there is a secondary point with these "movements", and it's that what they do often seems designed to piss people off.
when you're 17, it's easy enough to think that stopping traffic is waking up the sheeple. i get that. i was there.
but, trust me - it just makes them want to run you down. if the intent is to raise awareness, it doesn't help, it just gets you hated even more.
so, why do they do it over and over?
if orwell was right, you wouldn't know it. you really, really wouldn't.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
and, to be clear: what's more effective than voting is marching over factories and seizing control of them, and then converting them into publicly owned bodies.
you'll never accomplish that by voting.
rather, you need critical mass - and you can't contribute to it from inside of a jail cell.
demonstrating and marching and waving signs is fun and useful if it helps you meet friends when you're young, but it's pointless in actually doing anything real. that's the lie they tell you: that protesting matters. it doesn't.
"but, what about the civil rights movement".
they had guns, kids. they don't tell you that, but you can look it up. this was not peaceful civil disobedience, it was a display of force.
"what about gandhi?"
gandhi was demonstrating the size of his army to the british governors. what he did was very smart, don't misunderstand me, but it was based on a game theoretic argument that you've probably never heard of. what he said was this: we can fight if you want, but you don't think you can win, do you? the british saw the size of gandhi's army and calculated that they couldn't win and gave up, instead. it only worked because the british were rational. but, this wasn't peaceful disobedience, either - it was a direct threat of violence.
strikes work because they stop production, so you have to make sure that you're actually stopping production if you want them to work. likewise, parades only work when there's a threat of force attached to them, so you have to make sure you're actually being scary, or you're just wasting your time.
you're kids; what you can do is minimal, and hanging out and networking face-to-face isn't the worse way to spend your time at that age, either. but, if you kids get yourself arrested, you're going to have the cops on your ass for the rest of your life. it's a bad idea, and it doesn't help the movement in the long run if your phone is hacked by the cia and recording everything that's happening.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you'll never accomplish that by voting.
rather, you need critical mass - and you can't contribute to it from inside of a jail cell.
demonstrating and marching and waving signs is fun and useful if it helps you meet friends when you're young, but it's pointless in actually doing anything real. that's the lie they tell you: that protesting matters. it doesn't.
"but, what about the civil rights movement".
they had guns, kids. they don't tell you that, but you can look it up. this was not peaceful civil disobedience, it was a display of force.
"what about gandhi?"
gandhi was demonstrating the size of his army to the british governors. what he did was very smart, don't misunderstand me, but it was based on a game theoretic argument that you've probably never heard of. what he said was this: we can fight if you want, but you don't think you can win, do you? the british saw the size of gandhi's army and calculated that they couldn't win and gave up, instead. it only worked because the british were rational. but, this wasn't peaceful disobedience, either - it was a direct threat of violence.
strikes work because they stop production, so you have to make sure that you're actually stopping production if you want them to work. likewise, parades only work when there's a threat of force attached to them, so you have to make sure you're actually being scary, or you're just wasting your time.
you're kids; what you can do is minimal, and hanging out and networking face-to-face isn't the worse way to spend your time at that age, either. but, if you kids get yourself arrested, you're going to have the cops on your ass for the rest of your life. it's a bad idea, and it doesn't help the movement in the long run if your phone is hacked by the cia and recording everything that's happening.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
23:10
do i need to request the tribunal to make the order or do they do that automatically, now?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
13:34
Powers of courts and tribunals
(2) This Act does not affect the power of a court
or a tribunal to compel a witness to testify or compel the production of
a document. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56, s. 51.
=======
i knew that, actually. not explicitly, in that legislation, but as a general rule; it was the guiding principle.
what the cops are actually stating is that they know that an order would be binding, but are asking the tribunal not to provide one because it's "unreasonable" due to the bullshit precedent.
yeah. i got this.
what's the time limit, though?
i'm gonna fall asleep again. tonight...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
=======
i knew that, actually. not explicitly, in that legislation, but as a general rule; it was the guiding principle.
what the cops are actually stating is that they know that an order would be binding, but are asking the tribunal not to provide one because it's "unreasonable" due to the bullshit precedent.
yeah. i got this.
what's the time limit, though?
i'm gonna fall asleep again. tonight...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
13:33
yeah, the first case they cited talks about somebody mailing something somewhere and concludes they should have taken greater steps to verify they had the right address. there's a series of cases cited afterwards where the idea that the applicant has to take steps to find the address is upheld, but all that actually provides any precedent for is the idea that i have to take initiative, which i've done.
it's a completely bullshit argument by a clearly stumped lawyer.
and, this is a lawyer i'm dealing with, now.
i would expect the tribunal to produce the order, at this point; there's no compelling reason presented by the police to not present this information to the tribunal, even though they obviously don't want to.
