the great irony that will be recorded in history, as the ndp goes the way of social credit, is that they missed a perfect chance to seize the country's vanguard when they ran naomi klein out of the country, in a foolish drive towards the mushy middle.
if they had listened to naomi, right?
but they didn't - until it was too late.
and, that will be the writing on their gravestone:
here lies the ndp,
who told naomi klein to fuck off,
and were subsequently reduced to irrelevance
Monday, September 14, 2020
what we're seeing, and it's not a coincidence that this is happening along with an increase in deindustrialization and a shift towards mechanization, is not merely a replacement or expansion of the left but a fundamental shift in what it means to be on the left.
since the last gilded age, and the rise of marxism after the failure of the french revolution, the left has been about adjusting to socialization in production. what it means to be left-wing is to push for some concept of equalization in society, be it via equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. but, nowadays, neither of these ideas is even controversial, anymore; the right has ceded the point, out of common sense, if not out of activism in their own ranks. why shouldn't we be vaguely equal, at least? these minor debates about policy are pretty inconsequential, in the face of virtually everybody agreeing with the basic premise of equality. it's the most inoffensive, status quo position in the world.
what's developing as a new left is the idea that equality is not only not enough but not even a proper starting point. rather, we need to radically alter the entire conception of capitalism, from the bottom up, if we wish to truly alter the course of history. we need cleaner sources of energy. we need to change how we eat. we need to change the fundamental relationship of what work is, not merely who the boss is, or how much people get paid. and, we need to do so in a way that benefits everybody, including non-human species, and not just an elite at the top.
the ndp has never really been a workers' party, and they've never really had a base east of ottawa. they made some inroads with seasonal workers in the last generation, but they never did well in farming communities, and the region never had an industrial base. so, there was never really room for them in the east, anyways.
but, there's not really any room for a party of this sort in the new spectrum, at all.
to the extent that we need a workers' party, that party needs to increasingly be focused on distributing the fruits of mechanized labour, which are no longer reliant on human input variables. and, it is truly only the greens that are positioned to do that - at least until they scare the liberals into taking them seriously.
this election probably won't scare the liberals into action. but, it could very well be a microcosm of canada's future - if not in two years, perhaps in six.
since the last gilded age, and the rise of marxism after the failure of the french revolution, the left has been about adjusting to socialization in production. what it means to be left-wing is to push for some concept of equalization in society, be it via equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. but, nowadays, neither of these ideas is even controversial, anymore; the right has ceded the point, out of common sense, if not out of activism in their own ranks. why shouldn't we be vaguely equal, at least? these minor debates about policy are pretty inconsequential, in the face of virtually everybody agreeing with the basic premise of equality. it's the most inoffensive, status quo position in the world.
what's developing as a new left is the idea that equality is not only not enough but not even a proper starting point. rather, we need to radically alter the entire conception of capitalism, from the bottom up, if we wish to truly alter the course of history. we need cleaner sources of energy. we need to change how we eat. we need to change the fundamental relationship of what work is, not merely who the boss is, or how much people get paid. and, we need to do so in a way that benefits everybody, including non-human species, and not just an elite at the top.
the ndp has never really been a workers' party, and they've never really had a base east of ottawa. they made some inroads with seasonal workers in the last generation, but they never did well in farming communities, and the region never had an industrial base. so, there was never really room for them in the east, anyways.
but, there's not really any room for a party of this sort in the new spectrum, at all.
to the extent that we need a workers' party, that party needs to increasingly be focused on distributing the fruits of mechanized labour, which are no longer reliant on human input variables. and, it is truly only the greens that are positioned to do that - at least until they scare the liberals into taking them seriously.
this election probably won't scare the liberals into action. but, it could very well be a microcosm of canada's future - if not in two years, perhaps in six.
at
22:22
if it comes down to it, it makes far more sense for the ndp to merge with the liberals than it does for them to merge with the greens.
they just don't have the proper focus on environmental concerns - like the liberals, their interest is primarily in industrial policy. they want jobs and wages, which means they want capital investment and dirty projects. you will, at most, get lip service from them.
the greens should be pushing back against the ndp, for that reason - they're just going to pollute the movement with bad ideas.
we need to start fresh and come to terms with the truth, which is that the ndp & liberals are both in a grand coalition with the conservatives to destroy the planet.
