if beethoven had a blog, what would it be like?
i don't know.
i know there's a lot of historians that would find it interesting, though.
this is, first and foremost, for the historians of the future.
and, that is all.
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
is the fact that i've never made i dime from blogging or vlogging, and something like $500 total from selling music over the last 25 years, shocking to you?
i seem to be confusing some powerful people that just don't understand what i am or what i'm doing....maybe the narrative is fragmented.....
let's rewind. i'll tell you the short story, right here.
i started posting comments on youtube in early 2014, initially when my computer was in a state of disrepair. the story is partially up here, now - click 2014 on the side. first, i lost a hard drive, and then i lost a bios. so, i had to wait for a bus pirate to arrive in the mail before i could get back to recording (in april, 2014), and found myself with a lot of time to blow.
i started uploading music to this site, first, in dec 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/user/deathtokoalas
from that account, i found myself commenting on a lot of music.
years before that, starting around 2010, i also had a facebook page set up that was essentially a link dump for political analysis that came out of my facebook feed, which was full of sites like the real news. i also found myself commenting on general youtube videos from that account, as they came to me in my facebook feed. this itself was continuation of prominent commenting on the cbc site over roughly 2006-2010, and posting in various places under different pseudonyms years before that.
it wasn't long before i realized that i was directing traffic to my music site by commenting on youtube videos, so i recognized an opportunity to market my music and jumped at it. i started purposefully trolling high traffic sites to draw attention to myself, and try to direct random viewers to my own site instead of the site they were at. while i come from a left-wing activist background, the ultimate purpose of this was always really solely to sell my own music; i was a musician long before i was ever an activist.
once i started realizing i was directing hundreds or sometimes even thousands of people to my youtube site a day, i had to ask myself a question: did i want to put ads on my music? i grappled with this pretty thoroughly, as i would consider that a form of prostitution, which i'm morally opposed to. i'm not like these young people that are willing to sell whatever they can to get by; i'm a gen xer, i have values, and i didn't want to whore myself out to some fucking youtube ad revenue. the premise revolted me, truly. on top of that, i realized that i'd be unlikely to make any kind of significant revenue that way. putting an ad on my youtube videos (which were all music at this point, like exists at bandcamp, and like still exists at the deathtokoalas site) would just give somebody an opportunity to steal the attention of potential listeners; it struck me as counterproductive to go through so much effort to get people's attention, only to let some advertiser co-opt me. the video was an ad for my own product, available at bandcamp; i didn't want to put an ad for something else in the way and risk sending people off to watch some vacuous movie or something.
so, over 2014 and 2015, i made thousands of youtube posts on hundreds of videos about everything, and developed somewhat of a following amongst youtube addicts, who would sometimes go to my music site but really cared mostly about my comments.
after the 2015 canadian election, i started a vlog and kept at it until mid 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinQSeEtF0vSN1XVhQGfwKA/
i decided that i would feel ok about monetizing the vlog, but not the music, and i did. i still hoped to direct people to my music through commenting, but i allowed for ads in that space as a kind of compromise to myself.
because, you only get that chance once, and, if you blow it you're potentially throwing away a life of true freedom. i've always said i'd give the music away for free if i wasn't so desperately fucking poor.
i guess it was in late 2016 or early 2017 - not long after the last election - that i started noticing i'd been shadow-banned on youtube. they went after me on google+ first, delaying a few posts (i don't think anything was deleted permanently, but some things sort of disappeared for a bit before reappearing). so, i launched a project to get everything i could off of youtube as fast as i could, and migrated here instead.
the technical reason i stopped publishing the vlog was that i got into a fight with my landlord that eventually led to me getting evicted. i didn't want to put vlogs up while in a legal dispute, as i was going to present some of them as evidence.
but, i eventually mostly dropped it because i wasn't directing anything to the bandcamp site; it wasn't working as the portal that i hoped it would.
rather, i just drew a lot of attention to myself by people that seem to think i'm some kind of spy, which sounds like the plot to a fucking jim carrey movie.
i think i sort of get that these commenting systems are basically run by psychologists in the employ of the state that use it to measure the effectiveness of propaganda. i'm absolutely beyond their reach, and they don't know what to do, or how to react, so they just target me and try to shut me down.
*shrug*
why am i doing this now?
i'm generating documentation for my life, essentially. if i can ever get back on top of this, this vlog will be a front-end that documents my life as a composer. the political views are a part of that, and my analysis and deconstruction exists in the context of my works as an artist, but it's all just a front-end, a way into the discography.
you can believe me or not, or use it as an excuse to continue to try to repress me.
but, this is what i am, why i exist and what i'm doing.
....in between choking on drugs being smoked by the undercover police officers upstairs.
i seem to be confusing some powerful people that just don't understand what i am or what i'm doing....maybe the narrative is fragmented.....
let's rewind. i'll tell you the short story, right here.
i started posting comments on youtube in early 2014, initially when my computer was in a state of disrepair. the story is partially up here, now - click 2014 on the side. first, i lost a hard drive, and then i lost a bios. so, i had to wait for a bus pirate to arrive in the mail before i could get back to recording (in april, 2014), and found myself with a lot of time to blow.
i started uploading music to this site, first, in dec 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/user/deathtokoalas
from that account, i found myself commenting on a lot of music.
years before that, starting around 2010, i also had a facebook page set up that was essentially a link dump for political analysis that came out of my facebook feed, which was full of sites like the real news. i also found myself commenting on general youtube videos from that account, as they came to me in my facebook feed. this itself was continuation of prominent commenting on the cbc site over roughly 2006-2010, and posting in various places under different pseudonyms years before that.
it wasn't long before i realized that i was directing traffic to my music site by commenting on youtube videos, so i recognized an opportunity to market my music and jumped at it. i started purposefully trolling high traffic sites to draw attention to myself, and try to direct random viewers to my own site instead of the site they were at. while i come from a left-wing activist background, the ultimate purpose of this was always really solely to sell my own music; i was a musician long before i was ever an activist.
once i started realizing i was directing hundreds or sometimes even thousands of people to my youtube site a day, i had to ask myself a question: did i want to put ads on my music? i grappled with this pretty thoroughly, as i would consider that a form of prostitution, which i'm morally opposed to. i'm not like these young people that are willing to sell whatever they can to get by; i'm a gen xer, i have values, and i didn't want to whore myself out to some fucking youtube ad revenue. the premise revolted me, truly. on top of that, i realized that i'd be unlikely to make any kind of significant revenue that way. putting an ad on my youtube videos (which were all music at this point, like exists at bandcamp, and like still exists at the deathtokoalas site) would just give somebody an opportunity to steal the attention of potential listeners; it struck me as counterproductive to go through so much effort to get people's attention, only to let some advertiser co-opt me. the video was an ad for my own product, available at bandcamp; i didn't want to put an ad for something else in the way and risk sending people off to watch some vacuous movie or something.
so, over 2014 and 2015, i made thousands of youtube posts on hundreds of videos about everything, and developed somewhat of a following amongst youtube addicts, who would sometimes go to my music site but really cared mostly about my comments.
after the 2015 canadian election, i started a vlog and kept at it until mid 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinQSeEtF0vSN1XVhQGfwKA/
i decided that i would feel ok about monetizing the vlog, but not the music, and i did. i still hoped to direct people to my music through commenting, but i allowed for ads in that space as a kind of compromise to myself.
because, you only get that chance once, and, if you blow it you're potentially throwing away a life of true freedom. i've always said i'd give the music away for free if i wasn't so desperately fucking poor.
i guess it was in late 2016 or early 2017 - not long after the last election - that i started noticing i'd been shadow-banned on youtube. they went after me on google+ first, delaying a few posts (i don't think anything was deleted permanently, but some things sort of disappeared for a bit before reappearing). so, i launched a project to get everything i could off of youtube as fast as i could, and migrated here instead.
the technical reason i stopped publishing the vlog was that i got into a fight with my landlord that eventually led to me getting evicted. i didn't want to put vlogs up while in a legal dispute, as i was going to present some of them as evidence.
but, i eventually mostly dropped it because i wasn't directing anything to the bandcamp site; it wasn't working as the portal that i hoped it would.
rather, i just drew a lot of attention to myself by people that seem to think i'm some kind of spy, which sounds like the plot to a fucking jim carrey movie.
i think i sort of get that these commenting systems are basically run by psychologists in the employ of the state that use it to measure the effectiveness of propaganda. i'm absolutely beyond their reach, and they don't know what to do, or how to react, so they just target me and try to shut me down.
*shrug*
why am i doing this now?
i'm generating documentation for my life, essentially. if i can ever get back on top of this, this vlog will be a front-end that documents my life as a composer. the political views are a part of that, and my analysis and deconstruction exists in the context of my works as an artist, but it's all just a front-end, a way into the discography.
you can believe me or not, or use it as an excuse to continue to try to repress me.
but, this is what i am, why i exist and what i'm doing.
....in between choking on drugs being smoked by the undercover police officers upstairs.
...and, the smell of anal rape is now wafting downstairs, again. it's not quite skunk, really; it smells more like that old man is getting fucked up on drugs, and raping his daughter. you know that smell of cheap lube and deep shit, the kind you need to pull out of your ass with some kind of device? it's about as rank a smell as exists in the world, but it's what i'm stuck with until he passes out in his own filth.
so, the shower is running.
again.
for who knows how long.
and, i may have to do laundry again, as well. we'll see.
so, the shower is running.
again.
for who knows how long.
and, i may have to do laundry again, as well. we'll see.
i just got a strange email from my youtube vlog, which i haven't even uploaded a video to in years.
========
Hi jessica,
This email is to notify you that you’ll need to accept YPP terms again once your channel is eligible for the program. The YPP application process, your channel watchtime, and subscriber count are not impacted.
At some point, you signed contract terms with YouTube regarding the YouTube Partner Program (YPP). Previously, we allowed creators to pre-sign YPP terms before reaching the minimum eligibility thresholds. We have since re-designed this process. Our records show that your channel hasn’t yet met the existing thresholds for program eligibility. In 30 days, if your channel is still not eligible for YPP, we will invalidate your contract.
Not to worry, though. When you do reach the thresholds needed for YPP, it’s just a few easy clicks to apply using our standard process. (Note you can always check your progress on the monetization tab in YouTube Studio.)
What this means for your channel
In short, nothing is changing for your channel. The only change is that you will need to accept YPP terms again when you become eligible. The way you use or experience YouTube stays the same. You still have access to all your creator features that enable you to grow your audience, build your community, and manage your videos. You can:
Upload, edit, or delete your videos
Read, respond to, or moderate your comments
Analyze your channel performance in YouTube Analytics
Get best practices and strategic advice from Creator Academy
Connect to other Creators in the YouTube Help Forum
Thank you for being part of the YouTube Community! We look forward to your application in the future.
Sincerely,
The YouTube Team
==========
i've purposefully left my subscriber count unknown, but it's not anywhere close to 1000 subscribers, on either account. the former deathtokoalas and current koala central command account hit a max of about 500 before slowly falling due to disuse; the vlog account hit a max that was considerably less then 100. i think it was 93, iirc. i'd have to log into the other account to check and don't want to.
my google plus page had thousands and thousands of hits, and some of my comments had thousand of likes before they were removed by some shady governing structure that i only vaguely understand, but my subscriber count was never very high, and i never had anything at the music site with more than a few hundred hits.
excluding the cover video, and some concert footage that i've left unmonetized for ethical reasons, the most popular video on the vlog site has 159 views. while the vlog has been monetized for years, the other site has never been and never will be (i don't want ads on my music. gross.), and the reality is that i've never made a single cashable cent from youtube royalties. i think the total uncashed amount was about $3.50, at it's max.
the reason that i've left these numbers unpublished is the same reason that i don't allow "likes" to appear on the page - i don't think that how many subscribers i have, or the watch count, or the number of likes should be presented as a way to validate or invalidate the content. that is, i want people to react to the content without being coerced by popularity metrics. i really don't like social media or how it tries to shape popular opinion with herd mentality.
i will eventually update that vlog. i mean, i'm still vlogging, i'm just years behind on the updates. it could be sitting there for five or ten years before i get around to it.
but, i don't expect that i'll ever get that many subscribers, and i don't expect i'll ever remonetize. so, what youtube is essentially telling me is that it wants to give me server space for free. which is fine, but what's in it for them, then? are they going to start closing down unpopular or unmonetizable sites? there's a bit of a speech issue there, if they do - if they decide that you're only allowed a platform if you can generate an audience.
i have all of the files in a safe space and intend to put them up for sale at bandcamp in the form of isos and dvds, eventually. maybe they'll end up at vimeo or somewhere else, in the long run. it would be very frustrating to have to update all of the links, though.
the purpose of the vlog was to act as a marketing portal to the bandcamp site, not to make money on it's own. i didn't want ads on my music, but i wondered if i might be missing out on the possibility of a viral video; it never happened, and it was probably never very likely that it ever would. but, what i was hoping was that i could string an audience along with a vlog for long enough to sell them a couple of mp3s, and it didn't work out in the end, so i abandoned it.
given that it didn't work out as hoped, i probably should have removed the ads from the site quite some time ago, and am, at this point, sort of glad that youtube has done it for me. it sort of removes the issue for me - i don't have to wonder about whether i should compromise myself by allowing myself to be monetized, because i can't be monetized anyways. that's a weight lifted off of my shoulders, in the end.
if you'd like to support me, please either go to the bandcamp site and buy some tunes or send me something directly at death.to.koalas@gmail.com. small scale artists like myself cannot make money from advertising, even if we want to - and, generally, we don't want to.
========
Hi jessica,
This email is to notify you that you’ll need to accept YPP terms again once your channel is eligible for the program. The YPP application process, your channel watchtime, and subscriber count are not impacted.
At some point, you signed contract terms with YouTube regarding the YouTube Partner Program (YPP). Previously, we allowed creators to pre-sign YPP terms before reaching the minimum eligibility thresholds. We have since re-designed this process. Our records show that your channel hasn’t yet met the existing thresholds for program eligibility. In 30 days, if your channel is still not eligible for YPP, we will invalidate your contract.
Not to worry, though. When you do reach the thresholds needed for YPP, it’s just a few easy clicks to apply using our standard process. (Note you can always check your progress on the monetization tab in YouTube Studio.)
