so, he must have been assigned a task. but, this isn't how you approach this problem.
the numbers he's using (where he tries to determine where the support would come from) are empirically derived, but there's no reason to think they'd be reflective of what a green swing would actually look like. i mean, it's what people are saying now, or said in the past, not what people would say in six months. if a green swing actually happened, it would be a mass movement away from the ndp, which is what you saw in bc the other day - the ndp sank from first to third, and the green win was the consequence of a big swing across those two parties. you might see some ridings where the swing is from the liberals to the greens, too. but, this isn't an incremental, proportional thing - this is a conscious, dramatic, purposeful shift in voting intentions.
you would consequently want to look at ridings that have a long history of leaning generally to the left, not necessarily to the ndp but probably mostly, and not try to find the right proportional swing in the mass of random ridings. the ridings he pulled out are pretty ridiculous suggestions, which is reflective of him not doing this right.
but, you also need to factor in the local economy. guelph is an interesting example, because he won on a large split in an off election for the liberals. don't be surprised if mike schreiner is the first casualty of a liberal resurgence in ontario. he's actually kind of a weird counter-example in that he's a sort of an environmental conservative, and not reflective of the party's future in any way; for the greens to breakthrough, they're going to need to push people like schreiner out and away. there's no future in this besides vote splitting.
and, on that note, you need to look at the local economies in play, too. the ndp seats in southern ontario are probably pretty safe because the economy is so centered on the automotive industry. things may change down the road, but seats like windsor and hamilton are unlikely to swing.
it's rather the rural and kind of mixed "small city with a rural mentality" ndp seats, seats with majority white populations, seats with people that would love bernie sanders, that are likely to be most vulnerable to this kind of a swing. this would include not just large swaths of bc, but the entirety of eastern canada and a lot of northern ontario. the conservatives are trying to run against the carbon tax in these regions, but rural people are also both stewards of the environment and the people that are experiencing the effects of climate change the most. are you going to tell people suffering major flooding right now that climate change isn't happening, then expect them to vote for you? they don't care about profit margins for oil firms in calgary.
i don't like jody wilson-raybould; i think she's a conniving opportunist, and may would be foolish to recruit her, as she'd stab her in the back in no time. philpot, on the other hand, may have been a victim of her own naivete, but she may have also badly miscalculated; i'm not sure either option reflects on her well. regardless, the greens would be wise to target indigenous voters in rural ontario and pretty much all of manitoba on a sustainability platform.
the other potentially up for grabs ridings would be ultra liberal
urban ridings like ottawa centre, some of the ridings in the heart of montreal (including papineau) or some of the ridings in downtown toronto.
it would be a strong message to have the greens unseat catherine
mckenna, and i'd love to see them turf chrystia freeland. it would be the ultimate victory to unseat trudeau himself.
canada has a history of big swings, from the prairie populist movements in the west to the periodic regime changes that happen in quebec. they're hard to predict, too - and it can't be done using the methods grenier is pulling out, here.
you won't know it's happening until a week before it does. but, i think this is more of a 2023 thing. for now, they should be looking at carefully taking advantage of jagmeet singh's unpopularity in the ndp voting base.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-green-breakthrough-1.5128063
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
well, what do you expect to happen?
i'm 38 years old, and have been in gender transition since i was 19 because i don't have a financial or medical path to get through it. i'm stuck in suspended animation, and probably will be until i die.
any arrested development that set in when i was a teenager (which was already substantial at 19, given that i lost five years of female development as a teen) has just maintained itself in stasis. i never really got through puberty; i neither developed into a male, nor a female. i've been in a holding pattern...
you shouldn't expect anything other than what i'm saying, because i haven't had the opportunity to mature. when a person has what are essentially the sexual experiences of a pre-teen girl, namely nothing more than unrealized fantasies that are assumed will happen one day, the behaviour is going to align with the experience.
i wouldn't even know what to do.
i'm 38 years old, and have been in gender transition since i was 19 because i don't have a financial or medical path to get through it. i'm stuck in suspended animation, and probably will be until i die.
any arrested development that set in when i was a teenager (which was already substantial at 19, given that i lost five years of female development as a teen) has just maintained itself in stasis. i never really got through puberty; i neither developed into a male, nor a female. i've been in a holding pattern...
you shouldn't expect anything other than what i'm saying, because i haven't had the opportunity to mature. when a person has what are essentially the sexual experiences of a pre-teen girl, namely nothing more than unrealized fantasies that are assumed will happen one day, the behaviour is going to align with the experience.
i wouldn't even know what to do.
i'm just imagining what would happen if i showed up in a room with some stranger looking for sex.
i would never get that far. if i somehow had the nerve to start it off, i'd pretend i had an appointment and cancel, then delete the account. but if i was going through some kind of breakdown that week or something, i'd probably start crying when i got there, and the thing would no doubt stop - or, if i were unlucky about it, i'd get raped.
it's just beyond the realm of anything i could imagine actually doing.
i would never get that far. if i somehow had the nerve to start it off, i'd pretend i had an appointment and cancel, then delete the account. but if i was going through some kind of breakdown that week or something, i'd probably start crying when i got there, and the thing would no doubt stop - or, if i were unlucky about it, i'd get raped.
it's just beyond the realm of anything i could imagine actually doing.
i'll ask the same question i've asked in this space so many times before.
if a cis-female dresses up at a party, does that mean she's looking for sex? i think we've come to the collective cultural decision that it doesn't, actually - that you can't deduce motives from wardrobes.
then, why do you think it's ok to make this same deprecated assumption about trans females?
of course, it isn't. my wardrobe says nothing about my intentions. at all.
if a cis-female dresses up at a party, does that mean she's looking for sex? i think we've come to the collective cultural decision that it doesn't, actually - that you can't deduce motives from wardrobes.
then, why do you think it's ok to make this same deprecated assumption about trans females?
of course, it isn't. my wardrobe says nothing about my intentions. at all.
i don't use dating apps because i don't date.
and, i don't use hookup apps or whatever the lingo is for them because i don't have sex.
you can look all you want, there's nothing there. and, if you're disappointed, it's a consequence of your own delusions, not anything i've ever projected of myself - i've been clear on the point for years.
and, i don't use hookup apps or whatever the lingo is for them because i don't have sex.
you can look all you want, there's nothing there. and, if you're disappointed, it's a consequence of your own delusions, not anything i've ever projected of myself - i've been clear on the point for years.
don't misunderstand me: i don't think there should be much tolerance for assholery at a concert, or other live event. if people are being disruptive or oppressive they should be asked to leave.
but it's perhaps actually fairly predictable to learn that when you advertise a space as being heavily policed that people don't want to hang out there anymore.
just get off twitter....
but it's perhaps actually fairly predictable to learn that when you advertise a space as being heavily policed that people don't want to hang out there anymore.
just get off twitter....
i mean, something i've been noticing for a while is that a pattern opens up.
the moment a bar or coffee shop or political movement or whatever else starts advertising itself as a "safe space", attendance seems to dwindle, and the place eventually shuts down.
"safe spaces" seem to actually be terrible for business. it's like putting a giant "squares only" sign in your window. the bookings start to suffer, the place picks up a reputation for being lame, etc. it's a death knell....
if twitter wants to walk down this path, you should help the arab dictatorship that operates it along to it's own demise. i mean, do you realize who is running this?
just use a different platform.
the moment a bar or coffee shop or political movement or whatever else starts advertising itself as a "safe space", attendance seems to dwindle, and the place eventually shuts down.
"safe spaces" seem to actually be terrible for business. it's like putting a giant "squares only" sign in your window. the bookings start to suffer, the place picks up a reputation for being lame, etc. it's a death knell....
if twitter wants to walk down this path, you should help the arab dictatorship that operates it along to it's own demise. i mean, do you realize who is running this?
just use a different platform.
and, just to be clear on the point.
what the government does here in the prohibition regime is two things:
1) it claims to prevent the sale of narcotics. this is with minimal, if really any, success. what it actually does is just inflate the price.
2) it protects drug dealers from violence at the hands of the community.
this is really just an instance of the same error that the libertarian right makes over and over and over again. it seems to think that if you just take the government out of the way, you'd have this perfectly free market and you'd be able to sell whatever you want at whatever price you want, because property rights exist in the ether or something. there's this broad, general lack of understanding of the need to have a state come in and actually define what a property right is and then uphold it and enforce it with violence.
so, you might think that all drugs would be decriminalized in an anarchist society, and there would be acceptance and permissiveness and the whole thing. but i have to disagree - and you just need to ask the family members and friends of drug users to learn this. the more substantive effect of removing the state would be removing the protection that dealers enjoy. they'd get lynched in public; it would be more dangerous than it is, now.
mushrooms are certainly a least concern, and i might imagine a level of permissiveness for adult use, however obscure it may actually be. but if i caught you selling to my underage daughter, i can tell you you'd walk away with a pretty busted up face over it.
what the government does here in the prohibition regime is two things:
1) it claims to prevent the sale of narcotics. this is with minimal, if really any, success. what it actually does is just inflate the price.
2) it protects drug dealers from violence at the hands of the community.
this is really just an instance of the same error that the libertarian right makes over and over and over again. it seems to think that if you just take the government out of the way, you'd have this perfectly free market and you'd be able to sell whatever you want at whatever price you want, because property rights exist in the ether or something. there's this broad, general lack of understanding of the need to have a state come in and actually define what a property right is and then uphold it and enforce it with violence.
so, you might think that all drugs would be decriminalized in an anarchist society, and there would be acceptance and permissiveness and the whole thing. but i have to disagree - and you just need to ask the family members and friends of drug users to learn this. the more substantive effect of removing the state would be removing the protection that dealers enjoy. they'd get lynched in public; it would be more dangerous than it is, now.
mushrooms are certainly a least concern, and i might imagine a level of permissiveness for adult use, however obscure it may actually be. but if i caught you selling to my underage daughter, i can tell you you'd walk away with a pretty busted up face over it.
i'm actually fucking sick about hearing about #metoo.
this is not a populist movement. if it is anything at all, besides a mainstream media construction, it's a vanguard movement inside the elite of the democratic establishment.
if it has any effect on the upcoming cycle at all, it will strictly be in reaction to it.
this isn't because people don't want equality, it's because the way it's being presented by this particular clique of people is puritanical and extreme - and very much outside of the mainstream. again: if you live inside twitter, you wouldn't know that. but, nobody uses twitter; well, nobody outside of the establishment, anyways.
i don't expect the reaction to be very noticeable, though. more likely is crickets. perpetually. and, people getting up and walking away....
"me too" has a previous usage in a context of demeaning internet jargon. we would once speak of the annoying "me too" posters that would interject themselves into a thread, offering nothing of value. there is even a long history of shit posting and sarcasm constructed around this, where people would disingenuously post "me too!" on threads just to be annoying and pointless.
in the long run, it will be the original usage that predominates.
and, the hashtag may even end up subsumed - as an example of something that people don't like.
this is not a populist movement. if it is anything at all, besides a mainstream media construction, it's a vanguard movement inside the elite of the democratic establishment.
if it has any effect on the upcoming cycle at all, it will strictly be in reaction to it.
this isn't because people don't want equality, it's because the way it's being presented by this particular clique of people is puritanical and extreme - and very much outside of the mainstream. again: if you live inside twitter, you wouldn't know that. but, nobody uses twitter; well, nobody outside of the establishment, anyways.
i don't expect the reaction to be very noticeable, though. more likely is crickets. perpetually. and, people getting up and walking away....
"me too" has a previous usage in a context of demeaning internet jargon. we would once speak of the annoying "me too" posters that would interject themselves into a thread, offering nothing of value. there is even a long history of shit posting and sarcasm constructed around this, where people would disingenuously post "me too!" on threads just to be annoying and pointless.
in the long run, it will be the original usage that predominates.
and, the hashtag may even end up subsumed - as an example of something that people don't like.
put another way: the fact the mushroom users are a small market, and they're consequently a little harder to find (you have to know a bigger dealer, usually), is probably a good thing that you want to maintain. you don't want people to be free to throw shrooms around - you want them to be hard to find.
so, the ideal thing is not to decriminalize it technically so much as to just not enforce the laws around it.
but, on the theoretical scenario that you find somebody selling shrooms to kids, should that person go to jail? yeah. absolutely.
so, the ideal thing is not to decriminalize it technically so much as to just not enforce the laws around it.
but, on the theoretical scenario that you find somebody selling shrooms to kids, should that person go to jail? yeah. absolutely.
this is what pompeo was talking about.
it's been in the works for years.
and, i'd like to thank him for drawing attention to it.
https://canadians.org/fr/node/11895
it's been in the works for years.
and, i'd like to thank him for drawing attention to it.
https://canadians.org/fr/node/11895
it happens.
don't pretend it doesn't.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evgj3k/what-makes-people-on-shrooms-jump-off-buildings-and-die
don't pretend it doesn't.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evgj3k/what-makes-people-on-shrooms-jump-off-buildings-and-die
actually, peter mackay is wrong (as usual) and mike pompeo is actually right.
what pompeo is talking about is a chinese proposal to ship tar sands oil to asia through the arctic, an idea that has been floated for a while due to difficulty getting through bc, and a desire to avoid working through the united states.
we can debate aspects of this. i am opposed to all pipeline expansion; the united states wants to steal the oil; my government wants to sell it to china at higher prices than it can get in the us market. these are competing interests, no doubt.
but, to suggest that pompeo was making things up is disingenuous. the chinese have, in fact, heavily infested in tar sands infrastructure, and they're not doing it for our benefit.
https://canadians.org/blog/did-canada-china-fipa-influence-trudeaus-decision-buy-kinder-morgan-pipeline
what pompeo is talking about is a chinese proposal to ship tar sands oil to asia through the arctic, an idea that has been floated for a while due to difficulty getting through bc, and a desire to avoid working through the united states.
we can debate aspects of this. i am opposed to all pipeline expansion; the united states wants to steal the oil; my government wants to sell it to china at higher prices than it can get in the us market. these are competing interests, no doubt.
but, to suggest that pompeo was making things up is disingenuous. the chinese have, in fact, heavily infested in tar sands infrastructure, and they're not doing it for our benefit.
https://canadians.org/blog/did-canada-china-fipa-influence-trudeaus-decision-buy-kinder-morgan-pipeline
again: i don't exactly want to say that denver made the right choice in rejecting the decriminalization. smoking mushrooms is not unheard of, but you usually eat them, so it's hard to come up with a context where simple use would be infringing on the rights of anybody else. this is in contrast to marijuana or tobacco, where you have to infringe upon the rights of the people around you in order to use it.
it's consequently easy to make the free market or right-libertarian argument that you hear from "real capitalists", namely that the state doesn't have the right to tell you what to do with your own body. and, as mentioned, i don't actually disagree, really. i don't think i would vote for it, but i wouldn't have any active opposition to decriminalization, either; if i were in denver, i'd just be sitting this one out. i would probably abstain from a vote. nor would i see the need to push for the kind of bylaws that i would support around marijuana use, to keep it out of residential neighbourhoods and stop it from becoming a nuisance for non-users. unlike marijuana use, you can really have a trip in your basement without bothering anybody, it is true.
but, a left-wing perspective needs to consider the picture more holistically and look at the broader health implications, and i will reiterate the following truths:
1) adults don't do mushrooms; they're a drug that is almost entirely for kids. i mean, i'm sure you can point me to some 29 year-old that does mushrooms, but an analysis of their life isn't going to produce a flattering profile for a potential user base. adult mushroom users are going to be losers, through and through.
