.

i am suing the oiprd. the oiprd is in toronto. so i should file in toronto, right?

the other argument would be that the issue is with the windsor police, so i should file in london, but that's less convincing to me.

the other thing is that the divisional court will not be coming back to london until april 2020 (!), but will be in toronto after the summer break, in september.

let's see what the actual rules say.

it may be time to start ignoring the law in the united states, and resorting to underground economies and acts of civil disobedience.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-new-abortion-restrictions-everything-you-need-know-1449494

to put it another way...

the right is about the idea that the masses need to be governed by an enlightened few.

the left argues this is bullshit - the masses can self-determine their own future.

human beings are biologically unique. we are not clones, like ants or bees; we multiply via sexual reproduction, meaning we take genes from both our parents and recombine them in a unique way. so, biologically, we are all unique individuals.

nor do we share unique experiences. while we can empathize and relate to the people that are similar to us, as well as to the people that are different than us, we don't have identical experiences, and consequently don't have identical viewpoints. so, socially, we are also unique individuals.

there's not really a way to salvage these fascist ideas of collectivism, at this point. it's been debunked. give up; move on.

the difference between what you call "social rights" and "individual rights" is illusory, as any worthwhile concept of social rights reduces to individual rights. so, health care, for example, is an individual right, as is education. if "social rights" are to have any meaningful concept at all, they reduce to the realm of fascism - rights of nationhood or rights to security - that have no place in any meaningful conception of socialism, and are admittedly not what is usually invoked by the term. but, sometimes it is, especially with indigenous groups. you have to be careful that you don't walk into something rather nasty with this term, "social rights" - it's never gotten us anywhere good, in the past.

socialism is about workers, and so it is about collective struggle, but it is not about collectivism in the hobbesian or "corporatist" sense, and to make the latter suggestion is just a kind of neo-liberal co-option; to reduce socialism to "social rights" is to accept the capitalist paradigm, and ultimately to end up at an authoritarian, fascist state. marx would have forcefully reasserted the axioms of liberalism, explained that socialism is the only way to achieve liberalism in an industrial society and ripped apart your "social rights" as lassallean.

i follow a traditional concept of left/right that comes out of the french revolution, which is the enlightenment revolution that is more pertinent to me, both as a canadian and as an anarchist.

the right is the aristocracy, the old money, and everything that comes with it - the charity work, the noblesse oblige, religion, the university, the right of kings and the obligations of hierarchy. what the right wants is a system of dominance, where everybody lives in harmony by knowing their right place in society, and going about their daily work, for the benefit of the greater good. the right has at times embraced markets, and at times rejected them. parties and institutions of the right include not just the french monarchists, but also the british tories and the american democrats.

on the left, is the people, who want to abolish the state and govern themselves. yet, we don't want to completely abolish the idea of society, even as we wish to tear down the institutions that order it. it's a tricky position, to tear down the structures but maintain the cohesion, and we haven't quite gotten it right yet, but we've tried a number of approaches: liberalism, libertarianism, anarchism, socialism...it is all with the intent of taking power away from the church-state and putting it in the hands of the people. all of our revolutions have failed; reform has been more successful to this point, but in the end we will have our successful revolution, this much we can all be sure of. so, on the left we have liberals and whigs and republicans, but we also have socialists and anarchists and marxists, and we're all really trying to get to the same point, in the end: self-determination, self-ownership and freedom from the ruling class.

i decided to go to sleep early to wake up and work on this early in the morning, tossed and turned and woke up late.

i have plenty of time if i'm planning to get out to do the first steps either this afternoon or tomorrow morning. but, i'm going to take a hot shower to warm up first.

i don't understand air conditioning. why do people enjoy being cold?