to be clear: i understand that i have the burden, here. but, i'm doing this; the lawyer is being disingenuous, and the tribunal should see through it.
how long do i get, though?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
it's a completely bullshit argument by a clearly stumped lawyer.
and, this is a lawyer i'm dealing with, now.
i would expect the tribunal to produce the order, at this point; there's no compelling reason presented by the police to not present this information to the tribunal, even though they obviously don't want to.
to be clear: i understand that i have the burden, here. but, i'm doing this; the lawyer is being disingenuous, and the tribunal should see through it.
how long do i get, though?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
at
13:23
no. stop.
imagine being arrested for stalking somebody that you've never met - that you've never seen a picture of - that you don't know the address or phone number of and that you appear to even have the wrong gender for (i thought i was communicating with a male named ryan, not a female named caroline).
then, imagine the cops telling you that the person's identity is protected by privacy laws when you try to determine who they are in order to sue them.
there would be something unconstitutional about those laws, don't you think?
if the tribunal orders the information, the cops will need to provide it, and i think the situation is at least unusual in that respect. i doubt the existing precedents would really cover the scenario; i think i'm looking for a novel ruling in a bizarre situation.
but, the laws cannot exist in such a state.
what happened cannot be allowed - they need to provide this information. i have a right to it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
imagine being arrested for stalking somebody that you've never met - that you've never seen a picture of - that you don't know the address or phone number of and that you appear to even have the wrong gender for (i thought i was communicating with a male named ryan, not a female named caroline).
then, imagine the cops telling you that the person's identity is protected by privacy laws when you try to determine who they are in order to sue them.
there would be something unconstitutional about those laws, don't you think?
if the tribunal orders the information, the cops will need to provide it, and i think the situation is at least unusual in that respect. i doubt the existing precedents would really cover the scenario; i think i'm looking for a novel ruling in a bizarre situation.
but, the laws cannot exist in such a state.
what happened cannot be allowed - they need to provide this information. i have a right to it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
13:01
what the cops are claiming is that they should only have to provide the information if it relates to an ongoing trial.
well, is this not a trial? i may need to get a judge to rule on it. i think i can win that debate.
they're also arguing that they would require a court order, and that's fine if they want to go down that path.
again: i'm not doing the slightest bit of research into this, for obvious reasons, and we'll take it to court if we must.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
well, is this not a trial? i may need to get a judge to rule on it. i think i can win that debate.
they're also arguing that they would require a court order, and that's fine if they want to go down that path.
again: i'm not doing the slightest bit of research into this, for obvious reasons, and we'll take it to court if we must.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
12:53
they had me arrested.
so, they should be forced to tell who they're working for.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, they should be forced to tell who they're working for.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
12:00
so, i got the denial from the cops that i was expecting and am now waiting for a response from the tribunal. i need to check deadlines on that.
the cops are essentially saying "this is an invasion of privacy.". but, this is a bullshit excuse - what they're doing is protecting the defendant. that's not unexpected, but it gives me an argument - they arrested me for harassment without a warrant and without any evidence in order to intimidate me into not filing the complaint, and then they won't tell me who the person that had me arrested was after i've filed it. there's some other components about the issue that have to do with how much work i've done on the file, but we're again in a farcical loop. they're telling me i should have taken the steps myself, but they just arrested me for harassment over it, which is creating a contradiction in their general position - they are both arguing that they can't release it due to the harassment charge, and that i should have harassed her enough to find the data on my own.
i don't know the identity of the person that had me arrested. so, my request to learn this information is not an invasion of privacy, it's a request for a fundamental principle of justice. that they're using this argument will look bad on them in the long run...
for now, i need to check up on what the tribunal does next. i presume they'll rule on the validity of the denial, and i'm kind of not sure about it. the idea i'm trying to get across is that i have no idea who this person is at all, so i avoided making lengthy arguments. on the other hand, we're not dealing with a rubber stamp body anymore, either. but, the courts tend to focus strongly on the perspective of the cops.
i'm not digging up dirt on this person, we're going to get the information from the cops, because they're the ones that are responsible for this. if the cops are going to act like this, they need to be held responsible for it, and that's a big part of why i'm doing this.
so, if the tribunal accepts the rejection, i'll have to appeal it in superior court and write back and request that they put the application on hold while that goes through.
we're going to be doing this for a long time, as i snake through the dozens of appeals and everything else. this is a huge legal fight, and i'm starkly committed to it.
you should not be allowed to use the cops as muscle to intimidate somebody, and then use them to hide your identity; if the cops are going to bully people around on a client's behest, they should be forced to provide information about that person's identity, on request.
