i am republishing everything temporarily in order to use mirroring software to pull it down. i expect this post to be taken down within 24-48 hours. i would request you refrain from unwanted moderation in that time frame, so i can take my site down from here and upload somewhere that cares more about speech rights and less about conservative value systems.
saturday, january 1, 2022
it's actually somewhat difficult to google this topic, as the discourse is about explaining the differences in iq, which are accepted as fact. is it genetic? environmental? and, you're supposed to pick a side.
this presupposes that black people are in fact less intelligent, and we're tasked with the obligation to figure out why.
but, the fact is that the differences are a myth in the first place, and if you look at the data more carefully, that's what you'll actually uncover - the claim of disparities in iq testing results isn't even substantive enough to bring in this canard about "cultural differences" as an explanation, in the first place. the data was shoddy, the numbers were often borderline fabricated, the comparisons were often specious and the research simply hasn't been reproduced. it's not like we had good studies that needed a clear explanation; what we had from the start was flawed studies, with poor methodology that should have never been taken seriously enough to require a rebuttal, in the first place.
so, no - i don't need to explain the disparity, because the correlation doesn't exist at all, and that's what the state of the actual science is, even if google makes it hard to understand.
it's not a new result, and it doesn't require overturning research. the "poor white problem", which is the repeatably demonstrable fact that poor whites have iq scores that are as low or lower than the non-white poor, was something that the elites always knew about, and took great steps to try to resolve. there was a big study done in 1928 in south africa that conclusively proved that poor whites were no more intelligent than poor blacks, but rather than use it to debunk their racism, they got offended by it and promised to try to educate the poor whites, to eliminate the embarrassment. this is a survey of the steps taken by the elite to resolve the prestige problem of the poor whites:
you'll note that nobody suggests sterilization, or posits that the problem might be genetic. rather, they talk about building schools, they talk about nutrition levels, they talk about diseases...
there was in truth something similar that happened when eastern european jews started showing up in new york. the new york jewry - wealthy, educated, liberal - found themselves embarrassed by all of these half-literate working class jews, many very religious, which they thought poorly represented their race. what would the whites think?
so, this framing that comes up in the google results is historical and exists for a reason. even today, the media, across the spectrum, continues to deny the overwhelming evidence for the equality of mental ability across the various so-called races, insisting instead that we explain away the difference, which is taken as an indisputable fact. but, when you actually look at the data, you repeatedly debunk the premise. just as the democrats and south africans could not accept the existence of poor whites with low iqs, we can't accept the idea that these studies are flawed - instead, we insist it must be environmental. we don't challenge the claim, as we should.
this study suggests that blacks have increased their numbers recently, but it's designed to justify the changes brought in during the 60s and 70s, and does nothing to correct the methodological flaws underlying the initial research. however, it does at the least demonstrate the flaws, accidentally, in repeating them, before updating the information:
when you eliminate the methodological flaws, there is no longer a correlation between race and intelligence. rather, what's left is a correlation between class and intelligence. but, you'll never get anywhere pushing that in america.
what the framing should be is this: how do we explain the rich-poor gap in iq? is it due to genetics or environment?
1:29
it's a silly online test but i just scored in the "125+" range on a free online iq test.
in fact, that's not surprising. i remember when they did standardized testing in the 3rd or 4th grade, and i came back in the 99+ percentile, baffling the teacher. the other students weren't in that range. or anywhere close to it...
when i did entry-level government testing, the hiring manager actually insisted that the score was so high that it must be a typo. he said he'd never seen a score that high, for that position; it was in a range you'd expect for senior managers, and was a level that people had difficulty getting at. this is the "competency test" for the government, i'm talking about. while i ended up failing the "situational awareness" test (several times.), i'm convinced that the actual problem was that my score was too high on the competency test. i'm too smart to work for the government of canada.
and, that demonstrates the opposite truth, because i'm pretty poor, and was raised pretty poor, but i educated myself at a young age, with the help of the people around me.
i'm not genetically superior - that's not why my iq is mensa level.
i just read a lot of books when i was a kid. that is all.
4:32
if somebody paid for an official iq test for me, i'd take it.
i'd just consider it a waste of money.
4:35
canadians are the master race.
6:00
did i really fail the situational judgement test (repeatedly.) after getting the highest score the hiring manager had ever seen on the iq screening test?
well, that's what the record says. i have no way of disputing it.
and, i can believe it, too. i'm not just telling you i'm an anarchist; it's not like you decide to be an anarchist, one day. it's self-identification - you find it and say "that fits.". i really don't understand how to act in an office environment, and i probably would make decisions, probably routinely, that my bosses and co-workers would find baffling. i admit i'd have a hard time asking the boss for things, or acknowledging that the boss is the boss. i admit i'd probably just do things myself, most of the time.
and, i've posted before that i was legitimately perplexed by the test. i mean, if i want the job, i'll just tell them what they want to hear, right? surely, i can at least figure out what i'm supposed to say, even if i wouldn't actually do it, right? how hard can it be to lie through it? in fact, i couldn't figure out what the supposed-to-be-right answer was, either. and, this is a big part of the reason i gave up on that world: whatever i think of the test, it demonstrated pretty clearly to me that an office is not where i belong, in this world, if it's where anybody belongs, at all. i got the point - i have to look elsewhere. business normality is not for me.
however, this category of tests has long been suspected as being a broader screening tool, because there aren't actually right or wrong answers. i mean, it's supposed to be the easy test - the iq test is supposed to be the hard test. i can believe the outcome, for myself, but there's no shortage of people that have claimed that the institution they were applying for just used it as an excuse to block entry, for reasons altogether different.
i can also understand why a government wouldn't want an employee with an iq of 130 that demonstrates tendencies to take matters into their own hands, and i can understand why a government would decide i failed a sjt, even if i actually merely barely passed it.
i dunno.
i know what they told me, and i know i got the hint.
8:03
at some point, a government employee is going to be told to do something that doesn't make sense and be expected to follow orders on it.
right?
i'm not exactly saying i wouldn't do it. but, my test results - smart. independent. - would seem to suggest i'm not ideal in most roles of the sort.
sad truth, but i get it.
8:08
so, who should replace justin trudeau?
i'd like to see somebody take a run at it from the outside, as i think they really need to clean house. i don't think it's very helpful to just replace him with the next warm body in line. i want a shake-up in the party, and a real overturning of the existing leadership.
let's remember that trudeau sort of stepped in front of dalton mcguinty, who mysteriously disappeared, on short notice. it's clear, now, that trudeau co-opted a lot of his staff. i would expect mcguinty to need to bring in new staff, then, and i think that's kind of exactly what i'd like to see.
mcguinty probably is interested, but there's a fair number of people outside of the existing rubric that could also take a run. i think kathleen wynne would make an outstanding prime minister, and would be more likely to direct the country through the kind of leftward turn that trudeau failed to deliver on.
it's difficult to look outside of ontario, and i think they should mostly avoid the temptation to try. liberals outside of ontario tend to be much further right than liberals inside of ontario, which is recent, but true. if i'd like to see a process of leftward renewal in the party - which would also be a process of democratic renewal, as the party itself is far to the left of the leadership - then it is most likely to come from inside ontario.
it would not be helpful for wynne and mcguinty to compete with each other.
but, i'm going to call on members of the party to get together and figure this out.
chrystia freeland is even more conservative than trudeau; she's a disaster waiting to happen and should be avoided at all costs. the run from outside should be a run directly at her.
22:53
actually, i think ford is probably making the right choice, politically. my official analysis of the outcome of the 2018 election is that the results did not seem to align with the polling - and i do wonder, in hindsight, if the federal liberal government didn't get what it wanted in removing kathleen wynne from power. trudeau has actually come out in opposition to the sex ed curriculum passed by wynne, aligning himself with the furthest fringes of the radical, religious right. there's been a movement inside the liberal party to remove any sort of queer voices from prominent roles, and replace them with religious minorities. for that reason, i think it's sort of imperative that the next liberal prime minister be openly queer. this needs to be a priority amongst activists, to try to reverse a move towards backwardsness in the party. we want to nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand.
whatever the problems are with trudeau's personal vision for the country as a religious backwater, the liberal party remains the best vehicle for queer rights, in this country - a longstanding historical reality. it's a better idea to fight for control than it is to give up and look elsewhere. but, it's imperative that people are cognizant about what's happening, even if you need to leave the honest analyses to spaces like this blog.
but, if what ford is doing is aligning himself with the liberals economically and trying to draw a distinction socially, that very well may be his best tactic. i mean, he didn't win because people wanted smaller government, if he actually won. if he actually won, the populist issues were around things like the sex ed curriculum and opposition to carbon transition - what are essentially social issues. polling on conservative party voters in ontario is not that dissimilar to what it is in parts of the rust belt or rural appalachia - they're not economic conservatives, they're social conservatives. and, that's a footprint set to increase, with all this immigration from socially conservative societies.
it might be a nightmare scenario for myself, but it's probably a winning tactic.
economic conservatism is long dead and buried. nobody believes in that here any more, and to a large extent nobody ever did. look at the bill davis dynasty - they nationalized hydro. the free market conservative thing was very shortlived in this country, and never really took off much.
but, social conservatism is actually on the rise, and any reasonable projection of the country's demographics in the next 20 years should suggest it may become dominant in the near future.
if that's ford's strategy - economic centrism and social conservatism - he will be a force in the next election, as he racks up the votes of new canadians, who finally have the voice, in him, that they really want.
23:56
i've been dealing with a brain fog migraine today, and didn't get anything at all done, but i just blew a glob of blood out of my nose, and i feel better already.
is that something i should be concerned about?
i'm probably at a relatively high risk for brain cancer, and i'm not going to make the mistake so many do - i'm just going to ignore it. it's incurable, there's no point.
i feel better; that's what's important.
0:49
i would call on the canadian government to immediately release these russian hockey players, who they appear to be holding hostage in calgary.
1:01
i'm going to be doing yearly fit testing, moving forwards. i'll get a cea test done with it, too.
1:19
so, it's updated up until the end of section V.
there's a lot of ranting between V and VI and then sections VI and VII.
i'm uploading it now because i'm actually expecting it to change. i wish it wouldn't, but it's predictable.
i'm really stopping now for a few hours, though - i want to at least test the sound card.
9:24
i am on the side of people marching against restrictions, but i don't see the value in marching, in this context.
what i want you to do is this: ignore the rules.
if we simply refuse to obey, they can't stop us.
23:35
now, that doesn't mean you should be irresponsible, either.
but, we're better off just ignoring them than trying to make a conflict out of it.
just go about your lives as though the rules do not exist, and act accordingly, as you would if they were not there.
23:37
monday, january 3, 2022
i wanted to do a quick copy/paste, and shit.
this post is a good example of the kind of mindfuck i'm putting myself through:
this is the post that i have at my site and in my email and backed up in several places, all consistent with each other:
===
i had to sleep this afternoon, so i'm behind schedule, but i certainly think things are balancing out. i'm about half-way through the dr. calvin (the make believe one, not the one he makes fun of in reason) section and i want to stop for a minute to address a specific question:
are the three robot laws a parody of thermodynamics?
sort of, i think. but, not really - it's more general.
i mean, it's a reasonable hypothesis. asimov was, of course, a chemistry prof. but, i think the three laws of robotics are a more general critique of axiomatic systems, including euclidean geometry, both newtonian and relativistic physics and secular humanism's roots in aquinian natural law theory. the framework is one that's been sort of lost post-heisenberg, but was really at the crux of the historical debate between science (which was not logical, but empirical) and philosophy (which was strictly logical, and disinterested in empiricism). with the retreat of physics from strict empiricism to largely unfalsifiable theoretical models, and the more recent embrace of empiricism by any philosopher worth listening to, this distinction has been blurred. nowadays, we tend to lump philosophy mathematics & science in together in the "pro-reason" category and throw away religion philosophy as "irrational" or "emotional". and, this has taken on, like, greek overtones of masculine v feminism, which is daft. but, that wasn't the world asimov lived in - he would have seen science and what was called the british school (which actually included marx as well as darwin and bacon and turing and the rest) on one side of this, and the broad swath of philosophical doctrine, which included both religion and mathematics, on the other side of it.
you also have to realize that asimov was very much the archetype of the self-deprecating science nerd, and he was perfectly content to make fun of himself, if it resulted in a good punchline. it's a mark of a mature writer, and especially of a liberal one in the 1900-1950 period, that people often miss - he's offering a lot of criticism of ideas he supports, because he's not trying to advance an argument so much as he's trying to push the needle forward. it's actually a black mark on our own era that the idea of somebody being more concerned about the general advancement of knowledge than he is about personal ideological bickering comes off as bizarre and unrealistic. but, you see this with the likes of asimov, russell, sagan - they're just not driven by their egos, so they don't care if they're right or not, and are happy to admit they were wrong. so, they invite a critique of their own ideas to try to strengthen them. we'd do well to get back to that, both in science and on the left.
when i was a math student, i spent an unusually large amount of time on axiomatic systems, so i sort of get this a bit better than most. i had to make the same point of correction when we did gulliver's travels in the science fiction course i took years ago, because i was able to identify a critique of pythagoreanism that most people today would have missed for a critique of "science", entirely - but that would have been painfully obvious to swift's contemporary audience.
what asimov does with the three laws is actually relatively soluble and transferable, and he's consequently able to use the mechanism to criticize a wide variety of applications of logic in place of empirical study. it's that general critique of reason (in a very non-kantian sense) that is what he's on about, not a specific critique of the laws of thermodynamics. i actually haven't come across a story that is specifically about thermodynamics quite yet, but i'm sure one is coming.
and, hey - if you can disprove thermodynamics, go for it. nobody's succeeded yet, right?
everybody knows it's all wrong, though - and it has to be, because it's axiomatic.
===
is that post written clearly, in your opinion?
when i read the conclusion, it reminds me of things i'm sure i wrote into the post, but i can't find, and this is often the clue i use to remind myself. whatever editing i think is happening seems to remove sentences and paragraphs, but doesn't seem to be concerned about cohesiveness. so, they leave relics that allow for reconstruction of the thought.
i scratched out two words and replaced them. while i admit i'm partial to brain freezes (i seem to frequently post antonyms in place of intended words and don't understand why), the actual words in the posts badly obscure what i'm getting at. the point i'm trying to get across is that we used to see philosophy as logical, back in the day, that it was it's historical definition, and not the half-formed pile of nonsense we broadly see it as today. and, we used to understand science as empirical - in opposition to reason. is that a fluke? i could accept the brain freeze, a priori - because i seem to have little choice.
but, as the next paragraphs unfold, it's clear that i'm missing context. the bit about asimov being a self-deprecating science nerd would have to follow from questioning if the robot laws are self-parody, or it lacks any context. i'm missing a discussion on asimov not caring if he's right. the part about disproving the laws of thermodynamics comes from nowhere.
see, and i remember writing the parts that seem to be missing. this is a draft of the replacement text:
===
i had to sleep this afternoon, so i'm behind schedule, but i certainly think things are balancing out. i'm about half-way through the dr. calvin (the make believe one, not the one he makes fun of in reason) section and i want to stop for a minute to address a specific question:
are the three robot laws a parody of thermodynamics?
sort of, maybe. but, not really. it's more general.
i mean, it's a reasonable hypothesis. asimov was, of course, a chemistry prof. but, the three laws of robotics are really a more general critique of axiomatic systems, including euclidean geometry, both newtonian and relativistic physics (and also quantum physics...) and secular humanism's roots in aquinian natural law theory, in addition to the laws of thermodynamics, as some examples. the distinction is one that's been sort of lost post-heisenberg, but was really at the crux of the historical debate between science (which was not impressed by the types of arguments that deductively reasoned perceived truth from sound axioms using logical syllogisms, but was rather focused on understanding the world via empirical observation, as conducted by experiments) and philosophy (which was a lesser form of epistemology that was about advancing usually unfalsifiable theories via argumentation built strictly via syllogism, and disinterested in empirically demonstrating the truth of any of it in the universe we inhabit). with the retreat of physics from strict empiricism to largely unfalsifiable theoretical models, and the more recent embrace of empiricism by any philosopher worth listening to, this distinction has been blurred. nowadays, we tend to avoid the deductive/empirical distinction and instead have constructed a rational/irrational categorization. so, we combine mathematics & science together as being in the "pro-reason" category and then do away with philosophy by expelling it to the religion pile, which is "irrational" or "emotional". and, this has taken on, like, classical greek undertones of masculine v feminism, which is daft. but, that wasn't the world asimov lived in - he would have seen science and what was called the british school (which actually included marx as well as darwin and newton and bacon and the rest) on one side of this, and the broad swath of philosophical doctrine, which included both religion and mathematics, on the other side of it. it is easy for a modern reader to conflate logic with science, but asimov wouldn't have seen it that way.
so, the robot laws become a general criticism of philosophy (including mathematics) from an empiricist, rather than a specific parody of any specific axiomatic system. you first have to understand the historical conflict between science and philosophy to understand where asimov is really coming from with this, and you then have to put it into the context of the academic tradition he was raised in, which is one where empirical science was seen as forward thinking and "progressive", whereas deductive philosophy was seen as outdated and "backwards". standing in the 30s and 40s, western culture was leaving the baggage of it's foundations in philosophy and religion behind and embracing a new world of empiricism and science. all of the old axiomatic systems were being discarded, as wrong. euclid was wrong. aristotle was wrong. newton, even, was wrong. the way forward was to leave our old assumptions - and our old systems of deduction - behind and embrace the new world of the future, defined by measuring the world as it actually is, and not by imagining how it ought to be. in 1931, at the height of the optimism for a post-philosophical scientific future, came godel's incompleteness theorem, which proved, basically, that all axiomatic systems are either false in their deductions of the world around us or incapable of understanding the world in a sufficiently interesting manner. so, philosophy was from that point forever dead; empiricism was truly the only way forward. our choice was starkly clear: we could embrace the empirical future, or we could retreat inwards and board ourselves into a sanatorium of the philosophical past.
now, that's not to say that asimov was opposed to the use of logic as a tool to inform an empirical analysis of the world around us, and he quite clearly wasn't, even if he routinely points out the problems in doing so via plot twists in his stories, where he makes fools out of specious logicians deducing truths that don't hold up to empirical analysis (baley's repeated false deductions in the caves of steel and the naked sun are maybe the most obvious examples of this mockery of logic, if not the only examples). it just means that asimov is taking a clear stand for empiricism over logic in terms of which has primary importance in analyzing the world around us, and is doing so by mocking the use of logic as a tool of epistemology in his rather developed long-running satire of axiomatic systems and deductive logic as a tool of reasoning, of which the robot laws (which are frequently pushed to their limits) are the centre-piece. at the end of the day, empiricism still requires logic to make sense of the observations, after all.
what i'm getting at is just that asimov came into existence in a reality where all the historical axiomatic systems were crumbling and being jettisoned or replaced, where the approach itself was being put away as untenable and where deductive reasoning was finally being widely understood as a way to prove things true that were easily empirically demonstrated as absolutely wrong. that was his frame; that was his world. so, you'd expect it to be reflected, and it is. but, he still did his chemistry homework using the laws of thermodynamics, and he still did his physics homework using newton's laws (or einstein's laws, depending on the course). therefore, if robots are to have laws, they should surely be wrong, right? i mean, how can we take einstein seriously, while dismissing euclid so thoroughly? see, and, that opens up a broader point: at the end of the day, all science is necessarily wrong, and it has to be in the sense that it's deductive, at some point, in the place of raw empirical observation. there's no way out: that's godel's insight. but, we continue to take it seriously anyways, even though we know it's all wrong, and just waiting to be proven wrong. philosophy tries to determine what is true and what isn't, but science is not anything close to truth, deductive or empirical, and makes no such claims for itself; science is a collection of increasingly less crude approximations waiting to be thrown away, as deprecated. all science is always wrong, all of the time.
if you're going to spend time doing it, you really have to have a good sense of humour about it. if the robot laws are a parody of axiomatic systems, it would follow that asimov is, in good part, making fun of himself.
so, it's worth realizing that asimov was very much the archetype of the self-deprecating science nerd, and he was perfectly willing to make fun of himself, if it resulted in a good punchline. you could almost imagine him sitting in his room saying "this is bullshit" as he works out some problem i relativity from first principles. so, of course robots have laws, and of course those laws are wrong - that's how science works. it's a mark of a mature writer, and especially of a liberal one in the 1900-1950 period, that people often miss - he was perfectly content to criticize his own ideas, if he thought it would advance the state of general knowledge. he didn't care if he was right or wrong, he cared about the discourse around the process of coming closer to truth. so, he would frequently invite and offer criticism of ideas or ideological positions that he fully supported, and would do so within the context of his own writing, because he wasn't trying to advance an argument so much as he was trying to push the needle forward. this contemporary idea of "admitting weakness", which is in truth a viciously barbaric form of toxic masculinity, did not exist in asimov's intellectual tradition, which instead sought to objectively determine truth from empirical evidence in a manner free of any sort of bias. it's actually a black mark on our own era that the idea of somebody being more concerned about general intellectual advancement than they are about "winning" at personal ideological bickering comes off as bizarre and unrealistic. but, you see this with the likes of asimov, russell, sagan - they're just not driven by their egos, so they don't care if they're right or not, and are happy to admit they were wrong, if they were. to them, "winning a debate" is a collective process (the socialization of knowledge?), where we learn and advance and move forwards together, and not some barbaric triumph of the individualist ego over one's enemies, or some juvenile enforcement of one's will over another. so, they invite a critique of their own ideas to try to strengthen them. we'd do well to get back to that, both in science and on the left.
when i was a math student, i spent an unusually large amount of time on axiomatic systems, so i sort of get this a bit better than most. i had to make the same point of correction when we did gulliver's travels in the science fiction course i took years ago, because i was able to identify a critique of pythagoreanism that most people today (including the prof) would miss for a critique of "science", entirely - but that would have been entirely obvious to swift's contemporary audience. if you think that science and math and logic and reason are all the same thing, you're not just missing the basic point of what science actually is (and why it was such an important intellectual break), but are going to miss out on the context of a lot of historical literature, not just swift and asimov. if you get nothing else from this, it's the importance of enforcing that historical distinction: science was developed in opposition to logic as a tool of epistemology, and not in conjunction to it.
so, what asimov does with the three laws is actually relatively soluble and transferable, and he's consequently able to use the mechanism to criticize a wide variety of applications of logic in place of empirical study. it's that general critique of reason (in a very non-kantian sense) that is what he's on about, not a specific critique of the laws of thermodynamics. i actually haven't come across a story that is specifically about thermodynamics quite yet, but i'm sure one is coming (edit: i think he only really gets there at the very end, in robots and empire, and only really as an afterthought).
and, hey - if you can disprove thermodynamics, go for it. nobody's succeeded yet, right?
everybody knows it's all wrong, though - and it has to be, because it's axiomatic.
===
i'm admittedly taking the opportunity to add extra ideas in that i certainly didn't add in in the first place. but, i do remember writing a fair amount of that in...
so, what is really going on, here? is some automated process editing posts? is there some way i can figure that out?
i think it's a simple request to ask that google tell me what it's editing, if it's editing anything. i just wish i could find some evidence to back up my intuition, and i can't.
3:55
they insist it's not them:
i don't think it's google....i think it's a government agency...
but, all evidence tells me it's me.
ugh.
4:02
*sigh*.
so, i'm not going to do the copy/paste.
i'll have to let that sit.
i am going to check my soundcard, immediately.
4:05
my brain is in too many places at once, and i just don't multitask well. i really don't
i was in such an awesome place at the start of 2016, but i had to stop to quit smoking, and i never got back to where i was. i can at least say i've completely quit smoking at this point. it's been months and months and months since i even bummed a smoke. but, dammit.
everything was totally ordered and progressing well, and i've just created such a mess, since then. and, i can't figure out how to reorder it. every time i try, i get stuck. it was easy when i knew i had to start from scratch, but i've just got layers and layers now, too many narratives.
i keep telling myself to start from the beginning, but i can't order the beginning. and, every time i start in the middle, i have this urgent feeling that i'm missing something.
so, the machine hasn't crashed yet, but i'm feeling sort of empty doing it. like, i'm almost nervous, which is weird. i know what i want to do, but i don't have the excitement i had at one point to do it.
i'm working on what i've called a "soul swap" piece, and i think a part of the empty feeling i'm having is that...this doesn't mean anything to me at this point. i'm trying to describe something i've been dead to for years. and, that might be a part of getting over this hump in the discography.
this is going to be a bizarre piece of music, and it essentially has to be, given the conceptual purpose of it. there's going to be two components - entirely out of sync with each other - that are going to merge and separate. there's a backstory to that that i'm not getting into.
i was considering building something in audiomulch, but i'd rather use the raw noise that existed in the 2004 build and take it from there.
6:24
i'm astoundingly overwhelmed.
i'm not used to that.
but, i think that's why i keep defaulting to the filing, because i want to make sure i've got a proper grasp on it - i want to properly understand it before i get to it.
but, i just need to focus and do it.
6:27
i think the anxiety i'm feeling is actually disappointment in myself. i'm coming face to face with the fact that i haven't gotten more done, that i'm working out things i should have finished, by now. and, i'm trying to figure out all of the thing i need to do by 2026 and sort of short circuiting.
i can tell myself that i've gotten plenty done, and that it was just of a different nature.
but, i can't hide the fact that i'm disappointed in the amount of music i've produced, recently.
and, now that i'm typing that, it's resolving.
how do i actually get this done? that's the question i need to answer. the written component is just so fucking time consuming, and i wanted it to be the fast, easy part. as it is, it's just cutting into the production time...
6:40
ok.
if the machine is broadly usable, i need to do everything i can on there, first. that's what i was doing, but i stopped to do some reading, and got distracted. like, ridiculously distracted.
it's not like it was unproductive, i would have to do it anyways, but i really want to reassert some direction in what i'm doing. i was laser-focused, then - i knew exactly what i was doing.
let me try to multitask on the machine, at least, and see if i can file and do this at the same time.
as mentioned, this is a noise piece. it's not going to have much live music, and may not have any at all. i'm going to be creating weird noises in cool edit and putting them together...
6:53
it's only once i feel that the machine is in order that i can get back to the alter-reality and the asimov reviews.
the reason for that is that the process of rebuilding from 2013 relies on the machine being in better order.
but, i'm just circling around again, i get it. i get stuck doing something, and i move to the next thing, and get stuck, and move again. i'm not finishing anything. it's frustrating, but so be it.
6:55
is it weird that i get so upset about this when faced with a lack of productivity?
well, this is how i've defined my existence. if i'm not getting things done, i'm not existing with any meaning. it's the absence of purpose that's getting under my skin, and i'm expressing a sort of remorse at not fulfilling my potential, as i've defined it.
there's no point in getting emotional about it.
the flip side is that i get a feeling of euphoria when i finish a project, that's connected to a feeling of fulfillment at my purpose and identity.
it's almost like i'm a robot, right? it's those positronic potentials.
but, in all seriousness, this is what and who i am and if i can't get something done, i'm not existing in a meaningful manner. this is why i exist. i need to actually exist.
calm down, jess - you've been working, even if you don't have a completed project to show for it. even if it's been frustration, for too long. keep struggling - there's some completion at the end of it.
there's no reason, right now, why i can't get things in order, except the time required to do it, and the fact that i can't listen to eight things at the same time.
7:18
so, is the problem the video card?
i haven't tried cubase, yet.
one thing at a time.
7:20
yeah, i expected this to be relatively quick as i had the files already put together. there's going to be a first draft done son, and i'll have to decide if i want to add anything to it or not.
9:04
so, i'm releasing this as a double ep today, although i'm going to need the add the extra two tracks as they come up.
that means inri076 is now done. i have inri075, inri077 and inri078 left to finish to complete period 3.1
as mentioned, the lead track is very strange. it's meant to represent a soul swap. i'll get into this later.
12:23
tuesday, january 4, 2022
so, it took me a fair amount of time to go through the notes for the last two years on the karen/cop case (that's right. after filing access requests, i learned the karen that filed a false report to get me arrested is actually a cop. so, what the fuck?), but i seem to now have all of the raw information in order.
i left off with a contradiction regarding the ability to file a reply factum. see, the oiprd botched the case. you have to understand that the system is set up to provide for ethnic representation, rather than competency, so they go out on the street looking for "representatives of the community" and ask them to fill in as lawyers. this is supposed to make brown people feel less intimidated by the system, but the actual result is that nobody knows what the fuck they're doing, and when situations finally do end up in court, they're a mass.
so, what happened was that the oiprd botched the report, then tried to compensate by filing a 53 page factum (almost three times as long as the statutory limit), which i let them get away with, on the grounds that i could file a reply factum. but, you have to get a motion to appeal, which i did. the justice said it's ok, so long as i get consent, which i did, in exchange for filing the 53 page factum in the first place. but, then i have to file a consent motion, and i can't, because i'd have to declare i'm not under disability, and i am under disability. i was planning on approaching this by asserting the rules of procedure in a byzantine, ridiculous way [i had, i think, 8 motions that followed from each other, to deal with one issue after the other], but, in hindsight, i decided to just ask. i mean, i'm not solving a math problem; i'm not in an epic struggle with a robot. the justice is a human being. rather than bombard him with a logical blitzkreig, i can just be reasonable and ask. the intent to allow for filing is there, anyways. but, i still had to pull all of the pieces together, because i have to build this ridiculous motion record from it.
i also have two new pieces of evidence to file:
- the karen admitted that she used a false identity in her correspondence with the human rights tribunal
- the karen had a previous "employer-employee" relationship with the crown's office, which was responsible for the arrest and the charges.
so, it's easy to piece together what happened: karen calls her buddies up, and has me illegally arrested, without a warrant. not only was it illegal - in technical terms - but there's evidence of a clear abuse of power, including the filing of a false report. and, because karen isn't technically an officer, that's a crime punishable by jail time in this country. i do intend to send the karen to jail, in the end - payback's a bitch.
payback's a karen.
the purpose of this case is to get the divisional court to declare the arrest illegal. i will then use that in the human rights case, and also use it to file a constitutional challenge against the city of windsor.
it took me an extreme amount of effort to get the thing scheduled, and to wrench information out of the various agencies, but there's enough here for the justice to at least order more information. if he's not convinced that the conflict of interest is an abuse of power, he can ask for more evidence, for example - and he'll get documents that i can't get.
for example, there's the curious issue of the apparently altered court audio. i have 25 years experience working with digital audio, and while the format they gave it to me in - a transcoded wma file embedded in an encrypted html document, that was only directly accessible by pulling it out of the windows temp directory - made any kind of actual analysis impossible, it's clear enough that the audio was spliced. the relics in the cut are unmistakable.
so, you've got a karen that works for the crown attorney, and you've got altered court audio, on top of an illegal arrest. yeah - this bitch even tried to cover her steps, too. but, how do i get the court office to give me those files, when they probably did the deed? i need an external court order, and i need it from high up.
early april.
but, i need to do a lot of housekeeping with these documents, first.
so, who is this woman? i don't know. i can't find any information about any caroline chevalier in windsor.
but, i wonder if it's potentially caroline mulroney, who was the attorney general of the province at the time, and who is known to own property and have political contacts in the area. would you believe something as crazy as that? would you believe something half as crazy as that?
