Thursday, March 16, 2017
the music scene in ottawa seems to have really died after i left. wow.
see, i knew i had a window, and that it would then go back to what it was...
to be fair, the thing with ottawa is that it doesn't actually have it's own music scene, the nightlife there is just driven by what's happening outside of it. so, if we end up in a situation where the broader music scene hits a low point, which is where we're at right now, it just can't weather it - it falls apart. venues close. shows end up in basements. and, when shows end up in basements, you have to deal with a strange sort of democracy that refuses to acknowledge that beethoven is more interesting than a recording of your mom vomiting up your dad's sad attempt at making a meal, last night.
"it's ok....AAAAAARRRRRRFFFFF....you tried, hon-AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRFFFFF-ey....no, i'm ok...what i mean is AAAARRRRRRFFFFF to get the fuck away from me right now, before i accidentally ARRRRRRFFFFFF miss in purpose...."
it's a type of democracy where mediocrity wins every time, and the rare interesting show gets booked on a monday during exams, and nobody promotes it.
"what do you fucking mean that loma prieta played here last night? why didn't you tell me?"
"who cares? they're from out of town. i'm doing a guitar effects noise set tomorrow, you're in, right?"
no. ottawa needs people transiting around it in order to avoid being boring. and, then it needs somebody standing on the 401 near kingston, yelling at people that there's venues in that direction.
detroit was never my first choice. but, it seems like i got out at the right time.
see, i knew i had a window, and that it would then go back to what it was...
to be fair, the thing with ottawa is that it doesn't actually have it's own music scene, the nightlife there is just driven by what's happening outside of it. so, if we end up in a situation where the broader music scene hits a low point, which is where we're at right now, it just can't weather it - it falls apart. venues close. shows end up in basements. and, when shows end up in basements, you have to deal with a strange sort of democracy that refuses to acknowledge that beethoven is more interesting than a recording of your mom vomiting up your dad's sad attempt at making a meal, last night.
"it's ok....AAAAAARRRRRRFFFFF....you tried, hon-AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRFFFFF-ey....no, i'm ok...what i mean is AAAARRRRRRFFFFF to get the fuck away from me right now, before i accidentally ARRRRRRFFFFFF miss in purpose...."
it's a type of democracy where mediocrity wins every time, and the rare interesting show gets booked on a monday during exams, and nobody promotes it.
"what do you fucking mean that loma prieta played here last night? why didn't you tell me?"
"who cares? they're from out of town. i'm doing a guitar effects noise set tomorrow, you're in, right?"
no. ottawa needs people transiting around it in order to avoid being boring. and, then it needs somebody standing on the 401 near kingston, yelling at people that there's venues in that direction.
detroit was never my first choice. but, it seems like i got out at the right time.
in actuality, this sounds more like what clinton promised, especially the part about the judges; it really just sounds like a continuation of existing policy.
i would have expected trump to come in high and congress to gut it. but, he's not even putting 2 billion down for the wall, when he himself was lowballing it at 4-5 times that - and experts were suggesting 10-20 times it.
i told you to wait for the budget to see if he's serious. the budget is here, and he's not serious.
the extra money on enforcement will likely end up in private contracts, too - private contracts that can avoid serious oversight.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-budget.html?mabReward=ACTM3&recp=2&moduleDetail=recommendations-2&action=click&contentCollection=Theater®ion=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article
i would have expected trump to come in high and congress to gut it. but, he's not even putting 2 billion down for the wall, when he himself was lowballing it at 4-5 times that - and experts were suggesting 10-20 times it.
i told you to wait for the budget to see if he's serious. the budget is here, and he's not serious.
the extra money on enforcement will likely end up in private contracts, too - private contracts that can avoid serious oversight.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-budget.html?mabReward=ACTM3&recp=2&moduleDetail=recommendations-2&action=click&contentCollection=Theater®ion=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article
i'm only doing this because it actually demonstrates that i haven't changed a lot.
this is a picture of me from a period where i identified as male (it's from 2004 - so i'm 23 in the shot):
i've had at least shoulder length hair pretty much consistently since the mid 90s. i shaved it a few times, but there really aren't very many pictures of me with short hair in existence (because i've basically never had short hair). the few i've seen look like mug shots. i've never styled my hair in any kind of short-haired male fashion kind of choice: never used gel, or anything like that.
there certainly aren't any pictures of me without my shirt on. i wouldn't even take my shirt off to go swimming. and i never went swimming, anyways. over the course of my entire adult life, i'm pretty sure that there's only one person in the entire world that's seen me without a shirt on. the idea that i'd take a picture of myself without a shirt on, let alone upload it to the internet, is insanity.
but, i never developed any kind of muscle mass on the top end of my body (or anywhere else, for that matter). the fact that i smoked aside, i was always in very good shape due to the large amounts of bicycling (2-3 hours a day at points) and walking i did, but it always came out in terms of toned arms and legs and never in terms of muscle mass.
the point is just that there aren't really "guy pictures" of me because i wasn't ever really much of a guy. the reality is that i spent my entire teens and 20s looking like i never really went through puberty. i never weighed more than 120 pounds; i was always stick thin. i always had long hair, often died blonde or orange or red. i tended to wear really nerdy button-ups, or plain t-shirts (or band shirts, but not much after about 2002). if you ever saw me in an outfit that was more bourgeois than that, there was a struggle to get me in to it.
why? because i just didn't want to. i was an outcast by choice: a nerd, a loner, a loser. i both found the idea of expressing masculinity to be boring and to be a poor reflection of how i felt.
the fact that i wore a tie on that day is really, honestly about as manly as i ever got. and i'm sorry if that's disappointing, but it's the truth of it.
this is a picture of me from a period where i identified as male (it's from 2004 - so i'm 23 in the shot):
i've had at least shoulder length hair pretty much consistently since the mid 90s. i shaved it a few times, but there really aren't very many pictures of me with short hair in existence (because i've basically never had short hair). the few i've seen look like mug shots. i've never styled my hair in any kind of short-haired male fashion kind of choice: never used gel, or anything like that.
there certainly aren't any pictures of me without my shirt on. i wouldn't even take my shirt off to go swimming. and i never went swimming, anyways. over the course of my entire adult life, i'm pretty sure that there's only one person in the entire world that's seen me without a shirt on. the idea that i'd take a picture of myself without a shirt on, let alone upload it to the internet, is insanity.
but, i never developed any kind of muscle mass on the top end of my body (or anywhere else, for that matter). the fact that i smoked aside, i was always in very good shape due to the large amounts of bicycling (2-3 hours a day at points) and walking i did, but it always came out in terms of toned arms and legs and never in terms of muscle mass.
the point is just that there aren't really "guy pictures" of me because i wasn't ever really much of a guy. the reality is that i spent my entire teens and 20s looking like i never really went through puberty. i never weighed more than 120 pounds; i was always stick thin. i always had long hair, often died blonde or orange or red. i tended to wear really nerdy button-ups, or plain t-shirts (or band shirts, but not much after about 2002). if you ever saw me in an outfit that was more bourgeois than that, there was a struggle to get me in to it.
why? because i just didn't want to. i was an outcast by choice: a nerd, a loner, a loser. i both found the idea of expressing masculinity to be boring and to be a poor reflection of how i felt.
the fact that i wore a tie on that day is really, honestly about as manly as i ever got. and i'm sorry if that's disappointing, but it's the truth of it.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
that new picture is very temporary. it was taken in early 2011, after i had just turned 30. it's just been a while. something new will come up with the new season...
it's a reminder that i'm finnish. i almost look icelandic, huh? it's pretty heavy-handed. those eyes can get humongous depending on a few things...
it's almost a reminder that, as young as i look today, i've aged a lot over the last five years. even i'm a little taken aback by this shot.
i'm thirty years old, here:
it's a reminder that i'm finnish. i almost look icelandic, huh? it's pretty heavy-handed. those eyes can get humongous depending on a few things...
it's almost a reminder that, as young as i look today, i've aged a lot over the last five years. even i'm a little taken aback by this shot.
i'm thirty years old, here:
actually, as a general rule, i can't stand bands with male singers that wear make-up.
there's a few exceptions. and, it's not like it's a condition, or something. but, it's kind of a mark of a pretension. it usually signals that the band is about making fashion statements rather than about writing songs.
i mean, i'm not going to judge anybody on it or anything, but it's just not usually the kind of thing i'm going to get interested in...
and, fwiw, most of the female musicians i listen to don't wear much makeup, either.
there's a few exceptions. and, it's not like it's a condition, or something. but, it's kind of a mark of a pretension. it usually signals that the band is about making fashion statements rather than about writing songs.
i mean, i'm not going to judge anybody on it or anything, but it's just not usually the kind of thing i'm going to get interested in...
and, fwiw, most of the female musicians i listen to don't wear much makeup, either.
my laptop is currently badly bogged down with editing concert footage, so the vlogs will have to wait until that gets done.
there will be vlogs for all the days, i just don't know when i'll get around to doing it. it could be a week or more.
when they're one, i'll upload them all at once.
i just only have so many cycles available to me, and catching up on these concert reviews is simply higher priority right now.
there will be vlogs for all the days, i just don't know when i'll get around to doing it. it could be a week or more.
when they're one, i'll upload them all at once.
i just only have so many cycles available to me, and catching up on these concert reviews is simply higher priority right now.
yeah.
these missile "defense" systems are in truth offensive weapons systems, and the target is beijing.
we're starting to see a more coherent policy develop, and it's every bit as stupid as you'd expect. these high testosterone man-apes are rejecting anything resembling softpower (ex: the tpp) as effeminate, and instead opting to use the biggest, baddest guns they can find to threaten the chinese to do what they want, or else.
or else, what.
see, that's the reason why them book lerners always wanted to use the soft power. nobody really thinks they'll actually do it.
if the chinese focus on soft power in reaction, while the americans completely abandon it, it will be a superior strategy. i mean, consider the vietnamese capitalist. the chinese are offering free trade, while the americans are offering no trade at all. under those conditions, the vietnamese capitalist is simply not going to want american protection. protection from what? trade? it is in their interests to align with chinese softpower - and the bigger the guns the americans bring in, the larger the incentives are to side with the chinese.
it would be one thing to bring the guns in and utilize softpower. but, they're clearly being driven by the retarded idea that softpower is for unmanly fags. and, this is what happens when you elect somebody that thinks with his cock.
the chinese are not stupid. and, if this tactic takes four years or longer to get reversed then they're going to clean up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-thaad-china-idUSKBN16709W
these missile "defense" systems are in truth offensive weapons systems, and the target is beijing.
we're starting to see a more coherent policy develop, and it's every bit as stupid as you'd expect. these high testosterone man-apes are rejecting anything resembling softpower (ex: the tpp) as effeminate, and instead opting to use the biggest, baddest guns they can find to threaten the chinese to do what they want, or else.
or else, what.
see, that's the reason why them book lerners always wanted to use the soft power. nobody really thinks they'll actually do it.
if the chinese focus on soft power in reaction, while the americans completely abandon it, it will be a superior strategy. i mean, consider the vietnamese capitalist. the chinese are offering free trade, while the americans are offering no trade at all. under those conditions, the vietnamese capitalist is simply not going to want american protection. protection from what? trade? it is in their interests to align with chinese softpower - and the bigger the guns the americans bring in, the larger the incentives are to side with the chinese.
it would be one thing to bring the guns in and utilize softpower. but, they're clearly being driven by the retarded idea that softpower is for unmanly fags. and, this is what happens when you elect somebody that thinks with his cock.
the chinese are not stupid. and, if this tactic takes four years or longer to get reversed then they're going to clean up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-thaad-china-idUSKBN16709W
the chinese can't reasonably talk about dominating a trade agreement that includes canada and mexico. the americans can project that kind of power towards asia, but the chinese are a long ways away from projecting that kind of power towards america.
