Monday, May 14, 2018
Sunday, May 13, 2018
one of the big things is likelihood to vote; another is response rates.
how often is your 65+ sample disproportionately skewed with people over 80, who are more likely to stay on the line and answer questions? and, at what age does the increased likelihood of seniors to vote start reversing?
you could end up with a large sample of 80+ in the 65+ demographic and conclude they're more likely to vote, when they in fact can barely leave the house at all.
and, opinions and worldviews are likely to be dramatically different nowadays between a fully functional 69 year old and a totally geriatric 87 year old.
how often is your 65+ sample disproportionately skewed with people over 80, who are more likely to stay on the line and answer questions? and, at what age does the increased likelihood of seniors to vote start reversing?
you could end up with a large sample of 80+ in the 65+ demographic and conclude they're more likely to vote, when they in fact can barely leave the house at all.
and, opinions and worldviews are likely to be dramatically different nowadays between a fully functional 69 year old and a totally geriatric 87 year old.
one of the things i point out in one of the videos coming up is that the age brackets polling firms use are out of date.
they'll do something like this:
18-35
35-50
50-65
65+
that was fine when life expectancy was 75. but, it's 85 now. and, the population is aging..
they need to split 65+ into a 65-80 bracket, and an 80+ bracket.
they'll do something like this:
18-35
35-50
50-65
65+
that was fine when life expectancy was 75. but, it's 85 now. and, the population is aging..
they need to split 65+ into a 65-80 bracket, and an 80+ bracket.
so, i haven't moved since friday night, except to sleep in short
shifts, naps, and to get up to eat, or use the washroom. i took a junk
food run last night...
i'm through the first half of march, which closes season 4 and takes me into the start of season 5. the music vlog picks back up again in mid june, so i'm down to three months to fill the gap. and, the period one discs start closing in early july.
the air quality has actually been alright over the last 24 hours. i'm not sure exactly what the reason for this is, but it might have to do with the fact that the heat came back on. she seems to have made eggs last night and then stopped. i'm not expecting the situation to last.
that said., if it were to stay exactly like this, it would be fine. and i'm still not excited about moving...
i haven't given a technical notice to move yet, but i'm still planning on starting to look on wednesday. i'm going to need a very lengthy period of clear air to have me change my mind, at this point.
i don't know exactly what the market looks like right now.
i'm through the first half of march, which closes season 4 and takes me into the start of season 5. the music vlog picks back up again in mid june, so i'm down to three months to fill the gap. and, the period one discs start closing in early july.
the air quality has actually been alright over the last 24 hours. i'm not sure exactly what the reason for this is, but it might have to do with the fact that the heat came back on. she seems to have made eggs last night and then stopped. i'm not expecting the situation to last.
that said., if it were to stay exactly like this, it would be fine. and i'm still not excited about moving...
i haven't given a technical notice to move yet, but i'm still planning on starting to look on wednesday. i'm going to need a very lengthy period of clear air to have me change my mind, at this point.
i don't know exactly what the market looks like right now.
i'm neither convinced that the russians are particularly upset about the israeli bombing runs in syria, nor that they weren't informed first.
i hear that netanyahu has actually been spending a lot of time with putin, lately.
it is the russian reaction that an escalation turns around; i expect it to be muted, as kicking the iranians out of syria is ultimately both in their interests, as well as in the interests of turkey.
the russians control the board, at this point. it's not clear how long that lasts, but it's what exists, right now.
i hear that netanyahu has actually been spending a lot of time with putin, lately.
it is the russian reaction that an escalation turns around; i expect it to be muted, as kicking the iranians out of syria is ultimately both in their interests, as well as in the interests of turkey.
the russians control the board, at this point. it's not clear how long that lasts, but it's what exists, right now.
ok, so, as far as i can tell, there's actually not a reason they can't remove their turban - like the hijab, it's really just a fashion decision.
what i already knew was all that there apparently is to know - that it's one of their "articles of faith" and that it's worn as an identity marker.
so, sikhs wear turbans because they're sikhs, and sikhs wear turbans.
that's fine and everything, so long as you're not going through a security screen, in which case that's simply not a valid argument.
it's not like they've been told they're going to go to hell or be excommunicated or something. it's just something they do because they want to, and because it makes them feel a part of a club. surely, removing the item from one's head for a few moments doesn't expel anybody from this club.
so, what's underlying the refusal, then, really isn't any religious significance, but rather just a trivial ethnic norm. and, that consequently isn't even a question of religious freedom, whatever you happen to think about it.
it would be one thing if somebody ripped it off his head and played soccer with it in front of him. that would be rude. but, everybody needs to go through some inconvenience, sometimes, to ensure we're all kept safe.
the real issue here is that navdeep bains appears to be a remarkably arrogant person that thinks he's special and deserves special treatment. he doesn't want to sacrifice for the team.
i repeat: i would like to see him defeated in the next election.
what i already knew was all that there apparently is to know - that it's one of their "articles of faith" and that it's worn as an identity marker.
so, sikhs wear turbans because they're sikhs, and sikhs wear turbans.
that's fine and everything, so long as you're not going through a security screen, in which case that's simply not a valid argument.
it's not like they've been told they're going to go to hell or be excommunicated or something. it's just something they do because they want to, and because it makes them feel a part of a club. surely, removing the item from one's head for a few moments doesn't expel anybody from this club.
so, what's underlying the refusal, then, really isn't any religious significance, but rather just a trivial ethnic norm. and, that consequently isn't even a question of religious freedom, whatever you happen to think about it.
it would be one thing if somebody ripped it off his head and played soccer with it in front of him. that would be rude. but, everybody needs to go through some inconvenience, sometimes, to ensure we're all kept safe.
the real issue here is that navdeep bains appears to be a remarkably arrogant person that thinks he's special and deserves special treatment. he doesn't want to sacrifice for the team.
i repeat: i would like to see him defeated in the next election.
i can respect honest differences in opinion. that's fine.
but, i can't respect things like magic beards - that's just stupid.
sorry.
let me see if i can figure out the exact reason why a sikh isn't supposed to take off his turban (i don't know, exactly), and we can analyse whether that holds up to any meaningful scrutiny in the face of a security screen at an airport.
but, i can't respect things like magic beards - that's just stupid.
sorry.
let me see if i can figure out the exact reason why a sikh isn't supposed to take off his turban (i don't know, exactly), and we can analyse whether that holds up to any meaningful scrutiny in the face of a security screen at an airport.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
"religious freedom" is not a trump card, or some special pass that means you don't have to follow the laws, or some grounds for special treatment.
it's simply the idea that the government isn't supposed to pick on you.
i'm actually of the view that it is a law giving sikhs special status at the airport that would be unconstitutional, not that they have some constitutional claim to special treatment because they hold to some specific superstition.
it's simply the idea that the government isn't supposed to pick on you.
i'm actually of the view that it is a law giving sikhs special status at the airport that would be unconstitutional, not that they have some constitutional claim to special treatment because they hold to some specific superstition.
when i go through customs, i'm sometimes asked to empty my bag or my pockets.
being fully rational about the situation means recognizing that it is, indeed, possible that there might be an object inside the turban: a weapon, some drugs. i guess the easiest thing to do is put the guy through a metal detector. but, if there is not one available, i actually think it's fair game that he be asked to remove the turban - and that he's being unreasonable in complaining about it.
i don't know what the government intends to accomplish by filing a frivolous complaint of this nature. and, frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
what i would tell sikhs is that the country's security is more important than whatever superstitions that they insist on holding to, and i'm not remotely upset if they find that insulting or demeaning.
sorry.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/10/after-a-liberal-minister-was-told-to-remove-his-turban-at-a-us-airport-the-canadian-government-sent-a-letter-of-protest.html
being fully rational about the situation means recognizing that it is, indeed, possible that there might be an object inside the turban: a weapon, some drugs. i guess the easiest thing to do is put the guy through a metal detector. but, if there is not one available, i actually think it's fair game that he be asked to remove the turban - and that he's being unreasonable in complaining about it.
i don't know what the government intends to accomplish by filing a frivolous complaint of this nature. and, frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
what i would tell sikhs is that the country's security is more important than whatever superstitions that they insist on holding to, and i'm not remotely upset if they find that insulting or demeaning.
sorry.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/10/after-a-liberal-minister-was-told-to-remove-his-turban-at-a-us-airport-the-canadian-government-sent-a-letter-of-protest.html
you'll find that there are some exceptions.
jews & arabs hold strong to identity, as their religion & ethnicity are seen by them as the same thing. further, the question of the effect of african-american identity on black canadians (most of whom are carribbean in origin, or straight from africa) is a complicated thing, as some will adopt it and others won't. the japanese are weird like this, too. but, these are small groups in canada.
more broadly speaking, people coming to canada are coming from big, complicated countries.
china & india & russia are all ethnic confederations, rather than nation states. they're not exactly "multicultural societies", so much as they are coalitions between what are at times rather disparate groups. and, together, they're both half the world's population and the biggest ethnic groups in the country. if you grew up in india, you're used to co-existence, however tenuous, between sikhs & muslims & hindus & buddhists & jains & parsees & ....; when you show up here, you're not going to cling to some narrow concept of what you were, you're going to try and determine where your values best align - if you're religious or traditionalist, you'll align with the conservatives and if you're secularist or progressive you'll end up a liberal or a new democrat. of course, your financial well-being will have something to do with that, as well. & similarly for a chinese immigrant, who is used to existing in a stew of ethnicities brought together by a lingua franca - it's not that different than here, really.
& all i've been saying forever is that if we want a liberal society, we need to attract liberal immigrants or at least stop attracting conservative ones - because the conservatives have figured out that their best shot at avoiding irrelevance is bringing in more conservative immigrants.
which is what we're seeing happen here, in ontario.
and which is what is short-circuiting our premier.
what identity politics does is create unnecessary divisions in the body politic, and that does not help the left. ever. if anybody wants to roll this shit out, it should be ford; the left needs to knock it fucking off.
jews & arabs hold strong to identity, as their religion & ethnicity are seen by them as the same thing. further, the question of the effect of african-american identity on black canadians (most of whom are carribbean in origin, or straight from africa) is a complicated thing, as some will adopt it and others won't. the japanese are weird like this, too. but, these are small groups in canada.
more broadly speaking, people coming to canada are coming from big, complicated countries.
china & india & russia are all ethnic confederations, rather than nation states. they're not exactly "multicultural societies", so much as they are coalitions between what are at times rather disparate groups. and, together, they're both half the world's population and the biggest ethnic groups in the country. if you grew up in india, you're used to co-existence, however tenuous, between sikhs & muslims & hindus & buddhists & jains & parsees & ....; when you show up here, you're not going to cling to some narrow concept of what you were, you're going to try and determine where your values best align - if you're religious or traditionalist, you'll align with the conservatives and if you're secularist or progressive you'll end up a liberal or a new democrat. of course, your financial well-being will have something to do with that, as well. & similarly for a chinese immigrant, who is used to existing in a stew of ethnicities brought together by a lingua franca - it's not that different than here, really.