they just don't have the proper focus on environmental concerns - like the liberals, their interest is primarily in industrial policy. they want jobs and wages, which means they want capital investment and dirty projects. you will, at most, get lip service from them.
the greens should be pushing back against the ndp, for that reason - they're just going to pollute the movement with bad ideas.
we need to start fresh and come to terms with the truth, which is that the ndp & liberals are both in a grand coalition with the conservatives to destroy the planet.
at
21:46
what happened?
the ndp tried to be the liberals, and it killed them, from both sides. what's the point?
the ndp tried to be the liberals, and it killed them, from both sides. what's the point?
at
21:34
this isn't that surprising, but one may note at this point that the ndp has been all but wiped out of the province.
i've been saying for years that canada is most stable in a four-party system configuration, and the rise of a party to the right of the conservatives is consequently really not a strange thing to see - we've usually had one. but, at least in the east, it seems like the greens are the new left.
one wonders if that pattern asserts itself elsewhere.
and it very well might.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-election-day-results-2020-1.5722438
i've been saying for years that canada is most stable in a four-party system configuration, and the rise of a party to the right of the conservatives is consequently really not a strange thing to see - we've usually had one. but, at least in the east, it seems like the greens are the new left.
one wonders if that pattern asserts itself elsewhere.
and it very well might.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-election-day-results-2020-1.5722438
at
21:31
it seems like it's another day and it's another flaky attempt by biden to change the topic that's fallen flat on it's face.
and, why is that?
because he's a self-interested career politician. and, you can ask him, and he won't even sugar coat it.
"why are you running for office, joe?"
and he'll tell you it's a legacy project, the end of his career. it's about him.
so, he stumbles from one poorly presented, haphazardly (half-assedly, even) thrown together policy proposal to another, without stopping long enough to get jeered for it, because he doesn't have any deep reason for running, any raison d'etre to win.
strategy is useful, and i can help.
but, at the end of the day, you have to actually have a reason to run - some goal, some dream, some purpose.
the only dream that biden seems to have is to have the title printed on his tombstone. and, if he keeps running around like this, at the top of a pandemic, instead of staying at home with his grandkids where he belongs, he's going to get the tombstone without the title.
he's making this very difficult on everybody - and it's just getting harder, by the day.
and, why is that?
because he's a self-interested career politician. and, you can ask him, and he won't even sugar coat it.
"why are you running for office, joe?"
and he'll tell you it's a legacy project, the end of his career. it's about him.
so, he stumbles from one poorly presented, haphazardly (half-assedly, even) thrown together policy proposal to another, without stopping long enough to get jeered for it, because he doesn't have any deep reason for running, any raison d'etre to win.
strategy is useful, and i can help.
but, at the end of the day, you have to actually have a reason to run - some goal, some dream, some purpose.
the only dream that biden seems to have is to have the title printed on his tombstone. and, if he keeps running around like this, at the top of a pandemic, instead of staying at home with his grandkids where he belongs, he's going to get the tombstone without the title.
he's making this very difficult on everybody - and it's just getting harder, by the day.
at
21:05
update: of the six doctors i've tried to contact in windsor about the voluntary orchiectomy, i currently have one firm no, one attempt to reach out, one unclear response and three non-responses.
at
16:27
will cycle 25 be weak or strong?
we don't know the answer to this question, and suggestions that we do should be taken lightly.
but, people arguing that the next cycle should be the same as the last one, or weaker, due to a recent trend downwards are really making a particularly bad argument. given how poorly we understand how the sun works, we should be treating these cycles as independent. that means that it's really a coin flip, probabilistically, and trying to measure this using a regression analysis is fool-hardy.
and, given that perspective, it's actually the opposite argument that should be more compelling - because we've seen decreasing strength for a while, we're increasingly due for it to flip.
that doesn't mean that this particular cycle has a greater than 50% chance; these events are independent. this is a basic paradox that goes back to pascal. the correct answer is 50% every time, but it tends towards a mean...
so, i have to tell you it's 50/50.
but, my hunch is we're in for a ramp up, like we saw last in the late 90s. so, i have a confirmation bias towards this.
