so, what happened last night?
i made it to ferndale a few minutes after 22:00, thinking the headliner would be on between 22:00 and 23:00. i know it was a wednesday, but i've still never seen a headlining band come on at 21:00, anywhere, ever.
they were done by 22:00; people were walking out as i was walking in.
so, what do you do after you bike an hour to get to a show and find out you missed it because it's absurdly early? i guess you either go home or you find something else to do, and i didn't want to go right home, so i went to hamtramck to catch the tail end of the show there. it's less surprising that they were finishing up when i got there around 23:00.
i decided to catch a quick beer at a local techno spot and head home. that turned into a big beer, and eventually into being offered a taste of marijuana as a gift. i didn't finish that big beer until around 00:30, and realized quickly i was hanging out for the night.
so, i got another beer and went to the washroom, and quickly noticed that my thumb was bleeding. there is no cut on the thumb; rather, the blood was spurting out of my finger nail, like a blood vessel burst. somewhat baffled, i grabbed a little piece of toilet paper and went back outside to apply pressure to stop the bleeding. i don't know why my thumb was bleeding, but it seemed to be bleeding from the inside rather than the outside.
after sitting for a few moments, i started getting a little bit light-headed from the pot, which is fairly normal for me. i know that the way to deal with this is to sit still for a few minutes and let it pass; i know i'll be fine, soon. why does this happen to me? do i have a marijuana allergy? is it just low tolerance? is it dose dependent, and a consequence of relying on gifts (is the issue not having control over dosage)? i think i should start to get a better understanding of this.
so, i was sitting still, waiting for the intense part of the high to pass, when i fainted, and fell to a concrete floor, where i landed hard on my right side. i have substantive bruising on both my arm and my head.
i am certain that i fainted and fell, that this is what actually happened and not a gloss over some other event. i remember falling, and losing consciousness before i hit the floor; i then remember quickly regaining consciousness and jumping right back up again. so, i seem to have lost a small amount of time between the point that i fainted and the point that i got up.
i do not remember seizing; i'm told i was experiencing one.
let's recall. i took a pass on a j, then my thumb is randomly bleeding and i'm feeling light-headed so i sit down. i then faint, and fall over; i either went into a seizure as a consequence of hitting my head, or a i fainted for the purposes of having a seizure. i know i lost consciousness before i actually fell over.
i felt great immediately before this. in fact, i had just finished bicycling upwards of 15 miles, so i was feeling a pretty strong post-exercise natural high. i was not experiencing headaches, i wasn't tired, i wasn't sick.
the trigger was clearly the pot, and i'm left to wonder if the bleeding thumb isn't evidence that i accidentally inhaled some kind of upper, but i'm increasingly wondering if there's an underlying condition that i need to take seriously.
i was refused further service at that point, and while i had only had two beers and do not believe that the beer was a cause of the fainting or the seizure, i can hardly blame the bartender. so, i got another beer at a different bar down the street, then found myself talking with some people in the park until 5:00.
i stopped at the emergency room for observation on the way home, and
just talked briefly to a nurse about the possibilities of a concussion. i
was not having difficulty recalling information. my head did not hurt. i
was not vomiting. my pupils were fine. so, i went home without seeing
the doctor. i just needed somebody to tell me i'm ok....
not the best night, even if it worked out ok in the end.
and, how do i feel?
well, i got some rest. i'm a little tired from 20 miles of biking yesterday, and experiencing a bit of a pot hangover. i'm not vomiting. no headaches. no seizures, yet.
this is not the first neurological event i've experienced, and what i've tied previous events to is the combination of smoking (anything) on an empty stomach. these events are rare, and it's been years now since the last one, but it's not completely out of nowhere. this is the first time i've experienced any kind of injury from it, and i think it's partly because it's been so long that i forgot about it. in the past, i may have sat myself closer to the floor when i felt it coming on, rather then bend over on a bench. a part of the reason i fell over is due to the awkward way i was sitting.
so, i can't explain exactly what happened, but i can point out that it was triggered by the pot, may have had something to do with a lack of recent eating or lack of sleep, has happened before and doesn't appear to have long lasting effects. i just hope the bump on my head clears up soon; otherwise, i may be in for the weekend for that reason.
the event was at 1:00 am on thursday morning. i had last eaten around 7:00 am on wednesday morning. while i didn't feel particularly hungry, i think the direct takeaway is to ensure that i have something - even a piece of bread - in my stomach before i go out partying. and, in fact, i'm usually pretty good about this; i wasn't expecting to end up in a bar overnight last night, i was expecting to hit the show and catch the last bus home. i don't know the mechanism, but i've at least determined the correlation. i was a little sloppy, and need to be more conscious about it.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
i've actually made this point over and over again: the idea that the culture of northern europe (the culture of the germanic, celtic, baltic and slavic nations, as well as the historically iranian cultures of europe (alans, scythians, sarmatians, etc)) is fundamentally christian, or erected on a christian edifice, is a colonial lie presented by the christian church. it's complete bullshit.
that is a claim that has more merit when applied to the southern parts of europe, and actually even has more merit when applied to the middle east and northern africa. egyptian culture is more fundamentally christian in origin than swedish or english culture is or ever will be.
the historical truth is that this area was brutally invaded and colonized first by romans and second by christians, who attempted to eradicate the indigenous culture and people and replace it with their own. what the romans did to the celts would qualify as outright genocide by modern standards. but, the barbarian north then spent centuries, and in some cases millennia, fighting back against these roman and christian invaders.
when these germanic tribes moved south to destroy rome, they were in a very large part moving to destroy christianity, and this is as true of the goths as it was of the last viking raids into france and england. they always targeted the churches, above all else; they would plunder and rape, yes, but burning down the church and the monasteries was always the central prerogative of the raids. and, there's a serious body of evidence that interprets this as self-defense, from a reaction to the romans slaughtering celts from britain to switzerland to an allied, pan-germanic response to charlemagne's attempt to eliminate the saxons.
beyond that, this idea of there being a western empire in the first place is questionable. the romans did not build the east, they inherited it; it was built mostly by the persians, and then renovated by the greeks. the romans literally even bought large swaths of it. so, with the exception of the pesky jews, it was less prone to nationalist uprisings, because they all saw themselves as a part of the same culture. when the east did revolt, it revolted together. in the west, there were constant revolts from the time of caesar. at almost no time in history was there actually centralized roman control over hispania, gaul, britannia and germania all at the same time. there were, rather, constant uprisings of celtic tribes, german tribes, various confederations of tribes, roman pretenders and anybody else that could take control of an army long enough to cause a ruckus. in that sense, the very western roman empire itself - the supposed basis of western "civilization" - is largely a mythological construct. the peoples of northwestern europe saw the romans not as bringers of civilization, but as cruel overlords, oppressors and destroyers, and they never stopped fighting them for their freedom, which they eventually won by burning down the cities of their oppressors.
over time, the celts were assimilated nearly entirely and the germans slowly adopted aspects of christianity, but to suggest that christianity was the basis of the culture is backwards. the legal systems in these countries, especially in england, are fundamentally germanic, and then borrowed aspects from roman christianity, rather than the other way around. our religious traditions are fundamentally germanic, even if they have a christian gloss over them. our cultural traditions are individualistic and libertarian, not hegemonic or hierarchical. and, we've struggled from the start to see the logic in treating women as inferior livestock. we are not christians, we are barbarians.
when the dust of the last viking attempts to destroy christianity settles, what is left is a feudal society dominated by warlords that use christianity as a tool to manipulate their conquered peoples. in the end, the barbarian overlords found christianity too useful to dismantle altogether. but, it was never a driving force for any meaningful decision made by anybody. and, the scribes were still reading their latin texts, insofar as they could find them.
so, people ask the question of when it was that christianity began to unravel in the northwest. was it recently, as per nietzsche? was it in the age of enlightenment? the renaissance? the reformation? the black death? while these all mark turning points of victory in the struggle against the church, i might argue that the question is illusory: these areas were never fully romanized, never fully christianized, but have rather spent the entirety of history fighting hard to maintain their identity in strict and brutal opposition to the dominance of the encroaching church.
that is our history, as northern europeans: we are not products of christianity, but victims of it.
that is a claim that has more merit when applied to the southern parts of europe, and actually even has more merit when applied to the middle east and northern africa. egyptian culture is more fundamentally christian in origin than swedish or english culture is or ever will be.
the historical truth is that this area was brutally invaded and colonized first by romans and second by christians, who attempted to eradicate the indigenous culture and people and replace it with their own. what the romans did to the celts would qualify as outright genocide by modern standards. but, the barbarian north then spent centuries, and in some cases millennia, fighting back against these roman and christian invaders.
when these germanic tribes moved south to destroy rome, they were in a very large part moving to destroy christianity, and this is as true of the goths as it was of the last viking raids into france and england. they always targeted the churches, above all else; they would plunder and rape, yes, but burning down the church and the monasteries was always the central prerogative of the raids. and, there's a serious body of evidence that interprets this as self-defense, from a reaction to the romans slaughtering celts from britain to switzerland to an allied, pan-germanic response to charlemagne's attempt to eliminate the saxons.
beyond that, this idea of there being a western empire in the first place is questionable. the romans did not build the east, they inherited it; it was built mostly by the persians, and then renovated by the greeks. the romans literally even bought large swaths of it. so, with the exception of the pesky jews, it was less prone to nationalist uprisings, because they all saw themselves as a part of the same culture. when the east did revolt, it revolted together. in the west, there were constant revolts from the time of caesar. at almost no time in history was there actually centralized roman control over hispania, gaul, britannia and germania all at the same time. there were, rather, constant uprisings of celtic tribes, german tribes, various confederations of tribes, roman pretenders and anybody else that could take control of an army long enough to cause a ruckus. in that sense, the very western roman empire itself - the supposed basis of western "civilization" - is largely a mythological construct. the peoples of northwestern europe saw the romans not as bringers of civilization, but as cruel overlords, oppressors and destroyers, and they never stopped fighting them for their freedom, which they eventually won by burning down the cities of their oppressors.
over time, the celts were assimilated nearly entirely and the germans slowly adopted aspects of christianity, but to suggest that christianity was the basis of the culture is backwards. the legal systems in these countries, especially in england, are fundamentally germanic, and then borrowed aspects from roman christianity, rather than the other way around. our religious traditions are fundamentally germanic, even if they have a christian gloss over them. our cultural traditions are individualistic and libertarian, not hegemonic or hierarchical. and, we've struggled from the start to see the logic in treating women as inferior livestock. we are not christians, we are barbarians.
when the dust of the last viking attempts to destroy christianity settles, what is left is a feudal society dominated by warlords that use christianity as a tool to manipulate their conquered peoples. in the end, the barbarian overlords found christianity too useful to dismantle altogether. but, it was never a driving force for any meaningful decision made by anybody. and, the scribes were still reading their latin texts, insofar as they could find them.
so, people ask the question of when it was that christianity began to unravel in the northwest. was it recently, as per nietzsche? was it in the age of enlightenment? the renaissance? the reformation? the black death? while these all mark turning points of victory in the struggle against the church, i might argue that the question is illusory: these areas were never fully romanized, never fully christianized, but have rather spent the entirety of history fighting hard to maintain their identity in strict and brutal opposition to the dominance of the encroaching church.
that is our history, as northern europeans: we are not products of christianity, but victims of it.
the truth is that most people are going to think that these are actually really very moderate, sensible positions that are hard to disagree with in any substantive way. these are not hard-right positions, they're centrist positions, and large swaths of ndp and liberal voters are going to agree with them, outright. the media's framing of this has really never been coherent. immigration control isn't and has never been a strictly right-wing concern.
no sensible person is going to think it's unreasonable to build a fence on a border, and screening criteria for immigration is really a matter of public policy, as a reflection of the popular will. there's nothing outside of the mainstream, here.
the line has to be drawn somewhere around the use of due process. it's when you start talking about restricting or eliminating rights to hearings - which trump has done - that it enters the realm of right-wing politics. it's when you start restricting rights, and mistreating people. that's not the messaging i'm getting from him.
but, i'm still in favour of supply management, amongst other things i would disagree with this party about, which are all far more more pressing ballot issues to me.
https://nationalpost.com/news/build-a-fence-maxime-bernier-announces-plan-by-peoples-party-to-crack-down-on-immigration
no sensible person is going to think it's unreasonable to build a fence on a border, and screening criteria for immigration is really a matter of public policy, as a reflection of the popular will. there's nothing outside of the mainstream, here.
the line has to be drawn somewhere around the use of due process. it's when you start talking about restricting or eliminating rights to hearings - which trump has done - that it enters the realm of right-wing politics. it's when you start restricting rights, and mistreating people. that's not the messaging i'm getting from him.
but, i'm still in favour of supply management, amongst other things i would disagree with this party about, which are all far more more pressing ballot issues to me.
https://nationalpost.com/news/build-a-fence-maxime-bernier-announces-plan-by-peoples-party-to-crack-down-on-immigration
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
so, what am i doing?
i actually didn't really wake up until early this morning, and then i slept again late this morning. i dunno. that was a hectic four-day weekend, so i needed to take some time to catch up on food and rest, i guess. i'm feeling a lot better, now.
it's a little on the cool side for this time of year right now, but it's not too bad. it should be a little nicer on the weekend, but i actually can't find anything to do.
well, i'll caveat that: there's a large number of dance parties, but no early shows. no (interesting) rock shows, no classical shows, no experimental noise fests, no jazz shows. it's just novelty rock acts and boring acoustic nights. so, i'm toying with staying in altogether. or, i may hit one of them. but, i don't expect it to be like last weekend, when i was out for days straight - there's just not enough stuff to do, and nothing substantive to really plan around.
that could change if i find something.
but, for now, it means i feel ok about hitting the screaming females tonight.
no word from the oiprd, yet. i'll have to touch base with them again on monday.
i actually didn't really wake up until early this morning, and then i slept again late this morning. i dunno. that was a hectic four-day weekend, so i needed to take some time to catch up on food and rest, i guess. i'm feeling a lot better, now.
it's a little on the cool side for this time of year right now, but it's not too bad. it should be a little nicer on the weekend, but i actually can't find anything to do.