& all i've been saying forever is that if we want a liberal society, we need to attract liberal immigrants or at least stop attracting conservative ones - because the conservatives have figured out that their best shot at avoiding irrelevance is bringing in more conservative immigrants.
which is what we're seeing happen here, in ontario.
and which is what is short-circuiting our premier.
what identity politics does is create unnecessary divisions in the body politic, and that does not help the left. ever. if anybody wants to roll this shit out, it should be ford; the left needs to knock it fucking off.
this entire discourse exists in the realm of fantasy.
it is in fact current provincial (& federal) policy to ensure that resource development projects prioritize local employment opportunities over temporary workers, which are even banned in many circumstances. and, the controversy has generally stemmed in the other direction: when companies want to bring in tfws to displace local workers.
so, imagine a state-owned company from china coming in and opening a mine here (why don't we have our own state-owned companies, anyways?), and wanting to bring it's own workers in to work in it. there are strict restrictions on this, and it really isn't controversial. that's something that almost everybody will support.
so, ford floats a goofy comment to try and peel off ndp supporters, and wynne reacts equally delusionally with a lame attempt to smear him as a racist. they both deserve contempt for this.
but, the most disappointing reaction is from horwath. wynne is a liberal, so you ultimately expect her to work for bay street. you expect her to be beholden to the interests of shareholders. that's her job. but, horwath is supposed to represent workers, and supposed to be there to stand up to foreign multinationals that want to bring in tfws to displace local workers. she should have clearly stated her support for local workers.
if i was in the north, i wouldn't vote for any of them, as they're all in the pockets of the banks. but, it is really the left that needs a revitalization, here. the north could be the right place to start it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4204511/party-leaders-ontario-election-day-4/
the error that i'm talking past here is the idea that the comments had to do with identity, rather than with class.
ford did not mention an ethnic identity, he suggested that local workers deserve priority - and, as mentioned, that is not going to be controversial anywhere outside of these bogus pseudo-science psychology lectures that the liberals & ndp seem to be getting. it is existing policy.
wynne is just acting like a dummy, at this point; in a confused and desperate attempt to appeal to the ethnic votes she is losing due to differing values, she's attacking potential voters that may share her values because they don't have the right identity. it's like she's collapsed into the ultraparadoxical phase, or she got some kind of ideological cancer that's led to her attacking herself. perhaps foucauldianism is best described as a cancer...
& horwath reacted with identity, when she should have reacted with class.
voters in northern ontario will interpret the comments through the prism of class, not the prism of identity. they will hear wynne say that she wants to take away their jobs, and horwath agreeing with her. and, they will react terribly to this. this is a problem of their own doing, as ford's comment was pretty innocuous, as a statement of existing policy.
then, these foucauldian pseudo-scientists will complete the circle in their backwards logic and call the people that live there racists for standing up for themselves when they hear politicians from toronto come in and threaten to take away their jobs.
and, if they keep it up, ford will win the election because the left keeps following the advice of these quacks pushing identity as a voting decision, and keeps attacking it's own voters as a result of it.
there was no reason that this election should have had anything to do with the 2016 presidential election - except that the canadian left seems intent on following the same failing strategy that clinton used.
and, we're all going to have to suffer for their idiocy, in the end.
==
critical race theory is not a science.
political science is not a science.
social science is not science, either.
quackery, the lot of it.
it is in fact current provincial (& federal) policy to ensure that resource development projects prioritize local employment opportunities over temporary workers, which are even banned in many circumstances. and, the controversy has generally stemmed in the other direction: when companies want to bring in tfws to displace local workers.
so, imagine a state-owned company from china coming in and opening a mine here (why don't we have our own state-owned companies, anyways?), and wanting to bring it's own workers in to work in it. there are strict restrictions on this, and it really isn't controversial. that's something that almost everybody will support.
so, ford floats a goofy comment to try and peel off ndp supporters, and wynne reacts equally delusionally with a lame attempt to smear him as a racist. they both deserve contempt for this.
but, the most disappointing reaction is from horwath. wynne is a liberal, so you ultimately expect her to work for bay street. you expect her to be beholden to the interests of shareholders. that's her job. but, horwath is supposed to represent workers, and supposed to be there to stand up to foreign multinationals that want to bring in tfws to displace local workers. she should have clearly stated her support for local workers.
if i was in the north, i wouldn't vote for any of them, as they're all in the pockets of the banks. but, it is really the left that needs a revitalization, here. the north could be the right place to start it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4204511/party-leaders-ontario-election-day-4/
the error that i'm talking past here is the idea that the comments had to do with identity, rather than with class.
ford did not mention an ethnic identity, he suggested that local workers deserve priority - and, as mentioned, that is not going to be controversial anywhere outside of these bogus pseudo-science psychology lectures that the liberals & ndp seem to be getting. it is existing policy.
wynne is just acting like a dummy, at this point; in a confused and desperate attempt to appeal to the ethnic votes she is losing due to differing values, she's attacking potential voters that may share her values because they don't have the right identity. it's like she's collapsed into the ultraparadoxical phase, or she got some kind of ideological cancer that's led to her attacking herself. perhaps foucauldianism is best described as a cancer...
& horwath reacted with identity, when she should have reacted with class.
voters in northern ontario will interpret the comments through the prism of class, not the prism of identity. they will hear wynne say that she wants to take away their jobs, and horwath agreeing with her. and, they will react terribly to this. this is a problem of their own doing, as ford's comment was pretty innocuous, as a statement of existing policy.
then, these foucauldian pseudo-scientists will complete the circle in their backwards logic and call the people that live there racists for standing up for themselves when they hear politicians from toronto come in and threaten to take away their jobs.
and, if they keep it up, ford will win the election because the left keeps following the advice of these quacks pushing identity as a voting decision, and keeps attacking it's own voters as a result of it.
there was no reason that this election should have had anything to do with the 2016 presidential election - except that the canadian left seems intent on following the same failing strategy that clinton used.
and, we're all going to have to suffer for their idiocy, in the end.
==
critical race theory is not a science.
political science is not a science.
social science is not science, either.
quackery, the lot of it.
blaming the problem on parents doesn't solve it, though, i agree.
it's a cultural problem - and this is not something you can fix with a tweak. it's the media we consume. it's the attitudes we inherit. as a culture, we have a hostility to learning, and we're teaching it to our kids.
sports and fashion and propaganda and mass consumerism are cool; math and science and literature and independent thought are not.
they keep you doped on religion and sex and tv; then, they hate you if you're clever.
you can try to get to the kids young; i don't have much use for traditional families, or see much value in raising people together based on arbitrary considerations like bloodlines. but, i'm not expecting a fundamental shift in the way we exist to be a ballot issue in the next provincial election. that's not up for vote; we have to do that.
in the mean time, the reality is that the system is intended for ruthless competition, and that, with math and science, the kids really need to sink or swim in terms of taking an initiative on their own.
that michelle pfeiffer movie is not real life; you can't teach kids that don't want to learn. you can try subtle mind tricks to try to get them to learn, but then they magically teach themselves.
see, a corollary of this perspective is that i actually don't have a lot of use for teachers, either, because i realize that the kids that want to learn don't need them, and the kids that don't want to learn are a waste of time.
but, the math curriculum, specifically? i don't know that there's a problem with the curriculum. if there is, let's get somebody other than doug ford on that.
it's a cultural problem - and this is not something you can fix with a tweak. it's the media we consume. it's the attitudes we inherit. as a culture, we have a hostility to learning, and we're teaching it to our kids.
sports and fashion and propaganda and mass consumerism are cool; math and science and literature and independent thought are not.
they keep you doped on religion and sex and tv; then, they hate you if you're clever.
you can try to get to the kids young; i don't have much use for traditional families, or see much value in raising people together based on arbitrary considerations like bloodlines. but, i'm not expecting a fundamental shift in the way we exist to be a ballot issue in the next provincial election. that's not up for vote; we have to do that.
in the mean time, the reality is that the system is intended for ruthless competition, and that, with math and science, the kids really need to sink or swim in terms of taking an initiative on their own.
that michelle pfeiffer movie is not real life; you can't teach kids that don't want to learn. you can try subtle mind tricks to try to get them to learn, but then they magically teach themselves.
see, a corollary of this perspective is that i actually don't have a lot of use for teachers, either, because i realize that the kids that want to learn don't need them, and the kids that don't want to learn are a waste of time.
but, the math curriculum, specifically? i don't know that there's a problem with the curriculum. if there is, let's get somebody other than doug ford on that.
just to be clear: i was in the last class to take grade 13/oac.
i did not experience the changes that harris made to the curriculum, although the students in the grades below me did.
and, i have no understanding of this "new math" they speak of, or whether it's good or bad.
i don't think doug ford is the guy to fix the math curriculum, though. curriculums can't be glowered at. and, his own skills of arithmetic don't seem to be very good.
i would not be opposed, a priori, to implementing the recommendations of a study on the topic.
but, there is no royal road to geometry. the fact is that math is hard work, and if kids are failing then the problem is at home.
i did not experience the changes that harris made to the curriculum, although the students in the grades below me did.
and, i have no understanding of this "new math" they speak of, or whether it's good or bad.
i don't think doug ford is the guy to fix the math curriculum, though. curriculums can't be glowered at. and, his own skills of arithmetic don't seem to be very good.
i would not be opposed, a priori, to implementing the recommendations of a study on the topic.
but, there is no royal road to geometry. the fact is that math is hard work, and if kids are failing then the problem is at home.
liberals are liberals. they're often a lesser evil, but they're the bourgeois party, and we all know it. even when we vote for the liberals, we know what we're doing.
but, we don't expect a nominally socialist party to support foreign capital flooding local communities with foreign labour, at the exclusion of local populations.
that is shocking.
that is a scandal.
that needs a reaction.
but, we don't expect a nominally socialist party to support foreign capital flooding local communities with foreign labour, at the exclusion of local populations.
that is shocking.
that is a scandal.
that needs a reaction.
where is the political movement towards self-ownership over natural resources, and putting an end to selling it off to foreign capital, then begging them to hire locally?
ironically, it's in the conservative movement towards loosened regulations, as the companies are essentially operating offshore to avoid canadian law. but, it's naive to expect a positive outcome.
i'm an anarchist. that means i want worker self-ownership, rather than state control. but, these regulations were designed with an intent that was never carried through with. if you're going to heavily regulate everything, you can't expect a market to work under those regulations. it's logically a step towards eventual nationalization.
the result is that the conservative position of cutting red tape is at least consistent (to a point; a totally 'free market' always collapses into a monopoly), even if i'd prefer the nationalization of natural resources. but, the liberal position just shifts the corruption outside of the country. and, the ndp don't seem to want to be the ndp - they're just the same as the liberals.
if i was in northern ontario, i wouldn't support any of these parties; i'd realize the need for a local worker's party to actualize the self-interest of the region's inhabitants. the conservatives are telling you what you want to hear, but all three of the parties are beholden to the interests of shareholders ahead of the interests of local populations.
local disappointment around the ndp's position on this should not be let go, but exploited to create a new party. the ndp has been a dead vessel for years. the left needs to build a new ship to sail...
ironically, it's in the conservative movement towards loosened regulations, as the companies are essentially operating offshore to avoid canadian law. but, it's naive to expect a positive outcome.
i'm an anarchist. that means i want worker self-ownership, rather than state control. but, these regulations were designed with an intent that was never carried through with. if you're going to heavily regulate everything, you can't expect a market to work under those regulations. it's logically a step towards eventual nationalization.
the result is that the conservative position of cutting red tape is at least consistent (to a point; a totally 'free market' always collapses into a monopoly), even if i'd prefer the nationalization of natural resources. but, the liberal position just shifts the corruption outside of the country. and, the ndp don't seem to want to be the ndp - they're just the same as the liberals.
if i was in northern ontario, i wouldn't support any of these parties; i'd realize the need for a local worker's party to actualize the self-interest of the region's inhabitants. the conservatives are telling you what you want to hear, but all three of the parties are beholden to the interests of shareholders ahead of the interests of local populations.
local disappointment around the ndp's position on this should not be let go, but exploited to create a new party. the ndp has been a dead vessel for years. the left needs to build a new ship to sail...
"we at the liberal party of ontario want to stand up for the rights of foreign capital to bring in foreign workers to displace local communities and disrupt local economies. because shareholders."
"and, if you disagree, you're racist! the ndp is always on the side of taking away economic opportunities from local communities and giving them to foreigners. that's what settler colonialism is all about!"
what a couple of fucking retards.
now, i happen to know that this issue is actually a key aspect of these agreements, especially regarding the question of indigenous workers. this is political. but, it's completely backwards. and, the only person that benefits from this discussion is doug ford.
of course ontarians are going to put their own interests ahead of the interests of foreigners.
duh?
