i hope that this government gains a little perspective and pulls back before this becomes an albatross for them.
we are not taking the right position on this; we're just embarrassing ourselves, in a rush to contain the chinese.
Sunday, September 6, 2020
so, is the cfr a better or worse source than the atlantic? i don't know. that's a pretty daunting insult directed at the atlantic...
if this is the way things are, that is good, as it's also how things ought to be.
again: there's ways to sort of try to blunt the effects on bangladesh by trying to scatter them around a little - to pakistan, to the middle east and, in some small numbers, perhaps to canada, as well.
but, that line was drawn to give the buddhists in the former empire a homeland of their own, and the muslims don't get to encroach on it just because they overbred. they don't get lebensraum by default, just because they're muslims, or because they're brown.
they need to get their population levels under control, not argue that overpopulation gives them some kind of right to spill over into neighbouring regions. and, whatever the solution to easing the existing issues are, they should come with the acceptance that the country was partitioned for a reason, and muslims need to stay out of the buddhist regions.
....at least for now. we don't talk like that on this side of the world, but it's because we've reached a different cultural plateau. and, some level of atheism in the region, an inevitable consequence of higher standards of living, is likely the way to get to a more substantive level of peace.
for now, these religious groups don't like each other, and their various autonomy needs to be respected.
i'd say the same thing if you flipped the situation over.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-happens-if-rohingya-stay-bangladesh-forever
if this is the way things are, that is good, as it's also how things ought to be.
again: there's ways to sort of try to blunt the effects on bangladesh by trying to scatter them around a little - to pakistan, to the middle east and, in some small numbers, perhaps to canada, as well.
but, that line was drawn to give the buddhists in the former empire a homeland of their own, and the muslims don't get to encroach on it just because they overbred. they don't get lebensraum by default, just because they're muslims, or because they're brown.
they need to get their population levels under control, not argue that overpopulation gives them some kind of right to spill over into neighbouring regions. and, whatever the solution to easing the existing issues are, they should come with the acceptance that the country was partitioned for a reason, and muslims need to stay out of the buddhist regions.
....at least for now. we don't talk like that on this side of the world, but it's because we've reached a different cultural plateau. and, some level of atheism in the region, an inevitable consequence of higher standards of living, is likely the way to get to a more substantive level of peace.
for now, these religious groups don't like each other, and their various autonomy needs to be respected.
i'd say the same thing if you flipped the situation over.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-happens-if-rohingya-stay-bangladesh-forever
i just got out of the shower and had a random urge for a fruit drink i used to consume large amounts of when i was a kid.
i was a big fan of this film when i was very small, and used to run and around screaming...number 5 is alive...number 5...is....alive....
input.
need.
innnnnpppuuuuuut.
you can imagine that it was both exceedingly cute and incredibly irritating at the same time.
so, you can imagine how i reacted the first time my dad dropped this on me, as a tongue-in-cheek joke:
i haven't had any in years; it just snuck up on me, for no real reason, besides maybe that i'm thirsty.
but, i remember it being a little watery the last time i had one, too.
i was a big fan of this film when i was very small, and used to run and around screaming...number 5 is alive...number 5...is....alive....
input.
need.
innnnnpppuuuuuut.
you can imagine that it was both exceedingly cute and incredibly irritating at the same time.
so, you can imagine how i reacted the first time my dad dropped this on me, as a tongue-in-cheek joke:
but, i remember it being a little watery the last time i had one, too.
i would support a move away from the disastrous & murderous monroe doctrine and a re-embrace of the good neighbour policy, which is quite a few steps to the left of biden (as usual).
but, i'm not sure that cuban-americans are going to agree with me about that.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/biden-slams-trump-abject-failure-venezuela-well-cuba-policies-n1239356
but, i'm not sure that cuban-americans are going to agree with me about that.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/biden-slams-trump-abject-failure-venezuela-well-cuba-policies-n1239356
no, listen: i'm firm on this. anybody arguing that myanmar should carve out an islamic state on it's border are on the wrong side of history, here. the burmese have the right to self-determination, and the right to defend their borders.
but, let's take a step back and remember how the region became the way it did, and why it became the way it did, as well.
so, this is a history lesson post...
most people know the british were in india until gandhi threw them out (i'm being facetiously simple). but, let's remember what the map of british india looked like:
british india, of which the british monarch declared itself emperor (and emperess as it may be), was not merely what we today think of as "india", but also included:
1) pakistan
2) bangladesh
3) burma (now called myanmar)
4) nepal
5) bhutan
this is a huge area, with a very large number of people in it.