What this means for your channel
In short, nothing is changing for your channel. The only change is that you will need to accept YPP terms again when you become eligible. The way you use or experience YouTube stays the same. You still have access to all your creator features that enable you to grow your audience, build your community, and manage your videos. You can:
Upload, edit, or delete your videos
Read, respond to, or moderate your comments
Analyze your channel performance in YouTube Analytics
Get best practices and strategic advice from Creator Academy
Connect to other Creators in the YouTube Help Forum
Thank you for being part of the YouTube Community! We look forward to your application in the future.
Sincerely,
The YouTube Team
==========
i've purposefully left my subscriber count unknown, but it's not anywhere close to 1000 subscribers, on either account. the former deathtokoalas and current koala central command account hit a max of about 500 before slowly falling due to disuse; the vlog account hit a max that was considerably less then 100. i think it was 93, iirc. i'd have to log into the other account to check and don't want to.
my google plus page had thousands and thousands of hits, and some of my comments had thousand of likes before they were removed by some shady governing structure that i only vaguely understand, but my subscriber count was never very high, and i never had anything at the music site with more than a few hundred hits.
excluding the cover video, and some concert footage that i've left unmonetized for ethical reasons, the most popular video on the vlog site has 159 views. while the vlog has been monetized for years, the other site has never been and never will be (i don't want ads on my music. gross.), and the reality is that i've never made a single cashable cent from youtube royalties. i think the total uncashed amount was about $3.50, at it's max.
the reason that i've left these numbers unpublished is the same reason that i don't allow "likes" to appear on the page - i don't think that how many subscribers i have, or the watch count, or the number of likes should be presented as a way to validate or invalidate the content. that is, i want people to react to the content without being coerced by popularity metrics. i really don't like social media or how it tries to shape popular opinion with herd mentality.
i will eventually update that vlog. i mean, i'm still vlogging, i'm just years behind on the updates. it could be sitting there for five or ten years before i get around to it.
but, i don't expect that i'll ever get that many subscribers, and i don't expect i'll ever remonetize. so, what youtube is essentially telling me is that it wants to give me server space for free. which is fine, but what's in it for them, then? are they going to start closing down unpopular or unmonetizable sites? there's a bit of a speech issue there, if they do - if they decide that you're only allowed a platform if you can generate an audience.
i have all of the files in a safe space and intend to put them up for sale at bandcamp in the form of isos and dvds, eventually. maybe they'll end up at vimeo or somewhere else, in the long run. it would be very frustrating to have to update all of the links, though.
the purpose of the vlog was to act as a marketing portal to the bandcamp site, not to make money on it's own. i didn't want ads on my music, but i wondered if i might be missing out on the possibility of a viral video; it never happened, and it was probably never very likely that it ever would. but, what i was hoping was that i could string an audience along with a vlog for long enough to sell them a couple of mp3s, and it didn't work out in the end, so i abandoned it.
given that it didn't work out as hoped, i probably should have removed the ads from the site quite some time ago, and am, at this point, sort of glad that youtube has done it for me. it sort of removes the issue for me - i don't have to wonder about whether i should compromise myself by allowing myself to be monetized, because i can't be monetized anyways. that's a weight lifted off of my shoulders, in the end.
if you'd like to support me, please either go to the bandcamp site and buy some tunes or send me something directly at death.to.koalas@gmail.com. small scale artists like myself cannot make money from advertising, even if we want to - and, generally, we don't want to.
so, i've been sitting here for a few hours, trying to figure out if i'm awake or not.
the smokey/dry air smell is better. but, if the smoker has retreated, it's going to take a day or two to clear out, minimum.
i'm hoping i get some turnover with the cooler air overnight, but it relies on the outside air being breathable, too.
for now, i think i'm alert enough to get back to what i was doing.
the smokey/dry air smell is better. but, if the smoker has retreated, it's going to take a day or two to clear out, minimum.
i'm hoping i get some turnover with the cooler air overnight, but it relies on the outside air being breathable, too.
for now, i think i'm alert enough to get back to what i was doing.
that's a hellluva stark reversal, alright. wow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/08/reversal-trump-ban-oil-drilling-off-coasts-florida-georgia-south-carolina/
the politico article suggests his hands are tied and it's just a pr stunt:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/trump-oil-drilling-florida-410042
i'll take it, either way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/08/reversal-trump-ban-oil-drilling-off-coasts-florida-georgia-south-carolina/
the politico article suggests his hands are tied and it's just a pr stunt:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/trump-oil-drilling-florida-410042
i'll take it, either way.
but, we're at a kind of a crossroads with this, and the poll i just posted indicates some reason to be concerned, in a different way.
given that masks are not helping to reduce the spread of the virus, how is the state going to react? are they going to ease or enforce restrictions?
getting our heads around this may help us all better understand what is actually in the process of happening.
given that masks are not helping to reduce the spread of the virus, how is the state going to react? are they going to ease or enforce restrictions?
getting our heads around this may help us all better understand what is actually in the process of happening.
Of Canada’s major cities, Ottawa had the highest percentage of seroprevalence at 1.29 per cent, followed by Toronto with 1.07 per cent and Vancouver with 0.60 per cent.
again: these numbers continue to be very weird, and broadly inconsistent with themselves.
ottawa had one of the lowest case counts in the country at the time.
i don't know what the right analysis is, but i'm leaning towards biases in the sampling. if this method of testing blood donors is being chosen because it's supposed to be a random sample, that doesn't seem to really be the case.
https://www.cp24.com/news/more-than-1-per-cent-of-torontonians-have-covid-19-antibodies-canadian-blood-services-study-1.5096825
again: these numbers continue to be very weird, and broadly inconsistent with themselves.
ottawa had one of the lowest case counts in the country at the time.
i don't know what the right analysis is, but i'm leaning towards biases in the sampling. if this method of testing blood donors is being chosen because it's supposed to be a random sample, that doesn't seem to really be the case.
https://www.cp24.com/news/more-than-1-per-cent-of-torontonians-have-covid-19-antibodies-canadian-blood-services-study-1.5096825
no, stop for a second.
when you ask somebody like fauci about the efficacy of certain drugs, of which there is good evidence of the efficacy of, he'll tell you there are no randomized, controlled studies, despite the fact that that kind of study is completely inappropriate, in context.
but, when you ask him about the efficacy of a mask, of which most evidence i've seen suggests is useless, he jumps all over it, without bothering to cite controlled studies, despite them being the appropriate standard to use, in context.
and, then, when we see real world data unfold in front of us, we just insist on doubling down on a policy that obviously isn't working.
it's just about perfectly dysfunctional.
"but, what about your grandparents?"
i'm a maskless rebel; i don't have grandparents, i descended, fully formed, from the sky.
if i was interacting with vulnerable people, i'd take precautions. but, i'm not.
so, you old folks can keep your distance - i'd rather you did under normal circumstances, anyways.
i'm a maskless rebel; i don't have grandparents, i descended, fully formed, from the sky.
if i was interacting with vulnerable people, i'd take precautions. but, i'm not.
so, you old folks can keep your distance - i'd rather you did under normal circumstances, anyways.
i'm personally more concerned about what the evidence says than what about people's opinions are, in determining whether i should wear a mask or not.
i'll repeat myself, to make my position clear...
1) i don't doubt that proper mask use by trained professionals may marginally reduce the spread of the virus, but the data doesn't seem to uphold the idea that cloth masks worn by random people (that grab at them, put them in their pockets, reuse them without washing them, etc) are helping reduce the spread in any way at all. in fact, as they act like magnets for dirt and dust, they could potentially be making the issue worse.
2) i do not want to protect myself from contracting this virus, at this time. as i am young and relatively healthy, i would rather catch the virus and defeat it than try to hide from it. i understand the risk (which is very low.) and am assuming it, under the assumption that my body will be better positioned to fight a potentially more dangerous mutant strain at a more advanced age if it has seen it when i am young.
i hope i've clarified that a little.
i'll repeat myself, to make my position clear...
1) i don't doubt that proper mask use by trained professionals may marginally reduce the spread of the virus, but the data doesn't seem to uphold the idea that cloth masks worn by random people (that grab at them, put them in their pockets, reuse them without washing them, etc) are helping reduce the spread in any way at all. in fact, as they act like magnets for dirt and dust, they could potentially be making the issue worse.
2) i do not want to protect myself from contracting this virus, at this time. as i am young and relatively healthy, i would rather catch the virus and defeat it than try to hide from it. i understand the risk (which is very low.) and am assuming it, under the assumption that my body will be better positioned to fight a potentially more dangerous mutant strain at a more advanced age if it has seen it when i am young.
i hope i've clarified that a little.
so, when we see rising mask use correlated with increasing case numbers, what does that tell you about how effective they are at reducing spread?
but, you want my polling analysis.
the answer is that you can't poll questions like this, because they come attached with coercion. it's equivalent to doing political polling in a country like iran; you can call people, and you can ask them questions, but they're just going to tell you what you want to hear.
of course i support the ayatollah. but, umm, how did you get my number? and do you know where i live?
it's against the law to not wear a mask in public in most places in canada right now. one would expect polling around the issue to reflect that reality, as people are going to be naturally fearful of admitting they're breaking the law, or siding with an illegal position. because we don't know what's next...
there's also a response bias; i'm one of the few people that has the audacity to be vocal about this, and i know i'm representing more people than is apparent, but if somebody managed to reach me on my cell phone (that i don't have) and started asking me questions about whether i'm wearing a mask or not, i wouldn't just instantly hang up, but would instantly change cell phone providers. that's a scary scenario.
so,
1) the people most likely to answer these kinds of polls are the people that support the policy.
2) those people are going to tell you exactly what you want to hear.
what i see walking around is general compliance, and a lot of kvetching about it. and, i'm increasingly being interpreted as a bad-ass, in a kind of rock star sort of way for not wearing one. that is, i don't feel i'm getting any push back - i feel people are maybe even kind of attracted by it. i'm a sexy, maskless rebel that plays by my own rules, and they wish they were too.
or, that's the impression.
i didn't call them up on their phones and ask them about it.
so, are these numbers right or wrong? it's not that easy. what i'm going to say is that you can't do this kind of polling accurately, and you shouldn't be surprised when the polling just reflects the status quo.
conversely, if you did this kind of polling right now and got a strong level of pushback, it would indicate a lot of anger at the state. that's not what we're seeing; people are going along to get along, whatever their feelings are about it, and ultimately repeating back what they're told.
we'll see how long that lasts for.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/support-face-mask-policy-high-canadians-poll
but, you want my polling analysis.
the answer is that you can't poll questions like this, because they come attached with coercion. it's equivalent to doing political polling in a country like iran; you can call people, and you can ask them questions, but they're just going to tell you what you want to hear.
of course i support the ayatollah. but, umm, how did you get my number? and do you know where i live?
it's against the law to not wear a mask in public in most places in canada right now. one would expect polling around the issue to reflect that reality, as people are going to be naturally fearful of admitting they're breaking the law, or siding with an illegal position. because we don't know what's next...
there's also a response bias; i'm one of the few people that has the audacity to be vocal about this, and i know i'm representing more people than is apparent, but if somebody managed to reach me on my cell phone (that i don't have) and started asking me questions about whether i'm wearing a mask or not, i wouldn't just instantly hang up, but would instantly change cell phone providers. that's a scary scenario.
so,
1) the people most likely to answer these kinds of polls are the people that support the policy.
2) those people are going to tell you exactly what you want to hear.
what i see walking around is general compliance, and a lot of kvetching about it. and, i'm increasingly being interpreted as a bad-ass, in a kind of rock star sort of way for not wearing one. that is, i don't feel i'm getting any push back - i feel people are maybe even kind of attracted by it. i'm a sexy, maskless rebel that plays by my own rules, and they wish they were too.
or, that's the impression.
i didn't call them up on their phones and ask them about it.
so, are these numbers right or wrong? it's not that easy. what i'm going to say is that you can't do this kind of polling accurately, and you shouldn't be surprised when the polling just reflects the status quo.
conversely, if you did this kind of polling right now and got a strong level of pushback, it would indicate a lot of anger at the state. that's not what we're seeing; people are going along to get along, whatever their feelings are about it, and ultimately repeating back what they're told.
we'll see how long that lasts for.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/support-face-mask-policy-high-canadians-poll
if the democrats really want to win in a landslide, what they should do is run justin trudeau.
(who, afaik, was born in ottawa. so, impossible. yet, look up the polling numbers - he blows everybody else away.)
the country wants a young, dynamic liberal, and the party establishment just refuses to give it one.
(who, afaik, was born in ottawa. so, impossible. yet, look up the polling numbers - he blows everybody else away.)
the country wants a young, dynamic liberal, and the party establishment just refuses to give it one.
what about the edibles?
well, they're still sitting there, proving i can let them sit. but, i also don't know exactly what they're going to do me.
i'm still a few days short of a full month, and i wanted to give it a little longer (i had penciled in oct 1), but they're in a tupperware container and i sort of need to eat them before they start to disintegrate.
i need to be clear-headed and alert, first. i don't want to take them when i'm agitated, or drowsy. so, we'll see how i feel. but it may be sooner than later.
well, they're still sitting there, proving i can let them sit. but, i also don't know exactly what they're going to do me.
i'm still a few days short of a full month, and i wanted to give it a little longer (i had penciled in oct 1), but they're in a tupperware container and i sort of need to eat them before they start to disintegrate.
i need to be clear-headed and alert, first. i don't want to take them when i'm agitated, or drowsy. so, we'll see how i feel. but it may be sooner than later.
am i just making up this second-hand smoke thing?
i could concede, on some level, that i might be imagining it if it was only the smell. maybe it's pollution from outside, or even burning coffee. i do drink a lot of coffee...
but, if it was any of those things, running the shower wouldn't create yellow condensation on white walls, which is what is happening.
so, it's not just that i can smell the smoke; it's that i can see the nicotine leaching out of the walls when i steam them, and that really eliminates any ambiguity as to what is happening.
i have never smoked inside of the unit, and the closest i've come to smoking near the unit is about 100 feet down the street.
i bummed a few smokes when i was out last monday, so i can't claim cold turkey since i re-quit. but, i've had something like five smokes in the last month, all very far away from the building.
i could concede, on some level, that i might be imagining it if it was only the smell. maybe it's pollution from outside, or even burning coffee. i do drink a lot of coffee...
but, if it was any of those things, running the shower wouldn't create yellow condensation on white walls, which is what is happening.
so, it's not just that i can smell the smoke; it's that i can see the nicotine leaching out of the walls when i steam them, and that really eliminates any ambiguity as to what is happening.
i have never smoked inside of the unit, and the closest i've come to smoking near the unit is about 100 feet down the street.
i bummed a few smokes when i was out last monday, so i can't claim cold turkey since i re-quit. but, i've had something like five smokes in the last month, all very far away from the building.
if the democrats are going to swing anywhere in the south this cycle, it's going to be arizona, and it's going to be because it's becoming california-east and not because its being overrun by latinos.
what he has to hope is that that are enough white moderates in the state to flip it. it's a long shot.
i don't think he has a serious chance anywhere else in the sun belt.
what he has to hope is that that are enough white moderates in the state to flip it. it's a long shot.
i don't think he has a serious chance anywhere else in the sun belt.
john kerry claims that biden would never lavish praise on a brutal dictator.
hrmmn, i seem to recall this:
"Jill and I were saddened to learn of the passing of King Abdullah. We extend our sympathies to his family in their moment of loss," the statement added. "King Abdullah's death is a great loss for his country. It is hard to distinguish him from Saudi Arabia itself. Over many decades, he played an outsized role in building his country."