even talk of the chinese dominating japan is absurd. in a real sense, what the tpp did was reconstruct the japanese empire - sort of how like the eu has reconstructed a german-dominated europe. as the americans have delegated running europe to the germans, the tpp was meant to delegate control of asia to the japanese.
but, what the chinese can do is talk about essentially absorbing countries like vietnam into it's sphere of interest - at the expense of japanese ambitions. and, that's of course what the deal was intended to prevent and what is now free to happen, with it gone. and, where a strong tpp could have prevented a war between japan and china by the projection of american power, the withdrawal of america from the region could very well embolden the chinese to the point where conflict is now inevitable.
i've approached what trump is doing as irrational, but, even so, at the least, if trump was the master negotiator then he would have sought something like a deal to exchange american withdrawal from southeast asia for chinese withdrawal in south america, or perhaps even asia. i see no evidence of this: he just gave away the farm, for nothing. and, this could potentially be game over for american influence in the region.
sadly, the republicans will likely spin the situation as proof that they were right all along. it's really an absurd point of failure.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/14/china-south-korea-join-tpp-members-in-trade-talks.html
even talk of the chinese dominating japan is absurd. in a real sense, what the tpp did was reconstruct the japanese empire - sort of how like the eu has reconstructed a german-dominated europe. as the americans have delegated running europe to the germans, the tpp was meant to delegate control of asia to the japanese.
but, what the chinese can do is talk about essentially absorbing countries like vietnam into it's sphere of interest - at the expense of japanese ambitions. and, that's of course what the deal was intended to prevent and what is now free to happen, with it gone. and, where a strong tpp could have prevented a war between japan and china by the projection of american power, the withdrawal of america from the region could very well embolden the chinese to the point where conflict is now inevitable.
i've approached what trump is doing as irrational, but, even so, at the least, if trump was the master negotiator then he would have sought something like a deal to exchange american withdrawal from southeast asia for chinese withdrawal in south america, or perhaps even asia. i see no evidence of this: he just gave away the farm, for nothing. and, this could potentially be game over for american influence in the region.
sadly, the republicans will likely spin the situation as proof that they were right all along. it's really an absurd point of failure.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/14/china-south-korea-join-tpp-members-in-trade-talks.html
fwiw, if you're curious...
yes, i'm known to drink a fair amount, from time to time - and, yes, i'm as irish as i am anything else (on my mom's side), but i never go out on st. patrick's day.
it's the type of drunk that st. patrick's day attracts that i'll go well out of my way to avoid.
and, fwiw, it's the same reason i prefer to stay in inside on canada day, on new year's and, often, on hallowe'en, too.
yes, i'm known to drink a fair amount, from time to time - and, yes, i'm as irish as i am anything else (on my mom's side), but i never go out on st. patrick's day.
it's the type of drunk that st. patrick's day attracts that i'll go well out of my way to avoid.
and, fwiw, it's the same reason i prefer to stay in inside on canada day, on new year's and, often, on hallowe'en, too.
how can you miss the incredibly dour and darkly facetious use of religious imagery in the track?
americans are just hopeless with sarcasm. they literally don't get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Vfp48laS8
americans are just hopeless with sarcasm. they literally don't get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Vfp48laS8
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
i want to clarify my point, because it's the same thing that just happened in the united states and i don't think it's being understood very well.
what the liberals are doing is attaching minority representation to establishment politics, so that when voters see a minority candidate they immediately assume that this person does not represent their interests, but is essentially a pawn of the party and by extension the banks. it's classic blowback, because it's rooted in the racist assumption that minorities don't care about politics, and just vote on identity.
what they thought that they could do is fly in all of these minorities and just use them as a cover to push through their right-wing agenda. the thinking is that they can get away with a lot more when it's being done by asian woman and black men than when it's being done by a bourgeois elite of white men. so, they selected the minorities that did exactly what they were told by the party and then promoted them as replacements for dissenting voices. at the end of the day, the corporatocracy gets it's pipelines and tax cuts, all while voters are patting themselves on the backs for increasing the diversity of parliament.
what they've done, instead, is install minorities as the face of the establishment, and create the perception that minority candidates do not represent the interests of voters, but instead are working for the political elite.
this is what actually happened in the united states during the obama administration (although it started happening during the clinton administration, and the bush administration actually used the same tactics). people started to notice that the government consistently sent minorities to do it's dirty work. so, it came to be that they started voting against minorities, in order to try and protect their own interests.
if the government continues to use minority groups as a way to gloss over it's right-wing agenda and push through unpopular measures, it's going to create the same backlash. we're already seeing this happen, internally, at the riding level. and, while it may be a necessary reaction to bone-headed government policy, it's not a can of worms you want to really open.
the government needs to change it's strategy before it creates a mess - and we need to be clear in assigning blame where it belongs, here, which is in the pmo.
what the liberals are doing is attaching minority representation to establishment politics, so that when voters see a minority candidate they immediately assume that this person does not represent their interests, but is essentially a pawn of the party and by extension the banks. it's classic blowback, because it's rooted in the racist assumption that minorities don't care about politics, and just vote on identity.
what they thought that they could do is fly in all of these minorities and just use them as a cover to push through their right-wing agenda. the thinking is that they can get away with a lot more when it's being done by asian woman and black men than when it's being done by a bourgeois elite of white men. so, they selected the minorities that did exactly what they were told by the party and then promoted them as replacements for dissenting voices. at the end of the day, the corporatocracy gets it's pipelines and tax cuts, all while voters are patting themselves on the backs for increasing the diversity of parliament.
what they've done, instead, is install minorities as the face of the establishment, and create the perception that minority candidates do not represent the interests of voters, but instead are working for the political elite.
this is what actually happened in the united states during the obama administration (although it started happening during the clinton administration, and the bush administration actually used the same tactics). people started to notice that the government consistently sent minorities to do it's dirty work. so, it came to be that they started voting against minorities, in order to try and protect their own interests.
if the government continues to use minority groups as a way to gloss over it's right-wing agenda and push through unpopular measures, it's going to create the same backlash. we're already seeing this happen, internally, at the riding level. and, while it may be a necessary reaction to bone-headed government policy, it's not a can of worms you want to really open.
the government needs to change it's strategy before it creates a mess - and we need to be clear in assigning blame where it belongs, here, which is in the pmo.
more signs of internal revolt.
it's no secret that yolande james was pushed by the party because of her gender & ethnicity. i guess the riding members were less enthused by the prospect.
the liberals are making all of the same stupid mistakes that the democrats made, and are going to have to deal with all of the same consequences. you can't enforce diversity from the top down, and then go out and pretend it's more representative of the population, as though minority voters only care about identity. people won't tolerate that.
"i know that she works for the bankers on bay street, but look - she's black. you're not going to vote for that white person just because she better represents your views are you? what are you, a race traitor?"
they honestly think that's going to work - because they're actually secretly brutal racists, just like the democrats are.
it wasn't always this way, and there are good people in the liberal party. the liberals don't have the history that the democrats do, and quite the opposite. but, this leadership team is horrific and needs to go.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emmanuella-lambropoulos-saint-laurent-montreal-liberals-byelection-1.4016891
it's no secret that yolande james was pushed by the party because of her gender & ethnicity. i guess the riding members were less enthused by the prospect.
the liberals are making all of the same stupid mistakes that the democrats made, and are going to have to deal with all of the same consequences. you can't enforce diversity from the top down, and then go out and pretend it's more representative of the population, as though minority voters only care about identity. people won't tolerate that.
"i know that she works for the bankers on bay street, but look - she's black. you're not going to vote for that white person just because she better represents your views are you? what are you, a race traitor?"
they honestly think that's going to work - because they're actually secretly brutal racists, just like the democrats are.
it wasn't always this way, and there are good people in the liberal party. the liberals don't have the history that the democrats do, and quite the opposite. but, this leadership team is horrific and needs to go.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emmanuella-lambropoulos-saint-laurent-montreal-liberals-byelection-1.4016891
it's really far too easy to take lennon out of context, and completely misunderstand him.
yes - he sang "give peace a chance". but, he was also a substantial financial contributor to the black panthers, and had the american intelligence groups all over him because of it. the right-wing rhetoric about terrorism aside, the black panthers were not pacifists. what you're missing is context - he was specifically talking about pointless colonial wars, and the rhetoric should not be extrapolated from a specific to a universal.
he was interested in the traditions of other cultures - he was after all a white englishman performing black rock music in germany in the late 50s - but it was always with a concept of post-culturalism rather than one of multi-culturalism. he wanted a single world culture that was built on the syncretism of all of the others, and discarded religion as primitive backwardsness. he'd like the idea of jews and christians holding hands, but his messaging was around them renouncing their tribal creeds and joining together in a new culture that belonged to both of them, but was neither of one or of the other. remember: the broad struggle of the time was around abolishing segregation. as a product of his era, he would have seen the idea of multi-culturalism as regressive, and instead argued for deeper integration into a new global culture - but not one based on the neo-liberalism being exported by america, but rather one based on the abolition of scarcity. his preferred new world order was deeply marxist, fully egalitarian - and totally secular.
he sang that woman is the nigger of the world and invited you to confirm as much by observing your own, and he was absolutely fucking right in his analysis, but he did so with the intent of making you angry about it, not with the intent of making you smug about it.
and, this can go on for a while, but there's a kind of easy out.
do you know who actually sounds a whole lot like john lennon and has similar views? the answer is myself......because he's a dramatic and profound influence.
yes - he sang "give peace a chance". but, he was also a substantial financial contributor to the black panthers, and had the american intelligence groups all over him because of it. the right-wing rhetoric about terrorism aside, the black panthers were not pacifists. what you're missing is context - he was specifically talking about pointless colonial wars, and the rhetoric should not be extrapolated from a specific to a universal.
he was interested in the traditions of other cultures - he was after all a white englishman performing black rock music in germany in the late 50s - but it was always with a concept of post-culturalism rather than one of multi-culturalism. he wanted a single world culture that was built on the syncretism of all of the others, and discarded religion as primitive backwardsness. he'd like the idea of jews and christians holding hands, but his messaging was around them renouncing their tribal creeds and joining together in a new culture that belonged to both of them, but was neither of one or of the other. remember: the broad struggle of the time was around abolishing segregation. as a product of his era, he would have seen the idea of multi-culturalism as regressive, and instead argued for deeper integration into a new global culture - but not one based on the neo-liberalism being exported by america, but rather one based on the abolition of scarcity. his preferred new world order was deeply marxist, fully egalitarian - and totally secular.
he sang that woman is the nigger of the world and invited you to confirm as much by observing your own, and he was absolutely fucking right in his analysis, but he did so with the intent of making you angry about it, not with the intent of making you smug about it.
and, this can go on for a while, but there's a kind of easy out.
do you know who actually sounds a whole lot like john lennon and has similar views? the answer is myself......because he's a dramatic and profound influence.
this song is explicitly marxist. it points to religion as the tool that capital uses to promote violence, nationalism and bigotry with and asks you to imagine a world in which religion - and by extension capitalism - does not exist.
it is set to the motif of a christian hymn in order to mock religion, and present an alternative to it. the idea is for you to sing this song instead of singing your hymns.
those who wish to co-opt the track to promote a vision of neo-liberalism, multiculturalism or globalism are either misunderstanding the track by accident or on purpose, and ultimately twisting the song to promote a vision that the artist would have vehemently rejected.
the song is blatantly anti-religious and blatantly marxist, and was written by an artist that was blatantly iconoclastic and blatantly anti-capitalist. deal with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8
it is set to the motif of a christian hymn in order to mock religion, and present an alternative to it. the idea is for you to sing this song instead of singing your hymns.
those who wish to co-opt the track to promote a vision of neo-liberalism, multiculturalism or globalism are either misunderstanding the track by accident or on purpose, and ultimately twisting the song to promote a vision that the artist would have vehemently rejected.