2) it follows that you're proposing decriminalizing something with a very small potential adult legal market that is going to be largely full of undesirables and a much larger potential underage market. if you're going to legalize mushrooms with an attempt to control a market, you're not going to get anywhere unless you put the legal age somewhere around 14, as that is really the target usage age, about 12-19. you're going to see use fall off dramatically after that - and that's a good thing. you don't want adults using mushrooms. i'd rather have my kids do mushrooms than meth, granted. but, is making it easier for kids to get the stuff really what you want?
3) the idea that psilocybin has some kind of clinical benefit is a marketing lie being pushed to you by capitalism, not an actual scientific reality. mushrooms make you crazy. if you want to mess with your hormone levels, there are ways to do it without stimulating schizophrenia; any potential benefits, however controversial, could be arrived at with a far less dangerous delivery mechanism. further, the term "spiritual" should obviously be outright banned from any scientific or medical discussion around anything - these claims are not worthy of serious scrutiny. "microdosing" is pseudoscience through and through.
4) there are real dangers not just from overuse but from a bad trip. mushroom use is currently marginal; it's not something very many people do. you shouldn't confuse the fact that use is marginal with a misperception that there aren't consequences from it. i mean, how many people are hospitalized for drinking bleach? does that mean drinking bleach is safe, or that almost nobody drinks bleach?
and, you just have to ask somebody that's used the drug to understand that you need to approach it with caution. you're not going to find anybody walking around saying "mushrooms are harmless", like you do with these ignorant hippies around marijuana. even the advocates know you have to be careful.
so, it's more like that decriminalization would be pointless - this is neither a drug that is currently used by many people nor a drug that has the potential to develop widespread use among adults. it's just going to open up the market for kids. but, if there was potential for widespread use, or if widespread use ever became a reality, the inevitable consequences would be widespread problems with mental health as a result of it.
opiates were supposed to have clinical benefits, too. that's how we ended up with an opiate crisis....
but, i mean, the snake oil industry doesn't care, right? the big pharmaceutical companies aren't concerned about your well-being. if they think they can profit, they will. they don't care if it kills you or not...
it's consequently easy to make the free market or right-libertarian argument that you hear from "real capitalists", namely that the state doesn't have the right to tell you what to do with your own body. and, as mentioned, i don't actually disagree, really. i don't think i would vote for it, but i wouldn't have any active opposition to decriminalization, either; if i were in denver, i'd just be sitting this one out. i would probably abstain from a vote. nor would i see the need to push for the kind of bylaws that i would support around marijuana use, to keep it out of residential neighbourhoods and stop it from becoming a nuisance for non-users. unlike marijuana use, you can really have a trip in your basement without bothering anybody, it is true.
but, a left-wing perspective needs to consider the picture more holistically and look at the broader health implications, and i will reiterate the following truths:
1) adults don't do mushrooms; they're a drug that is almost entirely for kids. i mean, i'm sure you can point me to some 29 year-old that does mushrooms, but an analysis of their life isn't going to produce a flattering profile for a potential user base. adult mushroom users are going to be losers, through and through.
2) it follows that you're proposing decriminalizing something with a very small potential adult legal market that is going to be largely full of undesirables and a much larger potential underage market. if you're going to legalize mushrooms with an attempt to control a market, you're not going to get anywhere unless you put the legal age somewhere around 14, as that is really the target usage age, about 12-19. you're going to see use fall off dramatically after that - and that's a good thing. you don't want adults using mushrooms. i'd rather have my kids do mushrooms than meth, granted. but, is making it easier for kids to get the stuff really what you want?
3) the idea that psilocybin has some kind of clinical benefit is a marketing lie being pushed to you by capitalism, not an actual scientific reality. mushrooms make you crazy. if you want to mess with your hormone levels, there are ways to do it without stimulating schizophrenia; any potential benefits, however controversial, could be arrived at with a far less dangerous delivery mechanism. further, the term "spiritual" should obviously be outright banned from any scientific or medical discussion around anything - these claims are not worthy of serious scrutiny. "microdosing" is pseudoscience through and through.
4) there are real dangers not just from overuse but from a bad trip. mushroom use is currently marginal; it's not something very many people do. you shouldn't confuse the fact that use is marginal with a misperception that there aren't consequences from it. i mean, how many people are hospitalized for drinking bleach? does that mean drinking bleach is safe, or that almost nobody drinks bleach?
and, you just have to ask somebody that's used the drug to understand that you need to approach it with caution. you're not going to find anybody walking around saying "mushrooms are harmless", like you do with these ignorant hippies around marijuana. even the advocates know you have to be careful.
so, it's more like that decriminalization would be pointless - this is neither a drug that is currently used by many people nor a drug that has the potential to develop widespread use among adults. it's just going to open up the market for kids. but, if there was potential for widespread use, or if widespread use ever became a reality, the inevitable consequences would be widespread problems with mental health as a result of it.
opiates were supposed to have clinical benefits, too. that's how we ended up with an opiate crisis....
but, i mean, the snake oil industry doesn't care, right? the big pharmaceutical companies aren't concerned about your well-being. if they think they can profit, they will. they don't care if it kills you or not...
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
to be clear for the sheltered folks that don't know.
mushrooms won't make you see things like acid, or at least not in any dose considered reasonable. that's not the "hallucinations" people refer to, in context.
a mushroom hallucination is more like a period of temporary schizophrenia. the literature may use terms like "paranoia", but that's not really what it's about. the trip will turn you into a conspiracy theorist; you'll start piecing together things, making sense of things that never made sense before. when you wake up, you'll have to grapple with this: either you put together some nonsense (an example might be coming to the clear certainty that your partner must be cheating on you, then realizing when you come to that you were lost in a fantasy and they actually aren't), or you did make sense of something that alluded you. this is why you get people talking about epiphanies on trips; the same thing that makes you a delusional conspiracy theorist for a few hours could also make you a brilliant detective.
the problem is when these conspiracy theories become real in the presence of agitation. you do hear every once in a while about somebody going on a killing spree with a butcher knife due to a mushroom trip; it's infrequent, but it happens. if you do mushrooms, you should at least be prepared to have to deal with this, because it's going to happen.
but, you're not going to think you're talking to a unicorn or something. that's acid.
mushrooms won't make you see things like acid, or at least not in any dose considered reasonable. that's not the "hallucinations" people refer to, in context.
a mushroom hallucination is more like a period of temporary schizophrenia. the literature may use terms like "paranoia", but that's not really what it's about. the trip will turn you into a conspiracy theorist; you'll start piecing together things, making sense of things that never made sense before. when you wake up, you'll have to grapple with this: either you put together some nonsense (an example might be coming to the clear certainty that your partner must be cheating on you, then realizing when you come to that you were lost in a fantasy and they actually aren't), or you did make sense of something that alluded you. this is why you get people talking about epiphanies on trips; the same thing that makes you a delusional conspiracy theorist for a few hours could also make you a brilliant detective.
the problem is when these conspiracy theories become real in the presence of agitation. you do hear every once in a while about somebody going on a killing spree with a butcher knife due to a mushroom trip; it's infrequent, but it happens. if you do mushrooms, you should at least be prepared to have to deal with this, because it's going to happen.
but, you're not going to think you're talking to a unicorn or something. that's acid.
i've done a fair amount of mushrooms in my life, but not since i've moved to windsor, and only once in the ten years before i left. in fact, i think i've only done them three times since i turned 21. i don't know how many times i did them in high school. 40? 50?
and, that's the thing with mushrooms, as well as acid: people legitimately grow out of it. i still smoke pot and drink beer, but i don't imagine that decriminalization would make me more likely to do mushrooms again. as adults tend to avoid it because it's kind of intense, decriminalization would be likely to fuel an underage market, which is maybe not terrible because they aren't habitual like marijuana or alcohol or nicotine, but is what it is, nonetheless.
you should not expect much of a legal market for this drug for adults.
i don't want to say to approach this with caution, exactly. i don't have any real opposition to decriminalizing. but, if you don't have the experience, trust me on this: a mushroom trip is a substantively more powerful experience than marijuana or alcohol, to the point that there's no comparison. i mean, you can argue that smoking a joint is kind of like taking two or three shots of vodka at once, only that it tends to last longer than the shots will. you'd have to eat a lot of marijuana to get tracers, and you'd have to go through some kind of dramatic alcohol poisoning to have something like a mushroom trip.
mushrooms will make you imagine things that aren't true; a part of the trip is the conspiracy theory. you may find yourself immobile at points, or lost observing geometric patterns unfolding in front of you. you might become unresponsive to others. while it might lead to euphoria, to suggest it can help cure depression would be dangerously misleading; what mushrooms do is heighten your existing emotional state, so it's only likely to get you euphoric if you're already in a good mood. if you take shrooms when you're having a bad day, the negativity you're feeling is actually going to end up amplified, and you're going to have a "bad trip". i am beyond skeptical of this research, and willing to call complete bullshit on it. 'shrooms are relatively safe if you're experienced and in a positive state when you do them, but they may lead to agitation and violence if you aren't, and you should not be treating them like they're some kind of medicine.
you can teach your kids to use alcohol and marijuana sparingly and responsibly; 'shrooms are in a different category, and you should be telling your kids to mostly avoid them. 'shrooms are only for special occasions...and only when you're sure the environment is safe.....
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/07/720828367/a-growing-push-to-loosen-laws-around-psilocybin-treat-mushrooms-as-medicine
and, that's the thing with mushrooms, as well as acid: people legitimately grow out of it. i still smoke pot and drink beer, but i don't imagine that decriminalization would make me more likely to do mushrooms again. as adults tend to avoid it because it's kind of intense, decriminalization would be likely to fuel an underage market, which is maybe not terrible because they aren't habitual like marijuana or alcohol or nicotine, but is what it is, nonetheless.
you should not expect much of a legal market for this drug for adults.
i don't want to say to approach this with caution, exactly. i don't have any real opposition to decriminalizing. but, if you don't have the experience, trust me on this: a mushroom trip is a substantively more powerful experience than marijuana or alcohol, to the point that there's no comparison. i mean, you can argue that smoking a joint is kind of like taking two or three shots of vodka at once, only that it tends to last longer than the shots will. you'd have to eat a lot of marijuana to get tracers, and you'd have to go through some kind of dramatic alcohol poisoning to have something like a mushroom trip.
mushrooms will make you imagine things that aren't true; a part of the trip is the conspiracy theory. you may find yourself immobile at points, or lost observing geometric patterns unfolding in front of you. you might become unresponsive to others. while it might lead to euphoria, to suggest it can help cure depression would be dangerously misleading; what mushrooms do is heighten your existing emotional state, so it's only likely to get you euphoric if you're already in a good mood. if you take shrooms when you're having a bad day, the negativity you're feeling is actually going to end up amplified, and you're going to have a "bad trip". i am beyond skeptical of this research, and willing to call complete bullshit on it. 'shrooms are relatively safe if you're experienced and in a positive state when you do them, but they may lead to agitation and violence if you aren't, and you should not be treating them like they're some kind of medicine.
you can teach your kids to use alcohol and marijuana sparingly and responsibly; 'shrooms are in a different category, and you should be telling your kids to mostly avoid them. 'shrooms are only for special occasions...and only when you're sure the environment is safe.....
