if video killed the radio star, the video star is on it's deathbed, now, as well.

and, we can see the construction of an entirely different set of talking heads, as well - even old people like chomsky & wolff, and goodman, who aren't allowed on tv, are legitimate internet stars. it's a different animal, and it's of minimal help to draw comparisons.

my grandmother has never abandoned her radio as her source of information. she can't remember much for more than a few seconds nowadays, but she still listens to her cbc on her ancient, and probably carcinogenic, old radio, which is roughly the same size as her stove and would require multiple large men to move from place to place.

and, despite not having particularly different politics from each other (she's a very liberal old woman, in the true sense of the term), we often had difficulty following each other because we had such disparate framing.

the medium is, in some ways, the message. and, while, i'm not a digital native, i had to go to the computer lab at school to type book reports until i was roughly 15, i've fully embraced the internet as a complete and total source of information, for better or worse.

tv is about as relevant to me as radio is to most of us, and that's becoming a norm that the world needs to adjust to.

but, am i out of touch with reality?

or is television punditry outdated and irrelevant?

when i imagine tucker carlson in my mind, which i don't do that often, but, when i do, he's wearing that stupid bowtie, or on crossfire or something like that.

and, i still can't see stephen colbert out of character.

that's where my brain is, and criticize me for it if you'd like, but don't strawman me about it.

i have never paid for cable tv in my adult life, and i've spent most of it without a television set in my living space at all. i used to watch some tv when i was a kid, but that ceased almost totally in the late 90s - and that is easy to deduce by my cultural references, which are to things like seinfeld and the simpsons, which i understand, and not to things like curb your enthusiasm and the office, or even south park, which i've never seen a single episode of, except at bars or half awake at friends houses.

i simply don't watch television and haven't for half of my life, at this point - and for essentially this entire century.

so, when you talk to me about tucker carlson, i think of this young jerk on cnn who often appeared on gretchen carlson greta van susteran and, yes - seemed to be hiding something. i've never seen his show in more than five minute internet clips for research purposes. i've deduced that he's quite bright (unlike many of his contemporaries), but borderline evil.

nor have i ever watched rachel maddow for more than a few minutes at a time, for research purposes. msnbc is actually kind of heavy on restricted access due to property rights, in canada. i've deduced that she's obviously a cia agent - and i'm not just saying that. rachel maddow is obviously a deep state intelligence operative.

you can see what i actually watch relatively easily because i post it here or comment on it. and, i only bother when i'm eating.

but, i get the general direction that these things are moving in and need to ask a legitimate question, one that maybe only somebody that's as distant from the discourse as i am could possibly formulate:

is the contemporary mainstream liberal press legitimately so unappealing to actual political leftists, that demagogues in right-wing media legitimately are more representative of a genuine left than they are? as an honest libertarian socialist, or left marxist, or whatever you want to call it, must i admit that i really am closer to tucker carlson on the spectrum than i am to rachel maddow? and what does that imply for the legitimate left moving forwards?

but, i am out of your spectrum, and that's all i've ever said for years, now. 

where do i get this stuff from, then?

i'm an independent thinker, believe it or not. i post my sources when it's reasonable to do so, but much of the analysis here comes from nowhere but my own mind. i'm an analytical thinker, but i'm also an artist, a creative type, and that shouldn't be surprising.

and, if i'm confounding you that's fine - it means i'm doing this right.

please approach my arguments for what they are, rather than attempt to categorize me into a misleading corner. that won't pan out in the end, it'll just make you look stupid. trust me.

what is the elite concerning itself with, here?

and, don't confuse yourself - it is and has always been the elite making these arguments.

do you think they care how the democrats advance their agenda?

we hear so much in the media about how to stop the next donald trump.

they're more invested in trying to stop the next bernie sanders - and don't delude yourselves into thinking otherwise.

and, you know that's really what they're imagining banning, right?

the filibuster is a tool, and like every other tool, it can be used for good and bad.

ask wendy davis.

or bernie sanders.

i mean, why not just ban the republicans instead of the filibuster?

well?

