i only have three stephen king books left on my shelf.
1) the tommyknockers
2) the bachman books (rage, the long walk, roadwork, the running man)
3) the stand (complete & uncut)
but, i had a big list of them, which also included:
- carrie
- salem's lot
- the shining
- night shift (short stories)
- the dead zone
- firestarter
- cujo
- danse macabre
- different seasons (shawshank redemption, apt pupil, the body, the breathing method)
- pet semetary
- the talisman
- thinner
- skeleton crew (short stories)
- it
- misery
- the dark half
- four past midnight (the langoliers, secret window secret garden, the library policeman, the sun dog)
- needful things
- gerald's game
- dolores clairborne
- nightmares & dreamscapes
i never read christine, and regretted it. the only other thing that's missing here is the dark tower series, which i skipped on purpose. that is otherwise an almost entirely complete stephen king bibliography, up to the end of 1993.
i'm not exaggerating - i went through all of this stuff over the years 92-94. that's like 10,000 pages of stephen king, mostly in the middle of the night. the move from my mom's to my dad's was the summer of 1994, and while there were some perks attached to it, i initially had to give up my all night reading habit because he would actually storm downstairs and tell me go to fucking sleep, whereas my mom was herself usually up all night chain smoking and watching tv. i also became much more interested in the guitar after mid-94.
am i going to buy all of those books? yeah. and, i'm going to move through this sequentially.
i don't know how much these cost, nowadays. you used to be able to get
them at the drug store for $5. let's see what i can get shipped to me.
and, i'll have to hit the local used stores afterwards.
but, i'm going to start with asimov, because that's more primordial for me. even as i'm pointing out that i don't remember doing a single book report from grades 7-9, i know i did a book report on the foundation series in grade five. i was in a split 5/6 class, so i didn't have english class in grade six (and didn't have math class in grade five). in hindisght, it is baffling, but my mom freely sent me to that school solely because it had a large yard. yeah. the foundation series was recommended to me by the teacher, and i ended up reading a bunch of his other stuff. asimov died in 1992 with a massive bibliography, but i remember these specifically:
- the complete robot
- caves of steel
- naked sun
- robots of dawn
- robots and empire
- the stars, like dust
- currents of space
- pebble in the sky
- prelude to foundation
- forward the foundation <----did not read this one
- foundation
- foundation and empire
- second foundation
- foundations edge <----- that was the book report
- foundation and earth
so, i read through that over 1992-1993. i should collect it all, and review it all as a starting point. all i have right now is foundation and empire, and a book of short stories called the martian way.
what else did i mention?
arthur c. clarke.
i had:
- 2001: a space odyssey
- 2010: odyssey two
- 2061: odyssey three
- songs of distant earth
- tales from planet earth
my grandmother bought me these books by accident, starting around 91. she was trying to buy me greek mythology, to have me understand my name sake. i don't think she ever read any homer herself, nor had my mother, but she was trying to give me a story about jason and the argonauts, by giving me what she thought was the odyssey. d'oh? well, i enjoyed them, nonetheless, so she kept buying them. i eventually read both some plato and homer in high school, as well as some aristophanes in first year. fuck aristotle.
the only one i have left is songs of distant earth, which helpfully is dated to the christmas of 1993. so, we can go through that one together for an early '94 post.
bradbury.
- the martian chronicles
- farenheit 451 <----- not actually, but if i'm going to do this...
- a medicine for melancholy
- r is for rocket
- i sing the body electric
- dinosaur tales
i remember the bradbury a lot less. i know i at least flipped through these ones.
i do remember some specific hg wells:
- time machine
- island of dr moreau
- war of the worlds
and also some jules verne:
- journey to the centre of the earth
- twenty thousand leagues under the sea
the wells & verne were probably the result of the influence of my aunt on my mother and grandmother, who was an english major at mcgill in this period.
i'm going to push the clancy, koontz & rand forward a few years, because my memory of it is specifically connected to my dad's house. there was some crichton, too.
there would have also been some twain read over this period, again thanks to nana:
- tom sawyer (daa-da da-daaaa)
- prince & pauper
- huck finn
what else?
we'll skip the shell silverstein. that sidewalk has ended.
i was given a copy of james and the giant peach, but i...i want to say i was too old for it, but i actually probably wasn't. i felt too old for it. frankly, i thought it was a stupid thing to waste one's time with, and didn't bother with it very far. i remember reading through about half of it one night when held physically hostage by my grandmother due to a babysitting task due to not having anything else to do, and i just found myself ridiculing roald dahl at the age of, like, 9. i never found myself immersed in fantasy novels - never went for the tolkien or the lucas or really any of that stuff. as soon as you started bringing in, like, elves and shit, i lost interest.
the purpose of this post is to build a list, and we will probably leave a lot of this behind. i'm going to start with asimov, check prices, and move from there.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
the plan that hoskins helped write in ontario was a patchwork, and that's what we should expect from the liberals on this. even so, this is an election ploy - they'll run on it because they know it's populist, but they don't like it, and they're going to try to backtrack on it after the election, and might not do it at all. this is now a libertarian party, at it's core.
the ndp might run on a universal system, but they've never held federal office, and it's unclear how seriously you can take them on it.
if we look at the history of how we got universal health care in canada, it happened in stages and was in the end largely driven by the liberals, who wanted to emulate the nhs in britain. the ndp were a push factor, but the tommy douglas story is actually largely a myth; the liberals wanted this, and they pushed for it, and we wouldn't have gotten it, otherwise. what the ndp actually wanted, and had in saskatchewan, looked more similar to obamacare than single-payer; it was the liberals that pushed the nhs model, which was churchillian in origin, and what we ended up with. in fact, even the conservatives of the time (who were old tories, a very different political idea than the post-thatcher neo-liberal market conservatives of today) supported it based on the churchillian argument - universal healthcare in canada is a rare example of something that the entire spectrum supported: it was liberal policy, based on a british tory model, and supported by the ndp.
the best way to get an effective system in place is probably to angle for a minority. what we want is for the liberals to need ndp support to pass the budget. then, you get a deal.
a majority of either type could very well lead to a lesser system, or a broken promise altogether.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-budget-2018-pharmacare-1.4555186
the ndp might run on a universal system, but they've never held federal office, and it's unclear how seriously you can take them on it.
if we look at the history of how we got universal health care in canada, it happened in stages and was in the end largely driven by the liberals, who wanted to emulate the nhs in britain. the ndp were a push factor, but the tommy douglas story is actually largely a myth; the liberals wanted this, and they pushed for it, and we wouldn't have gotten it, otherwise. what the ndp actually wanted, and had in saskatchewan, looked more similar to obamacare than single-payer; it was the liberals that pushed the nhs model, which was churchillian in origin, and what we ended up with. in fact, even the conservatives of the time (who were old tories, a very different political idea than the post-thatcher neo-liberal market conservatives of today) supported it based on the churchillian argument - universal healthcare in canada is a rare example of something that the entire spectrum supported: it was liberal policy, based on a british tory model, and supported by the ndp.
the best way to get an effective system in place is probably to angle for a minority. what we want is for the liberals to need ndp support to pass the budget. then, you get a deal.
a majority of either type could very well lead to a lesser system, or a broken promise altogether.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-budget-2018-pharmacare-1.4555186
that script finished this morning. still nothing. so, i've got it running a second time,
this was just sent to tripod.
until recently, old tripod sites like mine (which was active from 1997-1999) were accessible via archive.org. i vaguely recall reading a newspaper article a few years ago that explained that you had ordered a take down of these pages.
the archive.org server is currently producing a 403 error when you make a request to download this site, which indicates that the data is still there, but that general access is being denied. attempts to have this clarified by the people at archive.org are ongoing, but it may be difficult to take to somebody on the server side. as i'm sure you're aware, this is a non-profit with limited resources.
my end goal is that i'd like archive.org to grant me access to my old site, even if only for long enough to pull it down.
my request is for you to help my understand the conversation you had with archive.org around your takedown request, so that i can address the situation with them properly.
this is a loose end that i intended to have dealt with much more quickly. i don't have a good answer right now, but i also don't see much more that i can do. i'm going to have to try and suck some of the data down from the site manually, even as i try to get the server to react. the problem is that there's 45 snapshots, each with hundreds or thousands of documents. it would literally take months to do this...
still no reaction from the cops. i sent them a third email last night, slightly escalated to increase the recipient list.
i'm going to focus on these loose ends for the day, and see if there's a response by the afternoon. if not, i'm going to have to get somebody on the phone tomorrow morning.
i should be started on the journal soon. promise.
this was just sent to tripod.
until recently, old tripod sites like mine (which was active from 1997-1999) were accessible via archive.org. i vaguely recall reading a newspaper article a few years ago that explained that you had ordered a take down of these pages.
the archive.org server is currently producing a 403 error when you make a request to download this site, which indicates that the data is still there, but that general access is being denied. attempts to have this clarified by the people at archive.org are ongoing, but it may be difficult to take to somebody on the server side. as i'm sure you're aware, this is a non-profit with limited resources.
my end goal is that i'd like archive.org to grant me access to my old site, even if only for long enough to pull it down.
my request is for you to help my understand the conversation you had with archive.org around your takedown request, so that i can address the situation with them properly.
this is a loose end that i intended to have dealt with much more quickly. i don't have a good answer right now, but i also don't see much more that i can do. i'm going to have to try and suck some of the data down from the site manually, even as i try to get the server to react. the problem is that there's 45 snapshots, each with hundreds or thousands of documents. it would literally take months to do this...
still no reaction from the cops. i sent them a third email last night, slightly escalated to increase the recipient list.
i'm going to focus on these loose ends for the day, and see if there's a response by the afternoon. if not, i'm going to have to get somebody on the phone tomorrow morning.
i should be started on the journal soon. promise.
some stranger from youtube sent me a stupid email, and it was really just a pointless troll, but it kind of triggered me.
i never got a dna test. i didn't want one. it wouldn't have mattered; we had a talk, before hand. the intent from the start was that i would act as a donor, not a parent, by mutual consent. i was very careful; it wouldn't have happened without that agreement. but, i was supposed to be around, too. as a family friend...as a secret...
it was foolish, but it happened. she thought she was strong enough, and i let myself believe it, because she wanted me to.
i could have made more of an effort at the start, but it was also important that i kept a distance, as getting too close would have upset the balance. i maybe tripped over that trapeze line.
but, the gender transition turned out to be a red line; unbeknownst, but pretty rigid.
there wouldn't be anything else i could even say, at this point.
i never got a dna test. i didn't want one. it wouldn't have mattered; we had a talk, before hand. the intent from the start was that i would act as a donor, not a parent, by mutual consent. i was very careful; it wouldn't have happened without that agreement. but, i was supposed to be around, too. as a family friend...as a secret...
it was foolish, but it happened. she thought she was strong enough, and i let myself believe it, because she wanted me to.
i could have made more of an effort at the start, but it was also important that i kept a distance, as getting too close would have upset the balance. i maybe tripped over that trapeze line.
but, the gender transition turned out to be a red line; unbeknownst, but pretty rigid.
there wouldn't be anything else i could even say, at this point.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
canada did recently alter it's involvement in iraq, but the younger trudeau has not put up the kind of resistance that his father did, or chretien did. if there's something to the observation, it could explain canada's insistence on supporting the american line in venezuela....and potentially in cuba. this otherwise seems to not be in our interest.
but, i might argue the opposite point: that if trudeau is being removed, it's a part of the same policy that is trying to remove maduro.
and, as canadians, we might have to get used to losing what was at one time a privileged status in the hemisphere.
there's been big demographic shifts on both sides of the border; this history of being sibling successors of the british empire is increasingly no longer true for either one of us. as the united states becomes more hispanic, and canada becomes more asian, we're going to end up as the third wheel, as we just did in the nafta talks.
i have no evidence, or anything. just thinking out loud.
but, the ambassador seems a little out of place at the table.
but, i might argue the opposite point: that if trudeau is being removed, it's a part of the same policy that is trying to remove maduro.
and, as canadians, we might have to get used to losing what was at one time a privileged status in the hemisphere.
there's been big demographic shifts on both sides of the border; this history of being sibling successors of the british empire is increasingly no longer true for either one of us. as the united states becomes more hispanic, and canada becomes more asian, we're going to end up as the third wheel, as we just did in the nafta talks.
i have no evidence, or anything. just thinking out loud.
but, the ambassador seems a little out of place at the table.
it's an open secret in canada that trudeau's father was removed by reagan, and that chretien was removed by bush. diefenbaker also lost an election that some observers have suggested was triggered by jfk, but that is not the same kind of thing.
the republicans simply don't like the liberal party of canada. at all.
the republicans simply don't like the liberal party of canada. at all.
if the caucus were to pass a non-confidence motion, it would trigger an election.
generally, true caucus revolts in canada result in the formation of new parties rather than the removal of a sitting leader. examples include the conscription crisis of 1917 when many liberals joined the unionist government and the mulroney collapse of the early 1990s when the reform and bloc split off from the conservative party. while canada has historically had two major parties, it is also a multi-party system with either three or four or five stable factions (depending on who you ask).
that said, there are many examples of prime ministers resigning. in fact, harper was the anomaly, in that sense - chretien, mulroney, trudeau and pearson all resigned while in office. if he wins a few more elections, the younger trudeau will no doubt get pushed out, eventually.
what is unprecedented would be a resignation on such quick order. there hasn't even been a second throne speech, yet.