"and, if you disagree, you're racist! the ndp is always on the side of taking away economic opportunities from local communities and giving them to foreigners. that's what settler colonialism is all about!"
what a couple of fucking retards.
now, i happen to know that this issue is actually a key aspect of these agreements, especially regarding the question of indigenous workers. this is political. but, it's completely backwards. and, the only person that benefits from this discussion is doug ford.
of course ontarians are going to put their own interests ahead of the interests of foreigners.
duh?
i think it's fairly obvious that he was suggesting that existing canadians should be given priority over people in other countries when it comes to analysing who benefits from employment opportunities in canada.
so, for example, if a chinese company wants to come in and set up a mining project, it should be forced to hire people that live in the region, rather than bring it's own workers from china.
and, trying to pick a fight over this is absolute stupidity, on wynne's behalf. literally nobody is going to argue this point, except foreign capital. even recent immigrants are going to see the injustice in bringing in foreign workers.
this can't be controversial....?
so, is a vote for the liberals a vote for foreign capital? i think a lot of liberals are going to push back on that.
but, this is backwards. the left is supposed to support local workers. it's the right that is supposed to be in the pockets of foreign capital. and, the irony here is that i don't expect ford to protect those jobs, anyways.
the ndp position on this is particularly disappointing. liberals are flaky on this kind of thing. the ndp literally can't be if it wants to compete - it needs these votes.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4204511/party-leaders-ontario-election-day-4/
so, for example, if a chinese company wants to come in and set up a mining project, it should be forced to hire people that live in the region, rather than bring it's own workers from china.
and, trying to pick a fight over this is absolute stupidity, on wynne's behalf. literally nobody is going to argue this point, except foreign capital. even recent immigrants are going to see the injustice in bringing in foreign workers.
this can't be controversial....?
so, is a vote for the liberals a vote for foreign capital? i think a lot of liberals are going to push back on that.
but, this is backwards. the left is supposed to support local workers. it's the right that is supposed to be in the pockets of foreign capital. and, the irony here is that i don't expect ford to protect those jobs, anyways.
the ndp position on this is particularly disappointing. liberals are flaky on this kind of thing. the ndp literally can't be if it wants to compete - it needs these votes.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4204511/party-leaders-ontario-election-day-4/
ok, i'm through february.
the air quality in here is horrendous, but there's not any use in pretending i can do anything about it until the court date. it's not just the marijuana, it's the cigarettes. and, it's enough that it is physically making me sick - i have a brutally sore throat, which is a condition that i'm not used to at all.
i'm only still awake because i haven't eaten in 36 hours. it's time to eat....
i will have to call on monday or tuesday to ask about the other room, and i'll point out that there has been no change in habits. i don't expect a response, but whatever.
i can't articulate how disgusting the situation is, or how profoundly negatively it is affecting me. it's just constant. she simply doesn't stop smoking. ever.
the air quality in here is horrendous, but there's not any use in pretending i can do anything about it until the court date. it's not just the marijuana, it's the cigarettes. and, it's enough that it is physically making me sick - i have a brutally sore throat, which is a condition that i'm not used to at all.
i'm only still awake because i haven't eaten in 36 hours. it's time to eat....
i will have to call on monday or tuesday to ask about the other room, and i'll point out that there has been no change in habits. i don't expect a response, but whatever.
i can't articulate how disgusting the situation is, or how profoundly negatively it is affecting me. it's just constant. she simply doesn't stop smoking. ever.
Friday, May 11, 2018
it's really an empirical question, and it's by no means a strange one.
are people born in the 80s more like people born in the 70s or more like people born in the 90s? you've been told for decades that they're more like people born in the 90s. you were told this before we were old enough to vote, and have been told it ever since.
but, it's really equally likely that people born in the 80s are going to be more like people born in the 70s, isn't it?
people are individuals; i'm talking statistics, i'm talking aggregates.
but, i'm certain that the data will tell you that the generation does not turn around 1980, it turns around 1990 - that's when the cusp really asserts itself. if you were born in 1990, you were 15 when youtube launched & in high school when facebook asserted itself. and, you actually grew up with netflix & google.
that means that these "milennials" don't actually exist - that the older ones are really just a part of gen x and the younger ones are a part of the next generation.
are people born in the 80s more like people born in the 70s or more like people born in the 90s? you've been told for decades that they're more like people born in the 90s. you were told this before we were old enough to vote, and have been told it ever since.
but, it's really equally likely that people born in the 80s are going to be more like people born in the 70s, isn't it?
people are individuals; i'm talking statistics, i'm talking aggregates.
but, i'm certain that the data will tell you that the generation does not turn around 1980, it turns around 1990 - that's when the cusp really asserts itself. if you were born in 1990, you were 15 when youtube launched & in high school when facebook asserted itself. and, you actually grew up with netflix & google.
that means that these "milennials" don't actually exist - that the older ones are really just a part of gen x and the younger ones are a part of the next generation.
it's really the catch-22 thing again.
as an unemployed person, i prefer sobriety most of the time. but, if you gave me a job tomorrow, and it involved any kind of social interaction at all, i'd probably have to get drunk to do it. then, when i inevitably get fired, i'd end up sober again.
so, it only seems like i belong on disability for the length of time i'm employed.
there is a solution, of course: i'd need to work in a cubicle away from people. i did ok in call centres. but, it's not a rewarding job, either.
as an unemployed person, i prefer sobriety most of the time. but, if you gave me a job tomorrow, and it involved any kind of social interaction at all, i'd probably have to get drunk to do it. then, when i inevitably get fired, i'd end up sober again.
so, it only seems like i belong on disability for the length of time i'm employed.
there is a solution, of course: i'd need to work in a cubicle away from people. i did ok in call centres. but, it's not a rewarding job, either.
so, the status quo is not likely to change: you're not likely to ever get to know my sober side. or, to put it another way, this vlog/blog combo is the closest thing that the world will ever get to coming to know me as a sober person.
i will continue to get drunk before i go out, and nurture it while i'm out.
but, i'm not an addict. because i'm just not.
i will continue to get drunk before i go out, and nurture it while i'm out.
but, i'm not an addict. because i'm just not.
i was reading an article asking the reader to self-examine whether or not they have characteristics of alcoholism, and i actually don't have any of them. i'm not an alcoholic or an addict that structures my life around inebriation; what i am is a ridiculously shy introvert that can't function in social situations unless i've been lubricated a little.
i live on disability, but i'm not diagnosed with depression. what i'm diagnosed with is social anxiety.
it's not denial. it's just not actually true.
i'm maybe a binge drinker in social situations, but it's infrequent and i'm not unhappy about it.
you might claim you'd like to get to know my sober side, but you probably don't. when i'm sober, i can't interact with people in any way. i just sit quietly. i don't interrupt people, true. but, i don't participate in conversations at all. i just sit quietly from a distance and watch the world happen without me.
empirically: people that can function well socially don't type as much as i do.
one of the questions is whether i centre my social interactions around drinking, and i'm going to claim that i actually don't. what i centre my social interactions around is music. i go to concerts, or dj sets. you'll never see me out unless i'm attending an event. so, it's not as though i go out to get drunk; i'm not a religious person, and wouldn't have any moral problem with just staying home and getting drunk. cheaper. less people. but, it never happens. no: i'm out to see the show. rather, it's the other way around: i need the inebriation to be able to deal with the people in the social situation.
so, i don't go out to get drunk; but, i need to get drunk to deal with the anxiety created by going out.
i live on disability, but i'm not diagnosed with depression. what i'm diagnosed with is social anxiety.
it's not denial. it's just not actually true.
i'm maybe a binge drinker in social situations, but it's infrequent and i'm not unhappy about it.
you might claim you'd like to get to know my sober side, but you probably don't. when i'm sober, i can't interact with people in any way. i just sit quietly. i don't interrupt people, true. but, i don't participate in conversations at all. i just sit quietly from a distance and watch the world happen without me.
empirically: people that can function well socially don't type as much as i do.
one of the questions is whether i centre my social interactions around drinking, and i'm going to claim that i actually don't. what i centre my social interactions around is music. i go to concerts, or dj sets. you'll never see me out unless i'm attending an event. so, it's not as though i go out to get drunk; i'm not a religious person, and wouldn't have any moral problem with just staying home and getting drunk. cheaper. less people. but, it never happens. no: i'm out to see the show. rather, it's the other way around: i need the inebriation to be able to deal with the people in the social situation.
so, i don't go out to get drunk; but, i need to get drunk to deal with the anxiety created by going out.
i will acknowledge that it's very possible that, if you live in the region, you may have met me a dozen times and never seen me sober.
it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that i'm some kind of drunk or some kind of addict.
but, what you don't know is that i'm almost straight edge in between trips to detroit, which are really only a few times a month. so, i'm actually completely sober for 25+ days a month. ahahaha. you don't know me at all....
it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that i'm some kind of drunk or some kind of addict.
but, what you don't know is that i'm almost straight edge in between trips to detroit, which are really only a few times a month. so, i'm actually completely sober for 25+ days a month. ahahaha. you don't know me at all....
Thursday, May 10, 2018
the word "swagger", as used by our prime minister, is unclear in it's intent.
i'm going to hope he meant to use it in the way i would use the word flair rather than in what is also a 50s greaser film context, as a term to denote male sexual dominance.
because i would actually be uncomfortable with the prime minister telling the country to strut. that would be some rather stupid patriarchal heteronormative macho bullshit, wouldn't it? and, while i don't know what he's feeling, you don't hear him talk like that...ever.
he almost certainly meant flair.
he just may want to work on his vocabulary, a little.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4199109/justin-trudeau-swaggering-world-stage/
i'm going to hope he meant to use it in the way i would use the word flair rather than in what is also a 50s greaser film context, as a term to denote male sexual dominance.
because i would actually be uncomfortable with the prime minister telling the country to strut. that would be some rather stupid patriarchal heteronormative macho bullshit, wouldn't it? and, while i don't know what he's feeling, you don't hear him talk like that...ever.
he almost certainly meant flair.
he just may want to work on his vocabulary, a little.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4199109/justin-trudeau-swaggering-world-stage/
"man up" is an anachronism. it's not something you expect people to say in the twenty-first century, it's something out of a 1950s greaser film - and it upholds outdated concepts of masculinity that are less offensive and more just absurdly outdated.
it's hard to get upset, because it's more comically absurd than offensive. it's like telling a woman to go back to the kitchen - you just laugh, it's ridiculous.
so, this guy is stuck in the twentieth century and doesn't belong on council. clearly.
but, that said, we can't have people hovering over our elected officials and firing them for being douche bags. you just vote this dipshit out.
and if you're feeling cheeky you can tell him to man up to his behaviour.
windsorstar.com/news/local-news/citizen-complains-after-elliott-tells-fellow-councillor-rino-bortolin-to-man-up
it's hard to get upset, because it's more comically absurd than offensive. it's like telling a woman to go back to the kitchen - you just laugh, it's ridiculous.
so, this guy is stuck in the twentieth century and doesn't belong on council. clearly.
but, that said, we can't have people hovering over our elected officials and firing them for being douche bags. you just vote this dipshit out.
and if you're feeling cheeky you can tell him to man up to his behaviour.
windsorstar.com/news/local-news/citizen-complains-after-elliott-tells-fellow-councillor-rino-bortolin-to-man-up
it's not about europe standing up to trump on iran.
what it's about is europe moving in lockstep with china on iran. this is the cost-benefit analysis for europe: do they want to move with china (and russia...) on this, or with america?
i'm not privy to careful accounting numbers. but, it is intuitively obvious that europe is better off following china.
and, what trump is really doing with this is foolishly handing over power to beijing.
that's a couple of times, now, isn't it?
we might even be able to pull out a pattern: trump's decisions often have beijing as the primary benefactor.
what it's about is europe moving in lockstep with china on iran. this is the cost-benefit analysis for europe: do they want to move with china (and russia...) on this, or with america?
i'm not privy to careful accounting numbers. but, it is intuitively obvious that europe is better off following china.
and, what trump is really doing with this is foolishly handing over power to beijing.
that's a couple of times, now, isn't it?
we might even be able to pull out a pattern: trump's decisions often have beijing as the primary benefactor.
i got my blood taken. almost fainted, and i think he left a bruise. whatever.
seems like a boring weekend here. well, relative to my tastes. and, the weather is not conducive to drunken adventures and/or mindless dancing.
i think i'm staying in....
that will give me the chance to try and get through a good chunk of what's left, and get ready for serious house-hunting on...