even back then, the british fought conflicts in afghanistan against the russians and iranians, in an attempt to expand influence into central asia and cut off the russians from the indian ocean - which the chinese are attempting to gain access to through myanmar, today.
when the country was partitioned in 1948, it was very purposefully split into three regions, as demonstrated by the following map:
the partitions were as follows:
1) green is muslim
2) orange is hindu
3) blue is buddhist
now, there are still muslims in india and burma, it is true, but the reason it was partitioned this way was to give primacy to specific religious groups in the various areas.
so, when the country of canada walks into this space and starts undoing the partition, and trying to bully the burmese into opening up an extra space for muslims, they should rightfully be seen as an imperial agent trying to reassert the primacy of british colonialism.
an area for muslims was already cut out - it's the green area. and, if muslims in the blue area want self-determinancy, they should move to the green areas.
but, let's take a step back and remember how the region became the way it did, and why it became the way it did, as well.
so, this is a history lesson post...
most people know the british were in india until gandhi threw them out (i'm being facetiously simple). but, let's remember what the map of british india looked like:
british india, of which the british monarch declared itself emperor (and emperess as it may be), was not merely what we today think of as "india", but also included:
1) pakistan
2) bangladesh
3) burma (now called myanmar)
4) nepal
5) bhutan
this is a huge area, with a very large number of people in it.
even back then, the british fought conflicts in afghanistan against the russians and iranians, in an attempt to expand influence into central asia and cut off the russians from the indian ocean - which the chinese are attempting to gain access to through myanmar, today.
when the country was partitioned in 1948, it was very purposefully split into three regions, as demonstrated by the following map:
the partitions were as follows:
1) green is muslim
2) orange is hindu
3) blue is buddhist
now, there are still muslims in india and burma, it is true, but the reason it was partitioned this way was to give primacy to specific religious groups in the various areas.
so, when the country of canada walks into this space and starts undoing the partition, and trying to bully the burmese into opening up an extra space for muslims, they should rightfully be seen as an imperial agent trying to reassert the primacy of british colonialism.
an area for muslims was already cut out - it's the green area. and, if muslims in the blue area want self-determinancy, they should move to the green areas.
myanmar was lost to the chinese fifty years ago.
and, we have no business there, and never did - not even to back continued arab colonization in the region.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/has-the-us-lost-myanmar-to-china/
and, we have no business there, and never did - not even to back continued arab colonization in the region.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/has-the-us-lost-myanmar-to-china/
there's even an angle with the gambia thing, regarding the struggle between the west and the chinese for control of resource extraction in africa, although the gambians seem to be playing both sides.
there's a link to a video in here somewhere where obama stands in front of a group of african emissaries and states, without blinking, that america does not intend to steal or extract resources from africa. it's perhaps one of the funniest things i've ever seen.
there's a link to a video in here somewhere where obama stands in front of a group of african emissaries and states, without blinking, that america does not intend to steal or extract resources from africa. it's perhaps one of the funniest things i've ever seen.
again: the atlantic is not a very good source, but they get the basic point, here.
islam is a violent system of brutal colonization, and it's quite understandable that myanmar is beyond apprehensive about opening the doors - it knows that they will take over, if they'e allowed to, and no educated person can really dispute the point, everybody realizes that truth. so, the indigenous burmese have an absolute right to protect themselves from muslim colonization in the form of bangladeshi encroachment into the region. that's not an act of repression; that's self-defence.
but, you have to work in the various alliances here, as well. while there was some thought that this aung san suu kyi character may provide an opening for the west in myanmar, the country in truth remains under a chinese-backed military dictatorship, which she is mostly playing ball with. so, western support for this group has the effect of destabilizing myanmar for western geostrategic gains, and the canadian intervention may be seen as something less than altruistic when interpreted that way - it's more like we're brown-nosing the cia, which is consistent with the turn we've taken under freeland's foreign policy direction. human rights are just an excuse to curry american favour.
but, i don't think that's our ultimate angle. while everybody else in the world is concerned about overpopulation and carrying capacities, we seem to delusionally want to increase our population levels by bringing in anybody we can. we don't seem to have learned the lesson of ellis island, or the extreme levels of poverty and inequality that such a policy produces. you give us your huddled masses, and they starve here instead; we don't have the infrastructure to be the world's dumping ground.
but, powerful people at the top of our hierarchy want us to be, in conjunction with arab blood money.