10:09
what i'm seeking is a little bit of long overdue covid realism.
it's time to get serious about moving on.
10:14
no, this really isn't about accepting or rejecting science. what does the science say? it says you have to let the virus spread. we can have debates about the science, and i may actually argue that we seem to have a developing discourse with science on one side and "progressives" on the other, but don't tell me i'm rejecting science. that's bullshit.
my position is actually that i don't fucking care about old people. let them die.
there's winners and losers in life, and it's time to leave the elderly behind. that's my position. and, how does that intersect with the science, in terms of what viruses do?
10:57
we're ruining the lives of young people to maximize life expectancy for the decrepit.
we're cancelling curable cancer surgeries for young people to put 80 year olds on life support.
it's fucking backwards thinking - we need to get our priorities in order. we're wasting resources in an utterly foolish way.
every society in the history of the world, except our decaying gerontocracy driven by me-generation baby boomers, has realized that the young take priority over the old. i'm just baffled that we keep making ass-backwards decisions; we've got 30 year old mothers dying of breast cancer to save 80 year old dementia patients. it's fucking retarded...
i'm not one for morals - it's slavery - but i'm a decent person. i'd stop short of rounding them up and shooting them. the society should make some effort. sure.
but, what we're doing is flat out idiotic, and it's long time we pulled our heads out of our asses.
i don't care if they die anymore, if i ever did in the first place. i want to move on, now.
11:05
elderly covid patients should be at the very, very bottom of the list of health care priorities, not at the top of it.
that they're at the top rather than the bottom is a mistake in the distribution of resources.
we need to correct that mistake, now, and carry on.
11:11
i want us all to move into the new year with a renewed focus on the future and on the young people that will inhabit it.
i want to leave the past - and those that lived in it - behind.
so, let's get going.
the future awaits us.
11:18
no - cruz is right. the democrats' attempt to impeach trump was a stupid, political stunt, and biden voted in favour both times. payback is justified.
that said, cruz has forgotten about the clinton impeachment, which was no less bullshit. and, he may want to contemplate whether that balances out, and what the longterm consequences of tit for tat are on this.
i've actually called for biden's impeachment on national security grounds, and i think there's a far stronger case that his foreign policy is impeachable than that trump conspired with russia - which is literally a baseless conspiracy theory, and described as one by all sources.
12:02
this is the kind of outcome that free speech advocates have been warning about in this country for decades, and that sets an absolutely pathetic precedent for speech rights going forwards. the conduct of the judges here makes a mockery of the rule of law. that said, these are lower court rulings, and i'd expect the situation to be corrected at the supreme court level.
i would hope that he successfully fights extradition and that the case becomes the embarrassment to this country that it should be, in the process.
allowing frivolous, stupid rulings like this one to stand will be the death to free speech in this country, which is already well on the way to it's embrace of islamic backwardsness.
20:27
mohamad fakih is a baby-killer and a terrorist.
20:30
this man is a baby killer.
this man is a terrorist.
and, this man is a bourgeois, anti-speech islamofascist, too.
20:32
i would encourage you to spread the word about mohamad fakih being a baby-killing, anti free speech, bourgeois, terrorist islamofascist, too.
20:34
also, mohamad fakih needs to invest in better facial hair removal tactics. he's clearly not very good at personal hygiene. he looks like a homeless bum.
21:17
ok, maybe i don't know that mohamad fakih is a baby killer or a terrorist, maybe i just heard it somewhere. but, i'd challenge you to demonstrate any kind of material harm in the repetition of the claim. and, let's remember that the point at issue, in law, is the question of harm.
mohamad fakih's feelings are of no consequence, legally, and nobody cares if he's offended. his legal remedies are relegated strictly to the question of financial harm, and i'd challenge you to demonstrate any - or fuck off and leave me alone.
but, i do know, for sure, that mohamad fakih is an anti free speech, bourgeois islamofascist - that's a statement of fact, and i'll hold to it as such.
22:20
also, the beard is legitimately disgusting.
22:21
when people argue that islam is intolerant of individual freedom, and they end up in jail for it, it makes you wonder if they might be on to something.
it's a demonstration that they're actually correct - that what they're saying is actually true.
right?
22:32
what i see in the situation is a harmless dolt that got attacked by a wealthy, powerful muslim for essentially annoying him and that proved to everybody that he doesn't understand or respect free speech, and essentially proved the guy right.
and, this is the problem that's developing in this country: rich people using poorly written laws to throw people that disagree with them in jail.
that's worth fighting to overturn.
22:34
we can't have a society develop where the wealthy can buy their way to special treatment by the law, and run roughshod over constitutional protections in the process.
but, it's only so useful to blame the guy for being an islamofascist, which is clearly upheld by the facts. it's fundamentally a problem of systemic corruption, where a system is willing to enforce the values of the strong upon those of the weak, in exchange for a few dollars to do it.
22:38
i said this at the start: the actual takeaway from the situation is that mohamad fakih should truly be ashamed of himself for being a bully, in using his money and power and prestige to attack a poor person he found annoying, and in using the corruption inherent in the system to deprive him of his fundamental human rights.
now, we're left hoping the americans can see the situation for what it is and not send him back to jail.
and, we should all be collectively embarrassed at ourselves and by our country for such a sad state of affairs.
22:41
so, did omicron peak before new year's?
or were people looking to take a gamble to get the weekend off, in getting an excuse to call in sick?
22:46
listen, i'm under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to like religious people, be they quakers or muslims or whatever else, if i legitimately don't like them. and, i legitimately don't like them - i reject their values. sorry.
islam, as an ideological system, has problems with allowing dissent, and that's something that is fundamentally incompatible with western culture. i'm not interested in pretending otherwise, i'm interested in identifying systems of authoritarianism and extremism and neutralizing them as best as possible.
but, given islam's inability to deal with dissent, it's not surprising that authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent is such a problem in the muslim community. our legal system needs to acknowledge that as a problem and adjust to it, not pretend it doesn't exist.
the problem with the ruling liberals is that they're such open bourgeois class elitists as much as it is anything else. but, i don't really have a good answer, other than to keep making the right arguments until the judges wake the fuck up and fucking get it.
23:56
wednesday, january 5, 2022
so, how's my suggestion of no subzero days here going?
this is december:
does -0.4 count?
there's one clear subzero day, and it was a weird day where it never warmed up.
that said, 0 is an arbitrary metric, and this is just one reading, at the airport. -3 is not exactly cold. i'm going to hold to the idea, even if i need to introduce a slightly wider error bar. if i claim we'll get no sub-zero days and the worst we get is 5 or 6 days in the -2 to -3 range, i think i got the idea right.
we're five days into january and the highs are +5, -3, -3, +1, +2. so, i'm still right...
there are some colder days in the forecast, but we've seen that before, and we'll see if it pans out or not. my claim was audacious - no subzero days in a city in canada, even if it's the southernmost of them all? - but that was the point. so maybe we'll have one cold day this year. if we do, that hardly undoes the point.
the long range forecasts were calling for a deep freeze over christmas, so i clearly got the idea right more than they did. and, again - i'm just basing this on longterm climate projections, and how they're expected to undo observed cyclical patterns, over time. the forecasts are not built to understand climate change, but we're in the throes of it, and it's going to accelerate. so, my analysis will push the point further and further.
expect five or six very hot years coming up here in eastern north america, before i'll have to look at the situation again and recalibrate.
0:26
so, what am i doing?
the pc is working. so, i need to get to the next step, which means installing cubase (i haven't done it yet). i took notes over may and june about what i was doing, and wanted to check them...
so, i'm rebuilding the music journal, specifically, over that period, so i can consult those specific notes.
clearly, i'm fighting with some entity regarding the asimov posts, so i'm going to put it aside for a bit and come back later. maybe they'll get bored and leave me alone. i don't have a desire to struggle like this over my own writing, it's just time consuming and stupid.
so, i'm going to be putting a total focus on the recording for now, and will get back to the alter-reality some day, maybe, whenever. i've just lost all excitement around it, because somebody is ruining it for me :(.
2:03
i actually think that sending property taxes up by 20-30% would do a lot of good right now - it would both take advantage of the real estate bubble, in terms of using it to redirect funds towards a useful sector [social services] and away from wasteful savings accounts, and it would act as a disincentive to elevate prices.
so, can the federal government introduce a parallel property tax?
2:25
thursday, january 6, 2022
so, if the state is going to continue to attack "the unvaccinated" (it even looks like some specious freudian bullshit in it's use of an article, the, to describe a group of people) as scapegoats in a fascist attempt to bolster their own power, the correct approach is to prove them wrong by demonstrating how overwhelmingly prejudiced and bafflingly ignorant they are in terms of not understanding what the science says.
underlying the fascism is the claim that full vaccination (remember when that meant 70%? now, it seems to mean 99%. and, the shifting goalposts seem to suggest it's an intentionally impossible to reach endpoint, that there is in fact no level of vaccination that will give us back our stolen freedoms. it's like something directly out of orwell.) will end the pandemic. this claim is false, both in terms of what epidemiologists understand about vaccination (the "science") and in terms of what "the experts" on the ground are saying (you'll never find an actual expert anywhere that will tell you that vaccination will end the pandemic).
so, if the prime minister insists on peddling prejudice and ignorance, he should be called on being prejudiced and ignorant.
i'm not going to waste too much of my time, but i'll chip at it as it comes up.
this is a recent study done in the new england journal of medicine:
as it is obvious that:
(1) omicron is much more vaccine resistant
(2) future strains will be even more vaccine resistant and
(3) natural immunity should actually help your immune system more than rna vaccines, as the virus mutates further from the source,
these studies will continue to pile up, and the prime minister's abject scientific ignorance will be exposed for the whole world to see.
i welcome this debate, because i know i'm right, and i know my opponents are idiots. this is a debate that i know i can win, and that i intend to win.
we're not getting anywhere with vaccination, and we're not getting anywhere with masks. so, i'm going to again call on the state to finally come forward with clear objectives regarding what it hopes to accomplish by continuing with restrictions, and clear timelines regarding the implementation of those objectives.
what i'm asking for is basic competency, and it's a lot to ask for given the actors, but i insist they at least give it a try.
2:00
the policies being pushed by the state are not science-based, and we win our freedom back by winning that debate, by showing how ignorant and uninformed they are and, in the process, putting these stupid, half-literate, scientifically ignorant arts majors back in their rightful place, at the bottom of society.
2:08
every single policy unfolded by the state to reduce the spread of the virus has failed, and essentially none of them had any science, whatsoever, underlying them. it was this parade of abject stupidity, brought to us by losers with no business making policy decisions, that could have been (and was...) predicted to fail at the moment of implementation by anybody with a modicum of basic intelligence.
now, we're standing here three years later, and the foresight of the smart people was correct: we have a pile of failed policies that all of the smart people predicted would fail and did, in fact, fail.
so, what does the liberal intellegentsia do? it predictably blames the failure of it's own policies on poor people that couldn't follow directions. because they knew better the whole time, and if only everybody listened to them.
no - i'm sick of this.
it's their policies that failed and they failed because they were stupid. let's learn and move on.
4:15
what we have before us is an incredible demonstration of the complete failure of authoritarian statism.
don't let the fuckers confuse you, and try to blame it on us, instead - it's their policies that failed, and everybody with any intelligence knew they would fail, ahead of time.
4:17
now, let me be clear as to why i'm not getting vaccinated.
first, i don't fucking care if i make you sick. that's not my problem, just don't stain my shoes with your worthless blood as you're bleeding to death, please. thanks.
second, i was convinced from the start that i'd be better off with natural immunity, and i wanted to wait for the science, to see how it would compare - is natural immunity more effective than vaccine immunity against new variants, in the long run? the science would suggest that it ought to be, but it's an empirical question. and, the data is coming back suggesting that natural immunity is in fact stronger (which seems to have to do with the technology used to make the vaccine). remember: this is an individual decision, and not a collective one. i might tell you to get vaccinated if you're old or weak, as it might help your chances. but, i decided that, because i'm young and strong, i could fight the virus myself, and i'd be better off if i did.
third, i think i caught the virus very early in the pandemic. like, before it was announced - in december, 2019. excluding the odd cough, i haven't been sick at all, since.
fourth, i just like to piss people off. if you're going to force me to get vaccinated, i'm going to tell you to fuck off, out of spite.
i don't think vaccines kill people, and i don't think vaccines cause autism, and almost nobody actually does. not getting vaccinated is not an ideology that people can look up in a book and understand the viewpoints espoused by it's adherents. it's not a religion, and it's not a movement. it's just a personal choice. so, if you're going to spout ignorant, prejudiced bullshit that is void of any basis of fact, i'm going to call you on it to your face. but, i'm also going to continue to cite the hate embedded in religious literature as projective of the views held by the adherents of those religions. and, i'm going to call you a retard if you can't figure out the difference.
4:26
what's happening to assange is very sad and everything, but there was never any other potential outcome. the reason we're upset about it in the west is that we have this unusual attachment to press freedom and the state consequently can't get away with the kind of show trial that you'd see in china, or most countries in world history. most cultures in world history would decide he's a traitor and do away with him in a raucous public execution, followed by street parties in celebration at the smiting of the state's enemy. but, the west has the history of needing to overthrow roman colonialism, and never being able to quite do it entirely, so we have this strange lionization of the william wallace archetype, and romanticize dying in battle. i'm guilty of it, myself. it's irrational, and a little barbaric, but it's easy to see from looking through this page that i'm going to side with the barbarians and demand my freedom. they can take our lives...
what assange did was invaluable to human history, but he must have been resigned to the outcome.
whatever you think of it, there isn't a state in the history of the world that would let assange survive after what he did. i think he was a patsy, in the end: he was mostly being fed cia controlled leaks, and did their dirty work (since attributed to the russians) in taking out clinton. that doesn't change the need to make the arguments in his favour, and hope, maybe, somebody listens...
but, it's hard to imagine a state that would let assange get away with leaking documents in that manner.
and, we wouldn't need an assange if we didn't have a state.
6:27
i actually think the conservative moral panic on display here is hilarious.
smoking anything should not be allowed on any plane (or much of anywhere inside), but i don't really have a problem with people passing around 40s, or see anything wrong with the behaviour of these passengers, more broadly.
i'm more concerned about the premise of entering into a right-wing society obsessed with morality, and more concerned about the threat to my freedom presented by these so-called pundits, who would send us all to church at gunpoint if they could.
i think that we got caught off guard by this sudden surge of socially conservative moralism, and haven't really come to terms with it, or the threat it poses to society. there's still a broad feeling that this is temporary, and our rights are secure. i don't know how to wake people up besides continue to point it out.
there were prominent voices calling for these people to be arrested and fined for what was entirely harmless behaviour, for the simple reason that it offended some conservatives. there's been no discernible criticism of that authoritarian position. alarm bells should be being set off about the kind of mobilization that is required to reassert our rights.
12:50
i've pointed out before that i'd be happy to take an antibody test, but that doesn't seem interesting to anybody, because nobody cares about the science.
but, what we're seeing is a spectrum reversal around this, where the liberals are embracing the far right and the conservatives are shifting towards the centre.
i hate them both equally right now (a more moderate approach on vaccination doesn't undo the conservative party's much more problematic market fundamentalism), but that's actually longstanding with me. i'm frustrated by the liberal party's embrace of the extreme right on vaccination authoritarianism, but i've been frustrated with them for years, and i still think the better option is to remove this conservative leadership team that's taken over the liberal party and replace them with some actual liberals.
if i'm forced to have to choose between the conservatives and the conservatives, i'll pick neither.
i've put this condition down before regarding vaccination: i'd need a state-funded antibody test before i'd even think about it. if i have antibodies (as i think i do...), i'm as protected as anybody else. if i don't have antibodies yet, at this point, i could at least think about getting vaccinated.
but, my individual health is paramount, not the health of others, and i will make an individual health decision, and will not be coerced to act in the best interests of society.
20:08
there's a perception, i think, that getting vaccinated, even if you've had a prior infection, is playing the odds, being sure. this perception is not just incorrect, but exactly backwards.
it's "common sense", right? sure! and, that's why it's wrong...
the fact is that there's millions of vaccinated people walking around out there that actually don't have antibodies. that's what the error bars are: vaccines fail to produce an immune response in about 10% of recipients. so, if you check for vaccination status at the door of a large event, you'll get a roughly 10% error rate.
that's not a conspiracy theory - that's easily accessible, factual data. you can go to phizer's website and find that data. it's at the who, it's at health canada...
so, how do we know if the vaccine actually produced an immune response or not, in any specific individual?
the answer is that we test that individual for antibodies.
logically, then, we should have antibody passports, and not vaccine passports, and you shouldn't be eligible for the antibody passport until you can prove that your immune system actually responded to the vaccine - and should be eligible for it, if you've had a prior infection.
playing it safe means getting tested for antibodies after you've been vaccinated, not getting vaccinated after you've tested positive for antibodies. vaccination is a tool, a means to an end, and not an end in itself; the end is herd immunity. so, what we want is a population with antibodies, and we don't care about vaccination, per se.
that's the error that the state is making, here: it is treating vaccination as an end in itself, when it should be treating it as a mere tool, one of many, and one with limitations, to get to the actual end point, which is widespread immunity, not widespread vaccination.
20:34
if i tried to hand in a lab report without error bars, i wouldn't just get an F, i'd get ridiculed, and possibly thrown out of the program.
but, that's exactly the pathetic mistake that the state is making over and over again in insisting on vaccination as a status indicator.
science is measurement, and measurement is meaningless without error. it follows that a very substantive part of doing science is measuring error. when you leave administration of science up to a state, which is primarily concerned with trivialities like finance, you're going to see the concept of error get lost. the fact that statists also tend to be religionists, authoritarians and literalists (that's why they're statists...) makes them that much more oblivious to the necessary place of error in any scientific application: they want authoritarian dictates of fact, not careful analyses with error bars.
error-correction, in context, actually means focusing on antibodies and not on vaccines. that's the safe bet. that's how to be sure.
but, all you'll hear from the media is the opposite, as they repeat the "get vaccinated" mantra, like a bunch of brainwashed sheep straight out of yoga class.
most countries in the world understand everything i just typed; we're nearly unique in our incompetence, in this respect.
21:06
it's what happens when you put a bunch of stupid arts majors that still couldn't pass grade 10 science, as grown-ass adults, in charge of a public health emergency: they have no choice but to accept the science on faith, because they don't have the mental capacity to understand it. science becomes literal truth; error is nowhere to be found.
i haven't done a survey, i admit. but, i challenge you to find me any sort of health policy document that makes any kind of novice or rudimentary attempt to analyze error, at all. it's just foreign to their thought processes. they expect truth, they expect certainty, they expect authority. they can't deal with error...
but the error rate for vaccination was about 10%, when this started. that came down with delta and is coming down further with omicron. it will decrease even more in the upcoming months.
that's science: error. uncertainty. deal with it.
21:09
and, that's reality, too - uncertainty.
deal with that, as well.
21:10
i'm imagining a lab technician chasing me out of the herzberg building with a pitchfork, and telling me not to come back 'round these parts, no more.
damned floozy tried to hand in a lab report without error bars, and not once, but twice. we can't have them types around here. might corrupt the place with their laziness. science without error is just another kind of faith. you let that kind of thinking get out of hand, and we'll be on our faces praying to statues of galileo, in no time.
21:37
friday, january 7, 2022
see, this is a perfect example of the incompetence of statist policy.
first, they misappropriate resources so that they're wasting public money dealing with these useless, decrepit, dying geriatrics with covid, thereby putting off surgeries for young people that should be prioritized over care for useless old people. then, they blame their incompetency on the general public, instead of taking responsibility for their stupid mistake in misappropriating resources and causing the deaths of these innocent people.
it is exceedingly unlikely that this policy will have any effect on hospitalization rates, and it is exceedingly unlikely that it will increase vaccination rates. rather, it seems to simply be a right-wing attack on the liquor industry, one that will simply result in lower revenues for an agency that the state actually owns and operates. the most likely outcome of this policy is the development of an illegal liquor market in quebec.
is this morality? it's a very strange concept of it, one that deflects responsibility and attacks other people. any concept of morality worth bothering with (and there are few that are...) would insist on personal responsibility for mistakes made and insist on inclusiveness and unity. if the idiots wanted to demonstrate some concept of morality, they would take responsibility for the misappropriation of resources away from cancer wards and towards covid patients, and they would publicly apologize for it. and, in fact they really ought to resign over it - if they have any sense of decency at all.
so, is quebec on the path back to speakeasies and rum-running? if they are, blame the state for it.
3:23
it is not the public that is at fault for the failures of the state.
and, the state needs to be held accountable for the deaths that they've caused via their incompetence in misappropriating resources that should have never been redirected in the first place.
3:25
the claim that the pandemic is being prolonged by people not getting vaccinated is factually incorrect, and those repeating it are spouting anti-choice misinformation rooted in prejudice and ignorance.
i've already done a fair amount of analysis in this space debunking that claim. it's a great example of "common sense" replacing empiricism and logic in analysis, and a perfect demonstration of the resulting prejudice and ignorance that follows from relying on intuition instead of evidence.
"the unvaccinated" that are "clogging up hospitals" are actually mostly people too old or sick to get vaccinated. the difference in admittance rates is negligible for people under 70 - if you've been led to believe that the hospitals are being clogged by unvaccinated people, that is at best a half-truth, and in reality a malicious lie, as the hospitals are being clogged by elderly unvaccinated people, of which it stands to reason most have health reasons underlying their decision to not be vaccinated. the people you see out on the street protesting vaccination policy are not causing the backlog and have nothing to do with the misappropriation of resources by the hospital system, which is responsible for the unnecessary deaths we're seeing from treatable conditions. death rates are negligible amongst young people, whether they're vaccinated or not. underlying conditions remain the primary cause of death, which occur primarily in people over 70 - and increasingly in unvaccinated people over 70.
what the media and state are doing is presenting a correlation without providing a mechanism. the data is not being released, and it's easy to guess that it's because they don't want you to sort through it. but, it only took me a few minutes to look at the data released by a government study a little while ago to conclude that the correlation was misleading, because it only holds in the elderly. when you introduce proper controls for age, the correlation collapses, and the claim falls apart.
canada has some of the highest vaccination rates in the world, and our hospital system remains on the brink of collapse due to mismanagement and underfunding. the empirical evidence is very clear that this has nothing to do with vaccination rates, and everything to do with politicians not giving the system enough resources to operate properly and hospital administrators making idiotic decisions regarding how to utilize resources.
and, i will continue to throw this bullshit in their faces, when it comes up, because that's what it is - easily debunked, evidence-free, mathematically illiterate, anti-science, ignorant, prejudiced bullshit.
3:47
i would like to see some wrongful death class action suits against the hospitals for their misappropriation of resources.
there should be consequences for their incompetence.
3:52
we have too many old people, and they're living too long. that's what viruses do - they get rid of old people. and, we're just prolonging the inevitable.
we would have been far better off if we'd have just let the process run it's course, and be done with them, already.
4:01
that is the root of the problem, and why this is taking so long - we have too many old people, and we're misappropriating resources to deal with them, rather than directing those resources towards the future, and leaving the elderly behind.
4:03
so, what have i been doing?
i went out early wednesday morning to get my groceries done in one shot, and got almost everything done, but it was many hours worth of walking, often with large loads, and took quite a bit out of me, in the process. hey, i need to get some exercise, and wasting a few days a month is better than only having a few days to myself. but, i've been sleeping almost solid since wednesday afternoon, just getting up to eat.
i wanted to clean when i got in and get back to work for the weekend, but it's looking like it may take a few extra days to get everything cleaned and organized. that's ok. that's life.
so, i'll just be off and on here for the next few days, mostly when eating, as i focus on cleaning in here, for the month.
5:57
it's not clear what's going on, here. the russians are bound by this security treaty, but they kind of just got drawn out, and certainly don't want a two-front war. this isn't a display of power, it's a display of weakness - they see a serious threat in kazakhstan.
surely, it's not from some kids with molotovs.
the primary concern from the russians around the supposed withdrawal of american trops from afghanistan was that it might lead to us-backed destabilization tactics in central asia. well, what just happened? and why did the russians need to bring in special forces to deal with it?
i'm speculating. the russians will obfuscate via non-disclosure, and the pentagon will lie to you with a straight face. you can't get a good picture of what's happening from a distance, which is why what vice news did in ukraine was so valuable.
but, if somebody told me that the americans just redeployed from afghanistan to kazakhstan (as though that was the actual point) and the russians had to step in to stop it before it started, i might be inclined to believe it.
9:42
generally speaking, organic opposition movements don't prioritize seizing the airport.
9:50
see, and then the russians come in and take the airport...
9:59
saturday, january 8, 2022
what the pandemic has exposed is that we have an aging population that requires immense resources and don't have the infrastructure to deal with it, which is something that was already understood.
i'm actually more concerned about the fact that we don't have the housing infrastructure to deal with hundreds of thousands of immigrants per year, but we see a commonality: we don't have the infrastructure.
and, the cause of it all is decades of government mismanagament, due in no small part to the free-market ideology brought in with neo-liberalism. our health care system wasn't funded - and this is the result. we stopped building community housing - and we see the result. etc.
4:24
we're back to very weird results this month.
| 2021 | 2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| m | a | m | j | j | a | s | o | n | d | j | f | m | a | m | j | j | a | s | o | n | d | |
| creatinine | 78/80 | - | - | - | - | 87 | 84 | 83 / 81 | 80 | 90/64 | 66 | |||||||||||
| egfr | 107/106 | - | - | - | - | 96 | 100 | 101 / 104 | 106 | 92/116 | 115 | |||||||||||
| alp | 61 | - | - | 63 | 59 | 50 | 60 | 59 /55 | 47 | 50 | 60 | |||||||||||
| albumin | -/45.7 | - | - | - | 45.9 | 44.6 | 46.8 | 48 /46 | 46.7 | 49.8 | 43.7 | |||||||||||
| cholesterol | 3.93 | - | - | - | 3.99 | 3.8 | 4.15 | 4.01/3.83 | 4.14/4.02 | 4.14/3.67 | 3.54 | |||||||||||
| triglycerides | .87 | - | - | - | .95 | .89 | 1.41 | 1.05/0.94 | 1.09/1.32 | 1.86/0.73 | 2.26 | |||||||||||
| hdl | 1.69 | - | - | - | 1.84 | 1.59 | 1.73 | 1.42/1.55 | 1.37/1.42 | 1.51/1.74 | 1.75 | |||||||||||
| ldl | 1.85 | - | - | - | 1.72 | 1.81 | 1.78 | 2.11/1.85 | 2.28/2.00 | 1.79/1.6 | <0.8 | |||||||||||
| non-hdl | 2.24 | - | - | - | 2.15 | 2.21 | 2.42 | 2.59/2.28 | 2.77/2.60 | 2.63/1.93 | 1.79 | |||||||||||
| wbc | 8.7/8.4 | 9.9/9.0 | - | - | ? | 7.0 | 7.6 | 6.9/6.9 | 7.8 | 11.3/8.2 | 6.7 | |||||||||||
| rbc | 3.97/4.25 | 4.11/4.38 | - | - | 4.17 | 4.12 | 4.33 | 4.47/4.2 | 4.28 | 4.55/4.19 | 4.3 | |||||||||||
| hemoglobin | 132/140 | 133/142 | - | - | 139 | 136 | 141 | 138/138 | 139 | 144/131 | 141 | |||||||||||
| hematocrit | .382/.404 | .394/.424 | - | - | .405 | .398 | .418 | .417/.402 | .405 | 0.431/0.393 | .409 | |||||||||||
| mcv | 96.1/95.1 | 95.8/97.0 | - | - | 97 | 96.8 | 96.6 | 93/95.7 | 94.6 | 94.7/94 | 95 | |||||||||||
| mch | 33.1/32.9 | 32.4/32.5 | - | - | 33.3 | 33.2 | 32.7 | 30.9/32.8 | 32.5 | 31.8/31.3 | 32.7 | |||||||||||
| mchc | 345/346 | 338/335 | - | - | ? | 343 | 338 | 331/343 | 344 | 335/333 | 344 | |||||||||||
| rdw | 13.3/13.5 | 13.0/13.1 | - | - | ? | 13 | 12.3 | 11.7/12.9 | 12.6 | 13.4/12.0 | 13.2 | |||||||||||
| platelet | 199/187 | 171/171 | - | - | ? | 175 | 167 | 168/150 | 155 | 188/185 | 159 | |||||||||||
| reticulocytes | - | -/42 | - | - | 53 | 56 | 46 | 35 | 33 | 33 | 39 | |||||||||||
| vitamin d | 87 | - | - | - | 109 | 72 | 64 | 72/83 | 78 | 64/71 | 61 | |||||||||||
| estradiol | 363/388 | - | - | - | - | 563 | 443 | 432 | 777 | 343 | ||||||||||||
| estrone | - | - | - | - | - | ? | 4138 | 5203 | 7000+ | - | ||||||||||||
| testosterone | 0.9 | - | - | - | - | - | <0.4 | <0.4 | <0.4 | <0.4 | ||||||||||||
| progesterone | 1.9 | - | - | - | - | - | <0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||
| fsh | <0.2 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.2 | 0.1 | <0.1 | - | ||||||||||||
| lh | <0.2 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | ||||||||||||
| ferritin | 12/9 | 6/17 | 21 | - | 29 | 43 | 28 | 40 | 42 | 59 | 33 | |||||||||||
| tibc | - | 69.5 | - | - | 65.7 | 62.9 | 64.7 | 58.9 | 58.2 | 63.2 | 57.4 | |||||||||||
| iron | - | 9.6 | - | - | 22.7 | 37.3 | 19.3 | 28.3 | 37.3 | 32.5 | 13.1 | |||||||||||
| iron sat | - | 0.14 | - | - | 0.35 | 0.59 | 0.3 | .48 | 0.64 | 0.51 | 0.23 | |||||||||||
| transferrin | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.59 | 2.29 | 2.38 | 2.49 | ||||||||||||
| sodium | - | - | - | - | - | - | 141 | 141/139 | 140 | 141 | 138 | |||||||||||
| potassium | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5.0 | 4.7/4.6 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 4.7 | |||||||||||
| chloride | - | - | - | - | - | - | 104 | 107/105 | 104 | 101 | 105 | |||||||||||
| phosphate | -/1.42 | - | - | - | - | 1.09 | 1.34 | 1.08 | 1.35 | 1.27 | 1.13 | |||||||||||
| magnesium | -/.93 | - | - | - | - | 0.8 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.85 | |||||||||||
| calcium | -/2.4 | - | - | - | 2.38 | 2.32 | 2.44 | 2.39 | 2.4 | 2.43 | 2.33 | |||||||||||
| pth | - | - | - | 5.5 | - | 6.2 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 5.5 | 8.0 | 6.3 | |||||||||||
| tsh | 0.92 | - | - | - | - | 0.94 | 1.22 | 1.67 | 1.48 | 1.07 | 1.39 | |||||||||||
| calcitonin | - | - | - | <0.6 | - | - | - | - | <0.6 | - | ||||||||||||
| cortisol | - | - | - | 325 | - | 464 | 170 | 129 | 225 | 136 | ||||||||||||
| insulin | - | - | - | - | - | 50 | 33 | 68 | 92 | 312 | ||||||||||||
| b12 | 223/251 | - | 304 | - | 363 | 313 | 370 | 292 | 369 | 376 | 293 | |||||||||||
the acth came in lowish. so, it seems my kidneys are doing ok.
i ate less this month than i had in previous months, and that explains it to some degree, but i'm just baffled by other parts of it. triglycerides tend to go up after a meal - and i had just eaten before this test, which was intentional this time - but i don't know how to make sense of ldl that low. i had just eaten a large bowl of fruit and a big bowl of dairy and had also drank a lot of soy milk. likewise, i'd taken half of a vitamin d pill about an hour before the test and have been on half a pill of vitamin d twice a day since mid december. that's 1000 iu on top of what should be sufficient dietary intake. my initial hypothesis that my d is coming down to compensate for high calcium seems rational (i just had a big bowl of dairy), but the actual truth is that i don't seem to be able to build any (intuitive) correlation between my d input and my serum levels - i take d pills and the serum levels go down, and i stop taking d pills and my serum levels go up, and it bounces around all over the place, on top of it. at least the pth has come back to what are, for me, normal levels, although i'd like to get it down a little. but, the pth and d both went down...
i've pointed this out before: measuring d seems to be difficult, because it seems to pinpong, as a part of calcium homeostasis. it's really hard to tell with a random snapshot if you're getting enough. but, i've got enough data here now to conclude that i'd like to see the numbers a little higher - even considering the amount of calcium i'm consuming.
so, do i increase the d or keep it stable? i'm going to increase it just to see what happens. i mean, it's better if i get too much than not enough, right? i'm convinced i am getting enough, and it's decreasing to reduce calcium absorption, but let's push it to see. if i'm right, it should go down even further. but, it's better to be on the safe side, given the impossibility of getting sunlight in canada at this time of the year.
the ferritin has come down, and i sort of expected that because i both moved to every third meal (from every second) and i decreased the amount i was eating. so, i went for every second to third day to every seventh day or so. i may have gone as much as ten days. i'm going to go back to every second day for now, with the hope of getting to every third day again, eventually.
the increase in tsh and potassium are suggestive of a rise in testosterone, which i have been feeling, and is potentially a result of a decrease in cyproterone. and, this is really pissing me off, because i'm not supposed to have endogenous production, and i can't find any trace of it, but i can feel it, and i can see the results, by proxy. at the least, this seems consistent, even if i can't be sure it's causal - when i cut cyproterone, tsh goes up and when i increase it, tsh goes down. i may have pushed too far ahead on the decreases, so i've pulled back a little, again. i was previously taking 1/4 twice a day, due to a planned ramp down and suffering through the consequences. i've decided to pull back on that and do the following, instead: 1/4 by default, but 1/2 if i'm feeling a surge. hopefully, that has the effect of training my kidneys to behave.
i understand that i'm chasing a ghost with this, but what i'm feeling is as important as anything else.
so, i understand the iron and will adjust. i don't understand the d, but will adjust. the b12 seems to be a function of total calorie intake within my diet (when i stick to my diet, it goes up), and i can understand it.
i've proved i don't have celiac, and i've tested negative for cancer. the consistently low reticulocyte count suggests that i'm really not bleeding.
but, might i have something like crohn's? indeed, i might. i have no symptoms, though. there's nothing to do but take vitamins, and no pragmatic value in a diagnosis. or, i might just have genes that reduce absorption.
i know i can overpower it if i take a ton of b12 and a ton of iron. and, i may just have to take a ton of d, too. so be it.
i'm going to have to ask about the weird cholesterol, though. is that a symptom of something else? i don't understand that.