we need clear thinking from the most powerful people in the world, not blurry-eyed nonsense.

and, does the filibuster have anything to do with the civil rights movement or opposition to it?

nope.

that's like arguing that you should ban hammers because some idiot can't find his toolbox and uses them to solve every problem.

and, it's even a classic logical fallacy - the kind they teach you about in first year.

thankfully, "progressives" in the senate do not have the votes to end the filibuster.

although, if it was up to me, i'd filibuster the vote against the filibuster.

remember that woman in texas that stopped abortion legislation with a filibuster? i never see the republicans use it, it's a tool used almost exclusively by the left. what do "progressives" have to say about losing a tool that has worked, in situations where nothing else has?

bernie had some weird positions last cycle, but he was right to be cautious about doing away with that, and i'm curious as to how that comes down.

i don't see abolishing the filibuster as a particularly left-wing position....

"biden moves on the nuclear treaty, but it's just a start"

laugh track

it's just a tease, but i need to stop to eat.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1KOurFYpzcLV-5PMSaZ3FdqbWhXhh3m_C?usp=sharing

be yourself, or fuck off.

i can sort of grasp that my absolute aversion to being around somebody that clearly tried very hard to be and legitimately wanted to be my friend may come off as galling or unbecoming. i don't fucking care, but i kind of get it.

the thing is that i don't like to be around people that are similar to me - i'm the me in the room, and i don't want to compete with anybody for the space. i prefer spending time with people that are individuals, people that represent their own viewpoints and have their own minds. agreement is boring; i want to debate.

so, if you're just going to insist on being me, i'd rather spend the time by myself.

to the extent that i'd want to spend time with anybody at all, i'm more likely to be attracted to opposites - people that counterbalance my weaknesses, and not people that accentuate my strengths. the latter is just inefficient and pointless.

not only do i not need the affirmation, i don't want it at all.

i've been sorting through the last six months worth of posts tonight, and deciding that i'm going to put this all together into a smashwords download when i'm done. this is going to be a novella-sized book...nutrition science with flair.

you can put it on your coffee table.

first, i'm going to clean up a final fruit bowl post that puts everything together, and it may not post for a while still, but i want it to at least be on the way.

so, i don't have my amino acid posts done - i need threonine, tryptophan & phenylalanine/tyrosine still - but i'm working on something.

my coffee numbers are all wrong for some reason. i think i adjusted some of them to 350 and some of them to 700. i didn't show my work, and i should have - i showed it for everything else - so i can't figure out what i did, sometimes.

so, i need to go back to boron and figure that out, but i'm going to post my sources and calculations here so i can figure it out next time.

boron:

h t  t  ps : / / o  d s. o d . ni h . g o v / f a c t s h e et s /B o r  on  -H e a l t h P r o f  es s i  on  al / #h 7

then, .07*3/3 = 7%. i don't know why it says 3.5%, but i'm fixing it in the next update. i may have halved it accidentally because i was shifting from 700 ml to 350 ml in the chart, but, if that's what i did, it was a mistake.

nitrates:

i took the data for the water and multiplied it by .35 instead of ,85:

3.5*.35 = 1.225 mg

that's correct.

fluoride:

this is data from the water in windsor, which i got from the city.

.125*.35/4 = 1.09%. fine.

sodium

i initially used the same data source as the water:

(((3.86 + 8.58)/2)*.35)/1500 = .145%. 

but, then i changed it to the usda data, and entered the following:

3.56*4/1500 = .949%. that would be correct for 700 ml, but. not for 350 ml, which is nly:

3.56*2/1500 = .474666666%

so, that has been corrected.

potassium:

the number i have is 7.4, which seems to be calculated from the usda data, but incorrectly:

87.2*4/4700 = 7.4%, and that would be fine for 700 ml.

but, for 350 ml, i actually want:

87.2*2/4700 = 3.71%.

so, i'll need to update that as well.

the k:na ratio numbers at the bottom level had to change, then, too.

magnesium

i did the same thing with magnesium, which needs to be halved from 5.08 to 0.02542857142, which i'm going to enter as 2.54%.

silicon