the song is blatantly anti-religious and blatantly marxist, and was written by an artist that was blatantly iconoclastic and blatantly anti-capitalist. deal with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8
when you start a conversation by referring to standards, you're already conceding the debate to the right. the reason is that liberals don't believe in holding things up to a moral standard, or occupying a moral high ground, in the first place - they believe in analyzing situations on a case-by-case basis and ultimately conceding to evidence. it's the difference between being an ideologue and following the scientific method.
so, when somebody tells me that i have a "double standard" on something, i immediately agree with them - because i'm not an ideologue in the first place. i have triple and quadruple and quintuple standards. i don't look at a situation and try and force it to adhere to my moral worldview, i react to the evidence in front of me in the most pragmatic way possible.
this was actually the conclusion i came to from studying case law for a few years: we shouldn't have law because we shouldn't be trying to interpret the world through written rules, but rather reacting to it based on what's in front of us in terms of broad principles and subjective perceptions. that creates as many standards as there are situations. sure: sometimes killing somebody may actually be the right choice, and we should be flexible in analyzing that. there should not be a rule that forbids all killing, no matter what - that is absurd, when truly contemplated. that doesn't mean rejecting the need to uphold evidence, mind you - it means prioritizing evidence ahead of morals, which are ultimately subjective in the first place.
so, when you talk about violence, i don't perceive it in terms of a moral question, i interpret it in terms of pure pragmatism: will violence help us achieve our goals? and, that also means recognizing that sometimes violence is necessary to help us achieve our goals.
i grasp that our society is so overwhelmingly right-wing that you perhaps can't even get your head around a truly liberal worldview. but, let's approach the question as it ought to be. i'm not interested in having a debate about whether i have a double standard on things or interested in denying or defending against the accusation in any way; rather, i will willingly concede the point, and instead accuse you of being an ideologue and moral absolutist for raising it.
so, when somebody tells me that i have a "double standard" on something, i immediately agree with them - because i'm not an ideologue in the first place. i have triple and quadruple and quintuple standards. i don't look at a situation and try and force it to adhere to my moral worldview, i react to the evidence in front of me in the most pragmatic way possible.
this was actually the conclusion i came to from studying case law for a few years: we shouldn't have law because we shouldn't be trying to interpret the world through written rules, but rather reacting to it based on what's in front of us in terms of broad principles and subjective perceptions. that creates as many standards as there are situations. sure: sometimes killing somebody may actually be the right choice, and we should be flexible in analyzing that. there should not be a rule that forbids all killing, no matter what - that is absurd, when truly contemplated. that doesn't mean rejecting the need to uphold evidence, mind you - it means prioritizing evidence ahead of morals, which are ultimately subjective in the first place.
so, when you talk about violence, i don't perceive it in terms of a moral question, i interpret it in terms of pure pragmatism: will violence help us achieve our goals? and, that also means recognizing that sometimes violence is necessary to help us achieve our goals.
i grasp that our society is so overwhelmingly right-wing that you perhaps can't even get your head around a truly liberal worldview. but, let's approach the question as it ought to be. i'm not interested in having a debate about whether i have a double standard on things or interested in denying or defending against the accusation in any way; rather, i will willingly concede the point, and instead accuse you of being an ideologue and moral absolutist for raising it.
Monday, March 13, 2017
dude, listen.
i present myself as transgendered, and have for as long as you've known i exist. not only should you not be upset that i'm not as hardcore as you thought, you should have never thought i was as hardcore as you did in the the first place.
i own and have listened to cocteau twins records for years. but, i've never heard a metallica record from start to finish. and, i've done nothing but throw that in your face on every possible occasion. for years.
years.
this is not my fault.
you're just fucking delusional.
....and, i'd like to pretend that this piece of evidence will finally be what you need, but i know better. i know we'll back here in six months, and you'll be every bit as confused and upset when you ask me a question about black metal and all you get in return is an empty, blank stare - and a truly honest one, at that.
i'm sorry, but you didn't listen. and it's your fault, not mine.
i present myself as transgendered, and have for as long as you've known i exist. not only should you not be upset that i'm not as hardcore as you thought, you should have never thought i was as hardcore as you did in the the first place.
i own and have listened to cocteau twins records for years. but, i've never heard a metallica record from start to finish. and, i've done nothing but throw that in your face on every possible occasion. for years.
years.
this is not my fault.
you're just fucking delusional.
....and, i'd like to pretend that this piece of evidence will finally be what you need, but i know better. i know we'll back here in six months, and you'll be every bit as confused and upset when you ask me a question about black metal and all you get in return is an empty, blank stare - and a truly honest one, at that.
i'm sorry, but you didn't listen. and it's your fault, not mine.
geez. that must suck.
i wouldn't know, though. i get a steady pay check every month, have nothing but free time and live alone in a two bedroom, all-inclusive apartment.
oh - and i get dental, too.
but, don't hate me. don't be jealous. rather, realize that my benefits should be universal. and organize...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/millennial-jobs-education-1.4009295
i wouldn't know, though. i get a steady pay check every month, have nothing but free time and live alone in a two bedroom, all-inclusive apartment.
oh - and i get dental, too.
but, don't hate me. don't be jealous. rather, realize that my benefits should be universal. and organize...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/millennial-jobs-education-1.4009295
Sunday, March 12, 2017
actually, i'd hazard a guess that a big part of the reason that i always thought that the arcade fire were terrible is that they actually weren't from montreal - they were from texas.
i don't like explosions in the sky, either.
it's a notable gap. i had friends into them. but, i'm sorry: i thought they were awful from the start.
i went over this once before. i'm not infallible: i missed things. i will miss things, again. but, my net is pretty wide, and i'm not going to miss something like that.
if it's not in the list, and it has any profile at all, the chances are very high that i consciously skipped it. sorry.
i don't like explosions in the sky, either.
it's a notable gap. i had friends into them. but, i'm sorry: i thought they were awful from the start.
i went over this once before. i'm not infallible: i missed things. i will miss things, again. but, my net is pretty wide, and i'm not going to miss something like that.
if it's not in the list, and it has any profile at all, the chances are very high that i consciously skipped it. sorry.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE! CONTENT BANNED FROM ALEX JONES VIDEO COMMENT SECTION! SPECIAL EXPOSE ONLY AVAILABLE RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW:
well, i was born in 1981, myself - and the historical literature is clear that we've existed for as long as writing has. but, listen: i know that the truth is that most of the people that post here are paid to do it. and, i know that the money comes from shady sources. alex jones doesn't pick people like bill gates and george soros to criticize at random: these are the competitors of his own benefactors. he's getting paid a lot of money by very rich people to tear them down, and the reality is that you're too stupid to see through it.
well, i was born in 1981, myself - and the historical literature is clear that we've existed for as long as writing has. but, listen: i know that the truth is that most of the people that post here are paid to do it. and, i know that the money comes from shady sources. alex jones doesn't pick people like bill gates and george soros to criticize at random: these are the competitors of his own benefactors. he's getting paid a lot of money by very rich people to tear them down, and the reality is that you're too stupid to see through it.
Critics thought of Christianity as merely another version of Greek sorcery. In fact, the phrase Hoc est corpus meum (This is my body) was later adapted to "hocus pocus."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-57/defending-cannibals.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-57/defending-cannibals.html
Friday, March 10, 2017
i'm not exaggerating. $5/day. that's what i spend on food...
my food budget is $200/month, but it includes stuff like soap and i inevitably waste some money on junk food, here and there.
i spend roughly $150/month on my actual diet. $150/30d = $5/day.
this buys me one of the following two meal plans:
1) one banana, one kiwi, 5 strawberries, 2 scoops of cherry ice cream, a very large glass of soy milk, a glass of orange juice, a tomato, a half a green pepper, a bowl of fettuccine, a quarter brick of cheese, eight slices of genoa salami & a large serving of salad dressing.
or
2) one banana, one kiwi, 5 strawberries, 2 scoops of cherry ice cream, a very large glass of soy milk, a glass of orange juice, a toasted and buttered bagel, four eggs (fried), eight slices of genoa salami & eight slices of cheese.
both of those meals cost around $5.00. i guess if you're old, it might make more sense to remove the cheese altogether, and use that savings to upgrade the salami to chicken.
so, how are these old folks getting stuck with frozen beans and packaged casserole at $8.00? the answer is corporate subsidies. the money goes from the government to the food manufacturers, and through the old folks home as a conduit.
the best thing to do would be to give the money to the seniors directly and have them make their own meals. but, of course, that's not always feasible.
i don't know exactly how you deal with this, but i know that it's possible to eat very well on a lot less than they're complaining about, and the problem is clearly in the corporate welfare in the contracts.
my food budget is $200/month, but it includes stuff like soap and i inevitably waste some money on junk food, here and there.
i spend roughly $150/month on my actual diet. $150/30d = $5/day.
this buys me one of the following two meal plans:
1) one banana, one kiwi, 5 strawberries, 2 scoops of cherry ice cream, a very large glass of soy milk, a glass of orange juice, a tomato, a half a green pepper, a bowl of fettuccine, a quarter brick of cheese, eight slices of genoa salami & a large serving of salad dressing.
or
2) one banana, one kiwi, 5 strawberries, 2 scoops of cherry ice cream, a very large glass of soy milk, a glass of orange juice, a toasted and buttered bagel, four eggs (fried), eight slices of genoa salami & eight slices of cheese.
both of those meals cost around $5.00. i guess if you're old, it might make more sense to remove the cheese altogether, and use that savings to upgrade the salami to chicken.
so, how are these old folks getting stuck with frozen beans and packaged casserole at $8.00? the answer is corporate subsidies. the money goes from the government to the food manufacturers, and through the old folks home as a conduit.
the best thing to do would be to give the money to the seniors directly and have them make their own meals. but, of course, that's not always feasible.
i don't know exactly how you deal with this, but i know that it's possible to eat very well on a lot less than they're complaining about, and the problem is clearly in the corporate welfare in the contracts.
my budget is more like $5.00/day and is composed primarily of fresh fruit, eggs and pasta.
and, my cholesterol is 66 mg/dl; i'm absurdly healthy.
honestly: if i were to increase my food budget to $9.00/day, i'd just be gaining weight and probably eating a lot of junk food. and, the meal in the picture is probably worth less than $2.00.
they don't need to spend more, they need to spend more intelligently. i know: my budget is tiny, but i eat spectacularly.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/10/ontario-nursing-homes-feed-seniors-on-833-a-day.html
and, my cholesterol is 66 mg/dl; i'm absurdly healthy.
honestly: if i were to increase my food budget to $9.00/day, i'd just be gaining weight and probably eating a lot of junk food. and, the meal in the picture is probably worth less than $2.00.
they don't need to spend more, they need to spend more intelligently. i know: my budget is tiny, but i eat spectacularly.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/10/ontario-nursing-homes-feed-seniors-on-833-a-day.html
people still think i'm just being silly when i say i don't want kids.
but, i told you that when i was 15, and i told you that when i was 20, and i told you that when i was 25 and i told you that when i was 30, and i told you that when i was 35, too...
still. supposedly, i'll "grow up" one day and recognize the value of enslaving myself to something i don't remotely care about for the rest of my fucking life. it will just suddenly make sense, this complete loss of autonomy, this embrace of a remaining existence of endless, thankless labour.
do you know what would have happened had i managed to fuck up badly enough to actually have kids? honestly? truly? i'd almost certainly be in jail right now, either for trying to duck out of paying child support or for flat out child abandonment. again: did you think i was just being ironic when i told you over and over and over again, or what? and, is it starting to sink in yet?
i mean, it's not like i told you when i was younger that i wanted kids one day. this is a decision that i made when i was like 12, and have never had a second thought about. there was never any time where i wavered on this.
so, no - i'm not going to bother freezing sperm before i get the orchiectomy, because i'm absolutely certain that i'm never going to want to raise them.
just about the only thing that's likely to ever change my mind about this is the abolition of mortality. if we could find a way to get real immortality - and i don't mean the retarded kind of thing that you hear idiot christians talk about, i mean actual, legit immortality - then wasting a couple of years raising kids wouldn't be throwing your life away to benefit your capitalist slavemasters.