22:41
i mean, the most reasonable way to understand the cholesterol is that i simply tested too soon after eating a meal. that could be why my hdl and triglycerides are high, but doesn't really explain the total crash in ldl.
i've seen my ldl go down two readings in a row, now, and i'd actually like to see it go back up. and, this was after being a little concerned about it increasing. like, am i getting drugged with statins, too? fuck off. fucking idiots.
that said, low cholesterol is sometimes a symptom of cancer...
but, i normally have low cholesterol, and you wouldn't normally see high triglycerides, on top of it.
this is annoying, because my cholesterol was consistently outstanding for years - i had this very tightly under control via diet and exercise. that, and estrogen is outstanding for your heart. if somebody decided they should give me testosterone instead, and then compensate by giving me statins, they should be immediately imprisoned and shot. look what you did, you fucking retard. STOP FUCKING WITH MY HEALTH. IT'S UNWANTED. YOU'RE AN IDIOT THAT HAS NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND IS GOING TO KILL ME IN A FIT OF STUPIDITY.
i don't need statins, i need you to stop drugging me with testosterone, you goddamned fucking moron. the estrogen resolves the problem in a much better manner, and with sexual characteristics that i actually want.
on the other hand, if it's just a weird reading, it's just a weird reading. so be it.
i wonder if the massive walk i took on tuesday has anything to do with it...
23:14
i just can't shake the feeling i'm being drugged with testosterone against my will, and that i'm not allowed to know, because it's some kind of government experiment, or something.
so, i showed them that they were boosting my ldl and, instead of stopping, they put me on statins.
retards.
i mean, do you have a better explanation for a crash in ldl like that?
clearly, i don't need the statins, if that's what's going on - i just need to not be given testosterone against my will, and which i'm clearly not responding to with anything except abject hate.
if i'm right, and i ever meet the person responsible for this, i'm going to rip their eyeballs out of their face with my bare hands.
23:18
you're ruining my excellent health, which was in large part due to the estrogen-dominance, you fucking idiots.
i want this to stop.
your theory is moronic. it was debunked 50 years ago, and no further experiments are required. i'm not interested in being the subject that proves you're an imbecile, i want my life and my health back.
23:22
i had my testicles removed because i don't want testosterone, and i consequently shouldn't be able to produce any.
all the tests say i'm not producing any, and i actually at least believe that.
so, why does it constantly feel like i'm dealing with testosterone spikes? and why does taking a 1/2 pill of cyproterone make it stop?
why does it seem like somebody gave me statins, when i clearly don't need them, because i'm actually healthy, unlike my idiot relatives, who all eat shit, sit on their fat asses all day and smoke?
i have some guesses as to who the retard is, and i need to plead with you to acknowledge that you are not an intelligent person, and you have no business making health decisions for somebody that is smarter than you are.
the results are pretty clear, are they not? i can manage my health, and you're a retard.
23:33
if they can put testosterone in my food, they can put statins in my food, right?
do you have a better explanation?
send me an email.
23:42
and, conversely, if it's obvious i'm on statins, it lends credence to the theory that i'm being drugged with testosterone.
23:42
i can't state for sure if my father had a genetic condition regarding high ldl. i can tell you with certainty, though, that his diet was terrible - he ate way too much, and he ate way too much shit. there's no reason to point to genetics, when his lifestyle was discernibly absolutely terrible; whether he had a genetic condition or not, his lifestyle was enough to kill him young. and, he died young.
and, i know that i don't have a genetic condition of the sort - clearly.
23:48
no, i need to...
there is no discernible explanation. somebody put me on statins.
so, i'm right - i'm being drugged with testosterone.
show your face, you coward, so i can smash it in.
23:52
STOP.
23:53
sunday, january 9, 2022
ok.
so, apparently, ldl isn't measured directly. rather,
ldl = total cholesterol - hdl - triglycerides/5
i'd have to convert that, first.
total cholesterol converts from 3.54 mmol/l to 136.9 mg/dl
hdl converts from 1.75 mmol/l to 67.57 mg/dl
triglycerides converts from 2.26 mmol/l to 200.18 mg/dl
then, ldl = 136.9 - 67.57 - 200.18/5 = 29.294, which is about 0.75 mmol/l.
that is just below what is considered to be critically low.
but, it's not an empirical measurement.
regardless, it's crashed, and a lot, and there's no easy way to understand that. that level doesn't appear to be possible outside of the introduction of statins.
and, i don't want or need your fucking statins - the estrogen should take care of it.
estrogen is the preferred therapy, not statins.
fuck off.
0:16
i don't understand why i'm being drugged.
is that what you're trying to convert me into?
i can't have children - i don't have testicles. are you unclear on how that works? no testicles means no sperm means no children. you can't generate sperm in somebody that doesn't have testicles by drugging them with testosterone. that ship has sailed, and good riddance.
is there some thought that i might be more likely to work if i have testosterone? that's idiotic, clearly. i was a miserable, antisocial, social retard before i went into transition. i didn't exactly become a social butterfly, but at least i had a little self-confidence. anybody trying to push me into the workforce should be accelerating the transition, not slowing it down.
so, help me to understand - what is the goal of this endeavour? why is this being done?
i'll tell you what the outcome is - if you give me testosterone, you'll have to sign me up to odsp for life, because the gender dysphoria will keep me out of the workforce, permanently. i'll never be able to present myself in any context in a male gender role; i never have, and i'm never going to.
this is a picture of me in 2010 before i went on hormones. this is what i looked like as a guy:
like, wake the fuck up.
but, i'm clearly not dealing with very intelligent people, so maybe they can't figure that out.
0:26
so, now what do you do?
your unwanted disgusting testosterone is not just degrading my quality of life but also increased my ldl, so you put me on statins, and it's put me at risk for an aneurysm. meanwhile, i'm taking testosterone suppressors to undo the effects of your stupidity, and doubling up on estrogen, on top of it. i'm also going to be switching to a more powerful progestin. so, i'm going to overpower your retardness with more and more female hormones. and, the result is going to cause mayhem in my body, and that's just how it'll have to be, until you fuck off.
it's my body. i make the decisions. and, if i have to kill myself in order to overpower your stupidity, you can take responsibility for the consequences.
i do not want your testosterone, and i do not want your statins to undo the harm caused by your testosterone.
fuck off.
0:37
i'm 29 and a half years old in that picture.
let's post it again.
this is a picture of me at 30 years old, before i started taking hormones:
i probably never went through puberty, and i'm glad that i didn't.
i certainly don't want to, now, at 40 years old, and without testicles.
1:01
ok.
i kind of blew off the triglyceride level, because i'd just eaten. it was two hours after my last meal, and i'd been sipping on a coffee. it was a big meal, too.
looking into it, 2.26 mmol/l is actually not considered high, for non-fasting triglycerides. it would be high for fasting, but it's actually a moderate level, especially after a very big meal.
so, i'm changing the color code on it from red to yellow. i don't need to worry about that, although i'll make sure to fast a little next time.
i'm getting a range of scenarios, here, which is helping me understand how my body works.
but, i need some direction on the ldl, because i'm going to assume somebody drugged me with statins, until i can figure out something better - and insist it cease, immediately.
3:06
ok.
i kind of blew off the triglyceride level, because i'd just eaten. it was two hours after my last meal, and i'd been sipping on a coffee. it was a big meal, too.
looking into it, 2.26 mmol/l is actually not considered high, for non-fasting triglycerides. it would be high for fasting, but it's actually a moderate level, especially after a very big meal.
so, i'm changing the color code on it from red to yellow. i don't need to worry about that, although i'll make sure to fast a little next time.
i'm getting a range of scenarios, here, which is helping me understand how my body works.
but, i need some direction on the ldl, because i'm going to assume somebody drugged me with statins, until i can figure out something better - and insist it cease, immediately.
4:06
viruses are assholes.
4:37
if more unvaccinated people end up dying from the virus, does that mean that unvaccinated people are at a higher risk?
no. that's false.
well, it's technically "not necessarily true". but, we know it's actually false.
the set of all possibilities does include the possibility that foregoing vaccination increases the risk of death, but it also includes the following:
a) it could be that there are social factors that make high risk individuals less likely to get vaccinated (smokers, for example, may decide it's "uncool" to get vaccinated)
b) it could be that foregoing vaccination makes high risk individuals more likely to die (which is what the data actually points towards) but doesn't have an effect on the general population
c) there could be some third factor that both leads to higher risk of death and a decision to forego vaccination. laziness, for example, may lead both to obesity (which is a major risk factor) and a refusal to get vaccinated.
so, there are multiple other explanations to examine. you can't just jump to the one that you like the best, and ignore the others.
worse, the calculation presented to uphold the claim - percentage of unvaccinated deaths in total death population - has nothing to do with the claim itself. the idea that being unvaccinated creates a 6-fold greater risk of death (i think that's the number that the mathematically incompetent journalists "calculated") than being vaccinated simply has nothing to do with the data being cited. rather, you would need to compare the number of dead vaccinated as a percentage of the total vaccinated to the number of dead unvaccinated as a percentage of the total unvaccinated. and, what you're going to find if you do the math is that both numbers are very, very small, so small that it would be very difficult to compare them. i mean, if you want to say that the probability of dying if you're vaccinated is one in five million and the probability of dying if you're unvaccinated is five in five million, you can say that - but those are essentially the same number and the probabilities are essentially the same.
it's the underlying conditions, chiefly driven by age, that determine mortality, and not the vaccination status, in a more general sense. those who do not have underlying conditions do not increase their chances of survival by being vaccinated, but those that have underlying conditions mostly would.
it follows that the health policy, if it were properly informed by the science, would focus strictly on vaccinating those over 50, and leave everybody else alone to fight off a mild virus, if they'd rather.
11:19
but, don't i have a responsibility to help others?
no. that's false. the supreme court has repeatedly rejected the good samaritan principle, and will do again in the future, if necessary.
if i make your 73 year old father sick because he doesn't want to get vaccinated because he beat cancer and he'll beat covid too, dammit, then that's his own stupid fault, and i have no responsibility, or sympathy, for him, whatsoever. it is strictly the responsibility of the vulnerable to protect themselves.
there will be some idiots in the older generation that will kill themselves off, and that's fine - good riddance. it relieves pressure on the housing crisis. let's move on.
11:50
now, the court won't rule on the responsibility to help, but it might rule on a question of negligence. that's more subtle.
i would agree that you shouldn't try to get the old man sick, and should avoid him as much as possible, if you know you're sick. you should behave as a reasonable person would, sure. but, it's not reasonable to be overly concerned, and, in the end, the issue of negligence falls to the old man that would not get vaccinated, and not the young person, so long as they're actually being reasonable.
i understand that there are people that would reverse the impetus and claim some specious ideas about "morality". but, the law is what matters here, not your stupid morals. legally speaking, that claim is wrong - you have no responsibility to protect other people, and if an old man dies due to his own negligence, it's his own fault.
11:55
so, i've got cubase installed and was able to add the album mix as well as a vocalized album mix to the single:
the two 16 minute versions should be seen as final.
i still may add a percussion mix of into oblivion, but that will probably rather end up on the isomorphism single.
23:30
monday, january 10, 2022
the album mix has also been added to the record i'm now working on, which is the long overdue double triival group lp.
0:17
inri076
so, i'm going to start doing something a little different, which is mass mailing completed recordings.
let's get the link in first:
this isn't intended to be a detailed updates list, just a notification that the package is finished. i've tended to avoid doing this sort of "spamming", but i've at this point lost touch with virtually everybody i used to know, and i've stopped using social media altogether, so there isn't a feed to post it to. i've really retreated strictly to email and strictly to total isolation.
if you don't want to receive these updates - which i would not expect to be frequent - then ask me to remove you from my address book. it's a housekeeping process in that sense, as well. i will maintain a bcc.
the context is that, since i moved to windsor, i've been focusing on finishing a large body of musical projects dated 1996-2011 that were left in a partly or mostly incomplete state. inri076 means it's the 77th (starting from 0) recording in the catalogue, but inri075 is not done yet and inri079-inri081 are done. finishing inri075, inri077 and inri078 will take me to the end of what i'm calling period 3.1, which is materially initially started between 2003-2004. period 1 is from 1996-2000 and was completed in 2016. period 2 is from 2000-2003 and was completed in 2015, but updated in 2017. i was working on the written component of my discography between 2018-2020, and fighting with old, finnicky gear.
inri076 is an expansion and completion of the first piece that was recorded when i got back from british columbia in mid 2003 and now forms an extended conceptual double ep. the second and third tracks were recorded in 2003, whereas the first and sixth were recently created in 2021. the fourth and fifth combine parts from 2003 with parts from 2021. this recording is intentionally difficult and esoteric. the album version will appear on my next record.
as this is the first of these, i'll also point out that inri081, which is my 7th lp, was finally finished in june, from material started between 2001-2004 and completed from 2014-2021:
also, my sixth lp (inri063) was completed in 2015, from material started between 2001-2002 and completed from 2014-2015:
...my fifth lp (inri052) was completed in 2014, from material started between 2000-2001 and completed from 2014-2015:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
...my fourth lp (inri041), completed in late 2000, was remixed in 2014:
...my fourth lp (inri041), completed in late 2000, was remixed in 2014:
...my third lp (inri033) has actually not been altered since it's completion in 1999 (except to remove the last track, now on the outtakes compilation, inri042):
...my second lp (inri021), initially created in 1999, was remastered from scratch as an instrumental recording over 2015-2016:
...and my first lp (inri015), initially created in 1998, was also remastered from scratch as an instrumental recording over 2015-2016:
i will be working on inri077 next, which is a collection of demos from late 2003 that were initially recorded on a 4-track cassette deck and were never completed.
j
0:47
inri076
so, i'm going to start doing something a little different, which is mass mailing completed recordings.
let's get the link in first:
this isn't intended to be a detailed updates list, just a notification that the package is finished. i've tended to avoid doing this sort of "spamming", but i've at this point lost touch with virtually everybody i used to know, and i've stopped using social media altogether, so there isn't a feed to post it to. i've really retreated strictly to email and strictly to total isolation.
if you don't want to receive these updates - which i would not expect to be frequent - then ask me to remove you from my address book. it's a housekeeping process in that sense, as well. i will maintain a bcc.
the context is that, since i moved to windsor, i've been focusing on finishing a large body of musical projects dated 1996-2011 that were left in a partly or mostly incomplete state. inri076 means it's the 77th (starting from 0) recording in the catalogue, but inri075 is not done yet and inri079-inri081 are done. finishing inri075, inri077 and inri078 will take me to the end of what i'm calling period 3.1, which is materially initially started between 2003-2004. period 1 is from 1996-2000 and was completed in 2016. period 2 is from 2000-2003 and was completed in 2015, but updated in 2017. i was working on the written component of my discography between 2018-2020, and fighting with old, finnicky gear.
inri076 is an expansion and completion of the first piece that was recorded when i got back from british columbia in mid 2003 and now forms an extended conceptual double ep. the second and third tracks were recorded in 2003, whereas the first and sixth were recently created in 2021. the fourth and fifth combine parts from 2003 with parts from 2021. this recording is intentionally difficult and esoteric. the album version will appear on my next record.
as this is the first of these, i'll also point out that inri081, which is my 7th lp, was finally finished in june, from material started between 2001-2004 and completed from 2014-2021:
also, my sixth lp (inri063) was completed in 2015, from material started between 2001-2002 and completed from 2014-2015:
...my fifth lp (inri052) was completed in 2014, from material started between 2000-2001 and completed from 2014-2015:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
...my fourth lp (inri041), completed in late 2000, was remixed in 2014:
...my fourth lp (inri041), completed in late 2000, was remixed in 2014:
...my third lp (inri033) has actually not been altered since it's completion in 1999 (except to remove the last track, now on the outtakes compilation, inri042):
...my second lp (inri021), initially created in 1999, was remastered from scratch as an instrumental recording over 2015-2016:
...and my first lp (inri015), initially created in 1998, was also remastered from scratch as an instrumental recording over 2015-2016:
i will be working on inri077 next, which is a collection of demos from late 2003 that were initially recorded on a 4-track cassette deck and were never completed.
j
1:36
is it possible that face masks might lead to an increased cancer risk?
if you think about it for a second, it's not that absurd a thought. face masks are manufactured using a lot of chemicals. any remnant chemicals may be carcinogenic.
it's an empirical question at the least - there's a reasonable mechanism, and some investigation is warranted.
and, it's enough of a concern that studies have, in fact, been done:
there's also the question of breathing in particulates from the mask, in addition to absorbing the chemicals. you're filtering everything you breathe through a $0.25 piece of plastic. it's probably not manufactured to much of any kind of standard.
so, i wouldn't go so far as to claim that face masks cause cancer, or at least not yet. but, remember: doctors used to prescribe cigarettes, and asbestos was once seen as a wonder drug.
i'd think twice before wearing one for a long period of time, at the least.
12:15
tuesday, january 11, 2022
in fact, they have a constitutional right to re-enter the country, and the state should be sending them a plane to bring them back, as a result of it. i hope that they launch legal challenges when they return, and i expect that they'll win.
we send planes across the world to pick up illiterate refugees and the worthless offspring of terrorists, but our public officials won't even get up off their worthless, fat asses to help our own citizens back in the country.
it really says a lot about who we are, as a society - and our increasingly backwards priorities.
i would call on the federal government to send a plane to pick them up if the airlines want to be retarded about denying them entry. that is their right, as canadian citizens, stranded in a foreign country. and, this government has to start respecting people's rights.
12:01
canadians are an easy going people that like to party and don't take things very seriously.
the government needs to fulfill it's obligations in collecting it's citizens, who are not under investigation for any serious crime, either in canada or in mexico.
12:16
our culture is taking a very hard turn towards the despicable doldrums of social conservatism, and, i for one, have no intention of conforming.
i know who my enemies are.
12:31
we're becoming little better than a muslim theocracy.
and, the civilized world should be condemning us for it, and reacting accordingly to it.
i need to call on the parties to fight for their rights as hard as they can, because the government in place wants to do away with them. this isn't temporary.....and these are the kind of cases that liberal democracy needs to win, or we won't have it anymore.
12:36
the legislation in place was not intended to be used for parties on private flights, it was intended to be used against terrorists taking over airplanes. nobody passed that law with the intent to send people to jail for the supposed crime of having a good time. i would expect the court to throw those charges out and/or even declare the law unconstitutional, if it's to be misapplied in such a cynical manner.
but, the fact that the government is misapplying this law (while shipping in the worthless offspring of terrorists, to act as the next wave of islamic colonization...) is actually rather sinister in intent, and is yet another red flag as to where it intends to direct the country.
we have laws on the books to protect us from the very real threat of islamic extremism, and the government is using them to crack down on harmless alcohol consumption. what does that tell you about the governing ideology of that government?
12:43
this is the kind of thing you'd expect from a backwards, uncivilized muslim government - like saudi arabia, or iran.
you would not expect a liberal democracy to behave in such a backwards fashion.
12:52
i still have faith in the courts, but the government is drunk on it's abuse of power and needs to be replaced.
12:53
here's another question: given that the too-fun-to-be-legal party on the plane occurred mostly in american airspace, what legal jurisdiction do the canadian authorities have in the matter?
13:21
so, if the sunwing pilot had decided to make a complaint, he would have most likely made the complaint to canadian authorities. but, that doesn't give canada broad jurisdiction over the flight; that jurisdiction would belong mostly to the united states, which claims thorough jurisdiction in such matters. somebody on the flight might complain to canadian authorities, but there is no indication that happened.
for the canadian government to launch a federal investigation of the matter and fine people when they return home would appear to be extra-legal - no different than them fining you for gambling in las vegas, when you come home.
no further charges should proceed, without complaints, and existing charges should be withdrawn.
13:59
now, international legal conventions aside, there is this:
(2) Notwithstanding this Act or any other Act, every one who
(a) on an aircraft, while the aircraft is in flight, commits an act or omission outside Canada that if committed in Canada or on an aircraft registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act would be an offence against section 76 or paragraph 77(a),
...
shall be deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada if the person is, after the commission thereof, present in Canada.
but, that is a claim of jurisdictional depth that would not be expected to stand much of any scrutiny.
that clause states that if you ever do anything on a plane, anywhere in the world, that is illegal in canadian airspace, you will be arrested on return. that's a mockery of the entire concept of jurisdiction, and if somebody tried to throw that pile of bullshit at me, i'd have it struck out in no time. no court has unlimited jurisdiction. canadian courts interpret canadian law in canada, they don't try to enforce canadian laws on foreigners in foreign countries. overly broad is an understatement. but, it's just an abuse of jurisdiction - and rather blatantly so.
if somebody does something mean on a plane to somebody else that is a whiny complainer, that whiny complainer needs to be able to bring a case in their own jurisdiction, which is the intent of the tokyo convention and the updates that followed. as stated, that doesn't and isn't meant to give canada sovereignty over american airspace, it's just meant to provide for a path to a remedy for people that want to decide they've been victimized. the court might even - and i'd argue should - choose to apply american laws in it's decision, given the claimed crime was committed in american airspace, but the point is just to give people a way to complain. in the end, real crimes will be identified by the captain, and the captain will choose who to contact - and, i'd argue, should choose to contact the authorities in the relevant airspace.
while the law leaves the jurisdiction open to allow for flexibility, that's not an invitation for political pandering (which is what this is) or an excuse for blatant abuses of power. no government should ever be taking the initiative to be launching political investigations into events that occur in foreign airspaces, under much of any scenario. it's really an infringement of american sovereignty, and one that the canadian government should apologize to the united states for, in addition to dropping the cases.
14:31
publishing inri076
period 2 ends when i left for bc with sarah, and period 3 begins when i got back, after having left her in her home town on the way home, and with the previous recording (inri075) acting as a bridge between the two periods. so, this begins period 3, which was a time of great uncertainty and instability in my life that ends only when i move into a new apartment on bronson in early 2007.
that said, what the trivial group project documents, in hindsight, is the period where sarah existed in my life as a physical and emotional entity, which really starts back around inri064 and culminates, in it's iniital phase, in the last recording of period 2, the reflections ep (inri074), so, the story is also picking up a part of the way through. while essentially none of my music up to this point had a romantic slant, and the political themes will pick up again when sarah is no longer a physical or emotional entity in my life, she was really the dominant influence on my mental state over period 3, and these recordings are consequently almost entirely about her, in some abstraction or another.
we didn't stay in bc long when we got there. as mentioned, we didn't really have a plan, other than to get there and hope it worked out. but, i think the reason we didn't have a plan is partly because we had our own plans and were kind of using each other to get there; my plan, which i don't think i ever told her, was that i was looking for a place to transition in, and i suspect she was ultimately looking for a home to wreck, figuratively speaking. but, the lessons from the grapes of wrath, which i had read as child, became more and more apparent as i stumbled through the okanagan valley, and the depth of the mistake i had made in leaving a comfortable existence in ottawa started to become apparent to me. i certainly needed to find some way out of the empty, "normal" existence my family was trying to push on me, but i wasn't going to find it in these rolling fields of sage, or in these camp fire orgies of the lost and dispossessed. i didn't know what to do next, or how to assert some kind of meaning in the emptiness of ubiquitous market capitalism, but i knew i needed to go home to sort it out - and i knew the value of stability, for perhaps the first time in my life.
so, i'm actually the one that decided to go home, and i didn't expect her to follow me. but, she did.
there's a story she told me years later, and i came to realize that it had a lasting effect on her that i wasn't aware of at the time. after an argument about monogamy (one of many...) outside of a work camp near osoyoos, i told her i was leaving her there for good and stormed off down the road. i quickly hitched a ride towards penticton, where i was strongly considering transitioning, and didn't intend to come back. that was that: bye, sarah.
but, rather than go to penticton, i stopped in oliver, and hitched back the other way, instead. i found myself in the position of needing to reconsider my course of action: i couldn't just leave her there, i had to go back to get her. when i got back to osoyoos, i found her in exactly the same spot that i had left her, roughly eight hours earlier. she told me she just froze solid - she was overcome with fear, and didn't know how to proceed, however many thousands of kilometres from home. she was sure i'd come back. so, she waited for me, and just passed the time by picking wild sage in the fields.
so, maybe that's why she followed me home, in the end, after i followed her so far away from home, to begin with.
one of the last stops on the way back was in newmarket, ontario, where we got into a shouting match minutes before we got into the last car. we didn't talk on the way back to ottawa; she got off in her home town, and i kept going. it was mutually understood that the relationship was over.
i still remember the date in late june when i got back to ottawa, getting off the queensway just before fisher, hobbling down the ramp, walking by the civic hospital (and bumming a smoke outside it), smelling the experimental farm again for the first time in months and collapsing on the couch when i got in, for a very long sleep, for the first time in some time. my dad, always one for sardonic jokes, woke me up by blaring the classic kansas tune, carry on my wayward son, on his high end stereo system.
so, that is the context for this song, which was written and recorded over the summer of 2003 (my files are all dated to august 30th and 31st, when i seem to have reset the volume for the purpose of remixing it), as i was facing my first time away from sarah in roughly a year and struggling with the separation. i was undergoing a conflict between my brain (which told me to get away from this girl because she's bad news) and my hormones (which were experiencing symptoms of attachment) which i had undergone many times previously and would undergo many times again. it's not an exaggeration to suggest that sarah sort of drove me crazy, that she sort of broke my brain a little. i can only hope that the resulting art is substantive, as best as i can present it.
but, if it's not clear, the song is intended to be darkly sarcastic. the reference is to "all you need is love", but it's a warped one, and the influence is "love will tear us apart, again". what i'm reflecting upon is the state of delusion that we enter into when our faculties for reason become degraded by the intoxicating influence of hormones. it's really a state of impaired thinking that should be seen as psychotropic - we should talk about being under the influence of love, of being inebriated by oxytocin. a person that is truly in love could have their heart ripped out in front of them as they're breathing, and not be able to react coherently to it, as it's happening. this is a dangerous chemical, indeed.
it may come off as intentionally defiant, but it's intended to be unintentionally deluded.
i saw sarah a few times that summer. she called me on canada day, and i biked out to her home town to see her on her birthday, a few weeks later. but, i was lonely that summer without her, and that is really what the song is expressing. i hope that the guitar part is particularly expressive.
the initial intent was for the first part of the song to be this sarcastic commentary on the concept of love, and for it to open up into a sort of dance punk thing (i guess it sounds like john mcentire remixing the strokes) that represents the shift away from feeling and the shift into numbness and obliviousness, but i separated out and shelved the first part because it was just too difficult. so, the second part of the song - into oblivion - is a first draft of the interplanetary isomorphism, a 33 minute symphonic piece and the first part - all you need - has been a stranded demo, since 2003.
is the first part really that difficult? well, if you can find me a more raw piece of music, i'd like to hear it. but, 20 years later, that's an asset more than a drawback. i mean, it still hurts a little to listen to it, but i can listen to it at more of a distance, now, and realize the artistic value of it. so, the point of this is in large part to salvage something that has always had value but was previously a little too raw for me to share.