that said, i don't expect trudeau to have much of a chance against a real uprising, nor for it to need to splinter the party. trudeau has at times stated things like "i was offered this job", making it clear that he knows where he really exists in the party hierarchy. if the party executive decides it's time to move on, justin will have his speech ready within hours. in fact, they'll no doubt already have written it.
but, i don't actually think that this is a caucus revolt, at this time. i don't know what it is, yet - but it's not a revolt.
a question i'd like to throw out there that deserves some serious contemplation is this: why is the us ambassador deeply involved in the discussions at this point?
i suggested that it wasn't clear if this was a purge or a counter-purge. but, there is a third option.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/could-the-liberal-caucus-turf-justin-trudeau-if-they-wanted-maybe-but-not-easily
generally, true caucus revolts in canada result in the formation of new parties rather than the removal of a sitting leader. examples include the conscription crisis of 1917 when many liberals joined the unionist government and the mulroney collapse of the early 1990s when the reform and bloc split off from the conservative party. while canada has historically had two major parties, it is also a multi-party system with either three or four or five stable factions (depending on who you ask).
that said, there are many examples of prime ministers resigning. in fact, harper was the anomaly, in that sense - chretien, mulroney, trudeau and pearson all resigned while in office. if he wins a few more elections, the younger trudeau will no doubt get pushed out, eventually.
what is unprecedented would be a resignation on such quick order. there hasn't even been a second throne speech, yet.
that said, i don't expect trudeau to have much of a chance against a real uprising, nor for it to need to splinter the party. trudeau has at times stated things like "i was offered this job", making it clear that he knows where he really exists in the party hierarchy. if the party executive decides it's time to move on, justin will have his speech ready within hours. in fact, they'll no doubt already have written it.
but, i don't actually think that this is a caucus revolt, at this time. i don't know what it is, yet - but it's not a revolt.
a question i'd like to throw out there that deserves some serious contemplation is this: why is the us ambassador deeply involved in the discussions at this point?
i suggested that it wasn't clear if this was a purge or a counter-purge. but, there is a third option.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/could-the-liberal-caucus-turf-justin-trudeau-if-they-wanted-maybe-but-not-easily
just to have it written down here.
this appears to have been the first site, launched probably in early 1998. it was very basic - it just held some simple html files.
http://members.tripod.com/~inri_2/
archive.org DOES have this site, but it's marked to hidden. and i don't know what to do about that...
the next thing that appears is a crosswinds site, initially at:
www.crosswinds.net/ottawa-hull/~inri/
and later at
www.crosswinds.net/~inri/
i had some kind of ralph wiggum video game or something up; i can barely even remember. it was funny. besides that, it was the same collection of simple files - a cd list, a few things about some music projects, some links to mp3.com and not much more. this was also in early 1998.
archive.org does not appear to have this archived at all. i'll need to see if i can contact the crosswinds people...
the third site that came up was at fortune city, i believe in 1999. it just carried on.
http://www.fortunecity.com/business/staff/715/main.htm
i was able to get a very small amount of that from archive.org, and think that these servers are dead. the site had been long destroyed by 2012.
the site moved to the carleton servers from there in mid 2001 and stayed there until 2006.
the site has largely been offline since 2006, but has shown up in pieces here and there. i was mostly posting to facebook from about 2009-2013, when the current system took over.
if anybody has ideas on how to find those archives, i'd be grateful.
this appears to have been the first site, launched probably in early 1998. it was very basic - it just held some simple html files.
http://members.tripod.com/~inri_2/
archive.org DOES have this site, but it's marked to hidden. and i don't know what to do about that...
the next thing that appears is a crosswinds site, initially at:
www.crosswinds.net/ottawa-hull/~inri/
and later at
www.crosswinds.net/~inri/
i had some kind of ralph wiggum video game or something up; i can barely even remember. it was funny. besides that, it was the same collection of simple files - a cd list, a few things about some music projects, some links to mp3.com and not much more. this was also in early 1998.
archive.org does not appear to have this archived at all. i'll need to see if i can contact the crosswinds people...
the third site that came up was at fortune city, i believe in 1999. it just carried on.
http://www.fortunecity.com/business/staff/715/main.htm
i was able to get a very small amount of that from archive.org, and think that these servers are dead. the site had been long destroyed by 2012.
the site moved to the carleton servers from there in mid 2001 and stayed there until 2006.
the site has largely been offline since 2006, but has shown up in pieces here and there. i was mostly posting to facebook from about 2009-2013, when the current system took over.
if anybody has ideas on how to find those archives, i'd be grateful.
yeah, so, i'm convinced that the tool i'm using is working, and it's the server that isn't.
ugh.
1) the carleton site gives out a 503, indicating the traffic isn't being allowed by the server. but, i can access it from the web portal.
2) the tripod site gives out a 403, indicating that i'm not allowed to access it - which is also what happens when i search from the web portal.
3) the crosswinds site gives out a 404, telling me that it isn't there at all. that's fine.
if i go to something like nirvana.com, though, it lets me download the snapshots.
so, everything is working the way it's supposed to.
ugh.
1) the carleton site gives out a 503, indicating the traffic isn't being allowed by the server. but, i can access it from the web portal.
2) the tripod site gives out a 403, indicating that i'm not allowed to access it - which is also what happens when i search from the web portal.
3) the crosswinds site gives out a 404, telling me that it isn't there at all. that's fine.
if i go to something like nirvana.com, though, it lets me download the snapshots.
so, everything is working the way it's supposed to.
the error is clearly site specific.
and, i've yet to find a .ca site in canada that works - not even government sites.
canada.com works.
cbc doesn't. the main carleton site doesn't. the pmo doesn't. canada.ca doesn't.
the bbc works. i tried some commercial american sites, and it's fine.
so, it's clear that the server is allowing some content to be downloaded and is denying it for others.
and, i've yet to find a .ca site in canada that works - not even government sites.
canada.com works.
cbc doesn't. the main carleton site doesn't. the pmo doesn't. canada.ca doesn't.
the bbc works. i tried some commercial american sites, and it's fine.
so, it's clear that the server is allowing some content to be downloaded and is denying it for others.
i'm a prison abolitionist because i'm an anarchist.
but, i recognize that we will need hospitals to house violent offenders and mentally ill people, after we've done away with prisons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement
but, i recognize that we will need hospitals to house violent offenders and mentally ill people, after we've done away with prisons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement
i'm a little further left than your average person. i get that.
but, i actually want to abolish the entire concept of criminal law, in favour of a purely tort based system, which is actually the system that the english used before the romans showed up. i fully reject the concept of state punishment. what i accept are the ideas of restitution and the ideas of community safety.
so, jails should not be places where people are sent for punishment, but rather places where we put people that we think pose a threat to public safety that cannot be ameliorated via reintegrative policies. it follows that jails should essentially be hospitals.
almost everything else should be dealt with via a systems of fines, reintegration policies and community service.
so, i'm not cherry-picking on this, actually. i mean, yeah, it's how the system works. but, i'm a liberal on crime - and there's a consistency on the point.
but, i actually want to abolish the entire concept of criminal law, in favour of a purely tort based system, which is actually the system that the english used before the romans showed up. i fully reject the concept of state punishment. what i accept are the ideas of restitution and the ideas of community safety.
so, jails should not be places where people are sent for punishment, but rather places where we put people that we think pose a threat to public safety that cannot be ameliorated via reintegrative policies. it follows that jails should essentially be hospitals.
almost everything else should be dealt with via a systems of fines, reintegration policies and community service.
so, i'm not cherry-picking on this, actually. i mean, yeah, it's how the system works. but, i'm a liberal on crime - and there's a consistency on the point.
we have two perspectives, here.
1. punish the fuckers to the full extent, with the full understanding that it will have consequences, for the purposes of holding to a set of principles. this perspective demands fire & brimstone, and doesn't care what happens, so long as the evildoers are properly smitten. then they call that "justice".
2. look at the situation critically, and try to come up with a compromise that best suits everybody's interests. this perspective allows for leniency and second chances, while insisting that enumerated damages be compensated for, and lessons be properly learned. this is better referred to using terms like "restitution".
which option is "conservative", and which one is "liberal"?
we're collectively failing this test...
we don't know our right from left, any more.
1. punish the fuckers to the full extent, with the full understanding that it will have consequences, for the purposes of holding to a set of principles. this perspective demands fire & brimstone, and doesn't care what happens, so long as the evildoers are properly smitten. then they call that "justice".
2. look at the situation critically, and try to come up with a compromise that best suits everybody's interests. this perspective allows for leniency and second chances, while insisting that enumerated damages be compensated for, and lessons be properly learned. this is better referred to using terms like "restitution".
which option is "conservative", and which one is "liberal"?
we're collectively failing this test...
we don't know our right from left, any more.
listen.
i'm not interested in a principled, ethical moralism that is going to result in upholding some abstract set of rules to everybody's detriment.
what i'm interested in is pragmatic, responsible government that is willing to bend the rules in order to put forward a positive agenda.
tell the puritans to vote conservative.
and not to forget to tip at the collection plate, either.
i'm not interested in a principled, ethical moralism that is going to result in upholding some abstract set of rules to everybody's detriment.
what i'm interested in is pragmatic, responsible government that is willing to bend the rules in order to put forward a positive agenda.
tell the puritans to vote conservative.
and not to forget to tip at the collection plate, either.
i'm convinced the waybackmachine is running an extortion operation through however many levels of abstraction.
i asked them to send me my mirrors, and they told me they don't do tech support and sent me to a paid service. that is legally equivalent to stealing a barbeque off of your front lawn and telling you to pay the mafia boss if you want it back. that's my property. there's an absolute legal obligation to return it immediately upon request.
they seem to be maintaining some kind of distance from these companies, but i'm calling bullshit on that - i'd be certain that they're operated by people close to archive.org, if not people that work directly for it.
there is a 0% chance i'm paying anybody for this. so, i went looking for some clis ( i found one over ruby, which i had to install, and one over python, which i had installed for the appspot site), and i found a constant - the server reacts well to government sites like dol.gov but throws out 503s on everything else, including big sites like the cbc.
the server is clearly blocking requests.
so, what do you do? i have a tool that seems to work, but is being blocked by the server. i own this material; that's clearly theft. do i call the cops or file a lawsuit?
i asked them to send me my mirrors, and they told me they don't do tech support and sent me to a paid service. that is legally equivalent to stealing a barbeque off of your front lawn and telling you to pay the mafia boss if you want it back. that's my property. there's an absolute legal obligation to return it immediately upon request.
they seem to be maintaining some kind of distance from these companies, but i'm calling bullshit on that - i'd be certain that they're operated by people close to archive.org, if not people that work directly for it.
there is a 0% chance i'm paying anybody for this. so, i went looking for some clis ( i found one over ruby, which i had to install, and one over python, which i had installed for the appspot site), and i found a constant - the server reacts well to government sites like dol.gov but throws out 503s on everything else, including big sites like the cbc.
the server is clearly blocking requests.
so, what do you do? i have a tool that seems to work, but is being blocked by the server. i own this material; that's clearly theft. do i call the cops or file a lawsuit?
like jwr, she was actually a terrible minister who got demoted for good reason, and i'm not sad to see her go. i have rightly criticized her repeatedly in this space; she should also be immediately removed from caucus for immense back-stabbing and absolute dereliction. while my confidence in trudeau has never been great, i lost confidence in jane philpot many months ago.
the lottery, for example. the party had to backtrack hard on it. her comments as indigenous minister were often beneath contempt. and, she's partly responsible for the far too conservative assisted-dying bill that the courts are going to strike down.
what we have are two underperforming rookie ministers that are ganging up on a weak prime minister for getting fired from jobs they probably shouldn't have been given in the first place, and the actual lesson to learn from the fiasco: while diversity in cabinet shouldn't be such a hard thing to construct nowadays, it should not overrule merit or seniority.
the people that should really be laughing right now are the likes of joyce murray and other long term party loyalists that got passed over because they weren't the right identity.
the hard truth is that the party wouldn't be in this silly mess if it had simply made more intelligent staffing decisions to begin with.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-read-jane-philpotts-resignation-letter-to-justin-trudeau/
the lottery, for example. the party had to backtrack hard on it. her comments as indigenous minister were often beneath contempt. and, she's partly responsible for the far too conservative assisted-dying bill that the courts are going to strike down.
what we have are two underperforming rookie ministers that are ganging up on a weak prime minister for getting fired from jobs they probably shouldn't have been given in the first place, and the actual lesson to learn from the fiasco: while diversity in cabinet shouldn't be such a hard thing to construct nowadays, it should not overrule merit or seniority.
the people that should really be laughing right now are the likes of joyce murray and other long term party loyalists that got passed over because they weren't the right identity.
the hard truth is that the party wouldn't be in this silly mess if it had simply made more intelligent staffing decisions to begin with.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-read-jane-philpotts-resignation-letter-to-justin-trudeau/
i am absolutely baffled that jwr is not only still in caucus, but is actually running in 2019 as a liberal.
the incompetence in the pmo is just staggering.
what trudeau should do is go to her seat in the commons, hold her hand and escort her to the conservative party benches.
"here you go. these are your people. this is where you belong."
and, that is not merely hyperbole - it is ideological, as that is the essential crux of the matter at hand. the problem here is that she found herself unable to overpower her internalized conservative value systems, and mentally crossed the aisle as a result of it.
if she needs some help transporting her body to the same place that her brain exists in, the pmo should step in and help her out.
this shouldn't be an issue of resignation; it should be an issue of expulsion.
and, don't be shocked when trudeau ends up slaughtered by his own foolish naivete around making nice with the noble savages.
the incompetence in the pmo is just staggering.
what trudeau should do is go to her seat in the commons, hold her hand and escort her to the conservative party benches.