...wednesday, actually. just 'cause i have the follow-up on tuesday, and it compartmentalizes that way.
could i get done by tuesday?
well, that depends on how much time i'm forced to waste sleeping.
seems like a boring weekend here. well, relative to my tastes. and, the weather is not conducive to drunken adventures and/or mindless dancing.
i think i'm staying in....
that will give me the chance to try and get through a good chunk of what's left, and get ready for serious house-hunting on...
...wednesday, actually. just 'cause i have the follow-up on tuesday, and it compartmentalizes that way.
could i get done by tuesday?
well, that depends on how much time i'm forced to waste sleeping.
maybe i should make something clear.
my schedule is erratic. but, generally speaking, 4:20 am is neither the beginning of the day for me, nor is it the end of it.
it's often just a point in the middle of it.
today, i want to be awake all morning and go to an appointment around noon.
i do not want to be stoned.
i do not want to go to sleep.
at all.
my schedule is erratic. but, generally speaking, 4:20 am is neither the beginning of the day for me, nor is it the end of it.
it's often just a point in the middle of it.
today, i want to be awake all morning and go to an appointment around noon.
i do not want to be stoned.
i do not want to go to sleep.
at all.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
the smoke in here was heavy tonight (and i'm documenting this for the court date.), but the windows are also completely wide open. the wet weather is helping a lot....
i just finished season 3, which is up to february 8th.
time to eat. and fast.
and, hopefully i get another good chunk in afterwards.
i just finished season 3, which is up to february 8th.
time to eat. and fast.
and, hopefully i get another good chunk in afterwards.
today is a good example of how the smoke from downstairs is degrading my quality of life.
i woke up late in the evening, meaning i should have been able to stay awake until the afternoon, at least. but, she started blazing at 7:00, and i was passed out like a rock by 8:00 - and not able to molve again until after 2:00.
i wanted to hit my blood test this morning; i even fasted overnight for it. instead, i wasted the day sleeping.
i wanted to get my estrogen tested, but then i got high.
...even though, i'm of course not actually getting high, i'm just getting a headache and falling asleep.
:(.
i ended up leaving in a dirty rush - uncombed hair, unshaved face. like, just gross looking. but, i forgot my sheet, so i had to go back home.
i guess i'll have to try again tomorrow.
i got up to the end of january done last night and i'm going to try and push through a little further tonight.
i need to start looking for a new apartment on monday at the latest.
i woke up late in the evening, meaning i should have been able to stay awake until the afternoon, at least. but, she started blazing at 7:00, and i was passed out like a rock by 8:00 - and not able to molve again until after 2:00.
i wanted to hit my blood test this morning; i even fasted overnight for it. instead, i wasted the day sleeping.
i wanted to get my estrogen tested, but then i got high.
...even though, i'm of course not actually getting high, i'm just getting a headache and falling asleep.
:(.
i ended up leaving in a dirty rush - uncombed hair, unshaved face. like, just gross looking. but, i forgot my sheet, so i had to go back home.
i guess i'll have to try again tomorrow.
i got up to the end of january done last night and i'm going to try and push through a little further tonight.
i need to start looking for a new apartment on monday at the latest.
no. listen.
wynne's problem is that people aren't quite sure that she's human. they like her policies. they like her record. they don't like her.
if ford hits her the right way, it could be enough to drop the alien gloss, or the superhuman veneer, or whatever it is, and remind people that if you prick kathleen wynne, she bleeds too.
it's just a very delicate process. because she can't let it phase her too much, either.
i frankly don't think wynne saw that coming. but, her instincts might have been enough to produce the best possible outcome.
that said, this is subtle. it's tone-setting. you'll have difficulty producing cause and effect, one way or another.
wynne's problem is that people aren't quite sure that she's human. they like her policies. they like her record. they don't like her.
if ford hits her the right way, it could be enough to drop the alien gloss, or the superhuman veneer, or whatever it is, and remind people that if you prick kathleen wynne, she bleeds too.
it's just a very delicate process. because she can't let it phase her too much, either.
i frankly don't think wynne saw that coming. but, her instincts might have been enough to produce the best possible outcome.
that said, this is subtle. it's tone-setting. you'll have difficulty producing cause and effect, one way or another.
when nazi murderers argued they were 'just following orders', we didn't call them victims and give them empathy - we told them that that's not an excuse, and we executed them.
and, i don't think anything has or should have changed.
if your superiors give you orders that you don't want to follow, you break ranks - you don't just blindly follow, and then claim you're a victim. whether that's about killing jews or having sex doesn't matter.
this is a more important discussion, as it has to with concepts of just and unjust laws, of moral conviction and of individualism and free will. we need to reassert concepts of agency, not pretend as though we're all pliable and malleable buffoons.
i'm never going to buy the argument that you lack responsibility for your actions because somebody above you in some hierarchy told you to do it. that abolishes the individual's agency. it's absolutely foreign to our legal culture; complete bullshit.
....and very right-wing, in broad scope,
and, i don't think anything has or should have changed.
if your superiors give you orders that you don't want to follow, you break ranks - you don't just blindly follow, and then claim you're a victim. whether that's about killing jews or having sex doesn't matter.
this is a more important discussion, as it has to with concepts of just and unjust laws, of moral conviction and of individualism and free will. we need to reassert concepts of agency, not pretend as though we're all pliable and malleable buffoons.
i'm never going to buy the argument that you lack responsibility for your actions because somebody above you in some hierarchy told you to do it. that abolishes the individual's agency. it's absolutely foreign to our legal culture; complete bullshit.
....and very right-wing, in broad scope,
lol.
the gong show continues.
will they have any candidates left by 2019?
remember that singh himself does not currently have a seat.
i didn't understand the accusations against weir. i understand these a little better, but i'm not sure they're grounds for removal, either.
i just find this whole narrative to be remarkably conservative.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-moore-allegations-1.4652994
the gong show continues.
will they have any candidates left by 2019?
remember that singh himself does not currently have a seat.
i didn't understand the accusations against weir. i understand these a little better, but i'm not sure they're grounds for removal, either.
i just find this whole narrative to be remarkably conservative.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-moore-allegations-1.4652994
so, i got a message this afternoon denying my request to move the hearing up. what they said was that changes to the process are going to lead to longer delays, and i was simply scheduled as quickly as i could be.
i've looked into the amending process as well, and the person i talked to on the phone seems to have misunderstood what i requested.
i can't walk into a hearing on july 5th with the possibility of severing the lease on august 1st, and hope it's extended until september or october. that's insane. i could end up homeless. i mean, i should have more faith in the system than that, but i'm not into taking stupid risks.
so, the realistic options i have in front of me are to withdraw & resubmit or to negotiate an exit to the lease, and use the hearing strictly for the purposes of requesting damages.
i don't think that the owners are going to have a problem with me giving them notice.
i've decided that i need to move. there's no way around it. now, the hallways are full of shit again, too; this place is disgusting. no, let me be more clear: this place is full of disgusting people. if i don't get damages, i'm going to need to move, anyways, even if i have to leave some furniture behind. so, i'd might as well just give them 60 days.
i need to get my bloodwork done tomorrow. i was hoping to spend the day working, but i should get a few hours in, at least.
and...i guess i should start looking for august 1st asap.
this sucks. but there's not a better answer.
i've looked into the amending process as well, and the person i talked to on the phone seems to have misunderstood what i requested.
i can't walk into a hearing on july 5th with the possibility of severing the lease on august 1st, and hope it's extended until september or october. that's insane. i could end up homeless. i mean, i should have more faith in the system than that, but i'm not into taking stupid risks.
so, the realistic options i have in front of me are to withdraw & resubmit or to negotiate an exit to the lease, and use the hearing strictly for the purposes of requesting damages.
i don't think that the owners are going to have a problem with me giving them notice.
i've decided that i need to move. there's no way around it. now, the hallways are full of shit again, too; this place is disgusting. no, let me be more clear: this place is full of disgusting people. if i don't get damages, i'm going to need to move, anyways, even if i have to leave some furniture behind. so, i'd might as well just give them 60 days.
i need to get my bloodwork done tomorrow. i was hoping to spend the day working, but i should get a few hours in, at least.
and...i guess i should start looking for august 1st asap.
this sucks. but there's not a better answer.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
the most important thing you need to know right now is that the media in ontario is almost 100% behind the conservatives, at all times.
they will run smear jobs. they will support third party candidates. they will make shit up. they will do everything they possibly can to help the conservatives.
he wasn't their guy, but he's in charge of their party.
i read a lot of international media. and, there is no media in the world that is less biased than the tory media in canada.
you have to go to blogs or "online papers" to get unbiased writing.
they will run smear jobs. they will support third party candidates. they will make shit up. they will do everything they possibly can to help the conservatives.
he wasn't their guy, but he's in charge of their party.
i read a lot of international media. and, there is no media in the world that is less biased than the tory media in canada.
you have to go to blogs or "online papers" to get unbiased writing.
i have been consistent on this point: i have refused to analyse "online polling" in any way whatsoever.
it's unscientific; i just ignore it.
you're not going to get a different reaction from this source. it doesn't matter if we're a day before the election, and all we have is "online polls" - i'll just tell you that there's no data to draw on for strategic voting, so vote with your heart.
the fact is that we saw the same thing in 2014. we got a bunch of "online polls" - funded by tory media sources - that said the conservatives were going to win in a landslide. then, when some reliable polling said otherwise, it was completely ignored.
then, the tory media blames their error on "unreliable polling" - which is what any educated person would have told you about the "online polling" they were citing in the first place.
there were good polls in 2014. there will be good polls in 2018, too. wait for it.
my best guess is that the tory media is inflating ndp support in an attempt to try to split the vote.
it's unscientific; i just ignore it.
you're not going to get a different reaction from this source. it doesn't matter if we're a day before the election, and all we have is "online polls" - i'll just tell you that there's no data to draw on for strategic voting, so vote with your heart.
the fact is that we saw the same thing in 2014. we got a bunch of "online polls" - funded by tory media sources - that said the conservatives were going to win in a landslide. then, when some reliable polling said otherwise, it was completely ignored.
then, the tory media blames their error on "unreliable polling" - which is what any educated person would have told you about the "online polling" they were citing in the first place.
there were good polls in 2014. there will be good polls in 2018, too. wait for it.
my best guess is that the tory media is inflating ndp support in an attempt to try to split the vote.
i used to think that obama's decision to put sanctions on russia was the single biggest error in the history of anerican foreign policy, but that has now been eclipsed by trump pulling out of the nuclear deal.
america is facing absolute international irrelevance as a consequence of this.
and it may never recover it's influence.
america is facing absolute international irrelevance as a consequence of this.
and it may never recover it's influence.
maybe i am feeling a little unusually hungover after all.
i finally crashed about 6:00 this morning, and i've barely been able to move, since. but, i actually think that this has a lot to do with the downstairs tenant's move back to indoor smoking, because i was fine before that happened - and it's whatever that she's smoking that consistently knocks me out like this, rather than anything else.
i didn't do anything today except sleep.
and, i'm still feeling tired & miserable in the familiar way caused by that second-hand smoke. but i'm going to try and get up to eat.
i finally crashed about 6:00 this morning, and i've barely been able to move, since. but, i actually think that this has a lot to do with the downstairs tenant's move back to indoor smoking, because i was fine before that happened - and it's whatever that she's smoking that consistently knocks me out like this, rather than anything else.
i didn't do anything today except sleep.
and, i'm still feeling tired & miserable in the familiar way caused by that second-hand smoke. but i'm going to try and get up to eat.