in mid 2021, i remixed the first part - all you need - to turn the vocals down a little. unfortunately, some of the sarcasm ends up lost in the new mix, but it sounds a lot better and i'm happier with it. i think the sarcasm is heavy enough to not require the use of tone to demonstrate it, but the initial mix makes the sarcasm in the line "yeah. all you need is love." quite a bit more apparent.
in early 2022, to salvage the concept and complete the recording, i added a lengthy "soul swap" piece to the beginning of the track. this stems from a number of discussions i had with sarah where she tried to convince me that she would make a better jessica than i would and that i should go back to jason, something that perhaps ended up being sort of accurate (in terms of her being a better jessica). i can't know how much that thought guided sarah in the years to come, and she wouldn't admit it to me if it were true because she'd realize it would upset me, but that's the idea, here. of course, we don't actually have souls and can't actually swap them, although i'd love to shapeshift into a new host as this one becomes old and unusable. it's strictly a poetic suggestion, to extrapolate on the idea that sarah and i, in some ways, changed places. i don't know how long a soul swap ought to take, but i made it lengthy enough to be a difficult piece of music, and tried to present what i imagine it ought to sound like. so, yes, the 40+ minutes of noise flipping stereo positions is meant to abstractly represent the sound of souls changing hosts, however absurd the idea may be in real life. the female channel in the soul swap was also isolated and added to the end of the collection as a 40+ minute drone piece, as it has an aesthetic interest on it's own.
i also wanted to reclaim the piece as a segue between the 8th symphony (reflections) and the 9th symphony (interplanetary isomorphism) for the trivial group double cd, which meant removing the vocals and manipulating the soul swap so that it is of a length that fits on the first cd. but, then, i decided i should also have a vocal version of the album construction. so, these tracks were added to close the disc a few days after the soul swap was built.
unfortunately, i got into a fight with my stepmother in the fall of 2003 and could no longer stay there, something that may be a consequence of leaving over that summer and assuming i could just come back. i was only back in town for a few months before i was thrown out, something that i'll pick up on in the writeup for inri077. so, this is the sum total of material worked on in my parents' basement when i got back from bc before i got thrown out, completed in 2021/2022 to be a standalone conceptual ep, and a component of my next full length record.
initially written and recorded over the summer of 2003. track 2 was remixed on june 14, 2021. tracks 1 and 6 were created on the morning of january 3rd, 2022 from the base of an aborted noise piece that was last edited in early 2004 and contained samples of the recording of all you need. tracks 4 and 5 were created on the evening of january 9th, 2022. released as a two volume set on jan 9, 2022. as always, please use headphones.
the album version also appears on my ninth record, {e} (inri08x): jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/e
the condensed version also appears on the fundamental theorem of poeticity:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-fundamental-theorem-of-poeticity
this recording is a part of the following collections:
1) flac dvd disc vol 7
2) mp3 dvd vol 3
3) trivial group box set
4) blu ray disc vol 2
5) period 3
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2003, 2015, 2017).
disc one:
1. soul swap
2. all you need
3. into oblivion (initial construction)
4. all you need (album mix)
disc two:
5. all you need (condensed)
6. her
released september 1, 2003
j - electric guitars, effects, electric mandolin, analog synthesizers, drum programming, sound design, tone generators, cool edit synthesis, digital sampling, digital wave editing, vocals, production, composition
21:40
wednesday, january 12, 2022
so, what's going on with me, then?
i want to rewind to last wednesday to tell the story about the soy milk, which i put off a little. that will help explain what's been going on over the last few days.
so, i wanted to get out early on wednesday morning to do all of the shopping for the next month or so. i got out around 6:45ish and was surprised to see a lineup at the blood lab (which i skipped) but got a big run done at the second store (there's no cereal anywhere in windsor, right now. it's weird.) before going to the far store to get a few things i only get there, which is actually where i got most of my vegetables this time through. but, i took a look through the soy milk aisle, only to realize that it wasn't just the vanilla flavour that was moving to lower fortification but all of the versions. they didn't have any boxes of the fortified product. this put me into a state of panic.
it was a few months ago that i decided i had to move from my preferred brand of soy milk (soy good, manufactured by an australian company) to natura for the reason that the soy good got bought out by this piece of shit canadian brand called earth's own, which basically ruined the most healthy product on the entire market in order to make a profit. that's the kind of assholery that earns a special place of contempt in the mind of j. so, now i'm realizing that natura is doing the same thing, probably because the fact is that all of the soy milk in the country is now made in the same factory. it's like beer - it's all just rebranded 50. you bought a budwesier? in canada, it's a 50. blue? it's a 50. canadian? it's a 50. coors? it' a 50. etc. if you want to buy a non-50 beer in canada, you have to explicitly ensure it wasn't manufactured here.
so, am i going to need to buy imported soy milk, then? i'm actually not sure it's even possible. what i'm actually thinking i might do is just move to buying soy protein in bulk and fortifying it myself.
but, after the second run, i had to take a run out to the shoppers, the close grocery store and the bulk barn. thankfully, i found a large amount of actually fortified soy at the close store, so i had to take a few runs to clear them out. in the end, i spent about $100 on roughly 35 cartons of fortified soy milk, and it should be enough for the salad and the coffee until the middle of the year, which essentially puts the problem off. by then, will there be a better option available, or will i have to fortify my own homemade soy milk?
the problem was that the extra runs to the close store put my run to the very far store to get the last bit of soy milk off into the late afternoon, and after eight hours of walking with groceries, i was a little too exhausted to continue. there was also a short cold snap coming in on wednesday night that was supposed to clear by thursday afternoon. so, i decided i had to get inside and get some sleep, and intended to get out the next day, after the mild cold snap had passed. but, unfortunately, it didn't quite warm up enough for me to go on a three hour walk with a grocery cart to get as many cartons of soy milk as i could find, so i had to put it off until saturday, instead...and didn't want to tell anybody what i was doing. so, this is why i kind of lost thursday and friday, on top of just being overly tired from the walking.
however, i got a bit of a start on clearing out my facebook page on friday. i'm going to be moving the music page to the releases blog (where i can actually use the timeline feature, which i actually like) and the pictures to this google photos share, instead:
the weather was warming up saturday afternoon, and overnight on sunday, but i had to get to the blood lab before 15:00 on saturday. so, the plan was to get to the blood lab first, then go to the very far store with the shopping cart, bring home as much soy milk as i could get, and then bring the cart back, before taking another run to the second store, and hoping that keeps me inside until the end of the month, or close to it. that took me until late on saturday night, when i had to come in to get something to eat and finish cleaning.
so, it was sunday afternoon, after i'd finished most of the cleaning, that i said to myself "i'm going to install cubase and see what happens", partly because i wanted to sit down for a minute and have a coffee and partly because i wanted to actually get something done for the weekend. i mean, the computer works, right? let's use it. so, i was hoping to just get the software installed first and sort of take it from there, but then i sat down and started working and actually got inri076 updated in relatively short order: https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/all-you-need
i also updated the {e} album:
at this point, i decided i was going to do something i'd been thinking about for a while, namely mass emailing the release to my entire address book. well, i'm not using facebook anymore. how do i get the link to people? i made a tactical decision to go ahead and send it to everybody, then delete all of the bounces from my address book, thinking it would be quick. by monday afternoon, i was still doing that, when i stopped to take a shower, with the intent of getting some real sleep after.
and, sleep i did - 15 hours. that's ok, i needed it. i wasn't up until close to noon on tuesday.
i've spent the day doing loose ends regarding the mass mailing and the inri076 release, including finishing the write-up for the release notes. i'll do that in more detail as i get through the process of rebuilding the music journal, which i need to do to get to inri077, so i'm sure i haven't lost my train of thought. so, i'm about to click back into that.
i've also put up a skeleton for the third vocal disc, which is called the fundamental theorem of poeticity:
so, that was a bit of a detour, but it was helpful, and i got a release finished for the first time in a while. that's got me feeling good.
i initially wanted to get in for thursday morning, finish the cleaning and then get to doing some legal stuff by monday morning, but all of these detours mean i put the legal stuff off for a few days. that's fine. i actually got some progress on the karen case (the one where i'm challenging the legality of the arrest, rather than the one where i'm suing the karen, directly), so i need to do that, as well.
so, i'll be focusing on the legal stuff for a day or two, and then attempting to shift to inri077 for the weekend.
0:07
is it possible that my all over the place cholesterol readings are actually a function of a shitty lab?
i dunno.
the low ldl could be a function of crohn's, it turns out, although i don't understand how i could have high hdl and low ldl due to crohn's. i could understand low total cholesterol due to crohn's. i guess maybe it could be compounding.
so, do i need to increase the saturated fat in my diet? see, i had high ldl last month.
i'm not going to react at all, for right now, other than to make sure i'm eating enough. if i have a problem, it's a tendency to starve myself. and, i need to break that habit.
but, yeah. it's not entirely inconsistent with crohn's, is it?
there's just no answer besides supplements.
1:02
yeah, there seems to be a push from the right on this, and i'm going to push back on it a little because the point i've been trying to make is that the variables aren't actually separable.
the narrative on the right is "but, they just happen to have covid. it's a coincidence.", and that's really not correct. so, for example, you might have a cancer patient with covid. well, you don't want to put that kind of strain on your immune system if you already have cancer, and covid could very well kill you if you're undergoing chemo.
it's long been necessary that the data be clear that the primary problem is underlying conditions, rather than vaccination status, yes. but, that's not a way out of this. pointing out that people are dying of compound conditions, rather than covid itself, doesn't make the situation go away, so much as it necessitates a change in tactic that is long overdue: these are people that require special levels of protection.
1:08
this is an absolutely evidence-free policy.
are they going to tax old people, fat people and smokers, too? that's who is really clogging up the system. old people have all the money, too.
1:13
i'm unvaccinated, and given that i was coughing a little this week, i'm now sure that i have more antibodies than most 75 year-olds with three doses.
why don't i give you some plasma, instead?
i saved you from wasting some doses on somebody that doesn't need them. you're welcome.
1:15
and, let me tell you, if i lived in quebec, i'd be sending the government a bill - for court costs.
1:21
whatever you think of the policy, if you're going to impose a tax on the unvaccinated, you'd better give them the option to test for antibodies, first, or it's entirely void of scientific justification.
i promise you that i'm producing more antibodies than you are - and i have had zero shots and two or three infections, and you've probably had three shots and zero infections.
1:24
actually, vitamin d can apparently act as a statin.
hrmmn.
so, are the d pills cutting my ldl down to dangerously low levels? see, i already had low ldl, generally, due to the estrogen. so, is that a deadly combination - estrogen + vitamin d?
i need both, though.
dammit.
1:38
see, i expected my d to come down a little due to the lack of sunlight in the winter, so i planned to take d pills from about september 21st to about march 21st and that's probably overdue. if you do the math, you couldn't even get enough d from eating salmon every day, if you live in the latitude i live in - fortification or supplementation is the only possible choice.
the question was just always "how much is it coming down?" and, therefore, "how much do i need to supplement?".
the results aren't that bad, the lab range says over 75 is normal, but the american and canadian health authorities both say over 50 is sufficient, and i've never tested lower than 60. and, the results don't seem to react to what i'm doing - i take the pills and the d goes down, and i stop taking them and it goes up. that's twice now that taking d pills decrease serum levels. seems obvious, right?
but, what i don't like are the pth levels, which i'd like to be about half of what they're at. so, i want to at least do the experiment, for another month.
but, what if i give myself an aneurysm by crashing my ldl with the d pills?
*sigh*.
how seriously should i really take that ldl result?
1:47
we evolved in africa.
we're out of our habitat, up here.
1:50
see, i think they're missing the point; this isn't an incentivization campaign, and the fact that the consensus that it won't work as one is almost unanimous is evidence against that argument. rather, this is a revenue generating scheme. it is a discriminatory tax, because the intent is to raise money.
the caq completely mismanaged public funds by misappropriating public resources, and now it's looking for ways to raise money, while deflecting the blame for it's own incompetence.
16:00
your kids are going to have to deal with covid-19 for their whole lives and are far better off beating it on their own than getting vaccinated, unless they have some other condition, which you're probably aware of.
there will be some statistical error, unfortunately.
insofar as schools are concerned, resources should be focused on getting teachers vaccinated, not on getting kids vaccinated.
16:15
no, let's be as belittling about this as we can be, as it truly is stupid.
it is true that those that are sick are more likely to be unvaccinated, although it's not entirely clear as to why. does that mean that those that are unvaccinated are more likely to get sick?
what you're doing with that is a really classical logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.
1. if x then y.
2. y
3. therefore, x.
or, stated differently, (x--->y) ---> (y--->x).
now, i'm not saying anything more here than i'm actually saying, and all i'm saying is that blaming the situation on unvaccinated people, as a broad class, or even as a minority group, is illogical. it's practically the definition of illogical; when you look up illogical in the dictionary, you should be met with affirming the consequent.
and, this is a real fallacy, too, it's not the kind of make believe fallacy you hear from a ben shapiro or a sam harris. it's directly out of any first year logic course. it's formal; it's classical. if you can't identify it immediately, you can't fucking think at all.
so, when you start talking about "the unvaccinated" by citing this observation, understand that everything that follows is strictly fallacious, and anybody that's taken a first year logic course should be able to deconstruct it on contact. what you're doing when you make those kinds of arguments is telling everybody in earshot with any kind of education that you're a complete fucking idiot.
now, that doesn't mean the claim is necessarily false, either. i mean, it could be true that y-->x, as well. but, you can't deduce that y--->x simply because x---->y. so, is it actually true that y--->x, anyways? and, like i say, you need to look at the actual data, which you can deduce with little effort suggests otherwise. there's millions of unvaccinated people out there, and a few hundred in the icu. in terms of raw data, and independent of any other variable, the question of whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, strictly, is not going to be very predictive of how well you fare if you come into contact with the virus.
rather, the issue before us is that a certain class of high risk people are not getting vaccinated, when they ought to. we can imagine this high risk person as being older, being overweight and probably smoking. these are people that should be getting vaccinated and are not, although we don't yet have the data to state with much certainty if getting vaccinated would even help much, given how poorly they take care of themselves, anyways.
so, let's all stop making first year logic errors and managing to go around thinking we're smart. ok?
19:11
the tobacco industry is still at this shit, huh? fuck.
so, you may have heard otherwise, but you shouldn't believe everything you read. and, the idea that smoking protects against covid shouldn't have passed your bullshit filters.
19:25
so, i meant to lie down for a second very early this morning and then get up to get some iron and take a shower, but i slept until past noon, instead. i didn't actually wake up until close to 14:00, got something to eat, did the dishes, ranted a little, made some coffee and here we are.
i need to do some legal stuff tonight and possibly into tomorrow.
19:37
see, the problem with insisting that the filibuster is racist is that it just isn't true. i agree with mcconnell. in internet lingo, biden just failed a corollary to godwin's law - the first person to frivolously accuse your opponent of being a racist automatically loses.
i don't like agreeing with mitch mcconnell either, but it's not my fault. he's correct. biden just made a complete idiot of himself.
and, i still haven't heard anybody explain what the democrats intend to do when the republicans ban abortion with 52 votes, or, in a fit of absurd irony, use the lowered voting threshold to eliminate voting rights. the democrats don't think they'll hold the senate forever, do they? and, they're forty years away from winning back the supreme court.
so, not only is mcconnell correct in his analysis, but it's a tactically retarded act from the position of the democrats.
see, and that's the actual point, right? this is a fight that biden actually has no chance of winning, so he's really just grandstanding for votes. and, i hope that people see through the stupidity for what it actually is.
neither the united states nor the world will benefit by a change of rules that will make it easier for a republican congress to pass legislation.
22:09
if mitch mcconnell really was just a base racist, he'd support the change, as he'd realize it would be in his benefit.
and, frankly, for that reason, i don't know why the republicans don't call their moronic bluff and actually pass it.
they could very will win back the senate in a few months.
22:18
hate mcconnell if you want, but he's pretty serious about the views he holds, and doesn't tend to bend on them much.
but what's stopping a less principled actor like ted cruz from saying "great! thanks, guys!" and voting with the democrats to ram the filibuster change through?
22:19
thursday, january 13, 2022
there needs to be a serious push in ontario to undo the catastrophic mike harris policy of private electricity ownership, to put the sector back into public hands, and allow for increased hydro-electric dam construction.
there will be warming in northern ontario, which will increase rain flow and widen the size of rivers. dam construction could be a proper stimulus for settlement in areas around hudson bay, which will be major ports in the future arctic economic zone.
12:06
they've got these fancy new weapons, too. this isn't just about putting bombs in cuba, it's about putting bombs in cuba that might not have a clear antidote. that is, america may be on the brink of seeing a concrete reversal of their unchallenged military dominance for the first time sine the 1950s.
should americans be concerned? i don't know. i know that they really should have thought about that before they put offensive weapons systems in the baltic, because now they have little grounds to whine about it. if you dangle a sword over your opponent's heads for 20 years, you should expect your cries to fall on deaf ears if the table turns.
i don't want war; i want the russians to be proportional, and careful. and, i'm not sure if putting weapons in cuba would decrease or increase the likelihood of war, because i don't know if the americans are ratoinal actors or not.
i think that jfk was a deranged lunatic and that he would have held sole responsibility for any outbreak of war in 1963. we should all thank khrushchev for being the more rational actor - a constant through the cold war. is biden more rational than jfk? i wouldn't say there's a lot of evidence for it.
so, however this is framed, realize that the real dynamic here is that you have these careful, calculating, rational russians that are trying to force the americans back into a position of caution by using hard power to force them to behave rationally, and you've got these swashbuckling american cowboy-pirates that think they have a manifest destiny to overpower logic with faith in their inherent cultural superiority. we could be on the brink. and, they both might be bluffing.
13:00
i would argue that nato should withdraw from eastern europe in exchange for assurances that the russians will stay out of cuba. that is, i think washington should behave rationally.
but, my interest is in the attainment of global peace, and that would not appear to be the case in washington.
13:02
the issue isn't really about the safety of the vaccine, although if you want to have that debate, you should do it quantitatively, which might not produce the outcome you expect. the numbers i saw for complications from the virus made it rare, but less rare than complications from covid itself. if you have a 1/10000 chance of getting myocarditis and a 1/1000000 chance of dying of covid (we're talking about kids.), and you want to play the odds, you should avoid vaccination. that's what the numbers actually say - numbers i suspect that mr. del luca has never bothered to spend the time educating himself about, or even has the intellectual curiosity to wonder about.
but, that's not really the issue.
the actual issue is whether you think your kids are better off being raised strong and healthy and independent so that they can fight common viruses without the aid of medicine and develop full antibodies on their own, or whether you think they should be made weak and reliant on rna vaccines that only provide for partial immunity. if i had kids, i would want them to be strong and independent, not to be weak and reliant. and, so, i would baptize them by fire, throw them into the deep end of the pool and wait for them to sink or swim.
i'm exaggerating the point: this disease is harmless to children. so, do you want your children to be pampared and sheltered and weakened by overmothering and helicoptering that keeps them away from real-world diseases, or do you want to raise them to face the real world on their own, and to fight and be strong and resilient?
maybe 5% of ontarians are vaccine skeptics. but, we have 55% of kids that have chosen to not be vaccinated.
the other 50% are not "vaccine hesitant", they just don't want their kids made weak and reliant on vaccines, they want them to develop healthy immune systems on their own, and to grow up strong and independent of nanny state politics.
and, they're right - their kids don't need this.
tell the elderly to stay inside, instead.
15:26
is it likely that kids raised to be reliant on vaccines, rather than face actual diseases in the real world, will grow up to be dependent on vaccines and unable to fight diseases for themselves?
i think that's the mentality, and it's probably flawed in totality. but, i think there's probably an underlying truth to it, as well.
the correct answer is that we don't have those studies..
but, i could easily imagine somebody who, at 45, and after dealing with nothing but rna vaccines their whole life, gets wiped out by a new variant of the common cold, after dealing with an actual live virus for the first time.
i don't know how you could actually shelter anybody to that degree, though - everybody is going to meet a real virus, in today's world, before they're very old. but, in theory? i think they have a point.
i just wouldn't and couldn't see the value in giving my kid a vaccine that has no discernible effect on their likelihood to survive after coming into contact with the virus. first, do no harm.
15:50
the idea of vaccine dependency may be blurry, but i would nonetheless be more interested in doing everything i could to strengthen my child's immune system with the goal of having them fight things naturally, which means forcing them to fight it off on their own.
15:54
but, i mean, if you want to "get it", i think that's it - i think there's a widespread view that kids will be better off in the long run if forced to fight their own battles, rather than being protected by nanny state vaccines.
and, i think that's probably right.
15:57
this was obvious.
and is relieving.
but, remember - half the senate just baffling voted for it, in a stunning demonstration of the threat to individual liberty that the democrats are increasingly posing in the united states.
16:07
i'm going to strongly suggest to the germans and french that they launch a binational strategy to eliminate their dependency on natural gas.
the russians are concerned about their border, but the americans have always seen europe as an export market, and that particular issue - as delusional as it is - seems to be driving the belligerent character of recent american policy in the region.
by shifting away from natural gas, at essentially any means available, even nuclear, north western europe could avoid a larger war in the region.
17:31
so, i spent last night updating existing files in the karen police case to an online database called caselines.
tonight, i need to sort through developments in the case since then and prepare a number of motions to file either in the morning or, more likely, on monday.
i am also going to need to formally file a judicial review of the grocery store case in the same court. the idiots tried to use employment law to deny me a hearing, so i'll have to escalate. i mean, i was chased down the street by a duo of angry arab thugs that had a seeming intent to harm me, under the false claim that i stole $5.00 worth of beets. whatever the merits of my claims, it has nothing to do with employment law, so the ruling is an error of law. then, she denies the appeal because it didn't address concerns in the hearing. but, the point is that there wasn't a hearing. while the decision largely appears to be the consequence of hiring unqualified adjudicators based on their physical appearance, and then watching them fail basic competency tests in terms of their job functions, the airtight application of perfectly circular logic also displays the hallmark of somebody that was trained to ignore cases that the tribunal doesn't want to hear, due to the implications inherent within them. in this case, what we have is a transgendered person suing an islamic shopkeeper for behaving in a way that is consistent with his irrelevant islamic traditions, rather than in a way that is consistent with the relevant canadian common law, and the court didn't want to deal with it. that's fine - i'll take it to divisional court and deal with it there. but, i couldn't file a human rights case directly in divisional court...i had to go through this step...
so, that's tonight. let's try to get most of it done.
23:55
friday, january 14, 2022
3,000 people is about the right size for a mid-size seated arts venue, which the city could use. i saw a performance of genesis' the lamb lies down on broadway in a similarly sized venue in a city-owned complex in gatineau, many years ago.
movies are sort of passe nowadays, anyways, aren't they? even if the pandemic restrictions were removed tomorrow, who actually goes to the movies nowadays?
but, a 3,000 seat venue could bring in a certain class of musician, or act as a venue for plays.
i know that windsor doesn't have the kind of artistically interested demographics that ottawa does (and i didn't move to windsor, i moved to detroit, which is why i'm finding this mess so frustrating. i have nothing to do here. it's boringsville.), but it's the kind of thing windsor ought to have if it wants to be a real city.
0:10
my main focus right now is legal, but i'm also moving into the weekend, and i want to get something or other down over the space, as well.
i just want to point out that i'm finally at the point where i'm going to be doing the lost symphony, which is going to plug many holes.
1) inri077 will contain a "completed-in-place" mix of the lost symphony, and probably a few snapshots of it, in the process. i'll be doing this in cubase on the production machine (so long as it holds), but it will need to sound like a 4-track demo. that is the opposite of what i did with the inriclaimed project, where i was converting 4-track demos into digitized projects. i want to get a start on this over the weekend, but probably won't come close to finishing it.
2) i will then take those "4-track demos" and use them to build a full digital mix of the lost symphony, which only has a low quality digital guitar mix, as of now:
inri079-inri081 are already done, so that will close period 3.1 [the next project will be doing inri075 on that new acoustic guitar, which is really a segue between 2.4 and 3.1]. inri082 & inri083 are compilations to end period 3.1. there may be others.
the interplanetary isomorphism then is the focus over the summer of 2004, whereas xenophanes is the focus over the fall. but, both symphones are essentially done up to finalizing finishing touches and potential remastering steps. these will require some work, but they're basically done.
so, the means that finishing the lost symphony also basically finishes my 8th record:
this is consequently really massively key in terms of pushing through not just period 3.1 but period 3.2 as well, and i've got an algorithm worked out to do it, too.
xenophanes is a mess. i'm going to date it and the record to mid 2004, but the truth is that i spent most of 2005 working on it, and never really finished it. there are already many snapshots and there will be more as i get the files in order. but, it's going to be a little anachronistic for that reason. but, it will let me leave this project in sandy hill with period 3.2, and move into period 3.3, which then becomes a series of loose ends to finish, with more clarity of thought. ideally, i would have finished xenophanes before i moved to prince of wales, and then i would have finished the handful of loose ends there, instead of developing this backlog. i guess that's an easy way to put it - i ran into a bottleneck with xenophanes in late 2004, and it created a backlog that i'm only finally sorting through, now. leaving it on sandy hill clears the backlog for me, opening up 2005 and 2006 for these pieces that only barely got started.
so, the main focus of period 3.3 then becomes the cycles per second recording, which means finally building the 64 bit machine and installing matlab on it. i will likely expand the scope of the project to use programs like reaktor and max, but the primary focus needs to be building sound objects directly into matlab. and, i may use the outcome, in the end. for all the noises and abstract sound design in my compositions, i don't actually do any programming in the computer science sense until about 2004. i want that to be a more dominant focus of the next period, moving into 2005 and 2006.
there is also a stranded throatmotor piece that is the last thing that has anything to do with the arrogant ass guitarist, jon. he rented a place with some people he worked with in the chinatown area and ended up meeting a kind of pop punk singer that lived across the street from him, named trrevor. trevor's musical alterego was throatmotor, which seems to be a crude reference to oral sex. in hindsight, what jon actually did in this band was double trevor's guitar parts, almost exclusively. he might have added two or three short parts, in total, to an hour's worth of pop-punk songs. i'm actually not sure why trevor decided he needed him at all, other than that maybe jon had an amp and trevor didn't. but, i got called in to play bass, after the existing bassist (who i believe was trevor's ex-boyfriend) walked out. this wasn't a genre of music i like much, it was something like blink 182 with a drum machine; i really just filled in as jon's friend, because he asked, more than anything else. i mean, i expected that they'd find a new bassist in short order, i thought it was very temporary, like a show or two, but it dragged out for quite a while. i did on the order of 10 shows with them, including two pride slots, before i had to tell them "i'm not into this, you need to find a bassist". jon got his girlfriend, mandy, to play bass for a while, but the thing fell apart fairly shortly afterwards. my perception was that jon wanted to rewrite trevor's songs, rather than write his own songs, and trevor more or less told him to fuck off.
but, i played bass for a while in a different band with the same jon, and i have a track meant for that project that i'll have to finish. i figured that if i was going to fill in on bass then i'd might as well do something interesting, so i made a conscious intent to try to orchestrate the pieces. the bass part for to spin inside dull aberrations is a rough approximation of the type of bass parts i wrote for throatmotor, but i never recorded any of them, and have long since forgotten them. i wouldn't really be able to release any of them in this space, anyways - these were songs that were written by trevor and belong to trevor. i was at best credited as an arranger, but was really just a fill in bassist.
i'm actually not sure what trevor really thought of the bass work. i could tell that he found me confusing, because he was attracted to me as a male, but was supposed to accept me as female; he wanted to fuck me, and was visibly perturbed by my complete disinterest. while his ego wasn't quite as absurd as jon's, he clearly felt threatened by me coming in and noodling all over his tracks. but, that aside, i think he put up with it because he actually did like it. so, when i tried to present a track to work on, he wouldn't entertain the prospect because he didn't want to lose control. it wasn't long after that that i told them to find a bassist more into what they were doing.
so, this is probably stranded, but becomes a 2005 piece that i need to work out, as well:
but, clearing out 2005 really clears out space for the impressionist jazz punk, which were pieces i was writing, mostly over the summer. this is a link between the trivial group and proverbs, and i'll want to polish and complete these, and date them to that space.
so, getting through the lost symphony opens up a lot of space and should get me over a major hump.
3:05
“vaccination passport is a collective punishment against individual freedom.†- jean-luc melanchon
"Tonight I will oppose both compulsory vaccines for NHS staff, and the introduction of vaccine passports. Both measures are counterproductive and will create division when we need cooperation and unity." - jeremy corbyn
that's just a reminder of what an actual left might sound like - and is where i'm actually coming from on this.
but, we don't have a left on this continent, so i just sound like somebody from a different planet.
4:48
broadly speaking, leftists are supposed to favour less "economic freedom", and are supposed to be in favour of more "individual freedom". this surface contradiction is rooted in the class basis of capitalism, where "economic freedom" is the freedom to exploit workers, and individual freedom is the freedom of workers.
conversely, the right is supposed to be in favour of more centralized, authoritarian forms of government that advance the class interests of the elite and consequently aren't concerned about individual liberty, in a broad sense.
this division comes from the parliament introduced after the beginning stages of the french revolution, where the left side of the parliament represented the people (socialists and republicans) and the right side of the parliament represented the monarchy.
5:01
this is a picture of me from october or november 2004.
no hormones.
9:01
see, this is mismanagement, and the state is responsible for it - nobody else.
10:35
as a bicyclist, i'm unusually sensitive to slow reaction times by drivers, and i've certainly noticed an increase in drivers not realizing i'm coming, especially in left-hand-turn scenarios.
the government has allowed industry to mislead people into thinking this is some kind of medicine, rather than a recreational drug that, with responsible use, has minimal side effects. the key points that need to be made are:
- no, marijuana is not a medicine. you retards.
- occasional marijuana use has minimal health or social implications
- but, more than occasional marijuana use has negative health ramifications that are both similar to tobacco use and alcohol use
- and, the same kind of social restrictions surrounding alcohol use - designated drivers, for example - need to be applied to marijuana use, to ensure responsible consumption
i disagree with the researcher in his cautioning around causation. i don't think the law should be trying to figure out if a stoned driver crashed because he was stoned or not. as it is with alcohol, there should be a zero tolerance policy for stoned driving.
also, no, cbd doesn't protect against covid, and you're retarded if you'd take that seriously for four seconds. i promise you that that "study" was funded by the powerful marijuana industry, and no doubt to distract from it's own internal findings: potheads, and especially older and obese ones, which is most of them, are obviously going to do worse than randomized controls when presented with any sort of virus, whether vaccinated against it or not.
15:40
so, dick cheney's a democrat now, huh?
wake up.