"I always appreciated [King Abdullah's] frankness, his sense of history, his pride in his efforts to move his country forward, and his steadfast belief in the U.S.-Saudi relationship," it added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/saudi-arabia-succession/vice-president-joe-biden-visit-saudi-arabia-after-king-abdullahs-n291921
that sure sounds like lavishing praise on a dictator, to me.
or, how about this time, when he denied that mubarak was a dictator:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/140923-biden-mubarak-not-a-dictator-protests-not-like-eastern-europe
i'm sure i could find plenty of examples if i looked for them.
so, what johnny boy really meant to say is that biden wouldn't engage in silly things like entente with our enemies - he knows who the bad guys are, and is going to go out there with his fists swinging, ready to get 'em.
hrmmn, i seem to recall this:
"Jill and I were saddened to learn of the passing of King Abdullah. We extend our sympathies to his family in their moment of loss," the statement added. "King Abdullah's death is a great loss for his country. It is hard to distinguish him from Saudi Arabia itself. Over many decades, he played an outsized role in building his country."
"I always appreciated [King Abdullah's] frankness, his sense of history, his pride in his efforts to move his country forward, and his steadfast belief in the U.S.-Saudi relationship," it added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/saudi-arabia-succession/vice-president-joe-biden-visit-saudi-arabia-after-king-abdullahs-n291921
that sure sounds like lavishing praise on a dictator, to me.
or, how about this time, when he denied that mubarak was a dictator:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/140923-biden-mubarak-not-a-dictator-protests-not-like-eastern-europe
i'm sure i could find plenty of examples if i looked for them.
so, what johnny boy really meant to say is that biden wouldn't engage in silly things like entente with our enemies - he knows who the bad guys are, and is going to go out there with his fists swinging, ready to get 'em.
so, what directions are key swing demographics likely to move in this election?
i'm going to create a collection of partial orderings. if obama > clinton, that means obama did better with that demographic than clinton. an equal means they should be about the same.
blacks, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. so, expect biden to continue, and perhaps even accelerate, the bleed of blacks out of the party. they probably won't vote republican, they'll probably stay home, thereby skewing the numbers to make it look like they shifted right.
latinos, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. likewise, biden should accelerate the movement of latinos out of the party that started with clinton (with obama, really; why does everybody ignore the deporter-in-chief thing?). some of them might swing republican, on social issues. sadly.
northern white liberals:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden appears to be likely to regain much of the ground with northern white liberals that clinton lost. this doesn't appear to be rational, but it's happening, nonetheless. and, he needs to be careful he doesn't fuck it up.
southern white conservatives:
(obama = biden) < clinton. biden appears likely to lose the increase in support amongst southern white voters that clinton generated and that made states like texas a little closer than they had been in some time. biden wouldn't be expected to outperform clinton in this region, given her history there. clinton should have won missouri.
white moderates, north & south:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden, however, appears likely to regain obama's stronger support amongst white moderates.
why is my analysis so drastically different?
because i'm looking at the actual data, not projecting my feelings about race on to it, as appears to be common in "progressive" circles that want the democrats to be the "black party", and overthrow republican white supremacy, or some silly thing such as that. as facile as that narrative is on it's face, the numbers just don't exist to support it...
clinton probably would have been more likely to win in the south than in the north, and i may be the person that suggested that, but it would have been on the back of white conservatives, who would have repelled young liberals. that makes that strategy very hard for the democrats - if you're trying to win the south by running on the right, like clinton & biden have been, you have to throw away the young voters that were supposed to be the reason you're targeting the region in the first place. and, then you're outrepublicaning the republicans, which is exactly what's happening.
if they were to run a liberal in the south, they'd have to rely entirely on young people, who vote in lower numbers - a strategy we saw bernie fail at (but that may work better in like 20 years, if the often more market-oriented asians don't walk in and blow the whole thing up). but, if they just ran a damned liberal, they'd sweep the north, and wouldn't need to worry about winning in the south.
i hope i'm clarifying this a little.
but, my main point is this: please, people....call a statistician. don't wing it. polls are tricky.
i'm going to create a collection of partial orderings. if obama > clinton, that means obama did better with that demographic than clinton. an equal means they should be about the same.
blacks, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. so, expect biden to continue, and perhaps even accelerate, the bleed of blacks out of the party. they probably won't vote republican, they'll probably stay home, thereby skewing the numbers to make it look like they shifted right.
latinos, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. likewise, biden should accelerate the movement of latinos out of the party that started with clinton (with obama, really; why does everybody ignore the deporter-in-chief thing?). some of them might swing republican, on social issues. sadly.
northern white liberals:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden appears to be likely to regain much of the ground with northern white liberals that clinton lost. this doesn't appear to be rational, but it's happening, nonetheless. and, he needs to be careful he doesn't fuck it up.
southern white conservatives:
(obama = biden) < clinton. biden appears likely to lose the increase in support amongst southern white voters that clinton generated and that made states like texas a little closer than they had been in some time. biden wouldn't be expected to outperform clinton in this region, given her history there. clinton should have won missouri.
white moderates, north & south:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden, however, appears likely to regain obama's stronger support amongst white moderates.
why is my analysis so drastically different?
because i'm looking at the actual data, not projecting my feelings about race on to it, as appears to be common in "progressive" circles that want the democrats to be the "black party", and overthrow republican white supremacy, or some silly thing such as that. as facile as that narrative is on it's face, the numbers just don't exist to support it...
clinton probably would have been more likely to win in the south than in the north, and i may be the person that suggested that, but it would have been on the back of white conservatives, who would have repelled young liberals. that makes that strategy very hard for the democrats - if you're trying to win the south by running on the right, like clinton & biden have been, you have to throw away the young voters that were supposed to be the reason you're targeting the region in the first place. and, then you're outrepublicaning the republicans, which is exactly what's happening.
if they were to run a liberal in the south, they'd have to rely entirely on young people, who vote in lower numbers - a strategy we saw bernie fail at (but that may work better in like 20 years, if the often more market-oriented asians don't walk in and blow the whole thing up). but, if they just ran a damned liberal, they'd sweep the north, and wouldn't need to worry about winning in the south.
i hope i'm clarifying this a little.
but, my main point is this: please, people....call a statistician. don't wing it. polls are tricky.
listen, i'm not "attacking assange" and that kind of stupid narrative is what's wrong with the world.
you could run a search on the side:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/search?q=assange&max-results=20&by-date=true
i'd like to see him pardoned, and i don't think he's a spy or something.
i think he got played as a fool, and he ran right into it, like a dog chasing a ball into traffic.
you could run a search on the side:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/search?q=assange&max-results=20&by-date=true
i'd like to see him pardoned, and i don't think he's a spy or something.
i think he got played as a fool, and he ran right into it, like a dog chasing a ball into traffic.
ottawa was overdue.
again: relax.
it's going to spread. deal with it. protect yourself, and be aware of the elderly around you.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-reports-375-covid-19-cases-over-two-day-period-1.5096042
again: relax.
it's going to spread. deal with it. protect yourself, and be aware of the elderly around you.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-reports-375-covid-19-cases-over-two-day-period-1.5096042
so, again: i just got out of an hour and a half long shower, which is how long it took for the frog in my throat to lift and consequently boost the humidity in here (with the window open), and i feel great.
last night, it took about an hour for that to reverse, and the smoky, dry air to reassert itself.
we'll see what happens this afternoon.
last night, it took about an hour for that to reverse, and the smoky, dry air to reassert itself.
we'll see what happens this afternoon.
again: i don't have an opinion on this and don't consider it a ballot issue, although i realize there are lots of people that do.
i wish that less canadians wanted to buy guns, and would support social programs to reduce demand. voluntary buy-backs are generally a good idea to try to get excess weapons off of the streets.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/michelle-rempel-garner-justin-trudeau-ottawa-assault-guns-1.5714339
i wish that less canadians wanted to buy guns, and would support social programs to reduce demand. voluntary buy-backs are generally a good idea to try to get excess weapons off of the streets.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/michelle-rempel-garner-justin-trudeau-ottawa-assault-guns-1.5714339
so, canadians are all of a sudden concerned about the deficit - if you ask them facile questions about it.
am i concerned about the deficit, too? sort of. i'd probably say somewhat. but, what i'm concerned about is the imf coming in and forcing restructuring, and the way to address my concerns is to increase taxes.
they didn't ask that question.
and, is my concern enough to affect my vote? no.
polling can give you the answers you pay for, if you design the questions appropriately.
careful you don't fall into a trap on that.
am i concerned about the deficit, too? sort of. i'd probably say somewhat. but, what i'm concerned about is the imf coming in and forcing restructuring, and the way to address my concerns is to increase taxes.
they didn't ask that question.
and, is my concern enough to affect my vote? no.
polling can give you the answers you pay for, if you design the questions appropriately.
careful you don't fall into a trap on that.
it's not surprising at all. the poli sci major analysts just didn't understand how to read the polls.
clinton was less popular with both blacks & latinos than obama, and biden is even less popular than clinton. that is true across the south. so, why did clinton's numbers go up in the south? because she did better with white southerners than obama did. there's some logic in that, as she was first lady of arkansas for 8 years, and then first lady of the country for 8 more. also, she was white. i actually thought she underperformed amongst southern whites....
so, it is true that the demographics are moving in a direction that should benefit the democrats, but it is also true that the democrats have been running candidates that are not appealing to those demographics. so, what's actually setting in is not a democratic supermajority in the south but rather widespread apathy at the paucity of the options. what's the point of voting democrat if you just get a republican?
but, very old white people, who live in larger percentages in the rust belt, love joe biden, presumably because he looks like them and seems to think like them, too - just like donald trump seemed to four years ago.
it wasn't young blacks or latinos in the sun belt that won biden the primary, it was old white people in the rust belt. and, they seem to be sticking with their guy. if they do, he should easily swing these states back. i'm worried, though, that he'll do everything he can to undo that, in a misguided strategy pushed by a bad analysis.
so, as it was in 2016, this election is likely going to be decided by white retirees, not by young people. they seem to prefer biden to trump, and if that holds, biden will win.
how do we get out of this? the answer is to address voter apathy in the younger generation, which requires running candidates that are on the left of the party. yes: the party is going to run up against a brick wall in the black church, but it has to find some way around or over it. luckily, these churches may be dying of old age in high numbers, and less of a factor in the near future. that should make it easier to elect a more liberal candidate in the south, on the backs of younger people.
but, it would seem to be that, as long as the party runs conservatives in their 70s, young liberals in the sun belt are going to express apprehension about supporting them. and, i don't know why that's surprising.
the party should be trying to build a coalition of white liberals as it's base, and using minority groups to supplement that base, not trying to build a base of minorities and hoping white liberals sign up for it. it's just numbers....there's just way more white liberals....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/politics/2020-election-biden-trump-states/index.html
clinton was less popular with both blacks & latinos than obama, and biden is even less popular than clinton. that is true across the south. so, why did clinton's numbers go up in the south? because she did better with white southerners than obama did. there's some logic in that, as she was first lady of arkansas for 8 years, and then first lady of the country for 8 more. also, she was white. i actually thought she underperformed amongst southern whites....
so, it is true that the demographics are moving in a direction that should benefit the democrats, but it is also true that the democrats have been running candidates that are not appealing to those demographics. so, what's actually setting in is not a democratic supermajority in the south but rather widespread apathy at the paucity of the options. what's the point of voting democrat if you just get a republican?
but, very old white people, who live in larger percentages in the rust belt, love joe biden, presumably because he looks like them and seems to think like them, too - just like donald trump seemed to four years ago.
it wasn't young blacks or latinos in the sun belt that won biden the primary, it was old white people in the rust belt. and, they seem to be sticking with their guy. if they do, he should easily swing these states back. i'm worried, though, that he'll do everything he can to undo that, in a misguided strategy pushed by a bad analysis.
so, as it was in 2016, this election is likely going to be decided by white retirees, not by young people. they seem to prefer biden to trump, and if that holds, biden will win.
how do we get out of this? the answer is to address voter apathy in the younger generation, which requires running candidates that are on the left of the party. yes: the party is going to run up against a brick wall in the black church, but it has to find some way around or over it. luckily, these churches may be dying of old age in high numbers, and less of a factor in the near future. that should make it easier to elect a more liberal candidate in the south, on the backs of younger people.
but, it would seem to be that, as long as the party runs conservatives in their 70s, young liberals in the sun belt are going to express apprehension about supporting them. and, i don't know why that's surprising.
the party should be trying to build a coalition of white liberals as it's base, and using minority groups to supplement that base, not trying to build a base of minorities and hoping white liberals sign up for it. it's just numbers....there's just way more white liberals....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/politics/2020-election-biden-trump-states/index.html
Monday, September 7, 2020
a lot of it comes down to priorities, rather than disagreements.