my request is that you educate yourself on the topic before you sprout the propaganda that ultimately comes from arab oil sheikhs and bankers pushing for colonization by rohingyas as a way to muslimify the region, at the end of the day - and that we support to contain the chinese, to curry american favour. you may find that the truth is not quite what it seems.
but, we should step back if we're a hindrance to the progress of getting these people a state in the end, even if that state should not be in the geographic area called myanmar.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/rohingyas-burma/540513/
islam is a violent system of brutal colonization, and it's quite understandable that myanmar is beyond apprehensive about opening the doors - it knows that they will take over, if they'e allowed to, and no educated person can really dispute the point, everybody realizes that truth. so, the indigenous burmese have an absolute right to protect themselves from muslim colonization in the form of bangladeshi encroachment into the region. that's not an act of repression; that's self-defence.
but, you have to work in the various alliances here, as well. while there was some thought that this aung san suu kyi character may provide an opening for the west in myanmar, the country in truth remains under a chinese-backed military dictatorship, which she is mostly playing ball with. so, western support for this group has the effect of destabilizing myanmar for western geostrategic gains, and the canadian intervention may be seen as something less than altruistic when interpreted that way - it's more like we're brown-nosing the cia, which is consistent with the turn we've taken under freeland's foreign policy direction. human rights are just an excuse to curry american favour.
but, i don't think that's our ultimate angle. while everybody else in the world is concerned about overpopulation and carrying capacities, we seem to delusionally want to increase our population levels by bringing in anybody we can. we don't seem to have learned the lesson of ellis island, or the extreme levels of poverty and inequality that such a policy produces. you give us your huddled masses, and they starve here instead; we don't have the infrastructure to be the world's dumping ground.
but, powerful people at the top of our hierarchy want us to be, in conjunction with arab blood money.
my request is that you educate yourself on the topic before you sprout the propaganda that ultimately comes from arab oil sheikhs and bankers pushing for colonization by rohingyas as a way to muslimify the region, at the end of the day - and that we support to contain the chinese, to curry american favour. you may find that the truth is not quite what it seems.
but, we should step back if we're a hindrance to the progress of getting these people a state in the end, even if that state should not be in the geographic area called myanmar.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/rohingyas-burma/540513/
but, if involving ourselves slows the process down, it's self-serving and should be resisted.
i don't know what you do in this situation. the countries around them don't want them for various reasons, and (unlike canada, which is a colonial state) myanmar does have some self-determinancy in the matter; there's no valid reason why they ought to be forced to integrate a large group of foreign refugees that are not indigenous to the region and that they don't want, and there's valid accusations of continuing colonialism underlying demands by a country like canada that they should.
it's really the bangladeshis that deserve the higher levels of criticism here for kicking out their own, not myanmar that deserves the criticism for refusing them entry. some kind of proper solution really involves working with the bangladeshis to integrate the kind of population that the country was created to absorb, not pushing continuing muslim and indian colonization of what is a buddhist and ethnically different territory.
perhaps the pakistanis could offer them asylum.
but, if canada's ultimate angle here is that it sees them as a source of migration, then it should just start lifting them out and stop interfering in a legal process that it's just making worse by meddling in.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-myanmar-court-intervention-1.5714246
i don't know what you do in this situation. the countries around them don't want them for various reasons, and (unlike canada, which is a colonial state) myanmar does have some self-determinancy in the matter; there's no valid reason why they ought to be forced to integrate a large group of foreign refugees that are not indigenous to the region and that they don't want, and there's valid accusations of continuing colonialism underlying demands by a country like canada that they should.
it's really the bangladeshis that deserve the higher levels of criticism here for kicking out their own, not myanmar that deserves the criticism for refusing them entry. some kind of proper solution really involves working with the bangladeshis to integrate the kind of population that the country was created to absorb, not pushing continuing muslim and indian colonization of what is a buddhist and ethnically different territory.
perhaps the pakistanis could offer them asylum.
but, if canada's ultimate angle here is that it sees them as a source of migration, then it should just start lifting them out and stop interfering in a legal process that it's just making worse by meddling in.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-myanmar-court-intervention-1.5714246
yeah, i'd be more likely to blame it on the instruments being contaminated.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/it-shouldn-t-exist-rust-found-on-the-moon-puzzles-scientists-1.5093822
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/it-shouldn-t-exist-rust-found-on-the-moon-puzzles-scientists-1.5093822
and, no, i don't want to run for office.
i decided i didn't want to be a scientist anymore because i found the formality of the writing too stifling; i wanted more space to express myself, and realized i'd prefer creative writing to technical writing. it just wasn't for me - i wouldn't be happy if i walked down that path, i'd just feel stifled and wasted and end up going postal.