16:26
so, it took me a fair amount of time to go through the notes for the last two years on the karen/cop case (that's right. after filing access requests, i learned the karen that filed a false report to get me arrested is actually a cop. so, what the fuck?), but i seem to now have all of the raw information in order.
i left off with a contradiction regarding the ability to file a reply factum. see, the oiprd botched the case. you have to understand that the system is set up to provide for ethnic representation, rather than competency, so they go out on the street looking for "representatives of the community" and ask them to fill in as lawyers. this is supposed to make brown people feel less intimidated by the system, but the actual result is that nobody knows what the fuck they're doing, and when situations finally do end up in court, they're a mass.
so, what happened was that the oiprd botched the report, then tried to compensate by filing a 53 page factum (almost three times as long as the statutory limit), which i let them get away with, on the grounds that i could file a reply factum. but, you have to get a motion to appeal, which i did. the justice said it's ok, so long as i get consent, which i did, in exchange for filing the 53 page factum in the first place. but, then i have to file a consent motion, and i can't, because i'd have to declare i'm not under disability, and i am under disability. i was planning on approaching this by asserting the rules of procedure in a byzantine, ridiculous way [i had, i think, 8 motions that followed from each other, to deal with one issue after the other], but, in hindsight, i decided to just ask. i mean, i'm not solving a math problem; i'm not in an epic struggle with a robot. the justice is a human being. rather than bombard him with a logical blitzkreig, i can just be reasonable and ask. the intent to allow for filing is there, anyways. but, i still had to pull all of the pieces together, because i have to build this ridiculous motion record from it.
i also have two new pieces of evidence to file:
- the karen admitted that she used a false identity in her correspondence with the human rights tribunal
- the karen had a previous "employer-employee" relationship with the crown's office, which was responsible for the arrest and the charges.
so, it's easy to piece together what happened: karen calls her buddies up, and has me illegally arrested, without a warrant. not only was it illegal - in technical terms - but there's evidence of a clear abuse of power, including the filing of a false report. and, because karen isn't technically an officer, that's a crime punishable by jail time in this country. i do intend to send the karen to jail, in the end - payback's a bitch.
payback's a karen.
the purpose of this case is to get the divisional court to declare the arrest illegal. i will then use that in the human rights case, and also use it to file a constitutional challenge against the city of windsor.
it took me an extreme amount of effort to get the thing scheduled, and to wrench information out of the various agencies, but there's enough here for the justice to at least order more information. if he's not convinced that the conflict of interest is an abuse of power, he can ask for more evidence, for example - and he'll get documents that i can't get.
for example, there's the curious issue of the apparently altered court audio. i have 25 years experience working with digital audio, and while the format they gave it to me in - a transcoded wma file embedded in an encrypted html document, that was only directly accessible by pulling it out of the windows temp directory - made any kind of actual analysis impossible, it's clear enough that the audio was spliced. the relics in the cut are unmistakable.
so, you've got a karen that works for the crown attorney, and you've got altered court audio, on top of an illegal arrest. yeah - this bitch even tried to cover her steps, too. but, how do i get the court office to give me those files, when they probably did the deed? i need an external court order, and i need it from high up.
early april.
but, i need to do a lot of housekeeping with these documents, first.
so, who is this woman? i don't know. i can't find any information about any caroline chevalier in windsor.
but, i wonder if it's potentially caroline mulroney, who was the attorney general of the province at the time, and who is known to own property and have political contacts in the area. would you believe something as crazy as that? would you believe something half as crazy as that?
21:10
saturday, january 15, 2022
yeah.
so, when a fake justice tells you they won't hear your case, which is about being violently threatened by angry muslim thugs because you're queer, by citing "general unfairness" and then absurdly uses entrirely irrelevant employment law to back it up, that is probably more than incompetence - that probably suggests a bias, and is reflective of procedural unfairness.
so, i'm going to flip their argument around on them and present their specious ruling as evidence of systemic anti-queer (and systemic pro-muslim) bias, itself.
i'm going to essentially sue the human rights court for a human rights violation. and, i think i'm right, too.
7:22
no, i'll remind you that i did not endorse the democrats in 2020, and rather explicitly stated that i couldn't possibly vote for joe biden, largely because i found his foreign policy mortifying. i explicitly made that argument on multiple occasions: i discouraged people from voting for joe biden, because i felt his foreign policy would be disastrous.
and, i think i was right.
instead, i endorsed voting for the greens as a statement of protest against the two-headed monster that is electoral politics in the united states.
in fact, i explicitly argued against voting for barack obama, too. twice. i did not explicitly endorse al gore, either. while i was very openly opposed to george w. bush, i was a ralph nader supporter, and largely think he was right in his arguments that gore wouldn't have been better than bush - still. i have explicitly argued that the idea that gore would have been less likely to invade iraq, for example, is evidence-free, wishful thinking. bush campaigned against what he called "nation building"; gore was almost singularly responsible for the sanctions regime against iraq in the 90s.
i did explicitly endorse john kerry in 2004 and i did explicitly endorse hillary clinton in 2016. but, i usually endorse the greens, not the democrats, and i always deny being a democrat, when asked.
i'm about five rungs to the left of a sanders democrat, and i've really never harboured any delusions about the democrats, or "cheered" for them in much of any substantive way. in recent years, if anything, i've begun to lean more towards the republicans. the liberal republican may be seen as some kind of unicorn, but i guess it depends on what you think a liberal is. i think the demise of the liberal republican is really very much exaggerated, and that it's probably a better description of me than a "progressive" democrat, given that i simply cannot discern the difference between a progressive and a conservative in any kind of substantive way, at all. i'll pick liberal republicans over progressive democrats any day of the week, and i've never said or suggested or broadcast anything differently.
being an anarchist means you tend to avoid political identification, altogether. anarchists are individualists, and free thinkers; we value our ability to stand out and be different more than we value any kind of group identity. so, if we disagree with the group, we'll tell the group to fuck off, not alter our views to fit in. so, i'd be unlikely to identify as a democrat even if i agreed with them, for the simple reason that that is a group identity, and i reject the premise of group identity as conformist and conservative.
but, all i've ever told anybody willing to listen is that i have utter disdain for the democrats.
so, please don't feign confusion. you're right - i'm not a democrat. i never said i was. i told you i wasn't. try to keep up.
8:09
if you listen to the music here, the concern has always been about individual civil rights. in the 90s and 00s, it was the republicans that wanted to take away our rights. nowadays, it's the democrats that seem to be the greater threat. i will align against the more authoritarian group, and i will hold to historical language, as i do so.
8:20
i haven't seen the study, but the results are not surprising.
omicron has multiple mutations on the spike protein, which should make rna vaccination far less effective. that is a process we saw with delta, which has increased with omicron and which should accelerate with future mutations. if the vaccine was about 90% effective to start and was closer to 70% effective against delta (numbers that need to be interpreted carefully, as we don't have a study with a large sample size), 50-60% for omicron seems about right.
so, is 37% too low? well, if it's a small sample size, maybe. but, you shouldn't expect to see data for omicron higher than 70%, and you should expect to see these numbers come down, perhaps quickly, with future mutations.
8:32
rather, what is irresponsible is articles by half-literate buffoons like adam miller (somebody that has no business talking about science anywhere to anybody) that seek to convince people that vaccines are more effective than the science says they are.
that kind of irresponsible journalism is going to get people killed by instilling a false sense of confidence in people that will need to take responsibility for the special precautions they require for the rest of their lives, whether they like it or not.
8:36
note, dated to sept 26, 2022.
i am taking posts down due to concerns about back-end editing by governments. one of the posts that made me aware of what was happening was edits to the vavilov sequence of posts from dec, 2019.
this was a real-time/contemporary analysis of a landmark ruling in canada, and that it might be edited to advance the interests of a sitting government is of extreme concern to freedom of thought in this country. this would be an extreme abuse of power, an extreme abuse of technology and severe infringement of several of my basic constitutional and even natural rights as a human being. i'm left with no paper trail, but suspect google could clarify the point on subpoena.
i want to collect the versions of the post i have here for insertion into three (i suppose four) separate archives. i do not want to write this now, as i'm typing into the backend and there's no point. i will need to wait until this is on a more stable system before i attempt to rewrite it again.
---
on aug 11, 2022 i posted the following:
(a) as recovered from email sent to my google account from the blogger ui on aug 11, and collected on sept 26:
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i'm explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
(b) as recovered from the blogger draft post on sept 26:
aug 11
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining it. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
aug 12, 2022
this is a rewritten vavilov write-up, dated to today.
am i playing tricks on myself? i have to acknowledge that i might be playing tricks on myself via rationalizing it, too.
========
(this was never posted but left as a draft until it was reposted in the august archive. this post has now been posted to the space this post is in, as a reminder to rewrite the initial post)
8:04
==============
the jan 15, 2022 posts, at 9:27, as i can recover them, are as follows:
(a) from blogger, as recovered on sept 26, 2022 and edited after aug 11, 2022:
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
(edit: this was removed on aug 11, 2022 and should be replaced with the updated version)
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
(b) from email, resent from the blogger ui on jan 17th at 1:42. the email was resent with spaces in the hyperlink, suggesting that i may have reposted it because the initial post wasn't sent due to the existence of the link.
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
we'll talk soon.
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
h t t p s :/ / sc c -c s c . l e x u m .c o m / sc c - c s c / s c c -c s c / e n / i t e m / 1 8 0 7 8 / i n d e x. d o
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong - you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
======
this is the version of this original post from my email, which was dated to dec 21 @ 4:22 but was actually sent on dec 22 at 10:02. i do not believe that i was having difficulty archiving posts at this time, so this is actually a little bit alarming. that post should have been sent from the google ui and dated correctly.
[dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja] 12/21/2019 4:22:00 PM
we'll talk soon,
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less
dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really
doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there
is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or
less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's
use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may
now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did
lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre,
in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a
rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible
for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't
lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right
answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that
means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong -
you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the
precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's
really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more
polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would
render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was
reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report,
but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the
outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my
argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look
at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z
and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is
just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's
really important is the application record, because that's where the
actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the
error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of
the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an
expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a
constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the
fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or
not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the
court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm
that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or
less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from
scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in
some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
===========
finally, this is the version was left stranded in aug, 2022:
====
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive analysis of the ruling would suggest that they're dismantling the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness reviews as reasonableness reviews. there is a slightly different procedural approach attached to this, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
in a correctness review, the reviewing judge is expected to determine whether the lower body of law (often a panel of non-judges) committed an error of law or not; the issue at law is whether or not the decision is correct. in a reasonableness review, the court can not ask what the correct answer is, it can only ask what a "range" of correct "outcomes" is, whatever that even means. the idea was supposed to be deference to an expert, but the concept has become corrupted via the application of irrational precedents, and has now lost any coherency in application. unfortunately, the legal system in canada has adopted the frightening and backwards idea that facts do not exist, so
so, in a reasonableness review, you can't tell the judge that the panel done fucked up and is fucking wrong like i want to - you can only argue that the outcome is not in an acceptable "range of possibilities". outcomes that are legally, factually or logically wrong may be upheld by the court if the court decides that being wrong is "reasonable". this essentially undoes any concept of law, and instead converts the court into an authoritarian body that is dictating random, arbitrary proclamations, which it gets to self-regulate as "reasonable" or not. it's a complete absence of law, elevated to judicial precedent.
what the new ruling really seems to be saying is that telling somebody they're wrong is impolite, so you have to suggest that they're merely being unreasonable, instead, even if what you're really saying is that they're wrong; being wrong is only meaningful if they're also being unreasonable, so the issue at law becomes whether they're reasonable or not rather than whether they're correct or not.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report was incorrect in it's application of r. v. storrey, i will now need to argue that incorrectly applying a precedent the way the report did led to an unreasonable outcome, instead. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense; the supreme court seems to have fallen down a rabbit hole of political correctness in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to substantively different outcomes.
what the new precedent decides is that being incorrect might be unreasonable.
in my precise example, the new precedent would allow a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to potentially be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
9:27
i'm sorting through some post-vavilov decisions, and i'm exceedingly disturbed by what i'm seeing.
the right to judicial review is an unwritten constitutional principle, in this country. if the court is going to tell me that i can't file a judicial review because the issue is of error rather than "reason", which is a stupid concept that can't even be defined, it is both in contravention of the jrpa and breaking the constitution.
and, what do you do when the supreme court breaks the law?
as far as i can see, for now, the effect of the ruling is that the court now operates in the realm of opinion, rather than in the realm of fact, and that the court will explicitly reject claims that it has any role to arbitrate fact, on top of it. intentionally or not, it seems to have completely destroyed the foundations of the court system. this is exceedingly disturbing, in a country with failing legislative bodies.
i am going to be coy about this, and see what happens.
but, i'd be eager to challenge vavilov directly. this is really the worst change in precedent that we've seen in this country in decades, and something that cannot stand for any length of time without severely damaging the credibility of the court system.
17:20
if you want to determine whether the opinion of a body was "reasonable", you can apply for review.
but, if you want to argue that that same body was wrong, the judicial system will no longer hear your case.
it's utterly backwards and incomprehensibly stupid, but here we are.
17:23
i claim i have a constitutional right to claim an administrative body was wrong, and i have a constitutional right to file for certiorari to enforce that claim. and, i claim i have a legislative right under the jrpa to do so, as well. so, how do i make that argument, if i have to?
17;25
let me test this argument: if i forcefully argue that the jrpa overpowers vavilov, what happens?
vavilov does say that correctness reviews need to have a legislative basis, and that the court needs to respect the legislative intent in setting up a review framework. ok. but, the review framework in ontario is that judicial review is legislated by the jrpa, and applicable to all administrative bodies. further, the jrpa explicitly states that the court has the power to set aside judgements on a correctness basis. a correct reading of vavilov, then, is that it doesn't really apply in ontario.
this is an important distinction, as well, as not all provinces have legislated certiorari. in most of canada, certiorari is a writ that relies on common law and exists as an unwritten constitutional principle. in ontario, though, certiorari is legislated law, and the legislature has explicitly indicated that all administrative bodies are subject to review, and in fact subject to review on a correctness basis. if vavilov's intent is to defer to the legislature, the intent of the legislature is clearly to allow for correctness reviews, on all applications.
i need to be clear: this isn't obvious, and would seem to be the opposite direction that the court is heading in, which is maybe why it's important to throw it in the court's face and force it to take notice. the reality is that vavilov is a messy, poorly written decision that replaced a clear and logical framework for review with a mess of subjective nonsense that nobody can really make sense of and has created chaos in precedent, where there was once order. i don't give a fuck, so i'll be happy to push the existing precedent to try to re-establish some coherence in the matter.
i had no idea this was coming, and it undoes a lot of my education on the topic. much of what i learned in school is now wrong. but, i was foresighted enough to explicitly cite the jrpa in all of my documents, and do not have to redo the argument to make the point.
this is going to put the judge in a tough point, and we'll have to see what he does.
18:25
sunday, january 16, 2022
i've actually been sleeping all weekend. i didn't trip fully into a migraine, but i got close to one, and i'm experiencing the side effects of one, regardless. the trigger is generally exposure to second-hand smoke.
the smoke has been better this winter, but i noticed some stench around the end of last week, and i guess this is the consequence of it.
i probably won't get anything done this weekend as a result of it, but we'll see if i can stay awake after eating or not.
8:12
no, the migraine is coming, i need to wait for it and sleep it off.
ugh.
9:01
i'm awake. for now. i'm sweating, too. am i having a migraine, or dd i get drugged, again?
i was thinking about this when half-asleep, in bed.
if the court's direction is that rule of law cases need to be heard on a correctness basis, and my argument is that the tribunal erred in applying a reasonable basis, then convincing the justice that this is actually a rule of law case (it's about an illegal arrest.) should actually advance my argument - if this is a rule of law case then the correct basis for review is correctness, and the review body erred.
the problem here is that the oiprd review council is not composed of legal experts, and they are not capable of analyzing a ruling on a correctness basis. so, they didn't, and it was obvious; their claim is that the ruling was reasonable because it "cited case law", which is the kind of response you get when you task somebody to do something they're not qualified to do. the review body essentially deferred to the cop, because it had less legal expertise than the cop even did. this is a body that, as mentioned previously, is composed of minority groups that are supposed to soften the image of the police force. they're supposed to identify racist cops based on intuition and/or convince minorities that the cops aren't actually really racist by providing a brown face to the institution. they're neither intended to be able to do substantive legal analysis, nor capable of performing it.
rather, the intent of the legislature in setting up these incompetent review bodies was to leave substantive judicial review to the courts.
so, this existing precedent becomes quite vexing, when viewed in the context of the legislature's actual intent (which was to let the courts deal with it), rather than the court's falsely determined intent (which was to set up specialized bodies). the oiprd review council is not a specialized body, it's members are not legal experts and the legislature did not intend for it to deal with substantive issues; it is a body of civilians intended to make the police force seem more human that was intended to defer issues of substance to the courts.
the rule of law argument is made explicitly in my analysis of vavilov, so if i can convince the justice on that point, i should get them to hear the case.
but, it will be an exceedingly poor outcome if the divisional court decides it must defer to the expertise of a civilian council on a legal issue due to a direction by the supreme court. that would put the administration of justice in this province in disrepute, and severely damage the credibility of the legal system in ontario.
13:23
it's just an awful precedent, and it might take 20 years to try to fix it.
how did this happen, anyways?
i'm torn between it being the consequence of industry lobby groups trying to eliminate judicial review and it being the result of an egotistical court justice trying to leave his mark on the court. ether option directs the blame at the pmo, either for letting kim campbell (who is an extreme right-wing socred former prime minster) pick the justice, or for being bought out by lobbyist money. and, there's a strong argument in both directions.
13:26
is this acceptable oversight, on behalf of the chief justice of the supreme court?
i think that producing a statement that general is unforgivable, and suggestive of poor analytical skills, rather than of acceptable oversight. this country has 16 provincial, territorial and federal legislatures, all of whom act independently of one another. there is neither any logical nor any sensical basis in writing a ruling that assumes that all of the legislatures had the same intent, in all of the legislation that they wrote. this, i might add, is presented without argument.
there is a forgivable error, and there's base stupidity. vavilov is rooted in base stupidity, not in forgivable error.
14:10
moving forwards, i might advise that people avoid these councils as much as possible and just file directly to court.
14:17
i mean, if i could do this again, that's the lesson i've learned - avoid bodies like the oiprd and the human rights tribunal altogether and just go directly to court.
14:18
no, i'll repeat the statement.
vavilov cites "the intent of the legislature", and applies a singular intent to all legislation written by all legislative bodies in this country. you can't make sense of the ruling, otherwise. according to the justice, there are not multiple legislatures, but rather merely The Legislature, which decided the same thing in all provinces, throughout all of history.
the fact of the master is that the chief justice is wrong - that the intent of the legislature in ontario regarding judicial review is rather obviously quite different than the intent of the legislature in quebec. if there is a legislature in the chief justice's mind, i would guess that the legislature is the quebec legislature, as this is a ruling rooted in civil, rather than common law. i mean, that's the basic argument - that the common law doesn't matter, that we need to refer to the civil code, instead. but, that is a backwards argument in a country that has common law traditions, and that has a population that expects to be governed by common law traditions, and that does not respect or desire civil law legal conventions.
my legislature intended for judicial review to be governed by common law precedents and traditions, and even wrote a piece of legislation to ensure that judges would have the power available to them in a common law context. i expect the judiciary to uphold my rights in the matter, not to enforce a civil law interpretation of the code on me.
14:27
i expect to be governed by the time-tested democratic traditions of my ancestors, not to be dictated terms by some idiot aristocrats.
14:35
so, i think the headache passed after all.
i'm not sick. i haven't been coughing, for example. i was a little constipated, but then i passed the most beautiful bowel movement that the world has ever seen, truly - definitively shit brown, nearly six inches thick, and perfectly cylindrically formed from the top of the bowl down to some distant, unseen place, deep within the plumbing. if somebody told me it was the entire length of my intestines, i'd believe them. and, i've been slowly recovering since it passed.
i've also gained a few pounds from staying inside, which i usually don't do over the winter because i usually eat a little less over the winter. i need to balance that.
i hacked out a bit of phlegm, but it was yellow rather than green and therefore more consistent with a smoke exposure event, or even dehydration. as mentioned, i'm not reflexively coughing, although i did hack that phlegm out.
so, maybe i recovered from a near-migraine without tripping over, or maybe it's an extended aura. when they come in, i get mushroom-trip like tracers to start them, but it's at the end of the aura, not at the start of it. so, i could go through two or three days of being exhausted and having a dull headache, before the tracers click in and the migraine hits.
i'm sitting down with a coffee for the first time in a few days and, on second thought, i'm still feeling oozy.
what i want to do is put aside this vavilov analysis for later and carefully read through both the practice direction and the rules of procedure. remember: i have completed the requirements for a three year undergraduate law degree, but i haven't ever worked in a law office, or ever written a bar exam. so, i know what i'm doing on an academic level (which is being slowly taken away from me by updated rulings), but i'm flying on the seat of my pants in terms of procedures. the rules are clear, it's just a question of reading them, which is what i need to do, now.
16:22
so, if the russians have now regained their historical place as a major power in eastern europe, where should the limits between the eu and russia be drawn?
while this fundamentally should be an issue of the democratic wills of the people in the region, the issue cannot be separated from history, either. while i understand that my analysis is subject to some dissent, as any would be, i have repeatedly argued that europe should be split into three regions:
1. scandinavia, which includes the united kingdom.
2. the western roman empire, which now includes germany (but has not historically)
3. the eastern roman empire, which now includes russia (but has not historically)
the fourth entity would be an islamic superstate with a clear demarcation point into east and west somewhere around carthage. this entity is really an expanded persian superstate, and is not relevant to this analysis.
well, the traditional boundary points of europe, as a political entity, are the rhine and the danube:
while i have excluded hadrian's wall, this is the world, as the romans saw it. roman europe was the area south and west of the rhine and danube, while the barbarians - then germanic and slavic speaking peoples, with some remnant celtic groups, some out of place iranian groups and some early turko-mongol groups as well - lived to the north and east of it. so, to the romans, the bulk of europe was outside the realm of their civilization. this map is very kind to the russians, but should form a starting point in any objective analysis as to what east and western europe means. one will note that it is not that different than the iron curtain line.
with the movement of german-speaking peoples into europe (this happened well before the 5th century, with the start of it really being the movement of goths into the empire to escape the huns, but the historically accepted date is 406), and the subsequent assimilation of germany into roman civilization, culminating in the holy roman empire and then the prussian empire, it is necessary to move the boundary eastward from the rhine. any competent russian official would need to acknowledge that. they may start with berlin, but it is with the intent to concede that the western empire has long assimilated the baltic sea coast at least as far as the elbe and, in truth, as far east as the vistula, which splits poland in half.
the vistula is also where the mongols were stopped, in their wave of genocidal destruction.
this creates a new map:
so, we are reconstructing a partition of poland - something that has been done many times in history. the molotov-ribbentrop pact was history repeating, not an original idea. this is a historical boundary.
while the issue must ultimately be left up to the people of the baltic states, the fact is that western roman civilization, as any sort of historical entity, has no claim whatsoever to the northeastern part of the baltic sea.
while the russians should not be asserting sovereignty over these regions until or if they agree to rejoin russia peacefully, they have legiimate grounds to demand that any offensive weaponry be pulled back to south and west of the vistula. the position of nato and the eu should be that while they welcome and accept the memberships of these countries, and would view substantive russian aggression against them as an act of war, that they are ultimately undefendable and that forward positions in the region are unsustainable.
the western alliance should be willing to bargain regarding it's forward positions in the baltic sea, north-east of the vistula.
now, what about the danube? is that historical boundary still relevant?
what i said previously, in december, was this:
latvia, lithuania, estonia, ukraine, poland, romania, hungary, slovakia and the czech republic are all clearly in the russian sphere and should be abandoned by nato, at once.
i was, indeed, looking at the danube, and perhaps over-extended russia's claim to all of poland, rather than the vistula. i have previously argued that the czech republic, on order of being the historically celtic bohemian area, is historically more west than east, while handing the slovaks back to the russians. this is an incredibly subtle argument, and i'll again point to czech and slovak self-determination as being paramount.
is that reasonable, though?
the difficult point is romania, which is a relatively large country that has spent a large amount of time under ottoman domination. what is a romanian? a romanian is a self-identified roman that speaks a degraded version of latin and was identified by the ruling turks as a latin minority in the empire. romanians trace their ancestry to one of three sources: some of them were romans that settled on the northern banks of the danube as colonists in historically roman times (although such claims are likely quite dubious, as any such settlements would have been repeatedly destroyed by successive waves of germanic, slavic, hunnic and turkic barbarians), some of them were romans fleeing ottommon domination (a more likely source) and some of them are slavs that adopted latin speech and greek religious customs. most romanians would be of slavic genetic ancestry, while speaking a romance language and following greek religious customs. the claim the russians have over the region is that they liberated it from the ottomans, which is not unsubstantial, given the shared ethnic and religious ties. but, a romanian is not a russian, and will descend itself very differently, whether romantically or historically. the question of whether romania belongs to east or west is somewhat open.
in terms of the placement of military weaponry, though, i think the danube is a reasonable line, and that anything north or east of the danube should be in the same position as that east and north of the vistula. as such, i think the above map is most appropriate.
i will repeat myself: while the primary issue must be one of self-determination, the alliance must also be cognizant of where it's placing forward-facing military technology. moving offensive weaponry to behind the vistula and danube rivers is not abandoning the region, so much as it is acknowledging the history of the area, and where the lines have historically been drawn. we can welcome romania and estonia into the west without placing threatening military hardware on their territories. but, we must also be realistic in realizing that the peoples of these area are historically aligned with the eastern empire and not the western empire and, for that reason, it is an inevitability that we will likely be facing russian backed revolts in these areas, sooner or later. for all the talk of 1956 in the media, it is difficult to recognize hungary as a member of the western alliance, and likely that they'll be the first to go.
so, if i was confusing, please let me reiterate: i do not think the european union should abandon the previous list of countries, and i may have slightly overemphasized the point by suggesting nato ought to "abandon" it's eastern flank. but, i am now presenting concrete historical boundaries for the responsible placement of offensive weaponry in eastern europe that the russians would probably be satisfied with, if presented in a historical context. and, my aim is to stop a wider war by insisting that the west is in fact the aggressor, for the reasons that it is unilaterally pushing forward ancient boundaries that it ought to immediately retreat to.
there is a general understanding in the west today that artificially enacted boundaries like the durand and sykes-picot line have been responsible for advancing wars in their respective regions, by splitting populations along artificial boundaries that were only beneficial to western colonial interests. a little bit of self-realization is necessary here, in realizing that these post cold war boundaries are also artificial and that the re-establishment of the historical boundaries in the region would do much to prevent the onset of war.
and, i hope that the ukrainians told the canadian delegation that it doesn't want their gas. we don't need the emissions required in transporting gas across the world. it's insane.
17:59
monday, january 17, 2022
what do i think about vavilov itself?
i think it's daft.
send the guy back to russia.
and, i'm not a russophobe, either. but, both the guy's parents were spies - are we so naive?
i bet the justice still thinks igor gazenko was innocent. fuck....
0:29
vavilov not know both parents russian spies. just big misunderstanding. give him access to state secrets, he show you he no russian. ah-ha-ha.
0:36
this is an example of the kind of incoherent babble in the decision:
In cases where reasons are required, they are the starting point for reasonableness review, as they are the primary mechanism by which decision makers show that their decisions are reasonable.
that's not a monty python skit, it's a quote from the chief justice of the supreme court of canada, in a landmark ruling, in this country. he blithers on:
Reasons are the means by which the decision maker communicates the rationale for its decision: they explain how and why a decision was made, help to show affected parties that their arguments have been considered and that the decision was made in a fair and lawful manner, and shield against arbitrariness. A principled approach to reasonableness review is therefore one which puts those reasons first. This enables a reviewing court to assess whether the decision as a whole is reasonable. Attention to the decision maker’s reasons is part of how courts demonstrate respect for the decision‑making process.
i see.
so, in order to be a reasonable, a "decision maker" (dubya? where art thee, dubya?) must cite reasons. for, reasons are what makes an argument reasonable.
brilliant stuff.
1:09
"To be reasonable, a decision must be based on an internally coherent reasoning that is both rational and logical." - richard wagner, chief justice of the supreme court of canada
so, a decision is reasonable when it uses reasoning. thanks for your insight, dick.
you know, i'm reminded of the difficulties geometry had in defining concepts like "straight line", which was eventually solved by hilbert by introducing the concept of an undefined term. you can't do it! this is an approach that is going nowhere, and it really demonstrates that the justice has a lack of relevant education. no wonder he doesn't think justices should be working things out - he's a dunce, himself. how many times has dickie dee here been presented with something that just blew his mind?
if you don't believe me, read the case, and try to convince yourself that he's not an idiot:
how'd he get this job?
- promoted by harper. twice.
- assigned by kim campbell.
1:23
it's reasonable when you use reason.
just like a proof is proven, when you have proof.
this is supposed to be the smart branch. what the fuck.
1:39
In the case at bar, there is no basis for departing from the presumption of reasonableness review. The Registrar’s decision has come before the courts by way of judicial review, not by way of a statutory appeal. Given that Parliament has not prescribed the standard to be applied, there is no indication that the legislature intended a standard of review other than reasonableness
no, that's not reasonable, because it doesn't use reason. it's entirely specious, in truth.
if the court does not specify which standard is to be applied, then it makes no indication as to which standard is intended at all. it neither intends correctness, nor reasonableness, nor patented unreasonableness, nor a crapshoot in the dark - it simply doesn't specify.
i understand that dick made a previous assumption that reasonableness should be the intent of the legislature, but he provided no basis for it.
so, what do we do now, when the supreme court's insistence on a reasonableness standard is unreasonable because it doesn't use reason, but rather makes a baseless assumption?
perhaps the real takeaway from this is an implicit suggestion - perhaps the legislature ought to legislate the matter, so the supreme court justices don't get so easily confused and mislead and have nice, easy, simple directions to follow.
people have been trying to make sense of this for two years, and nobody can figure it out. there's an underlying assumption that the court is wise, and we need to have faith for it to reveal itself, or some bullshit. this isn't a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma - it's a bunch of incoherent babble that any idiot could deconstruct as such.
i'm going to be literal, and try to get the point across, by aggressively arguing that the legislature intended for the court to act as a reviewing body, as evidenced by the jrpa (which literally states as much) and that the assumption made in the case is demonstrably false in ontario, at least.
but, fuck...
why does it take a disinterested self-represented party to dismantle the bullshit?
2:31
this is what the jrpa says:
(2) The power of the court to set aside a decision for error of law on the face of the record on an application for an order in the nature of certiorari is extended so as to apply on an application for judicial review in relation to any decision made in the exercise of any statutory power of decision to the extent it is not limited or precluded by the Act conferring such power of decision. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2 (2).
so, the jrpa says the court has the power to overturn anything on a correctness basis, unless it stipulated in the legislation that it shouldn't.
that is, the jrpa assumes a correctness basis, unless the legislation says otherwise.
so much for dick's brilliant assumption, huh?