if my primary concern is foreign policy, i may see trump as the lesser evil, because i'm concerned about biden's bellicose, pro-war rhetoric and history of supporting major armed conflicts. i might even win that debate with a jello, who i know is not kind to liberal interventionists. but, he might counter that climate change is more important, and biden offers a marginal improvement; a point i may concede in theory, even if i think it's unlikely to actually manifest itself in reality.
so, we're not really disagreeing on policy, or even on who is worse in specific contexts.
we're disagreeing on the ballot question, and that's the difference between my own suggestion to vote green in protest against biden, and his to join the choir and hold his nose to push out trump.
like i say: if somebody wants to have that debate, send me an email and we'll have it.
if my primary concern is foreign policy, i may see trump as the lesser evil, because i'm concerned about biden's bellicose, pro-war rhetoric and history of supporting major armed conflicts. i might even win that debate with a jello, who i know is not kind to liberal interventionists. but, he might counter that climate change is more important, and biden offers a marginal improvement; a point i may concede in theory, even if i think it's unlikely to actually manifest itself in reality.
so, we're not really disagreeing on policy, or even on who is worse in specific contexts.
we're disagreeing on the ballot question, and that's the difference between my own suggestion to vote green in protest against biden, and his to join the choir and hold his nose to push out trump.
like i say: if somebody wants to have that debate, send me an email and we'll have it.
there are a few people i've listened to for decades that might find me maddening and be unable to find common ground with me. i'll grant that.
but, most of what i'm posting here is coming from roughly the same far left perspective, and i think a healthy discussion would result in more agreement than disagreement, broadly speaking.
but, most of what i'm posting here is coming from roughly the same far left perspective, and i think a healthy discussion would result in more agreement than disagreement, broadly speaking.
if trump was running for the democrats, and biden was running for the republicans (both of which are probably more natural fits for both men), i'd probably endorse trump, in this election.
the reasoning is that trump scares me less than his party, and the only reason i'd even look at biden is that he represents his party.
but, that's not the option. well..
if there's a tie in the electoral college, we could get trump-harris. and, that's probably better than either of them winning, outright.
the reasoning is that trump scares me less than his party, and the only reason i'd even look at biden is that he represents his party.
but, that's not the option. well..
if there's a tie in the electoral college, we could get trump-harris. and, that's probably better than either of them winning, outright.
listen - i think i've been clear that i don't like either option.
trump scares me less than his party (and less than a cruz or a rubio, or a romney or a kasich), but i'm not naive - i know the party wins these debates in the end.
but, i simply don't think that biden is an acceptable option, under any context, not even this one.
so, i'm advocating voting for the greens.
my opinions are consistently to the left of the spectrum. i may often side with trump over biden on specific issues, but it's because biden is falling all over himself to run to trump's right, and i'm purposefully poking fingers in his eyes for doing it. that's not acceptable to me, disqualifies him as a candidate in my estimation and needs to be called out absolutely clearly.
so, i'm attacking biden from the left, over and over, and i think that's clear enough.
it may be that trump is the lesser evil, at the end of the day, but when both candidates are this bad, it's hard to even define the terms. what i'm not doing and will not do is fall into line on partisan grounds. i'm going to continue to think critically.
so, if somebody associated with the music i'm posting has some concerns about being associated with a contrarian that has up to this point and will continue to viciously attack biden from the left, as well as point out examples of how he might end up the more right-wing of the choices in some ways if allowed to govern [while being aware of counter-examples where the party dominates the decision making], i'd invite you to open a line of communication. i'd like to have that discussion.
but, this isn't a conservative blog, and i'm not a trump supporter; this is a socialist blog, and i'm an anarchist that is deconstructing the entire spectrum from a far left perspective that sees both parties as unacceptable.
i just post tunes that i like as i find them relevant, mostly because i'm listening to them....
trump scares me less than his party (and less than a cruz or a rubio, or a romney or a kasich), but i'm not naive - i know the party wins these debates in the end.
but, i simply don't think that biden is an acceptable option, under any context, not even this one.
so, i'm advocating voting for the greens.
my opinions are consistently to the left of the spectrum. i may often side with trump over biden on specific issues, but it's because biden is falling all over himself to run to trump's right, and i'm purposefully poking fingers in his eyes for doing it. that's not acceptable to me, disqualifies him as a candidate in my estimation and needs to be called out absolutely clearly.
so, i'm attacking biden from the left, over and over, and i think that's clear enough.
it may be that trump is the lesser evil, at the end of the day, but when both candidates are this bad, it's hard to even define the terms. what i'm not doing and will not do is fall into line on partisan grounds. i'm going to continue to think critically.
so, if somebody associated with the music i'm posting has some concerns about being associated with a contrarian that has up to this point and will continue to viciously attack biden from the left, as well as point out examples of how he might end up the more right-wing of the choices in some ways if allowed to govern [while being aware of counter-examples where the party dominates the decision making], i'd invite you to open a line of communication. i'd like to have that discussion.
but, this isn't a conservative blog, and i'm not a trump supporter; this is a socialist blog, and i'm an anarchist that is deconstructing the entire spectrum from a far left perspective that sees both parties as unacceptable.
i just post tunes that i like as i find them relevant, mostly because i'm listening to them....
actually, it seems like round two finally got him.
for this man, who is seen as a musical genius by those who know his work, to die of a heart attack in two movements is so bizarrely surreal, and yet so incredibly appropriate, that i'm just going to leave it as it is.
it's sad to have to let go. but, i wonder if ten years wasn't enough time to suffer through a horrible brain condition, and i wonder if it wasn't a release, in the end.
let us hope that he does rest in peace, although we know he never will.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/9422351/tim-smith-dead-cardiacs-singer-dies
for this man, who is seen as a musical genius by those who know his work, to die of a heart attack in two movements is so bizarrely surreal, and yet so incredibly appropriate, that i'm just going to leave it as it is.
it's sad to have to let go. but, i wonder if ten years wasn't enough time to suffer through a horrible brain condition, and i wonder if it wasn't a release, in the end.
let us hope that he does rest in peace, although we know he never will.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/9422351/tim-smith-dead-cardiacs-singer-dies
On August 14, 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, speaking at Chautauqua, N. Y., said in part:
"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing up their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead In the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen two hundred limping, exhausted men come out of line, the survivors of a regiment of one thousand that went forward forty-eight hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."
that's what a president sounds like.
biden might want to take some notes.
"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing up their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead In the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen two hundred limping, exhausted men come out of line, the survivors of a regiment of one thousand that went forward forty-eight hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."
that's what a president sounds like.
biden might want to take some notes.
i need to double down on what i just said about trump's war comments.
in the article, he says things like "i don't get it. what's in it for them?".
and, they slammed him for not understanding sacrifice, which is absolutely bizarre.
rather, to me, and i went over this in 2016 too, but, to me, it's refreshing to hear a politician talk about war in more sombre and reflective terms, like that. because, i don't get it, either. and, none of the authors i read get it, and none of the movies i watch get it, and none of my friends have ever gotten it.
and, i've participated in anti-war movements that don't get it.
those comments were humanizing, they were flattering to trump's intelligence (even in the face of so much which isn't) and they were reassuring.
i want a commander-in-chief that doesn't understand why anybody would sign up for a war, not one that talks about sacrificing our children, and criticizes people that think that that's insane.
in the article, he says things like "i don't get it. what's in it for them?".
and, they slammed him for not understanding sacrifice, which is absolutely bizarre.
rather, to me, and i went over this in 2016 too, but, to me, it's refreshing to hear a politician talk about war in more sombre and reflective terms, like that. because, i don't get it, either. and, none of the authors i read get it, and none of the movies i watch get it, and none of my friends have ever gotten it.
and, i've participated in anti-war movements that don't get it.
those comments were humanizing, they were flattering to trump's intelligence (even in the face of so much which isn't) and they were reassuring.
i want a commander-in-chief that doesn't understand why anybody would sign up for a war, not one that talks about sacrificing our children, and criticizes people that think that that's insane.
ok, so i'm out of the shower and feeling a bit better than i did the last few days. if i did indeed pick up a virus, i think i've already cleared it.
i think it was something else...some combination of pollution from upstairs and carbohydrate withdrawal...but i'll volunteer for an antibody test when they're available...
i'm healthy; i wouldn't expect it to affect me, except as a possible complication of this potential multiple sclerosis onset that i've been dancing with for so long. and, indeed, i may have even being having a mild ms attack, rather than anything else.
the other thing is that i drank a lot of water and it really is baffling how often it is that drinking a lot of water basically fixes everything. why is that? why am i chronically dehydrated?
i'm going to pick up back on the diet first (the story is coming. i am, indeed, still processing.), and do a really thorough review, including amino acids and everything. this is likely going to be permanent until the spring, at least, so i want to get it right.
right now, i'm looking at introducing a salad bowl as a complement to the fruit bowl, which may mean tweaking the fruit bowl. ideally, i'd have fruit in the morning & salad at night, then eggs every second day. so, i need to ask sombre questions like:
1) can i cut the salami out and get enough b12 from the eggs?
2) am i better off trying for some other kind of b12?
3) are some of these fruits superfluous? are other fruits a better idea?
4) how exactly should i compose my salad to get my daily rdis?
5) how often should i eat eggs, for real?
& etc.
i'll post it in a series of tables & charts...
i think it was something else...some combination of pollution from upstairs and carbohydrate withdrawal...but i'll volunteer for an antibody test when they're available...
i'm healthy; i wouldn't expect it to affect me, except as a possible complication of this potential multiple sclerosis onset that i've been dancing with for so long. and, indeed, i may have even being having a mild ms attack, rather than anything else.
the other thing is that i drank a lot of water and it really is baffling how often it is that drinking a lot of water basically fixes everything. why is that? why am i chronically dehydrated?
i'm going to pick up back on the diet first (the story is coming. i am, indeed, still processing.), and do a really thorough review, including amino acids and everything. this is likely going to be permanent until the spring, at least, so i want to get it right.
right now, i'm looking at introducing a salad bowl as a complement to the fruit bowl, which may mean tweaking the fruit bowl. ideally, i'd have fruit in the morning & salad at night, then eggs every second day. so, i need to ask sombre questions like:
1) can i cut the salami out and get enough b12 from the eggs?
2) am i better off trying for some other kind of b12?
3) are some of these fruits superfluous? are other fruits a better idea?
4) how exactly should i compose my salad to get my daily rdis?
5) how often should i eat eggs, for real?
& etc.
i'll post it in a series of tables & charts...
i'm actually going to state something that everybody knows but people are afraid to come to terms with: americans don't care about veterans.
that sounds bizarre. everybody knows that 'merica is all about war. and, the polling will uphold the point, if you ask facile enough questions, sure. but, it's a lie - they don't care, and you just need to look at who wins office and who doesn't.
bill clinton was a draft dodger, and they nailed him mercilessly for it; if anything, most people seemed to think it was funny.
so was dubya - and he beat a legit war hero in 2004. nobody cared.
nobody cared about john mccain's war record, either.
nobody cared when hillary sent that gold star general after trump, and nobody seems to be caring much about when he called them suckers; if anything, reliant leftists like myself seem to find it a little refreshing to hear, in contrast to the jingoism and chauvinist chest-beating coming from biden (which we find nauseating).
there's other ways to come to this conclusion, as well. they get half blown up protecting an illegal drug shipment, and come home and get subpar health care, and nobody really cares. they kill each other, or their families, and people shrug it off; this is something that should justify major levels of social spending, and people just look the other way. they can't get the psychological care they need, and nobody really lets it bother them.
so why don't they care about veterans anymore, in a country that is built on militaristic jingoism and global hegemony?
i think the answer is tied into conscription. back when people were shipped off to fight (and often die. whatever. actually, i was going to post this on the sole video: kurt vonnegut is dead? so it goes.) whether they wanted to go or not, they aroused a lot of sympathy, perhaps more due to the tyranny of sending them than any legit feelings of gratitude for safety. i mean, most people know better; they have some idea of imperialism, even if it's blurry. they know they're being fed bullshit, and left to generate fungi in the dark. but, when they're sent out at gunpoint, it's kind of not their fault, and it's hard to blame them for what they did, within reason. with a volunteer force, they do it to themselves, and there's good reason to lose sympathy...and even empathy...for people that seem to want to go slaughter others, out of their own free will.
i don't think anybody else has really put this together before; it's just unquestioned that you win elections by rallying the troops.
but, the evidence doesn't really uphold it.
people don't seem to give a fuck.
that sounds bizarre. everybody knows that 'merica is all about war. and, the polling will uphold the point, if you ask facile enough questions, sure. but, it's a lie - they don't care, and you just need to look at who wins office and who doesn't.
bill clinton was a draft dodger, and they nailed him mercilessly for it; if anything, most people seemed to think it was funny.
so was dubya - and he beat a legit war hero in 2004. nobody cared.
nobody cared about john mccain's war record, either.
nobody cared when hillary sent that gold star general after trump, and nobody seems to be caring much about when he called them suckers; if anything, reliant leftists like myself seem to find it a little refreshing to hear, in contrast to the jingoism and chauvinist chest-beating coming from biden (which we find nauseating).
there's other ways to come to this conclusion, as well. they get half blown up protecting an illegal drug shipment, and come home and get subpar health care, and nobody really cares. they kill each other, or their families, and people shrug it off; this is something that should justify major levels of social spending, and people just look the other way. they can't get the psychological care they need, and nobody really lets it bother them.
so why don't they care about veterans anymore, in a country that is built on militaristic jingoism and global hegemony?
i think the answer is tied into conscription. back when people were shipped off to fight (and often die. whatever. actually, i was going to post this on the sole video: kurt vonnegut is dead? so it goes.) whether they wanted to go or not, they aroused a lot of sympathy, perhaps more due to the tyranny of sending them than any legit feelings of gratitude for safety. i mean, most people know better; they have some idea of imperialism, even if it's blurry. they know they're being fed bullshit, and left to generate fungi in the dark. but, when they're sent out at gunpoint, it's kind of not their fault, and it's hard to blame them for what they did, within reason. with a volunteer force, they do it to themselves, and there's good reason to lose sympathy...and even empathy...for people that seem to want to go slaughter others, out of their own free will.