likewise, i'd prefer to criticize the government than participate in it.
and, you can call me names for that preference if you want, but the world needs critics and outsiders in it, too; not everybody can be an actor, some people need to stand outside and dissent from a healthy distance.
you may find me frustrating, but that means what i'm doing is working; i'm a net benefit to democracy, and the world would be worse off without me.
i decided i didn't want to be a scientist anymore because i found the formality of the writing too stifling; i wanted more space to express myself, and realized i'd prefer creative writing to technical writing. it just wasn't for me - i wouldn't be happy if i walked down that path, i'd just feel stifled and wasted and end up going postal.
likewise, i'd prefer to criticize the government than participate in it.
and, you can call me names for that preference if you want, but the world needs critics and outsiders in it, too; not everybody can be an actor, some people need to stand outside and dissent from a healthy distance.
you may find me frustrating, but that means what i'm doing is working; i'm a net benefit to democracy, and the world would be worse off without me.
if i were driven by profit, i wouldn't live on odsp in some stranger's basement, and spend my entire existence in my own head, trying to evade the world and existence as much as i can. i'm highly educated. if i were driven by money, i'd go out and get it.
i'm not.
i'm driven by freedom, by ideas and by ideals, not by slavery to markets, or corruption by dollars.
i'm not.
i'm driven by freedom, by ideas and by ideals, not by slavery to markets, or corruption by dollars.
why do i do this, then?
because i'm an activist, a leftist, a socialist.
i write about the world the way i see it, and the way i want it to be, out of altruism and a legitimate desire for change - and also for public education, to undo the lies pushed by corporate media.
i'm a "true believer" if you will.
you can keep your dirty ad revenue, i don't want it.
because i'm an activist, a leftist, a socialist.
i write about the world the way i see it, and the way i want it to be, out of altruism and a legitimate desire for change - and also for public education, to undo the lies pushed by corporate media.
i'm a "true believer" if you will.
you can keep your dirty ad revenue, i don't want it.
to clarify a point, though...
there are zero ads on this page, anywhere.
i don't even have an adsense account in my name. at all.
i have made a total of $0.00 by posting to this blog, and google has actually been on my ass about paying them for hosting fees for my appspot site, although they haven't extracted anything yet.
so, i do not have a profit motive in posting here, i do not make any money by posting here and i do not have any money to give to journalists, because i'm not making anything from it. nor is google making anything off of this blog, although they may be making money off of other blogs.
so, if you want to force me to hand over some percentage of $0.00 worth of advertising revenue, i can write you a check for x% of 0 if you really insist.
i will admit that i'm drawing attention to myself, but the product for sale is at bandcamp and is music, it is not ad revenue and not available here.
and, i wish i could say that i sold a lot of downloads, but i just don't. it's actually been years since i made a transaction.
and, why are there no ads here? the reason is that i'm ideologically opposed to the model. you've seen idiocracy by now. i don't want to live in a world where people exchange access to services in exchange for corporate brainwashing, and i'm actually on the side of people that want to restrict or eliminate that. i run ad blockers, and don't want dirty ad money.
i would actually like to see the government, itself, provide some open space for writing. we should all be allowed 50 gb of online space, or something, ad free, and to do what we will with, as a birthright, or a privilege of citizenship. that would put speech enforcement directly at the hands of government, and eliminate a profit revenue from anybody posting.
the internet is not currently a public square, but i wish it was, and would support reforms to make it one - because that would increase speech rights, not diminish them.
there are zero ads on this page, anywhere.
i don't even have an adsense account in my name. at all.
i have made a total of $0.00 by posting to this blog, and google has actually been on my ass about paying them for hosting fees for my appspot site, although they haven't extracted anything yet.
so, i do not have a profit motive in posting here, i do not make any money by posting here and i do not have any money to give to journalists, because i'm not making anything from it. nor is google making anything off of this blog, although they may be making money off of other blogs.
so, if you want to force me to hand over some percentage of $0.00 worth of advertising revenue, i can write you a check for x% of 0 if you really insist.
i will admit that i'm drawing attention to myself, but the product for sale is at bandcamp and is music, it is not ad revenue and not available here.
and, i wish i could say that i sold a lot of downloads, but i just don't. it's actually been years since i made a transaction.
and, why are there no ads here? the reason is that i'm ideologically opposed to the model. you've seen idiocracy by now. i don't want to live in a world where people exchange access to services in exchange for corporate brainwashing, and i'm actually on the side of people that want to restrict or eliminate that. i run ad blockers, and don't want dirty ad money.