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/07/720828367/a-growing-push-to-loosen-laws-around-psilocybin-treat-mushrooms-as-medicine
as i support a one state solution with equal rights for all and not a two state solution rooted in exclusion and ethnic nationalism, i actually don't think it's important whether the canadian embassy in israel is in jerusalem or tel aviv, although i might suggest that the employees on the ground may be safer in tel aviv in the short run.
i ended up sleeping until almost midnight, got up to eat twice and am now back to sorting through reviews for the day.
i should go get my replacement blood test sheet in the next few days, but it apparently isn't ready for pickup yet. as it is, i don't expect to go anywhere today at all.
let's hope i can get through most of the month before the next sleep. but we'll see how that goes.
i should go get my replacement blood test sheet in the next few days, but it apparently isn't ready for pickup yet. as it is, i don't expect to go anywhere today at all.
let's hope i can get through most of the month before the next sleep. but we'll see how that goes.
no. stop.
if i'm a conservative hindu or muslim from india or africa just off the plane for not that long, and i came here with some money to get a job that was waiting, i'm sort of disenfranchised off the cricket bat.
the conservatives may align more with my values of free markets and traditional values, but they're racist, and i don't really feel welcome at their events, even if the leadership insists i am.
the liberals may seem more welcoming, but i'm not a liberal, and i don't like their policies very much. high taxes, women's rights, restrictions on industry...this stuff is weird and foreign to me. i came here for the free markets.
if the ndp parks themselves in the middle of this and acts as a kind of a "young turks conservative" party that is both legitimately welcoming of newcomers and yet also interested in traditional and conservative value systems, it's going to find itself very appealing to a very large number of people. it may end up on the right in a technical sense, but it's going to take voters from both parties.
it's going to completely lose it's base of white activists, though.
i know that a lot of people are going to recoil at how i'm presenting this, but the data is clear enough, and i actually think this is healthy. the spectrum right now is full of redundancy and disenfranchisement. there's a lot of asians in canada, now, and they don't have the same cultural baggage; they don't fall along the same ideological, party lines. it's perfectly natural for them to organize along their own divisions.
in the long run, you end up with mergers or marginalizations. a centre-right ndp would eventually push the conservatives into the fringes, and help the liberals rediscover themselves. but, in the short run, it would be a healthy and democratic turn of events to enfranchise a set of voters that are maybe even less interested than they ought to be....
then, when their kids swing left, they do it for the right reasons, as they rebel against their conservative parents. and, i'll be here to cheer them on when they do....
if i'm a conservative hindu or muslim from india or africa just off the plane for not that long, and i came here with some money to get a job that was waiting, i'm sort of disenfranchised off the cricket bat.
the conservatives may align more with my values of free markets and traditional values, but they're racist, and i don't really feel welcome at their events, even if the leadership insists i am.
the liberals may seem more welcoming, but i'm not a liberal, and i don't like their policies very much. high taxes, women's rights, restrictions on industry...this stuff is weird and foreign to me. i came here for the free markets.
if the ndp parks themselves in the middle of this and acts as a kind of a "young turks conservative" party that is both legitimately welcoming of newcomers and yet also interested in traditional and conservative value systems, it's going to find itself very appealing to a very large number of people. it may end up on the right in a technical sense, but it's going to take voters from both parties.
it's going to completely lose it's base of white activists, though.
i know that a lot of people are going to recoil at how i'm presenting this, but the data is clear enough, and i actually think this is healthy. the spectrum right now is full of redundancy and disenfranchisement. there's a lot of asians in canada, now, and they don't have the same cultural baggage; they don't fall along the same ideological, party lines. it's perfectly natural for them to organize along their own divisions.
in the long run, you end up with mergers or marginalizations. a centre-right ndp would eventually push the conservatives into the fringes, and help the liberals rediscover themselves. but, in the short run, it would be a healthy and democratic turn of events to enfranchise a set of voters that are maybe even less interested than they ought to be....
then, when their kids swing left, they do it for the right reasons, as they rebel against their conservative parents. and, i'll be here to cheer them on when they do....
i would imagine that a paul manly from vancouver island would probably be a lumberjack. i appear to have been wrong - he'd rather plant trees than cut them down. canada's changing.
this is a byelection, so turnout was probably low. nonetheless, it is clearly a very good result for the greens. i pointed out a while ago that the greens were going to replace the ndp in the spectrum, as deindustrialization (and the subsequent collapse of unionized workers) gives way to a fundamental shift on the left towards sustainability. this is certainly a step in that direction.
it's healthy to see a three-party system open up in bc, though. what that means, in bc, provincially, is that you have the liberals on the right, the ndp in the centre and the greens on the left. this ends up complicated federally by the conservatives. so, who gets squeezed in that system? the liberals or the ndp?
if the ndp are becoming the new immigrant party, and they are, they are going to end up on the center-right, as a replacement for the old progressive conservative party, and as a reflection of the values of new immigrants. i'm not scare mongering. i believe in democracy - they should be represented, and neither of the old parties can really do it. but, with their abandonment of socialism, the ndp of the future will try to give you a kind of traditional conservativism without the racism; this is an evolution of multiculturalism, in a way that neither of the old parties can articulate. that mix of inclusion and conservatism means it's going to end up something like the democratic party in the states. and, they may be more successful running to the right of the liberals in the long term, too, as they try to carve out a space between the old parties.
but, that means that the new left in canada is the environmental movement. there is some evidence that the greens may leapfrog the ndp this election, and that's long overdue.
now, if they could just get rid of tipsy lizzy. by 2023. they'll need to.....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/nanaimo-ladysmith-byelection-1.5125549
this is a byelection, so turnout was probably low. nonetheless, it is clearly a very good result for the greens. i pointed out a while ago that the greens were going to replace the ndp in the spectrum, as deindustrialization (and the subsequent collapse of unionized workers) gives way to a fundamental shift on the left towards sustainability. this is certainly a step in that direction.
it's healthy to see a three-party system open up in bc, though. what that means, in bc, provincially, is that you have the liberals on the right, the ndp in the centre and the greens on the left. this ends up complicated federally by the conservatives. so, who gets squeezed in that system? the liberals or the ndp?
if the ndp are becoming the new immigrant party, and they are, they are going to end up on the center-right, as a replacement for the old progressive conservative party, and as a reflection of the values of new immigrants. i'm not scare mongering. i believe in democracy - they should be represented, and neither of the old parties can really do it. but, with their abandonment of socialism, the ndp of the future will try to give you a kind of traditional conservativism without the racism; this is an evolution of multiculturalism, in a way that neither of the old parties can articulate. that mix of inclusion and conservatism means it's going to end up something like the democratic party in the states. and, they may be more successful running to the right of the liberals in the long term, too, as they try to carve out a space between the old parties.
but, that means that the new left in canada is the environmental movement. there is some evidence that the greens may leapfrog the ndp this election, and that's long overdue.
now, if they could just get rid of tipsy lizzy. by 2023. they'll need to.....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/nanaimo-ladysmith-byelection-1.5125549
i don't see any particular reason why it's necessary to choose between kin selection and group selection as some kind of monolithic force. there's nothing wrong with arguing that insects operate on group selection, whereas mammals operate on kin selection; there's no reason to interpret evolution as an ethereal natural law that exists "out there" somewhere waiting to be discovered, and rather a lot of reason to conceive of it as driven by randomness and chance.
one of the things that bugs me about evolutionary biology right now is this tendency to assume that any kind of mutation is an adaptation, beneficial, a response and has a cause, and that it must be demonstrated otherwise, if it is the case. it's teleological, and the field is littered with it. but, it's not consistent with the basic scientific method, either. rather, when presented with a specific mutation, the null hypothesis should be that it's a consequence of drift, and you should be doing hypothesis testing on it to determine if there's evidence that it's actually an adaptation or not. the idea that you have to choose between these two models is coming from this similar place of mythologizing around evolution as something almost supernatural in scope.
in terms of human societies, i don't think there is really a serious debate at play. we kin select. artificially. that's obvious.
https://prospect.org/article/evolutionary-roots-altruism
one of the things that bugs me about evolutionary biology right now is this tendency to assume that any kind of mutation is an adaptation, beneficial, a response and has a cause, and that it must be demonstrated otherwise, if it is the case. it's teleological, and the field is littered with it. but, it's not consistent with the basic scientific method, either. rather, when presented with a specific mutation, the null hypothesis should be that it's a consequence of drift, and you should be doing hypothesis testing on it to determine if there's evidence that it's actually an adaptation or not. the idea that you have to choose between these two models is coming from this similar place of mythologizing around evolution as something almost supernatural in scope.
in terms of human societies, i don't think there is really a serious debate at play. we kin select. artificially. that's obvious.
https://prospect.org/article/evolutionary-roots-altruism
of course i'm all about mutual aid.
but mutual aid has to be mutual, which means you don't push for it if you're pretty sure you're not going to get it back. and, there has to be common cause to make sense of it, too. so, that means no mutual aid with fascists. obvious, right? but, is islam a fascist thought system or not?
i'm more willing to extend solidarity and support and aid to the people trying to escape islam than the people trying to establish it. that means solidarity for secularists in the middle east, and it means solidarity for atheists and secularists in the west, too. i would have common cause with a kid trying to escape their muslim parents, rather than the muslim parents trying to enforce themselves on the kid. and, of course, i'd say the same thing about christians, too.
so, it's a question of the poverty of the breadcrumbs one expects to receive in return for mutual aid with muslim groups, which isn't missing the point but rather clarifying it.
mutual aid is often attributed to kroptkin, which i think is at least useful, even if you can find somebody else older than him. what's forgotten is that kropotkin was a scientist and his concept of mutual aid as an anarchist social idea was actually a corollary of his evolutionary theory. dawkins doesn't like the comparison, but i think he's being obsequious to cultural censorship in denying it; his own work, as described for popular consumption in the film nice guys finish first, is really a clarification of the evolutionary concept of mutual aid, and an expansion of it to a modern treatment and understanding. using computer trials and game theory, he's able to demonstrate that successful social behaviour treats mutual aid as an assumption, but is also quick to deny it upon any sort of betrayal. one could argue that this is essentially a mathematical proof of the lesson that anarchists should have taken from their own struggles, most famously the difficult question of alliances in the spanish revolution, where they've had the best chance of serious implementation.
what that means is that you need to calculate where mutual aid is an effective strategy and where it's likely to lead to being taken advantage of and then adjust accordingly. and, i can't imagine how providing mutual aid to this system of dominance and oppression is going to lead to anything but a catastrophic outcome for people on the left, with leftist values and leftist aspirations. providing mutual aid to muslims can only lead to the undoing of any kind of leftist struggle.
but, it also follows that it is important to extend mutual aid to the people that you expect to return it, which very explicitly includes those that are trying to get out of the mental and physical grips of the religious system: apostates, queers, feminists, academics, anarchists, socialists, atheists, punks, rebels, lumpen and other people that are standing against what the religion stands for.
there was no reason for you to be confused about where i stand on this, and i'm happy to acknowledge that we may disagree, if you identify as a member of the "christian left" or as a theist or as a "progressive". i'm none of these things, and i've never claimed common cause with you, either. but, i hope that this clarifies my perspective - which is that of the anarchist or libertarian left, if slightly updated with the replacement of kropotkin with dawkins - if you were previously confused about it.
but mutual aid has to be mutual, which means you don't push for it if you're pretty sure you're not going to get it back. and, there has to be common cause to make sense of it, too. so, that means no mutual aid with fascists. obvious, right? but, is islam a fascist thought system or not?
i'm more willing to extend solidarity and support and aid to the people trying to escape islam than the people trying to establish it. that means solidarity for secularists in the middle east, and it means solidarity for atheists and secularists in the west, too. i would have common cause with a kid trying to escape their muslim parents, rather than the muslim parents trying to enforce themselves on the kid. and, of course, i'd say the same thing about christians, too.
so, it's a question of the poverty of the breadcrumbs one expects to receive in return for mutual aid with muslim groups, which isn't missing the point but rather clarifying it.
mutual aid is often attributed to kroptkin, which i think is at least useful, even if you can find somebody else older than him. what's forgotten is that kropotkin was a scientist and his concept of mutual aid as an anarchist social idea was actually a corollary of his evolutionary theory. dawkins doesn't like the comparison, but i think he's being obsequious to cultural censorship in denying it; his own work, as described for popular consumption in the film nice guys finish first, is really a clarification of the evolutionary concept of mutual aid, and an expansion of it to a modern treatment and understanding. using computer trials and game theory, he's able to demonstrate that successful social behaviour treats mutual aid as an assumption, but is also quick to deny it upon any sort of betrayal. one could argue that this is essentially a mathematical proof of the lesson that anarchists should have taken from their own struggles, most famously the difficult question of alliances in the spanish revolution, where they've had the best chance of serious implementation.
what that means is that you need to calculate where mutual aid is an effective strategy and where it's likely to lead to being taken advantage of and then adjust accordingly. and, i can't imagine how providing mutual aid to this system of dominance and oppression is going to lead to anything but a catastrophic outcome for people on the left, with leftist values and leftist aspirations. providing mutual aid to muslims can only lead to the undoing of any kind of leftist struggle.
but, it also follows that it is important to extend mutual aid to the people that you expect to return it, which very explicitly includes those that are trying to get out of the mental and physical grips of the religious system: apostates, queers, feminists, academics, anarchists, socialists, atheists, punks, rebels, lumpen and other people that are standing against what the religion stands for.
there was no reason for you to be confused about where i stand on this, and i'm happy to acknowledge that we may disagree, if you identify as a member of the "christian left" or as a theist or as a "progressive". i'm none of these things, and i've never claimed common cause with you, either. but, i hope that this clarifies my perspective - which is that of the anarchist or libertarian left, if slightly updated with the replacement of kropotkin with dawkins - if you were previously confused about it.
this seems way too simple to actually be reflective of the truth, but it underscores a concept of groupthink in the party base. the media is talking about things like "electability" and pointing to polls about the topic, but this is a kind of entrapment leading to what i think is probably a strawman: you asked them that (leading) question so you could say that. you didn't ask them about tribalism in the party.
there's no reason to think this is permanent. granted. but, it indicates that democrats may just not really want to deal with a lengthy primary - that they want continuity, unity and a common front. this isn't necessarily about "electability", but may actually be about hierarchy, and a desire to put the party first. it may be a kind of corporatism, or collectivism, that is about subsuming the interests of the individual into the interests of the collective; people might just not want to cause a ruckus, right now. in that analysis, biden is leading because he's seen as legitimate; he's the rightful heir, whereas bernie is a distant second in succession, and the rest of the field are upstarts and pretenders.
under that reading, perhaps sanders was ahead in the polls because the media told voters that sanders was ahead in the polls. and, perhaps biden is now ahead for the same reason.
if the base is interested in a policy discussion, that could change. if it isn't, it might not - and bernie needs to get out and register.