until that point happens, i'm sorry - having kids is just about the dumbest, most irrational thing you could possibly subject yourself to.
but, i told you that when i was 15, and i told you that when i was 20, and i told you that when i was 25 and i told you that when i was 30, and i told you that when i was 35, too...
still. supposedly, i'll "grow up" one day and recognize the value of enslaving myself to something i don't remotely care about for the rest of my fucking life. it will just suddenly make sense, this complete loss of autonomy, this embrace of a remaining existence of endless, thankless labour.
do you know what would have happened had i managed to fuck up badly enough to actually have kids? honestly? truly? i'd almost certainly be in jail right now, either for trying to duck out of paying child support or for flat out child abandonment. again: did you think i was just being ironic when i told you over and over and over again, or what? and, is it starting to sink in yet?
i mean, it's not like i told you when i was younger that i wanted kids one day. this is a decision that i made when i was like 12, and have never had a second thought about. there was never any time where i wavered on this.
so, no - i'm not going to bother freezing sperm before i get the orchiectomy, because i'm absolutely certain that i'm never going to want to raise them.
just about the only thing that's likely to ever change my mind about this is the abolition of mortality. if we could find a way to get real immortality - and i don't mean the retarded kind of thing that you hear idiot christians talk about, i mean actual, legit immortality - then wasting a couple of years raising kids wouldn't be throwing your life away to benefit your capitalist slavemasters.
until that point happens, i'm sorry - having kids is just about the dumbest, most irrational thing you could possibly subject yourself to.
this bill is actually largely symbolic, as very few canadians have or want private health insurance. and, i've scolded the ndp for standing up for a bill that only affects upper class canadians - not because i'm opposed to it, but because it's a wrong-headed priority and a waste of valuable house time. i know that it's easy to look in from outside the country and want to support a bill that reins in insurance companies, and it's easy to build the narrative that trudeau is acting in the interests of the insurance companies (and you'd even be right....), but you're missing the point that the only people that have private insurance plans in this country are high level executives of multinational corporations. again: my irritation was that the ndp were wasting their time on this. i didn't really offer a position, because it's not a relevant issue for 99% of us.
some of the provinces in canada even ban private health insurance as illegal.
what i'm more interested in is the caucus revolt. i've been talking about this as something that is necessary for a while: as much as the rest of the world is in love with justin trudeau, he has demonstrated himself as being on the right-wing neo-liberal fringe of a party with a history of leaning strongly towards democratic socialism, operating in the interests of questionable benefactors and with a clear tactical prerogative of trying to appeal to conservative voters.
will it expand further, or will it contain itself?
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-backbenchers-vote-against-trudeau-pass-law-banning-genetic-discrimination
some of the provinces in canada even ban private health insurance as illegal.
what i'm more interested in is the caucus revolt. i've been talking about this as something that is necessary for a while: as much as the rest of the world is in love with justin trudeau, he has demonstrated himself as being on the right-wing neo-liberal fringe of a party with a history of leaning strongly towards democratic socialism, operating in the interests of questionable benefactors and with a clear tactical prerogative of trying to appeal to conservative voters.
will it expand further, or will it contain itself?
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-backbenchers-vote-against-trudeau-pass-law-banning-genetic-discrimination
"No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil and just leave it in the ground,"
that may have been true fifty years ago, but what this comment exposes is a type of backwards thinking that is very much in line with the views of stephen harper. as much as trudeau would like to pretend that he's looking forward, he's much very stuck in twentieth century style thinking.
there was a time when coal was widely used, but today we are actively phasing coal out permanently, despite there existing ample reserves for a long time. likewise, uranium has no future, despite the existence of centuries of reserves in the ground. oil - like uranium and coal - is a dirty product, and must be eliminated altogether.
canada has billions of dollars of remaining reserves of asbestos, which are now being left in the ground.
technology changes. the choice we have is to move with technology, or be overcome by it. one does not survive in the 21st century by using 20th century logic. and, we will face certain collapse if we insist on building an economy around a product that the world is cutting demand for.
reality check: that oil is going to have to stay in the ground, and canadians are going to have to force the prime minister to understand it, or remove him if he won't.
the country needs political leadership that looks forwards towards economic diversification, not backwards towards the dirty oil of the twentieth century.
he's not harper-lite. he's harper on steroids.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-houston-harper-pierre-ceraweek-1.4018746
that may have been true fifty years ago, but what this comment exposes is a type of backwards thinking that is very much in line with the views of stephen harper. as much as trudeau would like to pretend that he's looking forward, he's much very stuck in twentieth century style thinking.
there was a time when coal was widely used, but today we are actively phasing coal out permanently, despite there existing ample reserves for a long time. likewise, uranium has no future, despite the existence of centuries of reserves in the ground. oil - like uranium and coal - is a dirty product, and must be eliminated altogether.
canada has billions of dollars of remaining reserves of asbestos, which are now being left in the ground.
technology changes. the choice we have is to move with technology, or be overcome by it. one does not survive in the 21st century by using 20th century logic. and, we will face certain collapse if we insist on building an economy around a product that the world is cutting demand for.
reality check: that oil is going to have to stay in the ground, and canadians are going to have to force the prime minister to understand it, or remove him if he won't.
the country needs political leadership that looks forwards towards economic diversification, not backwards towards the dirty oil of the twentieth century.
he's not harper-lite. he's harper on steroids.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-houston-harper-pierre-ceraweek-1.4018746
Thursday, March 9, 2017
“Demand will be generated by companies, not
generated by individuals living in other countries,”
that is fundamental. that is key. and, that is supposed to be at the heart of the pearsonian system that the liberal party created.
now, if we could democratize the workplace, that would be even better. but, if we had a democratized workplace, it would nonetheless fall upon those co-operatives to request workers. so, let's not get tangled up: this is the way this ought to work, regardless.
it is the most obvious thing in the world to state that immigration levels and targets should be determined by canadians in a way that utilizes a concept of centralized planning, not left to some abstraction of a "market" to figure out.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-to-make-skilled-worker-permits-easier-to-get-in-wake-of-us-delays/article34246962/
that is fundamental. that is key. and, that is supposed to be at the heart of the pearsonian system that the liberal party created.
now, if we could democratize the workplace, that would be even better. but, if we had a democratized workplace, it would nonetheless fall upon those co-operatives to request workers. so, let's not get tangled up: this is the way this ought to work, regardless.
it is the most obvious thing in the world to state that immigration levels and targets should be determined by canadians in a way that utilizes a concept of centralized planning, not left to some abstraction of a "market" to figure out.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-to-make-skilled-worker-permits-easier-to-get-in-wake-of-us-delays/article34246962/
this is more along the lines of what one expects from the liberals on immigration. hopefully, they maintain this focus on bringing in skilled labour, and slow down on the refugees...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-to-make-skilled-worker-permits-easier-to-get-in-wake-of-us-delays/article34246962/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-to-make-skilled-worker-permits-easier-to-get-in-wake-of-us-delays/article34246962/
“It’s a terrible idea for so many reasons . . . we’re using legal
resources to try to shut down dispensaries when it’s going to be legal
soon,”
yeah. that seems crazy, doesn't it?
unless.....
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/09/prince-and-princess-of-pot-reportedly-arrested-at-toronto-airport.html
yeah. that seems crazy, doesn't it?
unless.....
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/09/prince-and-princess-of-pot-reportedly-arrested-at-toronto-airport.html
and, fwiw, i'd be lying if i told you i haven't had an erection in years, but i'd be honest if i told you i haven't wanted to have an erection in years - and i'd be honest if i told you that the only erections i've had in years are nrbs.
they come and go when i'm like washing the dishes or reading the news or something, and my only reaction almost all of the time is to curse it as an annoyance and go pop another cyproterone.
and, what is cyproterone? well, there's a few different testosterone suppressors that i could be using, but i use the cyproterone because it's covered on the disability drug plan. the reason it's covered is that it's sometimes prescribed as a way to chemically castrate sex offenders.
that's right - i take a drug that is covered by public drug insurance to reduce the sex drive of pedophiles and rapists. and, i do it by choice.
it works, too - i am almost impossible to arouse on purpose. they really only come randomly, and only in terms of an annoyance.
that said, i do still have sex dreams from time to time and this is the only circumstance where i may actually orgasm. but, here's the thing: i'm chemically castrated. so, i'm not producing sperm. so, when i orgasm, i don't ejaculate.
that's right: i cannot cum. it is not physically possible for me to do so, when i am taking heavy-duty testosterone suppressors. that's what the suppressors actually do: they make it almost impossible to arouse me, and literally impossible for me to ejaculate.
so, what was that that you were saying?
they come and go when i'm like washing the dishes or reading the news or something, and my only reaction almost all of the time is to curse it as an annoyance and go pop another cyproterone.
and, what is cyproterone? well, there's a few different testosterone suppressors that i could be using, but i use the cyproterone because it's covered on the disability drug plan. the reason it's covered is that it's sometimes prescribed as a way to chemically castrate sex offenders.
that's right - i take a drug that is covered by public drug insurance to reduce the sex drive of pedophiles and rapists. and, i do it by choice.
it works, too - i am almost impossible to arouse on purpose. they really only come randomly, and only in terms of an annoyance.
that said, i do still have sex dreams from time to time and this is the only circumstance where i may actually orgasm. but, here's the thing: i'm chemically castrated. so, i'm not producing sperm. so, when i orgasm, i don't ejaculate.
that's right: i cannot cum. it is not physically possible for me to do so, when i am taking heavy-duty testosterone suppressors. that's what the suppressors actually do: they make it almost impossible to arouse me, and literally impossible for me to ejaculate.
so, what was that that you were saying?
so, let's try to think this through carefully.
i've been arguing at various levels of intensity, in various fora, that the left should not be acting as apologists for patriarchy through the cover of "religious freedom" - that is, it should not be throwing gays and women under the bus in a rush to stand up for ethnic diversity, and should rather take an idealistic stand against patriarchy, in all it's forms.
so, therefore i'm pro-trump? opposing religious refugees on the grounds of feminism means i'm in favour of christian extremism? right. sure. if you think you can explain that to me somewhere, go for it...
you're lost in a contradiction. and, yes: i'm shit-disturbing. but, you're going to need to work this through...
you can't be pro-religion and pro-queer and pro-woman at the same time. and, i'll continue to call you out on it for as long as you need to figure it out.
what is the truth here?
the truth is that some of the pseudo-left are, at their core, traditionalists: some of them are really in favour of upholding patriarchy deep down, and will in the end side with religion over feminism. getting them to admit this is a first step forward in throwing them out of the left - and that is something that needs to happen.
others are just hopelessly naive and need to have the truth of it held up to them in the most brutal terms possible, and these are the ones i'm more interested in targeting through agit-prop: they need to be shocked into seeing things as they really are, and in dropping their hegemonically enforced burkean delusions.
once again: i am not a pc-worshipping millenial progressive democrat that wants peace and love, and i'm certainly not a white supremacist christian republican that wants to run the world out of the back of the bible. what i am is an atheistic anarcho-communist gen x punk that wants to agitate and irritate and shit-disturb people into fighting against religion, against patriarchy and against capital. and, it's up to you to determine whether we have common cause or not.
i've been arguing at various levels of intensity, in various fora, that the left should not be acting as apologists for patriarchy through the cover of "religious freedom" - that is, it should not be throwing gays and women under the bus in a rush to stand up for ethnic diversity, and should rather take an idealistic stand against patriarchy, in all it's forms.
so, therefore i'm pro-trump? opposing religious refugees on the grounds of feminism means i'm in favour of christian extremism? right. sure. if you think you can explain that to me somewhere, go for it...
you're lost in a contradiction. and, yes: i'm shit-disturbing. but, you're going to need to work this through...
you can't be pro-religion and pro-queer and pro-woman at the same time. and, i'll continue to call you out on it for as long as you need to figure it out.
what is the truth here?
