no.

i don't want to hear your whiny princess bullshit.

suck it up.

"but i should be able to do what i want!"

well, sure, within reason.

the argument regarding free speech is that, sure, you can say what you want - but you have to accept the consequences stemming from what you say. so, if people hate you for what you say, that's what you get - you can't cry you're being excluded.

i think an analogy with free expression is pertinent; i don't exactly want to tell you what to do. but, i must insist that you need to accept the ramifications of your actions, too, even if the error is due to oversight rather than intent.

i just want to chime in a little on the nonsense in bc around some comments made by a female mp, which were construed as "sexist" by the media.

while the woman has apologized, i'm not following the critique.

her comments seemed to be less about the female ndp member and more about the male liberal member, and if there's a valid criticism in context, it may be more along the lines of trivializing unwarranted male reactions to relatively normal female behaviour. but, if the question at hand is the veracity of the observation that this old guy was getting off on the interaction, i see little reason to question it. there doesn't seem to have been an attempt to insult the female mla, so much as there was an attempt to mock the old guy for enjoying a young woman in his midst in ways she was clearly oblivious to - and i'd say that was trivializing something that should maybe have not been seen as particularly comical.

the fact that everybody on the call agreed with the premise of the old guy enjoying his good fortune, and that nobody pushed back and said "no, it wasn't like that", suggests that it wasn't a particularly outlandish thing to observe, whether the perception was intentional or not.

i would consequently suggest to ms. ma that intentions and outcomes can at times be a little different, and that maybe people perceived her behaviour differently than she intended. there's nothing wrong with that. but, if she's hypersensitive to those misperceptions, perhaps she should be a little bit more careful about how she conducts herself in the presence of aging straight men.

so, i took a nap this morning and woke up to a response from the pharmacy in amherstburg, which actually gave me a fairly steep refund; i only ended up paying $18 for 200 pills, which was a massive refund (about a $50 gift, really), in the end. it meant i had to go back there this afternoon, but that was fine - i like biking, so i was happy to get paid for it.

thankfully, it was unexpectedly humid today, so it was actually a very pleasant ride. two hours both ways is actually on the order of something i could do daily, but, i mean, i have better things to do...

right now, i'm hungry, and that's good, because i'm a little behind on the schedule. it should hopefully be back in order by the morning.

as i now have a full slate of meds until early december, i have no reason to leave the house again until i run out of salad dressing and have to make some kind of choice about the yogurt. that should be 7-8 days. so, i'm really hoping that i get my diet sorted out before then.

for now, i feel good and hope to get back to this for the next several days.

fwiw, i'd actually rather abolish daylight savings time than get rid of it.

if anything, i'd rather move the clocks back another hour so that the sun comes up earlier in the winter.

jessica murray <koala.central.command@gmail.com>

5:37 AM (0 minutes ago)

to consumer <consumer@earthsown.com>

hi.

i'm a longterm consumer of so good products, and have noticed them be replaced by earth's own products at my grocery store. the fortification decisions in the earth's own soy products do not fit my dietary requirements, and i am not interested in purchasing them. yet, i notice that you still have the so good on your website as a separate product.

is your intent to replace the so good with nature's own and phase out the so good, or do you intend to continue selling the so good? if the latter, do you happen to have a list of resellers in windsor, ontario? 

i'm going to end up moving to your competitor, natura, if i can't find the so good. but, what i really want is the so good...

j

although...

when i go to the website, they have the two things listed separately: an earth's own product and a so good product. i went to two stores, and they both carried the earth's own exclusively, where they used to have the so good on the shelf. 

but, i wonder...can i still find the so good, somewhere?

i'm going to send them an email.

i do need to point something else out, though, and that's the catastrophe regarding the soy milk.

for years now, i've been buying so good soy milk - it's the central staple of my diet. this formulation was by far superior to anything else on the market in terms of heavy fortification and good decisions regarding preservatives. that meant it had a shorter shelf life, and was sometimes hard to locate, but was by far the best thing on the market, when you could. i used to walk for miles to find this stuff.

i started noticing it clear out of stores a few months ago, and realized that was ominous. it seems to have been bought by a company called "nature's own" "earth's own" fairly recently, and they finally switched over the marketing, in the newest batch on the shelf - complete with decreased levels of fortification.

this couldn't have come at a worse time. i took one look at it and rejected it flat out. so, the next update will be to remove data from the so good brand and enter data from the more expensive natura brand. and, this is a giant shame, too.