i would actually like to see the government, itself, provide some open space for writing. we should all be allowed 50 gb of online space, or something, ad free, and to do what we will with, as a birthright, or a privilege of citizenship. that would put speech enforcement directly at the hands of government, and eliminate a profit revenue from anybody posting.
the internet is not currently a public square, but i wish it was, and would support reforms to make it one - because that would increase speech rights, not diminish them.
see, and that's the thing, right?
some nazi bureaucrat working for the banking clique that runs the liberal party, or some corporate fascist working at some social media firm, or even some ignorant journalist with their head in their ass, may insist on shutting me down.
but, that's really just their opinion, and i'm absolutely confident they're legally wrong, so long as the issue is up to the courts to work out.
if you let the corporation make the choice, i have no speech rights. this is their server. it's their platform. i use the service at their privilege, and i can (and will.) go rant somewhere else if they don't like it.
but, if you let the courts make the choice, i have way more rights than any of those fascists want to grant me.
so, i would rather go to court than leave it up to the corporations - i know what system will uphold my rights, and what system won't.
some nazi bureaucrat working for the banking clique that runs the liberal party, or some corporate fascist working at some social media firm, or even some ignorant journalist with their head in their ass, may insist on shutting me down.
but, that's really just their opinion, and i'm absolutely confident they're legally wrong, so long as the issue is up to the courts to work out.
if you let the corporation make the choice, i have no speech rights. this is their server. it's their platform. i use the service at their privilege, and i can (and will.) go rant somewhere else if they don't like it.
but, if you let the courts make the choice, i have way more rights than any of those fascists want to grant me.
so, i would rather go to court than leave it up to the corporations - i know what system will uphold my rights, and what system won't.
do i think there's anything wrong with what i'm posting here?
no.
i'd say this to biden's face if i could, and hope he cries when i did; it's clear that i don't like him very much, and am not concerned about his feelings. and, i think he deserves what i'm posting here.
there's nothing here that's off-limits, nothing that breaks any laws, nothing that would be prosecuted as harassment, nothing that would qualify as hate.
so, bring it on - let's get the courts to strengthen speech protections, and the snowflakes to shut the fuck up.
no.
i'd say this to biden's face if i could, and hope he cries when i did; it's clear that i don't like him very much, and am not concerned about his feelings. and, i think he deserves what i'm posting here.
there's nothing here that's off-limits, nothing that breaks any laws, nothing that would be prosecuted as harassment, nothing that would qualify as hate.
so, bring it on - let's get the courts to strengthen speech protections, and the snowflakes to shut the fuck up.
ok, but what i want is a right to appeal those decisions in court.
that's what is wrong with the existing system - there is no legal process underlying it.
so, if we're going to bring in a legal process, that means we need things like court injunctions to limit rulings by bureaucrats, appeal mechanisms, etc.
i am confident that the courts would undo most of what the fake liberal government fascists and nazi snowflakes want to impose, not uphold it. so, i welcome more legal involvement as a way to increase speech rights.
if they don't do this right, they're going to end up with a series of charter challenges that will ultimately undo any unconstitutional restrictions, and they'll need to do it right, in the end.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7316532/facebook-regulation-canada-steven-guilbeault/
that's what is wrong with the existing system - there is no legal process underlying it.
so, if we're going to bring in a legal process, that means we need things like court injunctions to limit rulings by bureaucrats, appeal mechanisms, etc.
i am confident that the courts would undo most of what the fake liberal government fascists and nazi snowflakes want to impose, not uphold it. so, i welcome more legal involvement as a way to increase speech rights.
if they don't do this right, they're going to end up with a series of charter challenges that will ultimately undo any unconstitutional restrictions, and they'll need to do it right, in the end.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7316532/facebook-regulation-canada-steven-guilbeault/
when you pick up a loaf of pumpernickel, and check the side, it looks like this:
where are the b vitamins?
the answer is that they're in there in theory, but they aren't regulated. so, you don't really know. it doesn't say there aren't b vitamins, like it does for c and a. but, there's no actual meaningful evidence that your whole grain bread has any vitamins in it at all - it's something you have to take on empty faith. i would strongly advise against that.