the truth is that some of the pseudo-left are, at their core, traditionalists: some of them are really in favour of upholding patriarchy deep down, and will in the end side with religion over feminism. getting them to admit this is a first step forward in throwing them out of the left - and that is something that needs to happen.
others are just hopelessly naive and need to have the truth of it held up to them in the most brutal terms possible, and these are the ones i'm more interested in targeting through agit-prop: they need to be shocked into seeing things as they really are, and in dropping their hegemonically enforced burkean delusions.
once again: i am not a pc-worshipping millenial progressive democrat that wants peace and love, and i'm certainly not a white supremacist christian republican that wants to run the world out of the back of the bible. what i am is an atheistic anarcho-communist gen x punk that wants to agitate and irritate and shit-disturb people into fighting against religion, against patriarchy and against capital. and, it's up to you to determine whether we have common cause or not.
i haven't read the case, but the entire premise of a judge citing the
criminal code in a ruling is pretty weird, to begin with. that's
something they'd do in, like, france, or something. in the british
common law system, a judge is supposed to consult previous judicial
precedent. stare decisis.
about the only way a judge could have missed that a section has been struck down is if he never bothered to look up the precedent in the first place, and i don't even know what you do when a judge is refusing to consult precedent. it's probably without precedent. i mean, maybe there's an answer, i don't know. but, you'd think it's grounds for removal from the bench.
i mean, that is the job of a judge - to consult precedent and rule accordingly. if a judge is refusing to to do his job, he should be removed.
this is no doubt long overdue, as a clerical procedure. but, let us not believe that the problem here is that the code was not amended; the problem here is that the judge is not consulting precedent.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2945753/travis-vader-verdict-what-is-section-230-of-the-criminal-code/
about the only way a judge could have missed that a section has been struck down is if he never bothered to look up the precedent in the first place, and i don't even know what you do when a judge is refusing to consult precedent. it's probably without precedent. i mean, maybe there's an answer, i don't know. but, you'd think it's grounds for removal from the bench.
i mean, that is the job of a judge - to consult precedent and rule accordingly. if a judge is refusing to to do his job, he should be removed.
this is no doubt long overdue, as a clerical procedure. but, let us not believe that the problem here is that the code was not amended; the problem here is that the judge is not consulting precedent.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2945753/travis-vader-verdict-what-is-section-230-of-the-criminal-code/
no.
arabs can not say "nigger". ever. and, if you don't realize how uncontroversial my condemnation is, or how repulsive the premise is, you are simply ignorant of the history.
arabs ran a brutal african slave trade for roughly a thousand years. and, literal chattel slavery in the arabian peninsula was not abolished until the 1960s and 1970s - although everybody knows that it still continues.
if you ever see an arab utter the term, you should punch him in the fucking face.
arabs can not say "nigger". ever. and, if you don't realize how uncontroversial my condemnation is, or how repulsive the premise is, you are simply ignorant of the history.
arabs ran a brutal african slave trade for roughly a thousand years. and, literal chattel slavery in the arabian peninsula was not abolished until the 1960s and 1970s - although everybody knows that it still continues.
if you ever see an arab utter the term, you should punch him in the fucking face.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
i actually think that this is missing the point.
let's take a step back and understand that obamacare was exactly what the insurance company wanted, which is why they gave obama so much money. more people have health insurance than ever before. insurance premiums are going up. ka-ching!!
the mandate may be unpopular among some buyers, but the sellers couldn't ask for a better system. it's a law that forces you to buy their product...
so, trump's promise to drop the mandate is an immediate threat to the insurance industry because it threatens to take away customers - and in fact threatens to take away the most profitable ones, the healthy ones.
the penalty is merely designed to stop people from dropping the insurance, that is to prevent the insurance companies from losing customers. this is how government actually works: the parties collude with capital to fuck people over. so, the democrats are just passing the baton, here. obama signed them up, and now trump is locking them in.
http://www.vox.com/2017/3/7/14841682/republican-replacement-individual-mandate-cartoon
let's take a step back and understand that obamacare was exactly what the insurance company wanted, which is why they gave obama so much money. more people have health insurance than ever before. insurance premiums are going up. ka-ching!!
the mandate may be unpopular among some buyers, but the sellers couldn't ask for a better system. it's a law that forces you to buy their product...
so, trump's promise to drop the mandate is an immediate threat to the insurance industry because it threatens to take away customers - and in fact threatens to take away the most profitable ones, the healthy ones.
the penalty is merely designed to stop people from dropping the insurance, that is to prevent the insurance companies from losing customers. this is how government actually works: the parties collude with capital to fuck people over. so, the democrats are just passing the baton, here. obama signed them up, and now trump is locking them in.
http://www.vox.com/2017/3/7/14841682/republican-replacement-individual-mandate-cartoon
somebody has to do the actual procedure, though.
i'm going to call the office back in the morning, explain to the secretary that the doctor may have been operating on old information and set up a second appointment to give him an opportunity to correct himself. i'll bring in the relevant documents.
i'm not infallible, either.
i'm going to call the office back in the morning, explain to the secretary that the doctor may have been operating on old information and set up a second appointment to give him an opportunity to correct himself. i'll bring in the relevant documents.
i'm not infallible, either.
ok. ok.
i'm probably not wrong.
but, the current funding/approval regime is only a year old, and the urologist could simply be working with out of date information in terms of understanding how this works. i should have done the research and brought that information with me, and should take a little bit of responsibility for being unprepared.
i still think it's gotta be up to the doctor to know this.
but the end result is that i don't think i need the specialist. i think i can just print the papers off and go from there.
i'm probably not wrong.
but, the current funding/approval regime is only a year old, and the urologist could simply be working with out of date information in terms of understanding how this works. i should have done the research and brought that information with me, and should take a little bit of responsibility for being unprepared.
i still think it's gotta be up to the doctor to know this.
but the end result is that i don't think i need the specialist. i think i can just print the papers off and go from there.
yeah.
it would require some paperwork, but the doctor was a liar that was clearly just trying to avoid the topic. and, i don't have the time or interest to push back: i'm just going to ask to see another urologist. and then another. and another. until i find one that will do it...
orchidectomy is clearly listed in the approved procedures. gender dysphoria is signed off by three doctors on my disability papers (2015), but i could just as easily get my gp and the specialist to do it - that's not a substantial hurdle. i suppose the ministry could be stupid about it, but that's a different issue altogether.
so: the doctor was lying. he's probably actually just a no good fucking christian, and operating on a basic concept of religious patriarchy. and, you wonder why i'm constantly pushing back against the so-called left's permissiveness towards religious backwardsness?
it's clearly listed. he's clearly full of shit. i should go after him. i have better things to do...
this is still happening, it just might be a little slower. and, i'll be sure to print that page off for future reference.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/srs/
it would require some paperwork, but the doctor was a liar that was clearly just trying to avoid the topic. and, i don't have the time or interest to push back: i'm just going to ask to see another urologist. and then another. and another. until i find one that will do it...
orchidectomy is clearly listed in the approved procedures. gender dysphoria is signed off by three doctors on my disability papers (2015), but i could just as easily get my gp and the specialist to do it - that's not a substantial hurdle. i suppose the ministry could be stupid about it, but that's a different issue altogether.
so: the doctor was lying. he's probably actually just a no good fucking christian, and operating on a basic concept of religious patriarchy. and, you wonder why i'm constantly pushing back against the so-called left's permissiveness towards religious backwardsness?
it's clearly listed. he's clearly full of shit. i should go after him. i have better things to do...
this is still happening, it just might be a little slower. and, i'll be sure to print that page off for future reference.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/srs/
yeah. i went for a walk today and while i didn't see any smashed cars, i did see a lot of shingles and a lot of branches.
it's weird because there's no rain. at all. it's just the cold wind coming in...
http://blackburnnews.com/windsor/windsor-news/2017/03/08/gallery-high-winds-causing-damage/
i was considering several shows this month, but none of them are particularly compelling and the turn towards colder weather is probably going to land me inside. i'm getting warm days when the schedule clears, and cold days when i want to do something...
maybe i'll end up buying some wood and building those shelves. or maybe the next few months will be that much more eventful.
my head is basically fixed, and i'm leaning strongly towards the aspirin thinning the blood out. just to follow up on that: i haven't taken any all week, and i'm not feeling any symptoms returning. but, i've passed a substantial amount of dried blood through my nose, which is upholding my narrative about what was happening. this isn't like dry air; it's thick, and clumpy. it's been a few days since that happened, now, even...
i saw the urologist today, and he told me that my request is rational and he'd even like to help me but he'd lose his license if he did it. i'm not convinced that this is true, and think it's just a pc cover, so i'm going to have to follow up on his statements on my own and go from there. i have a checkup in april, and will have to ask for a rec to a different urologist. but, i'm actually considering challenging the college. i should have autonomy here, and the college should be pushing back at him for denying me access, not punishing him for facilitating it. i mean, what's the value in forcing me to keep the testicles if i don't want them? that's irrational...
i should be tired, but i'm not and i feel like i'm up for the night. i had a two hour nap this morning and a two hour nap this afternoon, but am otherwise running on about a 36 hour day with no real end in sight. i have actually been making progress on the concert page, i just keep adding components, and should have an update soon.
it's weird because there's no rain. at all. it's just the cold wind coming in...
http://blackburnnews.com/windsor/windsor-news/2017/03/08/gallery-high-winds-causing-damage/
i was considering several shows this month, but none of them are particularly compelling and the turn towards colder weather is probably going to land me inside. i'm getting warm days when the schedule clears, and cold days when i want to do something...
maybe i'll end up buying some wood and building those shelves. or maybe the next few months will be that much more eventful.
my head is basically fixed, and i'm leaning strongly towards the aspirin thinning the blood out. just to follow up on that: i haven't taken any all week, and i'm not feeling any symptoms returning. but, i've passed a substantial amount of dried blood through my nose, which is upholding my narrative about what was happening. this isn't like dry air; it's thick, and clumpy. it's been a few days since that happened, now, even...
i saw the urologist today, and he told me that my request is rational and he'd even like to help me but he'd lose his license if he did it. i'm not convinced that this is true, and think it's just a pc cover, so i'm going to have to follow up on his statements on my own and go from there. i have a checkup in april, and will have to ask for a rec to a different urologist. but, i'm actually considering challenging the college. i should have autonomy here, and the college should be pushing back at him for denying me access, not punishing him for facilitating it. i mean, what's the value in forcing me to keep the testicles if i don't want them? that's irrational...
i should be tired, but i'm not and i feel like i'm up for the night. i had a two hour nap this morning and a two hour nap this afternoon, but am otherwise running on about a 36 hour day with no real end in sight. i have actually been making progress on the concert page, i just keep adding components, and should have an update soon.
this comes up every once in a while here, and is a good example of the kind of demagoguery we routinely receive from the conservative party.
what's happening is that the province is opening new schools and then shutting down old ones that are half empty or falling apart. the conservatives then grasp on to the number of schools that are closing and say "look! they're closing schools!". they make it seem like the students are being trucked off to the gulag, or something, rather than being bussed into newer facilities with broader options.
consider something like a music class. the province can't afford to put a music class in every school, and can't staff it, either. but, if you have less schools then you can focus resources more effectively, allowing for greater access to more specialized topics.
but, that's not even what i wanted to say. what i wanted to say is this: when are we going to talk about abolishing the catholic schools? i'm willing to make today all about that. and tomorrow. and the next day...
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/03/07/pc-leader-patrick-brown-calls-for-halt-to-school-closures.html
what's happening is that the province is opening new schools and then shutting down old ones that are half empty or falling apart. the conservatives then grasp on to the number of schools that are closing and say "look! they're closing schools!". they make it seem like the students are being trucked off to the gulag, or something, rather than being bussed into newer facilities with broader options.
consider something like a music class. the province can't afford to put a music class in every school, and can't staff it, either. but, if you have less schools then you can focus resources more effectively, allowing for greater access to more specialized topics.
but, that's not even what i wanted to say. what i wanted to say is this: when are we going to talk about abolishing the catholic schools? i'm willing to make today all about that. and tomorrow. and the next day...