2:36
do you think dick has ever read the jrpa, or do you think he only cares about quebec, so the jrpa doesn't matter?
2:38
vavilov simply makes no sense in ontario, where the assumption underlying the precedent - that the legislature only intends for limited reasonableness review unless otherwise stated - is demonstrably false, via the existence of the jrpa.
3:16
in fact, it shouldn't apply in bc, either.
3:19
tuesday, january 18, 2022
wednesday, january 19, 2022
so, what am i doing?
i woke up yesterday afternoon and sat down last evening to sort through the rules of procedure and realized i forgot these stupid backsheets. it's this triviality in the rules of procedure, i guess because it makes it easier to file, which isn't relevant, digitally. but, it's in the rules...
at least the bullshit colour codes explicitly don't apply for digital filings.
unfortunately, it took me all night to figure out how to re-print the application record to pdf, because i wrote it in word, and everything converts to xml, first. i have to print on xp to maintain the formatting, but i just couldn't print the jpgs in the file. i got it, in the end, but only with some effort.
then, the machine crashed, randomly.
i got some sleep, and now i'm back to it.
so, no fun story, just a night spent doing legal clerk type stuff.
let's hope i can get through the rules before sunrise.
0:43
thursday, january 20, 2022
my cholesterol is back to normal this month.
the last reading, i think, was flawed.
i've increased my iron pill intake, but i'm realizing the rbcs and hemoglobin consistently come down a distance from a meal. it's an interesting observation.
i have an appointment soon, i just wanted to post this first. i'll fill in the rest after.
| 2021 | 2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| m | a | m | j | j | a | s | o | n | d | j | f | m | a | m | j | j | a | s | o | n | d | |
| creatinine | 78/80 | - | - | - | - | 87 | 84 | 83 / 81 | 80 | 90/64 | 66 | |||||||||||
| egfr | 107/106 | - | - | - | - | 96 | 100 | 101 / 104 | 106 | 92/116 | 115 | |||||||||||
| alp | 61 | - | - | 63 | 59 | 50 | 60 | 59 /55 | 47 | 50 | 60 | |||||||||||
| albumin | -/45.7 | - | - | - | 45.9 | 44.6 | 46.8 | 48 /46 | 46.7 | 49.8 | 43.7 | |||||||||||
| cholesterol | 3.93 | - | - | - | 3.99 | 3.8 | 4.15 | 4.01/3.83 | 4.14/4.02 | 4.14/3.67 | 3.54/3.8 | |||||||||||
| triglycerides | .87 | - | - | - | .95 | .89 | 1.41 | 1.05/0.94 | 1.09/1.32 | 1.86/0.73 | 2.26/0.75 | |||||||||||
| hdl | 1.69 | - | - | - | 1.84 | 1.59 | 1.73 | 1.42/1.55 | 1.37/1.42 | 1.51/1.74 | 1.75/1.72 | |||||||||||
| ldl | 1.85 | - | - | - | 1.72 | 1.81 | 1.78 | 2.11/1.85 | 2.28/2.00 | 1.79/1.6 | <0.8/1.75 | |||||||||||
| non-hdl | 2.24 | - | - | - | 2.15 | 2.21 | 2.42 | 2.59/2.28 | 2.77/2.60 | 2.63/1.93 | 1.79/2.09 | |||||||||||
| wbc | 8.7/8.4 | 9.9/9.0 | - | - | ? | 7.0 | 7.6 | 6.9/6.9 | 7.8 | 11.3/8.2 | 6.7/6.4 | |||||||||||
| rbc | 3.97/4.25 | 4.11/4.38 | - | - | 4.17 | 4.12 | 4.33 | 4.47/4.2 | 4.28 | 4.55/4.19 | 4.3/4.22 | |||||||||||
| hemoglobin | 132/140 | 133/142 | - | - | 139 | 136 | 141 | 138/138 | 139 | 144/131 | 141/133 | |||||||||||
| hematocrit | .382/.404 | .394/.424 | - | - | .405 | .398 | .418 | .417/.402 | .405 | 0.431/0.393 | .409/.396 | |||||||||||
| mcv | 96.1/95.1 | 95.8/97.0 | - | - | 97 | 96.8 | 96.6 | 93/95.7 | 94.6 | 94.7/94 | 95/94 | |||||||||||
| mch | 33.1/32.9 | 32.4/32.5 | - | - | 33.3 | 33.2 | 32.7 | 30.9/32.8 | 32.5 | 31.8/31.3 | 32.7/31.5 | |||||||||||
| mchc | 345/346 | 338/335 | - | - | ? | 343 | 338 | 331/343 | 344 | 335/333 | 344/336 | |||||||||||
| rdw | 13.3/13.5 | 13.0/13.1 | - | - | ? | 13 | 12.3 | 11.7/12.9 | 12.6 | 13.4/12.0 | 13.2/11.7 | |||||||||||
| platelet | 199/187 | 171/171 | - | - | ? | 175 | 167 | 168/150 | 155 | 188/185 | 159/184 | |||||||||||
| reticulocytes | - | -/42 | - | - | 53 | 56 | 46 | 35 | 33 | 33 | 39 | |||||||||||
| vitamin d | 87 | - | - | - | 109 | 72 | 64 | 72/83 | 78 | 64/71 | 61 | |||||||||||
| estradiol | 363/388 | - | - | - | - | 563 | 443 | 432 | 777 | 343 | ||||||||||||
| estrone | - | - | - | - | - | ? | 4138 | 5203 | 7000+ | - | ||||||||||||
| testosterone | 0.9 | - | - | - | - | - | <0.4 | <0.4 | <0.4 | <0.4 | ||||||||||||
| progesterone | 1.9 | - | - | - | - | - | <0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||
| fsh | <0.2 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.2 | 0.1 | <0.1 | - | ||||||||||||
| lh | <0.2 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | ||||||||||||
| ferritin | 12/9 | 6/17 | 21 | - | 29 | 43 | 28 | 40 | 42 | 59 | 33 | |||||||||||
| tibc | - | 69.5 | - | - | 65.7 | 62.9 | 64.7 | 58.9 | 58.2 | 63.2 | 57.4 | |||||||||||
| iron | - | 9.6 | - | - | 22.7 | 37.3 | 19.3 | 28.3 | 37.3 | 32.5 | 13.1 | |||||||||||
| iron sat | - | 0.14 | - | - | 0.35 | 0.59 | 0.3 | .48 | 0.64 | 0.51 | 0.23 | |||||||||||
| transferrin | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.59 | 2.29 | 2.38 | 2.49 | ||||||||||||
| sodium | - | - | - | - | - | - | 141 | 141/139 | 140 | 141 | 138 | |||||||||||
| potassium | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5.0 | 4.7/4.6 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 4.7 | |||||||||||
| chloride | - | - | - | - | - | - | 104 | 107/105 | 104 | 101 | 105 | |||||||||||
| phosphate | -/1.42 | - | - | - | - | 1.09 | 1.34 | 1.08 | 1.35 | 1.27 | 1.13 | |||||||||||
| magnesium | -/.93 | - | - | - | - | 0.8 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.85 | |||||||||||
| calcium | -/2.4 | - | - | - | 2.38 | 2.32 | 2.44 | 2.39 | 2.4 | 2.43 | 2.33 | |||||||||||
| pth | - | - | - | 5.5 | - | 6.2 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 5.5 | 8.0 | 6.3 | |||||||||||
| tsh | 0.92 | - | - | - | - | 0.94 | 1.22 | 1.67 | 1.48 | 1.07 | 1.39 | |||||||||||
| calcitonin | - | - | - | <0.6 | - | - | - | - | <0.6 | - | ||||||||||||
| cortisol | - | - | - | 325 | - | 464 | 170 | 129 | 225 | 136 | ||||||||||||
| insulin | - | - | - | - | - | 50 | 33 | 68 | 92 | 312 | ||||||||||||
| b12 | 223/251 | - | 304 | - | 363 | 313 | 370 | 292 | 369 | 376 | 293 | |||||||||||
12:19
the surviving uncle died this week. so, they're all dead. they're saying it was a heart attack, but he had a colon issue and i strongly suspect it was covid that set the heart attack in motion. the surviving uncle was a heavy smoker, was a heavy drinker, was overweight, did little exercise and ate poorly. while this is true in varying degrees for all of the relatives on my father's side, the tendency for heart troubles remains concerning to me, and just reinforces the need to keep my cholesterol pristine via estrogen, diet and exercise.
i believe he was born in 1967, which made him 10 years younger than my father and about 54-55. nobody makes it to 60 on that side.
12:31
friday, january 21, 2022
saturday, january 22, 2022
sunday, january 23, 2022
monday, january 24, 2022
the pigs are sitting on the line upstairs, so i've had a hard time doing anything at all this weekend.
i don't know what they think, but they won't leave me alone.
i have to do some legal filing, so i have to sit online with my passwords exposed, which makes me feel like i'm getting raped. but it could be a while before i'm able to update this further.
blame the retarded pigs.
15:03
i don't think the line is secure, but i've separated out my other accounts and made it a little harder for them to hack in. this is a longstanding issue - it's been going on for years - so i'll have to play it by ear. they're persistent, and they're not going to go away. i just wish i understood why.
it might be the russia post that has them acting up. remember - they seem to think i'm a russian spy. at the least, they don't like my russophilia.
i have a lot of posting to do, but i've basically been doing legal stuff the last week, although i also lost a few days doing grocery shopping and cleaning. i should be in for several weeks, now. mid february, potentially...
my back brakes need to be replaced, and i'll have to order the part from italy. i'll need to wait until february, unfortunately.
but, people are talking about vaccine mandates and truckers. what do i think about that?
22:14
i did a lot of grocery shopping this week, and noticed a couple of things:
- yes, some stuff is missing, but there was already stuff missing, and it seems to be stuff from asia that got caught up in the port being closed due to the flooding in bc. i can't find any all bran around here, and haven't been able to for months.
- prices have gone up, but they're sporadic. my caesar, usually in the $1.99-$2.99 range, was $3.99 at one store and $5.99 at another. that looks like there's gouging happening.
- i've also noticed items that i know for a fact are made in canada go up in price, which also suggests gouging.
- fruits from mexico aren't going up in price
so, there's something afoot in inflation land, clearly, but i'd be careful with assigning it cause. remember: inflation is a multi-person game as much as it is about input costs, although it is about input costs. if the store thinks you'll pay more, it'll boost the price, and if the manager thinks it can get away with it by blaming it on a vaccine mandate, it will do so.
but, who is fundamentally right, here, in an economic sense?
well, you know i oppose these kinds of mandates, but that doesn't mean i'm going to endorse one economic view over the other.
it's not entirely clear what's going to happen, and it depends on how it plays out. if you saw an item go up in price the day after the mandate came into effect, that's price gouging - and what you've seen up to this point is mostly gouging, perhaps combined with the bc floods. it's going to take several weeks before this really ripples out, and we'll have to see what happens.
i know of no convincing algorithm to guess which items are going to be affected by supply chain issues or any way to predict the outcome on prices. i would imagine it's probably going to be randomly distributed, and the effect will be minor as a result of it. if there's a 5% decrease in truckers industry wide, everything just moves a little more slowly, and it'll probably mostly balance out.
what you can do is not panic, and not buy into it. i'd advise avoiding higher priced items if you can, because that's the game being played - if you'll pay it, they'll keep the price high. if you won't pay it, they'll have to reduce the price, even if they sell at a loss, in the end. let the food rot on the shelf, until they have to move it and swoop in at the last minute.
so, let's all remain calm about this. it will likely blow over.
for now, if you see something come up in price, realize you're mostly being gouged and go buy something else, instead. wait it out.
22:27
unfortunately, dhimmi joe seems to have taken the bait in shifting to russia, leaving the saudis free to conduct a reign of terror in the middle east.
the kurds need to just summarily execute the fuckers.
23:05
btw, i agree 100% with that german navy guy that got fired for speaking basic obvious sense.
23:22
also, i can't think of any discernible reason why canada would "loan" ukraine 150 million dollars (we'll never get that back...) other than that the finance minister is a crypto-fascist with family roots in the nazi occupation of ukraine.
23:24
.....and you know that that is what we're propping up in ukraine, right?
ukrainian nationalism is fundamentally white supremacist and inherently racist to the core. the sitting government has jailed opposition leaders and banned media outlets.
so, does the government of canada want to explain why it just gave a 150 million dollar "loan" to a bunch of fucking nazis, given that the deputy prime minister seems to be one of them?
23:33
it's not a coincidence that america is backing nazis in eastern europe - that was the plan the whole time. the reason it took until pearl harbour for the united states to declare war on germany (i'm a canadian. we did the right thing - we attacked hitler when he invaded poland.) is that they'd been sending hitler weapons for a decade with the intent of him defeating stalin. that was the point of american policy in europe, they were trying to create a war between germany and russia, and they were rooting for the nazis to win. to american capital, the nazis were the lesser evil.
they only came in on the side of the british, in the end, to stop the soviets from occupying france.
so, post ussr, the americans just dusted off their old world war two game plan, and went back to funding the nazis, again.
now, we're all supposed to declare solidarity for the fuckers? to hell with that.
the russians won't nuke kiev, but it's what the pieces of shit really deserve. and, i want my 150 million dollars back - we have people dying on the streets, here.
23:43
the canadian government is not unaware that the money is going to nazis, either. they recently wrote a report on it - they know what the truth is.
23:47
the russians need to watch their arrogance, as they need to be winning hearts and minds in the region, and they know it.
but, frankly, i think a little bit of collective punishment in ukraine, as dished out by moscow, is long overdue. i think the insolent fuckers deserve a hard beat down.
23:55
tuesday, january 25, 2022
"but there was a famine!"
awww.
the nazis are hungry.
awwww.
let the fuckers starve.
0:03
i'm not a stalinist, i'm an anarchist. we have some disagreements. trust me.
but, stalin was right about the nazis and, by proxy, he was therefore right about ukraine. you have to give him credit where it's due.
0:05
newsflash to ukraine: canada is not your ally.
our government is corrupt, and they are sending you money out of personal interest, in a clear abuse of power. you are lucky to have one of your own in a position of influence, who has not earned her place and is an embarrassment to the country.
nobody here cares about you at all.
0:25
and, i would call on ms. freeland to immediately resign for her obvious role in this developing corruption scandal, this abuse of power.
0:27
yeah, that's right.
blackface trudeau with his nazi deputy on his right-hand side.
welcome to canada.
0:42
so, i think i've figured out why i've been so tired, and i would have never guessed this.
after a series of blood tests with no or almost no measurable progesterone, i switched last week from medroxyprogesterone to prometrium and i almost immediately got my awakeness back.
is there science to that? apparently there is, although the mechanism isn't the clearest. my immediate guess was that it boosted my blood pressure a little (i'm known for barely-alive blood pressure due to high exercise levels), but there's some suggestion it might also by a thyroid thing.
whatever it is, i'm back to perpetual insomnia, which is very welcome, and should hopefully get my productivity back up. fuck sleeping.
2:53
i remember reading up a little on this last week, and being astonished by the ignorance from the liberal mp, andy fillmore.
to set the record straight: lithium carbonate is routinely converted into lithium hydroxide. it's not hypothetical, it's an industry standard.
what the report, as far as i can gather, said was the following:
1. the mine isn't in canada
2. the resource, while valuable, isn't as profitable as other potential investments (which may seem less important to you than it would to a real life capitalist)
3. so, whatever
i think you stop with (1), myself. if it's not in canada, it's not in canada. if i was an argentinian, i'd nationalize the mine and then sell it to the chinese.
in fact, what the conservatives are arguing for here is actually an unfair trading practice that's banned by the wto. the canadian government can't interfere in the profits of foreign investors like that, and it would just get sued and have to pay out if it tried.
canadians are broadly unaware of the power of the international mining industry in this country (and the horrific human rights abuses that are frequently the result of canadian mining companies acting in central america and africa). the idea that canadian companies may have some interest in argentine mining is not as obscure as many canadians might believe, a priori. but, our government simply has no place interfering in a canadian company selling foreign assets to a foreign company, regardless of the embarrassing analysis by andy fillmore.
3:54
the russians don't want a face to face buildup on their border. that's the point. but, the americans are using it as a pretext to put more troops in the region, and it's hard to think they're doing that if they don't intend to strike.
if i was vladimir putin, i'd be looking to start a fire somewhere else.
4:08
i have a longstanding rule with reading western media, regarding russia: everything they say about russia is false about russia, but true about america.
so, when the media claims that russian intelligence sabotaged clinton to elect trump, the truth is that american intelligence sabotaged clinton to elect trump.
and, when the media claims that the russians are looking for a pretext to invade ukraine, the truth is that the americans are looking for a pretext to invade russia.
well, what's happening? there's near consensus amongst serious analysts that the russians have no intention to "move in" to ukraine. but, the americans are rotating in tens of thousands of troops in response to the supposed threat.
we saw something like this happen in georgia, where the americans struck first to draw the russians in, and the russians fell for it. they were more careful in ukraine, but they had to react, in the end. they didn't have a choice.
i don't know what the yankees are up to, exactly, but the buildup in the black and baltic seas, combined now with a ground force in poland, is suggestive of exploiting the old russian problem of not being able to defend it's western flank.
i pointed out before that the russians have these fancy new weapons, and what's happening right now is really about adjustments in the balance of power that are resulting from that shift in technological dominance.
it does make some sense for the americans to "move in" before the russians can deploy. on paper, it might be the dumbest move since jfk, but the fact is that the russians are reliably rational - until they're not. and, this is different, for obvious reasons.
so, if i was putin i'd realize the threat developing not just to russia but to the planet. if the russians are reliably rational, the americans are reliably certifiably insane. nothing good can come from this, other than to blow the situation up, and radically reshuffle, as quickly as possible.
and, i don't know what's enough to do it.
maybe taking down a building in los angeles?
think outside the box.
4:40
*sigh*.
so, when the non-technical legal stadd at the divisional court say they want "bookmarks" in their pdfs, do they mean actual bookmarks, or do they mean hyperlinks in the table of contents?
it's all based on adobe, because lawyers are supposed to actually buy software, i guess. i use a free pdf viewer called foxit, and in fact i'm using a very old version of it. i can't buy fancy software, and i wouldn't, anyways. so, it's hard to know what the instructions really say.
i can create bookmarks in foxit, but i can't build hyperlinks. and, i need a new pdf printer if i want to print links.
i'm going to go with actual bookmarks and tell them to fix their fucking directions if they meant hyperlinks.
5:58
buying software is bourgeois.
i have all the warez.
6:04
no, listen - software should be free.
in both senses.
6:05
you haven't heard anybody say that since the 90s, have you?
6:07
so, truckers engaged in a labour action to demand bodily autonomy are.....right wing?
hrmmn.
i'm going to align with labour activists most of the time, but the political alignment right now is very strange, and i want to throw a warning out there: as bad as the fake left might appear, please don't fall for republican or conservative grandstanding.
it's time to rebuild the labour movement.
let's do it.
18:48
i still don't know who in their right mind would look to bill gates for advice on how to stop viruses.
'cause windows.
i just lost everybody under 30, while everybody over 40 started howling.
19:14
i mean, would you have imagined that in the late 90s - that bill gates would one day become a global talking head regarding tactics for fighting viruses?
would that have not been more like a punchline on conan or something?
19:16
although, you know, there was always this theory that microsoft was really in bed with the anti-virus manufacturers.
so, maybe it makes more sense than is apparent.
19:18
didn't we all make this mistake of relying on gates to protect us from viruses once before?
we don't learn.
19:22
it's a perfect, analogy though - our society became a giant windows server.
overrun with immense viral loads, we had no choice but to shut down.
we need to change operating systems, clearly.
19:26
no, really.
bill gates' advice for dealing with viruses in your society? install an antivirus, and frequently reboot.
outstanding. really.
19:29
wednesday, january 26, 2022
actually, there's something worthwhile here.
nobody in the united states is talking about inflation being driven by canadian goods being held up at the border. given that trudeau's only real justification for the trucker mandate policy is "but we like to suck their cocks.", to what extent do we take this, in the end?
it's not a science-driven policy, and nobody in canada is demanding that american truckers get vaccinated. we're just consolidating policy.
we should not be too eager to hop on the yankee cock like this, as they might start thinking they can fuck us over.
1:40
we should really be phasing trucks out, though. bad for the environment.
maybe we can take the initiative to start building some electric rail infrastructure?
12:43
the decision to take sides in an inter-slavic conflict with no clear antagonist or protagonist (the claim that ukraine is a democracy is laughable, if the intent is to contrast it with russia. the systems are identical, and any criticism of russia is equally applicable to ukraine, if not more so.) is a distinctly uncanadian response to the situation.
as canada has no national interests in ukraine whatsoever, it should be addressing the situation as a neutral, disinterested arbiter, if it is to be approaching the situation at all. canadians expect their government to export peace, not to bang the drums of war.
i therefore condemn the liberal government in the harshest terms possible for it's incendiary, pro-war rhetoric and policy positions, which are not reflective of the people of canada, who have no interest in the situation, except to prevent the broader onset of nuclear war.
22:09
there is no reason why canada should have any troops anywhere near ukraine.
they should be brought home immediately.
22:20
so, we're going into summer number three of likely pandemic restrictions, and it's time for people to start asking the question: how long are they going to continue to adhere to scientifically unsound restrictions in order to protect a tiny minority of decrepit old people for?
i'm going to call on organizers to start planning for ways to avoid enforcement, now.
i'm under constant surveillance. stay away from me.
22:48
thursday, january 27, 2022
i finally got the issue clarified regarding the disability clause in a consent motion , and i can't find the form anywhere.
(2) Where the motion is on consent, the consent and a draft order shall be filed with the notice of motion. O. Reg. 766/93, s. 1 (1).
there's a form called "consent" which is required to filed with the consent, but it is nowhere on the forms website, and i can't even find it in a google search.
it's absolutely baffling, but that's become normal, lately, given that my internet access is being so heavily filtered by some intelligence agency.
0:14
well, i guess i'm going to have to invent my own form, then.
0:26
this is an example of the form i'm looking for:
i can't find it anywhere.
0:42
this seems trivial.
but, i want the actual fucking form....
0:46
ok.
no.
i don't need that.
i'm moving on, now. finally.
1:19
ok, so that means i'm done with the karen case for the night and probably until next week. i've asked to file new evidence, and the judge wants the cops to comment on that. ok.
so, what's happened since last week? let's rewind a bit.
2:13
i started typing this up on thursday morning and abandoned it.
as mentioned, my cholesterol is back to normal this month; the last reading, i think, was flawed. i've increased my iron pill intake, but i'm realizing the rbcs and hemoglobin consistently come down a distance from a meal. it's an interesting observation.
here's my updated chart:
| 2021 | 2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| m | a | m | j | j | a | s | o | n | d | j | f | m | a | m | j | j | a | s | o | n | d | |
| creatinine | 78/80 | - | - | - | - | 87 | 84 | 83 / 81 | 80 | 90/64 | 66 | |||||||||||
| egfr | 107/106 | - | - | - | - | 96 | 100 | 101 / 104 | 106 | 92/116 | 115 | |||||||||||
| alp | 61 | - | - | 63 | 59 | 50 | 60 | 59 /55 | 47 | 50 | 60 | |||||||||||
| albumin | -/45.7 | - | - | - | 45.9 | 44.6 | 46.8 | 48 /46 | 46.7 | 49.8 | 43.7 | |||||||||||
| cholesterol | 3.93 | - | - | - | 3.99 | 3.8 | 4.15 | 4.01/3.83 | 4.14/4.02 | 4.14/3.67 | 3.54/3.8 | |||||||||||
| triglycerides | .87 | - | - | - | .95 | .89 | 1.41 | 1.05/0.94 | 1.09/1.32 | 1.86/0.73 | 2.26/0.75 | |||||||||||
| hdl | 1.69 | - | - | - | 1.84 | 1.59 | 1.73 | 1.42/1.55 | 1.37/1.42 | 1.51/1.74 | 1.75/1.72 | |||||||||||
| ldl | 1.85 | - | - | - | 1.72 | 1.81 | 1.78 | 2.11/1.85 | 2.28/2.00 | 1.79/1.6 | <0.8/1.75 | |||||||||||
| non-hdl | 2.24 | - | - | - | 2.15 | 2.21 | 2.42 | 2.59/2.28 | 2.77/2.60 | 2.63/1.93 | 1.79/2.09 | |||||||||||
| wbc | 8.7/8.4 | 9.9/9.0 | - | - | ? | 7.0 | 7.6 | 6.9/6.9 | 7.8 | 11.3/8.2 | 6.7/6.4 | |||||||||||
| rbc | 3.97/4.25 | 4.11/4.38 | - | - | 4.17 | 4.12 | 4.33 | 4.47/4.2 | 4.28 | 4.55/4.19 | 4.3/4.22 | |||||||||||
| hemoglobin | 132/140 | 133/142 | - | - | 139 | 136 | 141 | 138/138 | 139 | 144/131 | 141/133 | |||||||||||
| hematocrit | .382/.404 | .394/.424 | - | - | .405 | .398 | .418 | .417/.402 | .405 | 0.431/0.393 | .409/.396 | |||||||||||
| mcv | 96.1/95.1 | 95.8/97.0 | - | - | 97 | 96.8 | 96.6 | 93/95.7 | 94.6 | 94.7/94 | 95/94 | |||||||||||
| mch | 33.1/32.9 | 32.4/32.5 | - | - | 33.3 | 33.2 | 32.7 | 30.9/32.8 | 32.5 | 31.8/31.3 | 32.7/31.5 | |||||||||||
| mchc | 345/346 | 338/335 | - | - | ? | 343 | 338 | 331/343 | 344 | 335/333 | 344/336 | |||||||||||
| rdw | 13.3/13.5 | 13.0/13.1 | - | - | ? | 13 | 12.3 | 11.7/12.9 | 12.6 | 13.4/12.0 | 13.2/11.7 | |||||||||||
| platelet | 199/187 | 171/171 | - | - | ? | 175 | 167 | 168/150 | 155 | 188/185 | 159/184 | |||||||||||
| reticulocytes | - | -/42 | - | - | 53 | 56 | 46 | 35 | 33 | 33 | 39 | |||||||||||
| vitamin d | 87 | - | - | - | 109 | 72 | 64 | 72/83 | 78 | 64/71 | 61/74 | |||||||||||
| estradiol | 363/388 | - | - | - | - | 563 | 443 | 432 | 777 | 343 | 578 | |||||||||||
| estrone | - | - | - | - | - | ? | 4138 | 5203 | 7000+ | - | - | |||||||||||
| testosterone | 0.9 | - | - | - | - | - | <0.4 | <0.4 | <0.4 | <0.4 | <0.4 | |||||||||||
| progesterone | 1.9 | - | - | - | - | - | <0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.9 | <0.5 | |||||||||||
| fsh | <0.2 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.2 | 0.1 | <0.1 | - | <0.1 | |||||||||||
| lh | <0.2 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | |||||||||||
| ferritin | 12/9 | 6/17 | 21 | - | 29 | 43 | 28 | 40 | 42 | 59 | 33 | |||||||||||
| tibc | - | 69.5 | - | - | 65.7 | 62.9 | 64.7 | 58.9 | 58.2 | 63.2 | 57.4 | |||||||||||
| iron | - | 9.6 | - | - | 22.7 | 37.3 | 19.3 | 28.3 | 37.3 | 32.5 | 13.1 | |||||||||||
| iron sat | - | 0.14 | - | - | 0.35 | 0.59 | 0.3 | .48 | 0.64 | 0.51 | 0.23 | |||||||||||
| transferrin | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.59 | 2.29 | 2.38 | 2.49 | 2.31 | |||||||||||
| sodium | - | - | - | - | - | - | 141 | 141/139 | 140 | 141 | 138 | |||||||||||
| potassium | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5.0 | 4.7/4.6 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 4.7 | |||||||||||
| chloride | - | - | - | - | - | - | 104 | 107/105 | 104 | 101 | 105 | |||||||||||
| phosphate | -/1.42 | - | - | - | - | 1.09 | 1.34 | 1.08 | 1.35 | 1.27 | 1.13 | |||||||||||
| magnesium | -/.93 | - | - | - | - | 0.8 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.85 | |||||||||||
| calcium | -/2.4 | - | - | - | 2.38 | 2.32 | 2.44 | 2.39 | 2.4 | 2.43 | 2.33 | |||||||||||
| pth | - | - | - | 5.5 | - | 6.2 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 5.5 | 8.0 | 6.3 | |||||||||||
| tsh | 0.92 | - | - | - | - | 0.94 | 1.22 | 1.67 | 1.48 | 1.07 | 1.39 | |||||||||||
| calcitonin | - | - | - | <0.6 | - | - | - | - | <0.6 | - | ||||||||||||
| cortisol | - | - | - | 325 | - | 464 | 170 | 129 | 225 | 136 | 367 | |||||||||||
| insulin | - | - | - | - | - | 50 | 33 | 68 | 92 | 312 | 53 | |||||||||||
| b12 | 223/251 | - | 304 | - | 363 | 313 | 370 | 292 | 369 | 376 | 293 | |||||||||||
the calcitonin is still coming.
i got my d up by taking two pills a day, so i'm answering that question - the amount of d i need to compensate for decreased sunlight at this latitude is about 1000 iu every 12 hours, on top of heavy fortification. maybe my intestines are not the best at absorbing, and maybe there's something like crohn's going on, although there's no solution to it and no benefit to getting scoped for it, if true. i will get another fit test in the spring...
i'm obviously not absorbing the progesterone, either. i mentioned that i switched types on thursday morning. it's an expensive decision, though, and i'll have to hope i get a response from the ministry. i think it's obvious it went up, but we'll see what the results are, next test. my estrogen's doing ok, although i'm going to ask the endocrinologist for a minor boost next time i talk to him.
2:24
so, what's happened the last week, then?
the weather forecast for last week indicated we'd get a nicer day on wednesday, but it would crash in the afternoon. the weather here's been weird - it's clearly trying to get cold, but it hasn't actually held. so, we're ping-ponging 20-30 degrees in a few hours. most days have made it close to or above 0 at some point, but we've also had some cold plunges, mostly overnight, but not always. it actually made it up to around 7 degrees by wednesday afternoon, but i was thinking i wanted to get out to do groceries for the next several weeks early on...
as mentioned, my bicycle is currently broken, so i had to walk across town to the blood lab for 8:30 (and was a little late). then, i had to walk home (and stopped many places for groceries), go back oput for more groceries, and then go a third and fourth time. i eventually made it home close to 20:00, meaning i'd been on my feet for around 13 hours. and, i actually wasn't even done.
i had to sleep.....i had my appointment on wednesday at noon...and then i had to get out for even more walking.
i mentioned my observations related to the state of the items on the shelves:
-----------
i did a lot of grocery shopping this week, and noticed a couple of things:
- yes, some stuff is missing, but there was already stuff missing, and it seems to be stuff from asia that got caught up in the port being closed due to the flooding in bc. i can't find any all bran around here, and haven't been able to for months.