but, you'll get as many answers as you can find "experts"; we don't know, and while one guess may work out better than another in the end, that's all they are right now - guesses.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.15263.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0QD9q-bHwcQVOH0dJOnGa6tw5lPYmPhtCy1u4JMFzEi3fUh4w0EGID6Yk
we don't know the answer to this question, and suggestions that we do should be taken lightly.
but, people arguing that the next cycle should be the same as the last one, or weaker, due to a recent trend downwards are really making a particularly bad argument. given how poorly we understand how the sun works, we should be treating these cycles as independent. that means that it's really a coin flip, probabilistically, and trying to measure this using a regression analysis is fool-hardy.
and, given that perspective, it's actually the opposite argument that should be more compelling - because we've seen decreasing strength for a while, we're increasingly due for it to flip.
that doesn't mean that this particular cycle has a greater than 50% chance; these events are independent. this is a basic paradox that goes back to pascal. the correct answer is 50% every time, but it tends towards a mean...
so, i have to tell you it's 50/50.
but, my hunch is we're in for a ramp up, like we saw last in the late 90s. so, i have a confirmation bias towards this.
but, you'll get as many answers as you can find "experts"; we don't know, and while one guess may work out better than another in the end, that's all they are right now - guesses.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.15263.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0QD9q-bHwcQVOH0dJOnGa6tw5lPYmPhtCy1u4JMFzEi3fUh4w0EGID6Yk
at
16:00
what's my fall temperature forecast?
it's a la nina, and that may make some difference, sometimes. but, the sun is now moving in tandem with the warmer climate for the next 7-10 years, so i would expect sea surface temperatures in the atlantic, rather than the pacific, to be the dominant force in the eastern part of north america. i see little reason to think that temperatures in the atlantic won't stay warm over that period.
we may see a bit of a lag for the next few years before the new reality sets in with force.
but, i would expect a mild fall, followed by a relatively mild winter.
it's a la nina, and that may make some difference, sometimes. but, the sun is now moving in tandem with the warmer climate for the next 7-10 years, so i would expect sea surface temperatures in the atlantic, rather than the pacific, to be the dominant force in the eastern part of north america. i see little reason to think that temperatures in the atlantic won't stay warm over that period.
we may see a bit of a lag for the next few years before the new reality sets in with force.
but, i would expect a mild fall, followed by a relatively mild winter.
at
15:46
sarah has, like no poker face.
it's what she says that matters - i'll be the first to tell you that. even if it's not what she feels, even if she's failing to hide something....she has the right to make that choice. she has the right to suppress her feelings, and it's her prerogative to be distracting, if it's what she wants, too. obviously. and, it's sad that i have to say that, explicitly.
but, it was about as obvious as could be that she was always excited and happy to see me, when i did bump into her.
one of the last times i bumped into her, she literally started skipping. like a little girl. and, so i asked her the question with the obvious answer: is this weird? is she uncomfortable? and she said yes, and i left.
i wonder if she regrets telling me that, but i had an obligation to listen, and i knew it.
but, she wasn't mad at me, she didn't hate me...she was trying to coerce me into detransitioning, or something...
i was sure she'd get over it, and i gave her years to do it, through a series of careful checks and balances.
i guess i was wrong.
it's what she says that matters - i'll be the first to tell you that. even if it's not what she feels, even if she's failing to hide something....she has the right to make that choice. she has the right to suppress her feelings, and it's her prerogative to be distracting, if it's what she wants, too. obviously. and, it's sad that i have to say that, explicitly.
but, it was about as obvious as could be that she was always excited and happy to see me, when i did bump into her.
one of the last times i bumped into her, she literally started skipping. like a little girl. and, so i asked her the question with the obvious answer: is this weird? is she uncomfortable? and she said yes, and i left.
i wonder if she regrets telling me that, but i had an obligation to listen, and i knew it.
but, she wasn't mad at me, she didn't hate me...she was trying to coerce me into detransitioning, or something...
i was sure she'd get over it, and i gave her years to do it, through a series of careful checks and balances.
i guess i was wrong.
at
15:16
they're going after hadju...
what i'm going to say is this: she seems to have been chosen for the role as a spokesperson, which was fine last year, when that was about what you needed for a health minister.
but, frankly, i would have replaced her with somebody more qualified eons ego.
and, anybody arguing that the country needs a non-politician health minister at this point is, indeed, correct.