we'll fight this one out for as long as it takes...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the cops are essentially saying "this is an invasion of privacy.". but, this is a bullshit excuse - what they're doing is protecting the defendant. that's not unexpected, but it gives me an argument - they arrested me for harassment without a warrant and without any evidence in order to intimidate me into not filing the complaint, and then they won't tell me who the person that had me arrested was after i've filed it. there's some other components about the issue that have to do with how much work i've done on the file, but we're again in a farcical loop. they're telling me i should have taken the steps myself, but they just arrested me for harassment over it, which is creating a contradiction in their general position - they are both arguing that they can't release it due to the harassment charge, and that i should have harassed her enough to find the data on my own.
i don't know the identity of the person that had me arrested. so, my request to learn this information is not an invasion of privacy, it's a request for a fundamental principle of justice. that they're using this argument will look bad on them in the long run...
for now, i need to check up on what the tribunal does next. i presume they'll rule on the validity of the denial, and i'm kind of not sure about it. the idea i'm trying to get across is that i have no idea who this person is at all, so i avoided making lengthy arguments. on the other hand, we're not dealing with a rubber stamp body anymore, either. but, the courts tend to focus strongly on the perspective of the cops.
i'm not digging up dirt on this person, we're going to get the information from the cops, because they're the ones that are responsible for this. if the cops are going to act like this, they need to be held responsible for it, and that's a big part of why i'm doing this.
so, if the tribunal accepts the rejection, i'll have to appeal it in superior court and write back and request that they put the application on hold while that goes through.
we're going to be doing this for a long time, as i snake through the dozens of appeals and everything else. this is a huge legal fight, and i'm starkly committed to it.
you should not be allowed to use the cops as muscle to intimidate somebody, and then use them to hide your identity; if the cops are going to bully people around on a client's behest, they should be forced to provide information about that person's identity, on request.
we'll fight this one out for as long as it takes...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
11:55
Extinction Rebellion uses arrest as a tactic to try to achieve its goals.
this is simply too idiotic to be real, and i want to interject my own experience, here - one of the best ways that you can identify the cops is by looking at who gets arrested.
somebody else might say something about race, but that's just a distraction, really. there's a far more pressing concern, here. let's think this through.
what happens when you get arrested for something like this?
- you get processed, including fingerprinted. you might apply to have things destroyed, but it's not easy to get the cops to actually do this. i'm probably going to need to sue, myself - we'll see how that goes.
- they know your real name, your address, etc.
- you're put in a list.
- you're put under surveillance.
so, if you're using arrest as a tactic, you're playing right into their hands, and you're retarded. more likely - this is truly occam's razor - is that the whole thing's a sting operation, to try and capture data on the next generation of activists.
if you fell for it, there's not much you can do, at this point, but you probably want to stay away from any groups that you think are actually legit; otherwise, you're bringing the cops there, and potentially bringing a mic in, at that.
i keep telling you that if orwell was actually right then you wouldn't know it...
i got myself arrested last year, it is true, but it was for a different purpose - i was building a civil case against the cops. so, i got arrested in order to sue. i'm not currently involved in any kind of organizing, and don't expect to be.....pretty much ever again. i moved 800 km away from where i used to organize, as well. so, i'm not putting anybody at risk, and the use of spying on me like this is essentially nil. if that wasn't true, i'd be putting comrades at risk, which is a big problem.
so, what do i think about this? it sounds like a sting. if you're going to go down and look for activists and/or hang out, don't get arrested. that's the set-up!
that said, not everybody there is going to be a cop, and if my own experience is any guide then you may find some value in using it as a networking tool - just be extremely careful about infiltration, and get away from any more legit organizing immediately once you think they've "got" you..
i'm, personally, in no position to do this kind of thing.
would mass arrests accomplish anything in the long run? of course not.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
this is simply too idiotic to be real, and i want to interject my own experience, here - one of the best ways that you can identify the cops is by looking at who gets arrested.
somebody else might say something about race, but that's just a distraction, really. there's a far more pressing concern, here. let's think this through.
what happens when you get arrested for something like this?
- you get processed, including fingerprinted. you might apply to have things destroyed, but it's not easy to get the cops to actually do this. i'm probably going to need to sue, myself - we'll see how that goes.
- they know your real name, your address, etc.
- you're put in a list.
- you're put under surveillance.
so, if you're using arrest as a tactic, you're playing right into their hands, and you're retarded. more likely - this is truly occam's razor - is that the whole thing's a sting operation, to try and capture data on the next generation of activists.
if you fell for it, there's not much you can do, at this point, but you probably want to stay away from any groups that you think are actually legit; otherwise, you're bringing the cops there, and potentially bringing a mic in, at that.
i keep telling you that if orwell was actually right then you wouldn't know it...
i got myself arrested last year, it is true, but it was for a different purpose - i was building a civil case against the cops. so, i got arrested in order to sue. i'm not currently involved in any kind of organizing, and don't expect to be.....pretty much ever again. i moved 800 km away from where i used to organize, as well. so, i'm not putting anybody at risk, and the use of spying on me like this is essentially nil. if that wasn't true, i'd be putting comrades at risk, which is a big problem.