- prices have gone up, but they're sporadic. my caesar, usually in the $1.99-$2.99 range, was $3.99 at one store and $5.99 at another. that looks like there's gouging happening.
- i've also noticed items that i know for a fact are made in canada go up in price, which also suggests gouging.
- fruits from mexico aren't going up in price
so, there's something afoot in inflation land, clearly, but i'd be careful with assigning it cause. remember: inflation is a multi-person game as much as it is about input costs, although it is about input costs. if the store thinks you'll pay more, it'll boost the price, and if the manager thinks it can get away with it by blaming it on a vaccine mandate, it will do so.
but, who is fundamentally right, here, in an economic sense?
well, you know i oppose these kinds of mandates, but that doesn't mean i'm going to endorse one economic view over the other.
it's not entirely clear what's going to happen, and it depends on how it plays out. if you saw an item go up in price the day after the mandate came into effect, that's price gouging - and what you've seen up to this point is mostly gouging, perhaps combined with the bc floods. it's going to take several weeks before this really ripples out, and we'll have to see what happens.
i know of no convincing algorithm to guess which items are going to be affected by supply chain issues or any way to predict the outcome on prices. i would imagine it's probably going to be randomly distributed, and the effect will be minor as a result of it. if there's a 5% decrease in truckers industry wide, everything just moves a little more slowly, and it'll probably mostly balance out.
what you can do is not panic, and not buy into it. i'd advise avoiding higher priced items if you can, because that's the game being played - if you'll pay it, they'll keep the price high. if you won't pay it, they'll have to reduce the price, even if they sell at a loss, in the end. let the food rot on the shelf, until they have to move it and swoop in at the last minute.
so, let's all remain calm about this. it will likely blow over.
for now, if you see something come up in price, realize you're mostly being gouged and go buy something else, instead. wait it out.
----
in the process of shopping, i noticed my margarine has also lost the vitamin d, and that every item on the shelf is now essentially the same. again - i don't know why these companies think they can remove fortification from their items and not suffer any consequences from it. if you want my business, you'll put the vitamin d - and the vitamin e - back in the product, please. i bought a large amount of it, as i did with the soy, and we'll have to see if there's a better answer in a few months. it put me on a few detours around town...
when i got in on thursday night, i was entirely exhausted, and also noticed that the line seemed insecure, so i had to log out of everything and was mostly offline all weekend. i did manage to write an essay for my odsp renewal (which is coming up this month) and spent the rest of the time working on court documents for the karen case, which included getting into some arguments with the court that i think are put aside, for now. it was a lot of legal clerk type work, though.
i need to spend the night filing a second case with the same court to appeal the grocery store case. and, i also have to respond to the information commissioner. so, there's more legal stuff for the night...
if i wanted this done quickly last month, it wasn't, but that's fine. let's get to it.
3:05
and, as before, i've lost focus.
worse, the drug addict upstairs is giving me a headache.
one thing at a time - let's get the grocery store case to divisional court.
3:21
let's try to remember this, though - i think i've been focusing on legal stuff since the 9th, and that it took me two weeks to do something that should have taken a few days, partly due to migraines from the marijuana smoke and partly due to being tired from walking.
if you're curious, i've been straight edge for over a year, at this point, and am not remotely interested in legal marijuana in canada, which just makes me grouchy and tired. it doesn't make me high, it just makes me sleepy. it's basically not marijuana...it's more like codeine, or something. and, i don't want to be breathing in my neighbour's shitty legal "pot".
3:35
what happened was that the legal supply developed out of court rulings and legislation designed to allow "medical" users to use the drug.
there's two classes of medical users - there's idiots that think it reduces their stress levels (something that is the complete opposite of the truth; marijuana increases cortisol levels, because it puts your body under stress. think about it. how would getting stoned do anything but put stress on your body? you're stoned because your'e under stress.), which i have no patience for, and there's terminally ill patients in which life has little meaning, so why not just get fucked up? i have compassion for the second group, which would include cancer patients and hiv patients, amongst other things. and, it's that group that the supply of marijuana in canada was actually engineered for.
as the intention was to market marijuana as medicine for the terminally ill, the medical companies picked the strains that performed best on pain relief and had side effects like helping people sleep. the strains that recreational users enjoyed because it made them high were not of interest to these companies.
when the government legalized the drug, which i think, in hindsight, was partly because doctors preferred not to prescribe it, the companies just remarketed the product to the recreational market, partly out of greed and partly out of ignorance. the incredibly tight regulation in the country means you can buy the pot intended for cancer patients as a pain relief medicine and sleep aid, or you can buy nothing at all.
this is really a catastrophe, and the only seriously way out is to deregulate and let black market supplies into legal circulation.
until that happens, the product here is garbage, and getting stuck downwind from a pot user means you're stuck inhaling downers that are engineered to make you tired, rather than higher quality pot designed to actually get you high. and, if it stays like this, the end result is that kids are going to end up doing meth or coke instead, because the pot is fucking boring - something that is a terrible outcome. you want kids to smoke pot and have fun making music, not snort coke and crash their cars because the pot has been ruined by capitalism.
i didn't vote for the liberals for that reason in 2015 (i was more concerned about climate change....), but i admit i thought legalization made more sense than decriminalization, under the assumption that we'd have some choice in supply. we don't. that needs to change, and at this point, because government is regulating it so strenuously, it's government policy that needs to adapt to help it change, to reintroduce more marijuana-like strains back into the economy, and stop the industry from burning out as a sleeping pill alternative.
3:51
day to day, i like coffee. it's an upper. i like being alert and productive, not tired and stupid. and, the progesterone has me in a better mood, broadly, i think - even notwithstanding the annoying marijuana smoke.
when the guy is home, it's not bad. it's when he's gone that it gets smoky, indicating that somebody else is up there. it's a female, i can hear her coughing up the drugs. and, i'm certain it's a cop.
only in canada, do the cops stalk you and harass you by smoking drugs on you. i need to get out of here, but, for now, i'm badly stuck.
4:11
after sorting through vavilov last week, i was hoping i could file an appeal of this case, rather than a review, but i can't, there's no authority for it.
so, review it is, and on grounds of fairness, strictly.
i will need, however, to frame my arguments in post-vavilovian terms, and i'm not going to very deferential to it. as mentioned previously, i think the jrpa makes vavilov inapplicable in ontario. and i'd encourage other legislatures to write jrpas, so that this ruling is confined strictly to quebec.
4:14
the human rights code in ontario actually requires appeals to be "patently unreasonable", something mclaughin did away with 20 years ago.
i don't know what the fuck that even means, anymore.
the code needs to be rewritten, clearly. and, actually, doug ford might be the right person to do it, given that they don't like the body, much, so they could get away with legislating greater judicial oversight over it.
4:21
let's see if i can find a recent case at canlii that can help me understand what a court would make of a legislative directive to use "patently unreasonable" as a condition for review, in 2022.
remember: i'm appealing on procedural grounds.
i just want to get my ahead around the precedent, as the code in ontario is clearly a mess.
4:26
well...
the dipshits applied employment law to a question of customer harassment. that's a botched legal test and therefore patently unreasonable.
i can work with that, really. i just...what does this mean nowadays...like, is there 20 years of cases in the ontario divisional court dealing with patently unreasonable appeals from the hrto, when the supreme court did away with it in 2008?
4:33
ok.
this ruling clarifies the position quite well:
1) the tribunal argues for patently unreasonable as the standard, based on the code, and in deference to vavilov
2) the court tells the tribunal that they've been making that argument for decades and it's fucking wrong, so they should smarten up and stop doing it.
3) the court interprets "patently unreasonable" as "reasonable", as it's been doing for years, and the tribunal needs to get the fact through it's thick numb skull, already, and cut the bullshit. da fuck.
alright.
so, the standard is reasonableness, by vavilov and by the legislature, unless i can make a really good argument, otherwise.
ok.
4:46
yeah.
so, the idea in the legislature, and this is a more general point that's widely upheld everywhere, is that the explicit absence of a statutory appeal mechanism sets a very, very high bar for review. i'd have to prove that the hrto really done fucked up good, or i'm not going to get an audience. patently or not, the outcome had better be very fucking unreasonable.
see, i didn't get an outcome - what i got was a dismissal, and on grounds that are incoherent, in terms of precedent.
so, i'm going to make a tactical decision before i begin to ensure i'm arguing that they send the case back, rather than that they yank it. if the jrpa gives the divisional court broad oversight over the oiprd, the statute severely restricts oversight over the hrto. so, let's avoid that by demanding a hearing, instead.
i'm also picking up a lot of tension between the divisional court and the hrto, which the divisional court seems to look down upon. well, it's a fake court, right? i could maybe exploit that a little, by trying to deflect a bit.
ok.
let me get started on this.
5:10
do i have to file in toronto, though?
5:33
i had to file the appeal to the oiprd in toronto because the oiprd is in toronto.
but, the hrto hears cases in both windsor and london.
there is no divisional court in windsor. but, can i file in london?
5:38
it seems like, for right now, it wouldn't matter, as i'd be filing at the same email address, regardless.
i'm going to ask to hear the case in london.
but, i mean...it's going to be heard virtually, and if i wanted to avoid overexposing myself by balancing the load at different courts, that's not currently possible.
6:03
no, i'm going to have to do this in toronto, because canlii doesn't have any human rights appeals.
basically, i don't want to get a rookie judge. if this is dealt with in toronto exclusively, so be it.
6:25
i need to be less aggressive with this second application, though, because the threat of nominal damages is very real. the windsor police arrested me illegally and held me in jail for 20 hours without charge; the grocery store sent thugs after me for ten minutes, and while the threat of harm to me was very real, there was ultimately no harm done, even if it's because the police arrived to intervene on my behalf.
the basic point is that the use of employment law, in context, is ridiculous.
i need to focus very strictly on having the issue sent back to the human rights court, and on finding precedent of them doing that.
6:59
ok.
i was going to file this today, but, on second thought, let me see if i can wait for some decision on the new evidence in the first case. there's a skeleton in place, but i want to sit on it, and i don't want to overload the court with too much jessica. i know i'm overbearing...
i have until around the 10th to file.
8:11
i have yet to find a case in canlii where the divisional court sent a case back to the human rights tribunal on anything but a triviality (like missing a deadline).
i need that precedent, given the high bar for review. i mean, what does the court consider unreasonable? this seems to qualify, abstractly. but, give me an example and show me the remedy....
8:25
ok, i found a case where procedural fairness was brought up in not hearing evidence, which is exactly my point.
8:27
see, i kind of have a free hand, here, because there wasn't a hearing.
so, i can't be accused of redoing the case, because there wasn't a case.
8:29
just how unrepresentative is the ruling liberal party of canadian view points?
well, they got 33% of the vote on 62% turnout. that's roughly 20%.
now, it's true that they got the most seats, but it was a plurality, and not a majority. further, they lost the popular vote.
there's a lot of ways to crunch these numbers in the context of a multiparty democracy, but the fact of the matter is that these are some of the worst numbers - in some cases, they're the worst numbers - in canadian political history. we have never had a less representative government than this one.
so, my claims are not merely rhetorical, it is a fact that the liberal party only represents a small component of canadian popular opinion, and that it's position in ukraine is offside with longstanding canadian public opinion - with the underlying assumptions defining canadian culture, in truth.
their position is truly uncanadian.
15:40
they're correct..
and, it's time that public health officials in canada began acknowledging the superiority of vaccination-via-infection as a tactic, as well, and stop demanding that people that are already producing antibodies get vaccinated.
16:13
see, what i don't understand is why the public health authorities are so obsessed with recommendations that protect the old and decrepit and weak, rather than on maximizing freedoms for the strong and healthy and young. it's backwards, in terms of priorities; it reduces us all to mindless slaves. policies should be designed to free the strong from the weak, not to protect the weak from reality.
so, the cdc gets data that confirms what everybody with a brain already knew - that healthy, strong people are better off avoiding vaccination, in the long run. and, what does it do? it frames it in terms of protecting the useless and decrepit and weak.
we need to change our social priorities, clearly, to emancipate ourselves from this slave morality.
as far as i'm concerned, i was right, and public health can fuck off in it's evidence-free attacks on me.
let me take an antibody test. that's what actually matters.
16:32
i don't want to overstate my case, here - i'm not advocating negligence, but i'm trying to reintroduce a reasonable person into the discourse and frame the discourse on reasonable concepts of negligence, stemming from common law. the strong have a responsibility to avoid behaving negligently towards the weak, and our social systems are obligated to care for them, but it's up to reasonable limits and is not absolute. for example, when i was at the blood lab the other day, there was an old woman that tried to come close to me and talk to me, and i instead took care to responsibly step away from her, and keep my distance - that's reasonable foreseeable behaviour to reduce negligence, and a reassertion of normal western norms around acceptable behaviour. as another example, i would agree that going to a longterm care facility without proper precautions is negligent behaviour.
what i'm trying to argue is that, on balance, and subject to reasonable concepts of negligence tied to foreseeability coming from common law tort concepts, the focus of our governing structures should be on the future, on the young and on the strong - and not on the past, on the old or on the weak.
it is really on sitting governments to re-establish these common law ideas, which have recently lapsed in favour of authoritarianism, despotism and backwardsness.
16:53
why was it predictable that natural immunity would be more effective against new variants? the answer lies in the vaccine technology, and is actually preventable, but only by going back to old vaccine types.
when you met a virus in the wild, your body sees the whole thing and develops the mathematical pattern that swallows the thing whole. you have to understand that this is a geometry problem. what your body is doing is developing an enzyme that binds to the open bonds on the virus, which means determining the exact geometry of the virus. when it sees the whole virus, it can solve the whole problem.
what modern vaccines do is only give your body a small part of he virus, so you only get a partial solution to the geometric problem. vaccines that use older technology - like the ones in china, for example - are more comparable to a live vaccination.
what you should predict from this is threefold:
1) so long as the modern vaccines are perfect representations of subsets of the virus geometry, they should produce a potent response to unmutated virii. the data did indeed uphold that point - vaccination worked better against alpha.
2) but, as soon as the virus mutates, the vaccines should become less effective. that is what the most recent studies have confirmed: vaccines work better against alpha, but prior infection worked better against delta.
3) mass vaccination with modern vaccines should actually spur mutation, as even minimal mutations should evade vaccine-induced antibodies.
it follows that:
1) you want to regularly vaccinate at risk populations with regularly updated modern vaccines. like the flu. this will maximize their protection.
2) healthy people should not get vaccinated, or should get vaccinated with whole viruses, if they're skittish and conservative and paranoid about getting sick.
this is all simple deduction from basic theory, and things i've posted previously. what's new is the study from the cdc that backs up the obvious, and proves the theory correct.
my big argument, the thing i'm pushing, is that my existing antibodies are more than valid but actually better and the public health policies should be updated to reflect that.
and, that i deserve an apology from assholes that think they get it, and don't.
17:46
it would also be very useful if the government of canada would approve a whole-virus vaccine, as this is a better approach for people under 70, in the presence of a virus that has mutated dramatically from the material being injected.
17:55
yup.
18:10
while the creators of the show may have decided otherwise, homer would clearly not want a vaccine, because he is a nacho man.
sadly, that would not be the right decision, because his multiple underlying conditions would probably put him at risk. i would not expect homer to survive infection.
homer, therefore, ought to get vaccinated. but, he probably wouldn't, and he'd probably end up in the hospital. homer is, actually, consequently an accurate representation of The Unvaccinated.
has the show addressed this?
18:15
so, does that mean that if a supervariant comes through, i'll be better off than you?
yeah.
basically.
sorry.
19:36
friday, january 28, 2022
so, biden is becoming chicken little on this.
all credible sources have stated from the start that it's completely irrational, and wholly unlikely.
what biden is doing is trying to pull the russians into a vietnam or afghanistan like quagmire. and, then he's using the tensions to increase aggressive american positions in the region.
but, this bullshit sells in fascist america, which needs a war to fight. so, it could go on for a while.
but, there's other things going on in the country and the world, and we all shouldn't get too distracted by this.
0:23
ukrainians should reflect really reflect on american strategy here, which is to convert the region into a battle ground and usher in perpetual war.
does that sound like the actions of a friend, or does it sound like the actions of an abusive partner that wants to take advantage of you?
westerners do not care about ukraine, but merely see the region through the lens of what is in our self-interest in the region. we're actively trying to start a war in your home country, and reduce it to rubble, in order to damage your broader civilization, to divide it and to prevent it from unifying.
ukrainians would do good to realize who their friends are, and it is not the west.
0:47
see, i tried to point out years ago that the relevance of this video was misunderstood.
yes, ukraine is game, to us.
you oafs.
you fools.
0:48
ukraine is weak, and the slavs are stronger united than divided.
0:49
the flip side of the argument, that we are not friends to ukraine, is the other startling truth: that ukraine is not a part of the west, and that attempts to bring ukraine into the west are equivalent to coddling an enemy.
the germans are right, but not for the reasons being framed. the german position is that they won't sell ukraine guns, and they're being framed as pacifists for it. but, think it through. what happens when ukraine turns those guns on germany?
western countries should be thinking in very sober terms about sharing technology with ukrainians, or sending them any sort of tools that might promote violence.
"love your enemies,
hate your friends..."
2:25
this is the right time to break ranks with washington on it's delusions of global military dominance, driven by absurd notions like manifest destiny.
and, dissent around the insane policy of arming ukraine is the right issue to do it over.
3:16
you'd have to be uniquely blind not to see the stupidity inherent in sending ukraine weapons, and it would have to be as a consequence of a manifest destiny like view of the world, in which america always wins by default.
3:16
so, i finished with the legal stuff on wednesday afternoon for a bit and i had to try to sleep off another headache.
i seem to be more awake, now.
my b12 has been tested higher repeatedly, lately. although, i haven't actually tripped into a migraine, yet, either, i just keep getting close and pulling back.
the headaches acted up before i switched progesterone.
it's causal. it's the smoker upstairs; i can hear her, i can smell her and this is the result - i'm sleeping 20 hours a day as a side effect of her retarded habit. it's crystal clear.
so, i'm going to try to get some coffee and wake up. but, so long as the source stays in place, i can't undop the effects, and i may find myself sleeping all weekend, instead.
:(.
9:38
i want to finish the foi thing today and then i can maybe do something else over the weekend, if i'm able to get enough stimulants in me to overpower the physical exhaustion brought on by the second-hand smoke from the drug addict upstairs and undo the headaches that have resulted from them.
9:44
the amount of sleep that i want is about 3 hours every two days.
anything more than that is laziness.
9:46
9:50
again - i don't know why it sounds like somebody mastered that through a broken speaker, all of a sudden.
ugh.
just turn the bass way down and the treble way up.
9:56
my files are all ruined.
i'm going to have to star from the beginning and redo everything from scratch.
10:09
so, unfortunately, i'm unpublishing all of my music at this point because i feel it's been altered.
if you have copies of the altered mixes, they are not mine. i disown them. i condemn them.
i will need to start from the beginning and fix everything, track by track. i may need to remix specific items. i'll have to see.
or, i might decide something else has gone wrong, i don't know.
i know that i don't want my name attached to mixes that are not mine, so everything is likely to stay unpublished for the foreseeable future.
if it's still possible to simply replace the corrupted files with the original ones, i insist that this is done. otherwise, i'll need to remix it all from source.
the primary problem is that the bass is too loud and the highs are too low.
10:33
what i'll need to do is carefully check everything as i'm archiving and rebuilding. and, in a sense, i just ordered things, for myself, as i can no longer work on period 3.1 for the foreseeable future - now that i'm back to remastering periods 1-2, it will need to be my total focus.
this sucks.
but, blame the fucker at the mixing desk.
this is no way my fault at all. and, if it's fixed quickly, i can push through it quickly.
i can't leave bad mixes of my art online, it's not acceptable to me.
10:47
this isn't a game and it isn't a debate. this is harassment. and, there is no excuse for it.
10:49
the machine seems stable, so let me try to install drivers for the mixer and take it from there.
as i get through everything for each item - remastering, liner notes, archiving, etc - i'll republish.
10:51
for today, i'd like to get through some loose ends, first - taking down my facebook page, etc.
10:53
again - the basic problem is that the mixes are too bassy, and the detail on the high end is no longer clear.
so, i'm going to have to take note to turn down the chunkiness - something i would never mix into my own tracks - and reintroduce the prettiness and the sparkliness.
10:55
i'm not intending to add anything, but we'll see if decisions get revisited, i guess.
but, i have a special disdain for bassy guitars and i'm very upset that they somehow ended up in some of these tracks. i didn't do that. and, i don't know the extent of the problem that needs to be erased.
10:57
so, i've been thinking about the grocery store case, and i've made this decision: in addition to filing a divisional court case, i'm going to deduce that, if the human rights tribunal doesn't want to hear the case, then i'll have to file a civil case, instead. and, i'll point that out in the filing.
so, i'll be filing both at the same time in the upcoming weeks.
17:39
i've unfortunately been distracted and agitated today.
i've got a coffee, let's sit down and get some loose ends cleared up.
i'm all legal-stuffed out for a few days. but, i need to do some typing this weekend rather than recording.
see, if i'm going to keep everything unpublished for a while as an incentive to not fuck with it, it makes sense to republish it in line with the liner notes. i wanted to do that, anyways. that means i'd be starting in 2013 for the republishing push, and i'd be republishing it in that order.
but, i don't want to totally lose track of the new material, either, even if i keep it offline.
so, my three-part schedule - which i've been trying to click into for a year - is going to be:
1) weeks: starting at 2013 and pushing forward on republishing
2) fridays: alter-reality
3) weekends: period 3
but, as has been the case for too long, i need to get some filing in order, first. if i'm productive, i can maybe get it done by the end of the weekend...
18:49
so, where was i?
i wanted to get to doing the legal stuff on the 10th, but finished inri076 on the 9th/10th and got distracted until about the 12th, when i started uploading documents to caselines for the karen/cop case. then, i had to go through the notes to build a motion record for the reply factum, which i tried to do on the 13th and 14th, but i had to stop due to a pre-migraine (that never triggered) from the drug addict. i also wanted to upload something over the weekend. but, i slept all weekend instead. well, mostly. i was also doing a little research on vavilov and post-vavilov decisions. the headache cleared a little on the 18th, but i just realized i had to add backsheets to everything. then i was out early on the 19th, lost a few days, did the odsp stuff, got the motion record finished...
so, i've been doing court stuff non-stop since the 12th, broken only by sleeping, cleaning and grocery shopping - which was substantive interference. but, it's been two weeks.
i left off on the week previously doing two things:
1) updating the music journal with posts over the last year and a bit so i can easily reference it without sorting through this messy main blog
2) dismantling my facebook page
that's the weekend, and i'll have to get back to legal stuff on monday.
19:17
so, where was i?
i wanted to get to doing the legal stuff on the 10th, but finished inri076 on the 9th/10th and got distracted until about the 12th, when i started uploading documents to caselines for the karen/cop case. then, i had to go through the notes to build a motion record for the reply factum, which i tried to do on the 13th and 14th, but i had to stop due to a pre-migraine (that never triggered) from the drug addict. i also wanted to upload something over the weekend. but, i slept all weekend instead. well, mostly. i was also doing a little research on vavilov and post-vavilov decisions. the headache cleared a little on the 18th, but i just realized i had to add backsheets to everything. then i was out early on the 19th, lost a few days, did the odsp stuff, got the motion record finished...
so, i've been doing court stuff non-stop since the 12th, broken only by sleeping, cleaning and grocery shopping - which was substantive interference. but, it's been two weeks.
i left off on the week previously doing two things:
1) updating the music journal with posts over the last year and a bit so i can easily reference it without sorting through this messy main blog
2) dismantling my facebook page
that's the weekend, and i'll have to get back to legal stuff on monday.
19:48
saturday, january 29, 2022
i've republished a very minor skeleton of the discography. this is not an invitation to fuck with the files, but i can't have everything unpublished for the next six months or longer...
5.5) the wave (kosmiche piece):
6) jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj^2:
so, i've republished my records sequence, including:
0) inricycled:
1) inri
2) inriched
2.5) inrimake (covers/remixes)
3) inridiculous
4) deny everything
4.5) inrimoved (outtakes)
5) jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
5.5) the wave (kosmiche piece):
6) jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj^2:
7) ftaa
...as well as the period 3.1 skeleton, for now.
2:45
there is no credible information that the russians are going to invade ukraine.
however, warnings that such an attack would be near apocalyptic are no doubt correct, and that's what i'm getting at in pointing out that the west is no friend of ukraine in simmering tensions in the region.
the russians have indicated that they would use nuclear weapons on advancing troops, for example - and it's hard to blame them, that close to their heartland.
deaths would be in the millions, and likely very quickly.
it's really very important to step back and understand what is at stake, here. we've maybe been trained to trivialize war, due to the one-sided conflicts we've seen, recently. but, we're talking about a war with russia, here.
the russians probably have the most capable army in the world, and i include nato when i state that.
america is what it is. but, canada should be playing it's historical role as peace negotiator, not trying to sell guns and gas.
3:40
i said capable.
i didn't say biggest, or most expensive.
i said capable.
3:42
let us stop the stupidity and sing together.
4:04
ok, so somebody is editing my climate posts, specifically, to make it seem like i'm some kind of climate change skeptic.
this is very strange, and i'm not sure what to make of it..
is somebody trying to smear me? is somebody trying to take credit for my writing, and altering my opinion on that point, because it contradicts their own views?
it's very odd.
let me remind you that my criticism of the climate change consensus is that i think they're under exaggerating the effects. i am in the naomi klein camp on this - in fact i'm further left than she is. i'm in support of massive government expenditures and mass nationalization of the economy to deal with it.
so, what's confusing me is the motive underlying altering my views on that specific topic.
i've written widely about this over a long period of time, too. and, it's something i'll be able to identify very quickly.
there's some self-reflection here, though. i mean, this is right out of orwell. i'm typing something into a server, and the server is changing it to fit it's narrative. i guess i've made that mistake already, but maybe people ought to learn from this.
6:11
so, there was a post here dated to may 5, 2020 that used some strange and uncharacteristic language that i wouldn't recognize as my own:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/05/again-why-are-we-dealing-with-record.html
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/05/again-why-are-we-dealing-with-record.html
i have fixed it:
so, why are we dealing with record-breaking cold in canada, when the rest of the world is dealing with extreme heat, and the hottest year on record?
it's not cold in sweden or russia. it's only cold here.
we were at the bottom of the solar cycle, which was skewing the weather. anthropogenic climate change doesn't change the solar cycle - that still happens, for better or worse. as we are getting out of that funk, we should expect these extremes to reverse and the warming to reassert itself, but this is the worst spring yet, and nobody saw that coming.
i kept saying that it looked good but it was too early and may have, in the end, jumped the gun a little.
still - why is it twenty-thirty degrees below normal here? is the pole wandering, or what?
when the solar cycle picks up, you should expect a more intense polar vortex; let's remember that the cause of the polar vortex expanding is an absence of sunlight, so it does follow that when you bring in more sunlight you should bottle it back up, which is what it looked like was happening for most of the winter. but, then, it just kind of imploded...
it's not expanding - it's even warm in nunavut. it's only cold right here.
so, did the culmination of factors kind of break it, then? like if you spin a top too fast and it runs off the axis?
if so, is that the end of our polar vortex? hmm. stay tuned...
note: it could just be bad luck.
this is weird, no doubt. everything right now is kind of weird. but, my analysis has not changed - you should continue to expect an acceleration of warming in this region as the sun comes back, even if it takes a while to kick in.
we were at the bottom of the solar cycle, which was skewing the weather. anthropogenic climate change doesn't change the solar cycle - that still happens, for better or worse. as we are getting out of that funk, we should expect these extremes to reverse and the warming to reassert itself, but this is the worst spring yet, and nobody saw that coming.
i kept saying that it looked good but it was too early and may have, in the end, jumped the gun a little.
still - why is it twenty-thirty degrees below normal here? is the pole wandering, or what?
when the solar cycle picks up, you should expect a more intense polar vortex; let's remember that the cause of the polar vortex expanding is an absence of sunlight, so it does follow that when you bring in more sunlight you should bottle it back up, which is what it looked like was happening for most of the winter. but, then, it just kind of imploded...
it's not expanding - it's even warm in nunavut. it's only cold right here.
so, did the culmination of factors kind of break it, then? like if you spin a top too fast and it runs off the axis?
if so, is that the end of our polar vortex? hmm. stay tuned...
note: it could just be bad luck.
this is weird, no doubt. everything right now is kind of weird. but, my analysis has not changed - you should continue to expect an acceleration of warming in this region as the sun comes back, even if it takes a while to kick in.
6:23
if some retarded climate skeptic is taking credit for this writing, they are doing so dishonestly.
they are not me.
6:27
i've also fixed the follow-up post:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/05/so-what-is-happening-with-polar-vortex.html
it could be that what is happening with the polar vortex is some ramification of a changed climate interacting with an increased level of sunlight. it is possible that it's actually breaking up and we're essentially seeing chunks of it fall off.
or, this might be less unusual than we think it is.
what's clear is that it isn't entirely clear, and that there isn't any reason to think it's permanent.
what's clear is that it isn't entirely clear, and that there isn't any reason to think it's permanent.
6:32
there was a third post:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/05/in-end-we-might-learn-this-is-counter.html
in the end, we might learn this is a counter-intuitive consequence of something called sudden stratospheric warming, which is at least consistent, even if the outcome is confusing.
that would be the case where it's essentially bad luck, and it may be good news in the long run.
that would be the case where it's essentially bad luck, and it may be good news in the long run.
6:35
listen, i've been very clear for months (years.) that i'm attempting to follow the science, as it relates to covid, the best that i can. when i criticize the government's response, i am consistently arguing that they are not following the science, and that their policies are not evidence-driven, but rather driven by populist perceptions of what seems "reasonable" due to "common sense".
one example of this is the travel restrictions. the science is absolutely crystal clear that travel restrictions are dumb, but the government keeps doing them anyways, and keeps claiming science is on their side. they're wrong - and my argument has consistently been to post peer reviewed papers demonstrating as much.
another example is mask use, which governments are pushing to try to normalize the economy, in spite of the overwhelming science - and clear empirical reality - that cheap surgical masks are useless against contagious, airborne viruses. n95s would be more useful....
i'm also trying to point to the well understood scientific facts that viruses mutate and natural immunity is generally more resilient. and, i've consistently posted links to papers to uphold my points.
every argument i've made in this space has consistently linked to peer-reviewed science.
further, i'm a self-identified communist, and it's obvious after reading any random three articles here.
so, like, fuck off. there's no ambiguity about where i'm coming from, and no question whatsoever that i'm upholding the science, and not challenging it.