"here you go. these are your people. this is where you belong."
and, that is not merely hyperbole - it is ideological, as that is the essential crux of the matter at hand. the problem here is that she found herself unable to overpower her internalized conservative value systems, and mentally crossed the aisle as a result of it.
if she needs some help transporting her body to the same place that her brain exists in, the pmo should step in and help her out.
this shouldn't be an issue of resignation; it should be an issue of expulsion.
and, don't be shocked when trudeau ends up slaughtered by his own foolish naivete around making nice with the noble savages.
Monday, March 4, 2019
so, i sent an email to the oiprd directly, bypassing the "co-ordinator" i'd been using.
i'll try to call tomorrow, if i get no response.
for right now, i've found some snapshots of my carleton site that takes me back to mid-2001:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010616043437/http://chat.carleton.ca/~jparent2/
that would have been the summer after first year, and i'm willing to believe there was nothing there before that.
the site gets increasingly complicated for many years...
there was something at crosswinds before that, something at fortune cities and i think something at geocities, as well, going back to i think 1998.
pulling all this down should help me date things a little better.
i'll try to call tomorrow, if i get no response.
for right now, i've found some snapshots of my carleton site that takes me back to mid-2001:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010616043437/http://chat.carleton.ca/~jparent2/
that would have been the summer after first year, and i'm willing to believe there was nothing there before that.
the site gets increasingly complicated for many years...
there was something at crosswinds before that, something at fortune cities and i think something at geocities, as well, going back to i think 1998.
pulling all this down should help me date things a little better.
this is the right way to do this.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/03/politics/rand-paul-trump-national-emergency-declaration/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/03/politics/rand-paul-trump-national-emergency-declaration/index.html
the exemption is not carte blanch to discriminate any way that you want, which is how religious groups often want to interpret it.
"i have religious freedom! i can smite my enemies!"
nope. not at all. quite the opposite - these rules exist primarily to stop people from being oppressed by religion. that's really what a bill of rights is, a way to stop puritanical cromwellianism, and by extension any other kind of fundamentalism. but, we live in the time of orwell, so ideas are often mangled and manipulated into their contradictions, and the neo-liberal concept of "religious freedom" is a prime example of it. thankfully, our judicial branch is still operating, even if our legislative branch is slowly caving in on itself.
a religious exemption in the law has to be very narrowly defined as intended to protect the purpose of an organization. there has to be a deeply persuasive argument that the charter should be suspended. and, it is for that reason that the argument almost always fails....
"i have religious freedom! i can smite my enemies!"
nope. not at all. quite the opposite - these rules exist primarily to stop people from being oppressed by religion. that's really what a bill of rights is, a way to stop puritanical cromwellianism, and by extension any other kind of fundamentalism. but, we live in the time of orwell, so ideas are often mangled and manipulated into their contradictions, and the neo-liberal concept of "religious freedom" is a prime example of it. thankfully, our judicial branch is still operating, even if our legislative branch is slowly caving in on itself.
a religious exemption in the law has to be very narrowly defined as intended to protect the purpose of an organization. there has to be a deeply persuasive argument that the charter should be suspended. and, it is for that reason that the argument almost always fails....
this is the specific clause in ontario, which is not bc, but nonetheless:
Special employment
24. (1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where,
(a) a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status or disability employs only, or gives preference in employment to, persons similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment;
Special employment
24. (1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where,
(a) a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status or disability employs only, or gives preference in employment to, persons similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment;
(b) the discrimination in employment is for reasons
of age, sex, record of offences or marital status if the age, sex,
record of offences or marital status of the applicant is a reasonable
and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment;
(c) an individual person refuses to employ another
for reasons of any prohibited ground of discrimination in section 5,
where the primary duty of the employment is attending to the medical or
personal needs of the person or of an ill child or an aged, infirm or
ill spouse or other relative of the person;
(d) an employer grants or withholds employment or
advancement in employment to a person who is the spouse, child or parent
of the employer or an employee;
(e) a judge or master is required to retire or cease to continue in office on reaching a specified age under the Courts of Justice Act;
(f) a case management master is required to retire on reaching a specified age under the Courts of Justice Act;
(g) the term of reappointment of a case management
master expires on the case management master reaching a specified age
under the Courts of Justice Act; or
(h) a justice of the peace is required to retire on reaching a specified age under the Justices of the Peace Act.
R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 24 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (11); 2001, c. 32,
s. 27 (5); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (14); 2005, c. 29, s. 1 (2).
....and it is easy enough to see that a commission or judge would rule pretty easily that an individual's personal sex life has nothing to do with the nature of the employment.
an example of a situation where this clause would apply would be in telling a jew he can't teach at a christian school, because he doesn't believe in the resurrection of christ.
who you fuck, and how often, doesn't have any kind of causal connection on your ability to work in a library, or whether you identify as a member of a faith or not. it's just flat out discrimination - plain and simple.
....and it is easy enough to see that a commission or judge would rule pretty easily that an individual's personal sex life has nothing to do with the nature of the employment.
an example of a situation where this clause would apply would be in telling a jew he can't teach at a christian school, because he doesn't believe in the resurrection of christ.
who you fuck, and how often, doesn't have any kind of causal connection on your ability to work in a library, or whether you identify as a member of a faith or not. it's just flat out discrimination - plain and simple.
this article is terribly written, though.
you have to remember that canada's constitution came into force in 1982, so there were no charter rights before then. the charter is retroactive, but it took a while to kick in. citing a 1984 case as precedent is consequently exceedingly bad form. what your supposed to do in a situation like this is point out that the issue "hasn't been tested in the charter era".
that said, i'm not sure that it hasn't been, and i disagree with the opinion provided by the commission. this would be more along the lines of an issue that has minimal amounts of case law around it due to it being so exceedingly rare, but we're also talking about a broad mindset, here, and the idea of religious exemption has generally not stood up to courts in canada, when challenged. i can't know what they were thinking from such a great distance, but it sounds like the commission didn't want to open a can of worms. my own legal opinion would be that any legislation that provides for a religious exemption of this sort would be ruled unconstitutional, if tested - and that's an issue that civil liberties unions should really be trying to pick up on, if there are laws in existence with language of that explicit nature. it's nice to see that alberta is addressing the issue, at least.
i'd suggest actually reading the article on the buterman case, which i've read about before. the offered settlement was an appropriate remedy, if maybe a little low. i'd think something like five years of salary is more appropriate than $80,000, which is probably in the 1-2 year range. but, the applicant didn't bring the case to commission, and it was ruled as abandoned. so, to suggest that the case was lost is both disingenuous and wrong, and the settlement itself is reason to think that the lawyers involved assumed there was reason to think he'd have won.
the trinity case is a better example of a ruling in the charter era in canada, and should be consulted as existing precedent for similar issues, not the pre-modern 1984 case.
i would encourage ms. kraats to file.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/christian-school-forces-resignation-over-community-standards-policy-1.5035804
you have to remember that canada's constitution came into force in 1982, so there were no charter rights before then. the charter is retroactive, but it took a while to kick in. citing a 1984 case as precedent is consequently exceedingly bad form. what your supposed to do in a situation like this is point out that the issue "hasn't been tested in the charter era".
that said, i'm not sure that it hasn't been, and i disagree with the opinion provided by the commission. this would be more along the lines of an issue that has minimal amounts of case law around it due to it being so exceedingly rare, but we're also talking about a broad mindset, here, and the idea of religious exemption has generally not stood up to courts in canada, when challenged. i can't know what they were thinking from such a great distance, but it sounds like the commission didn't want to open a can of worms. my own legal opinion would be that any legislation that provides for a religious exemption of this sort would be ruled unconstitutional, if tested - and that's an issue that civil liberties unions should really be trying to pick up on, if there are laws in existence with language of that explicit nature. it's nice to see that alberta is addressing the issue, at least.
i'd suggest actually reading the article on the buterman case, which i've read about before. the offered settlement was an appropriate remedy, if maybe a little low. i'd think something like five years of salary is more appropriate than $80,000, which is probably in the 1-2 year range. but, the applicant didn't bring the case to commission, and it was ruled as abandoned. so, to suggest that the case was lost is both disingenuous and wrong, and the settlement itself is reason to think that the lawyers involved assumed there was reason to think he'd have won.
the trinity case is a better example of a ruling in the charter era in canada, and should be consulted as existing precedent for similar issues, not the pre-modern 1984 case.
i would encourage ms. kraats to file.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/christian-school-forces-resignation-over-community-standards-policy-1.5035804
yeah, that's absurd.
i don't think you can rehire her, but you can write her a large check, and cut off funding to the board.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/christian-school-forces-resignation-over-community-standards-policy-1.5035804
i don't think you can rehire her, but you can write her a large check, and cut off funding to the board.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/christian-school-forces-resignation-over-community-standards-policy-1.5035804
if we're seriously talking about this, there is a tradition in the liberal party to alternate between francophone and anglophone leaders, but it hasn't been a very successful strategy since the 80s. since pearson, you've got:
- trudeau (francophone). pm, from...i think it was 68-84....
- john turner (anglophone). lost badly to the francophone mulroney. twice.
- chretien (francophone). pm from 1993-2003.
- paul martin (anglophone). pm from 2003-2006, then lost to harper, partly due to declining support in quebec.
- stephane dion (francophone). dion was badly smeared for his poor english language skills, but was competitive in 2008, holding harper to a minority.
- ignatieff (anglophone). he was completely annihilated in 2011, even losing to the ndp in quebec. this was the worst showing in the liberal party's history,
- trudeau (francophone). pm, 2015-?.
the tory media will no doubt recoil at the thought, as will certain aspects of the liberal party establishment, but i think that dion would have bettered his 2008 results if he were still at the helm in 2011. i think there's little question that he would have held off the dreaded harper majority, at least.
the liberals are consequently in somewhat of a tough spot, in terms of picking a successor. they're supposed to pick an anglophone - but it's an easy prediction to make that, if they do, they'll end up in opposition.
it would probably be a better idea to let an older politician like goodale or bennett take over as an interim leader, and then run a convention.
freeland is toxic. & mckenna is no doubt in trouble in her own riding.
but, a caucus revolt is also defined by it's leaders. we haven't seen any fracture points erupt in public, so it's hard to tell what's going on.
i mentioned a while back that it wasn't clear to me if we were witnessing a revolt by the chretien faction (the old party, which was borderline social democratic) or the continued primacy of what should now be called the ignatieff faction (the neo-liberal branch, of which freeland seems to currently be the face of). i'm still not sure what the truth of it is, but if there are divisions happening, they will present themselves in time.
https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2019/03/03/who-will-lead-if-the-liberals-toss-trudeau.html
- trudeau (francophone). pm, from...i think it was 68-84....
- john turner (anglophone). lost badly to the francophone mulroney. twice.
- chretien (francophone). pm from 1993-2003.
- paul martin (anglophone). pm from 2003-2006, then lost to harper, partly due to declining support in quebec.
- stephane dion (francophone). dion was badly smeared for his poor english language skills, but was competitive in 2008, holding harper to a minority.
- ignatieff (anglophone). he was completely annihilated in 2011, even losing to the ndp in quebec. this was the worst showing in the liberal party's history,
- trudeau (francophone). pm, 2015-?.
the tory media will no doubt recoil at the thought, as will certain aspects of the liberal party establishment, but i think that dion would have bettered his 2008 results if he were still at the helm in 2011. i think there's little question that he would have held off the dreaded harper majority, at least.
the liberals are consequently in somewhat of a tough spot, in terms of picking a successor. they're supposed to pick an anglophone - but it's an easy prediction to make that, if they do, they'll end up in opposition.
it would probably be a better idea to let an older politician like goodale or bennett take over as an interim leader, and then run a convention.
freeland is toxic. & mckenna is no doubt in trouble in her own riding.
but, a caucus revolt is also defined by it's leaders. we haven't seen any fracture points erupt in public, so it's hard to tell what's going on.
i mentioned a while back that it wasn't clear to me if we were witnessing a revolt by the chretien faction (the old party, which was borderline social democratic) or the continued primacy of what should now be called the ignatieff faction (the neo-liberal branch, of which freeland seems to currently be the face of). i'm still not sure what the truth of it is, but if there are divisions happening, they will present themselves in time.
https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2019/03/03/who-will-lead-if-the-liberals-toss-trudeau.html
Sunday, March 3, 2019
it's 3 am.
you're in the back seat of a car somewhere in nowhere, pennsylvania, on your way home from florida.
it's snowing through the pitch black.
and, this song that you've never heard before comes on.
"what was that, tony?"
"i think it was pink floyd."
"do you know the name of the song?"
"no, actually. ask your mom when she wakes up."
you're in the back seat of a car somewhere in nowhere, pennsylvania, on your way home from florida.
it's snowing through the pitch black.
and, this song that you've never heard before comes on.
"what was that, tony?"
"i think it was pink floyd."
"do you know the name of the song?"