compare that to cheap selection brand (food basics) 100% whole wheat bread (including the germ), which i can't find a picture of, but has the following for two slices:
calories: 170 g (but healthy people don't care about calories, they care about nutrition, because they burn calories, daily)
fat: 3%
fibre: 18%
protein: 7g
sodium: 10%
potassium: 4%
calcium: 4%
iron: 10%
thiamine: 15%
riboflavin: 6%
niacin: 25%
b6: 6%
folate: 5%
pantothenate: 8%
phosphorus: 14%
magnesium: 17%
zinc: 14%
selenium: 55%
maganese: 67%
molybdenum: 59%
i presume that molybdenum is for a nice, healthy glow.
you'll also note that the picture is for five slices, so you'd actually want to cut the percentage of calcium & iron down to two fifths of it to get a fair comparison, which is only 2.4%.
does the pumpernickel lack all of this good stuff? is it just empty calories? supposedly, it doesn't, but nobody measures it, so you don't know what you're buying.
the 100% whole wheat is consequently a far safer choice than the whole grain, if you're concerned about nutrient concentration, because you actually know what's in it because it's measured and regulated. you have no actual idea whether the whole grain bread you're buying has anything of value in it or not - it might very well just be empty sugar. you could never prove otherwise. you just have to take it on faith, which is the lowest form of reasoning. i'll take the fortified whole wheat over the unfortified whole grain, any day.
where are the b vitamins?
the answer is that they're in there in theory, but they aren't regulated. so, you don't really know. it doesn't say there aren't b vitamins, like it does for c and a. but, there's no actual meaningful evidence that your whole grain bread has any vitamins in it at all - it's something you have to take on empty faith. i would strongly advise against that.
compare that to cheap selection brand (food basics) 100% whole wheat bread (including the germ), which i can't find a picture of, but has the following for two slices:
calories: 170 g (but healthy people don't care about calories, they care about nutrition, because they burn calories, daily)
fat: 3%
fibre: 18%
protein: 7g
sodium: 10%
potassium: 4%
calcium: 4%
iron: 10%
thiamine: 15%
riboflavin: 6%
niacin: 25%
b6: 6%
folate: 5%
pantothenate: 8%
phosphorus: 14%
magnesium: 17%
zinc: 14%
selenium: 55%
maganese: 67%
molybdenum: 59%
i presume that molybdenum is for a nice, healthy glow.
you'll also note that the picture is for five slices, so you'd actually want to cut the percentage of calcium & iron down to two fifths of it to get a fair comparison, which is only 2.4%.
does the pumpernickel lack all of this good stuff? is it just empty calories? supposedly, it doesn't, but nobody measures it, so you don't know what you're buying.
the 100% whole wheat is consequently a far safer choice than the whole grain, if you're concerned about nutrient concentration, because you actually know what's in it because it's measured and regulated. you have no actual idea whether the whole grain bread you're buying has anything of value in it or not - it might very well just be empty sugar. you could never prove otherwise. you just have to take it on faith, which is the lowest form of reasoning. i'll take the fortified whole wheat over the unfortified whole grain, any day.
but, what i really want is some fortified pumpernickel, with those kind of numbers on the side.
should you eat rye or whole wheat?
that's a can of worms, from what i can tell....
in theory, rye may be preferable, but it doesn't seem to be fortified. so, if you take a loaf of $5.00 rye bread and put it side by side with a loaf of $0.99 whole wheat bread, and you check the nutrient content on the side of the packaging, you may be surprised to see that the whole wheat bread actually blows the rye away. but, this is because the whole wheat is regulated here in canada, so nutrients are added to it, and the rye is not. it's consequently misleading, and i know that.
i switched to the whole wheat more due to cost; when i was eating a few slices of bread a week, i didn't mind shelling out for fancy rye or pumpernickel, but now that eggs are being eaten every second day, roughly, i'm tripling or quadrupling the amount of bread i'm consuming, and the fact that the brown broad is a fifth of the price was very appealing to me.
what i wish was that the fancier breads were better regulated so i could do an apples-to-apples comparison regarding vitamins and other nutrients. general statements about rye flour may or may not be particular to specific brands; i don't want to make assumptions about the milling process, and what actually does or doesn't exist in any particular loaf.
the whole wheat is the safer bet, in that sense.
but, i'm going to continue to keep my eye out for a rye alternative that is properly fortified.
that's a can of worms, from what i can tell....
in theory, rye may be preferable, but it doesn't seem to be fortified. so, if you take a loaf of $5.00 rye bread and put it side by side with a loaf of $0.99 whole wheat bread, and you check the nutrient content on the side of the packaging, you may be surprised to see that the whole wheat bread actually blows the rye away. but, this is because the whole wheat is regulated here in canada, so nutrients are added to it, and the rye is not. it's consequently misleading, and i know that.