i don't think anybody else has really put this together before; it's just unquestioned that you win elections by rallying the troops.
but, the evidence doesn't really uphold it.
people don't seem to give a fuck.
just a point about opening up the border to labour mobility in north america v. europe: (1) i'd only support it if it were total and (2) generally, you want to avoid breaking down borders with large disparities in living conditions across them, as that just gives capital a freer hand.
so, i'm actually less opposed to the part of the border that keeps people out and more opposed to the part that keeps people in. if we had real labour mobility, i am sure i'd move south to a climate i like better, in search of a lower cost of living. canada is exorbitantly expensive, nowadays, and housing is very scarce, here.
but, it's not that easy...
so, i'm actually less opposed to the part of the border that keeps people out and more opposed to the part that keeps people in. if we had real labour mobility, i am sure i'd move south to a climate i like better, in search of a lower cost of living. canada is exorbitantly expensive, nowadays, and housing is very scarce, here.
but, it's not that easy...
i agree that it would be unconscionable to give an untested vaccine for a new variant of the common cold to kids.
but, i insist that it would be equally unconscionable to deny access to that untested vaccine to seniors that need it immediately.
and, those arguing that we must wait for the trials to finish before we distribute to the most vulnerable have doused themselves in the blood of those who will die unnecessarily as a result of their political grandstanding, and should ultimately be held accountable for it.
but, i insist that it would be equally unconscionable to deny access to that untested vaccine to seniors that need it immediately.
and, those arguing that we must wait for the trials to finish before we distribute to the most vulnerable have doused themselves in the blood of those who will die unnecessarily as a result of their political grandstanding, and should ultimately be held accountable for it.
so, we may have been given advance warning of an october surprise, and all i have to say is this: anybody standing between a high risk individual and an untested vaccine that is probably safe with an exceedingly high likelihood for political reasons should really be ashamed of themselves.
i'm probably not going to ever get vaccinated for this.
but, anything in late stage trials should be available on demand; people should be allowed to assume the risk.
i'm probably not going to ever get vaccinated for this.
but, anything in late stage trials should be available on demand; people should be allowed to assume the risk.
listen, i don't doubt this, and i don't think serious complications are likely.
personally? i'll pass.
but, i'm not 75 years old, and i'm not diabetic and ...
if i were? i think i'd be a little more risk adverse, and willing to take a chance - and pretty pissed off at anybody telling me i can't, for my own good.
there is always some minimal chance of complications, but i wouldn't expect a high chance of serious ones.
i will say this, though: you'd better hope it doesn't mutate. that's a far more serious concern...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54036221
personally? i'll pass.
but, i'm not 75 years old, and i'm not diabetic and ...
if i were? i think i'd be a little more risk adverse, and willing to take a chance - and pretty pissed off at anybody telling me i can't, for my own good.
there is always some minimal chance of complications, but i wouldn't expect a high chance of serious ones.
i will say this, though: you'd better hope it doesn't mutate. that's a far more serious concern...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54036221
wait, so brexit didn't get done?
i guess it's time for borisexit, instead, then.
my argument from the start was that this whole thing is stupid, and that the choices being presented to british voters were disingenuous. it's taken way too long for the country to realize that the premise that it could just walk out of the eu and into a world defined by giant trade blocs doesn't make any sense. it has to join a club.
so, my analysis is that brexit really isn't about brexit, but more about england being pried away from an increasingly independent germany. the americans cannot lose england to germany. so, england will now be a province of canada, instead.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/j-reacts-to-brexit-from-long-view-of.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/27-06-2016-j-reacts-to-idea-that-brexit.html
i guess it's time for borisexit, instead, then.
my argument from the start was that this whole thing is stupid, and that the choices being presented to british voters were disingenuous. it's taken way too long for the country to realize that the premise that it could just walk out of the eu and into a world defined by giant trade blocs doesn't make any sense. it has to join a club.
so, my analysis is that brexit really isn't about brexit, but more about england being pried away from an increasingly independent germany. the americans cannot lose england to germany. so, england will now be a province of canada, instead.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/j-reacts-to-brexit-from-long-view-of.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/27-06-2016-j-reacts-to-idea-that-brexit.html
i'm almost in favour of artists abandoning the city, at this point. it's so expensive as to be unliveable.
let it be boring, if that's what they want.
let's band together and rebuild somewhere else - waterloo, hamilton, oshawa....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sneaky-dees-demolished-replaced-condo-building-1.5714330
let it be boring, if that's what they want.
let's band together and rebuild somewhere else - waterloo, hamilton, oshawa....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sneaky-dees-demolished-replaced-condo-building-1.5714330
"the virgin mary" was an archetype, built on existing greek motifs; a syncretic combination of existing stories and memes, put together in a way that was appealing to a specific audience, as a work of fiction.
the idea that this was an actual person that existed in real life, at all, is absolutely ridiculous.
so, how can a work of fiction appear as an apparition in a field?
i'm waiting for the retrospective on jesus in the potato chips, a hundred years from now - based on a true story!
the idea that this was an actual person that existed in real life, at all, is absolutely ridiculous.
so, how can a work of fiction appear as an apparition in a field?
i'm waiting for the retrospective on jesus in the potato chips, a hundred years from now - based on a true story!
why is the cbc trying so hard to convince me that a bunch of illiterate peasants in portugal saw a vision of a woman that never existed in the first place, let alone gave birth to a child without having sex, in a farmer's field over a hundred years ago?
i mean, how would they even know it was her? did she have a name tag on?
so, a true story, huh.
listen: it's the fucking cbc, it should be banned on separation of church and state grounds.
and, i can't even x the ad out, either. so, what i'm doing is minimizing the browser and moving the window to the side so i don't have to look at their stupid, ignorant faces.
i mean, how would they even know it was her? did she have a name tag on?
HI!
MY NAME IS....
MARY
listen: it's the fucking cbc, it should be banned on separation of church and state grounds.
and, i can't even x the ad out, either. so, what i'm doing is minimizing the browser and moving the window to the side so i don't have to look at their stupid, ignorant faces.
so, i got five faxes out to six doctors and i'll have to get back to it tomorrow.
three of them are white, one of them is indian and two of them are muslim. i don't know if it's fair to make assumptions about people based on their names or not, but canadian doctors tend to flee the country for higher wages, while doctors from less liberal countries tend to come in, looking for whatever they're looking for. see, i know that some of them are coming here to get away from oppressive regimes; i know some of them are not just on my side, but here for that precise, exact reason. it's just a process of trial and error, and it has to be.
i don't care if i offend anybody; they can fuck off.
but, let's hope i get a good response and get these things out before the harvest, to make the sacrificial offering to demeter that much more appropriate.
three of them are white, one of them is indian and two of them are muslim. i don't know if it's fair to make assumptions about people based on their names or not, but canadian doctors tend to flee the country for higher wages, while doctors from less liberal countries tend to come in, looking for whatever they're looking for. see, i know that some of them are coming here to get away from oppressive regimes; i know some of them are not just on my side, but here for that precise, exact reason. it's just a process of trial and error, and it has to be.
i don't care if i offend anybody; they can fuck off.
but, let's hope i get a good response and get these things out before the harvest, to make the sacrificial offering to demeter that much more appropriate.
why demeter?
because she needs to be reunited with persephone.
https://www.infoplease.com/culture-entertainment/mythology-folklore/classical-mythology-hades-takes-wife-persephone
because she needs to be reunited with persephone.
https://www.infoplease.com/culture-entertainment/mythology-folklore/classical-mythology-hades-takes-wife-persephone
it's labour day in canada...nobody's open....
i sent this fax out:
hi.
my name is jessica. i called earlier because i forgot it was labour day, but i'm going to follow through with this.
i would prefer communication over email:
death.to.koalas@gmail.com
you can also leave me a voice message at xxxxxxxxx, and i can call you back.
i am a male-to-female transgendered person that has been on hormone treatment for most of the last 20 years, and on the maximum prescribable dosage of 100 mg/day of cyproterone acetate since 2009. over the last few years, i have noticed that this medication has been losing it's efficacy as a testosterone suppressor, leading to a detransitioning effect. i first approached my family doctor about a precautionary orchidectomy in early 2017, but due to various delays, i did not get funding until mid 2020. by this time, the drug had began to lose it's effectiveness.
while i self-medicated an increase in the drug at the beginning of june to 200 mg/day under the understanding that it was safe (according to the data sheet of the medication), i was not able to get a doctor to prescribe that amount and have been forced to retreat back to 100 mg/day. my request is consequently somewhat urgent, and i may face the reality of self-harm due to the onset of extreme depression if i can't get the issue dealt with soon. that is, i'm in a race against time to get these horrible things destroyed.
i would like the testicles returned to me so that i can sacrifice them to demeter in a bog (ie burn them in a ritual). this is silly, but i think it's a therapeutic process.
i have funding from the ministry, and a rec from dr.==========. i'm being proactive in finding the doctor myself.
i understand that this is a minimally invasive surgery that takes a few minutes and can be scheduled on very short notice. if there is any way to get this done asap, please let me know.
if not, i would appreciate a response to let me know.
i sent this fax out:
hi.
my name is jessica. i called earlier because i forgot it was labour day, but i'm going to follow through with this.
i would prefer communication over email:
death.to.koalas@gmail.com
you can also leave me a voice message at xxxxxxxxx, and i can call you back.
i am a male-to-female transgendered person that has been on hormone treatment for most of the last 20 years, and on the maximum prescribable dosage of 100 mg/day of cyproterone acetate since 2009. over the last few years, i have noticed that this medication has been losing it's efficacy as a testosterone suppressor, leading to a detransitioning effect. i first approached my family doctor about a precautionary orchidectomy in early 2017, but due to various delays, i did not get funding until mid 2020. by this time, the drug had began to lose it's effectiveness.
while i self-medicated an increase in the drug at the beginning of june to 200 mg/day under the understanding that it was safe (according to the data sheet of the medication), i was not able to get a doctor to prescribe that amount and have been forced to retreat back to 100 mg/day. my request is consequently somewhat urgent, and i may face the reality of self-harm due to the onset of extreme depression if i can't get the issue dealt with soon. that is, i'm in a race against time to get these horrible things destroyed.
i would like the testicles returned to me so that i can sacrifice them to demeter in a bog (ie burn them in a ritual). this is silly, but i think it's a therapeutic process.
i have funding from the ministry, and a rec from dr.==========. i'm being proactive in finding the doctor myself.
i understand that this is a minimally invasive surgery that takes a few minutes and can be scheduled on very short notice. if there is any way to get this done asap, please let me know.
if not, i would appreciate a response to let me know.
i can't find any clear evidence linking k to strokes, but i think there's grounds to be careful.
so, we're going to x out the dandelions due to excessive k and a bad 3:6 ratio:
https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2441/2
and really double down on the broccoli leaves:
https://www.expertbulletin.com/broccoli-leaves-nutrition-facts-and-calories-information/
the self database is missing a lot of data, and it seems like it has a ? for the e content of the leaves rather than a 0, so i don't think there's a contradiction. but, that study i posted is clearer:
The recommended intake of vitamin E is 15 mg/day for adults according to the USDA nutrient database [39]. A 100 g portion of fresh florets, stems, or leaves of broccoli can provide 0.15, 0.14, or 19.9% of the RDA, respectively.
so, it's the leaves that get you the e.
and, it seems to be, by far, the best way to get e without caving in to what are very, very high amounts of omega-6s or questionable fats.
i just need to find somebody that sells the leaves as some kind of salad base. is it going to be as hard as finding raspberry leaves?
so, we're going to x out the dandelions due to excessive k and a bad 3:6 ratio:
https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2441/2
and really double down on the broccoli leaves:
https://www.expertbulletin.com/broccoli-leaves-nutrition-facts-and-calories-information/
the self database is missing a lot of data, and it seems like it has a ? for the e content of the leaves rather than a 0, so i don't think there's a contradiction. but, that study i posted is clearer:
The recommended intake of vitamin E is 15 mg/day for adults according to the USDA nutrient database [39]. A 100 g portion of fresh florets, stems, or leaves of broccoli can provide 0.15, 0.14, or 19.9% of the RDA, respectively.
so, it's the leaves that get you the e.
and, it seems to be, by far, the best way to get e without caving in to what are very, very high amounts of omega-6s or questionable fats.
i just need to find somebody that sells the leaves as some kind of salad base. is it going to be as hard as finding raspberry leaves?
ok, maybe this isn't too bad...
if i have the fruit bowl in the morning two days in a row, that's 50%. then, if i have the eggs at night, i'm up to 100-110%; let's say 105%. so, i need each of these salads to have 95/2 = 47.5%. let's say around 50%.
and, i'm already at 25-35%:
- one small red pepper [50% a, lots of c, 10% e, some b]
- one small tomato [less of everything, 5% e. lycopene. high in omega-6.]
- some broccoli [50% a, lots of c, lots of omega-3, some b, variable estimates for e, 5%?]
- caesar dressing [some e, actually. ]
- chopped cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
how can this be tweaked?
well, the broccoli can be microwaved to as much as double it's e content, according to this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6049644/
that's easy enough to get me up a bit, to 30-35%.
on top of that, adding broccoli leaves (20% rdi/100g) & dandelion leaves (15%/100g) can introduce the balance, which i can then take over the top with some roasted soy beans, which still have a bad omega ratio, but nowhere near as bad as the other options.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6017511/
https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Dandelion_greens%2C_raw_nutritional_value.html
the broccoli has a lot of omega-3, so it should potentially offset the other problems.
what i'm more concerned about with this is that the leaves have a very, very high vitamin k amount, so i'm going to want to research estrace & vitamin k after i take a short nap.
if i have the fruit bowl in the morning two days in a row, that's 50%. then, if i have the eggs at night, i'm up to 100-110%; let's say 105%. so, i need each of these salads to have 95/2 = 47.5%. let's say around 50%.
and, i'm already at 25-35%:
- one small red pepper [50% a, lots of c, 10% e, some b]
- one small tomato [less of everything, 5% e. lycopene. high in omega-6.]
- some broccoli [50% a, lots of c, lots of omega-3, some b, variable estimates for e, 5%?]