"no, actually. ask your mom when she wakes up."
i've otherwise got the media i have organized, which is not a lot - a couple of king books, some arthur c. clarke and a few records from u2, rem, bryan adams, peter gabriel, gowan, genesis and the barenaked ladies.
i left a lot of books at my mom's place when i moved out, and sold a bunch more before i went to bc. as i've now sorted through everything, the only thing left is to hope i can get something from the carleton archives, or a fortunecity mirror or something. i know there was a list, i just don't have it.
if i'm going to rebuild the books, i'll need to go through the king, pick up a bunch of science fiction (a fair amount of asimov, a bunch of clarke, some bradbury), some tom clancy, some dean koontz, some mark twain and, yes, some ayn rand. my dead uncle is responsible for that. they told me they found him in the bathroom of a hostel in victoria, dead of an apparent aneurysm; i assumed it was drug related, but that was never confirmed, and i never asked. he was in his early 40s. selfishness as a virtue can bite you in the end, huh?
i'm sure i'll remember some more...
music wise, i'll need to get some michael jackson. what's the status on buying a michael jackson record in 2019? is it alright if it's just going to his...well, it's not even actually his kid, is it? i dunno. see, i got into mj through weird al, though. and, i lost interest after dangerous, for obvious reasons. but, my ten-year old self was really much more interested in black or white than nirvana. we grow quickly at that age, though.
i also had a bit of a bon jovi phase, which i'll defend on the basis that they weren't as bad as their peers. if the criticism is that bon jovi were hair metal, it's actually a bit off the mark - they weren't this pompous, ridiculous, materialistic, nihilistic marketing behemoth, but rather a kind of working class band from new jersey, with a contemporary sound. they were at least as punk rock as springsteen, anyways. and, they actually had a kind of synth pop center, too, which is where i really came from - tears for fears, gabriel, genesis.
i guess that's the missing part of it, stuff my dad or uncle dubbed me. i had a cassette with a day at the races on one side and a night at the opera on the other. i had beatles tapes, genesis tapes, and an out of place dub of animals that it took me years to get into, because it wasn't what i was looking for. i was very young - 8 or 9 - when somebody at chez decided to toss on one of these days for a lark, at like 2:00 am, while i was in the car on the way back from a road trip with my step-father. i was pretty instantly intrigued. the announcer mentioned it was floyd, but didn't elaborate - it was presumably not necessary. tony, to his immense discredit, couldn't identify the track, either. there was a copy of delicate sound of thunder around, but it was missing the second side. so, i asked around for years trying to figure out what the song was. the dead uncle decided i was describing the vocal effects in sheep and dubbed me a copy of animals, which i just found a little too meandering at that age - it hit me like a grateful dead record, just not enough movement for a young mind. my dad never had a copy of meddle, either. it wasn't for years that i found it in a torrent...
"aha! there's that crazy bass part!"
anyways. i have my work for the next little while set aside. it's time to start doing it.
the first post is going to be in the "dear diary, so much has happened..." format. and, we'll go from there. i might be back into the stand by the end of the night.....
i left a lot of books at my mom's place when i moved out, and sold a bunch more before i went to bc. as i've now sorted through everything, the only thing left is to hope i can get something from the carleton archives, or a fortunecity mirror or something. i know there was a list, i just don't have it.
if i'm going to rebuild the books, i'll need to go through the king, pick up a bunch of science fiction (a fair amount of asimov, a bunch of clarke, some bradbury), some tom clancy, some dean koontz, some mark twain and, yes, some ayn rand. my dead uncle is responsible for that. they told me they found him in the bathroom of a hostel in victoria, dead of an apparent aneurysm; i assumed it was drug related, but that was never confirmed, and i never asked. he was in his early 40s. selfishness as a virtue can bite you in the end, huh?
i'm sure i'll remember some more...
music wise, i'll need to get some michael jackson. what's the status on buying a michael jackson record in 2019? is it alright if it's just going to his...well, it's not even actually his kid, is it? i dunno. see, i got into mj through weird al, though. and, i lost interest after dangerous, for obvious reasons. but, my ten-year old self was really much more interested in black or white than nirvana. we grow quickly at that age, though.
i also had a bit of a bon jovi phase, which i'll defend on the basis that they weren't as bad as their peers. if the criticism is that bon jovi were hair metal, it's actually a bit off the mark - they weren't this pompous, ridiculous, materialistic, nihilistic marketing behemoth, but rather a kind of working class band from new jersey, with a contemporary sound. they were at least as punk rock as springsteen, anyways. and, they actually had a kind of synth pop center, too, which is where i really came from - tears for fears, gabriel, genesis.
i guess that's the missing part of it, stuff my dad or uncle dubbed me. i had a cassette with a day at the races on one side and a night at the opera on the other. i had beatles tapes, genesis tapes, and an out of place dub of animals that it took me years to get into, because it wasn't what i was looking for. i was very young - 8 or 9 - when somebody at chez decided to toss on one of these days for a lark, at like 2:00 am, while i was in the car on the way back from a road trip with my step-father. i was pretty instantly intrigued. the announcer mentioned it was floyd, but didn't elaborate - it was presumably not necessary. tony, to his immense discredit, couldn't identify the track, either. there was a copy of delicate sound of thunder around, but it was missing the second side. so, i asked around for years trying to figure out what the song was. the dead uncle decided i was describing the vocal effects in sheep and dubbed me a copy of animals, which i just found a little too meandering at that age - it hit me like a grateful dead record, just not enough movement for a young mind. my dad never had a copy of meddle, either. it wasn't for years that i found it in a torrent...
"aha! there's that crazy bass part!"
anyways. i have my work for the next little while set aside. it's time to start doing it.
the first post is going to be in the "dear diary, so much has happened..." format. and, we'll go from there. i might be back into the stand by the end of the night.....
this is written like a pravda piece.
ugh.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezuela-canada-cuba-1.5040857
ugh.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezuela-canada-cuba-1.5040857
you know, i'm racking my brain for actual books that i read in grades 7 and 8 - and even 9 - and i'm not able to come up with anything. i remember being given photographed handouts and asked questions around an ability to prove very basic comprehension, or being asked to read short texts and then produce an opinion piece around it. but, i don't think anybody ever handed out books to us and told us to read them.
i went to both elementary school and high school under the rae/peterson curriculum (harris won when i was in high school, and didn't succeed in changing the curriculum until the year after i'd left), and i'm learning just now that it was kind of an experiment. i did not receive any actual marks until grade 10; my high school transcript, which i still have, simply states "completed" for grade 9. i have records of standardized testing where i scored in the 95th-99th percentile, but i don't have grades for these years.
what i remember about the report cards is that they had a long list of criteria, and you'd be evaluated on a points system, with 1 the highest and i think 6 the lowest. this was just the teacher's arbitrary, completely subjective opinion. i remember getting lots of 1s in english and math, 2s or 3s in phys ed and some pretty low marks in the "shows respect for authority" and "works well with others" categories. even my university profs would have scrawled "does not work well with others" on my report cards if given the chance, and i'm not particularly embarrassed about it - i don't work well with others, and i don't want to, either.
i'm not even sure i can pick out much of anything of shape in these years really at all. we were split into classes that taught core subjects, and then shipped into different rooms for specific topics. so, i remember having a science teacher, a french teacher, a geography teacher, a music teacher, a phys ed teacher, a home ec teacher, a history teacher and then a kind of general "grade 7 teacher" that was tasked with everything else, which i guess is math, religion and english. but, that really meant that the curriculum was focused on the peripheral subjects due to the more rigid scheduling, and that math & english were largely unstructured babysitting periods with a lot of pointless busy work. when we went to geography class, or phys ed, we were there for a short period with a defined curriculum; when we went back to the general class room, the teacher could organize it any way they wanted to, or not at all, which was often the actual reality.
so, the system put more of a priority on learning french or geography than it did on learning math or english. we did regular spelling bees in grade 8 english class. and, i don't really remember taking math in grade 7 at all. grade 9 was more structured, in the sense that there were separate math and english classes, but i still didn't get graded, and i still don't remember reading any actual books. i explicitly remember reading shakespeare, but we read it orally in the classroom. and, there's a text called the chrysalids that i can't otherwise place that i might drop into grade 9.
of course, there's some possibility that i don't remember any reading projects because i was so efficient with them. there's a few texts from later in high school that i remember putting off until the last minute and then reading through in an afternoon. there's certainly some possibility that i just devoured it so violently that it never really got digested. but, the thing is that i liked reading, so i don't know why that would have been true.
i think the truth is that i was mostly baby sat all the way to the end of grade 9, and consequently don't have a lot to report on.
if i remember something, i'll insert it, but i think the way we're going to do this is that i'll be doing independent reading over these years, instead.
i went to both elementary school and high school under the rae/peterson curriculum (harris won when i was in high school, and didn't succeed in changing the curriculum until the year after i'd left), and i'm learning just now that it was kind of an experiment. i did not receive any actual marks until grade 10; my high school transcript, which i still have, simply states "completed" for grade 9. i have records of standardized testing where i scored in the 95th-99th percentile, but i don't have grades for these years.
what i remember about the report cards is that they had a long list of criteria, and you'd be evaluated on a points system, with 1 the highest and i think 6 the lowest. this was just the teacher's arbitrary, completely subjective opinion. i remember getting lots of 1s in english and math, 2s or 3s in phys ed and some pretty low marks in the "shows respect for authority" and "works well with others" categories. even my university profs would have scrawled "does not work well with others" on my report cards if given the chance, and i'm not particularly embarrassed about it - i don't work well with others, and i don't want to, either.
i'm not even sure i can pick out much of anything of shape in these years really at all. we were split into classes that taught core subjects, and then shipped into different rooms for specific topics. so, i remember having a science teacher, a french teacher, a geography teacher, a music teacher, a phys ed teacher, a home ec teacher, a history teacher and then a kind of general "grade 7 teacher" that was tasked with everything else, which i guess is math, religion and english. but, that really meant that the curriculum was focused on the peripheral subjects due to the more rigid scheduling, and that math & english were largely unstructured babysitting periods with a lot of pointless busy work. when we went to geography class, or phys ed, we were there for a short period with a defined curriculum; when we went back to the general class room, the teacher could organize it any way they wanted to, or not at all, which was often the actual reality.
so, the system put more of a priority on learning french or geography than it did on learning math or english. we did regular spelling bees in grade 8 english class. and, i don't really remember taking math in grade 7 at all. grade 9 was more structured, in the sense that there were separate math and english classes, but i still didn't get graded, and i still don't remember reading any actual books. i explicitly remember reading shakespeare, but we read it orally in the classroom. and, there's a text called the chrysalids that i can't otherwise place that i might drop into grade 9.
of course, there's some possibility that i don't remember any reading projects because i was so efficient with them. there's a few texts from later in high school that i remember putting off until the last minute and then reading through in an afternoon. there's certainly some possibility that i just devoured it so violently that it never really got digested. but, the thing is that i liked reading, so i don't know why that would have been true.
i think the truth is that i was mostly baby sat all the way to the end of grade 9, and consequently don't have a lot to report on.
if i remember something, i'll insert it, but i think the way we're going to do this is that i'll be doing independent reading over these years, instead.
Saturday, March 2, 2019
i think this is grade two. i switched from st bernard's to uplands for the start of grade three, so it's either one or two.
and, because i didn't carry on my schooling with these kids, i actually don't recognize any of them - except the two girls i'm standing beside, strangely enough. i don't know who arranged us, probably the teacher, but i got a choice spot, didn't i? the blonde actually ended up at the high school i went to, and gave me mixed signals for years - i was never sure, so i just kept a distance. the thing is that she grew up into a very, very shy teenager, so i could never figure it out, and felt the consequences of getting it wrong could be kind of crushing, for her. she seemed like an ornament you don't want to sit on - and i state that with as much gender egalitarianism as i can muster; she was legitimately delicate, right down to a falsetto voice, and i truly feared breaking her. i haven't seen her in years.
i liked the brunette, might even say we were friends, but i never saw her again after i switched schools.
i don't remember any of the other kids, here. at all.
and, because i didn't carry on my schooling with these kids, i actually don't recognize any of them - except the two girls i'm standing beside, strangely enough. i don't know who arranged us, probably the teacher, but i got a choice spot, didn't i? the blonde actually ended up at the high school i went to, and gave me mixed signals for years - i was never sure, so i just kept a distance. the thing is that she grew up into a very, very shy teenager, so i could never figure it out, and felt the consequences of getting it wrong could be kind of crushing, for her. she seemed like an ornament you don't want to sit on - and i state that with as much gender egalitarianism as i can muster; she was legitimately delicate, right down to a falsetto voice, and i truly feared breaking her. i haven't seen her in years.
i liked the brunette, might even say we were friends, but i never saw her again after i switched schools.
i don't remember any of the other kids, here. at all.
this is the day i finished in the top 10 for the....i think it was 5000 m....at the cities. it was the longest long run. there were like 500 kids running.
the truth is that i went to an absurdly small school (there were six grade six students in my graduating class), and these positions were kind of just handed out at random. i don't remember competing for the spot, and nobody expected me to compete at the meet.
but, even at that age, i spent a lot of time bicycling. what happened is that i jogged with the pack all the way around and then sprinted past 200 people on the final lap. it was clear to everybody, including me, that if i had sprinted a little earlier, or jogged a little harder, i would have easily competed for a medal. and, i actually think that if i had spent any time training at all i could have actually won outright.
*shrug*
today, i'm more concerned about maintaining my health than competing in bourgeois competitions. and, while i wouldn't have articulated myself that way at the time, the truth is i felt the same way then, too.
it would have been the spring of '93, so it just missed the cut-off.
the truth is that i went to an absurdly small school (there were six grade six students in my graduating class), and these positions were kind of just handed out at random. i don't remember competing for the spot, and nobody expected me to compete at the meet.
but, even at that age, i spent a lot of time bicycling. what happened is that i jogged with the pack all the way around and then sprinted past 200 people on the final lap. it was clear to everybody, including me, that if i had sprinted a little earlier, or jogged a little harder, i would have easily competed for a medal. and, i actually think that if i had spent any time training at all i could have actually won outright.