so, what do i think about this? it sounds like a sting. if you're going to go down and look for activists and/or hang out, don't get arrested. that's the set-up!
that said, not everybody there is going to be a cop, and if my own experience is any guide then you may find some value in using it as a networking tool - just be extremely careful about infiltration, and get away from any more legit organizing immediately once you think they've "got" you..
i'm, personally, in no position to do this kind of thing.
would mass arrests accomplish anything in the long run? of course not.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
11:27
so, near the end of the debate, trudeau just broadcast that he's in favour of wage and price controls...i mean building refineries in alberta.
look it up.
classic projection.
what's he talking about?
it was a notley thing, something she actually ran on, but that never happened. it's often been floated as a way out of the pipeline catastrophe - just build the refineries in alberta and ship it up to hudson's bay or something. and, he's right - it would need federal money.
wait for it....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
look it up.
classic projection.
what's he talking about?
it was a notley thing, something she actually ran on, but that never happened. it's often been floated as a way out of the pipeline catastrophe - just build the refineries in alberta and ship it up to hudson's bay or something. and, he's right - it would need federal money.
wait for it....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
10:27
can somebody in the tory media run a fact check on trudeau at the debate, please?
thanks.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
thanks.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
09:29
what kind of 30-something year old runs for prime minister?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
09:20
it's clear, though.
the only person on stage that has the knowledge, life experiences and raw intelligence to be prime minister is elizabeth may. the rest of them are a bunch of idiots that should be out building their resumes, not running for prime minister.
it's mom vs the kids.
she's really running against herself.
but, she's also beating herself, soundly.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the only person on stage that has the knowledge, life experiences and raw intelligence to be prime minister is elizabeth may. the rest of them are a bunch of idiots that should be out building their resumes, not running for prime minister.
it's mom vs the kids.
she's really running against herself.
but, she's also beating herself, soundly.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
08:35
first audience question: only may bothered answering it, and it was a decent answer, as much as you can do in 45 seconds, i guess. may: B. rest: F.
bernier's q on multiculturalism: not important. ffwd.
second audience question about "leadership" in interprovincial relations: bernier wants state rights. fail. singh told us as a story about some stupid kid, rather than answering the question. fail. scheer wants to talk about carbon taxes. fail. may actually answered the question, with some kind of meech lake reference and it was sort of eh. B. blanchet doesn't understand equalization. F. trudeau claims he did things that he really mostly didn't. F.
singh makes a valid point that trudeau is harper redux, and trudeau tells you he'll do better next time, then deflects to scheer. but, that's what he said last time. decent question by singh, trudeau gets an F on the response. singh tries to double down, but on taxes, which is meh. bad question, pointless answer. ffwd. scheer jumps in and talks about boutique tax credits. it's harper v harper. ffwd. then, bernier tries to talk and is even worse. may tries to take the question back to climate change, which is welcome, but nobody really else has anything worthwhile to say. may: B. everybody else: F.
i ffwd through the section about immigration and multiculturalism. i don't want to hear it from these idiots. borrrring.
the next section is on indigenous rights...
they ask scheer about the duty to consult, and he actually said what you probably want to hear, but do you actually believe him? may then rightfully takes him to task for his party's record on this, and he fucks up a little when he responds. hey, i wouldn't want her yelling in my ear. i want to see more of this. scheer: F. may: A+.
blanchet tries to change the topic to quebec, and scheer tries to switch it back, because he's worse off talking about quebec than indigenous issues - which is telling. blanchet: F. scheer: F.
trudeau continues to pretend that he's done something that he actually hasn't, then tries to project harper onto scheer; scheer responded with a lot of things that align with the tory media narrative but are actually irrelevant. harper v harper, again. fail.
bernier - who is essentially a tory, and lost the leadership race to scheer - lobs a softball at scheer, here, by trying to make it about jurisdiction. fail.
singh wants to talk about education instead of consultation, then deflects to trudeau instead of nailing scheer on it, despite the conservatives and liberals having the same position on this. fail. then, he continues to try to nail trudeau, leading to a nice little friendly agreement between scheer and singh. hrmmn. they can fail together on this one, and maybe find a room after the debate.
i'm going to refresh my fruit bowl and come back, but i get the drift and may not bother updating from here on in.
once again, there's one actual serious candidate on stage, and it's may, and she's barely electable, herself - she only seems so much better relative to how awful the others are. the rest of them are basically equally terrible.
may: B - and better than i thought, overall.
the rest: F.
i still don't think i can vote for her, though.
ugh. i might have to...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
bernier's q on multiculturalism: not important. ffwd.