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/03/07/pc-leader-patrick-brown-calls-for-halt-to-school-closures.html
this is the debate you should be having, but won't have.
you could always scour it for points and tactically insert them in order to try and steer the debate towards the fundamental problem, which is that markets cannot deliver healthcare efficiently due to the nature of the product, itself. the rest of the world is aware of this....
i'm not going to get involved in a debate between trumpcare and obamacare. they both suck. and, i'm not going to lend rhetorical support to groups standing up for obamacare, either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210041/
at the end of the day, i don't expect that trump's healthcare plan will be much more than a glossy tweak over the existing one, because the existing one is basically what the republicans always wanted in the first place. the media narrative is going to seek to divide people along partisan lines, and exaggerate minor differences in order to do so. lots of people will fall for it. and, mainstream democrats will, in the end, push down the line that the party supports obamacare....
just get out. the party is actively attempting to manipulate you into supporting a policy you know is shit. you shouldn't fall for this. and you shouldn't settle for it...
if the democrats surprise me, so be it. but, if they keep pushing obamacare, then this ought to be where they meet their end.
you could always scour it for points and tactically insert them in order to try and steer the debate towards the fundamental problem, which is that markets cannot deliver healthcare efficiently due to the nature of the product, itself. the rest of the world is aware of this....
i'm not going to get involved in a debate between trumpcare and obamacare. they both suck. and, i'm not going to lend rhetorical support to groups standing up for obamacare, either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210041/
at the end of the day, i don't expect that trump's healthcare plan will be much more than a glossy tweak over the existing one, because the existing one is basically what the republicans always wanted in the first place. the media narrative is going to seek to divide people along partisan lines, and exaggerate minor differences in order to do so. lots of people will fall for it. and, mainstream democrats will, in the end, push down the line that the party supports obamacare....
just get out. the party is actively attempting to manipulate you into supporting a policy you know is shit. you shouldn't fall for this. and you shouldn't settle for it...
if the democrats surprise me, so be it. but, if they keep pushing obamacare, then this ought to be where they meet their end.
the day without women thing is a little bit different than the day without immigrants thing because at least the issue can be openly discussed without fear of deportation.
regardless, one has to realize that a day of action is not a strike. strikes are not effective because they appeal to a sense of morality or uphold a concept of righteousness, they're valuable because they deny productivity to capital, or, better, because they shut down production altogether.
if this day of action were a prelude to a general strike, i'd heartily endorse it and actively organize for it. but, that is not going to be what happens.
this is consequently at best a waste of time.
but the reality is that there are going to be ununionized women that are going to get fired, and they will have few legal options at their disposal, if they can afford them. you have to weigh a complex of things together, including long term pr issues and even the views of the employers. but, if anything, employers are going to have less incentives to not fire women that walk out because they don't have to worry about getting busted hiring illegals.
people that want to talk about free speech don't understand what free speech is.
co-ordinated strike action is necessary. but, that isn't what this is, and it's absurd to think it is.
my suspicion is that this is another government sponsored sting operation, and that it's being organized as an opportunity for capital to fire women that walk out. if you walk out and get fired, you've fallen into a trap that was set for you.
but, hey, weigh your own risks and come to your own conclusions.
regardless, one has to realize that a day of action is not a strike. strikes are not effective because they appeal to a sense of morality or uphold a concept of righteousness, they're valuable because they deny productivity to capital, or, better, because they shut down production altogether.
if this day of action were a prelude to a general strike, i'd heartily endorse it and actively organize for it. but, that is not going to be what happens.
this is consequently at best a waste of time.
but the reality is that there are going to be ununionized women that are going to get fired, and they will have few legal options at their disposal, if they can afford them. you have to weigh a complex of things together, including long term pr issues and even the views of the employers. but, if anything, employers are going to have less incentives to not fire women that walk out because they don't have to worry about getting busted hiring illegals.
people that want to talk about free speech don't understand what free speech is.
co-ordinated strike action is necessary. but, that isn't what this is, and it's absurd to think it is.
my suspicion is that this is another government sponsored sting operation, and that it's being organized as an opportunity for capital to fire women that walk out. if you walk out and get fired, you've fallen into a trap that was set for you.
but, hey, weigh your own risks and come to your own conclusions.
feminism is about abolishing the hetero-patriarchy and replacing it with a system that does not implement a systemic bias. but, you wouldn't expect a yoga teacher to promote abolishing patriarchy...you would expect a yoga teacher to uphold outdated concepts of the traditional family. this co-option of liberalism by forces that want a return to traditionalism (i.e. conservatives) has been sneaking up on us for years, you've just been in denial about it because you want liberals to be the anti-thesis of conservatives. yet, liberals have been looking you in the eye for years and telling you that they want bipartisan consensus with conservatives.
that said, it's often useful to take a step back and question motives. this post was probably meant as a divide and conquer tactic - it's probably meant to pit leftists against liberals, and then let the liberals come out as the champions of family values, in order to create a greater appeal to the right. this is consistent with everything else that the liberals are doing right now to try and take over the right by pushing the conservatives out of the spectrum by adopting conservative positions.
i would actually like to see this debate happen, but only on realistic terms - and the reality is that the liberals are trying to dump feminism on to the ndp in order to claim the mantle of family values from the conservatives, in line with their demographic strategy to shift the country to the right by bringing in more religious people. and, we need to collectively clue into this and reject it in the strongest possible terms.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/07/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-men-international-womens-day_n_15213718.html
that said, it's often useful to take a step back and question motives. this post was probably meant as a divide and conquer tactic - it's probably meant to pit leftists against liberals, and then let the liberals come out as the champions of family values, in order to create a greater appeal to the right. this is consistent with everything else that the liberals are doing right now to try and take over the right by pushing the conservatives out of the spectrum by adopting conservative positions.
i would actually like to see this debate happen, but only on realistic terms - and the reality is that the liberals are trying to dump feminism on to the ndp in order to claim the mantle of family values from the conservatives, in line with their demographic strategy to shift the country to the right by bringing in more religious people. and, we need to collectively clue into this and reject it in the strongest possible terms.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/07/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-men-international-womens-day_n_15213718.html
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
the narrative is losing the reality that the presidency has been stating
false claims for years, without releasing evidence.
consider the dossier tying al qaeda to 9/11: it was never released. there remains no real evidence that bin laden orchestrated 9/11. we just believe what they say. and about those weapons of mass destruction....
the error here is thinking that this is unprecedented; it isn't. it's absolutely normal, standard operating procedure for the white house to release false statements without evidence, and expect the press to run with them.
what you need is a little levity, here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Pt5oGVR50
consider the dossier tying al qaeda to 9/11: it was never released. there remains no real evidence that bin laden orchestrated 9/11. we just believe what they say. and about those weapons of mass destruction....
the error here is thinking that this is unprecedented; it isn't. it's absolutely normal, standard operating procedure for the white house to release false statements without evidence, and expect the press to run with them.
what you need is a little levity, here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Pt5oGVR50
Monday, March 6, 2017
and, should the americans in turn decide our immigration and border policies?
what a buffoon.
i get that he's trying to score cheap political points, but this is not described in any other terms: this is sheer idiocy.
http://globalnews.ca/video/3290983/mulcair-calls-on-trudeau-to-stand-up-for-canadians-being-turned-away-from-u-s/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=MostPopularVideo&utm_campaign=2017
what a buffoon.
i get that he's trying to score cheap political points, but this is not described in any other terms: this is sheer idiocy.
http://globalnews.ca/video/3290983/mulcair-calls-on-trudeau-to-stand-up-for-canadians-being-turned-away-from-u-s/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=MostPopularVideo&utm_campaign=2017
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Saturday, March 4, 2017
these people aren't communists, they're brainwashed automatons of the bourgeois status quo, and have been triggered by the language installed within them, as gramsci described.
if marx were alive, he'd be explaining how the bourgeois parliament - with the help of the conservative press - has brilliantly constructed a plan to divide workers by discussing the empty irrelevance of a motion on "islamophobia", without even defining what it even means, and that these idiots are falling all over themselves over it to fight each other in a pointless intra-class struggle. he'd further explain that workers needs to put aside these petty differences and unite against their common enemy, which is the bourgeoisie, in seizing the means of production.
while a less dramatic observer may be correct to point out that marx would essentially be constructing a conspiracy theory, and that the parliament is truly not so brilliant, marx would nonetheless be correct in his basic observation: this is divide and conquer, and these people are idiots, all around.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/far-right-groups-opponents-clash-at-montreal-protest-against-federal-islamophobia-motion-1.4010179
if marx were alive, he'd be explaining how the bourgeois parliament - with the help of the conservative press - has brilliantly constructed a plan to divide workers by discussing the empty irrelevance of a motion on "islamophobia", without even defining what it even means, and that these idiots are falling all over themselves over it to fight each other in a pointless intra-class struggle. he'd further explain that workers needs to put aside these petty differences and unite against their common enemy, which is the bourgeoisie, in seizing the means of production.
while a less dramatic observer may be correct to point out that marx would essentially be constructing a conspiracy theory, and that the parliament is truly not so brilliant, marx would nonetheless be correct in his basic observation: this is divide and conquer, and these people are idiots, all around.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/far-right-groups-opponents-clash-at-montreal-protest-against-federal-islamophobia-motion-1.4010179
i tried to do this during the last election, but i'd actually like to see the ndp pick up on this point - and if they won't, i guess the conservatives doing so would at least introduce it into the discourse.
forget about scarves. you'll never get anywhere in canada by demanding that the state introduce a fashion police - all you're ever going to get is a combination of ridicule and scorn. and, i'll be the first person to point out that the premise of a state-sanctioned fashion police is truly idiotic.
but, there are legitimate integration concerns that need to be addressed and that the liberals are going to be unwilling to address, through a combination of pressure from below, a fear of being seen as anti-immigrant and just flat out denial.
so, instead of focusing on what muslims wear, why don't you focus on actual concerns in the community that need to be addressed, such as:
1) female circumcision. i've seen reports. this is a thing that is actually happening in canada, and needs to be stopped.
2) honour killings. this is something that also happens and needs special attention to prevent.
3) arranged marriages. this is not something that we should turn a blind eye to, either. the autonomy of the individual forbids this as tyrannical. liberals should be particularly aghast at the premise of one's parents determining who they marry.
4) domestic abuse. this is a broader, wider problem that extends beyond the immigrant community.
5) acceptance of non-standard sexualities. this is again a broader problem, but it is primarily an issue in communities that lack education, and turn to religion to fill a void.
it's the old cliche: not all conservatives are uneducated, but most uneducated people are conservatives. and, while it may be fitting for the conservatives to go after their own, i'd really hope that it's actually the left that stands up and puts together the necessary task forces and integration programs.
forget about scarves. you'll never get anywhere in canada by demanding that the state introduce a fashion police - all you're ever going to get is a combination of ridicule and scorn. and, i'll be the first person to point out that the premise of a state-sanctioned fashion police is truly idiotic.
but, there are legitimate integration concerns that need to be addressed and that the liberals are going to be unwilling to address, through a combination of pressure from below, a fear of being seen as anti-immigrant and just flat out denial.
so, instead of focusing on what muslims wear, why don't you focus on actual concerns in the community that need to be addressed, such as:
1) female circumcision. i've seen reports. this is a thing that is actually happening in canada, and needs to be stopped.
2) honour killings. this is something that also happens and needs special attention to prevent.
3) arranged marriages. this is not something that we should turn a blind eye to, either. the autonomy of the individual forbids this as tyrannical. liberals should be particularly aghast at the premise of one's parents determining who they marry.
4) domestic abuse. this is a broader, wider problem that extends beyond the immigrant community.