*shrug*
today, i'm more concerned about maintaining my health than competing in bourgeois competitions. and, while i wouldn't have articulated myself that way at the time, the truth is i felt the same way then, too.
it would have been the spring of '93, so it just missed the cut-off.
so, i've finally reached a pivot point, and there's going to be a slight change of plans.
i have now copied every file that i can find - from laptops, external drives, usb keys, cds, dvds, etc - on to the new external drive, and organized everything by year. it's very rough, and there's a lot of overlap, but it is all in roughly the correct place. so, the next thing ought to be to restart on the rebuild, and quickly run through 2013-2016, with the intent to get back to where i was.
....except that i'm deciding that the process is incomplete, in the greater context, and want to rewind back to 1993. 1993!? yes - 1993. and, why 1993?
i started in mid-1996 for a couple of reasons. it was early 2016 when i decided to switch directions, my first demos were from the summer of 1996 and my earliest memories of internet access were from mid-1996. a lot of things added up with that. but, at the same time, i was picking up a story halfway, one that had undefined bounds. now that the bounds are better defined - the current story begins in mid-2013 when i moved to windsor, meaning the alter-reality ends in mid-2013, with an intended completion date of mid-2033 - it makes sense to pull the alter-reality back to 1993, to allow for some symmetry in the process.
that would mean the alter-reality will run from the summer of 1993 to the summer of 2013, in the end.
there's some other reasons for this. the earliest files i have are dated to 1995, but i have pictures going back to the 80s, and i wanted to find some way to work some of these things in to the story. starting in 1993 lets me do that. i also wanted to do reviews of records and books from 1993-1996, which was actually the most formative years of my life - starting over again in mid 1993 means i'm starting in the summer between grade 6 and 7, which is of course right before i went to junior high school. if we're going to do a portrait of this artist, that's a better place to start.
but, if i didn't get online until 1996, at the earliest, how am i going to have a journal from 1993?
what i'm going to do is split it off into a separate blog that will run strictly from 1993-1996. i will be sorting through some papers over the christmas break of 1996 and find an old journal and decide it would be neat to put it online. so, the mechanism is that i'll be typing in a journal that i had already written up by hand. when it's done, it will exist in a standalone file.
what that means is that i'm going to be thrusting myself back into the alter-reality almost immediately; i just need to spend another day or two organizing all of these files, first, before i get to posting to the new journal, dated to july 15, 1993. i'll push forward with this as i push forward with the rebuild, until it connects back together in early 1996.
i'm going to try and be as honest as i can as i run through this. i have the benefit of a lot of hindsight, and i'm not going to pretend i can be a 12 year-old again, but people go through a lot at that age, and i'm going to try and get down as much as i can. some of these things will no doubt surprise you. it's been so long, that i may even end up surprising myself.
i am obviously a different person today than i was then, as we all are.
but, in a lot of surface ways, not much has changed - i spent most of the summer between grades six and seven awake at odd hours, in my room reading, specifically through the stephen king catalogue, iirc. i had no friends at all over this period, as i prepared to go to a new school that none of them were going to go to. i'll have to start off with a broad statement around that. i was living with my mother during this period, which is something i haven't talked much about. i played some guitar, but was not really into alternative rock music yet - i listened to a lot of what was called "college rock" during those years, as well as a lot of pop music. there was no computer around, but i had a big tv in my room that was either tuned to muchmusic or to conan. we'll have to go through the process of moving from mom to dad in mid '94. so, that was life and how to live it, and where we're starting over again with this...
i wouldn't be doing this if i didn't think it was going to be worthwhile.
i have now copied every file that i can find - from laptops, external drives, usb keys, cds, dvds, etc - on to the new external drive, and organized everything by year. it's very rough, and there's a lot of overlap, but it is all in roughly the correct place. so, the next thing ought to be to restart on the rebuild, and quickly run through 2013-2016, with the intent to get back to where i was.
....except that i'm deciding that the process is incomplete, in the greater context, and want to rewind back to 1993. 1993!? yes - 1993. and, why 1993?
i started in mid-1996 for a couple of reasons. it was early 2016 when i decided to switch directions, my first demos were from the summer of 1996 and my earliest memories of internet access were from mid-1996. a lot of things added up with that. but, at the same time, i was picking up a story halfway, one that had undefined bounds. now that the bounds are better defined - the current story begins in mid-2013 when i moved to windsor, meaning the alter-reality ends in mid-2013, with an intended completion date of mid-2033 - it makes sense to pull the alter-reality back to 1993, to allow for some symmetry in the process.
that would mean the alter-reality will run from the summer of 1993 to the summer of 2013, in the end.
there's some other reasons for this. the earliest files i have are dated to 1995, but i have pictures going back to the 80s, and i wanted to find some way to work some of these things in to the story. starting in 1993 lets me do that. i also wanted to do reviews of records and books from 1993-1996, which was actually the most formative years of my life - starting over again in mid 1993 means i'm starting in the summer between grade 6 and 7, which is of course right before i went to junior high school. if we're going to do a portrait of this artist, that's a better place to start.
but, if i didn't get online until 1996, at the earliest, how am i going to have a journal from 1993?
what i'm going to do is split it off into a separate blog that will run strictly from 1993-1996. i will be sorting through some papers over the christmas break of 1996 and find an old journal and decide it would be neat to put it online. so, the mechanism is that i'll be typing in a journal that i had already written up by hand. when it's done, it will exist in a standalone file.
what that means is that i'm going to be thrusting myself back into the alter-reality almost immediately; i just need to spend another day or two organizing all of these files, first, before i get to posting to the new journal, dated to july 15, 1993. i'll push forward with this as i push forward with the rebuild, until it connects back together in early 1996.
i'm going to try and be as honest as i can as i run through this. i have the benefit of a lot of hindsight, and i'm not going to pretend i can be a 12 year-old again, but people go through a lot at that age, and i'm going to try and get down as much as i can. some of these things will no doubt surprise you. it's been so long, that i may even end up surprising myself.
i am obviously a different person today than i was then, as we all are.
but, in a lot of surface ways, not much has changed - i spent most of the summer between grades six and seven awake at odd hours, in my room reading, specifically through the stephen king catalogue, iirc. i had no friends at all over this period, as i prepared to go to a new school that none of them were going to go to. i'll have to start off with a broad statement around that. i was living with my mother during this period, which is something i haven't talked much about. i played some guitar, but was not really into alternative rock music yet - i listened to a lot of what was called "college rock" during those years, as well as a lot of pop music. there was no computer around, but i had a big tv in my room that was either tuned to muchmusic or to conan. we'll have to go through the process of moving from mom to dad in mid '94. so, that was life and how to live it, and where we're starting over again with this...
i wouldn't be doing this if i didn't think it was going to be worthwhile.
i think that what the russians really want is to get netanyahu out of israel.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/russia-wants-to-get-iran-out-of-syria-netanyahu-says-after-putin-meet-1.6978647
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/russia-wants-to-get-iran-out-of-syria-netanyahu-says-after-putin-meet-1.6978647
yeah, those poor genocidal thugs that were involved in the most dangerous organization the world has seen since the nazis. awww.
listen: nobody should be surprised by this ridiculous display of "humanitarian concern" for these koran-thumping monsters, given the dominance of arab money in the media. if there was any question about the kind of influence that gulf oil money has in london, ottawa and washington, this ridiculous display of concern for what is truly absolute scum should eliminate any doubts about it. if you can't make sense of this, if you think it's absurd, that's your answer - follow the influence through the media, the think tanks, the institutes, the lobbyists and the banks back to the dirty, blood-soaked, muslim oil money that commands it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-47421627/the-people-fleeing-the-end-of-the-islamic-state-in-syria
listen: nobody should be surprised by this ridiculous display of "humanitarian concern" for these koran-thumping monsters, given the dominance of arab money in the media. if there was any question about the kind of influence that gulf oil money has in london, ottawa and washington, this ridiculous display of concern for what is truly absolute scum should eliminate any doubts about it. if you can't make sense of this, if you think it's absurd, that's your answer - follow the influence through the media, the think tanks, the institutes, the lobbyists and the banks back to the dirty, blood-soaked, muslim oil money that commands it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-47421627/the-people-fleeing-the-end-of-the-islamic-state-in-syria
Friday, March 1, 2019
i mean, i suppose that handing everything over to moscow is technically a way to avoid being toppled by washington, it's just that then you end up as a hand puppet of putin, which one would think is not really what you wanted, either.
the iranians were able to walk a line on this that a smart venezuelan leadership could look to as a model. even the north koreans have figured out a way to play this.
but, maduro is actually in truth more likely to end up like assad if he plays this game - held as a figurehead until the kremlin doesn't find him useful any more, and then discarded like bad meat.
we may be witnessing the return of the useful idiot, here.
the iranians were able to walk a line on this that a smart venezuelan leadership could look to as a model. even the north koreans have figured out a way to play this.
but, maduro is actually in truth more likely to end up like assad if he plays this game - held as a figurehead until the kremlin doesn't find him useful any more, and then discarded like bad meat.
we may be witnessing the return of the useful idiot, here.
this is actually very stupid on venezuela's behalf. but, nobody ever accused the russians of failing to take advantage of a fool.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-russia-pdvsa/venezuela-to-move-state-oil-firm-pdvsa-office-from-lisbon-to-moscow-idUSKCN1QI4BM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-russia-pdvsa/venezuela-to-move-state-oil-firm-pdvsa-office-from-lisbon-to-moscow-idUSKCN1QI4BM
and, what is my final takeaway on the situation regarding marijuana policy?
you'll recall that i was what might be called a weak proponent of marijuana legalization, up until that point. i didn't really consider it a serious political issue, frankly - but i would have argued in favour of it, if pressed. i was and am still more interested in marijuana as an industrial material than i am as a drug. while i voted for the liberals in 2015, i was driven by climate change policy, rather than marijuana policy. in the more recent ontario election - where the conservatives ran on market liberalization and probably won a lot of votes for it - i voted for the green party, which is just demonstrating a level of consistency around the issue.
so, i voted for it, and i weakly supported it, but i never considered it a ballot issue.
you'll also recall that the woman that caused me so much misery, that forced me to live for months in abject discomfort, was actually a medicinal user, not a recreational user - and i actually think that this is at the crux of the problem. i don't think that marijuana is a medicine, and i don't think that it should be treated like one, and especially not for people suffering from depression, where studies have shown that marijuana addiction doesn't relieve depression, but actually causes it. if marijuana has a medicinal use, it is in physical pain relief, and should be taken in the form of pills, rather than smoked.
while i called the police on this woman not once but twice, it was done out of complete disinterest for her well-being, as she had demonstrated none for mine. i had at that point repeatedly asked her not to smoke in my air supply, and she completely ignored me. while i did not expect her to get arrested, i didn't really care if she did, either; my sole, singular concern was in generating documentation for a court process, and if she ended up in jail as a consequence, that wasn't my problem. she could choke on her own filth, for all i care. but, what i wanted was the report to take to court - and i had no interest in what happened to her, otherwise.
so, what the takeaway from that is is as follows:
1) the idea of "medicinal marijuana" should be completely abolished. marijuana, like alcohol, is a recreational drug that should be available, but heavily regulated.
2) there needs to be stronger restrictions on where marijuana can be used. most importantly, marijuana should be completed banned from any kind of apartment building, or shared living space. i would also support restrictions on outdoor marijuana use in residential areas. these restrictions should be enforced with heavy fines.
3) marijuana use should be permitted in smoking sections at bars, concerts, etc - and the social conditioning should be to try to direct it towards social use, rather than use in alienation.
i don't think the issue is whether you can smoke it or not; the issue is about where you can smoke it. as a non-smoker, my self-interest is in ensuring that my mental and physical health is not affected by the habits of other people; it is protecting the rights of non-smokers that needs to be the focus of the law, not the rights of smokers.
you'll recall that i was what might be called a weak proponent of marijuana legalization, up until that point. i didn't really consider it a serious political issue, frankly - but i would have argued in favour of it, if pressed. i was and am still more interested in marijuana as an industrial material than i am as a drug. while i voted for the liberals in 2015, i was driven by climate change policy, rather than marijuana policy. in the more recent ontario election - where the conservatives ran on market liberalization and probably won a lot of votes for it - i voted for the green party, which is just demonstrating a level of consistency around the issue.
so, i voted for it, and i weakly supported it, but i never considered it a ballot issue.
you'll also recall that the woman that caused me so much misery, that forced me to live for months in abject discomfort, was actually a medicinal user, not a recreational user - and i actually think that this is at the crux of the problem. i don't think that marijuana is a medicine, and i don't think that it should be treated like one, and especially not for people suffering from depression, where studies have shown that marijuana addiction doesn't relieve depression, but actually causes it. if marijuana has a medicinal use, it is in physical pain relief, and should be taken in the form of pills, rather than smoked.
while i called the police on this woman not once but twice, it was done out of complete disinterest for her well-being, as she had demonstrated none for mine. i had at that point repeatedly asked her not to smoke in my air supply, and she completely ignored me. while i did not expect her to get arrested, i didn't really care if she did, either; my sole, singular concern was in generating documentation for a court process, and if she ended up in jail as a consequence, that wasn't my problem. she could choke on her own filth, for all i care. but, what i wanted was the report to take to court - and i had no interest in what happened to her, otherwise.
so, what the takeaway from that is is as follows:
1) the idea of "medicinal marijuana" should be completely abolished. marijuana, like alcohol, is a recreational drug that should be available, but heavily regulated.