Monday, May 6, 2019
decriminalizing hard drugs, opiates specifically, is not going to save anybody's life, and the people telling you it will are peddling false hopes and nonsense.
we're probably better off redirecting the policing services. sure. there are other reasons to stop enforcing the law, even if it's kept illegal, technically.
but, the fact is that these drugs are going to kill the people that use them, regardless.
the exception is mdma. if you legalized mdma, you would save lives, because people that take mdma aren't intending to take something harder. but, it's not really a "hard drug" either. i made this point from the start. that is the drug you should target, not heroin and not coke and not even pot, really.
opiates, specifically, build up tolerance levels, so you need more and more to get high as you go. it follows that the sad truth is that it's just a matter of time, unless you deal with the addiction. we can talk about clean needles and all of these kinds of things as risk reduction in the context of cost reduction and that's fine, but giving addicts clean needles and clean drugs is still going to kill them, as the tolerance pushes past the lethal state.
you have to treat the addiction, and you can only do that if it's voluntary. that's what mitigation should be about.
we're probably better off redirecting the policing services. sure. there are other reasons to stop enforcing the law, even if it's kept illegal, technically.
but, the fact is that these drugs are going to kill the people that use them, regardless.
the exception is mdma. if you legalized mdma, you would save lives, because people that take mdma aren't intending to take something harder. but, it's not really a "hard drug" either. i made this point from the start. that is the drug you should target, not heroin and not coke and not even pot, really.
opiates, specifically, build up tolerance levels, so you need more and more to get high as you go. it follows that the sad truth is that it's just a matter of time, unless you deal with the addiction. we can talk about clean needles and all of these kinds of things as risk reduction in the context of cost reduction and that's fine, but giving addicts clean needles and clean drugs is still going to kill them, as the tolerance pushes past the lethal state.
you have to treat the addiction, and you can only do that if it's voluntary. that's what mitigation should be about.
i'm now caught up to the end of last night. if i skipped your band, it's because i think you suck. sorry.
i'm going to want to push forward at least a few more weeks and ideally until i can find a show to hit until i start writing. right now, i'm looking at either touche amore in june or screaming females in july, bands i've seen repeatedly. i'd like to maybe hit something i haven't seen before. and sooner.
i'm going to want to push forward at least a few more weeks and ideally until i can find a show to hit until i start writing. right now, i'm looking at either touche amore in june or screaming females in july, bands i've seen repeatedly. i'd like to maybe hit something i haven't seen before. and sooner.
islam is a system of violence, hierarchy and oppression.
if you are actually opposed to all systems of violence and oppression - as those on the left are supposed to be - then it follows that you must extend your opposition of those systems to an opposition to islam. you can't claim some kind of common cause, here. it's a contradiction - and you're a hypocrite.
it should not be a complicated thing. but, the media's got you confused, and carrying out acts of terrorism on their behalf.
your kids will thank me for standing up for what's right and pushing back against a system that threatens the freedom of all of us, even as you lack the moral courage to do so, yourself.
if you are actually opposed to all systems of violence and oppression - as those on the left are supposed to be - then it follows that you must extend your opposition of those systems to an opposition to islam. you can't claim some kind of common cause, here. it's a contradiction - and you're a hypocrite.
it should not be a complicated thing. but, the media's got you confused, and carrying out acts of terrorism on their behalf.
your kids will thank me for standing up for what's right and pushing back against a system that threatens the freedom of all of us, even as you lack the moral courage to do so, yourself.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
when was it that i finished with that little bit of pot that i smoked far away from the house?
the 25th?
i haven't smoked anything since - and that was after 11 months of complete abstinence. this is the new normal for me, and what i've actually wanted for a long time. i'm happy to be here. the struggle is not with my habits, they're under control, but with the habits of the people around me, and in finding a living environment where they're not affecting me when i don't want them to.
the 25th?
i haven't smoked anything since - and that was after 11 months of complete abstinence. this is the new normal for me, and what i've actually wanted for a long time. i'm happy to be here. the struggle is not with my habits, they're under control, but with the habits of the people around me, and in finding a living environment where they're not affecting me when i don't want them to.
i was actually surprised by how interesting toronto's instrumental rock scene seemed all of a sudden, but it rather seems like it was just a few weeks in april, and things are slowing down.
i'm making progress.
but, it doesn't make sense to start writing documents until i can set some timelines arond them.
i'll call some people in the morning, as well.
as for the air quality in here, i'm slowly ruling out the heaters: the guy upstairs is smoking both cigarettes and marijuana. and, i'm going to need to think carefully about what to do about it.
there don't appear to be butts outside, and i can't smell it outside. he seems to be careful to smoke inside with the windows closed, eliminating any kind of evidence for me to work with. worse, this is going to be the third time in two years that i'm at the tenant board complaining about second-hand smoke. yes, i did my due diligence. yes, i signed a non-smoking lease. but, if the board decides i'm a whiner then i'm going to lose the case.
what i've been doing instead is running the shower whenever the smell gets out of control, and it works for a while. i have not made a complaint, and i'm not going to until i can get some kind of actual evidence. in theory, the easiest thing to do would be to ask, but my perception is essentially that if he's going to sign a non-smoking lease and then smoke inside then any kind of conversation with him is just a waste of time. if i end up carrying through with some kind of legal action, i'm just going to jump directly to it. there's no use in negotiating with a dishonest actor.
legally, i can't tell him not to smoke, and i can't ask him to evict himself. what i can do is ask for an end to the lease, and for financial compensation for the suffering i've endured while living here. but, i learned last year that finding a way out isn't as easy as it might seem.
the best way for me to get to a non-smoking building is through subsidized housing, but there's an absurd wait.
in the mean time, if he thinks smoking inside the house is worth a $300/month water bill, that's his prerogative.
i'm making progress.
but, it doesn't make sense to start writing documents until i can set some timelines arond them.
i'll call some people in the morning, as well.
as for the air quality in here, i'm slowly ruling out the heaters: the guy upstairs is smoking both cigarettes and marijuana. and, i'm going to need to think carefully about what to do about it.
there don't appear to be butts outside, and i can't smell it outside. he seems to be careful to smoke inside with the windows closed, eliminating any kind of evidence for me to work with. worse, this is going to be the third time in two years that i'm at the tenant board complaining about second-hand smoke. yes, i did my due diligence. yes, i signed a non-smoking lease. but, if the board decides i'm a whiner then i'm going to lose the case.
what i've been doing instead is running the shower whenever the smell gets out of control, and it works for a while. i have not made a complaint, and i'm not going to until i can get some kind of actual evidence. in theory, the easiest thing to do would be to ask, but my perception is essentially that if he's going to sign a non-smoking lease and then smoke inside then any kind of conversation with him is just a waste of time. if i end up carrying through with some kind of legal action, i'm just going to jump directly to it. there's no use in negotiating with a dishonest actor.
legally, i can't tell him not to smoke, and i can't ask him to evict himself. what i can do is ask for an end to the lease, and for financial compensation for the suffering i've endured while living here. but, i learned last year that finding a way out isn't as easy as it might seem.
the best way for me to get to a non-smoking building is through subsidized housing, but there's an absurd wait.
in the mean time, if he thinks smoking inside the house is worth a $300/month water bill, that's his prerogative.
the place i come from is not sadness and depression, it's disdain and nihilism, even if i'm not a nihilist - and i'm really not.
it's not about being withdrawn and distant because i'm sad and i hate myself, it's about being disinterested in participating in society because i think it's full of assholes and offers nothing of meaningful substance. i don't hate me, i hate you.
as the flaming lips song says,
"i believe in nothing, and you're convinced of the hex."
it's a fundamental difference. and, it would take five minutes for me to explain it to you, if you'd shut up and listen to me.
it's not about being withdrawn and distant because i'm sad and i hate myself, it's about being disinterested in participating in society because i think it's full of assholes and offers nothing of meaningful substance. i don't hate me, i hate you.
as the flaming lips song says,
"i believe in nothing, and you're convinced of the hex."
it's a fundamental difference. and, it would take five minutes for me to explain it to you, if you'd shut up and listen to me.
i want to be clear about a point.
my disability diagnosis from 2012-2015 was not depression, nor have i ever been diagnosed with depression, nor have i ever claimed to suffer from depression. frankly, i think that anybody who's ever known me for any extended period would think it's obvious that i don't suffer from depression.
my diagnosis over this period was ptsd & gender dysphoria. those were the reasons i was put on odsp - not depression.
this was downgraded in 2015 to my current diagnosis, which is social anxiety disorder. the gender dysphoria continues forward in the diagnosis.
and, as i have never been diagnosed with depression, i have never taken any medication for it.
i do, however, believe that a proper diagnosis would be on the order of a personality disorder. i'm not a narcissist, but i am extremely anti-social. there's no clear basis of diagnosis, it's really up to the discretion of the doctor. but, this is the right path to walk down, not depression.
my disability diagnosis from 2012-2015 was not depression, nor have i ever been diagnosed with depression, nor have i ever claimed to suffer from depression. frankly, i think that anybody who's ever known me for any extended period would think it's obvious that i don't suffer from depression.
my diagnosis over this period was ptsd & gender dysphoria. those were the reasons i was put on odsp - not depression.
this was downgraded in 2015 to my current diagnosis, which is social anxiety disorder. the gender dysphoria continues forward in the diagnosis.
and, as i have never been diagnosed with depression, i have never taken any medication for it.
i do, however, believe that a proper diagnosis would be on the order of a personality disorder. i'm not a narcissist, but i am extremely anti-social. there's no clear basis of diagnosis, it's really up to the discretion of the doctor. but, this is the right path to walk down, not depression.
fwiw, these are the mp3s i have dated locally to the fall of 2013 organized by actual release date.
aug
20. native - orthodox
sept
02. chelsea wolfe - pain is beauty
10. body / head - coming apart
11. man man - on oni pond
13. indricothere - xi
14. swans - not here not now
16. 65daysofstatic - wild light
17. pinkish black - razed to the ground
24. touche amore - is survived by
oct
01. melt banana - fetch
07. lee ranaldo and the dust - last night on earth
11. autechre - l-event
15. pelican - forever becoming
15. mammatus - heady mental
21. the future of the left - how to stop your brain in an accident
29. son lux - lanterns
29. yamantaka // sonic titan - uzu
30. inri cassette demo #1
nov
04. david bowie - the next day extra
05. melvins - tres cabrones
08. inri cassette demo #2
09. inricycled
16. inri - eat my fuck
21. inri - pop music
21. inri - gene-o's
30. inri - warning
dec
11. a very doldrums christmas
11. inricycled
21. inri
24. inriched
27. inrijected
27. inrimixed
aug
20. native - orthodox
sept
02. chelsea wolfe - pain is beauty
10. body / head - coming apart
11. man man - on oni pond
13. indricothere - xi
14. swans - not here not now
16. 65daysofstatic - wild light
17. pinkish black - razed to the ground
24. touche amore - is survived by
oct
01. melt banana - fetch
07. lee ranaldo and the dust - last night on earth
11. autechre - l-event
15. pelican - forever becoming
15. mammatus - heady mental
21. the future of the left - how to stop your brain in an accident
29. son lux - lanterns
29. yamantaka // sonic titan - uzu
30. inri cassette demo #1
nov
04. david bowie - the next day extra
05. melvins - tres cabrones
08. inri cassette demo #2
09. inricycled
16. inri - eat my fuck
21. inri - pop music
21. inri - gene-o's
30. inri - warning
dec
11. a very doldrums christmas
11. inricycled
21. inri
24. inriched
27. inrijected
27. inrimixed
and, what about my actual health?
well, i'm waiting for the blood test. i'll need to get that sheet updated, first. i'll get the test done next week...
my bmi has been inching up a little over the last few years, from around 19 to around 21. i'm 38 years old at this point, so a little weight gain isn't so strange. i quit smoking in 2016, and can maybe attribute five pounds to it. i think that the more concerning reality is that i've become far less active recently, due to a combination of the weather and the court issue; i've found myself sitting inside for weeks at a time. i should address this and get a bit more exercise via getting out more for walking and bicycling
a gym is a disgusting place, if you think about it, full of people driven by hierarchy and sexual desire, and no doubt full of disease and violence. it's not somewhere where a healthy, well-adjusted person should go. if i'm going to get some more exercise, i'd rather do it by myself, where i'm not subject to some kind of ordering, and i don't have to deal with people gazing at me. yuck.
i'm still ridiculously healthy, as i always have been. until recently, the concern was always that i was underweight, so a little bit of a weight increase is actually a positive step that i've made a purposeful attempt at. but, i should take steps to get the curve under control. 21-22 is actually ideal, but i don't want to get it any higher.
you'll notice that i'm talking about bmi and not weight and i'm doing that entirely on purpose. i'm not interested in what fashion magazines have to say about the topic, i'm interested in what an objective, scientific analysis is; i don't want to look emaciated and photoshopped, i want a healthy body type and a healthy body image.
so, i was trying to gain some weight, and i've accomplished that, but i need to pull back a little now and stop that number from getting any higher.
well, i'm waiting for the blood test. i'll need to get that sheet updated, first. i'll get the test done next week...