5) acceptance of non-standard sexualities. this is again a broader problem, but it is primarily an issue in communities that lack education, and turn to religion to fill a void.
it's the old cliche: not all conservatives are uneducated, but most uneducated people are conservatives. and, while it may be fitting for the conservatives to go after their own, i'd really hope that it's actually the left that stands up and puts together the necessary task forces and integration programs.
this is presented as though i'm confused when i buy soy milk instead of cow's milk, rather than making a conscious decision to avoid cow's milk for various health reasons.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/03/03/fake-milk-dairy-industry-calling-for-a-crackdown-on-almond-soy-and-rice-milks.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/03/03/fake-milk-dairy-industry-calling-for-a-crackdown-on-almond-soy-and-rice-milks.html
i did a bunch of research into this a few years ago, as i was writing an essay on the indian act for a course in indigenous law.
there are two groups indigenous to the island of newfoundland: the inuit and the beothuk. the beothuk were indeed eliminated from the island by a process of genocide that is largely unrecognized, so any claims that the island was free of indigenous groups is based on the premise that this genocide was "successful". and, you will not find any trace of the beothuk, no matter how hard you look. inuit groups remain, but they are transient over the pack ice. the mik'maq are indigenous to the atlantic mainland; any mik'maq claiming status in newfoundland have migrated there since contact, and making such a claim for indigenous status in an area migrated to post-contact essentially doesn't make sense under the judicial precedent, which requires groups to demonstrate a connection to the land that precedes contact, whenever it was (and this area, being the closest to western europe, had the earliest contact....).
but, all you need to do is look at the pictures to come to the obvious truth: these people are europeans, and that is blatantly obvious.
in fact, much testing has been done on this point. the harsh, difficult truth is that most of the indigenous groups in the eastern coast have r1* in the y-dna in proportions approaching or exceeding 50%, and there are even a few groups that are over 80% r1* in the y-dna. what this indicates is that not just many but most of these indigenous groups are actually of primarily european patrilineal ancestry, and that their indigenous component is strictly matrilineal. and, this is in fact a very common consequence of colonialism: the colonizing group takes the women from the colonized group, either through consent or more often by force, and then prioritizes the interests of it's own offspring over those of the purely indigenous pairings, which eventually asserts the colonizing dna as dominant, even when the indigenous culture prevails.
this creates a real problem for the state, which is now in the awkward position of handing out special rights to what are essentially european groups. they rarely speak the language, and the truth is that the only connection they have to their matrilineal ancestry is in the preservation of survivalist tactics. that is, the only remnants of the indigenous culture that have survived are those that were necessary for the colonizers to adopt in order to adapt.
that said, it really demonstrates that culture is a social construct and not a biological one. we don't pass down culture through genes, we teach it in social relationships. these people may not be genetically indigenous, but if they are carrying on the indigenous culture then who is to tell them they are not?
in terms of tangible realities, i'd argue that we should have a universal drug benefit to begin with, and that the truth is that few of these people are going to end up paying taxes, anyways. but, the reality on the ground is trickier than the article is letting on: the reality is that the overwhelming majority of status indians are totally white.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/04/families-divided-after-ottawa-tells-thousands-theyre-not-indigenous.html
there are two groups indigenous to the island of newfoundland: the inuit and the beothuk. the beothuk were indeed eliminated from the island by a process of genocide that is largely unrecognized, so any claims that the island was free of indigenous groups is based on the premise that this genocide was "successful". and, you will not find any trace of the beothuk, no matter how hard you look. inuit groups remain, but they are transient over the pack ice. the mik'maq are indigenous to the atlantic mainland; any mik'maq claiming status in newfoundland have migrated there since contact, and making such a claim for indigenous status in an area migrated to post-contact essentially doesn't make sense under the judicial precedent, which requires groups to demonstrate a connection to the land that precedes contact, whenever it was (and this area, being the closest to western europe, had the earliest contact....).
but, all you need to do is look at the pictures to come to the obvious truth: these people are europeans, and that is blatantly obvious.
in fact, much testing has been done on this point. the harsh, difficult truth is that most of the indigenous groups in the eastern coast have r1* in the y-dna in proportions approaching or exceeding 50%, and there are even a few groups that are over 80% r1* in the y-dna. what this indicates is that not just many but most of these indigenous groups are actually of primarily european patrilineal ancestry, and that their indigenous component is strictly matrilineal. and, this is in fact a very common consequence of colonialism: the colonizing group takes the women from the colonized group, either through consent or more often by force, and then prioritizes the interests of it's own offspring over those of the purely indigenous pairings, which eventually asserts the colonizing dna as dominant, even when the indigenous culture prevails.
this creates a real problem for the state, which is now in the awkward position of handing out special rights to what are essentially european groups. they rarely speak the language, and the truth is that the only connection they have to their matrilineal ancestry is in the preservation of survivalist tactics. that is, the only remnants of the indigenous culture that have survived are those that were necessary for the colonizers to adopt in order to adapt.
that said, it really demonstrates that culture is a social construct and not a biological one. we don't pass down culture through genes, we teach it in social relationships. these people may not be genetically indigenous, but if they are carrying on the indigenous culture then who is to tell them they are not?
in terms of tangible realities, i'd argue that we should have a universal drug benefit to begin with, and that the truth is that few of these people are going to end up paying taxes, anyways. but, the reality on the ground is trickier than the article is letting on: the reality is that the overwhelming majority of status indians are totally white.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/04/families-divided-after-ottawa-tells-thousands-theyre-not-indigenous.html
Friday, March 3, 2017
you ever had a headache for a month, solid?
the relief is the sweetest thing you can imagine, and while i'm aware that i'm under threat of relapse, i seem to at the least have developed a repeatably demonstrable solution to the problem.
so, did the aspirin fix the headache, or did the concussion just go away? i can't know. but, i think i'm going to be a little less apprehensive about taking aspirin going forwards, and a little less tied to some kind of hardcore notion of just toughing it out. i think i have reasons to periodically use it as a blood thinner...
or, maybe it was the blood work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting
the relief is the sweetest thing you can imagine, and while i'm aware that i'm under threat of relapse, i seem to at the least have developed a repeatably demonstrable solution to the problem.
so, did the aspirin fix the headache, or did the concussion just go away? i can't know. but, i think i'm going to be a little less apprehensive about taking aspirin going forwards, and a little less tied to some kind of hardcore notion of just toughing it out. i think i have reasons to periodically use it as a blood thinner...
or, maybe it was the blood work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting
so, i'm back from round two of the hospital visits (and i stopped to get a blood test, so it was about an hour and a half wait, if you're curious).
i want to be clear that i'm dealing with a serious head injury. whether my analyses turn out to be founded or not, i'm not wasting anybody's time in exploring the full range of possibilities regarding diagnoses, tests and treatment options. that said, i walked out of the hospital a little uneasy about the analysis, and without losing a feeling of needing to monitor myself closely.
after explaining the situation, he started by squashing the idea that i may have had any kind of stroke, mini-stroke or embolism on the night in question - he said there was no way i could have walked away from the situation after having a stroke (i'm not convinced that is true...), that i'm not showing symptoms of a stroke (i'm not sure this is true, either) and that the multitude of classic post-concussion symptoms should clarify the point: i was concussed.
so, it's official: i've been diagnosed with a concussion, and with post-concussion syndrome. that fact carries some weight with it. but, you'll take it for what it's worth, given that neither of us saw what happened.
i'm actually willing to go along with this, though. from this point on, we're going to assume the root cause of the situation was a concussion, and i'm going to have to invest some time into figuring out how that happened the next time that i'm in the vicinity of the club. again: the bouncer told me. but, i was just coming back into consciousness, and it's lost...
well, the next question is obvious: could i have developed clotting as a consequence of the concussion?
theoretically.
but?
but that would mean you'd be hemorrhaging badly, and you're just not showing those kinds of symptoms.
and that's solid? it's not possible that i could get clotting from mild bleeding?
what you're angling at is not impossible, but is extremely unlikely.
well, how do you explain the fact that the aspirin works after a long delay and for a long time, and the tylenol doesn't?
the truth is i can't. sometimes tylenol works, and sometimes aspirin works, and sometimes one works and the other doesn't, and sometimes they both work and sometimes neither do. there's no logic to it.
i suspect there's some logic to it...
there's no logic to it that anybody really understands. we're not even sure how they work.
hrmmmn. but, the absence of a systemic classification doesn't entirely rule out my deduction.
it doesn't. but, if you were dealing with clots, you'd be in far worse shape than you're in.
but, what i'm concerned about is the possibility that i'm developing clots. i obviously hadn't had a stroke yet. but, couldn't the aspirin be thinning the blood and preventing the clot from forming? and, if it is, and i'm on the brink...
there's no "on the brink". it's binary...
----
and, i'm going to stop here, because i know this is wrong. people take aspirin as blood thinners. it is clearly a thing. but, what do i do from this point? yell at him to take a blood test? demand anticoagulants? raise a workers revolt in the er room? demand him to present a source?
i did none of these things. i just sat quietly and waited for him to finish, aware that he had already decided i'm not under threat of anything, and was telling me lies in order to shuffle me out of the place.
i had already reasoned going in that i was unlikely to walk out of the place with anything more than an instruction to continue taking aspirin. what i wanted was a way to measure the concern, so i'd have some quantifiable measurement of the problem. if the situation persists, i'll have to try again.
for right now, i've actually avoided the aspirin up to this point for today. perhaps the pre-clot has been broken up by the aspirin, and that's the end of it. or, perhaps the effects of the concussion are subsiding.
but, i'll reiterate that i've been officially diagnosed with a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, that i need to continue to monitor this and that that might not be my last trip to the emergency room over this.
i want to be clear that i'm dealing with a serious head injury. whether my analyses turn out to be founded or not, i'm not wasting anybody's time in exploring the full range of possibilities regarding diagnoses, tests and treatment options. that said, i walked out of the hospital a little uneasy about the analysis, and without losing a feeling of needing to monitor myself closely.
after explaining the situation, he started by squashing the idea that i may have had any kind of stroke, mini-stroke or embolism on the night in question - he said there was no way i could have walked away from the situation after having a stroke (i'm not convinced that is true...), that i'm not showing symptoms of a stroke (i'm not sure this is true, either) and that the multitude of classic post-concussion symptoms should clarify the point: i was concussed.
so, it's official: i've been diagnosed with a concussion, and with post-concussion syndrome. that fact carries some weight with it. but, you'll take it for what it's worth, given that neither of us saw what happened.
i'm actually willing to go along with this, though. from this point on, we're going to assume the root cause of the situation was a concussion, and i'm going to have to invest some time into figuring out how that happened the next time that i'm in the vicinity of the club. again: the bouncer told me. but, i was just coming back into consciousness, and it's lost...
well, the next question is obvious: could i have developed clotting as a consequence of the concussion?
theoretically.
but?
but that would mean you'd be hemorrhaging badly, and you're just not showing those kinds of symptoms.
and that's solid? it's not possible that i could get clotting from mild bleeding?
what you're angling at is not impossible, but is extremely unlikely.
well, how do you explain the fact that the aspirin works after a long delay and for a long time, and the tylenol doesn't?
the truth is i can't. sometimes tylenol works, and sometimes aspirin works, and sometimes one works and the other doesn't, and sometimes they both work and sometimes neither do. there's no logic to it.
i suspect there's some logic to it...
there's no logic to it that anybody really understands. we're not even sure how they work.
hrmmmn. but, the absence of a systemic classification doesn't entirely rule out my deduction.
it doesn't. but, if you were dealing with clots, you'd be in far worse shape than you're in.
but, what i'm concerned about is the possibility that i'm developing clots. i obviously hadn't had a stroke yet. but, couldn't the aspirin be thinning the blood and preventing the clot from forming? and, if it is, and i'm on the brink...
there's no "on the brink". it's binary...