second audience question about "leadership" in interprovincial relations: bernier wants state rights. fail. singh told us as a story about some stupid kid, rather than answering the question. fail. scheer wants to talk about carbon taxes. fail. may actually answered the question, with some kind of meech lake reference and it was sort of eh. B. blanchet doesn't understand equalization. F. trudeau claims he did things that he really mostly didn't. F.
singh makes a valid point that trudeau is harper redux, and trudeau tells you he'll do better next time, then deflects to scheer. but, that's what he said last time. decent question by singh, trudeau gets an F on the response. singh tries to double down, but on taxes, which is meh. bad question, pointless answer. ffwd. scheer jumps in and talks about boutique tax credits. it's harper v harper. ffwd. then, bernier tries to talk and is even worse. may tries to take the question back to climate change, which is welcome, but nobody really else has anything worthwhile to say. may: B. everybody else: F.
i ffwd through the section about immigration and multiculturalism. i don't want to hear it from these idiots. borrrring.
the next section is on indigenous rights...
they ask scheer about the duty to consult, and he actually said what you probably want to hear, but do you actually believe him? may then rightfully takes him to task for his party's record on this, and he fucks up a little when he responds. hey, i wouldn't want her yelling in my ear. i want to see more of this. scheer: F. may: A+.
blanchet tries to change the topic to quebec, and scheer tries to switch it back, because he's worse off talking about quebec than indigenous issues - which is telling. blanchet: F. scheer: F.
trudeau continues to pretend that he's done something that he actually hasn't, then tries to project harper onto scheer; scheer responded with a lot of things that align with the tory media narrative but are actually irrelevant. harper v harper, again. fail.
bernier - who is essentially a tory, and lost the leadership race to scheer - lobs a softball at scheer, here, by trying to make it about jurisdiction. fail.
singh wants to talk about education instead of consultation, then deflects to trudeau instead of nailing scheer on it, despite the conservatives and liberals having the same position on this. fail. then, he continues to try to nail trudeau, leading to a nice little friendly agreement between scheer and singh. hrmmn. they can fail together on this one, and maybe find a room after the debate.
i'm going to refresh my fruit bowl and come back, but i get the drift and may not bother updating from here on in.
once again, there's one actual serious candidate on stage, and it's may, and she's barely electable, herself - she only seems so much better relative to how awful the others are. the rest of them are basically equally terrible.
may: B - and better than i thought, overall.
the rest: F.
i still don't think i can vote for her, though.
ugh. i might have to...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
08:18
i actually forgot that there was even a debate last night.
i'm going to get some fruit for breakfast before i get started on this writing; i guess i'll check it out, but i'm not particularly excited.
my expectation is as follows:
scheer: F
trudeau: F
singh: F
bernier: F
blanchet: D+
may: C-
we'll see what we actually get.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm going to get some fruit for breakfast before i get started on this writing; i guess i'll check it out, but i'm not particularly excited.
my expectation is as follows:
scheer: F
trudeau: F
singh: F
bernier: F
blanchet: D+
may: C-
we'll see what we actually get.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
06:27
i have essentially no childhood memories attached to this celebration. i usually spent it in the basement, avoiding family members that i didn't like.
it was the holiday that i never really understood. like, i may have tried to avoid people at the spring solstice, too, but at least i understood easter. what is thanksgiving, exactly? i never really got a straight answer until i looked into the history, in my 20s. maybe it's because i can't tie it to anything solar; maybe that's why it doesn't really make sense.
if you check my 2016 blog, i actually made it all the way to the post office before i even realized what day it was. i just pay absolutely no attention to this.
it could be partly because i really don't have any north american ancestors from that era, except maybe on my mom's dad side, which i don't know well. i've met my maternal grandfather something like five times in my whole life. my maternal grandmother is second generation, from norway, on her mom's side; i guess her father's parents were irish, but she never talked about them much, and i don't think she identified much with them. either way, we're still talking catholics, and they probably don't go further than the potato "famine" (that is, the irish genocide).
my dad's side is a mix, but all catholic and jewish, and maybe native and african. there's potentially some old stock quebecois in there, but there's nothing protestant.
so, don't be surprised if i do spend part of thanksgiving in the states, and don't expect me to really even notice it, if i do. this is something that i just don't care about.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it was the holiday that i never really understood. like, i may have tried to avoid people at the spring solstice, too, but at least i understood easter. what is thanksgiving, exactly? i never really got a straight answer until i looked into the history, in my 20s. maybe it's because i can't tie it to anything solar; maybe that's why it doesn't really make sense.
if you check my 2016 blog, i actually made it all the way to the post office before i even realized what day it was. i just pay absolutely no attention to this.
it could be partly because i really don't have any north american ancestors from that era, except maybe on my mom's dad side, which i don't know well. i've met my maternal grandfather something like five times in my whole life. my maternal grandmother is second generation, from norway, on her mom's side; i guess her father's parents were irish, but she never talked about them much, and i don't think she identified much with them. either way, we're still talking catholics, and they probably don't go further than the potato "famine" (that is, the irish genocide).