my bmi has been inching up a little over the last few years, from around 19 to around 21. i'm 38 years old at this point, so a little weight gain isn't so strange. i quit smoking in 2016, and can maybe attribute five pounds to it. i think that the more concerning reality is that i've become far less active recently, due to a combination of the weather and the court issue; i've found myself sitting inside for weeks at a time. i should address this and get a bit more exercise via getting out more for walking and bicycling
a gym is a disgusting place, if you think about it, full of people driven by hierarchy and sexual desire, and no doubt full of disease and violence. it's not somewhere where a healthy, well-adjusted person should go. if i'm going to get some more exercise, i'd rather do it by myself, where i'm not subject to some kind of ordering, and i don't have to deal with people gazing at me. yuck.
i'm still ridiculously healthy, as i always have been. until recently, the concern was always that i was underweight, so a little bit of a weight increase is actually a positive step that i've made a purposeful attempt at. but, i should take steps to get the curve under control. 21-22 is actually ideal, but i don't want to get it any higher.
you'll notice that i'm talking about bmi and not weight and i'm doing that entirely on purpose. i'm not interested in what fashion magazines have to say about the topic, i'm interested in what an objective, scientific analysis is; i don't want to look emaciated and photoshopped, i want a healthy body type and a healthy body image.
so, i was trying to gain some weight, and i've accomplished that, but i need to pull back a little now and stop that number from getting any higher.
i will remind you, however, that the issue i'm dealing with is a very mouthy (junior) rogue prosecutor that was probably acting on a homophobic bias that was so powerful that she had to excuse herself from the case, and not a decision made by an elected body.
if an elected body has no right to declare people "welcome" or "unwelcome", it would follow that any such claim made by an individual, whether in an official capacity or not, would simply be a delusional statement of absurd grandiosity.
if an elected body has no right to declare people "welcome" or "unwelcome", it would follow that any such claim made by an individual, whether in an official capacity or not, would simply be a delusional statement of absurd grandiosity.
a community may have the right to protect itself, and may consequently have the right to decide that convicts are not permitted to participate in the governing process, but that doesn't give them property rights over the land.
as is so often the case with what we see from indigenous groups when they are permitted to exercise actual power, this is an example of what a government shouldn't do. ever. under any scenario.
and, if i was her, i'd go there just to poke fingers in their eyes and demonstrate that they have no right to decide whether people are "welcome" in an area or not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/03/oglala-sioux-tribe-tells-south-dakota-governor-she-is-not-welcome-their-reservation/?tid=pm_politics_pop
as is so often the case with what we see from indigenous groups when they are permitted to exercise actual power, this is an example of what a government shouldn't do. ever. under any scenario.
and, if i was her, i'd go there just to poke fingers in their eyes and demonstrate that they have no right to decide whether people are "welcome" in an area or not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/03/oglala-sioux-tribe-tells-south-dakota-governor-she-is-not-welcome-their-reservation/?tid=pm_politics_pop
the media is also doing something very tricky with elizabeth warren.
elizabeth warren is a conservative, so she's acceptable to the establishment. and, if you find my claim outlandish or discriminatory, begin taking note of this fact, mentally: across the media, every story that mentions sanders also mentions warren, despite the fact that polling indicates that warren is not being taken seriously by the party's left, because she's not a part of it, and her policies are not consistent with it.
this is called a bait and switch: they run headlines about sanders with stories that are clearly intended to increase support for warren. you can see the tactic at work - the establishment wants you to switch from sanders to warren.
you should consequently be exceedingly skeptical about anybody posing on the left that expresses support for warren or her reactionary policies.
but, this is what they're doing, this is what they want, and we'll see if it works.
warren will consequently attempt to piggyback on sanders as long as she can. and, bernie needs to come to a stark realization: she's not his friend. she's been sent to co-opt him. and, he needs to stay away from her.
elizabeth warren is a conservative, so she's acceptable to the establishment. and, if you find my claim outlandish or discriminatory, begin taking note of this fact, mentally: across the media, every story that mentions sanders also mentions warren, despite the fact that polling indicates that warren is not being taken seriously by the party's left, because she's not a part of it, and her policies are not consistent with it.
this is called a bait and switch: they run headlines about sanders with stories that are clearly intended to increase support for warren. you can see the tactic at work - the establishment wants you to switch from sanders to warren.
you should consequently be exceedingly skeptical about anybody posing on the left that expresses support for warren or her reactionary policies.
but, this is what they're doing, this is what they want, and we'll see if it works.
warren will consequently attempt to piggyback on sanders as long as she can. and, bernie needs to come to a stark realization: she's not his friend. she's been sent to co-opt him. and, he needs to stay away from her.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
what do these polls that all of a sudden have biden way ahead really say? and what does the fundamental matchup of biden v bernie within the reality of a "diverse" primary really say?
i actually think it's mostly the european press that wants the democrats to be the black party and the republicans to be the white party, and that it's rooted in an over-simplified concept of race in america, one that might even be skewed by european philosophers like foucault. a lot of racist american liberals then get their skewed perceptions of race in america by reading the european press, while complaining about how bad the american press is. historically speaking, the party of slavery was actually the democrats. if you're confused by these old white men leading the race at this stage in history, the fact is that you're working on a false premise.
the country is not a monolith, which is the point i tried to make in 2016. there are dominant regional differences. yes: black women will decide who wins in a small number of states like south carolina (the reddest states in the country, if you look to see). further, black voters will be important in the general in specific close states, as they will probably swing overwhelmingly to the democrats - in the sense that you can take them for granted. i'm not being bold in predicting that 90%+ of blacks will vote democratic, regardless of the candidate. logically, that means that they're not important in the primaries.
the reality is that what the polling is stating is that the face of the democatic party is in fact an older white person, if not necessarily a male, because that is the core of it's cardholding, dues-paying voting base. the stats actually back that up: the people that will vote in the primary are going to be disproportionately older than the general voting public will be. further, the country is still majority white. it does in fact follow that the most important identity voter in the democratic party will be an older white person, and that if they vote on identity then they will pick an older white person to represent them.
in order for the younger candidates, whatever their race or gender, to counteract this, they will need to find ways to create new voters through registration. in fact, we know that sanders is by far the most popular candidate with new voters.
but, can sanders beat biden with the old white folks that define the base?
good luck to you, sir. you'll need it.
that's what the polls are stating: the democratic base is old and it wants an old person to reflect itself. and, we've known that for a long time - it's not surprising.
i actually think it's mostly the european press that wants the democrats to be the black party and the republicans to be the white party, and that it's rooted in an over-simplified concept of race in america, one that might even be skewed by european philosophers like foucault. a lot of racist american liberals then get their skewed perceptions of race in america by reading the european press, while complaining about how bad the american press is. historically speaking, the party of slavery was actually the democrats. if you're confused by these old white men leading the race at this stage in history, the fact is that you're working on a false premise.
the country is not a monolith, which is the point i tried to make in 2016. there are dominant regional differences. yes: black women will decide who wins in a small number of states like south carolina (the reddest states in the country, if you look to see). further, black voters will be important in the general in specific close states, as they will probably swing overwhelmingly to the democrats - in the sense that you can take them for granted. i'm not being bold in predicting that 90%+ of blacks will vote democratic, regardless of the candidate. logically, that means that they're not important in the primaries.
the reality is that what the polling is stating is that the face of the democatic party is in fact an older white person, if not necessarily a male, because that is the core of it's cardholding, dues-paying voting base. the stats actually back that up: the people that will vote in the primary are going to be disproportionately older than the general voting public will be. further, the country is still majority white. it does in fact follow that the most important identity voter in the democratic party will be an older white person, and that if they vote on identity then they will pick an older white person to represent them.
in order for the younger candidates, whatever their race or gender, to counteract this, they will need to find ways to create new voters through registration. in fact, we know that sanders is by far the most popular candidate with new voters.
but, can sanders beat biden with the old white folks that define the base?
good luck to you, sir. you'll need it.
that's what the polls are stating: the democratic base is old and it wants an old person to reflect itself. and, we've known that for a long time - it's not surprising.
the bizarre truth about detroit is that all of the bars and the party district in general is relocating to the only muslim-majority municipality in north america. it is a separate city that is literally surrounded by the city of detroit.
i wonder why that is. are there different bylaws? if so, they may be setting themselves up for a collapse. it is the only muslim majority municipality in north america.
in fact, there was a recent legal case in hammtramck (a previously polish-majority working class area that got nailed by the auto recession) that ended with the courts upholding the ban on a public call to prayer in the region. that's that thing muslims do to intimidate people into praying, and is intimidation, purposefully, it's the point. they yell into microphones, or play loud music, or whatever. it's open, public coercion. the ban came down, and as far as i know they were forced to stop, but the point i'm making is that there are enough muslims in this strip for that to have actually happened, before it was stopped. now, it's quickly becoming detroit's sin strip...
and, like i say - the council is separate from detroit. that may be great for now. but, if the city's entire bar district ends up on this strip, and a muslim city council shuts it down, the city is going to find itself dry.
it's not like i don't understand this. the same economic pressures that brought me to windsor brought a lot of muslims here; the rent is cheap. i get it.
but, it's a strange juxtaposition.
i wonder why that is. are there different bylaws? if so, they may be setting themselves up for a collapse. it is the only muslim majority municipality in north america.
in fact, there was a recent legal case in hammtramck (a previously polish-majority working class area that got nailed by the auto recession) that ended with the courts upholding the ban on a public call to prayer in the region. that's that thing muslims do to intimidate people into praying, and is intimidation, purposefully, it's the point. they yell into microphones, or play loud music, or whatever. it's open, public coercion. the ban came down, and as far as i know they were forced to stop, but the point i'm making is that there are enough muslims in this strip for that to have actually happened, before it was stopped. now, it's quickly becoming detroit's sin strip...
and, like i say - the council is separate from detroit. that may be great for now. but, if the city's entire bar district ends up on this strip, and a muslim city council shuts it down, the city is going to find itself dry.
it's not like i don't understand this. the same economic pressures that brought me to windsor brought a lot of muslims here; the rent is cheap. i get it.
but, it's a strange juxtaposition.
that bar i got banned from got shut down.
ahahahahahaha.
in all seriousness, it's sad to see it go - i know it was there for a long time. but, at the same time, the only reason that most people went there is that it was open all night. it was really, truly a shitty bar in every way.
i have reasons to hope that the niche is filled by different owners. but, nobody wants to see detroit lose it's overnight scene...
ahahahahahaha.
in all seriousness, it's sad to see it go - i know it was there for a long time. but, at the same time, the only reason that most people went there is that it was open all night. it was really, truly a shitty bar in every way.
i have reasons to hope that the niche is filled by different owners. but, nobody wants to see detroit lose it's overnight scene...
i want to be clear: i'm not banned from going to detroit. my nexus card remains valid. so, i can try, if i want. and, it could very well be a hassle-free scenario - i might cross without being checked.
but, i don't know what that database says.
if they decide to run me, something might come up. and, here's the problem: as a non-american, i can't get that information out, if it's in. then, i could get banned, even though i insist i didn't do anything wrong - and there are no charges pending against me.
"but they wouldn't do that. you have a nexus card and a clean record."
heh.
do you know how much a waiver costs? it wouldn't be smart in the broad sense if you look at america as a whole. that is, telling me i need to pay for a waiver is just going to cost the local economy the money i'd bring into it, because i'm never going to be able to afford it. we're talking thousands. but, the border guard is just going to see the financial opportunity to make me pay, and they're going to take it if they can. they're not going to give a fuck.
there is a long-term solution. once the record is destroyed, the border cops won't see it anymore, and there won't be anything to pull.
in the mean time, i'm not keen on taking chances. if there's an end-around, i'd rather take it...
it's cinco de mayo. but, i'm not mexican, and it's going to be cold. and, there's not anything that would draw me out...
what i'd like to do is find a good rock concert and then hit a dance club on the way home. but, without the rock concert, the dance club is kinda eh. it'll be around 8-10 degrees from 11 pm to 6 am. meh.
and, i don't know if my bike is still there or not, either.
listen. if something comes up, i won't skip it. i'll figure it out. i still don't think i've missed much, recently. really. it's been slow...
but, i'm not going to take a risk to go out to a run of the mill dance party on a cold night in may. it's not worth it.
send your outrage to the windsor police.
but, i don't know what that database says.
if they decide to run me, something might come up. and, here's the problem: as a non-american, i can't get that information out, if it's in. then, i could get banned, even though i insist i didn't do anything wrong - and there are no charges pending against me.