well, i'll caveat that: there's a large number of dance parties, but no early shows. no (interesting) rock shows, no classical shows, no experimental noise fests, no jazz shows. it's just novelty rock acts and boring acoustic nights. so, i'm toying with staying in altogether. or, i may hit one of them. but, i don't expect it to be like last weekend, when i was out for days straight - there's just not enough stuff to do, and nothing substantive to really plan around.
that could change if i find something.
but, for now, it means i feel ok about hitting the screaming females tonight.
no word from the oiprd, yet. i'll have to touch base with them again on monday.
and, we've already reached the heady intellectual realm of debating the merits of "intersectional feminism" vs "corporate" or - how about this - "white feminism".
ugh.
this is why people hate this party and wish there was anything out there that was better.
but, what's happening here is that both of the campaigns have realized that warren's bump in the polls is almost entirely attributed to a large amount of women determining their voting intentions with their vaginas. warren's people seem to be ok with that, and willing to create a wedge around it. and, bernie's right back where he started, again.
expect warren's campaign to bring back the bernie bro, and bernie's campaign to go back to subtly undermining his opponent's qualifications.
and, it's all going to be very, very boring. for months.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-war-between-bernie-sanders-and-msnbc-reaches-a-new-peak
ugh.
this is why people hate this party and wish there was anything out there that was better.
but, what's happening here is that both of the campaigns have realized that warren's bump in the polls is almost entirely attributed to a large amount of women determining their voting intentions with their vaginas. warren's people seem to be ok with that, and willing to create a wedge around it. and, bernie's right back where he started, again.
expect warren's campaign to bring back the bernie bro, and bernie's campaign to go back to subtly undermining his opponent's qualifications.
and, it's all going to be very, very boring. for months.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-war-between-bernie-sanders-and-msnbc-reaches-a-new-peak
why do i eat meat, though?
because my doctor told me i should.
when i was a kid, i was legit anemic. i wasn't a vegan kid exactly, but my mom didn't really feed me. we don't have lunch programs at school in canada because we don't really need them, and it's not like my mom couldn't afford to make me a lunch, it's more like she was too lazy to make me one, and often actually usually more like she was too drunk and/or stoned and/or unconscious from overdosing on something to make me one. when you're like eight years old, your culinary options are a little restricted. when my mom did cook, it was usually kraft dinner (sometimes with broccoli, usually not), and she tended not to keep things like peanut butter or jam in the house, let alone any lunch meat. she'd rarely eat, herself. so, i frequently ended up at school without a lunch.
my dad just didn't know. when the doctor eventually realized i was horribly iron deficient due to malnutrition and got the information to him, he started sending me home with lunch meat. i didn't figure it out for years later, but the reason he sent me home with eastern european salamis was because they had the highest protein contents. and, i've been eating things like "hungarian salami" ever since.
to my mom's credit, she seemed to be a little embarrassed by the situation when it was explained to her, and briefly adjusted by making things like liver, which is pretty iron-heavy. but, the truth is that she was a drunk, and she didn't enjoy doing motherly things. she hated cooking. really, any attempts to do normal mom things were always very short-lived; it was not long before she gave up, and went back to destroying herself.
so, i was never a regular meat eater because i was raised in such a fucked up family. i consequently never developed the kind of meat-eating habits that are considered unhealthy, but have always been struggling to force myself to get enough protein, to keep my iron and b12 up.
i went "vegetarian" briefly around 2002, but it wasn't a big lifestyle change because i kept eating eggs and cheese. and, i'd eat bacon, specifically, at an opportunistic basis, because it's bacon. so, basically, i just stopped eating meat at fast food restaurants. i flopped on this a few years later, but i still never had a steady source of meat in my diet until i moved to windsor and started buying salami regularly.
because my doctor told me i should.
when i was a kid, i was legit anemic. i wasn't a vegan kid exactly, but my mom didn't really feed me. we don't have lunch programs at school in canada because we don't really need them, and it's not like my mom couldn't afford to make me a lunch, it's more like she was too lazy to make me one, and often actually usually more like she was too drunk and/or stoned and/or unconscious from overdosing on something to make me one. when you're like eight years old, your culinary options are a little restricted. when my mom did cook, it was usually kraft dinner (sometimes with broccoli, usually not), and she tended not to keep things like peanut butter or jam in the house, let alone any lunch meat. she'd rarely eat, herself. so, i frequently ended up at school without a lunch.
my dad just didn't know. when the doctor eventually realized i was horribly iron deficient due to malnutrition and got the information to him, he started sending me home with lunch meat. i didn't figure it out for years later, but the reason he sent me home with eastern european salamis was because they had the highest protein contents. and, i've been eating things like "hungarian salami" ever since.
to my mom's credit, she seemed to be a little embarrassed by the situation when it was explained to her, and briefly adjusted by making things like liver, which is pretty iron-heavy. but, the truth is that she was a drunk, and she didn't enjoy doing motherly things. she hated cooking. really, any attempts to do normal mom things were always very short-lived; it was not long before she gave up, and went back to destroying herself.
so, i was never a regular meat eater because i was raised in such a fucked up family. i consequently never developed the kind of meat-eating habits that are considered unhealthy, but have always been struggling to force myself to get enough protein, to keep my iron and b12 up.
i went "vegetarian" briefly around 2002, but it wasn't a big lifestyle change because i kept eating eggs and cheese. and, i'd eat bacon, specifically, at an opportunistic basis, because it's bacon. so, basically, i just stopped eating meat at fast food restaurants. i flopped on this a few years later, but i still never had a steady source of meat in my diet until i moved to windsor and started buying salami regularly.
and, no, i'm not a vegan or a vegetarian. at all.
i choose soy milk over cow's milk because it's nutritionally superior and it tastes better, but i eat a large amount of cheese, about a scoop of ice cream and a (very) small amount of high protein salami on more or less a daily basis. i also eat about 4-8 eggs a week, depending on a variety of things.
the bulk of my diet is fruit (5 strawberries, 20 blueberries, 1 kiwi, 1 bananas, 5 cherries, 1/2 tomato daily) and grains (1/2 bowl of pasta daily, 2-4 pieces of bread weekly). i eat a small green pepper on most days for extra fiber. add dressings (caesar, frank's, mustard) and spices (celery salt, ground pepper) and that's really all i eat.
i've gained a small amount of weight recently, but i actually think it's mostly that i've built a lot of muscle from doing a lot of bicycling. that sounds counter-intuitive, but i guess i lost a lot of muscle when i stopped biking for a few years. it's just hard for me to figure out where i gained the weight (my thighs are a little bigger from the hormones, but i couldn't imagine it's that measurable) because i can't see it. muscle gain is the only thing that really makes any sense, and all that pasta will certainly lead to that end point.
understand that what i'm talking about is increasing my bmi from around 19 to around 22. i'm still underweight by most metrics.
and, i think that removing my testicles will probably cut my muscle mass, although it remains to be seen what my body does to it.
i choose soy milk over cow's milk because it's nutritionally superior and it tastes better, but i eat a large amount of cheese, about a scoop of ice cream and a (very) small amount of high protein salami on more or less a daily basis. i also eat about 4-8 eggs a week, depending on a variety of things.
the bulk of my diet is fruit (5 strawberries, 20 blueberries, 1 kiwi, 1 bananas, 5 cherries, 1/2 tomato daily) and grains (1/2 bowl of pasta daily, 2-4 pieces of bread weekly). i eat a small green pepper on most days for extra fiber. add dressings (caesar, frank's, mustard) and spices (celery salt, ground pepper) and that's really all i eat.
i've gained a small amount of weight recently, but i actually think it's mostly that i've built a lot of muscle from doing a lot of bicycling. that sounds counter-intuitive, but i guess i lost a lot of muscle when i stopped biking for a few years. it's just hard for me to figure out where i gained the weight (my thighs are a little bigger from the hormones, but i couldn't imagine it's that measurable) because i can't see it. muscle gain is the only thing that really makes any sense, and all that pasta will certainly lead to that end point.
understand that what i'm talking about is increasing my bmi from around 19 to around 22. i'm still underweight by most metrics.
and, i think that removing my testicles will probably cut my muscle mass, although it remains to be seen what my body does to it.
the reality is that the food guide is trash, but it always was.
the canada food guide is not a peer-reviewed, scientific document. what the canada food guide is is a marketing tool for canadian industry, and if it tells you to eat less meat in favour of more beans it's because the lentil industry successfully lobbied to have that put in the report.
actual peer-reviewed science in actual academic journals is very, very clear that you cannot replace meat with plants, and if you try to do that you're going to end up with vitamin and iron deficiencies. vegetarians are statistically far less healthy than omnivores are.
there are reasons other than health that the scale of beef and poultry production should be cut down, but if we're mostly concerned about health then we should be looking at insects as replacements, not plants.
but, are these things good for you? of course they aren't. the fact is that it's mostly sugar. but, you didn't think that big mac was good for you, did you?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/beyond-meat-burger-beef-health-risks-1.5220777
the canada food guide is not a peer-reviewed, scientific document. what the canada food guide is is a marketing tool for canadian industry, and if it tells you to eat less meat in favour of more beans it's because the lentil industry successfully lobbied to have that put in the report.
actual peer-reviewed science in actual academic journals is very, very clear that you cannot replace meat with plants, and if you try to do that you're going to end up with vitamin and iron deficiencies. vegetarians are statistically far less healthy than omnivores are.
there are reasons other than health that the scale of beef and poultry production should be cut down, but if we're mostly concerned about health then we should be looking at insects as replacements, not plants.
but, are these things good for you? of course they aren't. the fact is that it's mostly sugar. but, you didn't think that big mac was good for you, did you?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/beyond-meat-burger-beef-health-risks-1.5220777
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
i'm largely of the opinion that this is very silly, and they should be told to use absentee ballots if they can't show up on the day of the vote, or any of the advance polls. the problem is that the body didn't provide for a solution, thereby infringing voting rights, which are real rights, and it got sent back to find one. that doesn't mean there isn't an easy solution, it just means that the body didn't write it out. and, the judge has to defer to the expertise of the panel as much as possible, so she can't just pull it and scrawl all over it - she has to send it back with a note to do it fucking right, this time.
so, absentee ballots are the easy answer, and the review really just needs to send the complainants the memo around it.
but, i wouldn't be overly opposed to allowing for a special advanced polling day, either, so long as it is also open for the general public.
more chances to vote is better than less chances. right?
but, i would oppose moving the election date, on principle. this is not a good enough reason for that - there are absentee ballots available.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-court-orthodox-jewish-1.5222279
no.
stop.
when somebody says "i can't leave my faith at the door", what does that mean? it means they're suffering from a very large amount of trauma, that this system of control and dominance that they've internalized has left them with so much guilt and self-hate that they can't even function in normal society.
and, you think that letting these people near kids is an issue of their rights?
what about the rights of kids to grow up free from systems of dominance and control and oppression? that's the fundamental concern, not somebody's fucking career.
stop.
when somebody says "i can't leave my faith at the door", what does that mean? it means they're suffering from a very large amount of trauma, that this system of control and dominance that they've internalized has left them with so much guilt and self-hate that they can't even function in normal society.
and, you think that letting these people near kids is an issue of their rights?
what about the rights of kids to grow up free from systems of dominance and control and oppression? that's the fundamental concern, not somebody's fucking career.
so, now they want leave to appeal the rejection of the request to suspend bill 21. who is paying for this?
there is a really fundamentally serious misunderstanding about what the law says, in this context. so, you see statements like this: "My faith is not something I can leave at the door. That's virtually impossible." presented as an argument against the bill, as though the law actually does or apparently ought to care. what this statement seems to demonstrate is a kind of entitlement towards employment, as though the purpose of employment is merely to raise money. there's no concept of collective ownership in the workplace here, no concept of labour as a task to accomplish the social good; it's strictly about individual rights, and in a sense it's strictly about consumerism.
what the society is saying is that if an individual cannot leave their faith at the door then they should not be employed in certain contexts. there seems to be a particularly strongly held view that people that are unable to leave their faith at the door should not be allowed to be near children. if this person is agreeing that they can't separate their faith from their employment, and even loudly yelling it, then what they are doing is providing justification for the existence of the law, rather than an argument against it, because they are not the fundamental concern, as individuals. their employment opportunities, and their career advancements, are not what the law is or ought to be most fundamentally concerned about; the fundamental concern is ensuring that the state maintains a fundamentally secular identity, including the need to protect children from the influence of religion or people that can't separate themselves from their religion, as an expression of the popular will.
i don't think they have a chance in hell at overturning this law.
but, if they want to get one, they'd better start by actually understanding it.
all evidence i can see at this point is that the movement to overturn the law simply doesn't understand it, and they're going nowhere until they do.
there is a really fundamentally serious misunderstanding about what the law says, in this context. so, you see statements like this: "My faith is not something I can leave at the door. That's virtually impossible." presented as an argument against the bill, as though the law actually does or apparently ought to care. what this statement seems to demonstrate is a kind of entitlement towards employment, as though the purpose of employment is merely to raise money. there's no concept of collective ownership in the workplace here, no concept of labour as a task to accomplish the social good; it's strictly about individual rights, and in a sense it's strictly about consumerism.
what the society is saying is that if an individual cannot leave their faith at the door then they should not be employed in certain contexts. there seems to be a particularly strongly held view that people that are unable to leave their faith at the door should not be allowed to be near children. if this person is agreeing that they can't separate their faith from their employment, and even loudly yelling it, then what they are doing is providing justification for the existence of the law, rather than an argument against it, because they are not the fundamental concern, as individuals. their employment opportunities, and their career advancements, are not what the law is or ought to be most fundamentally concerned about; the fundamental concern is ensuring that the state maintains a fundamentally secular identity, including the need to protect children from the influence of religion or people that can't separate themselves from their religion, as an expression of the popular will.
i don't think they have a chance in hell at overturning this law.
but, if they want to get one, they'd better start by actually understanding it.
all evidence i can see at this point is that the movement to overturn the law simply doesn't understand it, and they're going nowhere until they do.
the reason that we collectively own all of these houses is that we used eminent domain to seize them. we didn't build these mansions with public money, and there's little justification for using public money to fix them.
i'd rather see the state tear these houses down, and use eminent domain to seize new ones.
the money should be spent, but it should be spent on social services.
i'd rather see the state tear these houses down, and use eminent domain to seize new ones.
the money should be spent, but it should be spent on social services.
this isn't a ballot issue, and i won't be reacting to it further, but i'll state the obvious.