- caesar dressing [some e, actually. ]
- chopped cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
how can this be tweaked?
well, the broccoli can be microwaved to as much as double it's e content, according to this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6049644/
that's easy enough to get me up a bit, to 30-35%.
on top of that, adding broccoli leaves (20% rdi/100g) & dandelion leaves (15%/100g) can introduce the balance, which i can then take over the top with some roasted soy beans, which still have a bad omega ratio, but nowhere near as bad as the other options.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6017511/
https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Dandelion_greens%2C_raw_nutritional_value.html
the broccoli has a lot of omega-3, so it should potentially offset the other problems.
what i'm more concerned about with this is that the leaves have a very, very high vitamin k amount, so i'm going to want to research estrace & vitamin k after i take a short nap.
so, what's the deal with nuts?
well, if you normally eat a diet high in cow and lard, then perhaps moving to nuts may be less bad. but, that's like suggesting that paint thinner is less toxic than heroin.
if you're an actually healthy person, you should avoid nuts like they're poison, because they are. and, outside of the e, they have no real nutritional value that isn't easily found elsewhere.
well, if you normally eat a diet high in cow and lard, then perhaps moving to nuts may be less bad. but, that's like suggesting that paint thinner is less toxic than heroin.
if you're an actually healthy person, you should avoid nuts like they're poison, because they are. and, outside of the e, they have no real nutritional value that isn't easily found elsewhere.
no, on second thought, i misread the source; almond milk is still crammed with omega-6, whic is what i thought they stripped out.
dammit.
so, how do you get the vitamin e without the omega-6, and without the saturated fats?
https://www.caltonnutrition.com/say-no-to-nut-milks/
dammit.
so, how do you get the vitamin e without the omega-6, and without the saturated fats?
https://www.caltonnutrition.com/say-no-to-nut-milks/
now that i've adjusted my diet so i get more vitamin a and less sugar (even if i think i'm coming down from the pasta and may be for a bit), is there anything else i should look at?
i think i'm getting enough b-complexes from a combination of soy milk, whole wheat bread (which is replacing the fortified pasta), salami, berries, bananas, eggs, cheese & olive oil margarine. i guess most people get their b in the form of big chunks of meat, which i do not ever eat. i might eat a chicken sandwich once in a while...but i haven't had a steak in like 20 years...and i rarely even eat burgers, anymore. so, the b comes in in fragments, but i do honestly think it's enough.
the a was low, but i fixed it by replacing green peppers with red peppers, mostly, and also by replacing pasta with eggs. i also get smaller amounts of a from ice cream, cheese, tomatoes, kiwis & the eggs, themselves. i think this is ok, now. i'm still thinking about the carrot juice...
i get something like 1000% of the rdi for c, and i like it that way. kiwi, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, apple or orange juice, peppers, tomatoes, etc are all very high in c. it's probably why i look like i'm 39 going on 13.
i get a fair amount of d from the soy, but i also get some from the eggs. the best way to get d is to go outside, and i admit that's been a struggle for me lately, and may get worse over the next few months. i'll need to keep an eye on that.
i actually get enough omega-3s from the soy as well, which is also low in omega-6s. but, there's also the eggs for that. my understanding is that we actually can't even metabolize things like flax seed, so these high omega-3 diets are just pseudo-science. the daily recommended intake for most people is 1.5 g, and you get that in a glass of soy milk; the rest of it is gravy, and too much of it is probably useless. there's 10x that in a red pepper, so what do you need fish for? but, my cholesterol levels are actually in the dangerously low category, so i'm doing something right.
with fat, it's more about total intake; keep your calories down by avoiding junk and you don't need to worry about that too much. and, you may even do weird things like realize that there's 80 mg of omega-6 in a green pepper and freak out unnecessarily.
as mentioned, i'm not concerned about counting calories or reducing fat intake - with the exception of watching my saturated fats, which is pretty low. i'm not concerned about sugar or salt, either. i just mostly eat actual food, and not too much, and i think that's enough to not concern myself with that.
i actually want to hold off on the k a little due to the high amounts of estrace i'm taking, i think. it's one of the reasons i avoid cow's milk.
what about e? that might be the last thing...
i've added it up, and it seems to be like the b; it comes in in a trickle, and it's not terrible, but i'd kind of like a specific source for it. the problem seems to be that it mostly comes in via nuts, which are something that i actually do avoid due to the high fat content. i'm getting some from the peppers, some from the kiwi, some from the eggs, some from the meat, some from the bread, some from the cheese, some from the olive oil margarine, etc....but where else can i get some....?
nuts & seeds don't seem worth the trade off with saturated fats, and you'd actually have to eat a lot of them to make it worthwhile. avocados, as well. so, no thanks.
likewise, stuff like spinach and broccoli seems to be overrated; you'd need to eat a whole bowl of leafy greens to get the daily amount, and i'm not adding a regular salad to my fruit salad. well, not yet, anyways. actually, i think i just planted a seed, there....hrmmn....
there's more e & c in a kiwi than in the equivalent amount of broccoli, fwiw. i'd really just be replicating a less nutritious fruit bowl, and i'd probably be better off having two fruit bowls than supplementing with a salad bowl.
well, unless i moved the peppers and tomatoes into the salad and went back to having fried eggs. in fact, i'm a little worried about cooking the peppers & tomatoes and missing the point.
if i did that, i'd put
- one small red pepper [50% a, lots of c, 10% e, some b]
- one small tomato [less of everything, 5% e. lycopene. high in omega-6.]
- some broccoli [50% a, lots of c, lots of omega-3, some b, variable estimates for e, 5%?]
- some carrots [high in a, but also high in omega-6. doesn't seem worth it.]
- caesar dressing [some e, actually. ]
- chopped cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
======================
all of the c, 25-35% of the e & all of the a, at least. + extra b. almost no d. hrmmn....
then, i'd still have my fruit bowl
- six strawberries [lots of c, some b, ~4% e]
- 1 banana [some a, some b, ~1% e]
- 1 kiwi [lots of c, some b, some a, ~10% e (with skin)]
- 20 blueberries [some c, some b, some a, antioxidants & ~1% e]
- 10 raspberries [some c, some b, some a, antioxidants, phytoestrogens & ~1% e]
- 1 serving of soy milk [some c, lots of b, lots of d]
- ice cream [some a, some b, 4% e]
=====================
all of the c, not much a, ~25% e, half of the d, some b.
so, that's only 50-60%.
if i add the eggs:
- 4 eggs [lots of b, choline, 50% a, 15% e, 25% d]
- salami [lots of b, 4% e]
- olive oil margarine [20-30% e, some a, some d?]
- cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
- bread [lots of b, 2% e]
=======================
50-60% e, all of the b?, most of the a, not much c, a third of the d,
so, over two days, i'd get 150%, meaning i'm getting 75%.
and i am, in truth, a little low on the e. hrmmn.
i'm also a little low on the d, but all i can do is go outside.
the internet is telling me that most people aren't low on e, but i'm looking through this and i can't figure out how to get enough without overeating. even the fish (which i'm avoiding due to mercury) doesn't really have much e, at all. and, you'd have to eat enough nuts to give yourself a heart attack; 100 g of almonds is only 65% of the dri!
unfortunately, soy nuts don't have much e. it's 3-4% the rdi for a reasonable serving. they have isoflavones :). not much e...
so, how? they'd have to eat fortified cereal, from what i can tell. there's no other way. well, that or molly, i guess. i know; wrong e.
i'm going to guess, then, that most people probably actually don't get enough e. hrmmn.
there is one sneaky answer i can see: almond milk. the way they process the almonds maintains the vitamin e, while throwing away the saturated fat.
i've checked the side of the cartons, and almond milk isn't anything close to a replacement for soy milk. the b complex vitamins just aren't there. no d. etc.
but, i can think of two ways to work some almond milk into my diet:
1) i could use it with coffee.
2) i could use it as salad dressing on these hypothetical salads.
i'm going to throw this out there to soy milk companies - why don't you add some vitamin e? contrary to what appears to be the popular myth, it seems like we don't have a lot of natural sources for this essential nutrient that don't come with their own serious health risks. i guess if you eat too much in general, you're accidentally getting enough of it by brute force. but, the irony here is that, the healthier you are, the less likely you probably are to get enough e.
i don't want to buy supplements, so i'm going to look at the almond milk as really the only answer i can find. and, this works for me, because my chocolate soy brand (so good) seems to be disappearing, and i'm trying to resist moving to this other brand (silk) that has a shitty selection of b complexes in it; the so good is legitimately healthful, and has even won awards, and the silk that is replacing it seems to essentially be junk food, marketed as a "soy drink" - itself an apparent step down from what it was a few months ago. it's depressing. so, i've been drinking my coffee black for weeks. at least moving to almond gives me a potential source of e....
i need to post this and start a new post.
i think i'm getting enough b-complexes from a combination of soy milk, whole wheat bread (which is replacing the fortified pasta), salami, berries, bananas, eggs, cheese & olive oil margarine. i guess most people get their b in the form of big chunks of meat, which i do not ever eat. i might eat a chicken sandwich once in a while...but i haven't had a steak in like 20 years...and i rarely even eat burgers, anymore. so, the b comes in in fragments, but i do honestly think it's enough.
the a was low, but i fixed it by replacing green peppers with red peppers, mostly, and also by replacing pasta with eggs. i also get smaller amounts of a from ice cream, cheese, tomatoes, kiwis & the eggs, themselves. i think this is ok, now. i'm still thinking about the carrot juice...
i get something like 1000% of the rdi for c, and i like it that way. kiwi, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, apple or orange juice, peppers, tomatoes, etc are all very high in c. it's probably why i look like i'm 39 going on 13.
i get a fair amount of d from the soy, but i also get some from the eggs. the best way to get d is to go outside, and i admit that's been a struggle for me lately, and may get worse over the next few months. i'll need to keep an eye on that.
i actually get enough omega-3s from the soy as well, which is also low in omega-6s. but, there's also the eggs for that. my understanding is that we actually can't even metabolize things like flax seed, so these high omega-3 diets are just pseudo-science. the daily recommended intake for most people is 1.5 g, and you get that in a glass of soy milk; the rest of it is gravy, and too much of it is probably useless. there's 10x that in a red pepper, so what do you need fish for? but, my cholesterol levels are actually in the dangerously low category, so i'm doing something right.
with fat, it's more about total intake; keep your calories down by avoiding junk and you don't need to worry about that too much. and, you may even do weird things like realize that there's 80 mg of omega-6 in a green pepper and freak out unnecessarily.
as mentioned, i'm not concerned about counting calories or reducing fat intake - with the exception of watching my saturated fats, which is pretty low. i'm not concerned about sugar or salt, either. i just mostly eat actual food, and not too much, and i think that's enough to not concern myself with that.
i actually want to hold off on the k a little due to the high amounts of estrace i'm taking, i think. it's one of the reasons i avoid cow's milk.
what about e? that might be the last thing...
i've added it up, and it seems to be like the b; it comes in in a trickle, and it's not terrible, but i'd kind of like a specific source for it. the problem seems to be that it mostly comes in via nuts, which are something that i actually do avoid due to the high fat content. i'm getting some from the peppers, some from the kiwi, some from the eggs, some from the meat, some from the bread, some from the cheese, some from the olive oil margarine, etc....but where else can i get some....?
nuts & seeds don't seem worth the trade off with saturated fats, and you'd actually have to eat a lot of them to make it worthwhile. avocados, as well. so, no thanks.
likewise, stuff like spinach and broccoli seems to be overrated; you'd need to eat a whole bowl of leafy greens to get the daily amount, and i'm not adding a regular salad to my fruit salad. well, not yet, anyways. actually, i think i just planted a seed, there....hrmmn....
there's more e & c in a kiwi than in the equivalent amount of broccoli, fwiw. i'd really just be replicating a less nutritious fruit bowl, and i'd probably be better off having two fruit bowls than supplementing with a salad bowl.
well, unless i moved the peppers and tomatoes into the salad and went back to having fried eggs. in fact, i'm a little worried about cooking the peppers & tomatoes and missing the point.
if i did that, i'd put
- one small red pepper [50% a, lots of c, 10% e, some b]
- one small tomato [less of everything, 5% e. lycopene. high in omega-6.]
- some broccoli [50% a, lots of c, lots of omega-3, some b, variable estimates for e, 5%?]
- caesar dressing [some e, actually. ]
- chopped cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
======================
all of the c, 25-35% of the e & all of the a, at least. + extra b. almost no d. hrmmn....
then, i'd still have my fruit bowl
- six strawberries [lots of c, some b, ~4% e]
- 1 banana [some a, some b, ~1% e]
- 1 kiwi [lots of c, some b, some a, ~10% e (with skin)]
- 20 blueberries [some c, some b, some a, antioxidants & ~1% e]
- 10 raspberries [some c, some b, some a, antioxidants, phytoestrogens & ~1% e]
- 1 serving of soy milk [some c, lots of b, lots of d]
- ice cream [some a, some b, 4% e]
=====================
all of the c, not much a, ~25% e, half of the d, some b.
so, that's only 50-60%.
if i add the eggs:
- 4 eggs [lots of b, choline, 50% a, 15% e, 25% d]
- salami [lots of b, 4% e]
- olive oil margarine [20-30% e, some a, some d?]
- cheese [some a, some b, 4% e, 3% d]
- bread [lots of b, 2% e]
=======================
50-60% e, all of the b?, most of the a, not much c, a third of the d,
so, over two days, i'd get 150%, meaning i'm getting 75%.
and i am, in truth, a little low on the e. hrmmn.
i'm also a little low on the d, but all i can do is go outside.
the internet is telling me that most people aren't low on e, but i'm looking through this and i can't figure out how to get enough without overeating. even the fish (which i'm avoiding due to mercury) doesn't really have much e, at all. and, you'd have to eat enough nuts to give yourself a heart attack; 100 g of almonds is only 65% of the dri!
unfortunately, soy nuts don't have much e. it's 3-4% the rdi for a reasonable serving. they have isoflavones :). not much e...
so, how? they'd have to eat fortified cereal, from what i can tell. there's no other way. well, that or molly, i guess. i know; wrong e.
i'm going to guess, then, that most people probably actually don't get enough e. hrmmn.
there is one sneaky answer i can see: almond milk. the way they process the almonds maintains the vitamin e, while throwing away the saturated fat.
i've checked the side of the cartons, and almond milk isn't anything close to a replacement for soy milk. the b complex vitamins just aren't there. no d. etc.
but, i can think of two ways to work some almond milk into my diet:
1) i could use it with coffee.