"but they wouldn't do that. you have a nexus card and a clean record."
heh.
do you know how much a waiver costs? it wouldn't be smart in the broad sense if you look at america as a whole. that is, telling me i need to pay for a waiver is just going to cost the local economy the money i'd bring into it, because i'm never going to be able to afford it. we're talking thousands. but, the border guard is just going to see the financial opportunity to make me pay, and they're going to take it if they can. they're not going to give a fuck.
there is a long-term solution. once the record is destroyed, the border cops won't see it anymore, and there won't be anything to pull.
in the mean time, i'm not keen on taking chances. if there's an end-around, i'd rather take it...
it's cinco de mayo. but, i'm not mexican, and it's going to be cold. and, there's not anything that would draw me out...
what i'd like to do is find a good rock concert and then hit a dance club on the way home. but, without the rock concert, the dance club is kinda eh. it'll be around 8-10 degrees from 11 pm to 6 am. meh.
and, i don't know if my bike is still there or not, either.
listen. if something comes up, i won't skip it. i'll figure it out. i still don't think i've missed much, recently. really. it's been slow...
but, i'm not going to take a risk to go out to a run of the mill dance party on a cold night in may. it's not worth it.
send your outrage to the windsor police.
https://books.noisetrade.com/j/072013-082013
unfortunately, noise trade did not work out as a hosting solution, and i never got a clear answer as to why. but, i decided in the end that the site was full of ads and unworkable, anyways.
the readable version of the august, 2013 archive for this blog is now available as a standalone in the music journal package at bandcamp:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/08-2013-music-journal
...or as a standalone at smashwords:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1026597
...or as a component in the first reconstruction phase archive, available in the following places:
https://www.lulu.com/shop/jessica-murray/full-first-reconstruction-phase-dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja-blog/ebook/product-qg9g54.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jUcWrb6mdiufR5oyyvWWiBXmV8CtNSur/view
well, the developer version is up and running with all the plugins, now.
i don't see any particular thing i want to use in this browser, but it at least works with the signatures off, and it might even be a touch faster.
i'm going to treat it as temporary for now. we'll see if it sticks or not.
i need to do some things in the kitchen, but i'll hopefully be back were i was at by sunrise.
i don't see any particular thing i want to use in this browser, but it at least works with the signatures off, and it might even be a touch faster.
i'm going to treat it as temporary for now. we'll see if it sticks or not.
i need to do some things in the kitchen, but i'll hopefully be back were i was at by sunrise.
so, downgrading wasn't an answer because half the plugins were too new.
the reddit thread had a half-answer workaround, but i have restartable plugins that i can't load into ram. and, frankly, i don't want the functionality - what i want is to turn the signing off. permanently.
so, i'm going to install a developer edition with the intent to just x this out in the prefs. hopefully, this works...
i mean, i understand what happened. but, i don't need to sign my plugins in the first place.
the reddit thread had a half-answer workaround, but i have restartable plugins that i can't load into ram. and, frankly, i don't want the functionality - what i want is to turn the signing off. permanently.
so, i'm going to install a developer edition with the intent to just x this out in the prefs. hopefully, this works...
i mean, i understand what happened. but, i don't need to sign my plugins in the first place.
this is a widespread problem...
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bkcjoa/all_of_my_addons_got_disabled_and_they_are_all/
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bkcjoa/all_of_my_addons_got_disabled_and_they_are_all/
the latest annoyance with firefox is that they disabled all my plugins because they're unsigned.
so, i downgraded to a version that allows unsigned plugins.
they seem to be targeting the adblocker and a plugin that i'm using to remove religious sites from google searches. i just got fed up with religious sites coming back on searches for science, so i've completely blocked anything remotely religious. and, i want you to think about this.
if i can't get the thing to work, am i going to read these sites? if i do a search for something to do with evolutionary biology and "answers in genesis" appears, does that mean i'm likely to click the link? the answer is that i'm not going to be more likely to hit the link, and if i end up at a creationist site by accident, i'm not going to finish reading what i'm reading; i'm going to x it out and leave immediately. so, functionally speaking, all that preventing me from removing these sites from my results is going to do is slow me down. there is no meaningful, honest debate between religion and science anymore, there's just religious people wasting everybody's time - and i don't want to have to sort through thousands of pages of worthless nonsense in order to get to what i actually want.
likewise, would turning off adblock actually make me more likely to click the ads? of course not. i went through this with chrome for a while, and i did things like mute the sound. the more you push ads in my face, the more i'm going to find ways to tune them out. i'm just simply not interested...
these plugins are really just useful to me because they allow me to use my time more efficiently. in the end, the result will not be any different - i'm not going to watch any more ads, or read any more religious websites, i'm just going to spend more time trying to get to what i actually want.
i think the downgrade should fix the problem, but we'll see what happens.
so, i downgraded to a version that allows unsigned plugins.
they seem to be targeting the adblocker and a plugin that i'm using to remove religious sites from google searches. i just got fed up with religious sites coming back on searches for science, so i've completely blocked anything remotely religious. and, i want you to think about this.
if i can't get the thing to work, am i going to read these sites? if i do a search for something to do with evolutionary biology and "answers in genesis" appears, does that mean i'm likely to click the link? the answer is that i'm not going to be more likely to hit the link, and if i end up at a creationist site by accident, i'm not going to finish reading what i'm reading; i'm going to x it out and leave immediately. so, functionally speaking, all that preventing me from removing these sites from my results is going to do is slow me down. there is no meaningful, honest debate between religion and science anymore, there's just religious people wasting everybody's time - and i don't want to have to sort through thousands of pages of worthless nonsense in order to get to what i actually want.
likewise, would turning off adblock actually make me more likely to click the ads? of course not. i went through this with chrome for a while, and i did things like mute the sound. the more you push ads in my face, the more i'm going to find ways to tune them out. i'm just simply not interested...
these plugins are really just useful to me because they allow me to use my time more efficiently. in the end, the result will not be any different - i'm not going to watch any more ads, or read any more religious websites, i'm just going to spend more time trying to get to what i actually want.
i think the downgrade should fix the problem, but we'll see what happens.
stop.
there is a zero percent possibility i would have consented to have sex with any female in a sober state. i made that choice a long time ago and i've stuck to it. it's important to me.
there's some possibility i may have consented to sex with a male. it's remote, but non-zero.
and, if sex with a female did actually happen when i was drunk, i can assure you she didn't enjoy it very much, because i don't have the ability to be sexually aggressive. i can't, won't, don't fuck. like, i'm too sub to even be gay. i might take it in the ass, but i won't give it out. so, the process would have been something like me getting tackled and sitting there with my eyes closed, waiting for it to finished. rape is not a bad way to describe what it would have had to have been like.
the reality is that i'm completely abstinent via a fully conscious and very permanent decision.
deal with it.
there is a zero percent possibility i would have consented to have sex with any female in a sober state. i made that choice a long time ago and i've stuck to it. it's important to me.
there's some possibility i may have consented to sex with a male. it's remote, but non-zero.
and, if sex with a female did actually happen when i was drunk, i can assure you she didn't enjoy it very much, because i don't have the ability to be sexually aggressive. i can't, won't, don't fuck. like, i'm too sub to even be gay. i might take it in the ass, but i won't give it out. so, the process would have been something like me getting tackled and sitting there with my eyes closed, waiting for it to finished. rape is not a bad way to describe what it would have had to have been like.
the reality is that i'm completely abstinent via a fully conscious and very permanent decision.
deal with it.
Friday, May 3, 2019
so, i wanted to get some things done today, but instead slept for a solid 12 hours.
i'll need to plan to be at the doctor's office to pick up the new bloodwork sheets early on monday morning. there's no possibility that i'm giving them a sheet that says that i've recently had sex with a female.
the fundamental fact is that it simply isn't true. i really don't think i've had sex with a female in at least 12 years, and if i have, it was blacked out and not consensual. that is, if some female thinks they've had sex with me recently, then i want them charged with rape, because i would not have consented in a sober state. it would not be difficult to find women i've turned down in both detroit and in windsor over the last five years; there's at least ten of them that i've rejected. and, i simply don't know why it wasn't obvious to them that i wasn't interested from the start. i make a very clear effort to present myself as female-identifying, and that should make it rather clear that i'm really not into sex with women.
but, what i can say? the world's an irrational place.
yet, i'm legitimately worried about the information being misconstrued. if a cop were to pull the file, they might try to use it as evidence that i'm not really queer. my perception of the situation is that i was arrested for my gender expression, under the argument that it is evidence i'm some kind of pervert. this is the actual reality for queer people in canada in 2019, despite the popular perception.
so, it's not trivial and i need this changed before i get any bloodwork done. i need the doctor to put my letter in my file and i need him to change the record on his machine, and print it out for me.
if i can't get a hold of him before next week, i'll show up to my next appointment and explain it to him in his office.
for the weekend, i know i said i was working on the law suit, but i need to plan a trip to london or toronto around the concert listings, so my primary goal is actually catching up on the shows listings. it will only be once i'm a little bit ahead in the list that i'll be able to seriously focus on the legal proceedings.
it's going to be an epic process to serve everybody..
but, i at least have the pieces put together to file everything all at once.
so, that's the weekend, if i can stay awake - sorting through show listings to plan a trip to london and/or toronto to file.
the weather remains terrible.
i'll need to plan to be at the doctor's office to pick up the new bloodwork sheets early on monday morning. there's no possibility that i'm giving them a sheet that says that i've recently had sex with a female.
the fundamental fact is that it simply isn't true. i really don't think i've had sex with a female in at least 12 years, and if i have, it was blacked out and not consensual. that is, if some female thinks they've had sex with me recently, then i want them charged with rape, because i would not have consented in a sober state. it would not be difficult to find women i've turned down in both detroit and in windsor over the last five years; there's at least ten of them that i've rejected. and, i simply don't know why it wasn't obvious to them that i wasn't interested from the start. i make a very clear effort to present myself as female-identifying, and that should make it rather clear that i'm really not into sex with women.
but, what i can say? the world's an irrational place.
yet, i'm legitimately worried about the information being misconstrued. if a cop were to pull the file, they might try to use it as evidence that i'm not really queer. my perception of the situation is that i was arrested for my gender expression, under the argument that it is evidence i'm some kind of pervert. this is the actual reality for queer people in canada in 2019, despite the popular perception.
so, it's not trivial and i need this changed before i get any bloodwork done. i need the doctor to put my letter in my file and i need him to change the record on his machine, and print it out for me.
if i can't get a hold of him before next week, i'll show up to my next appointment and explain it to him in his office.
for the weekend, i know i said i was working on the law suit, but i need to plan a trip to london or toronto around the concert listings, so my primary goal is actually catching up on the shows listings. it will only be once i'm a little bit ahead in the list that i'll be able to seriously focus on the legal proceedings.
it's going to be an epic process to serve everybody..
but, i at least have the pieces put together to file everything all at once.
so, that's the weekend, if i can stay awake - sorting through show listings to plan a trip to london and/or toronto to file.
the weather remains terrible.
and, yes - it's hot everywhere else, right now. i get that.
it's cold here, though.
and, that's what i was saying - you get this combination of warming from the carbon everywhere else, but canada, and especially eastern canada, stuck behind this falling jet stream as a consequence of decreased solar output. it's just a function of where we are on the planet, a function of being in the north on the tilt.
so, we'll be up here shivering while the americans are burning....
it's cold here, though.
and, that's what i was saying - you get this combination of warming from the carbon everywhere else, but canada, and especially eastern canada, stuck behind this falling jet stream as a consequence of decreased solar output. it's just a function of where we are on the planet, a function of being in the north on the tilt.
so, we'll be up here shivering while the americans are burning....
so, what's going on with this?
it's those damned h-es. both of them. they're evil.
things will get better when those high pressure systems break up or otherwise just go away, which should be soon right?
alas...
this is what i was saying about understanding this being more like imagining magnets hovering around the earth. that jet stream is not unfamiliar - we see it all of the time. in january. summer is defined by a jet stream that runs over the northwest territories, not a winter blocking pattern like this.
here's the trick: the reason this happens in the winter is that the amount of sunlight decreases over the northern hemisphere, due to the tilt in the earth's axis. you don't want to think of it in terms of tsi, though, it's more about the ultraviolet radiation hitting the earth's surfaces and rippling outwards, creating waves and fields and ultimately low pressure systems in the northern hemisphere. that giant h over greenland is the actual reason we have winter in canada, meaning the sun is only the indirect cause.
and, this is the kind of thing you see at a local solar minimum. yes, we're tilting back towards the sun, as we do every year, but the fact that the sun has turned itself down means we're getting the same kind of behaviour in the atmosphere that you see in the winter, even as we're tilting back.
there's lots of things that could happen to break the h up, even a hurricane.
but, if the dominant factor remains the sun, that giant h could be there for a while - and this could be a shitty summer.
i also got the denial on the freedom of information request from the province yesterday. the guy on the phone said he couldn't find the file; they sent it back to me, without cashing the check.
so, to recap:
1) the feds can't get the information because it's presented by a provincial institution.
2) the province denied the request, claiming i need to work through the police.
3) the police are prohibited by law from providing the information i want. this is recent.
i am going to send all of this information to the feds, so they can see the situation that is unfolding. but, i will need to file the appeal through the provincial fippa act - which is the actual reason i made the request.
so, to recap:
1) the feds can't get the information because it's presented by a provincial institution.
2) the province denied the request, claiming i need to work through the police.