i've seen two articles now suggest that the cost of building a new structure would not be much more than the cost of repairing it. the cost of repairing it is around $35 million. it's then suggested that he might as well rebuild, because harper fucked the thing up.
i have a better idea: build the prime minister a $1 million house, and spend the other $39 million on subsidized housing.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-welcome-to-24-sussex-dr-official-home-of-petty-politics/
i've seen two articles now suggest that the cost of building a new structure would not be much more than the cost of repairing it. the cost of repairing it is around $35 million. it's then suggested that he might as well rebuild, because harper fucked the thing up.
i have a better idea: build the prime minister a $1 million house, and spend the other $39 million on subsidized housing.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-welcome-to-24-sussex-dr-official-home-of-petty-politics/
it was just after 23:00 on saturday night that i made a choice to get out, and while it turned out to be unnecessary and resulted in a long day, i don't regret doing it.
the after party i wanted to go to got cancelled due to concerns about a police raid (and what they're looking for is alcohol, even though drinking at these places is actually usually quite sparse), and i did drive by there and they weren't there, but i found a back up party at a space i won't advertise, although i'll say it was advertised. i'm sorry, but with all the cancellations, i need to be quiet. as is usually the case, it wasn't hard to find. i was a little iffy because i wasn't sure if it was going to be the kind of music i like, and i didn't know how late it would go, and i didn't want to wait around all day for sunsquabi....
i was going to skip the night and head out early for the marching festival, but the more i looked at the forecast, the more it didn't make any sense. they weren't calling for a possibility of rain on sunday, they were calling for steady rain all day and over night, starting around noon. the radar was backing them up, too. so, if i was going to go, i'd have to try to get there early, meaning i'd have to leave at like 10:00.
and, it was going to be a nice, hot night, too.
so, i caught the last bus over - at 00:30 on sunday morning - and hit the after-party, which lingered on until around 8:00. apologies to the people trying to get home, but my plan was to push it to as close as 12:00 as was possible, and it was raining, and those other guys were stuck and not leaving, anyways. and, they kept passing blunts to me, so it seemed like good luck for me, if bad luck for them. i wasn't eating breakfast until almost 9:00.
those other guys...
they got bailed on, apparently. steve. they were very upset with steve. steve was their ride back to a satellite city (and detroit is like that, a metro with a lot of small cities around it), and had, from what they could tell, left without them. i had to caution against this understanding of things as steve had left his phone and who does that? my analysis of the evidence was that it was more likely that steve stumbled off somewhere fucked out of his mind (hence the lost phone) and he'd call them when he regains consciousness, but that didn't make them less angry or less willing to smash his phone (which i didn't actually observe, at least). they were convinced he drove off with a female accomplice, and that made them that much more upset, as they were lacking female accomplices themselves, you see.
they were both complaining about being too stoned to roll, so i think my own analysis is more spot-on. and, they fluctuated from offering to take me out to deep michigan with them and wondering why i was still there, even though i told them....
after some probing questions about my own sexuality and age (you're, like, what? 25?) that got them answers they didn't want, they ended up deciding to try to find some female accomplices of their own at the casino downtown. they thought it would be better if they wait until close to noon, to maximize chances. so, i wished them good luck and bicycled off to get breakfast...
i made it to the russell around 13:00, thinking i was lucky to beat the rain, and just sort of waited for it to come in. and i waited. by 15:00 or so, it was very hot, but it did not rain. so, i waited. and waited. eventually, the band comes on around 20:30 and we're just dealing with little drops by the end of the set, so small as to barely notice. so, was this a huge waste? in some sense, it clearly was, but i'm not upset about it as i got something out of it on more of a personal level. one of those guys knew the space the party was in fairly well, so, through what was somewhat of a tour, i was able to get a bit of a better understanding of my surroundings, which i think will be of good use moving forwards.
the dance party was fun. the wait was long, but helpful in some sense. and, sunsquabi was on enough. so, it was fine.
and, i caught the 23:40 bus back on sunday night.
the actual event was a fundraiser for art supplies in detroit schools, which is maybe a little bourgeois, but more interestingly organized by a large head shop in the region. so, it was a giant pot party to raise money that should really be being raised by taxpayers. let's hope a few of those kids can put the bong down long enough to create something worthwhile.
the after party i wanted to go to got cancelled due to concerns about a police raid (and what they're looking for is alcohol, even though drinking at these places is actually usually quite sparse), and i did drive by there and they weren't there, but i found a back up party at a space i won't advertise, although i'll say it was advertised. i'm sorry, but with all the cancellations, i need to be quiet. as is usually the case, it wasn't hard to find. i was a little iffy because i wasn't sure if it was going to be the kind of music i like, and i didn't know how late it would go, and i didn't want to wait around all day for sunsquabi....
i was going to skip the night and head out early for the marching festival, but the more i looked at the forecast, the more it didn't make any sense. they weren't calling for a possibility of rain on sunday, they were calling for steady rain all day and over night, starting around noon. the radar was backing them up, too. so, if i was going to go, i'd have to try to get there early, meaning i'd have to leave at like 10:00.
and, it was going to be a nice, hot night, too.
so, i caught the last bus over - at 00:30 on sunday morning - and hit the after-party, which lingered on until around 8:00. apologies to the people trying to get home, but my plan was to push it to as close as 12:00 as was possible, and it was raining, and those other guys were stuck and not leaving, anyways. and, they kept passing blunts to me, so it seemed like good luck for me, if bad luck for them. i wasn't eating breakfast until almost 9:00.
those other guys...
they got bailed on, apparently. steve. they were very upset with steve. steve was their ride back to a satellite city (and detroit is like that, a metro with a lot of small cities around it), and had, from what they could tell, left without them. i had to caution against this understanding of things as steve had left his phone and who does that? my analysis of the evidence was that it was more likely that steve stumbled off somewhere fucked out of his mind (hence the lost phone) and he'd call them when he regains consciousness, but that didn't make them less angry or less willing to smash his phone (which i didn't actually observe, at least). they were convinced he drove off with a female accomplice, and that made them that much more upset, as they were lacking female accomplices themselves, you see.
they were both complaining about being too stoned to roll, so i think my own analysis is more spot-on. and, they fluctuated from offering to take me out to deep michigan with them and wondering why i was still there, even though i told them....
after some probing questions about my own sexuality and age (you're, like, what? 25?) that got them answers they didn't want, they ended up deciding to try to find some female accomplices of their own at the casino downtown. they thought it would be better if they wait until close to noon, to maximize chances. so, i wished them good luck and bicycled off to get breakfast...
i made it to the russell around 13:00, thinking i was lucky to beat the rain, and just sort of waited for it to come in. and i waited. by 15:00 or so, it was very hot, but it did not rain. so, i waited. and waited. eventually, the band comes on around 20:30 and we're just dealing with little drops by the end of the set, so small as to barely notice. so, was this a huge waste? in some sense, it clearly was, but i'm not upset about it as i got something out of it on more of a personal level. one of those guys knew the space the party was in fairly well, so, through what was somewhat of a tour, i was able to get a bit of a better understanding of my surroundings, which i think will be of good use moving forwards.
the dance party was fun. the wait was long, but helpful in some sense. and, sunsquabi was on enough. so, it was fine.
and, i caught the 23:40 bus back on sunday night.
the actual event was a fundraiser for art supplies in detroit schools, which is maybe a little bourgeois, but more interestingly organized by a large head shop in the region. so, it was a giant pot party to raise money that should really be being raised by taxpayers. let's hope a few of those kids can put the bong down long enough to create something worthwhile.
Monday, July 22, 2019
this idea that the russians are highly advanced in cyberwarfare is essentially the same lie that they used to siphon trillions and trillions of dollars of public money, that should be used for the public good, out into the military-industrial complex during the height of the cold war.
in actual fact, the russians are decades and decades behind both the united states and israel when it comes to electronic warfare, so a report like this is impossible to believe on it's face. if the russians are making any attempt to jam communications from some bunker in syria, it is probably very primitive and experimental. i mean, they're operating from syria. is that where the russians keep their best minds, on the front line of a multi-sided conflict that could collapse into a world war any day?
so, this is nonsense, and i don't need an investigative report to figure that out.
but, the intent behind this - and the continuing intent behind all of it - is probably just more to get conservatives to support increases in military spending.
i mean, i don't know why google keeps throwing this at me, it's not a serious paper.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-jamming-air-forces-f-35s-and-f-22s-near-iran-68512
in actual fact, the russians are decades and decades behind both the united states and israel when it comes to electronic warfare, so a report like this is impossible to believe on it's face. if the russians are making any attempt to jam communications from some bunker in syria, it is probably very primitive and experimental. i mean, they're operating from syria. is that where the russians keep their best minds, on the front line of a multi-sided conflict that could collapse into a world war any day?
so, this is nonsense, and i don't need an investigative report to figure that out.
but, the intent behind this - and the continuing intent behind all of it - is probably just more to get conservatives to support increases in military spending.
i mean, i don't know why google keeps throwing this at me, it's not a serious paper.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-jamming-air-forces-f-35s-and-f-22s-near-iran-68512
if there is to be a single axiom of liberalism, everybody is to be treated equally at the hands of the law is just about the closest thing you could get to one.
it is the single most fundamental and most basic point about liberalism that there can be.
and, a system that insists on treating us differently before the law must, by definition, then be considered illiberal.
it is the single most fundamental and most basic point about liberalism that there can be.
and, a system that insists on treating us differently before the law must, by definition, then be considered illiberal.
where did all of these people go to school? it's like they got their degree from a sunday school or something. we don't follow the law of aquinas in canada. this is not an aristotlian state, it's not an augustinian republic, it's a constitutional democracy where the secular bill of rights is supreme above all.
they have no chance of winning these cases, and it's not because they invoked s. 33 - it's because the law is perfectly consistent with the legal norms in the country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-religious-symbols-law-upheld-superior-court-1.5216576
they have no chance of winning these cases, and it's not because they invoked s. 33 - it's because the law is perfectly consistent with the legal norms in the country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-religious-symbols-law-upheld-superior-court-1.5216576
again.
canada is a secular state within a constitutional democracy with one set of laws and one set of rights for everybody. in canada, the charter is superior to all religious doctrine.
those are the rules, here.
i would oppose any sort of parallel legal structure, and i would insist that the charter be used to override any religious documents, should one arise. and, that is what it means to be a liberal.
so, it's not just a legitimate political concern, even if it's a little on the backburner right just now. i mean, if a politician showed up tomorrow and started backing these religious tribunals again, i would certainly openly oppose them and openly back candidates that want to reverse any movement in that direction. i would oppose the enforcement of sharia under any context, in any scenario and insist that our own laws be followed, instead. it's also an issue within the canadian liberal party, and the broader left that is going to require some more open discussion and more honest dialogue around.
resist the propaganda telling you this isn't an issue.
it is.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost
canada is a secular state within a constitutional democracy with one set of laws and one set of rights for everybody. in canada, the charter is superior to all religious doctrine.
those are the rules, here.
i would oppose any sort of parallel legal structure, and i would insist that the charter be used to override any religious documents, should one arise. and, that is what it means to be a liberal.
so, it's not just a legitimate political concern, even if it's a little on the backburner right just now. i mean, if a politician showed up tomorrow and started backing these religious tribunals again, i would certainly openly oppose them and openly back candidates that want to reverse any movement in that direction. i would oppose the enforcement of sharia under any context, in any scenario and insist that our own laws be followed, instead. it's also an issue within the canadian liberal party, and the broader left that is going to require some more open discussion and more honest dialogue around.
resist the propaganda telling you this isn't an issue.
it is.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost
right, so i don't think that justin trudeau wants to bring sharia law to canada after the next election, although i would question as to whether he may allow for religious courts some time in the future.
i want to take a mild detour, here, though, because what a change has happened with the liberals in the last ten years. in 2007, dalton mcguinty - with many of the same advisors that trudeau has today - successfully won an election in ontario by ruthlessly attacking the conservative party for wanting to bring in muslim schools. this is the kind of liberal party i grew up supporting, and the kind of liberal party i want to come back again. he also, to much fanfare and praise, banned the possibilities of religious arbitration in the court system (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mcguinty-government-rules-out-use-of-sharia-law/article18247682/), which is the root cause of a lot of the backlash you see happening today. this was clearly the right choice.
so, is talking about sharia law in canada scare-mongering? well, if you do the research, you'll know it's not - and that people suggesting it isn't a real concern are either ignorant of the facts or operating as spin doctors. this is an issue with a legitimate history in canada, and something that is going to continue to come up as the muslim population increases. with the existing realities around immigration in canada, it's not a question of if this becomes a serious political debate but when it does. so, what is the tipping point? we're at around 5% and growing. is it 10%? 25%?
and, no - we should not have any tolerance for the concept of religious arbitration, at all. we have a secular legal system built on judicial precedent and the common law in canada, and i have no interest in reforming or changing that.
what happened to dalton mcguinty? well, he resigned in an apparent attempt to run for prime minister, a job he's far more qualified for than the current occupant of the office is. if it were mcguinty running for reelection, he'd probably have a better record in office and i'd probably be supporting him. he was supposed to be the guy, and everybody could see it. but, he dropped out in a mysterious way, without really giving a clear answer about it. at the time, it really seemed like he was getting a little bit of pressure to step aside to clear the way for trudeau, and that does seem to be what he actually did. but, in hindsight, i wonder if he didn't just wake up one day and realize that trudeau had poached all his staff.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/youtube-video-election-shariah-1.5215429
i want to take a mild detour, here, though, because what a change has happened with the liberals in the last ten years. in 2007, dalton mcguinty - with many of the same advisors that trudeau has today - successfully won an election in ontario by ruthlessly attacking the conservative party for wanting to bring in muslim schools. this is the kind of liberal party i grew up supporting, and the kind of liberal party i want to come back again. he also, to much fanfare and praise, banned the possibilities of religious arbitration in the court system (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mcguinty-government-rules-out-use-of-sharia-law/article18247682/), which is the root cause of a lot of the backlash you see happening today. this was clearly the right choice.
so, is talking about sharia law in canada scare-mongering? well, if you do the research, you'll know it's not - and that people suggesting it isn't a real concern are either ignorant of the facts or operating as spin doctors. this is an issue with a legitimate history in canada, and something that is going to continue to come up as the muslim population increases. with the existing realities around immigration in canada, it's not a question of if this becomes a serious political debate but when it does. so, what is the tipping point? we're at around 5% and growing. is it 10%? 25%?
and, no - we should not have any tolerance for the concept of religious arbitration, at all. we have a secular legal system built on judicial precedent and the common law in canada, and i have no interest in reforming or changing that.
what happened to dalton mcguinty? well, he resigned in an apparent attempt to run for prime minister, a job he's far more qualified for than the current occupant of the office is. if it were mcguinty running for reelection, he'd probably have a better record in office and i'd probably be supporting him. he was supposed to be the guy, and everybody could see it. but, he dropped out in a mysterious way, without really giving a clear answer about it. at the time, it really seemed like he was getting a little bit of pressure to step aside to clear the way for trudeau, and that does seem to be what he actually did. but, in hindsight, i wonder if he didn't just wake up one day and realize that trudeau had poached all his staff.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/youtube-video-election-shariah-1.5215429
what the americans seem to be actually suggesting is that this venezuelan jet was under russian command.
the recent flare-up in the persian gulf was easy enough to understand as a fabrication from the get-go. the narrative made absolutely no sense, whereas the counter-narrative didn't require much imagination; this was obvious.
why would venezuela buzz an american jet? was the pilot drunk? are they just stupid?
the root cause would appear to, in fact, be the utter stupidity of nicolas maduro. but, i ask this question: might the russians want america to invade venezuela?
the recent flare-up in the persian gulf was easy enough to understand as a fabrication from the get-go. the narrative made absolutely no sense, whereas the counter-narrative didn't require much imagination; this was obvious.
why would venezuela buzz an american jet? was the pilot drunk? are they just stupid?
the root cause would appear to, in fact, be the utter stupidity of nicolas maduro. but, i ask this question: might the russians want america to invade venezuela?