2) i could use it as salad dressing on these hypothetical salads.
i'm going to throw this out there to soy milk companies - why don't you add some vitamin e? contrary to what appears to be the popular myth, it seems like we don't have a lot of natural sources for this essential nutrient that don't come with their own serious health risks. i guess if you eat too much in general, you're accidentally getting enough of it by brute force. but, the irony here is that, the healthier you are, the less likely you probably are to get enough e.
i don't want to buy supplements, so i'm going to look at the almond milk as really the only answer i can find. and, this works for me, because my chocolate soy brand (so good) seems to be disappearing, and i'm trying to resist moving to this other brand (silk) that has a shitty selection of b complexes in it; the so good is legitimately healthful, and has even won awards, and the silk that is replacing it seems to essentially be junk food, marketed as a "soy drink" - itself an apparent step down from what it was a few months ago. it's depressing. so, i've been drinking my coffee black for weeks. at least moving to almond gives me a potential source of e....
i need to post this and start a new post.
Sunday, September 6, 2020
so, is the cfr a better or worse source than the atlantic? i don't know. that's a pretty daunting insult directed at the atlantic...
if this is the way things are, that is good, as it's also how things ought to be.
again: there's ways to sort of try to blunt the effects on bangladesh by trying to scatter them around a little - to pakistan, to the middle east and, in some small numbers, perhaps to canada, as well.
but, that line was drawn to give the buddhists in the former empire a homeland of their own, and the muslims don't get to encroach on it just because they overbred. they don't get lebensraum by default, just because they're muslims, or because they're brown.
they need to get their population levels under control, not argue that overpopulation gives them some kind of right to spill over into neighbouring regions. and, whatever the solution to easing the existing issues are, they should come with the acceptance that the country was partitioned for a reason, and muslims need to stay out of the buddhist regions.
....at least for now. we don't talk like that on this side of the world, but it's because we've reached a different cultural plateau. and, some level of atheism in the region, an inevitable consequence of higher standards of living, is likely the way to get to a more substantive level of peace.
for now, these religious groups don't like each other, and their various autonomy needs to be respected.
i'd say the same thing if you flipped the situation over.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-happens-if-rohingya-stay-bangladesh-forever
if this is the way things are, that is good, as it's also how things ought to be.
again: there's ways to sort of try to blunt the effects on bangladesh by trying to scatter them around a little - to pakistan, to the middle east and, in some small numbers, perhaps to canada, as well.
but, that line was drawn to give the buddhists in the former empire a homeland of their own, and the muslims don't get to encroach on it just because they overbred. they don't get lebensraum by default, just because they're muslims, or because they're brown.
they need to get their population levels under control, not argue that overpopulation gives them some kind of right to spill over into neighbouring regions. and, whatever the solution to easing the existing issues are, they should come with the acceptance that the country was partitioned for a reason, and muslims need to stay out of the buddhist regions.
....at least for now. we don't talk like that on this side of the world, but it's because we've reached a different cultural plateau. and, some level of atheism in the region, an inevitable consequence of higher standards of living, is likely the way to get to a more substantive level of peace.
for now, these religious groups don't like each other, and their various autonomy needs to be respected.
i'd say the same thing if you flipped the situation over.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-happens-if-rohingya-stay-bangladesh-forever
i just got out of the shower and had a random urge for a fruit drink i used to consume large amounts of when i was a kid.
i was a big fan of this film when i was very small, and used to run and around screaming...number 5 is alive...number 5...is....alive....
input.
need.
innnnnpppuuuuuut.
you can imagine that it was both exceedingly cute and incredibly irritating at the same time.
so, you can imagine how i reacted the first time my dad dropped this on me, as a tongue-in-cheek joke:
i haven't had any in years; it just snuck up on me, for no real reason, besides maybe that i'm thirsty.
but, i remember it being a little watery the last time i had one, too.
i was a big fan of this film when i was very small, and used to run and around screaming...number 5 is alive...number 5...is....alive....
input.
need.
innnnnpppuuuuuut.
you can imagine that it was both exceedingly cute and incredibly irritating at the same time.
so, you can imagine how i reacted the first time my dad dropped this on me, as a tongue-in-cheek joke:
but, i remember it being a little watery the last time i had one, too.
i would support a move away from the disastrous & murderous monroe doctrine and a re-embrace of the good neighbour policy, which is quite a few steps to the left of biden (as usual).
but, i'm not sure that cuban-americans are going to agree with me about that.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/biden-slams-trump-abject-failure-venezuela-well-cuba-policies-n1239356
but, i'm not sure that cuban-americans are going to agree with me about that.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/biden-slams-trump-abject-failure-venezuela-well-cuba-policies-n1239356
no, listen: i'm firm on this. anybody arguing that myanmar should carve out an islamic state on it's border are on the wrong side of history, here. the burmese have the right to self-determination, and the right to defend their borders.
but, let's take a step back and remember how the region became the way it did, and why it became the way it did, as well.
so, this is a history lesson post...
most people know the british were in india until gandhi threw them out (i'm being facetiously simple). but, let's remember what the map of british india looked like:
british india, of which the british monarch declared itself emperor (and emperess as it may be), was not merely what we today think of as "india", but also included:
1) pakistan
2) bangladesh
3) burma (now called myanmar)
4) nepal
5) bhutan
this is a huge area, with a very large number of people in it.
even back then, the british fought conflicts in afghanistan against the russians and iranians, in an attempt to expand influence into central asia and cut off the russians from the indian ocean - which the chinese are attempting to gain access to through myanmar, today.
when the country was partitioned in 1948, it was very purposefully split into three regions, as demonstrated by the following map:
the partitions were as follows:
1) green is muslim
2) orange is hindu
3) blue is buddhist
now, there are still muslims in india and burma, it is true, but the reason it was partitioned this way was to give primacy to specific religious groups in the various areas.
so, when the country of canada walks into this space and starts undoing the partition, and trying to bully the burmese into opening up an extra space for muslims, they should rightfully be seen as an imperial agent trying to reassert the primacy of british colonialism.
an area for muslims was already cut out - it's the green area. and, if muslims in the blue area want self-determinancy, they should move to the green areas.
but, let's take a step back and remember how the region became the way it did, and why it became the way it did, as well.
so, this is a history lesson post...
most people know the british were in india until gandhi threw them out (i'm being facetiously simple). but, let's remember what the map of british india looked like:
british india, of which the british monarch declared itself emperor (and emperess as it may be), was not merely what we today think of as "india", but also included:
1) pakistan
2) bangladesh
3) burma (now called myanmar)
4) nepal
5) bhutan
this is a huge area, with a very large number of people in it.
even back then, the british fought conflicts in afghanistan against the russians and iranians, in an attempt to expand influence into central asia and cut off the russians from the indian ocean - which the chinese are attempting to gain access to through myanmar, today.
when the country was partitioned in 1948, it was very purposefully split into three regions, as demonstrated by the following map:
the partitions were as follows:
1) green is muslim
2) orange is hindu
3) blue is buddhist
now, there are still muslims in india and burma, it is true, but the reason it was partitioned this way was to give primacy to specific religious groups in the various areas.
so, when the country of canada walks into this space and starts undoing the partition, and trying to bully the burmese into opening up an extra space for muslims, they should rightfully be seen as an imperial agent trying to reassert the primacy of british colonialism.
an area for muslims was already cut out - it's the green area. and, if muslims in the blue area want self-determinancy, they should move to the green areas.
myanmar was lost to the chinese fifty years ago.
and, we have no business there, and never did - not even to back continued arab colonization in the region.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/has-the-us-lost-myanmar-to-china/
and, we have no business there, and never did - not even to back continued arab colonization in the region.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/has-the-us-lost-myanmar-to-china/
there's even an angle with the gambia thing, regarding the struggle between the west and the chinese for control of resource extraction in africa, although the gambians seem to be playing both sides.
there's a link to a video in here somewhere where obama stands in front of a group of african emissaries and states, without blinking, that america does not intend to steal or extract resources from africa. it's perhaps one of the funniest things i've ever seen.
there's a link to a video in here somewhere where obama stands in front of a group of african emissaries and states, without blinking, that america does not intend to steal or extract resources from africa. it's perhaps one of the funniest things i've ever seen.
again: the atlantic is not a very good source, but they get the basic point, here.
islam is a violent system of brutal colonization, and it's quite understandable that myanmar is beyond apprehensive about opening the doors - it knows that they will take over, if they'e allowed to, and no educated person can really dispute the point, everybody realizes that truth. so, the indigenous burmese have an absolute right to protect themselves from muslim colonization in the form of bangladeshi encroachment into the region. that's not an act of repression; that's self-defence.
but, you have to work in the various alliances here, as well. while there was some thought that this aung san suu kyi character may provide an opening for the west in myanmar, the country in truth remains under a chinese-backed military dictatorship, which she is mostly playing ball with. so, western support for this group has the effect of destabilizing myanmar for western geostrategic gains, and the canadian intervention may be seen as something less than altruistic when interpreted that way - it's more like we're brown-nosing the cia, which is consistent with the turn we've taken under freeland's foreign policy direction. human rights are just an excuse to curry american favour.
but, i don't think that's our ultimate angle. while everybody else in the world is concerned about overpopulation and carrying capacities, we seem to delusionally want to increase our population levels by bringing in anybody we can. we don't seem to have learned the lesson of ellis island, or the extreme levels of poverty and inequality that such a policy produces. you give us your huddled masses, and they starve here instead; we don't have the infrastructure to be the world's dumping ground.
but, powerful people at the top of our hierarchy want us to be, in conjunction with arab blood money.
my request is that you educate yourself on the topic before you sprout the propaganda that ultimately comes from arab oil sheikhs and bankers pushing for colonization by rohingyas as a way to muslimify the region, at the end of the day - and that we support to contain the chinese, to curry american favour. you may find that the truth is not quite what it seems.
but, we should step back if we're a hindrance to the progress of getting these people a state in the end, even if that state should not be in the geographic area called myanmar.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/rohingyas-burma/540513/
islam is a violent system of brutal colonization, and it's quite understandable that myanmar is beyond apprehensive about opening the doors - it knows that they will take over, if they'e allowed to, and no educated person can really dispute the point, everybody realizes that truth. so, the indigenous burmese have an absolute right to protect themselves from muslim colonization in the form of bangladeshi encroachment into the region. that's not an act of repression; that's self-defence.
but, you have to work in the various alliances here, as well. while there was some thought that this aung san suu kyi character may provide an opening for the west in myanmar, the country in truth remains under a chinese-backed military dictatorship, which she is mostly playing ball with. so, western support for this group has the effect of destabilizing myanmar for western geostrategic gains, and the canadian intervention may be seen as something less than altruistic when interpreted that way - it's more like we're brown-nosing the cia, which is consistent with the turn we've taken under freeland's foreign policy direction. human rights are just an excuse to curry american favour.
but, i don't think that's our ultimate angle. while everybody else in the world is concerned about overpopulation and carrying capacities, we seem to delusionally want to increase our population levels by bringing in anybody we can. we don't seem to have learned the lesson of ellis island, or the extreme levels of poverty and inequality that such a policy produces. you give us your huddled masses, and they starve here instead; we don't have the infrastructure to be the world's dumping ground.
but, powerful people at the top of our hierarchy want us to be, in conjunction with arab blood money.
my request is that you educate yourself on the topic before you sprout the propaganda that ultimately comes from arab oil sheikhs and bankers pushing for colonization by rohingyas as a way to muslimify the region, at the end of the day - and that we support to contain the chinese, to curry american favour. you may find that the truth is not quite what it seems.
but, we should step back if we're a hindrance to the progress of getting these people a state in the end, even if that state should not be in the geographic area called myanmar.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/rohingyas-burma/540513/
but, if involving ourselves slows the process down, it's self-serving and should be resisted.
i don't know what you do in this situation. the countries around them don't want them for various reasons, and (unlike canada, which is a colonial state) myanmar does have some self-determinancy in the matter; there's no valid reason why they ought to be forced to integrate a large group of foreign refugees that are not indigenous to the region and that they don't want, and there's valid accusations of continuing colonialism underlying demands by a country like canada that they should.
it's really the bangladeshis that deserve the higher levels of criticism here for kicking out their own, not myanmar that deserves the criticism for refusing them entry. some kind of proper solution really involves working with the bangladeshis to integrate the kind of population that the country was created to absorb, not pushing continuing muslim and indian colonization of what is a buddhist and ethnically different territory.
perhaps the pakistanis could offer them asylum.
but, if canada's ultimate angle here is that it sees them as a source of migration, then it should just start lifting them out and stop interfering in a legal process that it's just making worse by meddling in.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-myanmar-court-intervention-1.5714246
i don't know what you do in this situation. the countries around them don't want them for various reasons, and (unlike canada, which is a colonial state) myanmar does have some self-determinancy in the matter; there's no valid reason why they ought to be forced to integrate a large group of foreign refugees that are not indigenous to the region and that they don't want, and there's valid accusations of continuing colonialism underlying demands by a country like canada that they should.
it's really the bangladeshis that deserve the higher levels of criticism here for kicking out their own, not myanmar that deserves the criticism for refusing them entry. some kind of proper solution really involves working with the bangladeshis to integrate the kind of population that the country was created to absorb, not pushing continuing muslim and indian colonization of what is a buddhist and ethnically different territory.
perhaps the pakistanis could offer them asylum.
but, if canada's ultimate angle here is that it sees them as a source of migration, then it should just start lifting them out and stop interfering in a legal process that it's just making worse by meddling in.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-myanmar-court-intervention-1.5714246
yeah, i'd be more likely to blame it on the instruments being contaminated.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/it-shouldn-t-exist-rust-found-on-the-moon-puzzles-scientists-1.5093822
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/it-shouldn-t-exist-rust-found-on-the-moon-puzzles-scientists-1.5093822
and, no, i don't want to run for office.