3) the police are prohibited by law from providing the information i want. this is recent.
i am going to send all of this information to the feds, so they can see the situation that is unfolding. but, i will need to file the appeal through the provincial fippa act - which is the actual reason i made the request.
my name is jessica
(jason) parent. i had an appointment with dr. ********** on may 2 @ 13:00. i am
faxing to the office to request a change to a form that was made, and while
this may seem trivial, i’ve recently learned that it is important that my
medical records be kept accurate and up-to-date, as hostile actors may decide
to use it against me. and, for that reason, i would like this fax to be kept in
my file. i may be the victim of some ongoing police or other government
harassment; i have an ongoing investigation into a member of the windsor police department
that is seeking his termination for harassing me, and that i intend to win. i
don’t want any misinformation to make it’s way to court.
for that reason,
i’m going to be explicit about this - i am talking through reception here and
to the file. i apologize if it’s tmi.
in the course of a
conversation with dr. ************, he questioned my sexual history, and i was honest
and blunt with him: my last recollection of a consensual encounter was indeed
with a female some time around 2006 or 2007. i’ve forgotten the date. i have
had some concerns about blackouts since and will get to this, but any sex i’ve
had since has not been consensual on my behalf. there was lingering sexual
contact from a romantic relationship over the period between 2002-2005, that
incidentally ended largely under the mutual understanding that i was “gay”. sex
with this partner generally took the form of me fantasizing about her in a male
role and even of her physically humping me; in the end, neither of us found
this satisfying, and we realized we both had to move on.
i had not had sex
with anybody at all before i met this person, and have not had conscious or
consensual sex with anybody at all since. so, i have had a total of one consensual sex partner in my life,
roughly in the years 2002-2007, with a relationship over 2002-2005 and some
lingering sex afterwards.
my experience with
heterosexual sex over this period was an experiment that was initiated on her
behalf. she knew that i identified as transgendered and had a desire to
detransition me and convert me back, although she initially approached me with
the intent of accepting me as female. i fell for a bait and switch; i wouldn’t
have gotten involved with her on the basis of the relationship being
heterosexual, but i found myself overcome with the emotions of losing my
virginity once i did, and it took me a long time to pull away as a result of
it. i wanted her to accept me as female right up until the very end. the lesson
we learned from this process is that she actually failed at this task - she did not
detransition me, she did not “turn me
straight” and i was neither interested
nor able to have satisfying sex with her in a male role, as she desired.
all i could do for years was imagine her as male, and all i wanted from her was acceptance as a female. so, we tried the experiment and learned from
it - a heterosexual male gender role is not the right thing for me. i have
had absolutely no interest at all in a heterosexual relationship with anybody
else, since.
however, the
reason i have not had any sex at all since, inside or outside a relationship, is
not due to a lack of interest or opportunity. rather, i made a decision around
2009 or 2010 (again, this was a long time ago, now) that i would refrain from
any kind of sexual behaviour until after i’d completed a vaginoplasty; my
abstinence is ideological, and no amount of opportunity is ever going to
reverse it. i decided a long time ago
that it is not possible for me to have satisfying sex within the confines of a
male gender role, and have consciously chosen abstinence in order to deal with
this. in this period, i have explicitly turned down both men and women for
sex.
i should also
point out that dr. ********* is aware that i take 100 mg of cyproterone acetate
daily, an amount that makes my ability to carry through with a male sexual
function nearly impossible. it’s not completely impossible, i do get random
erections, mostly during sleep, but i’m essentially impossible to arouse upon
command - i have absolutely no sex drive, whatsoever. i am certainly unable to
ejaculate, and have been for years. while i can’t say for sure because i
haven’t tried, i would probably be unable
to have sex with a female at this point, and have probably been unable to for
many years. i have also made multiple requests for an orchiectomy, although i
have been unable to find a doctor willing to do it. i am hoping to pick this
back up again this year.
for all of these
reasons, i’m somewhat surprised that dr. ********* filled out “sex with female” as
a risk category for hiv exposure. i guess he may have misunderstood me. while i
suspect that i may have had sex in a blackout space with a male in the spring of 2016, i nowhere indicated to him that i have
recently had sex with a female - and have no reason to think that i have, for
all the reasons i’ve pointed out.
the reason i think
i may have had blackout sex with a male in the spring of 2016 is that i woke up
in the front seat of a car after blacking out, and when i woke up there was a
male that was actively trying to have sex with me. i would not classify my
memory of the incident as constituting assault on his behalf; it was more of a
verbal process. i had been drinking at a dance club in detroit, but not too much, and think i
blacked out because i was drugged. i have no evidence of being drugged, besides
suspicion around the amount of alcohol being too low to black me out. i
declined sex with this male when i woke up. but, i noticed swelling around my
anus, and have a missing period of a few hours, so i came in for hiv testing,
which eventually came clean.
i do not want it
stated in my medical records that i believe i have recently had sex with a
female - i will categorically state again that i do not believe i have recently
had sex with a female, nor do i think that such a thing would be physically
possible when blacked out from alcohol. if i’m unable to get an erection on
command sober, i don’t see how i could get one drunk.
for this reason, i
would like dr. *********** to correct the blood labwork that he printed out for me
yesterday to state “sex with male” in the risk category, as that is what we are
testing for. as mentioned, i think this is important for legal reasons, and not
as trivial as it may appear on first glance; i have reasons to fear being set
up.
i would like to
pick up the new print out later in the afternoon and would appreciate a
response either to death.to.koalas@gmail.com
or a voicemail left at 5199161358. i cannot be reached directly by phone and
cannot get through to your office over google voice.
"why am i here?" is actually just a stupid question. and, yes, there are stupid questions.
the question is rooted in the premise that there's some external force that created you, and defined your purpose and being. it then follows that answering the question of "why you're here" would come from getting a better understanding of whatever this external force is.
but, there is no such external force. and, if you fully grasp that, then you wouldn't ask the question of why you're here, because it would be incoherently defined.
a better question to ask is "what do i want out of life?". that shifts the premise from the false assumption that something created and defines you, and to the more modernist assumption that you're actually on your own in the universe, and need to figure that shit out yourself.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
the question is rooted in the premise that there's some external force that created you, and defined your purpose and being. it then follows that answering the question of "why you're here" would come from getting a better understanding of whatever this external force is.
but, there is no such external force. and, if you fully grasp that, then you wouldn't ask the question of why you're here, because it would be incoherently defined.
a better question to ask is "what do i want out of life?". that shifts the premise from the false assumption that something created and defines you, and to the more modernist assumption that you're actually on your own in the universe, and need to figure that shit out yourself.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
this is perhaps the most confusing, intricate and difficult topic in canadian politics: the indigenous community's approach to the indian act.
indigenous activists will loudly stand up and denounce the legislation as racist, and they're right to do so. but, when give the opportunity to dismantle it, they demur - to a man or woman. the reason is that they don't want to be assimilated.
it's easy enough to accuse them of not wanting to give away what is even quickly becoming a strawman. as people leave the reserves, the scope of the indian act continues to wane. there have been attempts to introduce blood quantum rules that would amount to assimilation in a few generations. so, the easiest way to get rid of the indian act may actually be to stop amending it - to let it collapse into obsolescence.
but, this is a minefield, up here. - and it is legitimately hard, because it is not actually a contradiction. they want sovereignty and equality at the same time, to be the one and the other, the same and different - or separate, yet equal. by request.
the elder trudeau wanted assimilation, and he didn't get it. the younger trudeau may end up with little more than a confused mess.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/edmonton-afn-forum-policy-changes-1.5119133
indigenous activists will loudly stand up and denounce the legislation as racist, and they're right to do so. but, when give the opportunity to dismantle it, they demur - to a man or woman. the reason is that they don't want to be assimilated.
it's easy enough to accuse them of not wanting to give away what is even quickly becoming a strawman. as people leave the reserves, the scope of the indian act continues to wane. there have been attempts to introduce blood quantum rules that would amount to assimilation in a few generations. so, the easiest way to get rid of the indian act may actually be to stop amending it - to let it collapse into obsolescence.
but, this is a minefield, up here. - and it is legitimately hard, because it is not actually a contradiction. they want sovereignty and equality at the same time, to be the one and the other, the same and different - or separate, yet equal. by request.
the elder trudeau wanted assimilation, and he didn't get it. the younger trudeau may end up with little more than a confused mess.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/edmonton-afn-forum-policy-changes-1.5119133
"but, who feeds you and clothes you while you're off carrying through with your enlightened purpose?"
it's a neat trick they play on you. first, they define this idea called property that ensures that anybody that doesn't own a substantive amount of it is unable to exist independently. then, they tell you that you're living off the system when you refuse to roll over at the extortion.
i'll tell you what my answer is: i have no sympathy for people that buy into the system, and then complain about the people that don't. my answer is: get out of the system, which is not a response of insolence but is actually one of self-interest.
i would rather feed and clothe myself. i'm happy to do it, but you won't let me - you insist on controlling the property. and, i'll look you in the eye and say it to your face: you can't have it both ways.
so, let's call the welfare check a redistribution of property rights, then.
it's a neat trick they play on you. first, they define this idea called property that ensures that anybody that doesn't own a substantive amount of it is unable to exist independently. then, they tell you that you're living off the system when you refuse to roll over at the extortion.
i'll tell you what my answer is: i have no sympathy for people that buy into the system, and then complain about the people that don't. my answer is: get out of the system, which is not a response of insolence but is actually one of self-interest.
i would rather feed and clothe myself. i'm happy to do it, but you won't let me - you insist on controlling the property. and, i'll look you in the eye and say it to your face: you can't have it both ways.
so, let's call the welfare check a redistribution of property rights, then.
but, this is what capitalism does to people: it turns them into these self-loathing ticking time bombs that are so full of hate at themselves and everybody else that they're set to explode at random people they meet on the street.
we have the power to change our own culture. this isn't inevitable. we can end this.
we have the power to change our own culture. this isn't inevitable. we can end this.
the bottom line is this: you made the choice to go to work and waste your life. it's not my fault that you're miserable, so don't take it out on me - take responsibility for your own failures and turn your life around by quitting the job that you hate.
once you've emancipated yourself, maybe you'll lose the urge to start fights with people standing around waiting for the weather to clear. maybe you'll stop hating yourself that much. eh?
once you've emancipated yourself, maybe you'll lose the urge to start fights with people standing around waiting for the weather to clear. maybe you'll stop hating yourself that much. eh?
if you want some kind of purpose, some kind of meaning, to "do something with your life", you must begin by taking yourself back from the collectivist horde of market capitalism.
you must first define yourself.
and, if you're not intelligent enough to do that, you're a lost cause. enjoy your slavery.
you must first define yourself.
and, if you're not intelligent enough to do that, you're a lost cause. enjoy your slavery.
"i have purpose. i have kids."
that's pathetic. your kids rely on you. that's not purpose, it's responsibility.
"well, i have a job."
are you the boss?
"sort of..."
a middle manager is not a boss.
"ok, i'm not the boss."
so, your purpose is doing what you're told? pfft. some purpose.
"but i have religion."
religion is not a purpose, but the absence of it.
"but..."
...but nothing.
i'll tell you what you lack. individuality. you're not a person. you're a slave. and, that's what you're struggling to figure out.
that's pathetic. your kids rely on you. that's not purpose, it's responsibility.
"well, i have a job."
are you the boss?
"sort of..."
a middle manager is not a boss.
"ok, i'm not the boss."
so, your purpose is doing what you're told? pfft. some purpose.
"but i have religion."
religion is not a purpose, but the absence of it.
"but..."
...but nothing.
i'll tell you what you lack. individuality. you're not a person. you're a slave. and, that's what you're struggling to figure out.
i am in fact driven very powerfully by my artwork. i dedicate long hours to it, and it gives me great meaning and great purpose.
the truth is that all of these dipshits criticizing me could be so lucky as to find as powerful of a driving force.
i already have what they think i lack - and they lack what they think i need.
as is so often the case, it's all about the blind leading the blind.
the truth is that all of these dipshits criticizing me could be so lucky as to find as powerful of a driving force.
i already have what they think i lack - and they lack what they think i need.
as is so often the case, it's all about the blind leading the blind.
i got stuck doing groceries in the rain, so i stopped to get a sub. the rain was still going when i was done, so i stood outside the door, waiting for it to pass.
some idiot showed up and couldn't figure out how to get past me, and had a hissy fit about it, essentially trying to pick a fight with me in the process.
i'm never going to back down from a shouting match with anybody. i will stand my ground. i don't care who the fuck you are. you get in my face, i'll get right back in yours.
but, this guy was clearly not very bright. and, i'll leave it at that.
some idiot showed up and couldn't figure out how to get past me, and had a hissy fit about it, essentially trying to pick a fight with me in the process.
i'm never going to back down from a shouting match with anybody. i will stand my ground. i don't care who the fuck you are. you get in my face, i'll get right back in yours.
but, this guy was clearly not very bright. and, i'll leave it at that.
the reason we have such high levels of depression in this society is because we center it around employment, and then try to define ourselves that way, as though the market has the ability to provide meaning and purpose to existence.
it doesn't.
all that any job will ever do is prevent you from getting to where you want to in life by wasting your energy and your focus and your resources.
it doesn't.
all that any job will ever do is prevent you from getting to where you want to in life by wasting your energy and your focus and your resources.
people that want to "do something with their life" don't get jobs, as though there's a category of people that have decided not to do anything with their life, as though that isn't a contradiction in terms.
people that want to "do something with their life" quit their jobs in order to do it.
which is actually where i am in life.
if you're curious.
people that want to "do something with their life" quit their jobs in order to do it.
which is actually where i am in life.
if you're curious.
harassment is a serious crime, i don't doubt this.
that's why i've never harassed anybody.
and, it's why i'm going to ensure that the people responsible for falsely charging me are held accountable for their own crimes in harassing myself.
the facts are that i was falsely accused and the charges were dropped. as the guilty party is a police officer, i understand that i have an uphill battle in getting him charged. however, i'm confident that the evidence is on my side and that i will eventually prevail in the matter.
that's why i've never harassed anybody.
and, it's why i'm going to ensure that the people responsible for falsely charging me are held accountable for their own crimes in harassing myself.
the facts are that i was falsely accused and the charges were dropped. as the guilty party is a police officer, i understand that i have an uphill battle in getting him charged. however, i'm confident that the evidence is on my side and that i will eventually prevail in the matter.
i want to make my viewpoint clear on this.
how bad is trump? or how not so bad is he, really?
these are the presidents over the last fifty years - a list that both jfk and lbj are no longer on.