Saturday, July 20, 2019
so, what am i doing tonight, then?
i've been noticing for a while that the flooring in this space seems to get fairly damp, and while i initially feared the worst, i'm convinced at this point that it's "just" condensation - "just" because it's still a threat to all my stuff, be it books or electronics. i'm going to rip some things apart, do some cleaning and take a first step at dealing with it.
the problem seems to be that the floor is cold, and i could probably mostly fix the problem by turning the air off upstairs - which would be my preferred approach, but is not a realistic choice. so, what is happening is that the hot, humid air is coming into contact with the cold floor and converting into water. it's not a catastrophe or anything, but i want it to stop, and i don't want to decrease the humidity in the space, because i'm very sensitive to dry air.
what i want to do is make the floors warmer, not reduce the humidity in the air, and the way to do that is to utilize some kind of flooring or carpeting. that way, the humidity in the air won't condense when it comes into contact with the floor. i'm being informed that vinyl flooring is particularly good for this task. so, that's what i'm going to be focusing on.
i'm going to want to ask some questions first, though. is there a cooling system under the floor? can he turn it off?
i've been noticing for a while that the flooring in this space seems to get fairly damp, and while i initially feared the worst, i'm convinced at this point that it's "just" condensation - "just" because it's still a threat to all my stuff, be it books or electronics. i'm going to rip some things apart, do some cleaning and take a first step at dealing with it.
the problem seems to be that the floor is cold, and i could probably mostly fix the problem by turning the air off upstairs - which would be my preferred approach, but is not a realistic choice. so, what is happening is that the hot, humid air is coming into contact with the cold floor and converting into water. it's not a catastrophe or anything, but i want it to stop, and i don't want to decrease the humidity in the space, because i'm very sensitive to dry air.
what i want to do is make the floors warmer, not reduce the humidity in the air, and the way to do that is to utilize some kind of flooring or carpeting. that way, the humidity in the air won't condense when it comes into contact with the floor. i'm being informed that vinyl flooring is particularly good for this task. so, that's what i'm going to be focusing on.
i'm going to want to ask some questions first, though. is there a cooling system under the floor? can he turn it off?
i was going to see torche & baroness tonight, then go dancing afterwards, then hit the marching band show in the morning, then go to tessellations & sunsquabi in the afternoon, and then head home.
unfortunately, the overnight dance party was canceled (well, they changed it to an afternoon bbq, which is just painfully boring and lame) due to concerns about a police raid. parties seem to be getting shut down almost every weekend at this point, and the weather appears to be very unsettled, meaning it seems like i'm looking at a lot of rain. the torche show is also kind of expensive....
there's a couple of other options, but i'm less keen on them, or biking in the rain to get to them. that long wait between the end of the party at 4:00 or 5:00 and the marching festival in the cut at 14:00 is looking pretty daunting, but if the party lingered to 7:00 or 8:00, i could almost get away with it by stopping to eat and getting to the cut a little early. or maybe going down to the russell early to get tickets. even that is really a stretch. as it is, i don't want to schedule myself a 9 hour wait in detroit in the rain.
regardless, you know i'm a little crazy. if it was a different band, i might push myself. i've seen torche a few times, and will probably see them again, but i'm a passive fan - it's more of an experiential thing, and that intersects pretty strongly with the weather. it's not that huge a loss.
so, i'm in tonight. decided.
and, we'll have to see if i can even get out tomorrow at all.
unfortunately, the overnight dance party was canceled (well, they changed it to an afternoon bbq, which is just painfully boring and lame) due to concerns about a police raid. parties seem to be getting shut down almost every weekend at this point, and the weather appears to be very unsettled, meaning it seems like i'm looking at a lot of rain. the torche show is also kind of expensive....
there's a couple of other options, but i'm less keen on them, or biking in the rain to get to them. that long wait between the end of the party at 4:00 or 5:00 and the marching festival in the cut at 14:00 is looking pretty daunting, but if the party lingered to 7:00 or 8:00, i could almost get away with it by stopping to eat and getting to the cut a little early. or maybe going down to the russell early to get tickets. even that is really a stretch. as it is, i don't want to schedule myself a 9 hour wait in detroit in the rain.
regardless, you know i'm a little crazy. if it was a different band, i might push myself. i've seen torche a few times, and will probably see them again, but i'm a passive fan - it's more of an experiential thing, and that intersects pretty strongly with the weather. it's not that huge a loss.
so, i'm in tonight. decided.
and, we'll have to see if i can even get out tomorrow at all.
i personally think that this is very silly, and don't imagine much of any context where i'd have much time for a ritual that upholds my freedom by reciting pre-written lines that somebody is feeding me. but, that's not what this actually is; this is a way to substitute the social role of the church into the lives of atheists, and it's success depends on the success of the community.
there has always been a reaction against religion, and one will continue to exist for as long as religion does. and, in fact, as religion is the state, a continuing reaction against religion will continue to exist so long as the state does.
in antiquity, you had the philosophers and mathematicians, who argued against superstition by appealing to naturalism and observation. they organized into cults, like the pythagoreans, and met at academies that countered the monasteries. when the christians and muslims destroyed all the knowledge of the ancient world in a fit of mass stupidity, this role was taken over by the northern barbarians, who had been slowly developing a concept of individualism and freedom to overpower the roman systems of servility and slavery that the textbooks mistakenly refer to as "civilization". france is named after the franks, which was not a barbarian tribe in the ethnic sense but rather a confederation of "free men". and, when the barbarians were finally defeated, an era of relative peace, the renaissance, brought the philosophers and mathematicians back again, culminating in the revolutionary movements associated with the masonic lodges of the enlightenment.
i made this point during occupy, and i'm not sure how many people listened, but camping in a park struck me as a lesser concept then starting up a lodge. neither the french nor american revolutions could have happened without the lodge as organizing body, which is why the church-state went to such great lengths to demonize them, in the end. and, the point is to keep it a little bit underground, so the cops can't come in and break it up.
but, there's a danger here that we saw come out of the reign of terror and the fake religions set up in the aftermath of the collapse of the ancien regime: the religion of reason was every bit as brutal as the religion of contradiction, because the root cause of the brutality is not the theology but the ritual.
so, it's tempting to see these as revolutionary bodies, but in the end i would advise treating them like any other religion, because the truth is that they'll act like any other religion should they gain any influence.
if you have friends in this movement, you should be helping them to reassert their individuality away from this group identity and encouraging them to avoid their scripted talking points and learn to think more for themselves.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5488632/satanic-temple-canada/
there has always been a reaction against religion, and one will continue to exist for as long as religion does. and, in fact, as religion is the state, a continuing reaction against religion will continue to exist so long as the state does.
in antiquity, you had the philosophers and mathematicians, who argued against superstition by appealing to naturalism and observation. they organized into cults, like the pythagoreans, and met at academies that countered the monasteries. when the christians and muslims destroyed all the knowledge of the ancient world in a fit of mass stupidity, this role was taken over by the northern barbarians, who had been slowly developing a concept of individualism and freedom to overpower the roman systems of servility and slavery that the textbooks mistakenly refer to as "civilization". france is named after the franks, which was not a barbarian tribe in the ethnic sense but rather a confederation of "free men". and, when the barbarians were finally defeated, an era of relative peace, the renaissance, brought the philosophers and mathematicians back again, culminating in the revolutionary movements associated with the masonic lodges of the enlightenment.
i made this point during occupy, and i'm not sure how many people listened, but camping in a park struck me as a lesser concept then starting up a lodge. neither the french nor american revolutions could have happened without the lodge as organizing body, which is why the church-state went to such great lengths to demonize them, in the end. and, the point is to keep it a little bit underground, so the cops can't come in and break it up.
but, there's a danger here that we saw come out of the reign of terror and the fake religions set up in the aftermath of the collapse of the ancien regime: the religion of reason was every bit as brutal as the religion of contradiction, because the root cause of the brutality is not the theology but the ritual.
so, it's tempting to see these as revolutionary bodies, but in the end i would advise treating them like any other religion, because the truth is that they'll act like any other religion should they gain any influence.
if you have friends in this movement, you should be helping them to reassert their individuality away from this group identity and encouraging them to avoid their scripted talking points and learn to think more for themselves.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5488632/satanic-temple-canada/
Friday, July 19, 2019
again: i don't play video games, and i never did. i've noticed that the language has been changing, but in my time you'd call people that liked video games and anime and card games geeks, whereas you'd call people into math homework and classical music nerds. there are always overlaps, but i was a nerd. i had friends that were geeks. i haven't seen or talked to them in years.
so, i don't understand gamer culture. at all.
but, this instagram killing is something out of a gibson or pynchon text. i guess that's another difference - nerds read books that win awards and get taught in schools, whereas geeks read comic books and serials for young adults with recurring characters....into their 40s. i don't know how many times i've read something like this in a novel; it's pretty surreal to see it in real life.
and, what kind of insight can i provide from reading all this cyberpunk, post-modern literature?
people can't separate between the images they're used to seeing, and the images of her dead body. the literary term is hyperreal. so, to the apparently tens or hundreds of thousands of people seeking out these photos (and i am not one of them), this is just another photo shoot - the blood and death and brutality isn't real, but just a corollary of good showmanship. so, have you seen her latest sets? but, it's also a finale, a climax, a grand ending - a final hurrah.
as twisted as this is, and as important as the conversation about patriarchy also is, i'd like to see a deeper discussion around this phenomenon of instagram users falling into this condition of blurry hyperrealism. if there's an "instagram story", it is this - the question of if we're all slowly collapsing into a collective schizophrenia, a shared dystopia defined by ubiquitous dysmorphism, where we simply don't know what is real and what isn't, any more, and may not particularly care to find out.
so, i don't understand gamer culture. at all.
but, this instagram killing is something out of a gibson or pynchon text. i guess that's another difference - nerds read books that win awards and get taught in schools, whereas geeks read comic books and serials for young adults with recurring characters....into their 40s. i don't know how many times i've read something like this in a novel; it's pretty surreal to see it in real life.
and, what kind of insight can i provide from reading all this cyberpunk, post-modern literature?
people can't separate between the images they're used to seeing, and the images of her dead body. the literary term is hyperreal. so, to the apparently tens or hundreds of thousands of people seeking out these photos (and i am not one of them), this is just another photo shoot - the blood and death and brutality isn't real, but just a corollary of good showmanship. so, have you seen her latest sets? but, it's also a finale, a climax, a grand ending - a final hurrah.
as twisted as this is, and as important as the conversation about patriarchy also is, i'd like to see a deeper discussion around this phenomenon of instagram users falling into this condition of blurry hyperrealism. if there's an "instagram story", it is this - the question of if we're all slowly collapsing into a collective schizophrenia, a shared dystopia defined by ubiquitous dysmorphism, where we simply don't know what is real and what isn't, any more, and may not particularly care to find out.
what the situation really draws attention to is the ubiquity of class structure, and the role-playing that dominates the existing capitalist paradigm. you see this written about abstractly. but, the bernie sanders campaign, whatever it's rhetoric, has an income source and a budget, and it has to be ruthless about minimizing expenditures in order to maximize profit, which in context means maximizing expenditures for campaign outreach expenses, like advertising. the campaign cannot escape capitalism; it exists within capitalism, and must abide by the rules of it. so, to speak of hypocrisy would be to reduce a systemic analysis to a moral judgment, which would be a conservative's way of approaching the situation. a leftist should be able to understand that you can't overpower capitalism with slogans and wishful thinking, and it's not possible to live suspended from it in an ether of self-righteousness.
to argue that he's not aware of the situation is just to demonstrate the point; you're essentially suggesting that he's the ceo, and so doesn't have time for entry-level employees - which is probably actually broadly true.
but, that demonstrates the impossibility of building a socialist political movement on top of a conservative social movement. the real lesson is one we already knew: the social revolution must come first.
to argue that he's not aware of the situation is just to demonstrate the point; you're essentially suggesting that he's the ceo, and so doesn't have time for entry-level employees - which is probably actually broadly true.
but, that demonstrates the impossibility of building a socialist political movement on top of a conservative social movement. the real lesson is one we already knew: the social revolution must come first.
everything else aside, it's hard to understand why the campaign would push back on this. again: who couldn't see this kind of press coming? and, what this series of events is doing is less drawing attention to sanders' hypocrisy, which i think is a questionable assertion in context, and more drawing attention to his judgement. we've seen this come up in a number of situations. and, you can like a candidates' policies, but be unsure about whether giving that candidate executive power is really a good idea or not.
the entire discourse around this is missing the obvious question: why didn't he foresee this kind of bad press?
i think bernie needs to clean house. the people he has around him aren't helping him, right now.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/19/we-work-for-bernie-here-are-our-demands/
the entire discourse around this is missing the obvious question: why didn't he foresee this kind of bad press?
i think bernie needs to clean house. the people he has around him aren't helping him, right now.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/19/we-work-for-bernie-here-are-our-demands/
so, i did some thinking last night and i'm really itching to get back to the productive side of the pendulum. i've been edging here for a while, and whatever i needed to do is beginning to get to the end of running it's course.
i still don't want to waste the weekend. it might be the only one like this all year.
but, i need to get back to finishing rebuilding the liner notes and i need to get back to the next recording stage and i'm looking at monday as the day to pivot over.
it's just time; it feels right.
i still don't want to waste the weekend. it might be the only one like this all year.
but, i need to get back to finishing rebuilding the liner notes and i need to get back to the next recording stage and i'm looking at monday as the day to pivot over.
it's just time; it feels right.