i decided i didn't want to be a scientist anymore because i found the formality of the writing too stifling; i wanted more space to express myself, and realized i'd prefer creative writing to technical writing. it just wasn't for me - i wouldn't be happy if i walked down that path, i'd just feel stifled and wasted and end up going postal.
likewise, i'd prefer to criticize the government than participate in it.
and, you can call me names for that preference if you want, but the world needs critics and outsiders in it, too; not everybody can be an actor, some people need to stand outside and dissent from a healthy distance.
you may find me frustrating, but that means what i'm doing is working; i'm a net benefit to democracy, and the world would be worse off without me.
i decided i didn't want to be a scientist anymore because i found the formality of the writing too stifling; i wanted more space to express myself, and realized i'd prefer creative writing to technical writing. it just wasn't for me - i wouldn't be happy if i walked down that path, i'd just feel stifled and wasted and end up going postal.
likewise, i'd prefer to criticize the government than participate in it.
and, you can call me names for that preference if you want, but the world needs critics and outsiders in it, too; not everybody can be an actor, some people need to stand outside and dissent from a healthy distance.
you may find me frustrating, but that means what i'm doing is working; i'm a net benefit to democracy, and the world would be worse off without me.
if i were driven by profit, i wouldn't live on odsp in some stranger's basement, and spend my entire existence in my own head, trying to evade the world and existence as much as i can. i'm highly educated. if i were driven by money, i'd go out and get it.
i'm not.
i'm driven by freedom, by ideas and by ideals, not by slavery to markets, or corruption by dollars.
i'm not.
i'm driven by freedom, by ideas and by ideals, not by slavery to markets, or corruption by dollars.
why do i do this, then?
because i'm an activist, a leftist, a socialist.
i write about the world the way i see it, and the way i want it to be, out of altruism and a legitimate desire for change - and also for public education, to undo the lies pushed by corporate media.
i'm a "true believer" if you will.
you can keep your dirty ad revenue, i don't want it.
because i'm an activist, a leftist, a socialist.
i write about the world the way i see it, and the way i want it to be, out of altruism and a legitimate desire for change - and also for public education, to undo the lies pushed by corporate media.
i'm a "true believer" if you will.
you can keep your dirty ad revenue, i don't want it.
to clarify a point, though...
there are zero ads on this page, anywhere.
i don't even have an adsense account in my name. at all.
i have made a total of $0.00 by posting to this blog, and google has actually been on my ass about paying them for hosting fees for my appspot site, although they haven't extracted anything yet.
so, i do not have a profit motive in posting here, i do not make any money by posting here and i do not have any money to give to journalists, because i'm not making anything from it. nor is google making anything off of this blog, although they may be making money off of other blogs.
so, if you want to force me to hand over some percentage of $0.00 worth of advertising revenue, i can write you a check for x% of 0 if you really insist.
i will admit that i'm drawing attention to myself, but the product for sale is at bandcamp and is music, it is not ad revenue and not available here.
and, i wish i could say that i sold a lot of downloads, but i just don't. it's actually been years since i made a transaction.
and, why are there no ads here? the reason is that i'm ideologically opposed to the model. you've seen idiocracy by now. i don't want to live in a world where people exchange access to services in exchange for corporate brainwashing, and i'm actually on the side of people that want to restrict or eliminate that. i run ad blockers, and don't want dirty ad money.
i would actually like to see the government, itself, provide some open space for writing. we should all be allowed 50 gb of online space, or something, ad free, and to do what we will with, as a birthright, or a privilege of citizenship. that would put speech enforcement directly at the hands of government, and eliminate a profit revenue from anybody posting.
the internet is not currently a public square, but i wish it was, and would support reforms to make it one - because that would increase speech rights, not diminish them.
there are zero ads on this page, anywhere.
i don't even have an adsense account in my name. at all.
i have made a total of $0.00 by posting to this blog, and google has actually been on my ass about paying them for hosting fees for my appspot site, although they haven't extracted anything yet.
so, i do not have a profit motive in posting here, i do not make any money by posting here and i do not have any money to give to journalists, because i'm not making anything from it. nor is google making anything off of this blog, although they may be making money off of other blogs.
so, if you want to force me to hand over some percentage of $0.00 worth of advertising revenue, i can write you a check for x% of 0 if you really insist.
i will admit that i'm drawing attention to myself, but the product for sale is at bandcamp and is music, it is not ad revenue and not available here.
and, i wish i could say that i sold a lot of downloads, but i just don't. it's actually been years since i made a transaction.
and, why are there no ads here? the reason is that i'm ideologically opposed to the model. you've seen idiocracy by now. i don't want to live in a world where people exchange access to services in exchange for corporate brainwashing, and i'm actually on the side of people that want to restrict or eliminate that. i run ad blockers, and don't want dirty ad money.
i would actually like to see the government, itself, provide some open space for writing. we should all be allowed 50 gb of online space, or something, ad free, and to do what we will with, as a birthright, or a privilege of citizenship. that would put speech enforcement directly at the hands of government, and eliminate a profit revenue from anybody posting.
the internet is not currently a public square, but i wish it was, and would support reforms to make it one - because that would increase speech rights, not diminish them.
see, and that's the thing, right?
some nazi bureaucrat working for the banking clique that runs the liberal party, or some corporate fascist working at some social media firm, or even some ignorant journalist with their head in their ass, may insist on shutting me down.
but, that's really just their opinion, and i'm absolutely confident they're legally wrong, so long as the issue is up to the courts to work out.
if you let the corporation make the choice, i have no speech rights. this is their server. it's their platform. i use the service at their privilege, and i can (and will.) go rant somewhere else if they don't like it.
but, if you let the courts make the choice, i have way more rights than any of those fascists want to grant me.
so, i would rather go to court than leave it up to the corporations - i know what system will uphold my rights, and what system won't.
some nazi bureaucrat working for the banking clique that runs the liberal party, or some corporate fascist working at some social media firm, or even some ignorant journalist with their head in their ass, may insist on shutting me down.
but, that's really just their opinion, and i'm absolutely confident they're legally wrong, so long as the issue is up to the courts to work out.
if you let the corporation make the choice, i have no speech rights. this is their server. it's their platform. i use the service at their privilege, and i can (and will.) go rant somewhere else if they don't like it.
but, if you let the courts make the choice, i have way more rights than any of those fascists want to grant me.
so, i would rather go to court than leave it up to the corporations - i know what system will uphold my rights, and what system won't.
do i think there's anything wrong with what i'm posting here?
no.
i'd say this to biden's face if i could, and hope he cries when i did; it's clear that i don't like him very much, and am not concerned about his feelings. and, i think he deserves what i'm posting here.
there's nothing here that's off-limits, nothing that breaks any laws, nothing that would be prosecuted as harassment, nothing that would qualify as hate.
so, bring it on - let's get the courts to strengthen speech protections, and the snowflakes to shut the fuck up.
no.
i'd say this to biden's face if i could, and hope he cries when i did; it's clear that i don't like him very much, and am not concerned about his feelings. and, i think he deserves what i'm posting here.
there's nothing here that's off-limits, nothing that breaks any laws, nothing that would be prosecuted as harassment, nothing that would qualify as hate.
so, bring it on - let's get the courts to strengthen speech protections, and the snowflakes to shut the fuck up.
ok, but what i want is a right to appeal those decisions in court.
that's what is wrong with the existing system - there is no legal process underlying it.
so, if we're going to bring in a legal process, that means we need things like court injunctions to limit rulings by bureaucrats, appeal mechanisms, etc.
i am confident that the courts would undo most of what the fake liberal government fascists and nazi snowflakes want to impose, not uphold it. so, i welcome more legal involvement as a way to increase speech rights.
if they don't do this right, they're going to end up with a series of charter challenges that will ultimately undo any unconstitutional restrictions, and they'll need to do it right, in the end.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7316532/facebook-regulation-canada-steven-guilbeault/
that's what is wrong with the existing system - there is no legal process underlying it.
so, if we're going to bring in a legal process, that means we need things like court injunctions to limit rulings by bureaucrats, appeal mechanisms, etc.
i am confident that the courts would undo most of what the fake liberal government fascists and nazi snowflakes want to impose, not uphold it. so, i welcome more legal involvement as a way to increase speech rights.
if they don't do this right, they're going to end up with a series of charter challenges that will ultimately undo any unconstitutional restrictions, and they'll need to do it right, in the end.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7316532/facebook-regulation-canada-steven-guilbeault/
when you pick up a loaf of pumpernickel, and check the side, it looks like this:
where are the b vitamins?
the answer is that they're in there in theory, but they aren't regulated. so, you don't really know. it doesn't say there aren't b vitamins, like it does for c and a. but, there's no actual meaningful evidence that your whole grain bread has any vitamins in it at all - it's something you have to take on empty faith. i would strongly advise against that.
compare that to cheap selection brand (food basics) 100% whole wheat bread (including the germ), which i can't find a picture of, but has the following for two slices:
calories: 170 g (but healthy people don't care about calories, they care about nutrition, because they burn calories, daily)
fat: 3%
fibre: 18%
protein: 7g
sodium: 10%
potassium: 4%
calcium: 4%
iron: 10%
thiamine: 15%
riboflavin: 6%
niacin: 25%
b6: 6%
folate: 5%
pantothenate: 8%
phosphorus: 14%
magnesium: 17%
zinc: 14%
selenium: 55%
maganese: 67%
molybdenum: 59%
i presume that molybdenum is for a nice, healthy glow.
you'll also note that the picture is for five slices, so you'd actually want to cut the percentage of calcium & iron down to two fifths of it to get a fair comparison, which is only 2.4%.
does the pumpernickel lack all of this good stuff? is it just empty calories? supposedly, it doesn't, but nobody measures it, so you don't know what you're buying.
the 100% whole wheat is consequently a far safer choice than the whole grain, if you're concerned about nutrient concentration, because you actually know what's in it because it's measured and regulated. you have no actual idea whether the whole grain bread you're buying has anything of value in it or not - it might very well just be empty sugar. you could never prove otherwise. you just have to take it on faith, which is the lowest form of reasoning. i'll take the fortified whole wheat over the unfortified whole grain, any day.
where are the b vitamins?
the answer is that they're in there in theory, but they aren't regulated. so, you don't really know. it doesn't say there aren't b vitamins, like it does for c and a. but, there's no actual meaningful evidence that your whole grain bread has any vitamins in it at all - it's something you have to take on empty faith. i would strongly advise against that.
compare that to cheap selection brand (food basics) 100% whole wheat bread (including the germ), which i can't find a picture of, but has the following for two slices:
calories: 170 g (but healthy people don't care about calories, they care about nutrition, because they burn calories, daily)
fat: 3%
fibre: 18%
protein: 7g
sodium: 10%
potassium: 4%
calcium: 4%
iron: 10%
thiamine: 15%
riboflavin: 6%
niacin: 25%
b6: 6%
folate: 5%
pantothenate: 8%
phosphorus: 14%
magnesium: 17%
zinc: 14%
selenium: 55%
maganese: 67%
molybdenum: 59%
i presume that molybdenum is for a nice, healthy glow.
you'll also note that the picture is for five slices, so you'd actually want to cut the percentage of calcium & iron down to two fifths of it to get a fair comparison, which is only 2.4%.
does the pumpernickel lack all of this good stuff? is it just empty calories? supposedly, it doesn't, but nobody measures it, so you don't know what you're buying.
the 100% whole wheat is consequently a far safer choice than the whole grain, if you're concerned about nutrient concentration, because you actually know what's in it because it's measured and regulated. you have no actual idea whether the whole grain bread you're buying has anything of value in it or not - it might very well just be empty sugar. you could never prove otherwise. you just have to take it on faith, which is the lowest form of reasoning. i'll take the fortified whole wheat over the unfortified whole grain, any day.
but, what i really want is some fortified pumpernickel, with those kind of numbers on the side.
should you eat rye or whole wheat?
that's a can of worms, from what i can tell....
in theory, rye may be preferable, but it doesn't seem to be fortified. so, if you take a loaf of $5.00 rye bread and put it side by side with a loaf of $0.99 whole wheat bread, and you check the nutrient content on the side of the packaging, you may be surprised to see that the whole wheat bread actually blows the rye away. but, this is because the whole wheat is regulated here in canada, so nutrients are added to it, and the rye is not. it's consequently misleading, and i know that.
i switched to the whole wheat more due to cost; when i was eating a few slices of bread a week, i didn't mind shelling out for fancy rye or pumpernickel, but now that eggs are being eaten every second day, roughly, i'm tripling or quadrupling the amount of bread i'm consuming, and the fact that the brown broad is a fifth of the price was very appealing to me.
what i wish was that the fancier breads were better regulated so i could do an apples-to-apples comparison regarding vitamins and other nutrients. general statements about rye flour may or may not be particular to specific brands; i don't want to make assumptions about the milling process, and what actually does or doesn't exist in any particular loaf.
the whole wheat is the safer bet, in that sense.
but, i'm going to continue to keep my eye out for a rye alternative that is properly fortified.
that's a can of worms, from what i can tell....
in theory, rye may be preferable, but it doesn't seem to be fortified. so, if you take a loaf of $5.00 rye bread and put it side by side with a loaf of $0.99 whole wheat bread, and you check the nutrient content on the side of the packaging, you may be surprised to see that the whole wheat bread actually blows the rye away. but, this is because the whole wheat is regulated here in canada, so nutrients are added to it, and the rye is not. it's consequently misleading, and i know that.
i switched to the whole wheat more due to cost; when i was eating a few slices of bread a week, i didn't mind shelling out for fancy rye or pumpernickel, but now that eggs are being eaten every second day, roughly, i'm tripling or quadrupling the amount of bread i'm consuming, and the fact that the brown broad is a fifth of the price was very appealing to me.
what i wish was that the fancier breads were better regulated so i could do an apples-to-apples comparison regarding vitamins and other nutrients. general statements about rye flour may or may not be particular to specific brands; i don't want to make assumptions about the milling process, and what actually does or doesn't exist in any particular loaf.
the whole wheat is the safer bet, in that sense.
but, i'm going to continue to keep my eye out for a rye alternative that is properly fortified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)