2) there needs to be stronger restrictions on where marijuana can be used. most importantly, marijuana should be completed banned from any kind of apartment building, or shared living space. i would also support restrictions on outdoor marijuana use in residential areas. these restrictions should be enforced with heavy fines.
3) marijuana use should be permitted in smoking sections at bars, concerts, etc - and the social conditioning should be to try to direct it towards social use, rather than use in alienation.
i don't think the issue is whether you can smoke it or not; the issue is about where you can smoke it. as a non-smoker, my self-interest is in ensuring that my mental and physical health is not affected by the habits of other people; it is protecting the rights of non-smokers that needs to be the focus of the law, not the rights of smokers.
the way this process works in ontario is that the cops have 120 days to write a report, on a complaint about police misconduct.
i can then appeal the report to the office of the director, which is supposed to be an independent body but clearly isn't.
the next step is to launch an administrative review, which means going to an actual court, which i fully expect to be necessary. and, frankly, i'd have rather jumped directly to the court process - but i have to wait for them to finish fucking around, first.
i can then appeal the report to the office of the director, which is supposed to be an independent body but clearly isn't.
the next step is to launch an administrative review, which means going to an actual court, which i fully expect to be necessary. and, frankly, i'd have rather jumped directly to the court process - but i have to wait for them to finish fucking around, first.
so, what's going on with me, personally?
i'm now at nine months completely straight-edge (in the sense of choosing abstinence) and have been out of the pot lounge apartment for five months. i think i'm reaching a turning point in terms of regaining my cognitive abilities, and undoing the damage caused by the marijuana - i'm having longer days, certainly. it seems to be a process that operates in a progressive manner, meaning i think i should hope the effects continue to decrease week over week. at the least, i think it's clear enough that if i had concerns about permanent damage then they weren't grounded - even if it takes months and months to completely recover. it's taking a long time, but i am getting better. slowly.
at this point, i can't imagine ever smoking another cigarette again, ever.
the second-hand (tobacco) smoke came back in yesterday, though, and left me unproductive for a good while, just waiting for it to lift; there's not a lot i can do besides hide under the blankets when it does come in, because i just end up hacking and wheezing for hours, otherwise. it seems to have mostly lifted again, now. i dunno. really - i don't know. there is an older woman's voice upstairs, from time-to-time, often at odd hours, and it might be the source of the filth. what i know is that the weather is finally set to break in a few days, and i should be able to start to get to the bottom of what's actually happening when it does.
there's three possibilities that i think are likely:
1) it could be the heating system. i don't think it is, but i can't rule it out, yet.
2) somebody upstairs is smoking, periodically. the thing is that i don't know how it's getting in here, as there's no clear source. that said, i think this is somehow the right answer.
3) it's just the neighbourhood. but, again - i don't think it's getting in through the windows. i don't think this is actually true.
the source actually seems to be below me, somehow. but, i'm in a basement with tiled floors. if there's anything below me at all, it's just the water table - and this isn't something abstract, it's second-hand tobacco smoke, clear as day.
so, the fact is that i don't understand what's happening.
if i can prove somehow that somebody upstairs is smoking, i'm going to have to sue to get out of the lease. the process i went through last time where i gave the owners a set of options to choose from isn't relevant in this scenario - it's his house, and i can't tell him what the rules are, but i can sue him for damages relating to a breach in the contract and demand release from the lease as i do. if i decide it's the neighbourhood, and i can't fix it, i'm going to have to move away somewhere else, which will be a more typical give-notice-kind-of-thing. and, if it's the heaters, i'll have to figure out if there's a way to clean them. the key thing is needing this awful winter to end so i can try and figure it out...right now, i'm just locked inside by the snow and ice.
the long term says we should be past the worst of it next week. let's hope that's correct...
and, how about the court situation?
the cops are required by statute to get me my report by the end of the day. it's technically saturday that is day 120, but they have no reason to ask for an extension to monday, and i fully expect the report by the end of day 119. that said, i don't actually expect anything at all, except the need to call the opird on monday. as mentioned, i'm not deciding on a next step until i read the report...
and, what have i been actually doing?
i don't think i mentioned it here, but i picked up a third external drive on sunday morning. you can get a 2 tb external drive for $100 nowadays. i picked this up for the purposes of housing data for the alter-reality, and have actually nearly filled it up over the week - although that will no doubt cut nearly in half once i've sorted it. it's almost done, anyways. that's been the week - not all that productive, really a lot of waiting, but i'm in a bit of a bottleneck on it that i'm almost through...
the last remaining issue with this is how to find that email, if it exists, and it's becoming increasingly clear that it doesn't. the fact is that it's going to be years before i really need to worry about this too much, but i nonetheless need to have some process to sort through what physical media i have in a systemic manner. at this point, i haven't been able to open the email i found in that virtual machine, but i haven't exhausted my options, i don't think. rather than sit down and go through each thing one by one, i should try everything i can with that one virtual machine and then approach each physical disc using everything i've already tried. am i going to find anything, in the end? well, i won't know until i've tried everything, and i won't know i've tried everything until i've given up on the vm.
so, that's the substantive progress report - i'm copying over a large amount of data right now, and on the brink of getting back to the rebuild.
i'm now at nine months completely straight-edge (in the sense of choosing abstinence) and have been out of the pot lounge apartment for five months. i think i'm reaching a turning point in terms of regaining my cognitive abilities, and undoing the damage caused by the marijuana - i'm having longer days, certainly. it seems to be a process that operates in a progressive manner, meaning i think i should hope the effects continue to decrease week over week. at the least, i think it's clear enough that if i had concerns about permanent damage then they weren't grounded - even if it takes months and months to completely recover. it's taking a long time, but i am getting better. slowly.
at this point, i can't imagine ever smoking another cigarette again, ever.
the second-hand (tobacco) smoke came back in yesterday, though, and left me unproductive for a good while, just waiting for it to lift; there's not a lot i can do besides hide under the blankets when it does come in, because i just end up hacking and wheezing for hours, otherwise. it seems to have mostly lifted again, now. i dunno. really - i don't know. there is an older woman's voice upstairs, from time-to-time, often at odd hours, and it might be the source of the filth. what i know is that the weather is finally set to break in a few days, and i should be able to start to get to the bottom of what's actually happening when it does.
there's three possibilities that i think are likely:
1) it could be the heating system. i don't think it is, but i can't rule it out, yet.
2) somebody upstairs is smoking, periodically. the thing is that i don't know how it's getting in here, as there's no clear source. that said, i think this is somehow the right answer.
3) it's just the neighbourhood. but, again - i don't think it's getting in through the windows. i don't think this is actually true.
the source actually seems to be below me, somehow. but, i'm in a basement with tiled floors. if there's anything below me at all, it's just the water table - and this isn't something abstract, it's second-hand tobacco smoke, clear as day.
so, the fact is that i don't understand what's happening.
if i can prove somehow that somebody upstairs is smoking, i'm going to have to sue to get out of the lease. the process i went through last time where i gave the owners a set of options to choose from isn't relevant in this scenario - it's his house, and i can't tell him what the rules are, but i can sue him for damages relating to a breach in the contract and demand release from the lease as i do. if i decide it's the neighbourhood, and i can't fix it, i'm going to have to move away somewhere else, which will be a more typical give-notice-kind-of-thing. and, if it's the heaters, i'll have to figure out if there's a way to clean them. the key thing is needing this awful winter to end so i can try and figure it out...right now, i'm just locked inside by the snow and ice.
the long term says we should be past the worst of it next week. let's hope that's correct...
and, how about the court situation?
the cops are required by statute to get me my report by the end of the day. it's technically saturday that is day 120, but they have no reason to ask for an extension to monday, and i fully expect the report by the end of day 119. that said, i don't actually expect anything at all, except the need to call the opird on monday. as mentioned, i'm not deciding on a next step until i read the report...
and, what have i been actually doing?
i don't think i mentioned it here, but i picked up a third external drive on sunday morning. you can get a 2 tb external drive for $100 nowadays. i picked this up for the purposes of housing data for the alter-reality, and have actually nearly filled it up over the week - although that will no doubt cut nearly in half once i've sorted it. it's almost done, anyways. that's been the week - not all that productive, really a lot of waiting, but i'm in a bit of a bottleneck on it that i'm almost through...
the last remaining issue with this is how to find that email, if it exists, and it's becoming increasingly clear that it doesn't. the fact is that it's going to be years before i really need to worry about this too much, but i nonetheless need to have some process to sort through what physical media i have in a systemic manner. at this point, i haven't been able to open the email i found in that virtual machine, but i haven't exhausted my options, i don't think. rather than sit down and go through each thing one by one, i should try everything i can with that one virtual machine and then approach each physical disc using everything i've already tried. am i going to find anything, in the end? well, i won't know until i've tried everything, and i won't know i've tried everything until i've given up on the vm.
so, that's the substantive progress report - i'm copying over a large amount of data right now, and on the brink of getting back to the rebuild.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
actually, i think this is the most humane approach possible.
one way or another, you have to remove these kids from the influence of their family.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/syria-isis-belgium-mothers-children-repatriate-samima-begum-a8801381.html
one way or another, you have to remove these kids from the influence of their family.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/syria-isis-belgium-mothers-children-repatriate-samima-begum-a8801381.html
in the united states, you have independent bodies that create a systems of checks and balances on each other.
we don't have that in canada.
rather, we have a cabinet that works to reach consensus, and then acts in solidarity with itself.
Annex D Cabinet Decision Making
The Cabinet is the political forum where Ministers reach a consensus and decide on issues. It is the setting in which they bring political and strategic considerations to bear on proposed ministerial and governmental actions. These considerations must necessarily reflect the views and concerns expressed by Canadians, caucus colleagues and other parliamentarians. Once a consensus is reached, Ministers can fulfill their collective responsibility to Parliament. This Annex addresses the main elements of the organization and conduct of decision making in the Cabinet.
D.1. Basic Rules for Cabinet Business
A number of basic ground rules for the conduct of Cabinet business are essential to maintain Cabinet solidarity and enhance its practical effectiveness.
Decision making is led by the Prime Minister. Through the Cabinet and its committees, the Prime Minister provides Ministers with the principal forum in which they can resolve different perspectives. The Prime Minister organizes Cabinet and Cabinet committee decision making, determines the agenda for Cabinet business and chooses committee chairpersons to act on his or her behalf. The Privy Council Office is the Cabinet’s secretariat and administers the Cabinet decision-making process on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Cabinet government works through a process of compromise and consensus building, which culminates in a Cabinet decision. The Cabinet and Cabinet committees do not vote on issues before them. Rather, the Prime Minister (or committee chairperson) “calls” for the consensus after Ministers have expressed their views. As the Cabinet secretariat, the Privy Council Office records and communicates the decision.
Consultation among the Ministers, departments and portfolios involved must precede the submission of a proposal to the Cabinet by the responsible Minister or Ministers. Ministers must also consult caucus at an early opportunity on policy and expenditure proposals. Ministerial discussions in the Cabinet or Cabinet committee focus on the decisions required and provide Ministers with an opportunity to participate in and influence those decisions.
Ministers have the right to seek their colleagues’ consideration of proposals for government action in their area of responsibility. This is, of course, subject to the agenda set by the Prime Minister for government priorities. Cabinet committee agendas are set by the committee chairpersons acting on the Prime Minister’s behalf.
Confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, more commonly referred to as “Cabinet confidences,” must be appropriately safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure or other compromise. The Cabinet’s collective decision-making process has traditionally been protected by the rule of confidentiality, which enhances Cabinet solidarity and collective ministerial responsibility. Confidentiality ensures that Ministers can frankly express their views before a final decision is made. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to announce policies only after Cabinet decisions are taken, in consultation with the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office.
Cabinet business is extensive, and Cabinet consensus at times is difficult to achieve. Given the limited time available to Ministers and the importance of clear decisions to government operations, Cabinet business must be conducted efficiently and according to accepted ground rules that are fully understood and respected. Cabinet discussion is not used to air introductory or preliminary discussions of issues. Deputy ministers are expected to ensure that other affected departments are adequately informed in advance and that coordination across portfolios is pursued, so that other Ministers are prepared for Cabinet discussion and government decisions are coherent and aligned with overall objectives. When departments directly involved differ on a matter, the dispute should not be referred to the Cabinet until all other means of resolving it have been exhausted.
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/27/open-and-accountable-government#Cabinet_Decision_Making
we don't have that in canada.
rather, we have a cabinet that works to reach consensus, and then acts in solidarity with itself.
Annex D Cabinet Decision Making
The Cabinet is the political forum where Ministers reach a consensus and decide on issues. It is the setting in which they bring political and strategic considerations to bear on proposed ministerial and governmental actions. These considerations must necessarily reflect the views and concerns expressed by Canadians, caucus colleagues and other parliamentarians. Once a consensus is reached, Ministers can fulfill their collective responsibility to Parliament. This Annex addresses the main elements of the organization and conduct of decision making in the Cabinet.
D.1. Basic Rules for Cabinet Business
A number of basic ground rules for the conduct of Cabinet business are essential to maintain Cabinet solidarity and enhance its practical effectiveness.