my dad's side is a mix, but all catholic and jewish, and maybe native and african. there's potentially some old stock quebecois in there, but there's nothing protestant.
so, don't be surprised if i do spend part of thanksgiving in the states, and don't expect me to really even notice it, if i do. this is something that i just don't care about.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
05:55
i may go for a beer somewhere this weekend, if it's nice, but i don't actually celebrate thanksgiving.
at all.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at all.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
05:46
all that i can do for right now is take note of the situation when it comes up, for future use...
the liberals are supposed to do better than that.
the liberals are supposed to do better than that.
at
05:22
so, it was a little after 3:00 when i noticed the smell of marijuana seeping in from upstairs, again. nowadays, this only seems to happen after i get home from the bar, indicating that there is some kind of feeling upstairs by the property owner that i'm some kind of hypocrite, or that my actions outside of the house provide some kind of license for his actions inside of it.
the smell was coming from all corners of the house, indicating that there was some intent to disperse the smell.
i ran upstairs to see if there was anybody outside, and there wasn't. nor was the smell anywhere outside. i will point out that i have seen at least one actual skunk in the neighbourhood, and it may have been an actual skunk that one time, but this smell was less controversial - this was a lighter smell, probably actually some kind of hash. the only possible conclusion is that he was smoking inside with the lights off and the windows closed so as to not get busted.
this is all very childish, on his behalf, and that's essentially my conclusion from dealing with this for the last year - this guy thinks like a teenager, and should hand in his adult card. and, the basic point is that i know better than to argue with dishonest people. after being sure it was him, i confronted him on it, and he's denied it...
so, i took a long shower to deal with the smell, did dishes (that always smells good....), made a pot of coffee in the other room and am going to make a pot of coffee in this room, now. actually, let me get up and do that...
it's brewing beside me. i've got the fan running, but short of putting down actual air fresheners, which i'm out of, there's not a lot i can do in this room.
let's hope it's under control, at least.
but, let's also review a few points:
1) i neither smoke marijuana nor do i smoke nicotine at home. while i was a habitual tobacco smoker for some years, i have not been since the start of 2016, which is almost four years ago. since then, i have only smoked when i'm drinking. four years is a long time, and i am confident that i will not return to habitual smoking. so, no - seeing me smoke at the bar or on the street does not imply that i've started smoking again. you should be confident at this point that that will never happen.
2) i have never been a habitual marijuana smoker, ever - i have only ever smoked marijuana in social settings, and in infrequent binges, from time to time. the legalization of marijuana in canada has not had any effect on my habits, and will not have any effect on my habits in the long run, either; while it will be nice to buy the odd pre-roll to take to the bars with me, i have no intention of smoking it at home. i simply do not want to smoke marijuana habitually - i prefer stimulants as my day-today habit, and consequently actually drink very large amounts of coffee. note that nicotine is also a stimulant, and consequently a very different type of habit.
3) as i do not want to smoke habitually, and consider that a key lifestyle decision at this point, i made a big deal out of signing a non-smoking lease when i moved in here at the end of 2018.
4) my habits outside of the unit have no legal implications towards the validity of the existing agreement, which i have upheld to the letter.
5) the agreement does not end or become void after a year. that agreement remains in force into perpetuity, unless somebody makes an effort to change it. this would not be difficult, but it would require the consent of both parties. as i would never consent to removing the non-smoking language, he's going to have to pay to get out.
6) he can, of course, pay to get out. it's his house. the agreement is real, but it isn't bondage - if he decides he made a mistake, he just has to pay a fine.
7) there's no hypocrisy on my behalf, and the law is clear enough. i told him i was a social smoker, but i didn't want it in the house, and that's exactly what we've got in front of us, on my end. i have every right to want this, and he has a clear obligation to provide for it, or be fucking honest about it and pay me out.
but, there's a pattern - it's when i come home.
and, i just need to be as clear as i can - no, my habits outside of the house don't mean i've changed my mind. and, if there's some delusion that i'm ever going to, people need to pull their heads out of their asses: that's not going to happen. ever.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
the smell was coming from all corners of the house, indicating that there was some intent to disperse the smell.
i ran upstairs to see if there was anybody outside, and there wasn't. nor was the smell anywhere outside. i will point out that i have seen at least one actual skunk in the neighbourhood, and it may have been an actual skunk that one time, but this smell was less controversial - this was a lighter smell, probably actually some kind of hash. the only possible conclusion is that he was smoking inside with the lights off and the windows closed so as to not get busted.
this is all very childish, on his behalf, and that's essentially my conclusion from dealing with this for the last year - this guy thinks like a teenager, and should hand in his adult card. and, the basic point is that i know better than to argue with dishonest people. after being sure it was him, i confronted him on it, and he's denied it...