the liberals have a deep caucus, and i know for a fact that there's a few doctors in there. but, what they really need in this role right now is a statistician, not a doctor - and definitely not a social worker, or a career politician.
and, ms. hadju should really offer minimal resistance; if she's smart, she knows that.
what i'm going to say is this: she seems to have been chosen for the role as a spokesperson, which was fine last year, when that was about what you needed for a health minister.
but, frankly, i would have replaced her with somebody more qualified eons ego.
and, anybody arguing that the country needs a non-politician health minister at this point is, indeed, correct.
the liberals have a deep caucus, and i know for a fact that there's a few doctors in there. but, what they really need in this role right now is a statistician, not a doctor - and definitely not a social worker, or a career politician.
and, ms. hadju should really offer minimal resistance; if she's smart, she knows that.
at
14:37
ugh.
nobody wants our poisonous oil, anymore.
it's just utter stupidity. straight up.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/o-toole-says-energy-east-off-the-table-after-talking-pipelines-with-legault-1.5104152
nobody wants our poisonous oil, anymore.
it's just utter stupidity. straight up.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/o-toole-says-energy-east-off-the-table-after-talking-pipelines-with-legault-1.5104152
at
14:31
you have to wonder if this is the work of some group of maskophile vigilantes, upset at people gathering in freedom and happiness, and having fun.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-westminster-firefighters-scramble-to-put-out-pier-blaze-1.5722770
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-westminster-firefighters-scramble-to-put-out-pier-blaze-1.5722770
at
14:10
it's right on schedule, in my estimation - because i'm basing my analysis on the idea that canada is just a few months behind the united states in terms of the spread of the virus, and not on the idea that the various measures taken were more effective.
and, that's actually weakly testable. it's not a silver bullet, and not a clear deduction.
however.
bogoch is right when he says that if the lower numbers over the summer months were due to the actions of government then he wouldn't expect higher numbers until later in the year, which presents some reason to think maybe the lower numbers over the summer months were due to something else, like a smaller number of initial cases requiring more time to circulate.
and, what we're seeing is at least consistent with the the idea that my mathematical analysis was more useful than his analysis, as a doctor, was. which isn't and shouldn't be surprising - this is a math problem, not a medical diagnosis.
so, what do you do?
if you weren't able to stop it in the first place, there's little reason to think you'll be able to stop it, now. and, i'm going to be just viciously blunt: bringing in draconian measures, at this stage, will not stop the spread of the virus.
you need to understand your own risk factors, as an individual, and take the proper steps to protect yourself. that's what needs to be done.
the world won't save you.
and, the state sure won't...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-ontario-case-numbers-rising-legislature-returns-1.5720931
and, that's actually weakly testable. it's not a silver bullet, and not a clear deduction.
however.
bogoch is right when he says that if the lower numbers over the summer months were due to the actions of government then he wouldn't expect higher numbers until later in the year, which presents some reason to think maybe the lower numbers over the summer months were due to something else, like a smaller number of initial cases requiring more time to circulate.
and, what we're seeing is at least consistent with the the idea that my mathematical analysis was more useful than his analysis, as a doctor, was. which isn't and shouldn't be surprising - this is a math problem, not a medical diagnosis.
so, what do you do?
if you weren't able to stop it in the first place, there's little reason to think you'll be able to stop it, now. and, i'm going to be just viciously blunt: bringing in draconian measures, at this stage, will not stop the spread of the virus.
you need to understand your own risk factors, as an individual, and take the proper steps to protect yourself. that's what needs to be done.
the world won't save you.
and, the state sure won't...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-ontario-case-numbers-rising-legislature-returns-1.5720931
at
14:07
i bumped into her a few times after the cut-off point, and she really wasn't angry with me. if anything, she was strangely flirty, in ways i hadn't seen from her in years.
like, when she called me around 2007/2008, it was just going for lunch with an old friend, which is what i wanted to maintain for, like, ever. there was legit comfort there. we trusted each other.
but, when i bumped into her in 2011 or 2012, she was all fidgety and weird, like a teenager trying to hide a secret crush - which weirded me out, 'cause i wasn't expecting it. like, at all.
like, i thought maybe it might ease her into it if we went shopping, and she had a fit.
and, it kind of clicked, that a part of the problem was that she feared she might be triggered by the effects of the hormones into something deeper, even as she was ultimately just waiting it out, under the assumption i'd fall back off them again.