the nice smile quip.
yes, ford was copying trump, here; the intent was to intimidate her - to throw out macho energy and try and force her into a submissive position. that might seem taboo, and it is and should be amongst the dominant culture, but you have to understand that ontario has a large recent migrant population, and that they are going to view gender relations through a different prism. it's a subtle psychological thing, but that man-oeuvre could help him win the votes of certain types of women.
that said, wynne is a little bit scrappier than clinton. and, by not letting that kind of shit phase her (clinton was frequently obviously upset and badly phased when trump pulled off these kinds of stunts), the result may be that it may backfire a little on ford.
i think maybe the more profound reading is that it's a window into the psychology of the conservative party, which is clearly broadcasting that it feels that an opinionated woman should submit to a dominant male when he walks in the room.
yes, ford was copying trump, here; the intent was to intimidate her - to throw out macho energy and try and force her into a submissive position. that might seem taboo, and it is and should be amongst the dominant culture, but you have to understand that ontario has a large recent migrant population, and that they are going to view gender relations through a different prism. it's a subtle psychological thing, but that man-oeuvre could help him win the votes of certain types of women.
that said, wynne is a little bit scrappier than clinton. and, by not letting that kind of shit phase her (clinton was frequently obviously upset and badly phased when trump pulled off these kinds of stunts), the result may be that it may backfire a little on ford.
i think maybe the more profound reading is that it's a window into the psychology of the conservative party, which is clearly broadcasting that it feels that an opinionated woman should submit to a dominant male when he walks in the room.
it has to be unusually high cbd, and almost no thc, because it really does just give you a headache and make you want to sleep for a week.
she'd might as well just be taking valium...
and, i'm left to wonder: did she ever smoke recreationally? does she know what marijuana is supposed to feel like, or did she just get diagnosed by some quack and pushed something that is powerful enough that some people think it might help with heroin addiction?
the kind of pot i'm used to smoking here and there is not going to help anybody with heroin addiction. i think i want to avoid anything that's been engineered to be that powerful, that's for sure.
she'd might as well just be taking valium...
and, i'm left to wonder: did she ever smoke recreationally? does she know what marijuana is supposed to feel like, or did she just get diagnosed by some quack and pushed something that is powerful enough that some people think it might help with heroin addiction?
the kind of pot i'm used to smoking here and there is not going to help anybody with heroin addiction. i think i want to avoid anything that's been engineered to be that powerful, that's for sure.
Monday, May 7, 2018
she's been blazing hard since she got into that fight downstairs, and i just have to repeat what i've said before: the pot she's smoking doesn't get you high, it just makes you overwhelmingly tired. it's like getting hit with a tranquillizer. why does she even enjoy this?
on saturday night, i drank two shots of jager before i left, took a shot of vodka at the bus stop (don't ask.), drank half a rockstar vodka on the way to hamtramck, had four beers at the bar, finished the rock star vodka, nearly chugged a tall boy and then got through three cranberry somethings of questionable integrity before i blacked out, all without falling asleep. in between, i found some random hits of pot.
but, the second hand smoke from the "medical" marijuana user downstairs is frequently enough to physically knock me out.
it's nasty stuff, whatever it is.
don't expect to have any fun smoking this buzzkill prozac shit...
on saturday night, i drank two shots of jager before i left, took a shot of vodka at the bus stop (don't ask.), drank half a rockstar vodka on the way to hamtramck, had four beers at the bar, finished the rock star vodka, nearly chugged a tall boy and then got through three cranberry somethings of questionable integrity before i blacked out, all without falling asleep. in between, i found some random hits of pot.
but, the second hand smoke from the "medical" marijuana user downstairs is frequently enough to physically knock me out.
it's nasty stuff, whatever it is.
don't expect to have any fun smoking this buzzkill prozac shit...
surreal.
but, we've known this for a while: humans actually don't act much like the homo economicus model at all, except for economists. this appears to be why classical economics doesn't make any sense. it's been a little unclear if studying economics turns people into sociopaths, or if sociopaths are attracted to studying economics. i would have thought the former was obvious; maybe it's the latter.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/4/26/econ-grads-peer-support-network/
but, we've known this for a while: humans actually don't act much like the homo economicus model at all, except for economists. this appears to be why classical economics doesn't make any sense. it's been a little unclear if studying economics turns people into sociopaths, or if sociopaths are attracted to studying economics. i would have thought the former was obvious; maybe it's the latter.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/4/26/econ-grads-peer-support-network/
what?
haven't you ever seen if they mated?
would you have preferred an in the year 2000 joke, instead?
"in the year 2000, homer simpson will be genetically engineered to appear in human form, and then that human form will be spliced with an orangutan, to produce two offspring named after an automobile company, and both will run for office in canada."
haven't you ever seen if they mated?
would you have preferred an in the year 2000 joke, instead?
"in the year 2000, homer simpson will be genetically engineered to appear in human form, and then that human form will be spliced with an orangutan, to produce two offspring named after an automobile company, and both will run for office in canada."
how's the smoke situation?
for a few days, it seemed like the "medical" user below me & the tobacco smokestack outside my window had become hard and fast friends, sitting outside and smoking together and bonding over their shared love of constant inebriation. that made it impossible to open the window, but seemed to keep the smoke outside of the unit, reducing the environmental problem solely to the a/c.
but, this relationship does not appear to have lasted; their dogs appear to have ended up fighting, and the 'medical' user is now back inside.
worse, she may now have anxiety about smoking outside because she's afraid of the neighbour.
*shrug*.
again: it's probably better that this happened sooner. i was worried that i might withdraw, only to have the situation immediately reverse.
but, i shouldn't be surprised that they couldn't stay friends for more than a few days, should i?
i got my rescheduling request in this morning. i'll call tomorrow to request a response.
for a few days, it seemed like the "medical" user below me & the tobacco smokestack outside my window had become hard and fast friends, sitting outside and smoking together and bonding over their shared love of constant inebriation. that made it impossible to open the window, but seemed to keep the smoke outside of the unit, reducing the environmental problem solely to the a/c.
but, this relationship does not appear to have lasted; their dogs appear to have ended up fighting, and the 'medical' user is now back inside.
worse, she may now have anxiety about smoking outside because she's afraid of the neighbour.
*shrug*.
again: it's probably better that this happened sooner. i was worried that i might withdraw, only to have the situation immediately reverse.
but, i shouldn't be surprised that they couldn't stay friends for more than a few days, should i?
i got my rescheduling request in this morning. i'll call tomorrow to request a response.
you can pick the one you like better.
either ford is way ahead and it's a coin toss for second, or ford is in minority territory and it's a coin toss for challenger, or the liberals are collapsing at the seams.
the one you pick will depend on your biases. post-modernism is fun, right?
but the reality is that none of them mean anything. by luck, you'll find one that's right, in the end - in contradiction to the thirty that are completely wrong.
which one do you like better?
vote at citytv.ca.
either ford is way ahead and it's a coin toss for second, or ford is in minority territory and it's a coin toss for challenger, or the liberals are collapsing at the seams.
the one you pick will depend on your biases. post-modernism is fun, right?
but the reality is that none of them mean anything. by luck, you'll find one that's right, in the end - in contradiction to the thirty that are completely wrong.
which one do you like better?
vote at citytv.ca.
the tory media will of course spin it the way the tory media will.
but, doug ford predictably came off as the retarded offspring of homer simpson and an orangutan. i can't believe that anybody would vote for such an obvious dumbass.
wynne actually had the opportunity to point to her record, which is what i think she should be doing. they tried to throw hard questions at her, and she just had to keep saying "actually, we're working on that - so bring us back to see it through.". which is the right argument.
horwath was often talked over and ignored, and this is the status quo in canada - the liberals constantly want to frame every election as a two-party race, so the ndp are constantly finding ways to get into the conversation. the problem is that it often works.
i don't think anything changed as a consequence of this, although you might see ford fall a point or two. in fact, i think this is a general truth: the more often that you see doug ford on tv, the weaker his numbers will be.
but, doug ford predictably came off as the retarded offspring of homer simpson and an orangutan. i can't believe that anybody would vote for such an obvious dumbass.
wynne actually had the opportunity to point to her record, which is what i think she should be doing. they tried to throw hard questions at her, and she just had to keep saying "actually, we're working on that - so bring us back to see it through.". which is the right argument.
horwath was often talked over and ignored, and this is the status quo in canada - the liberals constantly want to frame every election as a two-party race, so the ndp are constantly finding ways to get into the conversation. the problem is that it often works.
i don't think anything changed as a consequence of this, although you might see ford fall a point or two. in fact, i think this is a general truth: the more often that you see doug ford on tv, the weaker his numbers will be.
Pollara Strategic
Insights conducted a 10-minute online survey of 1,010 Ontarians who
self-identified as eligible to vote in Ontario Elections from May 3 to
4, 2018. Because the sample is based on those who initially
self-selected for participation in the panel rather than a probability
sample, no estimates of sampling error can be calculated. All sample
surveys and polls may be subject to multiple sources of error,
including, but not limited to sampling error, coverage error, and
measurement error. A probability sample of equivalent size would have a
margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 per cent.
ok.
i have checked my vlog camera.
you have to understand that i don't remember any of this.
but, i checked in at about 4:30 when i got back to my bicycle, and pointed out that the situation was cool - that i was picked up at small's, brought to the gay bar, and brought back to my bicycle. and, i pointed out that this was a pretty cool turn of events. occam's razor appears to have been correct. i also point out that i'm drunk and i know it.
like i say - i didn't feel i'd been drugged, but it's hard to lose that lingering suspicion, when all you know is that you blacked out.
i checked in again around 5:00 to point out that i'm too drunk to keep drinking, so i should go to the diner.
i'm very well aware of my condition.
and i got to the diner around 6:30 - without a sweater on.
i think i was right the first time; i think that sweater was put on me at the diner.
so, there is no mystery of the sweater.
and i have no lingering doubt that i was treated well; i just drank too much last night
i have checked my vlog camera.
you have to understand that i don't remember any of this.
but, i checked in at about 4:30 when i got back to my bicycle, and pointed out that the situation was cool - that i was picked up at small's, brought to the gay bar, and brought back to my bicycle. and, i pointed out that this was a pretty cool turn of events. occam's razor appears to have been correct. i also point out that i'm drunk and i know it.
like i say - i didn't feel i'd been drugged, but it's hard to lose that lingering suspicion, when all you know is that you blacked out.
i checked in again around 5:00 to point out that i'm too drunk to keep drinking, so i should go to the diner.
i'm very well aware of my condition.
and i got to the diner around 6:30 - without a sweater on.
i think i was right the first time; i think that sweater was put on me at the diner.
so, there is no mystery of the sweater.
and i have no lingering doubt that i was treated well; i just drank too much last night
maybe i should clarify the story a little, so i'm not accidentally defaming anybody.
i don't know if i was drugged; last night, occam's razor is probably that i wasn't. if i was, i don't know who did it or why. there's no sign of assault or theft at all. it's just...when you black out, it's prudent to explore all possible explanations. so, i don't think the evidence of being drugged is very strong (unlike that other night a few years ago, where i passed right out and i have video evidence of clear aphasia...), but i can't rule it out, either.
i went out last night to see the telescopes, a band i didn't know much about, but had heard name-dropped repeatedly many times. it was an enjoyable set; a little less aggressive than i thought, but that had something to do with the composition of the band. i finished my drink in the back and had another, then left around 1:00. i was 100% ok when i left the outer limits, and was actually initially planning on going to marble, and then maybe to an ad-hoc after hours that i'd been to a few times. i didn't have a solid plan.
instead, i stopped at small's because i was there (it's a block from outer limits), i probably wasn't going to catch last call at marble and i'd heard of it from my casual time spent at city club. i was late to outer limits, so i didn't finish my pre-drink before i went into the bar; i drank this with some smokers outside, near small's. i caught last call, drank a large beer, and was out of the bar a little after 2:00 - still 100% fine.