Thursday, July 18, 2019
but, the bloc aren't going to sit in the middle like this; they're going to come or go. and, if they can't get over that hump, that support is going to scatter.
i mean, they could still rise, don't get me wrong. but they're not going to sit at 20% - they're going to blow up or fall down.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5656169/bloc-quebecois-federal-election/
i mean, they could still rise, don't get me wrong. but they're not going to sit at 20% - they're going to blow up or fall down.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5656169/bloc-quebecois-federal-election/
see, this is why the party should have thrown her under the bus and distanced themselves from her. this is going to kill them, and it was obvious, and they stalled when they should have acted.
you can moralize about this all day; in the end, nobody cares.
now, they're fucked. they can't walk away; they have to stand with her, and it's going to drag them down and cost them seats.
what she said was incredibly stupid, and while this reaction is not any better than what she said in any way, in a lot of ways she absolute deserves it. it's the old adage - if you don't want to be treated like an idiot, don't say stupid things.
and, on that note, my correction of the chant is as follows - they should be chanting "send her back to school".
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trudeau-trump-send-her-back-chants_ca_5d30a61be4b004b6adacbc85
you can moralize about this all day; in the end, nobody cares.
now, they're fucked. they can't walk away; they have to stand with her, and it's going to drag them down and cost them seats.
what she said was incredibly stupid, and while this reaction is not any better than what she said in any way, in a lot of ways she absolute deserves it. it's the old adage - if you don't want to be treated like an idiot, don't say stupid things.
and, on that note, my correction of the chant is as follows - they should be chanting "send her back to school".
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trudeau-trump-send-her-back-chants_ca_5d30a61be4b004b6adacbc85
it's going to be absolutely beautiful here this weekend, so long as the rain doesn't ruin it, and i can't be wasting it.
i mentioned a few weeks ago that the thing that might overpower the sun would be a hurricane, and that's what happened; the reason we're getting all of this wonderful heat and glorious humidity is the hurricane in the gulf. and, it's going to be very short - once this powerful system pushes through, we'll be back to below-normal temperatures by monday or tuesday.
so, let's hope it stays hot and humid and doesn't rain.
i mentioned a few weeks ago that the thing that might overpower the sun would be a hurricane, and that's what happened; the reason we're getting all of this wonderful heat and glorious humidity is the hurricane in the gulf. and, it's going to be very short - once this powerful system pushes through, we'll be back to below-normal temperatures by monday or tuesday.
so, let's hope it stays hot and humid and doesn't rain.
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
hey, if i'm here this weekend maybe i can heckle bernie when he comes over to get discount insulin.
"go home yankee, back where you come from!"
i'd probably get a shoe thrown at me for that one, right?
well, you know it's a thing in a lot of the world to tell americans to go back where they came from, right? sometimes with good reason. like, in japan, for instance. those military guys over there (and there's like 50,000 of them. still.) have kind of a bad reputation with the locals. because they tend to rape them.
or, in much of latin america, where chants of "yanqui go home!" are pretty common place. well, they keep showing up with guns and slaughtering them. i'd tell people with guns that are there to slaughter me to go back where they came from, too.
i actually have no interest in defending what trump said, and that's not what i meant to do. it was a verbose, stupid remark. i just tend to have this tendency to kneejerk against kneejerks, and i'll hold to my analysis - it was a stupid way to say something that maybe actually ought to be said.
so long as we have enough insulin to go around, i'm not opposed to sharing it with the yankees. really. it would be better if they'd fix their own system, but all i can offer is words. and, i'm sure they'll find their way home soon enough.
if i drop by, i'll behave. promise.
"go home yankee, back where you come from!"
i'd probably get a shoe thrown at me for that one, right?
well, you know it's a thing in a lot of the world to tell americans to go back where they came from, right? sometimes with good reason. like, in japan, for instance. those military guys over there (and there's like 50,000 of them. still.) have kind of a bad reputation with the locals. because they tend to rape them.
or, in much of latin america, where chants of "yanqui go home!" are pretty common place. well, they keep showing up with guns and slaughtering them. i'd tell people with guns that are there to slaughter me to go back where they came from, too.
i actually have no interest in defending what trump said, and that's not what i meant to do. it was a verbose, stupid remark. i just tend to have this tendency to kneejerk against kneejerks, and i'll hold to my analysis - it was a stupid way to say something that maybe actually ought to be said.
so long as we have enough insulin to go around, i'm not opposed to sharing it with the yankees. really. it would be better if they'd fix their own system, but all i can offer is words. and, i'm sure they'll find their way home soon enough.
if i drop by, i'll behave. promise.
so, do i think this is a coincidence?
no.
i think they want to keep this out of court and they thought they could sit on it. so, what i did worked, basically, in getting them to get a move on it.
but, for them, it's more about positioning. if i go in there and nail them on a report that's 100, 120 days late, the judge is going to take my side, off the bat. they know that. so, it was a dumb tactic, they thought they were calling my bluff, and now they're backtracking...
again: i'll have to read the report. i guess there's an infinitesimal chance it's the end.
but, we're almost certainly going to court.
i should be able to use most of what i typed up today, in the end.
and, i guess the other two cases can wait...
no.
i think they want to keep this out of court and they thought they could sit on it. so, what i did worked, basically, in getting them to get a move on it.
but, for them, it's more about positioning. if i go in there and nail them on a report that's 100, 120 days late, the judge is going to take my side, off the bat. they know that. so, it was a dumb tactic, they thought they were calling my bluff, and now they're backtracking...
again: i'll have to read the report. i guess there's an infinitesimal chance it's the end.
but, we're almost certainly going to court.
i should be able to use most of what i typed up today, in the end.
and, i guess the other two cases can wait...
well...
i was just finishing my form 68a, and i got an email indicating to me that the review is completed and will get to me next week.
so, what does that mean?
well i don't expect it to say what i want it to say. let's not be naive about that. i have to let it finish, but i know better.
it does mean i can't file anything until i read it, and if i do, it won't be until mid-august at the earliest.
*shrug*.
so be it.
i'll have to find another show to go to, i guess.
i was just finishing my form 68a, and i got an email indicating to me that the review is completed and will get to me next week.
so, what does that mean?
well i don't expect it to say what i want it to say. let's not be naive about that. i have to let it finish, but i know better.
it does mean i can't file anything until i read it, and if i do, it won't be until mid-august at the earliest.
*shrug*.
so be it.
i'll have to find another show to go to, i guess.
for those that aren't familiar how this works, there's actually this rule book that you have to abide by, like you're playing an exotic board game.
"can you move backwards?"
"shit. i dunno. where's the rules?"
"over there.."
(pause)
"did you use the rule book for filter? fucker."
"i just used the back"
"still. whatever, let's just make it up. let's vote. who says we can move backwards?"
(pause)
"so we can move backwards."
but, you can't fuck with these rules, or at least not unless it says you can fuck with the rules in the rules and you're the judge. these rules are set.
and, they're set in legislation called the rules of civil procedure.
this is a common question, so you expect a clear answer:
"can you move backwards?"
"shit. i dunno. where's the rules?"
"over there.."
(pause)
"did you use the rule book for filter? fucker."
"i just used the back"
"still. whatever, let's just make it up. let's vote. who says we can move backwards?"
(pause)
"so we can move backwards."
but, you can't fuck with these rules, or at least not unless it says you can fuck with the rules in the rules and you're the judge. these rules are set.
and, they're set in legislation called the rules of civil procedure.
this is a common question, so you expect a clear answer:
Place of Hearing
(1.1) The application shall be heard in the
county where the proceeding was commenced or to which it has been
transferred under rule 13.1.02, unless the court orders otherwise.
O. Reg. 438/08, s. 38.
well, that's pretty obvious, but where was this commenced?
- the incident happened in windsor.
- i filed in windsor.
- they accepted it from toronto.
- the report was done in windsor.
- i asked for a review from windsor.
- they accepted the review in toronto.
and, as i'm asking for them to pull the review, that should be the proceeding, and it should be in toronto.
if the judge wants to transfer to london, she can do that.
ok.
that'll save me some time & money.
wait.
so, should i be filing in toronto or london?
well, if i don't have to go to london, i can save some time and money, right; i could come in for sunrise, serve in the morning, file in the afternoon, catch a show and come back on the overnight bus. that's a 25 hour day instead of a 40 hour day, and it'll cost me less on bus fare.
i am suing the oiprd. the oiprd is in toronto. so i should file in toronto, right?
the other argument would be that the issue is with the windsor police, so i should file in london, but that's less convincing to me.
the other thing is that the divisional court will not be coming back to london until april 2020 (!), but will be in toronto after the summer break, in september.
let's see what the actual rules say.
so, should i be filing in toronto or london?
well, if i don't have to go to london, i can save some time and money, right; i could come in for sunrise, serve in the morning, file in the afternoon, catch a show and come back on the overnight bus. that's a 25 hour day instead of a 40 hour day, and it'll cost me less on bus fare.
i am suing the oiprd. the oiprd is in toronto. so i should file in toronto, right?
the other argument would be that the issue is with the windsor police, so i should file in london, but that's less convincing to me.
the other thing is that the divisional court will not be coming back to london until april 2020 (!), but will be in toronto after the summer break, in september.
let's see what the actual rules say.
it may be time to start ignoring the law in the united states, and resorting to underground economies and acts of civil disobedience.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-new-abortion-restrictions-everything-you-need-know-1449494
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-new-abortion-restrictions-everything-you-need-know-1449494
human beings are biologically unique. we are not clones, like ants or bees; we multiply via sexual reproduction, meaning we take genes from both our parents and recombine them in a unique way. so, biologically, we are all unique individuals.
nor do we share unique experiences. while we can empathize and relate to the people that are similar to us, as well as to the people that are different than us, we don't have identical experiences, and consequently don't have identical viewpoints. so, socially, we are also unique individuals.
there's not really a way to salvage these fascist ideas of collectivism, at this point. it's been debunked. give up; move on.
nor do we share unique experiences. while we can empathize and relate to the people that are similar to us, as well as to the people that are different than us, we don't have identical experiences, and consequently don't have identical viewpoints. so, socially, we are also unique individuals.
there's not really a way to salvage these fascist ideas of collectivism, at this point. it's been debunked. give up; move on.
the difference between what you call "social rights" and "individual rights" is illusory, as any worthwhile concept of social rights reduces to individual rights. so, health care, for example, is an individual right, as is education. if "social rights" are to have any meaningful concept at all, they reduce to the realm of fascism - rights of nationhood or rights to security - that have no place in any meaningful conception of socialism, and are admittedly not what is usually invoked by the term. but, sometimes it is, especially with indigenous groups. you have to be careful that you don't walk into something rather nasty with this term, "social rights" - it's never gotten us anywhere good, in the past.
socialism is about workers, and so it is about collective struggle, but it is not about collectivism in the hobbesian or "corporatist" sense, and to make the latter suggestion is just a kind of neo-liberal co-option; to reduce socialism to "social rights" is to accept the capitalist paradigm, and ultimately to end up at an authoritarian, fascist state. marx would have forcefully reasserted the axioms of liberalism, explained that socialism is the only way to achieve liberalism in an industrial society and ripped apart your "social rights" as lassallean.
i follow a traditional concept of left/right that comes out of the french revolution, which is the enlightenment revolution that is more pertinent to me, both as a canadian and as an anarchist.
the right is the aristocracy, the old money, and everything that comes with it - the charity work, the noblesse oblige, religion, the university, the right of kings and the obligations of hierarchy. what the right wants is a system of dominance, where everybody lives in harmony by knowing their right place in society, and going about their daily work, for the benefit of the greater good. the right has at times embraced markets, and at times rejected them. parties and institutions of the right include not just the french monarchists, but also the british tories and the american democrats.
on the left, is the people, who want to abolish the state and govern themselves. yet, we don't want to completely abolish the idea of society, even as we wish to tear down the institutions that order it. it's a tricky position, to tear down the structures but maintain the cohesion, and we haven't quite gotten it right yet, but we've tried a number of approaches: liberalism, libertarianism, anarchism, socialism...it is all with the intent of taking power away from the church-state and putting it in the hands of the people. all of our revolutions have failed; reform has been more successful to this point, but in the end we will have our successful revolution, this much we can all be sure of. so, on the left we have liberals and whigs and republicans, but we also have socialists and anarchists and marxists, and we're all really trying to get to the same point, in the end: self-determination, self-ownership and freedom from the ruling class.
socialism is about workers, and so it is about collective struggle, but it is not about collectivism in the hobbesian or "corporatist" sense, and to make the latter suggestion is just a kind of neo-liberal co-option; to reduce socialism to "social rights" is to accept the capitalist paradigm, and ultimately to end up at an authoritarian, fascist state. marx would have forcefully reasserted the axioms of liberalism, explained that socialism is the only way to achieve liberalism in an industrial society and ripped apart your "social rights" as lassallean.
i follow a traditional concept of left/right that comes out of the french revolution, which is the enlightenment revolution that is more pertinent to me, both as a canadian and as an anarchist.
the right is the aristocracy, the old money, and everything that comes with it - the charity work, the noblesse oblige, religion, the university, the right of kings and the obligations of hierarchy. what the right wants is a system of dominance, where everybody lives in harmony by knowing their right place in society, and going about their daily work, for the benefit of the greater good. the right has at times embraced markets, and at times rejected them. parties and institutions of the right include not just the french monarchists, but also the british tories and the american democrats.
on the left, is the people, who want to abolish the state and govern themselves. yet, we don't want to completely abolish the idea of society, even as we wish to tear down the institutions that order it. it's a tricky position, to tear down the structures but maintain the cohesion, and we haven't quite gotten it right yet, but we've tried a number of approaches: liberalism, libertarianism, anarchism, socialism...it is all with the intent of taking power away from the church-state and putting it in the hands of the people. all of our revolutions have failed; reform has been more successful to this point, but in the end we will have our successful revolution, this much we can all be sure of. so, on the left we have liberals and whigs and republicans, but we also have socialists and anarchists and marxists, and we're all really trying to get to the same point, in the end: self-determination, self-ownership and freedom from the ruling class.
i decided to go to sleep early to wake up and work on this early in the morning, tossed and turned and woke up late.
i have plenty of time if i'm planning to get out to do the first steps either this afternoon or tomorrow morning. but, i'm going to take a hot shower to warm up first.
i don't understand air conditioning. why do people enjoy being cold?
i have plenty of time if i'm planning to get out to do the first steps either this afternoon or tomorrow morning. but, i'm going to take a hot shower to warm up first.
i don't understand air conditioning. why do people enjoy being cold?