...which i didn't, and which i don't want to.
i still think she'd return my calls, even now, if i dropped the t-blockers, at least. 'cause, i'm ultimately not of any use to her, if i can't get hard....
like, when she called me around 2007/2008, it was just going for lunch with an old friend, which is what i wanted to maintain for, like, ever. there was legit comfort there. we trusted each other.
but, when i bumped into her in 2011 or 2012, she was all fidgety and weird, like a teenager trying to hide a secret crush - which weirded me out, 'cause i wasn't expecting it. like, at all.
like, i thought maybe it might ease her into it if we went shopping, and she had a fit.
and, it kind of clicked, that a part of the problem was that she feared she might be triggered by the effects of the hormones into something deeper, even as she was ultimately just waiting it out, under the assumption i'd fall back off them again.
...which i didn't, and which i don't want to.
i still think she'd return my calls, even now, if i dropped the t-blockers, at least. 'cause, i'm ultimately not of any use to her, if i can't get hard....
at
03:22
i have every reason to believe, still, that what sarah legitimately wanted was an open relationship with me. she wanted to go out and do whatever she wanted and then she wanted the person that was at home waiting for her to very specifically be me.
but, i mean...
is that fair?
i didn't want to walk out on her.
and, she didn't want me to walk out.
but, she refused to budge on it. and, i just couldn't deal with it.
again: i worried she might get pregnant, or aids or something. and, she did get pregnant....and insisted on having it...
i didn't really want to, but i had to get out.
and, i know i made the right choice, even if i still wish she'd return my calls, and it still tears me up that she won't.
but, i mean...
is that fair?
i didn't want to walk out on her.
and, she didn't want me to walk out.
but, she refused to budge on it. and, i just couldn't deal with it.
again: i worried she might get pregnant, or aids or something. and, she did get pregnant....and insisted on having it...
i didn't really want to, but i had to get out.
and, i know i made the right choice, even if i still wish she'd return my calls, and it still tears me up that she won't.
at
02:58
i spent the time i knew sarah trying to get her to cash in her basketball scholarship and go to university.
she didn't seem interested.
she didn't seem interested.
at
02:27
and, again - what happened with sarah is that i dumped her because she refused to commit to a monogamous relationship. there was some mutuality around the issue, but, at the end of the day, i'm the one that did the walking, and she's the one that did the begging.
we got a place together in mid 2004. i was a student; she was...she said she was a waitress, but she tended to have a lot of extra cash, and the diner she worked at had a strip club downstairs. it's not like i would have judged her for that - i would have recognized her autonomy, and her rights to make her own decisions - but she would have been embarrassed about telling me. so, i never brought it up. but, i knew, and she knew i knew. and, at the end of the day, i'm certain that it was at the crux of the actual problem.
we borrowed money from each other over the years we knew each other; i initially had some extra cash saved away and lent it to her to help her save money to go to bc (and then ended up going with her), and she fronted me a little money while i was doing odd jobs over the summer, before the student loan came in over september. it balanced out, in the end. really. i gave her a chunk of cash in september, and she used it to buy a bicycle.
so, she came to me one day and said "i want an open relationship, now". in truth, she'd been sleeping with several other people over the time we were dating, including some people i introduced her to, while i was absolutely monogamous. and, i told her "no, i can't deal with that". but, what i couldn't deal with was her disappearing on random weekends, and spending all of that time alone.
what she wanted was a roommate with benefits, and my skin was far too thin to deal with that.
so, i gave the landlord three months, unilaterally dissolved the lease and told her i was moving out.
she initially refused to accept this, because she thought i'd never leave her - she took me for granted. but, i was fed up. i wanted to stay friends, but i couldn't live with her any more, not with her lifestyle choices. like, she didn't like to use condoms - which is why she accidentally got impregnated a few months later. oops.
i kept telling her "sarah, i'm moving on feb 1st. what are you doing?" and she refused to believe i was moving until the truck showed up. she just kept saying "you're not really moving, you wouldn't do that.".
and, yet i did do that.
and, predictably, she showed up at my apartment door in mid-february, looking to move in. i actually had no choice but to decline, as my co-signer (my dad) made it a condition to refuse her entry. she stayed a few nights in my new place, and managed to seduce me in the communal sauna in front of some elderly tenants who gave me smirks for months, but she ended up in a rooming house, in the end.