as far as i can tell, nature's own earth's own (which makes junk food products like almond milk) bought up so good so it would have a monopoly on the shelf. now, when you go to that section at food basics, it's one company selling all of the "milk alternatives" - oat, almond, rice, soy, etc. the problem is that, in the process, they've standardized their fortification levels, and the result is just no longer useful to me. frankly, it's easy to see why nature's own earth's own wanted to stamp out so good - no discerning consumer would have purchased a nature's own earth's own product when the so good product is right there beside it.

if you take a look through my matrix, you'll see that the b vitamins in the soy are mostly excess and the thing i really need to care about is vitamin d, which, as an ovo-lacto-vegetarian, i get minimal amounts of in my diet. d is like b12 - i need it fortified, period. so, you can imagine that i was heartbroken to see my so good cut the d from 45% to 13% - and the calcium from 30% to 23%. this standardizes their soy with their other (junk food) products, and also with their major competitor (silk). i was also disappointed to see increases in the number of calories, amount of saturated fat and amounts of sugar. it seemed to have more minerals, though.

if soy is supposed to be a milk replacement, cutting the d out defeats the point. and, they also cut the b12 from a nice 50% to a lower 42%. 

together, these things are the reason people drink soy milk instead of cow's milk. they may save a few cents per carton, but such a victory is pyrrhic if their customers abandon them, and they will. this product won awards for heart health. it was probably the single healthiest thing on the market - and now it's ruined, because it was competing with almond milk, which is literally junk food.

the natura is not as good as the so good was - it's more expensive, it has more calories, it has more monounsaturated fat, it has more salt & it has less omega-3s because it uses sunflower oil as an additive. it doesn't taste as good, either. but, the vitamin fortification is identical, so i can plug it in and keep going.

i'm heartbroken, really. and, i'd call for somebody to enter the market and produce a so good replica. 

capitalism ruins everything, and governments just help it destroy.

so, posts have been light. i had to do some running around...

with my trip to amhersburg on saturday morning, i've now been to the county limits in all three directions. this was a much shorter ride than the treks to leamington or tilbury:

further, unlike the previous treks, there was really no exit from urban sprawl on this ride. lasalle is straight suburbia all the way to an old town called "river canard", and that main highway, county rd 20, is suburban almost right from the split. i went through maybe five farms in between, before i got to a community called edgewater beach and then went through to amherstburg. in fact, it was sidewalk for 90% of the way.

when i got there to pick up my estrace, the pharmacist had 200 pills ready and tried to charge me $156.00. i told him that wasn't right. then, he said it was $36 - and i said that sounds more like it. then, he said it was $110, and i stormed out....but came back. we agreed that it should say $70.00 or so (given that this was more than i usually get), but he couldn't make the computer work. i told him i'd pay for it, then figure it out when i got home.

i think what happened is he charged me past my coverage limit, which is defined by the government. i'm very poor, so i qualify for the ontario drug benefit, which pays the difference between the generic (which doesn't work.) and the brand name (which is weak, as it is). but, the odb is only chargeable up to the rx limit. my rx was for 120 pills, so the added costs were for the extra 80.

or, that's what i think, anyways. i've sent an email & a fax, and will follow up in the morning.

i decided to get some grocery shopping done yesterday, and have stocked up on everything except yogurt - in fact, maybe a bit too much. i've run out of tupperware, and space in the fridge. the problem is that they had these giant 300 g peppers on sale again and they don't even fit into containers. but, i'm good for most of the month, i think, and then some. i really stocked up on stuff, for the winter.

what that means is i'm going to have to go back to amherstburg for a refund once i get this guy's boss on the phone and have him explain it.

i think i should probably be able to get my doctor to fax them an rx for a larger quantity. but, because this is a mistake by the pharmacist, i'm going to expect them to eat the cost - and maybe even compensate me for the bike ride.

it's very difficult to understand how a virus could survive on something like a bank note for more than a few hours, let alone weeks, at room temperature, in dry air. that is really so difficult to understand that it opens up a lot of very profound questions.

what is this thing, really?

it's almost acting more like a spore than a virus.

if you tell me you're absolutely certain that a virus can survive a month on a piece of plastic, i'm going to tell you it was designed in a lab.

"The truth of the matter is, when you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was" - barack obama

well, face it.

trump is the most liberal president since nixon.

that was bound to generate a reaction on the right of the gop, eventually.