i stood outside for a little bit, having a few more smokes. it was late, and i had several hours to blow. so, i was going to try a few things.
but, somebody outside the bar that looked kind of like the foofighters' drummer intercepted me, instead. now, i initially thought that i had spoken to this person outside the city club previously (and that he had followed me around a few times); my perception of this person that i remembered from previous encounters was that he was not threatening. naively interested in me, perhaps, but not threatening. however, after looking more closely at facebook pictures, i'm thinking that i may have misidentified him. i don't think this was the guy i thought he was, meaning i actually got into a car with a stranger - which i never do.
i'm terrible with faces. it's a condition. really.
he offered to get me to a gay club down the street and i decided to take him up on this, seeming as it wasn't clear what else i was going to do. i guess i figured i'd leave if it sucked.
i let him pay cover, but i bought my own drink. i remember dancing in the corner, and buying another drink; i initially thought there was two more, but there was only one more. and, it's blurry from there, until the staff at the diner told me i was falling asleep and had to go - around 10:00.
the term 'gay bar' is pretty vague, but this was a man's bar - a place where men go to meet men. and, the truth is that i know that i'm broadly not welcome in these kinds of places. women at gay bars is a weird thing, and always attaches itself to an amount of underlying tension. i've picked this up repeatedly over many years: some of them shrug it off out of a feeling of inclusion, but you can tell that so many of them are feeling like their sanctuary is being invaded. as gay bars run the spectrum, the depth of these feelings do as well. had i known i'd be walking into a bear's den, the most hostile of gay bars to a transwoman, i'd have avoided it.
what i'm getting at is that it's not just true that the patrons at the bar would have been largely sexually disinterested in me, because they were mostly all rough macho gay men, but they would have probably preferred that i hadn't shown up there at all. and, i'm ok with that, actually; there's a reason i avoid explicitly homosexual spaces. if i was drugged with intent, it is unlikely to have been by a regular at this bar.
i'm actually wondering if they told me to put a sweater on because they didn't want to look at my tits. i'm just having a hard time piecing that together because i don't expect to have been outside for much of any length of time...
i don't know if i was drugged; last night, occam's razor is probably that i wasn't. if i was, i don't know who did it or why. there's no sign of assault or theft at all. it's just...when you black out, it's prudent to explore all possible explanations. so, i don't think the evidence of being drugged is very strong (unlike that other night a few years ago, where i passed right out and i have video evidence of clear aphasia...), but i can't rule it out, either.
i went out last night to see the telescopes, a band i didn't know much about, but had heard name-dropped repeatedly many times. it was an enjoyable set; a little less aggressive than i thought, but that had something to do with the composition of the band. i finished my drink in the back and had another, then left around 1:00. i was 100% ok when i left the outer limits, and was actually initially planning on going to marble, and then maybe to an ad-hoc after hours that i'd been to a few times. i didn't have a solid plan.
instead, i stopped at small's because i was there (it's a block from outer limits), i probably wasn't going to catch last call at marble and i'd heard of it from my casual time spent at city club. i was late to outer limits, so i didn't finish my pre-drink before i went into the bar; i drank this with some smokers outside, near small's. i caught last call, drank a large beer, and was out of the bar a little after 2:00 - still 100% fine.
i stood outside for a little bit, having a few more smokes. it was late, and i had several hours to blow. so, i was going to try a few things.
but, somebody outside the bar that looked kind of like the foofighters' drummer intercepted me, instead. now, i initially thought that i had spoken to this person outside the city club previously (and that he had followed me around a few times); my perception of this person that i remembered from previous encounters was that he was not threatening. naively interested in me, perhaps, but not threatening. however, after looking more closely at facebook pictures, i'm thinking that i may have misidentified him. i don't think this was the guy i thought he was, meaning i actually got into a car with a stranger - which i never do.
i'm terrible with faces. it's a condition. really.
he offered to get me to a gay club down the street and i decided to take him up on this, seeming as it wasn't clear what else i was going to do. i guess i figured i'd leave if it sucked.
i let him pay cover, but i bought my own drink. i remember dancing in the corner, and buying another drink; i initially thought there was two more, but there was only one more. and, it's blurry from there, until the staff at the diner told me i was falling asleep and had to go - around 10:00.
the term 'gay bar' is pretty vague, but this was a man's bar - a place where men go to meet men. and, the truth is that i know that i'm broadly not welcome in these kinds of places. women at gay bars is a weird thing, and always attaches itself to an amount of underlying tension. i've picked this up repeatedly over many years: some of them shrug it off out of a feeling of inclusion, but you can tell that so many of them are feeling like their sanctuary is being invaded. as gay bars run the spectrum, the depth of these feelings do as well. had i known i'd be walking into a bear's den, the most hostile of gay bars to a transwoman, i'd have avoided it.
what i'm getting at is that it's not just true that the patrons at the bar would have been largely sexually disinterested in me, because they were mostly all rough macho gay men, but they would have probably preferred that i hadn't shown up there at all. and, i'm ok with that, actually; there's a reason i avoid explicitly homosexual spaces. if i was drugged with intent, it is unlikely to have been by a regular at this bar.
i'm actually wondering if they told me to put a sweater on because they didn't want to look at my tits. i'm just having a hard time piecing that together because i don't expect to have been outside for much of any length of time...
is it possible that i did get drugged, and the guy just missed his chance?
i don't feel unusually hungover, although it's worth noting that i've barely slept since i got back - three hours this afternoon and three more tonight. but, there is really no sign of anything. with the exception of a little bit of ass sweat that i recognize as dance-induced, my clothes are really in pristine condition.
if i had sex last night, it appears to have been fully consensual. i don't think i actually did. but, a missed opportunity doesn't prove it didn't happen, right?
this is kind of why i want to know who gave me the sweater. was it the same guy that drove me to the bar? was i being babysat or was i being groomed?
in hindsight, i do remember somebody saying something [it's blurry] about mdma in the drinks; it's blurry, but it's solid - there's a difference between trying to figure out the accuracy of a memory bicycling alone and remembering something that was said. this was said. although, frustratingly, it's blurry who said it.
if somebody dropped "mdma" in my drink, it was probably actually some mixture of cocaine and meth, and not actual mdma. and, if anything, it might have helped keep me awake.
*shrug*.
i'm ok. that's what's important.
https://www.thecut.com/2014/10/what-you-might-not-know-about-getting-roofied.html
i don't feel unusually hungover, although it's worth noting that i've barely slept since i got back - three hours this afternoon and three more tonight. but, there is really no sign of anything. with the exception of a little bit of ass sweat that i recognize as dance-induced, my clothes are really in pristine condition.
if i had sex last night, it appears to have been fully consensual. i don't think i actually did. but, a missed opportunity doesn't prove it didn't happen, right?
this is kind of why i want to know who gave me the sweater. was it the same guy that drove me to the bar? was i being babysat or was i being groomed?
in hindsight, i do remember somebody saying something [it's blurry] about mdma in the drinks; it's blurry, but it's solid - there's a difference between trying to figure out the accuracy of a memory bicycling alone and remembering something that was said. this was said. although, frustratingly, it's blurry who said it.
if somebody dropped "mdma" in my drink, it was probably actually some mixture of cocaine and meth, and not actual mdma. and, if anything, it might have helped keep me awake.
*shrug*.
i'm ok. that's what's important.
https://www.thecut.com/2014/10/what-you-might-not-know-about-getting-roofied.html
i hadn't really looked into this before.
i guess it's what you'd have to expect, really: alcohol damages your ability to take information out of ram and store it to your drive. so, you lose the session. and you eventually crash.
it's a reminder that memories aren't mysterious, metaphysical abstractions, but energy stored in chemical bonds. and that we are machines...we really are...
https://www.livescience.com/14952-alcohol-blackouts.html
i guess it's what you'd have to expect, really: alcohol damages your ability to take information out of ram and store it to your drive. so, you lose the session. and you eventually crash.
it's a reminder that memories aren't mysterious, metaphysical abstractions, but energy stored in chemical bonds. and that we are machines...we really are...
https://www.livescience.com/14952-alcohol-blackouts.html
Sunday, May 6, 2018
ford can say what he wants, but the reality is that the members of the party did actually just vote for her. and, the self-defeating attitude towards muslims (most of whom are conservatives.) aside, she's a far better representative of the future of conservatism in canada than he is.
the conservatives will say something about her being a distraction. that is tactically wrong: she's what the party needs to rev up it's base.
i might rather suggest that ford, or his handlers, were more concerned about the likelihood of her trying to remove ford essentially immediately. she's got palace intrigue written all over her.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4189784/tanya-granic-allen-doug-ford-ontario-pc/
the conservatives will say something about her being a distraction. that is tactically wrong: she's what the party needs to rev up it's base.
i might rather suggest that ford, or his handlers, were more concerned about the likelihood of her trying to remove ford essentially immediately. she's got palace intrigue written all over her.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4189784/tanya-granic-allen-doug-ford-ontario-pc/
i'll say something about detroit, though.
for such a large city, the various scenes are very small. maybe it's a reflection on the broader demographics; there's millions of people here, but it's the same few dozen people at all the psych concerts, the same few dozen people at all the goth clubs, the same few dozen people in the techno scene...
i listen to lots of types of music, so i get around. lots of very diverse people are going to recognize me. and the city seems a lot smaller than it is.
even in ottawa, a much smaller city, i'd go out to the same couple of bars all of the time and meet all kinds of different people; in detroit you can go to five different bars on five different nights and get the same group of people collectively bar-hopping for the bands.
and, i guess that's why so many places seem so empty when you don't go to the right party. if all the psych kids are at bar x, bar y could literally be empty - because there doesn't seem to be enough concert goers or general bar patrons to accommodate them both.
it's not too many bars. it's really not. not for the population, here.
it's just kind of a sleepy town in a lot of ways.
for such a large city, the various scenes are very small. maybe it's a reflection on the broader demographics; there's millions of people here, but it's the same few dozen people at all the psych concerts, the same few dozen people at all the goth clubs, the same few dozen people in the techno scene...
i listen to lots of types of music, so i get around. lots of very diverse people are going to recognize me. and the city seems a lot smaller than it is.
even in ottawa, a much smaller city, i'd go out to the same couple of bars all of the time and meet all kinds of different people; in detroit you can go to five different bars on five different nights and get the same group of people collectively bar-hopping for the bands.
and, i guess that's why so many places seem so empty when you don't go to the right party. if all the psych kids are at bar x, bar y could literally be empty - because there doesn't seem to be enough concert goers or general bar patrons to accommodate them both.
it's not too many bars. it's really not. not for the population, here.
it's just kind of a sleepy town in a lot of ways.
i think i remember unlocking my bike, driving past small's (which is where i left my bike to go to the after hours place) & driving past ant hall.
i may have walked the bike at points.
it's blurry.
like i say: the only other possibility is that somebody put the bike in the back of a truck, and i don't remember that at all.
i don't know who drove me back to the bicycle, but i guess that was the person that owned the sweater.
i may have walked the bike at points.
it's blurry.
like i say: the only other possibility is that somebody put the bike in the back of a truck, and i don't remember that at all.
i don't know who drove me back to the bicycle, but i guess that was the person that owned the sweater.
so, was i drunk last night?
yes.
i'll own that.
see, and you have to get this: i'm very honest. i'm admitting i was drunk last night, because i was; i'm not admitting to it on other nights, because i wasn't.
i didn't intend to go where i went, i kind of got redirected, perhaps even "picked up", and i ended up drinking something much stronger than i normally would. i normally drink beer all night, and especially after 2:00; i know i can't handle hard alcohol after hours, so the outcome was actually predictable. why would i drink it, then? because it's what was there, and i wasn't feeling drunk when i started. and it tasted good. it snuck up on me, kind of thing. but, as mentioned, a more sober analysis would have understood the idea as a bad one from the start.