so, what does that suggest?
she was bluffing.
but, i was fed up...
we were still having sex for years afterwards, too; she didn't cut me off until i went back on hormones, which is when she finally gave up.
so, there was the time i bought her fajitas and talked her into eating protein, when she was pregnant. there was the time when she asked me to bring her flour, and i brought her flowers (which she kept on her kitchen table for years, to the enragement of her boyfriend). there was the time we went for a walk through the tulip festival, and the time she brought me to the family lunch at the clocktower on her birthday, to the stern consternation of her father, who thought they'd gotten rid of me years ago. and many other times...
like, we strung each other along for years.
i don't know what stories are floating around out there, but when your ex calls you for lunch four or five years after you've broken up, she's still feeling something, there.
i couldn't handle the kids - and she had two of them, last i checked in, neither of which are mine, as far as i can tell (although the first was named after me, and she also asked me to be her godfather, which i declined). i just did not want kids, and had the decency to be crystal clear that making the decision to have and raise kids meant she would need to find a partner willing to do it with her. everything else aside, it was a non-starter, end of story, game over. and, you can call me names, but i think i have self-determination here, and she never really seemed to be angry with me about it...
....until i went back on hormones.
that was her red line. clearly.
we got a place together in mid 2004. i was a student; she was...she said she was a waitress, but she tended to have a lot of extra cash, and the diner she worked at had a strip club downstairs. it's not like i would have judged her for that - i would have recognized her autonomy, and her rights to make her own decisions - but she would have been embarrassed about telling me. so, i never brought it up. but, i knew, and she knew i knew. and, at the end of the day, i'm certain that it was at the crux of the actual problem.
we borrowed money from each other over the years we knew each other; i initially had some extra cash saved away and lent it to her to help her save money to go to bc (and then ended up going with her), and she fronted me a little money while i was doing odd jobs over the summer, before the student loan came in over september. it balanced out, in the end. really. i gave her a chunk of cash in september, and she used it to buy a bicycle.
so, she came to me one day and said "i want an open relationship, now". in truth, she'd been sleeping with several other people over the time we were dating, including some people i introduced her to, while i was absolutely monogamous. and, i told her "no, i can't deal with that". but, what i couldn't deal with was her disappearing on random weekends, and spending all of that time alone.
what she wanted was a roommate with benefits, and my skin was far too thin to deal with that.
so, i gave the landlord three months, unilaterally dissolved the lease and told her i was moving out.
she initially refused to accept this, because she thought i'd never leave her - she took me for granted. but, i was fed up. i wanted to stay friends, but i couldn't live with her any more, not with her lifestyle choices. like, she didn't like to use condoms - which is why she accidentally got impregnated a few months later. oops.
i kept telling her "sarah, i'm moving on feb 1st. what are you doing?" and she refused to believe i was moving until the truck showed up. she just kept saying "you're not really moving, you wouldn't do that.".
and, yet i did do that.
and, predictably, she showed up at my apartment door in mid-february, looking to move in. i actually had no choice but to decline, as my co-signer (my dad) made it a condition to refuse her entry. she stayed a few nights in my new place, and managed to seduce me in the communal sauna in front of some elderly tenants who gave me smirks for months, but she ended up in a rooming house, in the end.
so, what does that suggest?
she was bluffing.
but, i was fed up...
we were still having sex for years afterwards, too; she didn't cut me off until i went back on hormones, which is when she finally gave up.
so, there was the time i bought her fajitas and talked her into eating protein, when she was pregnant. there was the time when she asked me to bring her flour, and i brought her flowers (which she kept on her kitchen table for years, to the enragement of her boyfriend). there was the time we went for a walk through the tulip festival, and the time she brought me to the family lunch at the clocktower on her birthday, to the stern consternation of her father, who thought they'd gotten rid of me years ago. and many other times...
like, we strung each other along for years.
i don't know what stories are floating around out there, but when your ex calls you for lunch four or five years after you've broken up, she's still feeling something, there.
i couldn't handle the kids - and she had two of them, last i checked in, neither of which are mine, as far as i can tell (although the first was named after me, and she also asked me to be her godfather, which i declined). i just did not want kids, and had the decency to be crystal clear that making the decision to have and raise kids meant she would need to find a partner willing to do it with her. everything else aside, it was a non-starter, end of story, game over. and, you can call me names, but i think i have self-determination here, and she never really seemed to be angry with me about it...