i switched to the whole wheat more due to cost; when i was eating a few slices of bread a week, i didn't mind shelling out for fancy rye or pumpernickel, but now that eggs are being eaten every second day, roughly, i'm tripling or quadrupling the amount of bread i'm consuming, and the fact that the brown broad is a fifth of the price was very appealing to me.
what i wish was that the fancier breads were better regulated so i could do an apples-to-apples comparison regarding vitamins and other nutrients. general statements about rye flour may or may not be particular to specific brands; i don't want to make assumptions about the milling process, and what actually does or doesn't exist in any particular loaf.
the whole wheat is the safer bet, in that sense.
but, i'm going to continue to keep my eye out for a rye alternative that is properly fortified.
ok, i finally got those noisetrade.com links updated to smashwords, lulu, bandcamp & drive links. that was time consuming, but it's done.
i need to really write that story next. it's coming.
i'm scatter-brained, and i'm having difficulty figuring out if i picked up a cold (it could be anything, there's no reason to assume it's covid-19, and i have no intention of quarantining myself over the common cold, so i'm not getting tested. there's nothing i can accomplish by presenting myself to the medical authorities. i'll just stay in for a few days, thanks.) or if i'm reacting to the smoker(s) upstairs, but the decrease in temperature outside is helping clear the air out in here a little and it's definitely waking me up a bit. i feel like i'm in a smoky room, and have a dry cough and a sore throat, but i can't smell it or identify the direction. but, if i stick my nose in something with a strong odour, i can smell it, clearly.
i'm also wondering if i'm having a glycemic reaction to my change in diet. i've been eating mostly pasta for years, now; i've now switched to a diet composed solely of omelettes and fruit. i also switched from rye to whole wheat bread. my sugar levels were fine, if bumping a little, when i tested them a few months ago, but that was before i switched. what i'm feeling is consistent with an onset of diabetes, which i have no evidence of in terms of sugar levels, but i'm consistently concerned about in the context of actual symptoms and what i think is a slow onset of ms, and which i know i can't do anything about. to be clear: my concern is i may be developing diabetes as a complication of a slow onset of ms, rather than as a result of diet, but that the switch in diet (to less glucose, actually.) may be messing with me. if i'm concerned about diabetes, and i slightly am, then the new diet is about as good as i can get. the fruit i eat - blueberries, strawberries, bananas, kiwis, raspberries - are all actually relatively low in glycemic index. it was my reliance on cheap pasta that was the more likely complicating factor, and switching to eggs is consequently actually a good idea, so long as i can manage to get used to it.
put another way, i may be sort of coming down from a pasta dependence and going through glucose withdrawals, which is potentially dangerous but probably good in the long run.
so, i'm feeling like i might be bedridden for a few days, but i'm not sure why, yet.
one story coming up...
...and, then i can get back to consolidating the four blogs from april 1 to present, and recalibrating myself and what i'm doing.
i need to really write that story next. it's coming.
i'm scatter-brained, and i'm having difficulty figuring out if i picked up a cold (it could be anything, there's no reason to assume it's covid-19, and i have no intention of quarantining myself over the common cold, so i'm not getting tested. there's nothing i can accomplish by presenting myself to the medical authorities. i'll just stay in for a few days, thanks.) or if i'm reacting to the smoker(s) upstairs, but the decrease in temperature outside is helping clear the air out in here a little and it's definitely waking me up a bit. i feel like i'm in a smoky room, and have a dry cough and a sore throat, but i can't smell it or identify the direction. but, if i stick my nose in something with a strong odour, i can smell it, clearly.
i'm also wondering if i'm having a glycemic reaction to my change in diet. i've been eating mostly pasta for years, now; i've now switched to a diet composed solely of omelettes and fruit. i also switched from rye to whole wheat bread. my sugar levels were fine, if bumping a little, when i tested them a few months ago, but that was before i switched. what i'm feeling is consistent with an onset of diabetes, which i have no evidence of in terms of sugar levels, but i'm consistently concerned about in the context of actual symptoms and what i think is a slow onset of ms, and which i know i can't do anything about. to be clear: my concern is i may be developing diabetes as a complication of a slow onset of ms, rather than as a result of diet, but that the switch in diet (to less glucose, actually.) may be messing with me. if i'm concerned about diabetes, and i slightly am, then the new diet is about as good as i can get. the fruit i eat - blueberries, strawberries, bananas, kiwis, raspberries - are all actually relatively low in glycemic index. it was my reliance on cheap pasta that was the more likely complicating factor, and switching to eggs is consequently actually a good idea, so long as i can manage to get used to it.
put another way, i may be sort of coming down from a pasta dependence and going through glucose withdrawals, which is potentially dangerous but probably good in the long run.
so, i'm feeling like i might be bedridden for a few days, but i'm not sure why, yet.
one story coming up...