Decision making is led by the Prime Minister. Through the Cabinet and its committees, the Prime Minister provides Ministers with the principal forum in which they can resolve different perspectives. The Prime Minister organizes Cabinet and Cabinet committee decision making, determines the agenda for Cabinet business and chooses committee chairpersons to act on his or her behalf. The Privy Council Office is the Cabinet’s secretariat and administers the Cabinet decision-making process on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Cabinet government works through a process of compromise and consensus building, which culminates in a Cabinet decision. The Cabinet and Cabinet committees do not vote on issues before them. Rather, the Prime Minister (or committee chairperson) “calls” for the consensus after Ministers have expressed their views. As the Cabinet secretariat, the Privy Council Office records and communicates the decision.
Consultation among the Ministers, departments and portfolios involved must precede the submission of a proposal to the Cabinet by the responsible Minister or Ministers. Ministers must also consult caucus at an early opportunity on policy and expenditure proposals. Ministerial discussions in the Cabinet or Cabinet committee focus on the decisions required and provide Ministers with an opportunity to participate in and influence those decisions.
Ministers have the right to seek their colleagues’ consideration of proposals for government action in their area of responsibility. This is, of course, subject to the agenda set by the Prime Minister for government priorities. Cabinet committee agendas are set by the committee chairpersons acting on the Prime Minister’s behalf.
Confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, more commonly referred to as “Cabinet confidences,” must be appropriately safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure or other compromise. The Cabinet’s collective decision-making process has traditionally been protected by the rule of confidentiality, which enhances Cabinet solidarity and collective ministerial responsibility. Confidentiality ensures that Ministers can frankly express their views before a final decision is made. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to announce policies only after Cabinet decisions are taken, in consultation with the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office.
Cabinet business is extensive, and Cabinet consensus at times is difficult to achieve. Given the limited time available to Ministers and the importance of clear decisions to government operations, Cabinet business must be conducted efficiently and according to accepted ground rules that are fully understood and respected. Cabinet discussion is not used to air introductory or preliminary discussions of issues. Deputy ministers are expected to ensure that other affected departments are adequately informed in advance and that coordination across portfolios is pursued, so that other Ministers are prepared for Cabinet discussion and government decisions are coherent and aligned with overall objectives. When departments directly involved differ on a matter, the dispute should not be referred to the Cabinet until all other means of resolving it have been exhausted.
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/27/open-and-accountable-government#Cabinet_Decision_Making
i'm going to double down on the idea that the problem here is that the pmo doesn't seem to really understand our own system of government - and that, again, it seems to be viewing itself through some kind of american prism.
so, the pm is saying things like "the decision was solely up to the minister." - and that's actually wrong. maybe it's the way things are in the united states, but not in canada.
this isn't exactly an academic source, but it's not a controversial point, either:
Ministers are responsible for ensuring that the policies developed by the Cabinet are implemented in the departments.
(https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Compendium/ParliamentaryFramework/c_d_executivebranchgovernmentcanada-e.htm)
that's what a minister does in canada. it's not an elected office, and it's not expected to act independently of the cabinet; what it's supposed to do, rather, is carry forward with decisions that are made, collectively, at the cabinet table.
what that means is that the cabinet actually had every right to tell the minister what to do here, if it was determined to be a matter of government policy, which i believe it clearly was - they passed a law specifically for this purpose, and had the clear policy objective of preventing economic harm.
so, i don't know where this discourse is even coming from - it's not in the canadian legal tradition to argue that the attorney-general is independent of the pmo.
so, the pm is saying things like "the decision was solely up to the minister." - and that's actually wrong. maybe it's the way things are in the united states, but not in canada.
this isn't exactly an academic source, but it's not a controversial point, either:
Ministers are responsible for ensuring that the policies developed by the Cabinet are implemented in the departments.
(https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Compendium/ParliamentaryFramework/c_d_executivebranchgovernmentcanada-e.htm)
that's what a minister does in canada. it's not an elected office, and it's not expected to act independently of the cabinet; what it's supposed to do, rather, is carry forward with decisions that are made, collectively, at the cabinet table.
what that means is that the cabinet actually had every right to tell the minister what to do here, if it was determined to be a matter of government policy, which i believe it clearly was - they passed a law specifically for this purpose, and had the clear policy objective of preventing economic harm.
so, i don't know where this discourse is even coming from - it's not in the canadian legal tradition to argue that the attorney-general is independent of the pmo.
if the liberals made an error here, it's that they weren't firm enough - they should have turfed her right out of caucus, immediately, due to gross dereliction of duty.
i know the tory media is going to howl that the pm acted unethically, but i hardly think most people are going to walk down that path when presented with the evidence. there's no question that the liberals have managed this terribly, and in the process turned a non-issue into a headline. they should have acted decisively and firmly changed the channel; as it is, they let it fester and erupt. as it is now? let them have the investigation. it doesn't look like anything happened.
i know the tory media is going to howl that the pm acted unethically, but i hardly think most people are going to walk down that path when presented with the evidence. there's no question that the liberals have managed this terribly, and in the process turned a non-issue into a headline. they should have acted decisively and firmly changed the channel; as it is, they let it fester and erupt. as it is now? let them have the investigation. it doesn't look like anything happened.
i mean, my takeaway from reading the summary of the testimony is that her demotion was justified on the grounds of not upholding the interests of the government, which is what she is there to do. she's not elected as attorney-general; she works for the prime minister, at the prime minister's discretion. and, if she doesn't want to do her job, that's grounds for dismissal.
her claim that these discussions were inappropriate is actually completely wrong, in my view.
and, it's not clear why she would insist on not listening to her boss in a trivial case like this.
her claim that these discussions were inappropriate is actually completely wrong, in my view.
and, it's not clear why she would insist on not listening to her boss in a trivial case like this.
this is how the system works.
*shrug*.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-testifies-justice-committee-1.5035219
*shrug*.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-testifies-justice-committee-1.5035219
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
so, why don't i criticize the russians?
because they rarely do things worth criticizing.
i mean, don't get me wrong - i wouldn't want to live in russia, not now and probably pretty much at no point in it's history. at right this moment, russia is struggling with population replacement, and pretty hostile to queer people as a consequence of it. the western media wants to blame this on putin, but it's primarily the church at the crux of it, and kind of a bottom-up problem - i might not face technical legal restrictions in most of russia, but i'd be in constant threat of being lynched, pretty much anywhere outside of downtown moscow. there's video footage of, like, queer-bashing mobs beating people up in the street. i think the smart analysis is that it's a reactionary movement against state restrictions on religion and probably generational, but how long it takes for russia to once again free itself from the effects of christianity is a hard thing to put bounds on.
i'm aware that i wouldn't be welcome there.
but, in terms of geopolitics, of strategic manipulation - it's the russians that are acting like a rational, humanitarian actor, here. it's the russians that are upholding international law. and, it's the americans that are acting like boorish mongoloids, drunk at the party, disinterested in any concept of law.
in theatre after theatre, it is simply the case that the russians are actually right and the americans are actually wrong - and the only argument that any american could come up with that isn't disingenuous is that might makes right, and self-interest defines what is correct, which is of course just an argument for nihilism and chaos.
i'm an anarchist, but i'm not a nihilist.
when the russians fuck up, i'll call them on it. but, they don't - so i don't.
because they rarely do things worth criticizing.
i mean, don't get me wrong - i wouldn't want to live in russia, not now and probably pretty much at no point in it's history. at right this moment, russia is struggling with population replacement, and pretty hostile to queer people as a consequence of it. the western media wants to blame this on putin, but it's primarily the church at the crux of it, and kind of a bottom-up problem - i might not face technical legal restrictions in most of russia, but i'd be in constant threat of being lynched, pretty much anywhere outside of downtown moscow. there's video footage of, like, queer-bashing mobs beating people up in the street. i think the smart analysis is that it's a reactionary movement against state restrictions on religion and probably generational, but how long it takes for russia to once again free itself from the effects of christianity is a hard thing to put bounds on.
i'm aware that i wouldn't be welcome there.
but, in terms of geopolitics, of strategic manipulation - it's the russians that are acting like a rational, humanitarian actor, here. it's the russians that are upholding international law. and, it's the americans that are acting like boorish mongoloids, drunk at the party, disinterested in any concept of law.
in theatre after theatre, it is simply the case that the russians are actually right and the americans are actually wrong - and the only argument that any american could come up with that isn't disingenuous is that might makes right, and self-interest defines what is correct, which is of course just an argument for nihilism and chaos.
i'm an anarchist, but i'm not a nihilist.
when the russians fuck up, i'll call them on it. but, they don't - so i don't.
you know, it seems like that kid in new york is going to be running against amazon in the next election, which may be a tough fight. she may have shot herself in the foot on this.
i'll just reassert the point that she hasn't produced any substantive policy at this point, making her more of a shit-disturber than anything else. and, what was the point of this, really? it seems like empty political rhetoric.
nobody doubts that bringing amazon in would create a lot of jobs. the argument against it is apparently that the wages are too low. but, how does sending the jobs somewhere else fix the thing? moving the jobs somewhere else doesn't improve wages or working conditions. the answer you'd expect from a socialist candidate is to fight for a higher minimum wage - not to tell the company to locate somewhere else. i mean, you'd think a real socialist firebrand would see the opportunity to organise that many workers in her district as a godsend. you'd think she'd be all over it. if you send the jobs to a district with a less progressive representation, you just decrease the chances of the workers getting a wage increase. it's consequently pretty harshly anti-worker...
...which i suspect was the actual point. base nimbyism aside, the actual driver probably had to do with district demographics, which was some kind of combination of the existing residents not wanting to get flooded with amazon workers and the representative not wanting to get flooded with voters that work for amazon.
it's hard to avoid her right now, and when that happens you know there's money afoot.
stated bluntly, i don't trust her, and think you shouldn't, either.
i'll just reassert the point that she hasn't produced any substantive policy at this point, making her more of a shit-disturber than anything else. and, what was the point of this, really? it seems like empty political rhetoric.
nobody doubts that bringing amazon in would create a lot of jobs. the argument against it is apparently that the wages are too low. but, how does sending the jobs somewhere else fix the thing? moving the jobs somewhere else doesn't improve wages or working conditions. the answer you'd expect from a socialist candidate is to fight for a higher minimum wage - not to tell the company to locate somewhere else. i mean, you'd think a real socialist firebrand would see the opportunity to organise that many workers in her district as a godsend. you'd think she'd be all over it. if you send the jobs to a district with a less progressive representation, you just decrease the chances of the workers getting a wage increase. it's consequently pretty harshly anti-worker...
...which i suspect was the actual point. base nimbyism aside, the actual driver probably had to do with district demographics, which was some kind of combination of the existing residents not wanting to get flooded with amazon workers and the representative not wanting to get flooded with voters that work for amazon.
it's hard to avoid her right now, and when that happens you know there's money afoot.
stated bluntly, i don't trust her, and think you shouldn't, either.
simply legalizing prostitution and shrugging it off is not a policy, it's a non-policy that will lead to immense amounts of human suffering.
and, this is a good demonstration of the difference between a socialist and a liberal, which is actually my point: a liberal may be content to leave it up to the coercive effects of the market and allow for the reduction of the prostitute to salaried wage work, whereas a socialist wants to eliminate the coercive root causes of most prostitution, thereby reducing it strictly to the realm of enthusiastic consent.
and, this is a good demonstration of the difference between a socialist and a liberal, which is actually my point: a liberal may be content to leave it up to the coercive effects of the market and allow for the reduction of the prostitute to salaried wage work, whereas a socialist wants to eliminate the coercive root causes of most prostitution, thereby reducing it strictly to the realm of enthusiastic consent.
ok, so nobody knows where she stands on anything at all, because she just caters her positions to the polling. i'm still getting to know kamala, but some clarification is opening up: career politician with little if any conviction on much of anything. pay-to-play.
and, we're talking about prostitution...
you'd expect reason to frame the issue in terms of market theory, rather than in terms of human dignity, and i'm going to just throw that entire discourse in the trash bin - this is neither about supply nor is it about demand, but actually about economic opportunity. i'm not naive about this: there will always be women that would rather sell their bodies. it's easy money, and lots of people are lazy. they shouldn't be thrown in jail, but the system should be modified so that they're all that's left. if you want to use the language of market theory, adopting policies that restrict the supply by shifting labour out of the market would have the effect of increasing the price, which is the ideal end point. prostitution should only exist on the highest of scales, with the wealthiest of clients - and the most enthusiastic types of consent.
the best policies around prostitution have to do with social policies ensuring that women have access to affordable child care, to affordable housing, to education and to addictions services. women need to be given better options. the issue needs to be reframed in these terms, not reduced to a crass discussion about a market interaction.
and, i actually suspect she might agree with me if she'd get a little bit of conviction and take a stance.
https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/26/kamala-harris-sex-work-legal-fosta
and, we're talking about prostitution...
you'd expect reason to frame the issue in terms of market theory, rather than in terms of human dignity, and i'm going to just throw that entire discourse in the trash bin - this is neither about supply nor is it about demand, but actually about economic opportunity. i'm not naive about this: there will always be women that would rather sell their bodies. it's easy money, and lots of people are lazy. they shouldn't be thrown in jail, but the system should be modified so that they're all that's left. if you want to use the language of market theory, adopting policies that restrict the supply by shifting labour out of the market would have the effect of increasing the price, which is the ideal end point. prostitution should only exist on the highest of scales, with the wealthiest of clients - and the most enthusiastic types of consent.
the best policies around prostitution have to do with social policies ensuring that women have access to affordable child care, to affordable housing, to education and to addictions services. women need to be given better options. the issue needs to be reframed in these terms, not reduced to a crass discussion about a market interaction.
and, i actually suspect she might agree with me if she'd get a little bit of conviction and take a stance.
https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/26/kamala-harris-sex-work-legal-fosta
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
i think this summarizes my position on the topic relatively well.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/intersov.html
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/intersov.html
the thing that people aren't cluing into is that "reparations" is a kind of code word in competing contexts. if you walk into a church in south carolina, it means transferring wealth downwards, and one would expect sanders to support that. but, if you walk into a hockey rink in burlington and start taking about reparations, what it means to the people there is transferring wealth sideways based on racial characteristics, and nobody at all should support that.
i understand that components in the black community want a simple answer on it, but they're wrong to take that position - and rather than being pandered to, should be called out for taking a simplistic, binary position on race. warren, particularly, should be called out for pandering, here. sanders is right to ask for the term to be defined before he commits to a position that he doesn't just not support, but that has the potential to severely damage him with the kind of voters that are actually going to decide the election, at the end of the day.
i have a simple position on reparations, myself, although it means something different in canada, where the reparations are directed entirely at the indigenous population.