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
if i were to do a ranked choice ballot, what would it be?
keep in mind that i'm really bernie or bust, and that this could change in five minutes, otherwise. but, i really don't like warren's ideas about much of anything. and, i don't trust harris, but at least she lies about things i like better. but, i can't think of any reason why i'd support biden at all - and probably wouldn't, in the end.
1. sanders
2. harris
3. warren
4. biden
keep in mind that i'm really bernie or bust, and that this could change in five minutes, otherwise. but, i really don't like warren's ideas about much of anything. and, i don't trust harris, but at least she lies about things i like better. but, i can't think of any reason why i'd support biden at all - and probably wouldn't, in the end.
1. sanders
2. harris
3. warren
4. biden
i mean, i want to be clear: i want the court to pull this, eventually. i have precisely no faith at all in the review process. it's just a process of getting the right argument....
the court won't just pull it on a whim - they'll tell me to wait. and, so long as they have a good excuse, i'm stuck waiting. potentially forever...
at three months past the deadline, if they can't give me a due date, that's an unreasonable delay.
but, if they give me a date, i'll have to wait.
that's why i'm asking them, first. i'll call at 16:00, if i don't get a response over email.
the court won't just pull it on a whim - they'll tell me to wait. and, so long as they have a good excuse, i'm stuck waiting. potentially forever...
at three months past the deadline, if they can't give me a due date, that's an unreasonable delay.
but, if they give me a date, i'll have to wait.
that's why i'm asking them, first. i'll call at 16:00, if i don't get a response over email.
so, what they're claiming is that there's a backlog of cases, which i'm quite skeptical of.
and, they're further claiming that the manager is reviewing the file, which is not how the process actually works - it's supposed to go to a panel for review.
but, there's not a whole lot i can actually do, so long as they keep bullshitting their way through it. i could ask the court to pull the file, but they'll probably just tell me to wait.
what i've done is ask for a time frame. if they send me much of anything at all, i'll have to wait; if they don't, i can claim an unreasonable delay and ask the court to pull the file for that reason.
and, they're further claiming that the manager is reviewing the file, which is not how the process actually works - it's supposed to go to a panel for review.
but, there's not a whole lot i can actually do, so long as they keep bullshitting their way through it. i could ask the court to pull the file, but they'll probably just tell me to wait.
what i've done is ask for a time frame. if they send me much of anything at all, i'll have to wait; if they don't, i can claim an unreasonable delay and ask the court to pull the file for that reason.
...and this does seem to suggest that, at this stage at least, there are both "viagra vote" and "vagina vote" constituents at play, potentially because people don't really know what they're talking about, yet.
so, you've got warren v harris and biden v sanders.
but, i expect that to break up as people get to know the candidates better.
if it doesn't, we're going to end up with vagina v viagra, in the end. and, it's going to be very boring, if we do.
so, you've got warren v harris and biden v sanders.
but, i expect that to break up as people get to know the candidates better.
if it doesn't, we're going to end up with vagina v viagra, in the end. and, it's going to be very boring, if we do.
i made a gentle attempt at initial contact with the new person, and will start bombarding her with calls at 15:00. i need a straight answer by the end of the day.
you can try to explain this away however you want, but it's the fundamental point:
Sanders does better with those registered with no party (22%) than those registered as a Democrat (15%). (Biden shows a similar gap.)
Warren, on the other hand, does better among Democrats (25%) than unaffiliated voters (12%).
This matches up with national polling that suggests Sanders voters are not anywhere near as pleased with the Democratic Party as Warren voters are.
this was the same basic difference you saw in 2016, too: present warren supporters seem to be old clinton supporters rather than old sanders supporters, and that makes a lot of sense when you look at their actual policies. or you can be gender-reductionist. whatever.
i will continue to argue that sanders is in his own lane, the tricky part is trying to figure out what the other lanes are, even if they all merge in the end. i'm not sure we have enough of an understanding of things, yet.
for example, you could argue that harris is in competition with biden for the black vote and the big money donors. or, you could argue that biden is in competition with bootigieg for center-right voters, or that bootigieg is in competition with warren for the "progressive" vote. these things aren't clear yet, and i think it's partly why the numbers are all over the place - nobody's really sure how to model the data, yet. what that means is that these polls are essentially worthless.
but, if sanders thinks he's going to win this by swinging registered democrats, he's wrong. he's not being embraced by the party, and he's still going to have to overpower registered voters with independents and new voters.
he shouldn't be thinking he can pivot to front-runner; he needs to do exactly what he did last time, and he needs to do it better than he did it last time.
....because he's not a democrat, and democrats know it.
you can try to explain this away however you want, but it's the fundamental point:
Sanders does better with those registered with no party (22%) than those registered as a Democrat (15%). (Biden shows a similar gap.)
Warren, on the other hand, does better among Democrats (25%) than unaffiliated voters (12%).
This matches up with national polling that suggests Sanders voters are not anywhere near as pleased with the Democratic Party as Warren voters are.
this was the same basic difference you saw in 2016, too: present warren supporters seem to be old clinton supporters rather than old sanders supporters, and that makes a lot of sense when you look at their actual policies. or you can be gender-reductionist. whatever.
i will continue to argue that sanders is in his own lane, the tricky part is trying to figure out what the other lanes are, even if they all merge in the end. i'm not sure we have enough of an understanding of things, yet.
for example, you could argue that harris is in competition with biden for the black vote and the big money donors. or, you could argue that biden is in competition with bootigieg for center-right voters, or that bootigieg is in competition with warren for the "progressive" vote. these things aren't clear yet, and i think it's partly why the numbers are all over the place - nobody's really sure how to model the data, yet. what that means is that these polls are essentially worthless.
but, if sanders thinks he's going to win this by swinging registered democrats, he's wrong. he's not being embraced by the party, and he's still going to have to overpower registered voters with independents and new voters.
he shouldn't be thinking he can pivot to front-runner; he needs to do exactly what he did last time, and he needs to do it better than he did it last time.
....because he's not a democrat, and democrats know it.
i sent an email to the contact person this morning and got something back claiming that the file has been moved to a different office.
i'm expecting them to claim they "lost" it.
that's fine, keep fucking around. there's no deadlines, here. the judge can sort through all the bullshit, in the end.
i'm still going to have to call her to get a contact number.
i'm expecting them to claim they "lost" it.
that's fine, keep fucking around. there's no deadlines, here. the judge can sort through all the bullshit, in the end.
i'm still going to have to call her to get a contact number.
they've got these things all over detroit, and the homeless folks don't like them much; i've talked to a handful of them about it at the diner (it's the only thing open for them, too), and they've pointed out that (some) detroiters have a tendency of basically discarding them, bumping into them, running over their stuff, etc.
i'm a long-time bicyclist. i drive on the sidewalk all of the time and have for years, and i've never hit a pedestrian because i'm respectful enough to watch where i'm going and capable enough to manipulate the vehicle - and perhaps because i'm conscious of the reality that it is in fact a vehicle. but, at the same time, i get the impression that it's a lot easier to stop on a bicycle, and that if you do need to stop quickly then you're much more protected from falling off.
the issue is probably that these devices are going faster than they can truly be operated safely at, and the solution is likely to just slow them down quite a bit. i know. but, think about what you're doing for a moment and ask whether it's actually kind of retarded to do it or not.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/death-of-british-youtuber-raises-fears-over-e-scooter-safety-1.4508280
i'm a long-time bicyclist. i drive on the sidewalk all of the time and have for years, and i've never hit a pedestrian because i'm respectful enough to watch where i'm going and capable enough to manipulate the vehicle - and perhaps because i'm conscious of the reality that it is in fact a vehicle. but, at the same time, i get the impression that it's a lot easier to stop on a bicycle, and that if you do need to stop quickly then you're much more protected from falling off.
the issue is probably that these devices are going faster than they can truly be operated safely at, and the solution is likely to just slow them down quite a bit. i know. but, think about what you're doing for a moment and ask whether it's actually kind of retarded to do it or not.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/death-of-british-youtuber-raises-fears-over-e-scooter-safety-1.4508280
i've been complaining about the need to serve people in person being archaic. can't i just send them an email? i mean, c'mon.
but, to file a judicial review, i need to fill out the form, go to the court, get the papers sealed, then serve, and then file again - meaning i'd better be fucking sure they actually get the damned things.
can we modernize this procedure sometime soon?
let me call them, first, and see what they actually say. if i get a shitty response, i'll have to see if i can at least do step one in windsor or not.
i think it's good i didn't buy those tickets, yet.
but, to file a judicial review, i need to fill out the form, go to the court, get the papers sealed, then serve, and then file again - meaning i'd better be fucking sure they actually get the damned things.
can we modernize this procedure sometime soon?
let me call them, first, and see what they actually say. if i get a shitty response, i'll have to see if i can at least do step one in windsor or not.
i think it's good i didn't buy those tickets, yet.
the changes to the laws in quebec essentially add "displaying religious symbols" to the list of things that public sector workers can do in public, but not at work.
that's the right context.
and, i don't see why the court would be able to tell you that you can't talk about an election at work, but it's ok to push a cross into somebody's face. that would be completely inconsistent; it wouldn't make any sense.
http://psac-ncr.com/political-rights-public-service-workers
that's the right context.
and, i don't see why the court would be able to tell you that you can't talk about an election at work, but it's ok to push a cross into somebody's face. that would be completely inconsistent; it wouldn't make any sense.
http://psac-ncr.com/political-rights-public-service-workers
well, it's dialectical, anyways.
this maybe isn't the best idea, but it's the right way to be thinking about what to do, next.
https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/build-the-energy-wall
this maybe isn't the best idea, but it's the right way to be thinking about what to do, next.
https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/build-the-energy-wall
again....
in the united states, you have something called the hatchamendment act that bans political activity while employed in the public sector. we have something similar to this in canada, which allows for reasonable restrictions on free expression in order to ensure that public servants are actually acting in the public will, and are not being directed by outside institutions like political parties or, in this case, religious institutions.
i have a hard time distinguishing between a church and a political party, but that opens up another can of worms - i think churches should be treated as political entities under the law, and taxed as such, as well. removing the taxation exemption from religious institutions would be an excellent companion law, to really get the point across.
if you can't come to work without taking your scarf off, you're demonstrating a conflict of interest. and, the courts are actually pretty clear on the point - this is well within the confines of the law on both sides of the border, with little ambiguity around it.
this law would survive a charter challenge.
that said, i think the government made a big error in invoking s. 33 and it may lead to it's unraveling, in the end. there may be specific sections that are too broad, and in some ways it may not be broad enough. the court system should be brought in to help make the law better, not shunned as a threat to it's existence.
but, if you're in america, you want to think of it basically as a corollary of the hatchamendment act. that's how quebeckers are actually approaching it: they want a firewall between religion and government.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/quebec-bans-religious-symbols/593998/
in the united states, you have something called the hatch
i have a hard time distinguishing between a church and a political party, but that opens up another can of worms - i think churches should be treated as political entities under the law, and taxed as such, as well. removing the taxation exemption from religious institutions would be an excellent companion law, to really get the point across.
if you can't come to work without taking your scarf off, you're demonstrating a conflict of interest. and, the courts are actually pretty clear on the point - this is well within the confines of the law on both sides of the border, with little ambiguity around it.
this law would survive a charter challenge.
that said, i think the government made a big error in invoking s. 33 and it may lead to it's unraveling, in the end. there may be specific sections that are too broad, and in some ways it may not be broad enough. the court system should be brought in to help make the law better, not shunned as a threat to it's existence.
but, if you're in america, you want to think of it basically as a corollary of the hatch
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/quebec-bans-religious-symbols/593998/
so, what am i actually doing with this judicial review?
well, they're three months late on the review (the statutory rec is 4 weeks; it's been four months), and have made no attempt to contact me, leading me to conclude that they're just not doing it. so, the idea is that i put this in front of a judge, and the judge yells at them to get off their donut-eating, racist fat asses and do something productive for society, for once.
i should call them, first, though, to get some kind of actual response.
if they give me something like "it's in process", then that's not good enough. if they give me something more detailed, with a specific end date, or evidence of extensions, then i'll need to wait.
for the rest of the morning...well, why don't i eat, actually.
well, they're three months late on the review (the statutory rec is 4 weeks; it's been four months), and have made no attempt to contact me, leading me to conclude that they're just not doing it. so, the idea is that i put this in front of a judge, and the judge yells at them to get off their donut-eating, racist fat asses and do something productive for society, for once.
i should call them, first, though, to get some kind of actual response.
if they give me something like "it's in process", then that's not good enough. if they give me something more detailed, with a specific end date, or evidence of extensions, then i'll need to wait.
for the rest of the morning...well, why don't i eat, actually.
i mean, rotating a few conservatives out might sound like a great idea right now.
but, it won't seem like such a great idea when the next republican president uses the same tactic to convert it into an ecclesiastical court.
sanders is usually better at this; he's stretching because he's desperate not to lose the court, and i get it. but, it's really not a good idea...
but, it won't seem like such a great idea when the next republican president uses the same tactic to convert it into an ecclesiastical court.
sanders is usually better at this; he's stretching because he's desperate not to lose the court, and i get it. but, it's really not a good idea...