i don't have any reason to think i passed out and it implicitly almost seems impossible through a little deductive reasoning around my bicycle; i think this was a classic black out, not a drunken collapse. so, i don't think i was drugged. i may have even been babysat. i'm not missing cash or items. and, i do have some blurry recollection of the night: walking past slot machines, watching somebody play pool, talking to a bouncer...
it gets blurry around 3:30. but, it's a lengthy bike ride from hamtramck to midtown, and the staff told me i came in after 6:00, so it makes sense to think i was at the bar until around 5:00, hopped a lift back to where my bicycle was and then biked to the diner. in trying to remember the bike ride, i'm producing unreliable memories: i think i remember certain things, but i might be filling in holes through projection, and imagining the memories instead. like i say, it's blurry but i think i was conscious the whole night. but i remember ordering at the diner, and i remember trying to stay awake while eating it.
my bicycle was locked outside the diner, so i must have driven it there. i guess the other possibility is that somebody drove it there.
the staff said i came in by myself, but there was a bag beside me that didn't belong to me and i was wearing a sweater that wasn't mine, either. the thing is that i had a sweater locked up at my bike, so i must have been given the sweater at the bar. i think it was warm in there, though. so, this is a part of the night that i'd maybe like to understand better: why was i wearing somebody else's sweater?
the only other anomaly was that my makeup was a little more worn than normal, suggesting i either sweat a lot somewhere or maybe washed it off.
i don't have any stains on my shirt or on my clothes, so i'm confident i didn't spill anything. that might have been a reason for a sweater, but no. that's actually unusual; on a normal night out, i inevitably spill something on me. however, i may have dipped my hair in a drink, as there's a little bit of stickiness at the tip of it.
no bruises, cuts or lacerations.
no visible signs of entry, if you get what i'm saying.
so, it may not have even been obvious that i was that drunk. how's that for ironic.
yes.
i'll own that.
see, and you have to get this: i'm very honest. i'm admitting i was drunk last night, because i was; i'm not admitting to it on other nights, because i wasn't.
i didn't intend to go where i went, i kind of got redirected, perhaps even "picked up", and i ended up drinking something much stronger than i normally would. i normally drink beer all night, and especially after 2:00; i know i can't handle hard alcohol after hours, so the outcome was actually predictable. why would i drink it, then? because it's what was there, and i wasn't feeling drunk when i started. and it tasted good. it snuck up on me, kind of thing. but, as mentioned, a more sober analysis would have understood the idea as a bad one from the start.
i don't have any reason to think i passed out and it implicitly almost seems impossible through a little deductive reasoning around my bicycle; i think this was a classic black out, not a drunken collapse. so, i don't think i was drugged. i may have even been babysat. i'm not missing cash or items. and, i do have some blurry recollection of the night: walking past slot machines, watching somebody play pool, talking to a bouncer...
it gets blurry around 3:30. but, it's a lengthy bike ride from hamtramck to midtown, and the staff told me i came in after 6:00, so it makes sense to think i was at the bar until around 5:00, hopped a lift back to where my bicycle was and then biked to the diner. in trying to remember the bike ride, i'm producing unreliable memories: i think i remember certain things, but i might be filling in holes through projection, and imagining the memories instead. like i say, it's blurry but i think i was conscious the whole night. but i remember ordering at the diner, and i remember trying to stay awake while eating it.
my bicycle was locked outside the diner, so i must have driven it there. i guess the other possibility is that somebody drove it there.
the staff said i came in by myself, but there was a bag beside me that didn't belong to me and i was wearing a sweater that wasn't mine, either. the thing is that i had a sweater locked up at my bike, so i must have been given the sweater at the bar. i think it was warm in there, though. so, this is a part of the night that i'd maybe like to understand better: why was i wearing somebody else's sweater?
the only other anomaly was that my makeup was a little more worn than normal, suggesting i either sweat a lot somewhere or maybe washed it off.
i don't have any stains on my shirt or on my clothes, so i'm confident i didn't spill anything. that might have been a reason for a sweater, but no. that's actually unusual; on a normal night out, i inevitably spill something on me. however, i may have dipped my hair in a drink, as there's a little bit of stickiness at the tip of it.
no bruises, cuts or lacerations.
no visible signs of entry, if you get what i'm saying.
so, it may not have even been obvious that i was that drunk. how's that for ironic.
but, this discussion is built on a false narrative. we start off by supposing that hillary clinton took the high road, and cite obama as evidence (?), then argue that she lost because she wasn't nasty enough.
but, this is ridiculous. in fact, clinton made every attempt that she possibly could to avoid talking about anything of substance, instead focusing almost entirely on trump's personality. one of the first things she did was attack her own potential voting base, calling them 'deplorables', and this set the tone for her own campaign, which was based on trying to find a smear against her opponent that would stick (and getting frustrated when it failed). and, she was just as nasty with bernie, too. and obama.
the miniscule bit of policy she produced was largely ignored because you couldn't believe a word out of her mouth, anyways.
further, many observers have tied these things together and suggested that her total vacuum of actual policy is what had her lose states like michigan, where trump's views on nafta managed to peel off votes by providing a substantive alternative.
i'm not sure if it was decisive, but it no doubt contributed to the loss. and, so, the proper lesson to learn from the last american election is not that clinton lost because she took the high road, but that she lost because she didn't.
i think that so long as wynne says things that are actually true, accusations of 'negative campaigning' are likely to ring hollow. it's not the tone that turns people off, it's the dishonesty you see in a lot of attacks. so, these discussions should really be about dishonesty, rather than tone.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/rhetoric-of-the-ontario-election-go-high/
but, this is ridiculous. in fact, clinton made every attempt that she possibly could to avoid talking about anything of substance, instead focusing almost entirely on trump's personality. one of the first things she did was attack her own potential voting base, calling them 'deplorables', and this set the tone for her own campaign, which was based on trying to find a smear against her opponent that would stick (and getting frustrated when it failed). and, she was just as nasty with bernie, too. and obama.
the miniscule bit of policy she produced was largely ignored because you couldn't believe a word out of her mouth, anyways.
further, many observers have tied these things together and suggested that her total vacuum of actual policy is what had her lose states like michigan, where trump's views on nafta managed to peel off votes by providing a substantive alternative.
i'm not sure if it was decisive, but it no doubt contributed to the loss. and, so, the proper lesson to learn from the last american election is not that clinton lost because she took the high road, but that she lost because she didn't.
i think that so long as wynne says things that are actually true, accusations of 'negative campaigning' are likely to ring hollow. it's not the tone that turns people off, it's the dishonesty you see in a lot of attacks. so, these discussions should really be about dishonesty, rather than tone.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/rhetoric-of-the-ontario-election-go-high/
i'm wrong all the time.
but, not when it comes to the greeks.
as an anarchist, a mathematician, a musician and a pseudo-philosopher, the greeks are a little special to me.
of the modes & the pre-socratics, behold: the ionians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia
but, not when it comes to the greeks.
as an anarchist, a mathematician, a musician and a pseudo-philosopher, the greeks are a little special to me.
of the modes & the pre-socratics, behold: the ionians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia
Saturday, May 5, 2018
so,
1) i don't believe in charity. that is, i don't believe that the right approach to addressing poverty is to hand out funds on the street, nor to throw change at people or to force them to go into a religious establishment. this is degrading, all around; it reinforces a class structure. what i do in canada when i run into pushy poor people on the street is that i initiate a conversation about the ontario disability support program. i apologize if it harms your conception of human nature, but this generally produces the honest response that they don't give to most people: paying rent means less money for drugs. they'll get higher on the street. if what they were saying was actually true, they'd do what i've done: get a diagnosis from a doctor and a check from the government every month. i understand that even getting access to a doctor is difficult in michigan, but it doesn't change my moral beliefs around the subject, which are that everybody is entitled to an amount of resources that ensures they don't have to beg on the street.
2) even if i did believe in charity, i have to reinforce the fact that i'm a recipient of it, not a producer of it. it doesn't make sense to ask people on welfare or disability to give their money to homeless people. and, i apologize if you're confused about my financial situation, but that's not my fault, either.
3) i don't enjoy pamphleteering, and i'm not really good with people face-to-face. but, if i can be of any service in arguing for an expansion of social services in detroit or in michigan through the process of essay writing or message board rhetoric, i'm willing to take requests. if i haven't just done that.
1) i don't believe in charity. that is, i don't believe that the right approach to addressing poverty is to hand out funds on the street, nor to throw change at people or to force them to go into a religious establishment. this is degrading, all around; it reinforces a class structure. what i do in canada when i run into pushy poor people on the street is that i initiate a conversation about the ontario disability support program. i apologize if it harms your conception of human nature, but this generally produces the honest response that they don't give to most people: paying rent means less money for drugs. they'll get higher on the street. if what they were saying was actually true, they'd do what i've done: get a diagnosis from a doctor and a check from the government every month. i understand that even getting access to a doctor is difficult in michigan, but it doesn't change my moral beliefs around the subject, which are that everybody is entitled to an amount of resources that ensures they don't have to beg on the street.
2) even if i did believe in charity, i have to reinforce the fact that i'm a recipient of it, not a producer of it. it doesn't make sense to ask people on welfare or disability to give their money to homeless people. and, i apologize if you're confused about my financial situation, but that's not my fault, either.
3) i don't enjoy pamphleteering, and i'm not really good with people face-to-face. but, if i can be of any service in arguing for an expansion of social services in detroit or in michigan through the process of essay writing or message board rhetoric, i'm willing to take requests. if i haven't just done that.
so, a woman in detroit approaches me and asks me for money. an old story.
i'm not going to quantify the likeliness of any specific human misery occurring under the decline of capitalism in detroit, as i'm sure any horrible story you can imagine has a reality to it somewhere, any horror you can imagine has no doubt been experienced, but this particularly story struck me as embellished, to say the least.
i had enough money to get into an after hours somewhere (although the one i found didn't appear to be letting people in - there seemed to be people coming out, but not in, meaning it probably wasn't an after hours) and get something to eat. and, i can't risk getting stranded in a foreign country without any change. i can't access a bank machine in detroit. i don't have a credit card. if my bicycle were to break, for example, i might need to call a cab.
the bicycle. which i paid $30 usd for to leave locked up in detroit, and is now rusted over relatively badly; the fact that i owned this bike seemed to be some kind of argument that i should give her a proportion of the $30 i had in my pocket until i could get home.
i'm not insensitive to the situation. i understand that detroit has high poverty rates, and i don't think people should live in poverty. but, america cannot be looking to canadians on disability to reverse it's poverty rates, regardless of false perceptions around the cost of the bicycle they're driving.
i've run into this before, and i don't fully understand it. i don't project myself as an affluent person. so, why am i so often misinterpreted as one?
i understand that these con artists work people like this, but i was actually kind of taken aback by it, because while i don't have a sob story, i am not much better off than her in gross financial terms.
detroit has a problem with it's taxation system, and it's creating a lot of unnecessary hardship. but, if i am of any use in reversing this, it's in helping organize a resistance and counter movement, not in sending it money that i don't have.
and, on a moral level i don't think this responsibility falls to individual citizens, either, i think it is something that should be socialized and ultimately dealt with through the redirection of resources. the process of begging should never happen, because the society should be designed to ensure people have access to resources. i reject the idea of charity; i'm an anarchist, this is quite normal. and, any disdain about the situation needs to be directed to the economic system that allows such a situation to happen.
i am lucky to be born here. but, i'm not lucky enough to be able to start handing out cash to strangers.
sorry.
i'm not going to quantify the likeliness of any specific human misery occurring under the decline of capitalism in detroit, as i'm sure any horrible story you can imagine has a reality to it somewhere, any horror you can imagine has no doubt been experienced, but this particularly story struck me as embellished, to say the least.
i had enough money to get into an after hours somewhere (although the one i found didn't appear to be letting people in - there seemed to be people coming out, but not in, meaning it probably wasn't an after hours) and get something to eat. and, i can't risk getting stranded in a foreign country without any change. i can't access a bank machine in detroit. i don't have a credit card. if my bicycle were to break, for example, i might need to call a cab.
the bicycle. which i paid $30 usd for to leave locked up in detroit, and is now rusted over relatively badly; the fact that i owned this bike seemed to be some kind of argument that i should give her a proportion of the $30 i had in my pocket until i could get home.
i'm not insensitive to the situation. i understand that detroit has high poverty rates, and i don't think people should live in poverty. but, america cannot be looking to canadians on disability to reverse it's poverty rates, regardless of false perceptions around the cost of the bicycle they're driving.
i've run into this before, and i don't fully understand it. i don't project myself as an affluent person. so, why am i so often misinterpreted as one?
i understand that these con artists work people like this, but i was actually kind of taken aback by it, because while i don't have a sob story, i am not much better off than her in gross financial terms.
detroit has a problem with it's taxation system, and it's creating a lot of unnecessary hardship. but, if i am of any use in reversing this, it's in helping organize a resistance and counter movement, not in sending it money that i don't have.
and, on a moral level i don't think this responsibility falls to individual citizens, either, i think it is something that should be socialized and ultimately dealt with through the redirection of resources. the process of begging should never happen, because the society should be designed to ensure people have access to resources. i reject the idea of charity; i'm an anarchist, this is quite normal. and, any disdain about the situation needs to be directed to the economic system that allows such a situation to happen.
i am lucky to be born here. but, i'm not lucky enough to be able to start handing out cash to strangers.
sorry.