so, i took a long shower to deal with the smell, did dishes (that always smells good....), made a pot of coffee in the other room and am going to make a pot of coffee in this room, now. actually, let me get up and do that...
it's brewing beside me. i've got the fan running, but short of putting down actual air fresheners, which i'm out of, there's not a lot i can do in this room.
let's hope it's under control, at least.
but, let's also review a few points:
1) i neither smoke marijuana nor do i smoke nicotine at home. while i was a habitual tobacco smoker for some years, i have not been since the start of 2016, which is almost four years ago. since then, i have only smoked when i'm drinking. four years is a long time, and i am confident that i will not return to habitual smoking. so, no - seeing me smoke at the bar or on the street does not imply that i've started smoking again. you should be confident at this point that that will never happen.
2) i have never been a habitual marijuana smoker, ever - i have only ever smoked marijuana in social settings, and in infrequent binges, from time to time. the legalization of marijuana in canada has not had any effect on my habits, and will not have any effect on my habits in the long run, either; while it will be nice to buy the odd pre-roll to take to the bars with me, i have no intention of smoking it at home. i simply do not want to smoke marijuana habitually - i prefer stimulants as my day-today habit, and consequently actually drink very large amounts of coffee. note that nicotine is also a stimulant, and consequently a very different type of habit.
3) as i do not want to smoke habitually, and consider that a key lifestyle decision at this point, i made a big deal out of signing a non-smoking lease when i moved in here at the end of 2018.
4) my habits outside of the unit have no legal implications towards the validity of the existing agreement, which i have upheld to the letter.
5) the agreement does not end or become void after a year. that agreement remains in force into perpetuity, unless somebody makes an effort to change it. this would not be difficult, but it would require the consent of both parties. as i would never consent to removing the non-smoking language, he's going to have to pay to get out.
6) he can, of course, pay to get out. it's his house. the agreement is real, but it isn't bondage - if he decides he made a mistake, he just has to pay a fine.
7) there's no hypocrisy on my behalf, and the law is clear enough. i told him i was a social smoker, but i didn't want it in the house, and that's exactly what we've got in front of us, on my end. i have every right to want this, and he has a clear obligation to provide for it, or be fucking honest about it and pay me out.
but, there's a pattern - it's when i come home.
and, i just need to be as clear as i can - no, my habits outside of the house don't mean i've changed my mind. and, if there's some delusion that i'm ever going to, people need to pull their heads out of their asses: that's not going to happen. ever.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
at
05:15
these idiots - and, they are idiots - seem to think i'm a russian spy, or something.
this is your intelligence service at work, keeping you safe.
this is what your taxes are paying for - spying on disabled people, as a consequence of debunked maddowite/mccarthyist conspiracy theories.
and, it gets back to the point about the media being at the root cause of the problems we have in front of us.
"if you aren't careful, the papers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and supporting the people who are doing the oppressing."
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
this is your intelligence service at work, keeping you safe.
this is what your taxes are paying for - spying on disabled people, as a consequence of debunked maddowite/mccarthyist conspiracy theories.
and, it gets back to the point about the media being at the root cause of the problems we have in front of us.
"if you aren't careful, the papers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and supporting the people who are doing the oppressing."
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
02:59
also, my email archive of this blog seems to have shut down a second time, which seems to indicate that the cia or csis are intercepting it.
can you spooks fucking knock it off, already?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
can you spooks fucking knock it off, already?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
02:44
whatever sanders kicked off is now fully co-opted, fully perverted. this is now a conservative movement. don't support it...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
02:41
america could wake up tomorrow and implement a socialist program within a month, if it really wanted to.
so, why hasn't it?
because rich people?
no - it doesn't want to. and, the problem for the left remains what it's been for centuries - we have to find a way to get people engaged, which means undoing the programming and brainwashing.
that money floating around the system shouldn't, doesn't and won't matter if we can actually organize effectively.
all we're getting from sanders and warren (and uygur..) on this is boiler-plate, status quo republicanism from the mouth of rush limbaugh c. 1996.
don't fall for this.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, why hasn't it?
because rich people?
no - it doesn't want to. and, the problem for the left remains what it's been for centuries - we have to find a way to get people engaged, which means undoing the programming and brainwashing.
that money floating around the system shouldn't, doesn't and won't matter if we can actually organize effectively.
all we're getting from sanders and warren (and uygur..) on this is boiler-plate, status quo republicanism from the mouth of rush limbaugh c. 1996.
don't fall for this.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
02:37
the root cause of the problems in america today is not the influence of big money in the political system, that shouldn't actually matter, it's the dismal education system and the terrible mass media, and the political apathy that these things breed in conjunction with one another.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
02:17
you can't ban money in politics, and you're a moron if you think you can. it's a cat and mouse game that you can't win, and i'm not willing to waste my time pretending that you can.