....until i went back on hormones.
that was her red line. clearly.
at
02:24
given that he needs to win some combination of states that include arizona, north carolina, wisconsin, new hampshire & minnesota, i'm not exactly sure why biden thinks walking right into a debate on gun control is a good idea.
i mean, it's one thing to hold a position when pushed on it.
it's another to make it a ballot issue.
so, of course fox is nailing him on it.
again: i don't think this is substantive policy. i don't care much for guns, and won't stand up for gun rights. but, i don't think that gun control is going to reduce crime, either. i see it as irrelevant.
but, i'm the minority.
and, it doesn't matter what the margin in california is.
i mean, it's one thing to hold a position when pushed on it.
it's another to make it a ballot issue.
so, of course fox is nailing him on it.
again: i don't think this is substantive policy. i don't care much for guns, and won't stand up for gun rights. but, i don't think that gun control is going to reduce crime, either. i see it as irrelevant.
but, i'm the minority.
and, it doesn't matter what the margin in california is.
at
01:10
so, i got a fruit bowl. and, i'm actually caught up on my diet now - this is the end of sunday's meal, not the start of monday's, and i'm not hungry. goodbye pasta....
i couldn't stomach the banana peel. gross.
but, i put it away for later...
if one peel has about 10% each of a, c, b1, b6 & e, which seems to be roughly right (i wish i could find a better source), then a banana peel smoothie with 7 peels, and maybe some chocolate soy, would be a good vitamin top-up once a week. that way, i don't have to taste it...
i could potentially put the strawberry tops in there, too, and leave the salad for more delicious ingredients.
the capsicum seeds were, in the long run, quite a chunk of fibre for me, and i certainly felt it this afternoon, through a couple of trips. i'm ok. but, if that happens again after grinding, i think i'll pass on it further.
the a & e are fat soluble, and the c and b aren't. so, i'm going to add this to the diet, as well. so...
daily:
1) fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- ice cream
- soy milk
+
- blueberries?
- raspberries?
- rosehips (if locatable)
2) salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- chopped carrots
- red pepper seeds (ground)
- hemp seeds (ground)
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
+
- broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves?
- red clover (if locatable)
- alfafa?
every second day:
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread (including the germ!)
- olive oil margarine
+
- salami?
- indoor grown tuna or salmon?
- + apple juice? carrot juice? water?
weekly:
banana peel smoothie:
- 7 banana peels
- strawberry tops
- chocolate soy
- cherry ice cream
i couldn't stomach the banana peel. gross.
but, i put it away for later...
if one peel has about 10% each of a, c, b1, b6 & e, which seems to be roughly right (i wish i could find a better source), then a banana peel smoothie with 7 peels, and maybe some chocolate soy, would be a good vitamin top-up once a week. that way, i don't have to taste it...
i could potentially put the strawberry tops in there, too, and leave the salad for more delicious ingredients.
the capsicum seeds were, in the long run, quite a chunk of fibre for me, and i certainly felt it this afternoon, through a couple of trips. i'm ok. but, if that happens again after grinding, i think i'll pass on it further.
the a & e are fat soluble, and the c and b aren't. so, i'm going to add this to the diet, as well. so...
daily:
1) fruit bowl:
- strawberries
- bananas
- kiwis
- ice cream
- soy milk
+
- blueberries?
- raspberries?
- rosehips (if locatable)
2) salad bowl:
- red peppers
- tomatoes
- microwaved/chopped broccoli
- chopped carrots
- red pepper seeds (ground)
- hemp seeds (ground)
- flax seeds (ground!)
- kalamata olives
- lemon
- garlic cloves
- oregano & pepper
- chopped cheese
- bacon bits
- caesar dressing
+
- broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves?
- red clover (if locatable)
- alfafa?
every second day:
eggs:
- fried eggs
- cheese
- whole wheat bread (including the germ!)
- olive oil margarine
+
- salami?
- indoor grown tuna or salmon?
- + apple juice? carrot juice? water?
weekly:
banana peel smoothie:
- 7 banana peels
- strawberry tops
- chocolate soy
- cherry ice cream
at
00:31
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)