"yes, i have support for reparations. i call that support socialism."
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/26/reparations-bernie-sanders/
i understand that components in the black community want a simple answer on it, but they're wrong to take that position - and rather than being pandered to, should be called out for taking a simplistic, binary position on race. warren, particularly, should be called out for pandering, here. sanders is right to ask for the term to be defined before he commits to a position that he doesn't just not support, but that has the potential to severely damage him with the kind of voters that are actually going to decide the election, at the end of the day.
i have a simple position on reparations, myself, although it means something different in canada, where the reparations are directed entirely at the indigenous population.
"yes, i have support for reparations. i call that support socialism."
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/26/reparations-bernie-sanders/
see, we've been through this with bernie on foreign policy before - he takes these positions that are factually dubious in the sense that he holds hands with the washington consensus most of the way down the path before stepping back on some point, and holding to it. in a sense, it's weasel words, but it's backwards - his weasel words are directed at the cfr, or whomever it is that is listening in. so, he's able to avoid what ought to be a lot of wrath.
then, the left starts yelling that he's repeating falsehoods, and he is, but did you notice that he's on cnn, guys? if you listen carefully, you realize that what he's doing is avoiding the hegemonic talking points, without directly contradicting them. so, the left is kind of missing the dog whistle. but, we're not trained for it.
and, then, after walking this tightrope over all of this propaganda, he comes up with the right actual policy, which is that maduro is not a dictator, it's up to the people of venezuela to determine their own future and intervention is wrong.
so, you have to give him like a B- or something because he came up with the right answer, in the end. meanwhile, the rest of the field is getting Fs and Ds. so, you curve him up to an A - even if you're a little unsure.
you just have to remember that noam chomsky isn't running for president, and bernie sanders is.
it's enough to me that he's not participating in the zombie apocalypse that has hit both washington and ottawa - he's demonstrating independent thought.
then, the left starts yelling that he's repeating falsehoods, and he is, but did you notice that he's on cnn, guys? if you listen carefully, you realize that what he's doing is avoiding the hegemonic talking points, without directly contradicting them. so, the left is kind of missing the dog whistle. but, we're not trained for it.
and, then, after walking this tightrope over all of this propaganda, he comes up with the right actual policy, which is that maduro is not a dictator, it's up to the people of venezuela to determine their own future and intervention is wrong.
so, you have to give him like a B- or something because he came up with the right answer, in the end. meanwhile, the rest of the field is getting Fs and Ds. so, you curve him up to an A - even if you're a little unsure.
you just have to remember that noam chomsky isn't running for president, and bernie sanders is.
it's enough to me that he's not participating in the zombie apocalypse that has hit both washington and ottawa - he's demonstrating independent thought.
also:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/search?q=bernier
the greens did not run in this riding. so, it's not entirely clear if bernier's party hit the conservatives or liberals more.
in bc, you have the socred history - which is really what bernier is tapping into, right? and, it kind of splits through both bourgeois parties...
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/search?q=bernier
the greens did not run in this riding. so, it's not entirely clear if bernier's party hit the conservatives or liberals more.
in bc, you have the socred history - which is really what bernier is tapping into, right? and, it kind of splits through both bourgeois parties...
so, they've just grown a beard to spite their face.
it is likely that history records this victory as a brutally pyrrhic one, but here we have it - jagmeet singh is entering parliament as the leader of the third party, on the same day that the liberals retake outremont.
the ndp had exactly zero seats in quebec for something like 70 years. but, people forget that the ndp vote came mostly from the bloc, who lost party status as a consequence of the ndp's surge in 2011. everything is suggestive of a bloc resurgence, right now, as the ndp roll up like a carpet.
they will probably lose party status in october, as they seek to rebrand themselves in a post-industrial economy as a right-leaning alternative for disaffected minority groups. whatever you think of this, it opens up a dramatic vacuum in the balance of power, as a large (if shrinking) voting block in canada slowly becomes disenfranchised.
if i'm right about what they're doing, the new ndp could very well win power within a decade, but the left is unlikely to be very supportive of their policy positions, when they do - it will be as a neo-liberal party in the image of the american democrats. and, this realignment i've been talking about for what is now a couple of years is going to need to find a new party to exist on the left, or risking forfeiting dominance to the right, as former ndp voters sign faustian deals with a conservative party that is just looking to take advantage of them.
singh didn't create this and isn't fully at fault for it, but it's up to voters to adjust to what is unfolding in the way that is most in their own interests.
i always thought the ndp were better off entering into a coalition with the bloc than trying to displace them. but, we need to find a way to do some serious organizing in ontario.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-jagmeet-singh-wins-burnaby-south-by-election-clearing-leadership
it is likely that history records this victory as a brutally pyrrhic one, but here we have it - jagmeet singh is entering parliament as the leader of the third party, on the same day that the liberals retake outremont.
the ndp had exactly zero seats in quebec for something like 70 years. but, people forget that the ndp vote came mostly from the bloc, who lost party status as a consequence of the ndp's surge in 2011. everything is suggestive of a bloc resurgence, right now, as the ndp roll up like a carpet.
they will probably lose party status in october, as they seek to rebrand themselves in a post-industrial economy as a right-leaning alternative for disaffected minority groups. whatever you think of this, it opens up a dramatic vacuum in the balance of power, as a large (if shrinking) voting block in canada slowly becomes disenfranchised.
if i'm right about what they're doing, the new ndp could very well win power within a decade, but the left is unlikely to be very supportive of their policy positions, when they do - it will be as a neo-liberal party in the image of the american democrats. and, this realignment i've been talking about for what is now a couple of years is going to need to find a new party to exist on the left, or risking forfeiting dominance to the right, as former ndp voters sign faustian deals with a conservative party that is just looking to take advantage of them.
singh didn't create this and isn't fully at fault for it, but it's up to voters to adjust to what is unfolding in the way that is most in their own interests.
i always thought the ndp were better off entering into a coalition with the bloc than trying to displace them. but, we need to find a way to do some serious organizing in ontario.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-jagmeet-singh-wins-burnaby-south-by-election-clearing-leadership
"a luxury the country can no longer afford"
this rhetoric is coming from:
a) a thatcher-era tory minister talking about the destruction of the welfare state.
b) a gringrich-era republican talking about cuts to medicare and social security
c) a german banker arguing for austerity in the south
d) a twenty-first century american democrat talking about border security.
this rhetoric is coming from:
a) a thatcher-era tory minister talking about the destruction of the welfare state.
b) a gringrich-era republican talking about cuts to medicare and social security
c) a german banker arguing for austerity in the south
d) a twenty-first century american democrat talking about border security.
Monday, February 25, 2019
listen.
while the venezuelan military should have removed maduro by now, and only hasn't due to it's own stupidity and consequent inability to understand what is happening around it, there remains no other possible outcome.
when you're dealing with an irrational opponent, you sometimes have to give them extra time to figure it out. but, the stupidity of the actor doesn't alter the logic of the game, itself.
and, if the military does refuse to accept the evidence in front of it, cutting off oil sales will eventually lead to the uprising that the west is pretending is happening.
they could, in theory, launch a project to increase the agricultural base, and eliminate their reliance on imports, which is not necessary - the country has ample resources to feed itself. there is no evidence that this is going to happen. rather, accounts are going to dry up and knives are going to sharpen.
it would be another thing if venezuela was an actual socialist state, standing up against the empire, and willing to die for it's convictions. you could see that happen in cuba. but, in venezuela, that's just a lot of bullshit, and it's just a matter of time.
so, be patient. you're not a squirrel; stop acting like one.
while the venezuelan military should have removed maduro by now, and only hasn't due to it's own stupidity and consequent inability to understand what is happening around it, there remains no other possible outcome.
when you're dealing with an irrational opponent, you sometimes have to give them extra time to figure it out. but, the stupidity of the actor doesn't alter the logic of the game, itself.
and, if the military does refuse to accept the evidence in front of it, cutting off oil sales will eventually lead to the uprising that the west is pretending is happening.
they could, in theory, launch a project to increase the agricultural base, and eliminate their reliance on imports, which is not necessary - the country has ample resources to feed itself. there is no evidence that this is going to happen. rather, accounts are going to dry up and knives are going to sharpen.
it would be another thing if venezuela was an actual socialist state, standing up against the empire, and willing to die for it's convictions. you could see that happen in cuba. but, in venezuela, that's just a lot of bullshit, and it's just a matter of time.
so, be patient. you're not a squirrel; stop acting like one.
just to be clear.
the carbon tax credit is $150 for the whole year. that is less than the cost of one month's worth of interest on the loan.
so, holding the credit will have absolutely no worthwhile effect on the outstanding debt.
but, could i use the $150? well, i'm pretty poor, so i certainly wouldn't turn it down.
the carbon tax credit is $150 for the whole year. that is less than the cost of one month's worth of interest on the loan.
so, holding the credit will have absolutely no worthwhile effect on the outstanding debt.
but, could i use the $150? well, i'm pretty poor, so i certainly wouldn't turn it down.
it's perhaps reflective of the sitting government, though, to make an error like that.
you actually wouldn't expect the liberal bean counters to expose a disabled person to a collection agency like that - you would expect them to think that through and design it in such a way that they can't get at it. i have access to several credits for the precise reason that past liberal governments have legislated them this way, quite consciously.
but, this government is really very bourgeois in that sense. something that would have been thought through at the basic planning stage by any other liberal government probably never even crossed the mind of this one, which is really very narrowly focused on the upper middle class, without that historical reflex on the poor.
i was probably legitimately overlooked for the simple fact that i'm clearly of minimal concern. and, that's actually a policy shift.
and, no i don't expect the minister to tell me it's my own fault for being in debt, either. i'm disabled. it's crazy that i can't default - and i've tried. i expect it just never came up.
in theory, that means i'm being exposed to a carbon tax while more wealthy people are not. in practice, that probably isn't true, because so much of the food we buy here is imported. so, i'm not getting the transfer, but i'm not really paying the tax, either.
but, it's bad optics - and they should probably fix it.
i'm not wasting my time with it, though.
and, i don't know - i could get it, still.
you actually wouldn't expect the liberal bean counters to expose a disabled person to a collection agency like that - you would expect them to think that through and design it in such a way that they can't get at it. i have access to several credits for the precise reason that past liberal governments have legislated them this way, quite consciously.
but, this government is really very bourgeois in that sense. something that would have been thought through at the basic planning stage by any other liberal government probably never even crossed the mind of this one, which is really very narrowly focused on the upper middle class, without that historical reflex on the poor.
i was probably legitimately overlooked for the simple fact that i'm clearly of minimal concern. and, that's actually a policy shift.
and, no i don't expect the minister to tell me it's my own fault for being in debt, either. i'm disabled. it's crazy that i can't default - and i've tried. i expect it just never came up.
in theory, that means i'm being exposed to a carbon tax while more wealthy people are not. in practice, that probably isn't true, because so much of the food we buy here is imported. so, i'm not getting the transfer, but i'm not really paying the tax, either.
but, it's bad optics - and they should probably fix it.
i'm not wasting my time with it, though.
and, i don't know - i could get it, still.
so, i did my taxes and there was indeed a $154 tax credit worked into it. it's calculated at the very end of the process, so that essentially everybody gets a tax cut. if you have kids or dependents you can claim more, and if you live in a rural area you get an extra 10%. you then just subtract that from whatever you're owing.
my taxes are zero. so, instead of sending in a zero return, i get a $154.00 tax refund. i presume that will come in a lump sum.
...except that it might not, because i have a $70,000 student loan that i haven't made a payment on in ten years. they can't take rebates or sales tax credits, but because this comes up as a refund, they'll probably be able to take it. i was expecting it to come up as a rebate, like the gst does.
i've already explained to them that i'm disabled, but they didn't seem to understand.
i'm not going to protest the point, i'll let them look at the data and come to the conclusion on they're own. maybe seizing my $150 credit for a few years and realizing that's all i've got or ever will have will get the point across that they're wasting their time.
my taxes are zero. so, instead of sending in a zero return, i get a $154.00 tax refund. i presume that will come in a lump sum.
...except that it might not, because i have a $70,000 student loan that i haven't made a payment on in ten years. they can't take rebates or sales tax credits, but because this comes up as a refund, they'll probably be able to take it. i was expecting it to come up as a rebate, like the gst does.
i've already explained to them that i'm disabled, but they didn't seem to understand.
i'm not going to protest the point, i'll let them look at the data and come to the conclusion on they're own. maybe seizing my $150 credit for a few years and realizing that's all i've got or ever will have will get the point across that they're wasting their time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)