it's not like elections weren't bought before these recent supreme court rulings. the difference is just whether it happens in public or behind closed doors. so, do you want to take the debate back to behind closed doors? because that's all you'll ever actually succeed in by passing laws that try to restrict the flow of cash.
and, it's no coincidence that the people pushing this - elizabeth warren, cenk uygur - pretty much all used to be republicans. it's an idea that you need to be a conservative in order to take seriously, because it's essentially rooted in the idea that the reason that people don't have any power is because there aren't any rules. leftists know better than this - we have a deeper analysis than that.
in theory, an informed electorate shouldn't care about who is paying who to do what because we'd know better than to fall for it. there is one rule that i'd like to put in place, but i don't think that sanders or warren (and this is more of a warren thing, because it comes from the right of the spectrum) even support it - i'd like you to have to make your contributions public, and that would include small donations. if you're going to donate to a political party, you should be prepared for that information to get entered into a publicly available, searchable database. that way, people like me can do the research and figure it out.
if we don't care enough to do the research, all the laws and rules in the world will make no actual difference. if we do care enough, it's just a question of figuring it out - and somebody will probably even do it for you.
the basic reality is that i'm just not in the group of voters that are getting targeted with these kinds of proposals, which are designed to appeal to fiscal conservatives. i legitimately haven't the slightest interest in this, and i'm not remotely intellectually invested into debating it or voting for it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's not like elections weren't bought before these recent supreme court rulings. the difference is just whether it happens in public or behind closed doors. so, do you want to take the debate back to behind closed doors? because that's all you'll ever actually succeed in by passing laws that try to restrict the flow of cash.
and, it's no coincidence that the people pushing this - elizabeth warren, cenk uygur - pretty much all used to be republicans. it's an idea that you need to be a conservative in order to take seriously, because it's essentially rooted in the idea that the reason that people don't have any power is because there aren't any rules. leftists know better than this - we have a deeper analysis than that.
in theory, an informed electorate shouldn't care about who is paying who to do what because we'd know better than to fall for it. there is one rule that i'd like to put in place, but i don't think that sanders or warren (and this is more of a warren thing, because it comes from the right of the spectrum) even support it - i'd like you to have to make your contributions public, and that would include small donations. if you're going to donate to a political party, you should be prepared for that information to get entered into a publicly available, searchable database. that way, people like me can do the research and figure it out.
if we don't care enough to do the research, all the laws and rules in the world will make no actual difference. if we do care enough, it's just a question of figuring it out - and somebody will probably even do it for you.
the basic reality is that i'm just not in the group of voters that are getting targeted with these kinds of proposals, which are designed to appeal to fiscal conservatives. i legitimately haven't the slightest interest in this, and i'm not remotely intellectually invested into debating it or voting for it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
02:12
so, what am i doing?
i'll remind you that i got home late on sunday, this week - technically on monday morning. so, yes it's tuesday, but it's only been almost 24 hours since i got home.
i didn't really sleep until early this morning, at which pointed i needed to catch up on two days and flush the shit out. so, yeah - i've mostly been asleep since this morning. i think i'm awake, now.
i do have a review to do for the weekend, tonight. i also need to do some basic cleaning in here, but i'm going to try to wait until next week for the big stuff.
there's been a big temperature drop in here, but i'm ok with it, for now, because it's turning the air over. if the issue with the piping is at least mostly dealt with, let's hope that seasonal turnover down here is what i need to get the dresser back together and stuff. and, i'll need to look at filling those cracks in the floor as the next step on that.
but, i don't have any show research to do. i don't have any loose ends for the journals - i'll need to get started on november fresh (and may do december at the same time), but i can wait.
i got the result of the "review" on sept 3rd. there's no deadline, but it's well past time to get a move on it. i will do this this week.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'll remind you that i got home late on sunday, this week - technically on monday morning. so, yes it's tuesday, but it's only been almost 24 hours since i got home.
i didn't really sleep until early this morning, at which pointed i needed to catch up on two days and flush the shit out. so, yeah - i've mostly been asleep since this morning. i think i'm awake, now.
i do have a review to do for the weekend, tonight. i also need to do some basic cleaning in here, but i'm going to try to wait until next week for the big stuff.
there's been a big temperature drop in here, but i'm ok with it, for now, because it's turning the air over. if the issue with the piping is at least mostly dealt with, let's hope that seasonal turnover down here is what i need to get the dresser back together and stuff. and, i'll need to look at filling those cracks in the floor as the next step on that.
but, i don't have any show research to do. i don't have any loose ends for the journals - i'll need to get started on november fresh (and may do december at the same time), but i can wait.
i got the result of the "review" on sept 3rd. there's no deadline, but it's well past time to get a move on it. i will do this this week.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
at
01:25
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)