6:41
i will never argue against the science in this space, when it comes to anything. i will always, always point to peer-reviewed articles, especially when i'm challenging the status quo.
what i'm arguing is that the government doesn't understand the science - and i've been arguing it forcefully and consistently for quite some time.
6:43
i see these idiots on the right and these idiots on the fake left as essentially two sides of the same coin.
they're both wrong.
and, i've consistently been right, on most things. i'm not infallible, but my track record is about as good as you'll find.
6:53
no, you idiots. like, get it.
the liberals don't understand science; the conservatives don't understand science. neither one of them follows the science.
the democrats don't understand science. the republicans don't understand science. neither party follows the science.
when you deconstruct their policies, they basically make the same mistakes, they just direct them at different demographics.
once again, there's no real, discernible difference - you're going to get stupidity, regardless.
on this particular issue, the republicans are maybe a little more in tune with the science, but you're talking about the republicans scoring 40% on the test and the democrats scoring 30% on it. they both fail basic science, and there's not a lot of use in drawing strict divisions about it.
if you're really concerned about public policy, you don't have a side to align with, you're going to be equally critical of both of them. and, that's what i try to be, here.
7:22
i've had the position that both of the corporate parties in both systems are interchangeable for 20+ years.
i don't know why anybody would think that would change due to the pandemic.
7:24
a really science-based policy would have had exceedingly strict restrictions for a small subset of the population, and facilitated transmission in the general population.
the failure of vaccines was predictable, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
7:26
and, don't get me started with the "flatten the curve" idiots.
that was like something out of a disney cartoon. that's not even dumb enough to call pseudo-science; that was pure magical thinking.
7:27
the idea that the democrats (or liberals) are pro-science and the republicans (or conservatives) are not is just the latest iteration in the culture wars, where one side thinks the other side wants to enslave them and take away their freedom.
the truth is that they both want to enslave you and take away your freedom, because they're both statists, and that's what states do.
and, the truth is that they're both run by party machineries full of arts majors that failed grade 10 science, and nobody on either side could solve a separable differential equation if guns were put to their heads. these are politicians - they don't know anything about science. what they know is polling data, and what they tell you is what they think you want to hear.
and, they're driven by their respective financial interests, not by the pristine motives of pure science.
i mean, c'mon.
wake the fuck up.
what i'm doing here is providing an independent service that criticizes statist policy, with the intent of introducing honesty into the equation, and correcting the corrupt political machinations, on all sides.
and, we have to face the facts on this, if we want to move on, as hard as they are, and whether polling data says you want to hear them or not.
7:36
the reason the republicans score a little higher is that they seem to realize that they have to let this run it's course, whereas democrats are still lost in the delusion that you can control it.
it's not absolute, and i think it's changing. but, it's because the republicans are winning the debate - because they're right.
7:38
democrats suck at math, and they suck at science, too.
7:44
yeah, i'm left with the feeling going through this that i was left with before - it's been edited for political correctness, and i'm going to have to edit it back to reintroduce maximum shock value. but, i can't do it right now.
i will re-edit these posts to make hem more offensive, in time.
for now, i'm going to go back to just updating the music blog, instead of doing it all in one piece.
8:03
i have every intent to upset you.
it's not a mistake.
it doesn't need to be corrected.
i want you to cry and go kill yourself, because i hate everything about you, to the innermost core of your being. i want you to feel the hate, in the deepest part of your soul. i want it to destroy you, inside.
all attempts to make this blog less hateful will be willfully reversed; all hate will be restored, in time.
you're wasting your time.
fuck off. and, kill yourself, too.
8:06
to be clear: if it seemed like posts were missing before, now it seems like they've been edited.
and, i can't prove it.
but, i can fix it.
8:14
if you don't like my blog, don't read it.
censoring or editing me is going to be a lifelong project - you'll still be doing it in thirty years. 'cause i'm just going to get worse.
8:16
i'm trying to be offensive - i want you to react negatively.
and, you can't change that.
you'll just have to ignore it.
8:19
i want you to think this through for me. carefully, if you must.
when boris johnson came out at the start of the pandemic with his "protect the weak" suggestion, do you think he came up with that on his lonesome? do you think that that was boris sitting in his study by himself and racking his brain for the right answer?
no. he said that because his science advisors told him that that was the right answer. and, the public revolted - in ignorance.
politicians take note of these things, and no politician has repeated that mistake. every politician everywhere has listened to the public backlash against the science, instead of the science.
because that's democracy.
that's what they've done - they've polled, they've listened and they've told us what the polling says.
they're not listening to their advisors, they're listening to their pollsters. and, that's true across the spectrum, in every country.
i remember being very surprised that boris johnson, of all people, got it right, which set the tone for the next several years. but, of course, it was the uk science council that got it right, not boris johnson. and, the british public lived up to it's reputation, in it's ignorance.
these are the harsh truths.
9:29
again:
1) i endorsed howie hawkins in the last american presidential election. i explicitly rejected biden over concerns about his hawkish foreign policy.
2) i did not vote in the last federal election in canada, although i might have voted green in solidarity with annamie paul, to explicitly vote against the arab lobby. there was no green candidate in this riding, which meant i decided not to vote at all.
3) i voted green in the last provincial election, because i thought the liberals needed somewhat of a time out. i was, broadly, a supporter of the wynne-mcguinty government - i have not been a support of the trudeau government, which is discernibly governing several degrees to their right.
that's what i voted for.
deal with it.
16:04
if a provincial election were held tomorrow, i would not vote in it.
i'm disenfranchised to an extreme level - i absolutely despise both the major parties.
so, if i'm pissing off liberals, that's good - i intend to piss everybody off, by the time i'm done.
16:07
the basic premise of a labour action to demand respect for self-ownership via the mechanism of bodily autonomy is practically the definition of leftist politics, and anybody self-identifying as a leftist that questions the basis of the protest should be forcibly expelled from any organizing committee.
we can have debates over messaging, but any real leftist would stand in solidarity with the basic premise underlying the action - and anybody criticizing it on it's merits, as a labour action, or as a reflection of support for self-autonomy, cannot be a leftist, by definition.
16:56
there may be a little bit of context missing in the foreign media analysis of the trucker convoy, though.
any time there's any kind of protest in canada, people bring up the on-to-ottawa trek, which was a depression era march with legendary status in the country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-to-Ottawa_Trek
any time there's any kind of protest in canada, people bring up the on-to-ottawa trek, which was a depression era march with legendary status in the country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-to-Ottawa_Trek
that's what's going on, here.
17:55
the fake left will demonize these protesters.
but, it is due the history of at times violent labour action that workers won rights in this country, and we should not forget or distance ourselves from that history, or forget the necessity of violence, to enact revolutionary policies.
there have not been any attacks by police on protesters to this point, to my knowledge. but, the organizers should be on the lookout for police violence.
18:17
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
18:30
rights to bodily autonomy are under attack
what do we do?
stand up, fight back
if you don't fight against the state, it will enslave you.
if you give it an inch, it will take a mile. never forget that - the only solution to statism is a show of force, and there is no limit as to how far they will go to repress you and force you to submit to their authority.
throughout history, we've required proletariat heroes to push back against statist repression. and, they often end up dead. but, their working class martyrdom against aristocracy, against bourgeoisie, against capital, against authority has allowed us to slowly progress towards increasing levels of freedom.
in the last two years, the state has advanced greatly in it's perpetual goal of total enslavement, and it will not relent without the kind of show of force we're seeing today in ottawa.
let this be the start, and not the end. the state has taken enough - it is time to take our freedoms back.
18:41
the class war never ends.
18:45
the liberals are bourgeois idiots.
but, the ndp should be on the ground standing with labour activists, not speciously repeating fake left talking points.
if mr. singh will not stand with leftists and labour activists on the ground demanding rights of self-ownership, he should immediately resign, and join the liberal party, instead.
19:16
hrmmn.
a sit down strike.
good idea.
big rigs are hard to move out of the way - if there's resolve, this could be effective.
i applaud the tactic, and that's rare - i'm usually yelling at people because they're being stupid.
let's make sure they're getting supplies, in case they're there a long while.
19:23
capitalists are specious idiots that only care about money, so if you want to force concessions from them, you have to do something that harms their profits, and you have to do it in a way that they can't just arrest you in five minutes - you have to be expensive, and you need to make the expenses medium to long term. that's why sit down strikes work, they prevent any kind of production, for at least as long as it takes for them to kill you or otherwise remove you, somehow.
this is ideal, because it's going to cost them a fortune, and it's going to be very hard to resolve, especially if it's emulated elsewhere.
it's a simple equation - the more money you cost them, the more likely they'll listen.
this is, of course, in opposition to the other theory, which is that protesting is about morality. you'll never gain concessions from capital by arguing for morality, although it may one day get you to critical mass.
sit down strikes were more effective, but we lost the tactic somewhere along the way because we became arrogant and stupid - we decided we were on the right side history, and that class didn't matter anymore. it's very, very encouraging to see a movement revive a proper understanding of labour conflicts, and realize you enact concessions by costing capital money, not by convincing them you're morally correct.
let's hope we see more of this.
i love it.
19:34
sunday, january 30 2022
so, my best guess is that the reason that i'm not broadcasting links - and this happens periodically - is that somebody has decided i'm posting links to "unverified information".
this is simply a smear. if you claim otherwise, present an example to me. you won't find one.
the links i post to this page are, without exception, either:
1) news articles, and usually at mainstream sites, because that's what i actually read. my source of news is google news. really. i just go to google and type in "news" and sort through it. i don't use social media.
2) peer reviewed science. and, i post a lot of peer-reviewed science.
3) various other academic links.
4) wikipedia sites.
5) music.
i need for the actor responsible for this periodic decision to provide some actual evidence of their concerns, or stop wasting my time regarding it. it's been going on for years, now, and there's clearly no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims on the matter.
the reality is that if they were to bring their concerns up to me, i wouldn't even know what they were talking about.
1:54
sorting through this page, the links i've posed recently are to (and sometimes multiple times):
1) cbc news
2) the university of victoria
3) wikipedia
4) some old posts on this site
5) my bandcamp page
6) my google pictures archive
7) my other blogs
8) euronews
9) the wall street journal
10) canlii
11) ctv news
12) the globe and mail
13) the supreme court of canada's lexum page
14) north shore news [local vancouver newspaper]
15) cp24 [toronto news]
16) the bbc
17) the guardian
18) global news
19) the national post
20) pubmed
21) the canadian government's covid page
22) tass [russian state media]
23) deutsche welle [german media]
24) rt
25) new england journal of medicine
26) msnbc
27) blogger
28) the toronto star
29) the university of cambridge
30) the brookings institute
this is a wide array of sources, some scholarly [the university sites] and some less so [the newspapers] that attempts to understand the world from the viewpoints of multiple actors and multiple places in the world, including canada, the united states, the uk, germany and russia.
it's a balanced list of sources, none of which are in any way remotely controversial.
so, what is the problem?
if you can't identify a problem, stop bothering me.
2:07
is it because i read russian media, occasionally?
listen, if it's not ok to post links to rt, why is it ok to post links to the bbc?
there are events occurring in eastern europe, and not consulting the russian viewpoint would be unbalanced. it's people that are attempting to publish commentary without consulting both sides that are the problem, not people looking for balanced sources of information.
2:11
as a canadian, i have no inherent reason why i ought to take a side in a conflict between the united states and russia. i'm not an american. i'm a neutral, outside observer in this process, and want to hear both perspectives before i make a decision and present an analysis.
that's reasonable.
looking strictly at western sources of information without consulting russian sources is not reasonable.
2:14
so, if there's some concern about specific sources i'm posting, please draw it to my attention.
if there's not, please stop restricting my archiving capabilities, due to what is truly an evidence-free accusational smear against me.
2:17
so, ontario is set to "re-open" on monday, and there's an apparent shift in messaging from the government, heading into an election year, that we're done with this.
ok. i agree.
but what's going to happen?
see, i'm largely of the viewpoint that these government regulations are of minimal efficacy, but we have to ask the question of whether at risk people are learning that they need to alter their behaviour or not, and there's not a really clear answer to that.
the people that are dying are old, and i don't quite understand how they're continuing to come into contact with this, despite the obvious need for them to protect themselves, and for people to stay away.
so, re-opening or not, the outcome really hinges on the obvious question of whether people are taking it seriously or not and, if anything, there should be concern around messaging that omicron is less dangerous, which shouldn't be how you're thinking if you're at risk.
i'm consequently expecting a very nasty uptick in fatal cases from now to april. but, i think we should lessen restrictions, regardless. if people are still not taking proper precautions, they are not going to. choose your metaphor - bringing horses to water, perhaps - but you can't help people that won't help themselves.
if you find yourself sick with this disease over the next couple of months, you might get triaged and find yourself with little to no sympathy from a province that wants to move on.
so, make the right choices, or suffer from it.
but, it's going to be awful, and we'll have to accept it and suffer through it.
and, i'm going to call for surgeries and resources to be directed elsewhere, and not to cave on it, as well.
3:17
so, i'm going through my notes for the summer and i want to update my vitamin d theory.
oddly, my d crashed in the middle of last summer, which struck me as impossible. i didn't change my diet, and i was out in the sun. so, how could my d crash?
i actually think that what happened is that the change in fortification labelling on the soy milk lagged behind the product. that is, i think i found myself drinking soy milk that was marketed as having 50% fortification, but only had 10% fortification. it must have swapped some time last spring, and the packaging only updated in the fall.
as a result of this change, i no longer think it's possible to get enough vitamin d without taking pills. as is the case with iron, the idea that you can get enough vitamin d strictly from meat is really a myth. you'd have to eat a full filet of salmon twice a day, and normal meat is actually less useful than eggs. offal is a little better, but even eating liver every day isn't going to get you enough. we really should be getting sun - we evolved in the sun, and we haven't (yet?) evolved to adjust for less sun in moving away from the equator. so, that might be less of a concern in california or mexico, but the outcome is predictably catastrophic in the north, and defortifying dairy substitutes with vitamin d is going to be a long term disaster that could end up being remembered as being the worst public health decision in canadian history. this *will* be reversed, it's just a matter of time, and we can only hope the outcomes aren't particularly terrible, on the way there. there is now simply no way to get even close to enough vitamin d in the long canadian winter without taking supplements. every canadian should now be taking vitamin d supplements.
but, i bought this large amount of soy milk with high levels of fortification on the box, and i'm skeptical that it's what is actually in it. it explains what happened - my diet did change, in that the fortification was removed without informing me. well, i'm glad i caught it. but, it's frustrating because i knew it - that's why i switched in the first place.
as mentioned, it seems like all soy in canada is now processed in the same facility. that's why the numbers are the same across product lines.
somebody has to break the monopoly, and introduce the d back into the product. i, for one, will pay for it.
there's no way to really be sure i'm right, but it makes sense, at least.
7:09
i believe that they based their decision on studies that showed that vitamin d supplementation didn't reverse osteoporosis in post-menopausal women, as though that wasn't surprising.
what you're going to see is multiple sclerosis rates shoot through the roof.
7:13
it's not just the soy milk. they took it out of the cereal and the margarine, too.
so, where else are you supposed to get it, then?
drinking cow's piss? gross - no thank you.
7:17
ok.
it actually seems like somebody figured it out, and we'll see what happens, soon.
i don't drink animal milk, though, and i'm never going to - i think it's disgusting. i really want more vitamin d in soy products, specifically.
7:28
and, i don't care about farmers - they're a bunch of fucking inbred christian retards.
if you're going to pass legislation on margarine and dairy, it should apply to dairy substitutes, as well.
7:33
it is true that the guidelines for vitamin d amounts changed in 2016 from 10 to 20 micograms a day, which would halve the amount. so, if my soy milk had 50% relative to the old requirements, it would have 25% relative to the new ones. but, the numbers actually went from 45% to 10%, which is due to changes announced previously to make vitamin d fortification in non-dairy products to be "voluntary" rather than "mandatory". the link i posted talks about increasing the maximum amount in dairy and margarine, but doesn't mention the fact that it had recently been decreased.
i haven't decided how i'm going to deal with this yet, but i'm pissed off by the greed and stupidity and could very well just buy my own soy protein and fortify it myself.
7:57
if the government's argument is that 80% of canadians drink milk, so fortifying milk is good enough, it might want to revisit that.
changing ethnic demographics, combined with a developing stigma against drinking milk because it's just gross, are likely to cut that number down dramatically in the next ten years, if it hasn't already been cut dramatically in the last five.
the real reason i don't drink milk is that the premise of pumping an animal full of hormones and then squeezing an excretion out of it is entirely unappetizing to me.
8:11
i hear trudeau's in the diefenbunker in carp, btw.
8:57
c'mon, vlad, let's have some fun with this.
TRUDEAU FLEES CAPITAL AMIDST REVOLUTIONARY UPRISING.
given the weather, it should be called the blue lips revolution.
9:09
are there qualified black women in the system that can be responsibly promoted to the highest court? if so, i have no particular aversion to the idea of placing a black woman on the court.
but, here's the tricky truth: that if the claim is that there's systemic discrimination in place then that discrimination is longstanding and, for that reason, it becomes less likely that a qualified candidate exists. we've had that problem in canada with indigenous justices; there simply aren't any.
the responsible thing to do becomes to put qualified candidates in the lower courts, and wait for them to develop, and that's probably what biden ought to be doing. but, he's made this mistake before: kamala harris was entirely unqualified, and she's the disaster you'd expect from such a hiring policy.
if there's some concern about this, it's justified. the court's already a mess. putting an unqualified candidate on it due to her race and gender isn't going to help, and may generate a backlash if the outcome is terrible.
there are some other issues to be concerned about, as well. one of the reason that democrats want democrats on the bench is abortion rights; the data is clear that black women tend to be far, far less supportive of abortion rights than other democrats, so if the pool is restricted, you might end up with bad choices. the flip side of that is that if we pick a black woman that acts like a white woman then the premise is undermined.
affirmative action was supposed to be about ensuring people had fair opportunities, but the way it's collapsed into identity politics is no longer serving that purpose. instead of removing barriers for qualified candidates, it's become a search for dalai lamas in the rough. and, look up that history - it's pretty dreadful.
i want to say something about how returning to procedure is a slow process, but is necessary in maintaining the sanctity of the court; unfortunately, such a statement would be farcical in the context of the american system. but, at the least, you don't fix the judicial system by obsessing over appearances.
the primary consideration should be merit, but it won't be, and the system will suffer for it.
14:48
i'm also seeing calls from democratic ranks that fauci needs to go.
i think that fauci's insight has been questionable throughout the pandemic, but he's tended to make the same mistakes that many other people did. it's less that he's displayed incompetence, and more that he hasn't displayed unusual brilliance. for a man that has been in the same position of leadership for decades, this display of mediocrity is somewhat uninspiring.
but, i think the bigger problem is that he should have had his term limit run out thirty years ago, and he should have faced mandatory retirement at least five years ago.
rather than attacking fauci - which i'm not convinced is justified - i might suggest it's time for term limits at the least and probably for mandatory retirement. at 81 years of age, and after having been in the job for my entire lifetime, it's well past time for a change, and for democratic renewal, if nothing else.
a five year term limit is probably advisable.
15:01
can you point me to anybody else in washington that's been in the same position of influence since 1984?
that's too long, and that should't happen again.
15:03
i'm noticing the phrase "back to normal" appear on the tongues of politicians across the spectrum. that likely reflects polling data.
16:59
so, the trucker occupation of parliament hill is a start, but let's take this global.
they're claiming they're going to occupy wellington street for weeks or months. the cops will eventually come in and take them out, but only at great expense to many stakeholders, which is the point - this needs to cost people money.
let's get people occupying other areas now as well.
let's take it global.
occupy your legislature and don't move until they give up or drag you out.
18:19
i just want to point out that terry fox is overrated. there's far too many roads and parks and statues of a guy that really didn't do much of anything to deserve it.
so, i don't find the idea of desecrating terry fox statues to be very offensive in the first place, whether you find the actions to be vandalism or just harmless fun.
90% of the images of terry fox in the country should really be removed and replaced with the likeness of somebody that has a better claim to permanency.
18:32
i think the obsession with terry fox is really generational, too.
your grandkids won't give a fuck about terry fox.
18:33
i mean, to begin with, why not put up statues of somebody that actually made it across canada?
he miserably failed.
it's reflective of canada, i suppose, that we put up statues of a guy that failed so badly he died.
18:37
like, he didn't even get close.
18:39
we're obsessed with our inadequacies, in this country.
18:41
the crusty, conservative pundit class that's so offended by such a thing needs to chill out a little. it's harmless.
18:46
kill your idols.
18:50
yes - there's a lot of people in downtown ottawa right now that i wouldn't get along with very well. i know that.
but, i don't get along very well with the bourgeois left, either. i'd consider them interchangeable in terms of not-getting-along-with-ness.
it's a shitty time for politics, and i'm more excited about some kind of movement on the ground than i am concerned about consequences. frankly, they seem to be unusually harmless, probably because there aren't any anarchists out there, because they won't be seen with them.
i'm not going to send them money any time soon, but i'm watching from a good distance with some heightened curiosity.
19:03
no, really - the same people that tried to explain away dousing statues of historical leaders in this country with paint are now outraged over somebody putting a hat on terry fox.
the hypocrisy is baffling.
19:15
over the next coming days, can the government of ontario provide a clear direction as to what criteria it requires seeing in order to do away with these vaccine passports?
thanks.
20:33
finally.
22:41
monday, january 31, 2022
all the mass vaccination witch doctors seem to have left is "but, severe disease".
but, even that's bullshit. i've never seen a study try to evaluate the question by actually controlling for it. it's just all raw data, and that's the definition of bad science.
the chances that you're going to develop complications from covid are so low in the first place that the claim that vaccination might reduce severe disease is very, very difficult to prove - and i've yet to see a study that addresses the problem in a mathematically coherent manner.
in the long run, i would expect that claim to be debunked. right now, it's best labelled as an unproven hypothesis.
4:49
there's a very small group of people that need to get vaccinated, and some of them are refusing to do so.
but, for 99.999% of the population, it's just a placebo.
4:53
reality check:
i'm critical of everybody because i'm completely disenfranchised.
5:30
this is particularly interesting:
i've usually endorsed the greens....in the united states.
but, in canada, i'm a historical liberal voter that has occasionally voted ndp and sporadically voted green out of frustration.
so, this represents a movement of the liberal party away from me in the spectrum - and i might argue towards the right. if i'm a left-wing extremist, what this chart reflects is that the liberal party are the furthest right party in the spectrum, today, even if they're truly indiscernible from the conservatives. i mean, those three parties - the liberals, the conservatives, the ppc - end up in the margin of error, in terms of being the most right-wing, albeit on different issues.
5:34
i saw the same thing come up when i did one of these in the us election for 2016, to my surprise at the time. i had something like 95% agreement with jill stein and 20% agreement with gary johnston, neither of which surprised me. but, i was at 55% for clinton and 45% for trump. ten years earlier, i would have had 70% for john kerry and 30% for george w. bush. and, it started to click that the spectrum was changing in a way that rendered me an unwilling swing voter - an educated libertarian communist that is so alienated from the bourgeois left that the right-wing doesn't seem that much worse anymore.
5:40
this study seems to be suggesting that adverse effects from vaccination - the mild flu-like sickness that often follows vaccination - were more statistically significant than symptoms from the disease, in placebo groups.
that would strongly suggest that the vaccine is of no medical value to the general public.
that's not an argument against selective vaccination for the weak, it's an argument against mass vaccination.
6:12
so, the site is not broadcasting anything at all at this point.
once again - i'm posting peer-reviewed science. i have a science education, and i'm qualified to analyze that. the politicians criticizing me do not have a science education, and are not qualified to complain about it.
i'd advise that if people don't like what i'm posting here then they go back to school and get an education, so they understand it.
this post links to a survey posted in the journal of the american medical association. it's apparently been censored from broadcasting strictly because it offends some astonishingly uneducated, scientifically illiterate liberals - the kind that failed grade ten science, and then got put in charge of public policy.
shutting me down doesn't change the facts, and won't fix the problems. instead of trying to censor the truth, and shut down peer-reviewed science, the government needs to address it's failed policies and adjust to reality.
yes - the vaccines are a placebo.
6:36
you are not qualified to have an opinion on this matter and should promptly shut the fuck up.
so, fuck off.
6:52
the vaccine manufacturers largely skipped placebo-style double blind randomized trials, because they wanted to address the public health concern. and, insofar as that applies to specific at risk groups. i don't dissent. sure - get fat, diabetic grandma the vaccine right away. it's at worst a placebo, right?
but, the data will eventually be analyzed properly, and we will eventually come to the obvious conclusion that the vaccines aren't having any substantive effect at all in 99.999% of the people they were administered to, because they would have barely noticed they caught the thing, in the first place.
what the jama study did - perhaps unintentionally - was demonstrate that the risk of complications from covid is so low that placebo groups saw less symptoms than vaccinated groups, due to normal post-vaccination reactions. that is, most people, if chosen randomly, are more likely to experience unpleasant symptoms - however mildly - from the vaccine, than from getting the virus, itself.
that's what the study says.
read it yourself and understand it, if you're capable of doing so, or defer to me to explain to you. i don't give a fuck. but don't stick your fingers in your ears and dance around like a retard, calling me names because you're stuck in a hippie world of magic and make believe and you can't accept the fucking facts.
7:05
ok, so some retarded arts major with no science education is bothering me again because i'm hurting his feelings, and because he doesn't understand the science.
i'l have to wait until he's done crying before i repost this to broadcast it.
7:16
you're wasting your time, and you're wasting my time, and you should just go away somewhere to die.
and, i will broadcast this post in a few hours.
let's hope you're dead by then.
7:20
what is your highest level of education, censor?
i bet you have a degree in political science, and you haven't taken a science course since high school.
this is the state of backwardsness we find ourselves in - when arts majors censor science majors on issues of science, because they find it offensive.
i'm offended by the stupidity, and by the premise that your worthless, low intelligence level thinks it has the ability to censor me. you're a political science major, so look up the dunning-kruger effect.
i have no interest in your opinion, and you will never succeed in altering my viewpoints, unless you address the facts in front of you, which you are not intellectually capable of doing. all you're able to do is bitch and whine that the facts offend you, and demand they be kept away from your whining, entitled, piece of shit worthless presence.
and, i don't care - i have no obligation to care, and you have no grounds to ask me to care.
go away.
7:27
you are not welcome here.
fuck off.
7:29
i have repeatedly demanded that the person responsible for harassing me in attempting to censor this blog by whining to authority identify themselves so i can ridicule them in public, but they refuse to do so.
i have to ask google to identify them to me, because it's been going on for a very long time.
it is a fundamental principle of justice that an accused be allowed to face their accuser. so, if this person is too cowardly to present themselves to me, let google present them to me, so i can mock them for the retards they are, or forever fuck off and leave me alone.
7:36
anonymous complaints should never be processed.
all complaints should come with valid identification, similar to a dmca-style takedown request, so that the content owner can confront the complainer.
7:45
listen, the media uses the nazi slur on every participant in every protest ever. left, right, whatever - the media will consistently call them nazis at some point. and, for all anybody knows, the two nazi flags in the sea of ten thousand people were police officers looking to cause a disturbance.
remember - the police are there to preserve disorder.
i have no delusions about the fact that my agreement with these protesters would be almost strictly restricted to social libertarian grounds on personal autonomy. for example, they would mostly be free market conservatives, and i strenuously reject market economics. in a list of a thousand items, we'd agree on ten of them, and it is issues relating to bodily autonomy that comprise those ten things.
but, they're not nazis - and i know that because i've seen this lie in media too many times, and i know better than to fall for it. if you think they're nazis, go talk to them and learn otherwise. don't let the media shoo you away like that.
and, understand that the purpose of media is to shoo you away. they're telling you that the protesters are nazis to try to scare you off. it's an old tactic that has been used ad naseum against the left, and i'm not falling for it now that it's being used against the right.
the nature of protest has changed, and i'm still figuring out how to react to it. i'm apprehensive about the pro-market nature of these groups, but i have no intent on aligning with the bourgeoisie to combat them.
19:53
we might both agree that mask laws and vaccine mandates are tyrannical, but these are people that tie their concept of "freedom" to an idea of negative liberty, as advanced by ever expanding marketization.
i am an advocate of positive liberty, which argues that markets interfere with freedom by restricting choice, and that we cannot have a free society without abolishing capitalism, first.
it's very, very narrow.
but, they're not nazis - don't believe that.
19:54
i think that the science is on moe's side with this, and that you shouldn't ask a doctor about vaccine research.
there is some suggestion that three doses may reduce "severe disease", although these studies lack controls, and it's not clear what difference it makes. the reality is that 99% of people in the general population will avoid "severe disease" through normal immune function, anyways, so trying to figure out what causal effect that vaccines may play requires heaping amounts of data and very careful study design, none of which is being done.
but, it was never really settled whether two doses would prevent transmission of the initial variant, the claim was largely debunked during delta and the opposite statement is what reflects the current state of the science: two doses will not prevent transmission of omicron. at all.
i'd invite the ndp to update their research and post an apology and retraction.
22:43
here's a link to the right-wing crypto-fascists at harvard:
22:47
(we can have a discussion about the actual right-wing crypto-fascists at harvard some other time)
22:50
it's considered a "reliable source" - and it's very reliable. this was a joint study with harvard and other boston universities, published in the seminal research magazine, cell.
you don't get more reliable than that.
so, let's move on - in both ways.
22:52
they had to pick a doctor with the last name wong, right?
dr. wong is about right.
23:11
many years ago, canada had a very prominent diplomat named hume wrong.
you can imagine that the historical documentation makes for entertaining reading, at points.
23:13
as expected, they're trying to come up with arguments to cut spending. at least they're no longer using the philips curve (at least for now. i'm officially putting the ministry on philips watch and will gleefully point it out if i see it.), but it's..
ok, there's some truth to the claim: if you give people so much money that they buy everything out then, yeah, you end up with low supply, which causes inflation. but, that's temporary.
wait. it is temporary. right?
so, maybe that's an open question - how many of these supply lines are strained, and how many are actually closed?
if what the government is saying is that it wants to increase local production to strengthen supply chains [i'm using modern language, but don't mistake it for support for modern theory], you will see no pushback from me, although i don't exactly know how you do that without taking on the wto, which would be a dramatic shift in policy. i'd love to take on the wto. but, i somehow doubt that investors will let the party do that.
so, i don't know what government can do to put these barriers back up in a world designed to remove them, even if i'd support the idea. but, even if i concede that, i won't take it as an excuse to decrease stimulus, or other types of spending.
excessive spending on transition from fossil fuels will help ease inflation in the long run, but this round is only partially being driven by the price of gas. and, the provincial liberals had their hands tied by that same global trade regime in their transition in ontario, which created all kinds of unnecessary debt to get around the rules - something the feds should be seeking to avoid.
i'm going to be overwhelmingly vicious if the government uses inflation as an excuse for an austerity budget. but, i expect it's coming - it's why we recently had an election.
23:37