i'm not going to address the predictably silly aspects of this article, at the national review. conservatives are very silly people.
but, it is not hard to predict what would happen should this take off - whenever a new president takes over, they'd rotate the judges in that they like, and rotate the judges out that they don't. so, what was intended to be a check on power would become a rubber stamp.
i understand that the american left is very apprehensive about the court skewing to the right, but it has to look at this in the longer arc of history and just fucking deal with it until it can regain control using more appropriate measures. i may support shrinking the size of the court somewhat, but my official position is actually to suck it up and wait it out.
that said, there are ways to lure a judge off the bench. maybe one of the conservative judges might like a nice, cushy job as an ambassador to the virgin islands, for example.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-bernie-sanders-would-destroy-supreme-court-%E2%80%98rotating%E2%80%99-justices-67082
but, it is not hard to predict what would happen should this take off - whenever a new president takes over, they'd rotate the judges in that they like, and rotate the judges out that they don't. so, what was intended to be a check on power would become a rubber stamp.
i understand that the american left is very apprehensive about the court skewing to the right, but it has to look at this in the longer arc of history and just fucking deal with it until it can regain control using more appropriate measures. i may support shrinking the size of the court somewhat, but my official position is actually to suck it up and wait it out.
that said, there are ways to lure a judge off the bench. maybe one of the conservative judges might like a nice, cushy job as an ambassador to the virgin islands, for example.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-bernie-sanders-would-destroy-supreme-court-%E2%80%98rotating%E2%80%99-justices-67082
why are historical liberal voters - not hardcore dippers, but card-carrying liberals - so frustrated with trudeau right now?
well, i'll never join a party. i'm an anarchist. and, i can only speak for myself, although i've pointed out a number of concerns, concerns that the party seems to largely want to address by arguing that they're changing direction. when you go to the party and say "you're doing this wrong", and the party says "actually, that's just the way we do it now.", then they shouldn't be surprised when people get up and walk out. i can point to miscalculations and bad logic all day, but at the end of the process you have to look at the execution and make your choices. if they want to do things wrong, you can't stop them.
trudeau seems to personally have a fondness for ronald reagan; i don't, i think he was a monster. but, it was reagan that uttered the lines - i didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me. and, so i say goodbye to the liberal party, if it insists on burying itself into oblivion.
but, why is it losing so much support to the greens, specifically?
again, i can only speak for myself, here, but it's less a question of the propaganda and more a question of the actual policy. if you flip through these pages, you'll see that i had no delusions about the liberals shutting down pipelines, even if actually buying one is a little over the top. i stated over and over again that the whole point of their argumentative thrust was to act as a pr wing of the oil industry, and that the end point was more pipelines, not less of them - and that because the ndp have essentially the same position, the only way to shut down the pipelines is to stop them in court. so, i took the issue out of the political arena and into the judicial arena, which i would argue is where it actually belongs. in a liberal capitalist society, the legal question around building pipelines largely reduces to one of property rights, which is for the courts to decide, and not for the legislature to use a tyranny of the majority to bully through. the idea of this being in the "public interest" is fundamentally wrong, in a society based around the concept of property.
so, i can only speak for myself, but it's not the pro-pipeline thing that's pissing me off. i fully expected that.
but, it was the other side of the apparent contradiction that i was hoping would be better developed, because i realized that, from the perspective of a bourgeois capitalist party, there really doesn't have to be a contradiction. see, the liberals are all about money; it's the party of bay street. they're supporting the pipelines because all they care about is the money, then they pay lip service to environmental concerns in a ploy to maximize profit - i am not confused about any of this. but, you can make a lot of money by selling environmentally friendly approaches, too, like big infrastructure projects. if this is the bankers' party, and all they care about is the money, and they're broadcasting that they want to invest in clean technology because all they care about is the money, then you're left with a clear lesser evil choice over these western yahoos that would declare independence tomorrow if they could get away with it.
so, i didn't expect the liberals to not support pipelines, but they were broadcasting that they would also support transition because it was profitable, and that's not a contradiction from their bourgeois perspective, even if it seems to be one from any other perspective.
it was the best (realistic) choice on the table.
four years later, they've carried through with their pro-pipeline position as was expected, but they've done nothing substantive on transitioning the economy, at all. rather, they've introduced a (poorly designed) redistributive tax that will have no meaningful effect on emissions, and done a lot of pointless photo shoots. the infrastructure bank that was supposed to fund large scale projects as a subsidiary of the bank of canada using public money has instead been converted into a neo-liberal conglomerate to push "public-private partnerships" for corporate gain, and has essentially nothing to show for itself.
so, if they had spent quickly and lavishly on transition, i would have less reason to be angry about the pro-pipeline position. but, as they've done nothing substantive to actually transition, all we're left with is the expansion of the petro-state. i can't continue to support that.
and, why can't they announce these public works projects? why can't they announce a manhatten project for the climate, switch things into high gear and get 'er done? because they're hamstrung by the ideology of neo-liberalism, by market discipline, by an insistence that government not interfere in the private sector, and by a series of international agreements that make action of this sort potentially expensive. but, this is new to the party - they weren't like that under chretien, and certainly weren't like that under the elder trudeau. really, they were at a crossroads: would they accept these international agreements that were (mostly) signed by the conservatives, or would they tear them up like they used to say they would? and, they've become conservative-lite in every possible way, by upholding the international system, even as it's falling apart in front of them.
if tackling climate change means tearing up nafta and pulling out of the wto, then you tear up nafta and pull out of the wto. but, they didn't - they just let the targets slip by.
and, we're going to have to let them slip by, in turn.
well, i'll never join a party. i'm an anarchist. and, i can only speak for myself, although i've pointed out a number of concerns, concerns that the party seems to largely want to address by arguing that they're changing direction. when you go to the party and say "you're doing this wrong", and the party says "actually, that's just the way we do it now.", then they shouldn't be surprised when people get up and walk out. i can point to miscalculations and bad logic all day, but at the end of the process you have to look at the execution and make your choices. if they want to do things wrong, you can't stop them.
trudeau seems to personally have a fondness for ronald reagan; i don't, i think he was a monster. but, it was reagan that uttered the lines - i didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me. and, so i say goodbye to the liberal party, if it insists on burying itself into oblivion.
but, why is it losing so much support to the greens, specifically?
again, i can only speak for myself, here, but it's less a question of the propaganda and more a question of the actual policy. if you flip through these pages, you'll see that i had no delusions about the liberals shutting down pipelines, even if actually buying one is a little over the top. i stated over and over again that the whole point of their argumentative thrust was to act as a pr wing of the oil industry, and that the end point was more pipelines, not less of them - and that because the ndp have essentially the same position, the only way to shut down the pipelines is to stop them in court. so, i took the issue out of the political arena and into the judicial arena, which i would argue is where it actually belongs. in a liberal capitalist society, the legal question around building pipelines largely reduces to one of property rights, which is for the courts to decide, and not for the legislature to use a tyranny of the majority to bully through. the idea of this being in the "public interest" is fundamentally wrong, in a society based around the concept of property.
so, i can only speak for myself, but it's not the pro-pipeline thing that's pissing me off. i fully expected that.
but, it was the other side of the apparent contradiction that i was hoping would be better developed, because i realized that, from the perspective of a bourgeois capitalist party, there really doesn't have to be a contradiction. see, the liberals are all about money; it's the party of bay street. they're supporting the pipelines because all they care about is the money, then they pay lip service to environmental concerns in a ploy to maximize profit - i am not confused about any of this. but, you can make a lot of money by selling environmentally friendly approaches, too, like big infrastructure projects. if this is the bankers' party, and all they care about is the money, and they're broadcasting that they want to invest in clean technology because all they care about is the money, then you're left with a clear lesser evil choice over these western yahoos that would declare independence tomorrow if they could get away with it.
so, i didn't expect the liberals to not support pipelines, but they were broadcasting that they would also support transition because it was profitable, and that's not a contradiction from their bourgeois perspective, even if it seems to be one from any other perspective.
it was the best (realistic) choice on the table.
four years later, they've carried through with their pro-pipeline position as was expected, but they've done nothing substantive on transitioning the economy, at all. rather, they've introduced a (poorly designed) redistributive tax that will have no meaningful effect on emissions, and done a lot of pointless photo shoots. the infrastructure bank that was supposed to fund large scale projects as a subsidiary of the bank of canada using public money has instead been converted into a neo-liberal conglomerate to push "public-private partnerships" for corporate gain, and has essentially nothing to show for itself.
so, if they had spent quickly and lavishly on transition, i would have less reason to be angry about the pro-pipeline position. but, as they've done nothing substantive to actually transition, all we're left with is the expansion of the petro-state. i can't continue to support that.
and, why can't they announce these public works projects? why can't they announce a manhatten project for the climate, switch things into high gear and get 'er done? because they're hamstrung by the ideology of neo-liberalism, by market discipline, by an insistence that government not interfere in the private sector, and by a series of international agreements that make action of this sort potentially expensive. but, this is new to the party - they weren't like that under chretien, and certainly weren't like that under the elder trudeau. really, they were at a crossroads: would they accept these international agreements that were (mostly) signed by the conservatives, or would they tear them up like they used to say they would? and, they've become conservative-lite in every possible way, by upholding the international system, even as it's falling apart in front of them.
if tackling climate change means tearing up nafta and pulling out of the wto, then you tear up nafta and pull out of the wto. but, they didn't - they just let the targets slip by.
and, we're going to have to let them slip by, in turn.
Monday, July 15, 2019
this jayapal character seems to be a better presidential option than almost the rest of the field.
she seems to introduce a lot of very strong legislation, and seems to fundamentally get what the actual problems are. she seems to have an analysis, which is so rare.
it's too bad she was born in india, which bars her from the presidency.
she seems to introduce a lot of very strong legislation, and seems to fundamentally get what the actual problems are. she seems to have an analysis, which is so rare.
it's too bad she was born in india, which bars her from the presidency.
this is kind of equivalent to the libertarian party hiring karl rove.
i saw this coming, but i'm still as baffled as everybody else.
ready or not, here they come.
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/07/12/May-Hires-Kinsella/
i saw this coming, but i'm still as baffled as everybody else.
ready or not, here they come.
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/07/12/May-Hires-Kinsella/
i'm just skeptical about the return of the bloc.
i was pushing it a few years ago, but they're just meeting a lot of resistance.
so, if the ndp are cooked, and the bloc are stalled, the greens are what's left - which sounds facile, but that's quebec.
there's some problems, granted. but, we don't have to cite stiglitz to reject perfect information, here. it's a tipping-point process, before the mob mentality kicks in. where they're at it is not far from it....
i was pushing it a few years ago, but they're just meeting a lot of resistance.
so, if the ndp are cooked, and the bloc are stalled, the greens are what's left - which sounds facile, but that's quebec.
there's some problems, granted. but, we don't have to cite stiglitz to reject perfect information, here. it's a tipping-point process, before the mob mentality kicks in. where they're at it is not far from it....
well, what exactly happens if the greens win 50 seats in quebec?
it's probably still a liberal minority, at this point, as they would get most of them from the ndp.
but, the liberals would have little option but to listen to the greens, and very carefully, even if they can avoid coalition with them.
it's probably still a liberal minority, at this point, as they would get most of them from the ndp.
but, the liberals would have little option but to listen to the greens, and very carefully, even if they can avoid coalition with them.
the greens are at eight in quebec?
that's a protest vote, but quebec doth protest (yeah, i know).
everybody knows this is about quebec, in the end. and, they tend to be unpredictable.
hey. i'm just thinking out loud.
https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/07/15/despite-green-partys-rising-popularity-in-polls-and-recent-successes-ndp-and-bloc-likely-to-be-more-influential-pollster-lyle/207983
that's a protest vote, but quebec doth protest (yeah, i know).
everybody knows this is about quebec, in the end. and, they tend to be unpredictable.
hey. i'm just thinking out loud.
https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/07/15/despite-green-partys-rising-popularity-in-polls-and-recent-successes-ndp-and-bloc-likely-to-be-more-influential-pollster-lyle/207983
this is, indeed, long overdue, even if it's just a first step.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/15/workers-our-homes-deserve-rights
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/15/workers-our-homes-deserve-rights
trump is not known for being particularly articulate, but on a certain level i think he's making a valid point. and, i don't think justin trudeau is a very good source of information regarding understanding how things are done here in canada, considering that he seems to be more culturally californian than canadian or quebecois.
i'm reminded of parizeau blaming his referendum loss on "money and the ethnic vote". and, no, that wasn't that long ago.
these kids are not the future of the party - i don't expect any of them to be re-elected more than twice. they routinely say stupid things, and it's just a matter of time before it gets to them. i mean, maybe one or two of them will wise up, but i wouldn't count on it. what will be awful is if one of them sticks their foot in their mouth so badly that they lose their seat to a republican, as they're supposed to be in unloseable seats - which was the point of putting them there.
a lot of the time, the fact is that the basis of their cringe is that they're presenting a perspective that is considered to be backwards, here. those clearly anti-semitic remarks, for example. or, erasing israel from the map. i mean, is this representative ahmadinejad, or what? these are things that you expect people in oecd countries to know better than to state.
there was a famous line by adlai stevenson, who was very much the cultural forefather to the elder trudeau. as he was dodging shit being thrown at him by right-wing protestors, he insisted on pushing the cops off. why? because he didn't want to send these idiots to jail. what he wanted to do was send these idiots to school.
and, if it was anybody other than trump, you'd have expected something worded a little more along those lines.
but, on a fundamental level, he's making a valid point - the west is not going to learn much of value by adopting third-world perspectives about much of anything, and doesn't even really have the obligation to give those perspectives the time of day.
i'm reminded of parizeau blaming his referendum loss on "money and the ethnic vote". and, no, that wasn't that long ago.
these kids are not the future of the party - i don't expect any of them to be re-elected more than twice. they routinely say stupid things, and it's just a matter of time before it gets to them. i mean, maybe one or two of them will wise up, but i wouldn't count on it. what will be awful is if one of them sticks their foot in their mouth so badly that they lose their seat to a republican, as they're supposed to be in unloseable seats - which was the point of putting them there.
a lot of the time, the fact is that the basis of their cringe is that they're presenting a perspective that is considered to be backwards, here. those clearly anti-semitic remarks, for example. or, erasing israel from the map. i mean, is this representative ahmadinejad, or what? these are things that you expect people in oecd countries to know better than to state.