Friday, May 4, 2018
on the flip side of it, there's always going to be some chance this woman could have a heart attack or move out or get hit by a train or something over the next couple of months.
i guess the later court date makes the potential of working with management more plausible.
but, i really don't want to stay here any more, either. everybody on this street is a drunk and an addict. i want to get into a more stable atmosphere that's more conducive of healthy living.
i don't fit in here...
i guess the later court date makes the potential of working with management more plausible.
but, i really don't want to stay here any more, either. everybody on this street is a drunk and an addict. i want to get into a more stable atmosphere that's more conducive of healthy living.
i don't fit in here...
my hearing is on july 5th, which is a major problem.
i mailed the forms on april 20th, expecting a hearing date some time at the end of may. that would give me a ruling in june, allow me to give last month's rent for july and move at the beginning of august.
i picked this timeline because the rental market is generally better for low-rent tenants in the summer. i'm competing with students.
if i cannot get the hearing until july, i am going to want to apply last month's rent to september and move on october 1st - the worst time of the year for moving.
and, i will no doubt end up in the same mess.
also, i really wanted to be out of this place before a recreational legalization date is set, as i don't want to be around these people past that date.
ugh.
i'm going to have to call them and see if i can get it moved up...
i mailed the forms on april 20th, expecting a hearing date some time at the end of may. that would give me a ruling in june, allow me to give last month's rent for july and move at the beginning of august.
i picked this timeline because the rental market is generally better for low-rent tenants in the summer. i'm competing with students.
if i cannot get the hearing until july, i am going to want to apply last month's rent to september and move on october 1st - the worst time of the year for moving.
and, i will no doubt end up in the same mess.
also, i really wanted to be out of this place before a recreational legalization date is set, as i don't want to be around these people past that date.
ugh.
i'm going to have to call them and see if i can get it moved up...
i think i've been pretty clear that what i advocate is a return to the pearsonian points system, which was a system that put a number of barriers to immigration in place, including the ability to speak the official languages (english & french) as well as a focus on educational attainment.
it sounds like ann coulter on the surface, and it actually isn't that different on paper. the difference is that the pearsonian system was designed to be "colour blind" (that is to eliminate race as a characteristic in determining immigration), while ann coulter wants to use it as a means to restrict entry. context is important, sometimes.
i'm not opposed to allowing immigration from muslim-majority countries amongst people who are atheists, or non-practicing muslims. it's a specific aversion to religion, that extends equally to christianity.
there was an ad about the niqab that said "we care what's in her head, not on it". exactly - but i'm going to twist this around, a little. it's what is in the hearts of muslims that concerns me more than what's in their heads.
the idea is that if you weed them out by education, you screen out the crazies, without having to ask them values questions - which are difficult on a number of levels. degrees are proof of an ability to think, which is most important.
i don't attach any value to tolerating the intolerance embedded within these religious systems of thought, or consider the acceptance of hateful ideologies like islam or christianity to be "diversity".
now, somebody like sam harris will tell me that that's not going to work, but i think he's wrong. i do have quite a bit of faith in our assimilation machine, and do expect most of the kids to accept western ideals, eventually, regardless. it's more a question of harm reduction.
so, i don't align with any of the parties on this. the conservatives say one thing and do another, and i neither like what they say nor what they do. trudeau has adopted traditionally ndp positions on this, while picking up on mulroney's gerry-mandering strategy (which is incoherent) - he's too open. that's actually left a hole in the middle, which is where most canadians exist.
i'd literally just like to see them revert back to the old system. as mentioned: it was designed to uphold objective criteria, in order to make the system "colour blind". it was empirical. scientific. coldly rational.
all the things i like.
we're not going to be overrun by hordes tomorrow. but, we need a course correction.
it sounds like ann coulter on the surface, and it actually isn't that different on paper. the difference is that the pearsonian system was designed to be "colour blind" (that is to eliminate race as a characteristic in determining immigration), while ann coulter wants to use it as a means to restrict entry. context is important, sometimes.
i'm not opposed to allowing immigration from muslim-majority countries amongst people who are atheists, or non-practicing muslims. it's a specific aversion to religion, that extends equally to christianity.
there was an ad about the niqab that said "we care what's in her head, not on it". exactly - but i'm going to twist this around, a little. it's what is in the hearts of muslims that concerns me more than what's in their heads.
the idea is that if you weed them out by education, you screen out the crazies, without having to ask them values questions - which are difficult on a number of levels. degrees are proof of an ability to think, which is most important.
i don't attach any value to tolerating the intolerance embedded within these religious systems of thought, or consider the acceptance of hateful ideologies like islam or christianity to be "diversity".
now, somebody like sam harris will tell me that that's not going to work, but i think he's wrong. i do have quite a bit of faith in our assimilation machine, and do expect most of the kids to accept western ideals, eventually, regardless. it's more a question of harm reduction.
so, i don't align with any of the parties on this. the conservatives say one thing and do another, and i neither like what they say nor what they do. trudeau has adopted traditionally ndp positions on this, while picking up on mulroney's gerry-mandering strategy (which is incoherent) - he's too open. that's actually left a hole in the middle, which is where most canadians exist.
i'd literally just like to see them revert back to the old system. as mentioned: it was designed to uphold objective criteria, in order to make the system "colour blind". it was empirical. scientific. coldly rational.
all the things i like.
we're not going to be overrun by hordes tomorrow. but, we need a course correction.
random example: i have two laptops on my coffee table.
one of them is a compaq evo from 2006 that has a broken video card and a 4gb of ram limit in it and is being sent out to a monitor (it's worthless.), and the other is a heavy duty compaq notebook from 1998 with 1 gb of ram and completely unserviceable parts.
i have a third laptop with a short in the system board.
you'd be lucky to get somebody to take this for free.
i have two pairs of speakers, both manufactured in the 1970s, and connected to receivers from the 1970s and the 1980s.
i have cathrode ray tube television set from the early 90s that i haven't plugged in since i moved in.
i have a jx-8p with no keys on it, and an ibanez strat copy with no electronics in it.
and, the components of my system that actually work are low end alesis units that i bought at the end of their life: a mixer that requires a firewire connection, an electronic drum kit that they stopped making in the 90s....
it's a bounty of wealth to me.
but, it's a pile of trash to the market.
one of them is a compaq evo from 2006 that has a broken video card and a 4gb of ram limit in it and is being sent out to a monitor (it's worthless.), and the other is a heavy duty compaq notebook from 1998 with 1 gb of ram and completely unserviceable parts.
i have a third laptop with a short in the system board.
you'd be lucky to get somebody to take this for free.
i have two pairs of speakers, both manufactured in the 1970s, and connected to receivers from the 1970s and the 1980s.
i have cathrode ray tube television set from the early 90s that i haven't plugged in since i moved in.
i have a jx-8p with no keys on it, and an ibanez strat copy with no electronics in it.
and, the components of my system that actually work are low end alesis units that i bought at the end of their life: a mixer that requires a firewire connection, an electronic drum kit that they stopped making in the 90s....
it's a bounty of wealth to me.
but, it's a pile of trash to the market.
fwiw, this apartment is full of broken and obsolete electronics that have virtually no resale value.
broken synthesizers, broken laptops, cheap guitars, a 15 year old pc with windows xp on it - it's not worth it.
the most valuable item in here is actually the couch.
i have no substantive income. i just buy a lot of things at pawn shops. it looks like a lot of expensive gear, but it isn't - it's a lot of hand me downs, a lot of legacy items bought on the cheap, stuff bought at pawn shops or garage sales and a lot of broken equipment waiting to be fixed.
you'd be lucky to get $500 from all of it, combined.
honestly.
the premise of a disabled person with an apartment full of expensive gear doesn't make sense; it doesn't make sense because it isn't true.
i'll point this out, though: you save a lot of money when you spend most of your life sober. you could no doubt buy some shiny things with all the money you literally burned away on drugs.
broken synthesizers, broken laptops, cheap guitars, a 15 year old pc with windows xp on it - it's not worth it.
the most valuable item in here is actually the couch.
i have no substantive income. i just buy a lot of things at pawn shops. it looks like a lot of expensive gear, but it isn't - it's a lot of hand me downs, a lot of legacy items bought on the cheap, stuff bought at pawn shops or garage sales and a lot of broken equipment waiting to be fixed.
you'd be lucky to get $500 from all of it, combined.
honestly.
the premise of a disabled person with an apartment full of expensive gear doesn't make sense; it doesn't make sense because it isn't true.
i'll point this out, though: you save a lot of money when you spend most of your life sober. you could no doubt buy some shiny things with all the money you literally burned away on drugs.
unlike you, i am a civilized and educated person that will use legal means to accomplish my goals, rather than intimidation and violence.
i did not intend to move into a drug-infested crack house.
but, i willingly concede that i don't fit in here, and am in the process of asking the court to get me out of the lease. you'll have to wait until this process completes before i can leave.
that said, your issue is with management, and not with me. i did not ask for a smoking ban, which is not legal to begin with. i asked for renovations in the unit below me, to ensure i had access to fresh air - a reasonable request in any conceivable context.
i should have been told about the nature of the building before i moved in; i would not have chosen this building had i known what it's like, here. again: this is negligence on behalf of management. and, you'll have to wait the situation out.
that said, i don't expect that the prohibition on smoking - which is not legal - will lift when i move, nor that i had anything to do with it, anyways. they were no doubt going to do this, anyways. it's a part of the new lease process, in effect on may 1st.
i might be an easy scapegoat, but you will regret any foolish behaviour. there are cameras in the building. and, there is only one suspect on this floor.
i will prosecute anybody involved to the full extent of the law.
i did not intend to move into a drug-infested crack house.
but, i willingly concede that i don't fit in here, and am in the process of asking the court to get me out of the lease. you'll have to wait until this process completes before i can leave.
that said, your issue is with management, and not with me. i did not ask for a smoking ban, which is not legal to begin with. i asked for renovations in the unit below me, to ensure i had access to fresh air - a reasonable request in any conceivable context.
i should have been told about the nature of the building before i moved in; i would not have chosen this building had i known what it's like, here. again: this is negligence on behalf of management. and, you'll have to wait the situation out.
that said, i don't expect that the prohibition on smoking - which is not legal - will lift when i move, nor that i had anything to do with it, anyways. they were no doubt going to do this, anyways. it's a part of the new lease process, in effect on may 1st.
i might be an easy scapegoat, but you will regret any foolish behaviour. there are cameras in the building. and, there is only one suspect on this floor.
i will prosecute anybody involved to the full extent of the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)