...and, then i can get back to consolidating the four blogs from april 1 to present, and recalibrating myself and what i'm doing.
so, these are my priorities:
1) we need increases in spending, not cuts. government spending is far too low.
2) we don't really need to balance the budget, but we need to be careful that the debt doesn't get too out of control because the imf will come in with restructuring programs if we're not careful.
3) the structural deficit was created by foolish tax cuts - the gst cut, corporate tax cuts, tax cuts on the rich. it should be fixed by restoring tax rates to historically normal levels.
4) the boomers have been living for free for essentially their whole lives, and it's time to send the tax collectors after them to have them pay their fair share into the system.
1) we need increases in spending, not cuts. government spending is far too low.
2) we don't really need to balance the budget, but we need to be careful that the debt doesn't get too out of control because the imf will come in with restructuring programs if we're not careful.
3) the structural deficit was created by foolish tax cuts - the gst cut, corporate tax cuts, tax cuts on the rich. it should be fixed by restoring tax rates to historically normal levels.
4) the boomers have been living for free for essentially their whole lives, and it's time to send the tax collectors after them to have them pay their fair share into the system.
history is actually really clear on this point, though: if you elect the conservatives, they won't actually balance the budget, they'll just cut taxes even further and make the problem even worse.
and, when the imf comes banging on the door looking for your pensions because you spent your whole life avoiding taxes, and are now too old to fend for yourself, don't expect your kids to rally around you, and don't say we didn't warn you.
and, when the imf comes banging on the door looking for your pensions because you spent your whole life avoiding taxes, and are now too old to fend for yourself, don't expect your kids to rally around you, and don't say we didn't warn you.
government spending is definitely not too high in this country. if anything, the raft of social issues we have in front of us indicate that spending is nowhere near what it should be. and, let's be clear here - markets don't solve problems, they just make everything worse.
if there's a dramatic disconnect between revenue and spending, it's because taxes are way too low to cover the spending we need to undertake to balance out inequalities and make everybody's lives liveable.
there's lots of smart ways to raise taxes. we could undo the stupid gst cut that harper did, for starters, and that created a structural deficit that's never really been addressed. we could bring in a transaction tax on internet purchases, to try to adjust to the changes in consumer behaviour. i'm an advocate of an increase in property taxes to help municipalities. corporate taxes have been moving in the wrong direction for decades, and need to be brought back. and, taxes on the wealthy are obscenely low.
if the conservatives really care about the budget deficit, that is what needs to be done - not further cuts in a society that has already been cut to the bone, and is leaking marrow, as it is.
if there's a dramatic disconnect between revenue and spending, it's because taxes are way too low to cover the spending we need to undertake to balance out inequalities and make everybody's lives liveable.
there's lots of smart ways to raise taxes. we could undo the stupid gst cut that harper did, for starters, and that created a structural deficit that's never really been addressed. we could bring in a transaction tax on internet purchases, to try to adjust to the changes in consumer behaviour. i'm an advocate of an increase in property taxes to help municipalities. corporate taxes have been moving in the wrong direction for decades, and need to be brought back. and, taxes on the wealthy are obscenely low.
if the conservatives really care about the budget deficit, that is what needs to be done - not further cuts in a society that has already been cut to the bone, and is leaking marrow, as it is.
you know, we could erase this tomorrow at the stroke of a pen.
i've been saying for years that nobody cares, and i still think that's true, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. i'm not running over this again, but it's just a question of keeping the imf away.
and, to the extent that i do care, i want to see higher taxes to offset the spending, not cuts in spending to reduce the deficit.
https://www.mitchelladvocate.com/opinion/kurl-lessons-for-erin-otoole-canadians-care-about-the-deficit-but-they-care-about-covid-impact-more/wcm/7ea11443-7369-46a9-9702-4fbe8cce1fc1
i've been saying for years that nobody cares, and i still think that's true, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. i'm not running over this again, but it's just a question of keeping the imf away.
and, to the extent that i do care, i want to see higher taxes to offset the spending, not cuts in spending to reduce the deficit.
https://www.mitchelladvocate.com/opinion/kurl-lessons-for-erin-otoole-canadians-care-about-the-deficit-but-they-care-about-covid-impact-more/wcm/7ea11443-7369-46a9-9702-4fbe8cce1fc1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)