there was a famous line by adlai stevenson, who was very much the cultural forefather to the elder trudeau. as he was dodging shit being thrown at him by right-wing protestors, he insisted on pushing the cops off. why? because he didn't want to send these idiots to jail. what he wanted to do was send these idiots to school.
and, if it was anybody other than trump, you'd have expected something worded a little more along those lines.
but, on a fundamental level, he's making a valid point - the west is not going to learn much of value by adopting third-world perspectives about much of anything, and doesn't even really have the obligation to give those perspectives the time of day.
well, yeah. why would he expect otherwise?
and, he doesn't, you can tell; he knows they're fucking with him.
and, frankly, if you want a reason why his numbers are falling, it's the coverage. he goes on cnn or whatever and they bash him for as long as he's there. then, he complains they don't give him enough time. are you a masochist, bernie? what the fuck?
he didn't get his momentum last time by talking to rachel maddow or wolf blitzer, he got it by end-arounding it and taking his message directly to the people. now, he's a talking head, and his numbers are falling - it's not surprising.
it's easy enough to argue that he needs the tv to get to a wider audience, but i don't think it's actually true. rather, i think he needs to be registering more younger voters, and that he should probably more or less tell cnn to fuck off.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-media-reject-1415832
and, he doesn't, you can tell; he knows they're fucking with him.
and, frankly, if you want a reason why his numbers are falling, it's the coverage. he goes on cnn or whatever and they bash him for as long as he's there. then, he complains they don't give him enough time. are you a masochist, bernie? what the fuck?
he didn't get his momentum last time by talking to rachel maddow or wolf blitzer, he got it by end-arounding it and taking his message directly to the people. now, he's a talking head, and his numbers are falling - it's not surprising.
it's easy enough to argue that he needs the tv to get to a wider audience, but i don't think it's actually true. rather, i think he needs to be registering more younger voters, and that he should probably more or less tell cnn to fuck off.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-media-reject-1415832
i guess he'll want to get this dealt with as soon as possible.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/14/asap-rocky-arrested-sweden-state-department-1415839
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/14/asap-rocky-arrested-sweden-state-department-1415839
well, it seems like we got a summer here in ontario after all, even if it ends up being short.
the gulf's moisture - yes, a consequence of climate change - has overpowered the solar magnets. for a while. so, we're going to end up drenched in humidity and rainfall, as all of that water moves from the ocean to the great lakes, through the atmosphere as an intermediary.
the universe is driven by conflict and change, not by harmony or stasis.
i'll take it...
...but, enjoy it while it's here. it won't last long.
let's hope the guy upstairs stays away this week, so it doesn't get ruined by the air conditioner.
the gulf's moisture - yes, a consequence of climate change - has overpowered the solar magnets. for a while. so, we're going to end up drenched in humidity and rainfall, as all of that water moves from the ocean to the great lakes, through the atmosphere as an intermediary.
the universe is driven by conflict and change, not by harmony or stasis.
i'll take it...
...but, enjoy it while it's here. it won't last long.
let's hope the guy upstairs stays away this week, so it doesn't get ruined by the air conditioner.
so, i finished the human rights application this evening, then fell asleep. it won't send over the virtual network connection in the virtual machine (i don't want adobe software on my dummy gateway), so i'm going to try over the chromebook, and then maybe at the library, before i resort to mailing it....
if there's a hearing, it seems like it will be in toronto.
but, that's done.
the three other suits i need to file are:
#2) a judicial review on the oiprd result. that's going to be in superior court, in london, and i'll need to serve the oiprd directly in toronto.
#3) the constitutional challenge. superior court. i'll need to serve in windsor, and maybe also in toronto..
#4) a judicial review regarding the access to information request. that should also be in superior court, and i guess i'll need to serve in toronto, as well.
if there's a hearing, it seems like it will be in toronto.
but, that's done.
the three other suits i need to file are:
#2) a judicial review on the oiprd result. that's going to be in superior court, in london, and i'll need to serve the oiprd directly in toronto.
#3) the constitutional challenge. superior court. i'll need to serve in windsor, and maybe also in toronto..
#4) a judicial review regarding the access to information request. that should also be in superior court, and i guess i'll need to serve in toronto, as well.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
so, when do you have the right to use force to stop an anti-abortion protestor?
when they stand in your way - and not before then.
talk is cheap, and the right to expression has to be much, much wider than telford & joly are allowing for.
these are arguably even abuses of power that necessitate some resignations; i haven't looked into it closely enough, but it's certainly straddling a line on acceptable behaviour from a cabinet minister, anyways.
when they stand in your way - and not before then.
talk is cheap, and the right to expression has to be much, much wider than telford & joly are allowing for.
these are arguably even abuses of power that necessitate some resignations; i haven't looked into it closely enough, but it's certainly straddling a line on acceptable behaviour from a cabinet minister, anyways.
ok.
still nothing from the oiprd. time's up.
by statute, this should have been done at the end of april by the very latest. by the time i file at the end of the month, it will be three months past any reasonable release point. so, we'll let the judge rip them apart over that.
step one - human rights complaint.
still nothing from the oiprd. time's up.
step one - human rights complaint.
just for the record: i don't think that the federal government should be trying to ban movies, whatever they are, and whether i like them or not.
liberals are supposed to be free speech advocates. what they're doing with this movie - which i have no plans to see - is just another reason to abandon the party, as they are continually taking these directions that are incompatible with the basic concepts of liberalism.
but, i decided a long time ago that i would not be voting liberal in october.
liberals are supposed to be free speech advocates. what they're doing with this movie - which i have no plans to see - is just another reason to abandon the party, as they are continually taking these directions that are incompatible with the basic concepts of liberalism.
but, i decided a long time ago that i would not be voting liberal in october.
and, just for the record.
if you're going to cite him or his work.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
the way i would put it is that the error that the bourgeois press makes, often on purpose, is that it cites statistics that are true broadly for immigration in the context of debates that are specifically about low wage workers, and even more specifically about low wage workers from south and central america that migrate into the country over the mexican border. in the process of doing this, they skew the data, and often badly, as it simply doesn't make sense to use data about people coming from europe or asia to study in the universities and then apply it to people coming from mexico to farm the fields. if the source that you're reading or citing just talks about "immigration" as a uniform thing, without trying to separate into types of immigration, then it's glossing over data, and probably intentionally.
the issue with wage depression is very specifically applicable to workers in specific sectors, and you need to make sure your sources are being honest about it, if you want to make an honest argument, yourself.
if you're going to cite him or his work.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
the way i would put it is that the error that the bourgeois press makes, often on purpose, is that it cites statistics that are true broadly for immigration in the context of debates that are specifically about low wage workers, and even more specifically about low wage workers from south and central america that migrate into the country over the mexican border. in the process of doing this, they skew the data, and often badly, as it simply doesn't make sense to use data about people coming from europe or asia to study in the universities and then apply it to people coming from mexico to farm the fields. if the source that you're reading or citing just talks about "immigration" as a uniform thing, without trying to separate into types of immigration, then it's glossing over data, and probably intentionally.
the issue with wage depression is very specifically applicable to workers in specific sectors, and you need to make sure your sources are being honest about it, if you want to make an honest argument, yourself.
i think that one of the best ways to understand the changes that have happened between gen x and gen y is to compare alanis morisette to taylor swift.
this is what alanis was like when she was a little girl, compared to what she was like as a grown-up.
meanwhile, this is what taylor swift was like as a grown-up:
and, this is what she was like as a child:
so, we can see that what we've had happen here is an inversion of adulthood and childhood.
i'll let you decide which is really more grown-up, and which is really more childish.
this is what alanis was like when she was a little girl, compared to what she was like as a grown-up.
meanwhile, this is what taylor swift was like as a grown-up:
and, this is what she was like as a child:
so, we can see that what we've had happen here is an inversion of adulthood and childhood.
i'll let you decide which is really more grown-up, and which is really more childish.
so, to recap. what is the socialist position on ice? not a "progressive" position, and not a liberal or ancap position, but a position that is explicitly socialist?
1) cut funding for ice to zero, and redirect it to the department of labour, so that the state is no longer policing the supply of labour but rather enforcing the labour code. and, i mean this - i want cops out there searching out labour violations. something like 'e-verify' is nowhere near sufficient to properly police employers and ensure they aren't breaking the law.
2) drastically increased penalties for employers that violate the labour code. not fines, not slaps on the wrist, but serious consequences, including losses of license, shutting down businesses and lengthy jail sentences.
3) this crackdown should not be accompanied by attacks on workers. the idea is to ensure that everybody is on a level playing field - that employers are required to provide the same wages, benefits and conditions for immigrant labourers as they are for native-born labourers.
4) tying the minimum wage to inflation.
5) legislation that allows and encourages unionization in industries with large numbers of undocumented workers, and allows those workers to join the unions.
socialists will argue that the issue with ice is not merely a humanitarian issue, but a question of ensuring that migrants, who are workers, are entitled to protections and standards, so they are not exploited for the benefit of the middle class.
1) cut funding for ice to zero, and redirect it to the department of labour, so that the state is no longer policing the supply of labour but rather enforcing the labour code. and, i mean this - i want cops out there searching out labour violations. something like 'e-verify' is nowhere near sufficient to properly police employers and ensure they aren't breaking the law.
2) drastically increased penalties for employers that violate the labour code. not fines, not slaps on the wrist, but serious consequences, including losses of license, shutting down businesses and lengthy jail sentences.
3) this crackdown should not be accompanied by attacks on workers. the idea is to ensure that everybody is on a level playing field - that employers are required to provide the same wages, benefits and conditions for immigrant labourers as they are for native-born labourers.
4) tying the minimum wage to inflation.
5) legislation that allows and encourages unionization in industries with large numbers of undocumented workers, and allows those workers to join the unions.
socialists will argue that the issue with ice is not merely a humanitarian issue, but a question of ensuring that migrants, who are workers, are entitled to protections and standards, so they are not exploited for the benefit of the middle class.
and, no, it's not just small businesses.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/19/big-name-businesses-exploit-immigrant-labor
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/19/big-name-businesses-exploit-immigrant-labor
no.
stop.
it's simple.
migrants are workers. all workers deserve equal treatment. that is the fundamental axiom of socialism. employers that treat some workers differently than others, or prey specifically on those without legal recourse to defend themselves, are enemies of socialism and must be identified and prosecuted as such.
this should have the effect of reducing illegal crossings, as the market for illegal labour dries up. but, the basic issue is one of workers rights.
and, what you will see over and over again if you pay attention is that the democratic party does not care about the rights of the migrants as workers, so much as it seeks to ensure that this system that exploits them is not substantively disturbed.
stop.
it's simple.
migrants are workers. all workers deserve equal treatment. that is the fundamental axiom of socialism. employers that treat some workers differently than others, or prey specifically on those without legal recourse to defend themselves, are enemies of socialism and must be identified and prosecuted as such.
this should have the effect of reducing illegal crossings, as the market for illegal labour dries up. but, the basic issue is one of workers rights.
and, what you will see over and over again if you pay attention is that the democratic party does not care about the rights of the migrants as workers, so much as it seeks to ensure that this system that exploits them is not substantively disturbed.
see, this is the problem, and the thing that needs to change.
"progressives" will focus on trying to make the system more humane, while fundamantally keeping it in tact. but, socialists understand that this is a waste of time, and that the root cause of the problem is a system - as well as a society - that is willing to look the other way in the face of widespread labour abuses.
the socialist position is to redirect resources away from a crackdown on workers and towards a crackdown on employers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/illegal-immigration-employers-prosecutions.html
"progressives" will focus on trying to make the system more humane, while fundamantally keeping it in tact. but, socialists understand that this is a waste of time, and that the root cause of the problem is a system - as well as a society - that is willing to look the other way in the face of widespread labour abuses.
the socialist position is to redirect resources away from a crackdown on workers and towards a crackdown on employers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/illegal-immigration-employers-prosecutions.html
warren's approach to ice is the perfect example of why she's a textbook "progressive", and not at all a socialist, and why i cannot and will not support her candidacy in good faith.
what she's calling for is a reorganization of the service, which is rooted in the ideological positioning that the problem is not the system itself but the people within it. it's the old "bad apples" argument. so, she wants to reform the system, presumably so that it is better able to carry out it's initial purpose. this is the old "we've lost our way" canard.
ice has not lost it's way, and it's not being tarnished by a couple of bad apples. ice operates as a human resources arm of industry, and is doing exactly what the people that created it intended for it to always do. there is consequently no future in reforming it, unless you're just trying to reduce operating costs.
but, abolishing ice is not even enough, as it will be recreated again if the conditions which have allowed for it's existence - namely the lax enforcement of labour laws - are not addressed. abolition is a first step. but, an actual policy - a plan that is actually worth pursuing - would be centered around ensuring that all workers, everywhere, are entitled to living wages and proper protections, which means converting the immigration police into a labour enforcement unit. if america spent half of what it spends on policing immigration on policing employers, it wouldn't have an immigration problem. that would be actually taking control of the state for the benefit of the people; that would be an actual plan.
you won't get that from a "progressive" that fundamentally wishes to keep the status quo in place; you will need to support the socialist.
what she's calling for is a reorganization of the service, which is rooted in the ideological positioning that the problem is not the system itself but the people within it. it's the old "bad apples" argument. so, she wants to reform the system, presumably so that it is better able to carry out it's initial purpose. this is the old "we've lost our way" canard.
ice has not lost it's way, and it's not being tarnished by a couple of bad apples. ice operates as a human resources arm of industry, and is doing exactly what the people that created it intended for it to always do. there is consequently no future in reforming it, unless you're just trying to reduce operating costs.
but, abolishing ice is not even enough, as it will be recreated again if the conditions which have allowed for it's existence - namely the lax enforcement of labour laws - are not addressed. abolition is a first step. but, an actual policy - a plan that is actually worth pursuing - would be centered around ensuring that all workers, everywhere, are entitled to living wages and proper protections, which means converting the immigration police into a labour enforcement unit. if america spent half of what it spends on policing immigration on policing employers, it wouldn't have an immigration problem. that would be actually taking control of the state for the benefit of the people; that would be an actual plan.
you won't get that from a "progressive" that fundamentally wishes to keep the status quo in place; you will need to support the socialist.
Saturday, July 13, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)