- nixon
- ford
- carter
- reagan
- bush I
- clinton
- bush II
- obama
- trump
where does trump fall in the list?
well, it's not such an impressive list, is it? you can be a really shitty president, and still end up somewhere in the middle. that's the real problem we're facing in trying to understand trump: his contemporaries were not very impressive.
who were the really, really bad presidents that you put at the very bottom? nixon has a bad reputation, but he had nader on his ass, so you got things like the epa out of him. i would not put nixon at the bottom of this list, or even near it. of the presidents in this pile, bush II is in sole contention for the bottom of the list. so, you take him right out - he was probably the worst the country's seen, and may be the worst the country ever does see. pointless wars, collapsed economy - nobody comes close to this.
are there any near the top? no. i don't think any of these presidents are worth identifying as having done a good job.
are there any that kind of just sat on the throne for a while, keeping it warm? if doing no harm is better than creating harm, you put the caretaker presidents at the top.
so, it follows that the best president of the last fifty years would be gerald ford, because at least he didn't fuck anything up. you'd need to put carter in as a close second, because he didn't accomplish very much, either. the next least memorable president would be obama.
that leaves nixon, reagan, bush, clinton and trump left to place in the middle.
reagan and bush may not have been the disasters that dubya was, but i can't think of a single good policy that they did while in office, and there was certainly a lot of bad, so i'm going to list them together at 7/8. at this stage in history, i can't think of any positive policy that clinton pushed through either, and he really only tweaked the bush-reagan legacy, so he barely comes in at number 6.
trump, on the other hand, may end up with a positive trade legacy - it's hard to say. he has a mixed bag on the military front, but if he ends up being responsible for a serious withdrawal from the middle east, that's more than clinton - who bombed the fuck out of iraq - can claim. if he gets through his term without bombing latin america, he could be the most pro-peace president in the list, with the potential exception of carter.
but, neither clinton nor trump can compete with the positive legacy of nixon, even if he was being pushed by nader, and even if it was on the tail end of the lbj administration. nixon may be responsible for the direction the republicans took in later years, but his legacy in terms of positive policy still stands out in this particular list. if it weren't for all of the terrible things he did, if we were to measure him solely by his positive contributions, he'd clearly be the best in this list.
so, here's your answer. here's a ranking of the presidents of the last fifty years:
1. ford
2. carter
3. obama
4. nixon
5. trump - tentatively
6. clinton
7/8. bush-reagan
9. bush II
how bad is trump? or how not so bad is he, really?
these are the presidents over the last fifty years - a list that both jfk and lbj are no longer on.
- nixon
- ford
- carter
- reagan
- bush I
- clinton
- bush II
- obama
- trump
where does trump fall in the list?
well, it's not such an impressive list, is it? you can be a really shitty president, and still end up somewhere in the middle. that's the real problem we're facing in trying to understand trump: his contemporaries were not very impressive.
who were the really, really bad presidents that you put at the very bottom? nixon has a bad reputation, but he had nader on his ass, so you got things like the epa out of him. i would not put nixon at the bottom of this list, or even near it. of the presidents in this pile, bush II is in sole contention for the bottom of the list. so, you take him right out - he was probably the worst the country's seen, and may be the worst the country ever does see. pointless wars, collapsed economy - nobody comes close to this.
are there any near the top? no. i don't think any of these presidents are worth identifying as having done a good job.
are there any that kind of just sat on the throne for a while, keeping it warm? if doing no harm is better than creating harm, you put the caretaker presidents at the top.
so, it follows that the best president of the last fifty years would be gerald ford, because at least he didn't fuck anything up. you'd need to put carter in as a close second, because he didn't accomplish very much, either. the next least memorable president would be obama.
that leaves nixon, reagan, bush, clinton and trump left to place in the middle.
reagan and bush may not have been the disasters that dubya was, but i can't think of a single good policy that they did while in office, and there was certainly a lot of bad, so i'm going to list them together at 7/8. at this stage in history, i can't think of any positive policy that clinton pushed through either, and he really only tweaked the bush-reagan legacy, so he barely comes in at number 6.
trump, on the other hand, may end up with a positive trade legacy - it's hard to say. he has a mixed bag on the military front, but if he ends up being responsible for a serious withdrawal from the middle east, that's more than clinton - who bombed the fuck out of iraq - can claim. if he gets through his term without bombing latin america, he could be the most pro-peace president in the list, with the potential exception of carter.
but, neither clinton nor trump can compete with the positive legacy of nixon, even if he was being pushed by nader, and even if it was on the tail end of the lbj administration. nixon may be responsible for the direction the republicans took in later years, but his legacy in terms of positive policy still stands out in this particular list. if it weren't for all of the terrible things he did, if we were to measure him solely by his positive contributions, he'd clearly be the best in this list.
so, here's your answer. here's a ranking of the presidents of the last fifty years:
1. ford
2. carter
3. obama
4. nixon
5. trump - tentatively
6. clinton
7/8. bush-reagan
9. bush II
this is harassment - this is why there are laws on the book.
you have a verbal warning being left, with what is determined to be a credible threat of harm. it's up to the state to show that the threat to harm bernie is indeed credible, and, if so, that would be in the small list of things that speech doesn't cover.
the key point is harm - there has to be a credible concept of harm.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2019/05/01/florida-man-guilty-of-leaving-threats-for-bernie-sanders.html
you have a verbal warning being left, with what is determined to be a credible threat of harm. it's up to the state to show that the threat to harm bernie is indeed credible, and, if so, that would be in the small list of things that speech doesn't cover.
the key point is harm - there has to be a credible concept of harm.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2019/05/01/florida-man-guilty-of-leaving-threats-for-bernie-sanders.html
except for the fact that i can't upload anything to noise trade because they won't accept any cover art, august of 2013 is totally done.
i'm going to be spending the morning readying myself for an appointment, and my fridge is almost empty. but, i'll actually be focusing on the court case, next - and getting back to the fall semester of 2013 only when i have a rough outline of what i'm filing.
it looks like i will need to file the following:
1) appeal of the oiprd decision
2) appeal of the access request
3) constitutional challenge on the legality of the arrest
4) human rights complaint against the property owner
i'm experiencing a total failure in the legal system and am going after it all at once.
i might not get to london until the end of july, but we'll see.
but, it's time to finally get to writing the papers.
i'm going to be spending the morning readying myself for an appointment, and my fridge is almost empty. but, i'll actually be focusing on the court case, next - and getting back to the fall semester of 2013 only when i have a rough outline of what i'm filing.
it looks like i will need to file the following:
1) appeal of the oiprd decision
2) appeal of the access request
3) constitutional challenge on the legality of the arrest
4) human rights complaint against the property owner
i'm experiencing a total failure in the legal system and am going after it all at once.
i might not get to london until the end of july, but we'll see.
but, it's time to finally get to writing the papers.
so, the only way to get the chronologically ordered pdf file for this blog for right now is here:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/08-2013-music-journal
i will not be posting these files to my google drive, moving forward.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/08-2013-music-journal
i will not be posting these files to my google drive, moving forward.
to be clear.
i'm not "holding out" on spotify. i don't want higher royalties. i don't want them to change their approach. i'm not waiting for a better deal.
i am completely and permanently rejecting the premise of paying a third party to subscribe to music as a service; this will never be acceptable to me, no matter how they tweak it.
i'm not "holding out" on spotify. i don't want higher royalties. i don't want them to change their approach. i'm not waiting for a better deal.
i am completely and permanently rejecting the premise of paying a third party to subscribe to music as a service; this will never be acceptable to me, no matter how they tweak it.
ugh.
so, what i want is a site that i can personalize (i want it to be *my* site, not just a searchable market) that will host the files for free and let you send me a donation if you want. noise trade does this, but virtually everything else is centered around amazon and kindles.
i can't upload this to amazon, because it's not a work of fiction. esa is a real person, and those are her actual words. those are actual emails exchanged between my stepmother, my sister and i. those are actual conversations with my actual mother.
like, it's not a work of fiction. so, i don't own the copyright...
but, i don't want my blogs for sale on amazon, either. that's disgusting. it's amazon. i want an independent site...
noise trade might be the only way to do this, and if it's shutting down or otherwise breaking then we're going to have to let it sit at bandcamp.
what i want is essentially a site for books that operates exactly like bandcamp....
so, what i want is a site that i can personalize (i want it to be *my* site, not just a searchable market) that will host the files for free and let you send me a donation if you want. noise trade does this, but virtually everything else is centered around amazon and kindles.
i can't upload this to amazon, because it's not a work of fiction. esa is a real person, and those are her actual words. those are actual emails exchanged between my stepmother, my sister and i. those are actual conversations with my actual mother.
like, it's not a work of fiction. so, i don't own the copyright...
but, i don't want my blogs for sale on amazon, either. that's disgusting. it's amazon. i want an independent site...
noise trade might be the only way to do this, and if it's shutting down or otherwise breaking then we're going to have to let it sit at bandcamp.
what i want is essentially a site for books that operates exactly like bandcamp....
so, the politics archive is finished, but i can't publish it to noise trade because it won't accept cover art submissions, which is stupid to begin with. i'm not selling pictures, i'm selling words. nobody cares about cover art...
the site was recently purchased by paste magazine, who have apparently ruined it in roughly a week.
i have no patience for this, so i'm going to be spending some time looking for a different site to host the files, and i'll just delete the account there once i find it.
the reason i picked noise trade is that it allows for free downloads, but, for the time being, you'll have to get it at bandcamp (for a fee), instead.
the site was recently purchased by paste magazine, who have apparently ruined it in roughly a week.
i have no patience for this, so i'm going to be spending some time looking for a different site to host the files, and i'll just delete the account there once i find it.
the reason i picked noise trade is that it allows for free downloads, but, for the time being, you'll have to get it at bandcamp (for a fee), instead.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
i was slowed down tonight by a brutal asthma attack and lost roughly an hour as a consequence of it. just when i thought it had gotten better...
...but the shifts in weather (it's been cold this week, and the heater has been on) have reduced me down to one of two possibilities:
1) the source of shit in the air is the heaters. they might be dirty, or i might be reacting to dry air. but, there seems to be a correlation, at least.
2) if it's not the dirty heaters, then the only thing really left is that i can't really tell if he's smoking upstairs unless he closes the windows. when he does close the windows, when it's cold or when it's raining, i get swamped by the smoke from upstairs.
so far, the rain has been correlated with cold and dreary weather so the heat has come on. but, we're going to finally get some nice humid weather today at the same time as some rain, and that's consequently something that i'll be able to check.
i at least finished the cross-referencing on the politics blog archive. i will need to format it after i eat, and could post it before noon.
...but the shifts in weather (it's been cold this week, and the heater has been on) have reduced me down to one of two possibilities:
1) the source of shit in the air is the heaters. they might be dirty, or i might be reacting to dry air. but, there seems to be a correlation, at least.
2) if it's not the dirty heaters, then the only thing really left is that i can't really tell if he's smoking upstairs unless he closes the windows. when he does close the windows, when it's cold or when it's raining, i get swamped by the smoke from upstairs.
so far, the rain has been correlated with cold and dreary weather so the heat has come on. but, we're going to finally get some nice humid weather today at the same time as some rain, and that's consequently something that i'll be able to check.
i at least finished the cross-referencing on the politics blog archive. i will need to format it after i eat, and could post it before noon.
so, how am i doing this?
i'm going to keep the bandcamp downloads as monthly updates, and leave the semesterly (i may say quarterly, but we're doing thirds and not quarters) downloads for the noise trade site. and, i'll build that up into yearly downloads and even period downloads as well, but keep it all isolated at that space, while only putting up monthly updates at the bandcamp site (along with liner notes and eventual period disc html front ends).
what i'm worried about is ending up with too many duplicate journal entries at the bandcamp site, and double or triple charging people for it. so, i can either do it by semester only or monthly only. the monthly updates should keep the journals more readable and succinct as go forward...
so, all of the updates for the music blog for 08/13 are now done, and i'm moving on to building up the politics site. the music journal for the second half of the summer semester is 441 pages and ready to publish, but i'll wait until i'm done each of of the august entries first.
i'm going to keep the bandcamp downloads as monthly updates, and leave the semesterly (i may say quarterly, but we're doing thirds and not quarters) downloads for the noise trade site. and, i'll build that up into yearly downloads and even period downloads as well, but keep it all isolated at that space, while only putting up monthly updates at the bandcamp site (along with liner notes and eventual period disc html front ends).
what i'm worried about is ending up with too many duplicate journal entries at the bandcamp site, and double or triple charging people for it. so, i can either do it by semester only or monthly only. the monthly updates should keep the journals more readable and succinct as go forward...
so, all of the updates for the music blog for 08/13 are now done, and i'm moving on to building up the politics site. the music journal for the second half of the summer semester is 441 pages and ready to publish, but i'll wait until i'm done each of of the august entries first.
the second entry in the music journal series, which is the whole month of
august, 2013 and is 220 pages long. i am not going to summarize the
story, but it is available on the web over here: musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.com/2013/08/.
this is a compilation of written correspondences that occurred around me over august, 2013. it includes facebook posts, messenger chats and emails with friends and family members, in an attempt to tell the story of the move from ottawa to windsor. the contents of this download are the dummy track, a word doc file and a pdf file, both written in a more readable, chronological ordering. i've also added the respective files for my other three blogs, for general interest, as well as 17 separate txt documents (essays, notes and scripts) that are referenced in the journal.
the events documented in this journal occurred in august, 2013 and were compiled into a narrative in several stages over the years 2014-2019. journal completed on april 30, 2019. released and finalized in doc and pdf format on may 1, 2019. doc0813.
this is a compilation of written correspondences that occurred around me over august, 2013. it includes facebook posts, messenger chats and emails with friends and family members, in an attempt to tell the story of the move from ottawa to windsor. the contents of this download are the dummy track, a word doc file and a pdf file, both written in a more readable, chronological ordering. i've also added the respective files for my other three blogs, for general interest, as well as 17 separate txt documents (essays, notes and scripts) that are referenced in the journal.
the events documented in this journal occurred in august, 2013 and were compiled into a narrative in several stages over the years 2014-2019. journal completed on april 30, 2019. released and finalized in doc and pdf format on may 1, 2019. doc0813.
credits
released September 1, 2013
j - editing, participant
esa - participant
mom - participant
sister - participant
nana - participant
step-mother - participant
the surviving uncle - participant
d - participant
jeff - participant
rli - participant
ms. jeffreys - participant
mackaye - participant
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/08-2013-music-journal
j - editing, participant
esa - participant
mom - participant
sister - participant
nana - participant
step-mother - participant
the surviving uncle - participant
d - participant
jeff - participant
rli - participant
ms. jeffreys - participant
mackaye - participant
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/08-2013-music-journal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)