----
and, i'm going to stop here, because i know this is wrong. people take aspirin as blood thinners. it is clearly a thing. but, what do i do from this point? yell at him to take a blood test? demand anticoagulants? raise a workers revolt in the er room? demand him to present a source?
i did none of these things. i just sat quietly and waited for him to finish, aware that he had already decided i'm not under threat of anything, and was telling me lies in order to shuffle me out of the place.
i had already reasoned going in that i was unlikely to walk out of the place with anything more than an instruction to continue taking aspirin. what i wanted was a way to measure the concern, so i'd have some quantifiable measurement of the problem. if the situation persists, i'll have to try again.
for right now, i've actually avoided the aspirin up to this point for today. perhaps the pre-clot has been broken up by the aspirin, and that's the end of it. or, perhaps the effects of the concussion are subsiding.
but, i'll reiterate that i've been officially diagnosed with a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, that i need to continue to monitor this and that that might not be my last trip to the emergency room over this.
i should be transporting myself to the hospital right now, but the wind chill has picked up. take off, eh, right? the one night that i need to go for a walk...
my head has been clear enough since about 11:00 am. and, i've been chipping away at the list since around 5:00. but, i can feel it starting to come back, though. that's a clean 15 hours. aspirin just doesn't last 15 hours as an anti-inflammatory agent...
ugh. you can't blame me for not wanting to deal with this. but, no - i need to bundle up and get out the door.
i don't have an actual update to the html file, but the playlists have both update and i've got the first few months of 2012 done. i wanted more than this done, but, so be it...
i need to shave and go.
my head has been clear enough since about 11:00 am. and, i've been chipping away at the list since around 5:00. but, i can feel it starting to come back, though. that's a clean 15 hours. aspirin just doesn't last 15 hours as an anti-inflammatory agent...
ugh. you can't blame me for not wanting to deal with this. but, no - i need to bundle up and get out the door.
i don't have an actual update to the html file, but the playlists have both update and i've got the first few months of 2012 done. i wanted more than this done, but, so be it...
i need to shave and go.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
this should maybe get the point across a little, in terms of the left's broad rejection of "religious freedom", which was always a bourgeois idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_religion
listen: i'm obviously not a conservative, and you're a buffoon if that's your take-away from this blog.
i'm a communist. ok?
if you're looking for an alt-right hero, i'm not going to be of much use to you in the long run. trust me on this point. it just happens to be that we're in a moment where the spectrum is flipped on immigration, and the so-called "left" is taking traditionally "tory" positions that benefit capital over workers under a veneer of faux humanitarianism, while the right is taking traditionally "left" positions that put the interests of workers ahead of those of capital.
i've deconstructed this already in this space.
further, the left has never supported "religious freedom"; it has always seen religion as a tool of control by capital. the fundamentally irreformable and intrinsically oppressive nature of religion was maybe the strongest point of agreement between marx and bakunin. "religious freedom" is always an oxymoron because all religion is always oppression. it is one of the points where liberals really expose themselves as nincompoops...
"i support the freedom to abide by a set of arbitrary rules and give away 30% of my income to a corrupt hierarchy that oppresses others based on identifiable characteristics!" - said no leftist, ever.
so, i mean, don't like what i'm saying if you want. that's fine. but, place me on the spectrum correctly, please: i exist on the extreme left, and in a culture where "liberal" means "tory" and "conservative" means "idiot". and, i've been clear to point out the genealogy, as well, so that you can look up where i'm coming from.
i'm a communist. ok?
if you're looking for an alt-right hero, i'm not going to be of much use to you in the long run. trust me on this point. it just happens to be that we're in a moment where the spectrum is flipped on immigration, and the so-called "left" is taking traditionally "tory" positions that benefit capital over workers under a veneer of faux humanitarianism, while the right is taking traditionally "left" positions that put the interests of workers ahead of those of capital.
i've deconstructed this already in this space.
further, the left has never supported "religious freedom"; it has always seen religion as a tool of control by capital. the fundamentally irreformable and intrinsically oppressive nature of religion was maybe the strongest point of agreement between marx and bakunin. "religious freedom" is always an oxymoron because all religion is always oppression. it is one of the points where liberals really expose themselves as nincompoops...
"i support the freedom to abide by a set of arbitrary rules and give away 30% of my income to a corrupt hierarchy that oppresses others based on identifiable characteristics!" - said no leftist, ever.
so, i mean, don't like what i'm saying if you want. that's fine. but, place me on the spectrum correctly, please: i exist on the extreme left, and in a culture where "liberal" means "tory" and "conservative" means "idiot". and, i've been clear to point out the genealogy, as well, so that you can look up where i'm coming from.
i think a part of the reason that i'm more attracted to allowing "illegal" immigrants to stay, and interested in stopping the government from facilitating the flow of "legal" refugees, is that there's a bit of a darwinian basis to it.
i've very loudly trumpeted the benefits of a merit-based immigration system, and been lukewarm about accepting refugees precisely because it's not merit-based. we only take the strongest immigrants we can find, but then we ruin all of this good work by literally absorbing the weakest refugees we can scour the world for. then, we applaud ourselves (like the good tories that we are) for our noblesse oblige in "protecting the most vulnerable".
that's gotta stop. we're a fraction of the world's population. we should protect our own most vulnerable. but, we need to let the other peoples of the world protect their own, and fight their own battles - and do what we can to help from a distance through multi-lateral institutions, like the united nations.
there are exceptions...
but, broadly speaking, i want to accept the strongest refugees, not the weakest ones. and, you do that by picking the ones that survived tremendous odds in finding their way here, not the ones that sat in a un refugee camp with a grade two education for ten years and are going to end up wards of the state for life when they get here, as they insist that they be allowed to follow their customs, even when they contradict our laws.
i've very loudly trumpeted the benefits of a merit-based immigration system, and been lukewarm about accepting refugees precisely because it's not merit-based. we only take the strongest immigrants we can find, but then we ruin all of this good work by literally absorbing the weakest refugees we can scour the world for. then, we applaud ourselves (like the good tories that we are) for our noblesse oblige in "protecting the most vulnerable".
that's gotta stop. we're a fraction of the world's population. we should protect our own most vulnerable. but, we need to let the other peoples of the world protect their own, and fight their own battles - and do what we can to help from a distance through multi-lateral institutions, like the united nations.
there are exceptions...
but, broadly speaking, i want to accept the strongest refugees, not the weakest ones. and, you do that by picking the ones that survived tremendous odds in finding their way here, not the ones that sat in a un refugee camp with a grade two education for ten years and are going to end up wards of the state for life when they get here, as they insist that they be allowed to follow their customs, even when they contradict our laws.
see, i'd like to see them buy out the *generation*. it's not the hydro one sale that's boosting the prices, and the sad truth is that the ndp *does* know that - they're just not willing to actually take on the electricity generators.
as frustrating as this truth is, the liberals are going to remain the better option, here, until i see a serious proposal from the ndp about taking public control of the actual generation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-price-plan-kathleen-wynne-1.4006021
as frustrating as this truth is, the liberals are going to remain the better option, here, until i see a serious proposal from the ndp about taking public control of the actual generation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-price-plan-kathleen-wynne-1.4006021
but, it's disingenuous. i mean, what's your prerogative, here?
i've been clear, repeatedly: it's the organized refugee intake systems that i'm opposed to. putting people on planes and flying them in is something that we should basically never do. but, if you can manage to transport yourself from iraq to canada in order to claim asylum, i'm in full favour of giving you a fair hearing - and taking a very wide interpretation of the laws.
again: we don't need more low skill labour. but, we could use the kind of character that allows a person to make that kind of journey undetected. that kind of determination should generate a lot of respect...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/manley-border-thrid-country-deal-1.4005895
i've been clear, repeatedly: it's the organized refugee intake systems that i'm opposed to. putting people on planes and flying them in is something that we should basically never do. but, if you can manage to transport yourself from iraq to canada in order to claim asylum, i'm in full favour of giving you a fair hearing - and taking a very wide interpretation of the laws.
again: we don't need more low skill labour. but, we could use the kind of character that allows a person to make that kind of journey undetected. that kind of determination should generate a lot of respect...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/manley-border-thrid-country-deal-1.4005895
so, it's consistent - it takes the aspirin about an hour and a half to take effect, and over two hours to really work. when the aspirin is working, i can feel the headache as a dull stab in the back of my sinuses, if that makes sense, but it doesn't overtake me - it allows me to function. the aspirin then works in keeping the headache manageable for roughly 20 hours, before it gets debilitating again.
the last several times i took tylenol, it did not work at all.
i am neither a chemist nor a doctor, but the evidence in front of me suggests that the aspirin is functioning as an anti-coagulant, rather than as an anti-inflammatory drug. the reasons for this are due to the ineffectiveness of tylenol and both the delay in aspirin working, and the length of time it lasts for.
i am going to bring myself back to the hospital over night under the premises of concerns about clotting, and hope they can advise on immediate steps in a way that avoids a catscan.
i am probably not at risk for a heart attack, but i may be at risk for a stroke. and, i may have actually had a stroke on that night, due to the interaction of nicotine with estrogen.
the last several times i took tylenol, it did not work at all.
i am neither a chemist nor a doctor, but the evidence in front of me suggests that the aspirin is functioning as an anti-coagulant, rather than as an anti-inflammatory drug. the reasons for this are due to the ineffectiveness of tylenol and both the delay in aspirin working, and the length of time it lasts for.
i am going to bring myself back to the hospital over night under the premises of concerns about clotting, and hope they can advise on immediate steps in a way that avoids a catscan.
i am probably not at risk for a heart attack, but i may be at risk for a stroke. and, i may have actually had a stroke on that night, due to the interaction of nicotine with estrogen.
it's true, dammit.
if you know, you know. if you don't....try it, man....then you'll know...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychology-masala/201204/cannabis-and-creativity
if you know, you know. if you don't....try it, man....then you'll know...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychology-masala/201204/cannabis-and-creativity
ok.
i ain't dead yet...put the champagne away for at least another day...
the windows are closed. and, my headache is back, albeit not as bad as it was two days ago.
it's been long enough for me to take some more aspirin, and we will see in two-three hours from now if the relief is in the form of aspirin or fresh air, which will answer a more fundamental question: do i have a blood clot in my head?
if the aspirin resolves the pain, i am going to conclude that i do actually have a blood cot, and i'm going back to the hospital with this new evidence, which i believe eliminates the need for a cat scan in moving forwards.
hey. i'm a math nerd. this is what i do: i solve problems. and, i'm right. and, if you're a doctor, you know it, too.
i ain't dead yet...put the champagne away for at least another day...
the windows are closed. and, my headache is back, albeit not as bad as it was two days ago.
it's been long enough for me to take some more aspirin, and we will see in two-three hours from now if the relief is in the form of aspirin or fresh air, which will answer a more fundamental question: do i have a blood clot in my head?
if the aspirin resolves the pain, i am going to conclude that i do actually have a blood cot, and i'm going back to the hospital with this new evidence, which i believe eliminates the need for a cat scan in moving forwards.
hey. i'm a math nerd. this is what i do: i solve problems. and, i'm right. and, if you're a doctor, you know it, too.
what is an "innovation budget"?
and, why do we have an "innovation minister", anyways?
again: these are just buzzwords. this government doesn't care about governing, it's just focused on constant campaigning. they are at best contradictions in terms and at worst incoherent drivel. and, it's the same kind of absurd language you heard coming from harper.
i still don't know if harper's "economic action plan" was a four-year plan for the economy, or a five-year plan for the economy. nobody ever answered that question for me...
i'll state the obvious: innovation is something that happens by accident. you don't plan for it. you don't budget around it. rather, you adjust to it when you see it. and, if there's a way for a government to create an "innovation budget", it is by funding research blindly, and not trying to micromanage where it ends up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-us-canada-budget-1.4005543
and, why do we have an "innovation minister", anyways?
again: these are just buzzwords. this government doesn't care about governing, it's just focused on constant campaigning. they are at best contradictions in terms and at worst incoherent drivel. and, it's the same kind of absurd language you heard coming from harper.
i still don't know if harper's "economic action plan" was a four-year plan for the economy, or a five-year plan for the economy. nobody ever answered that question for me...
i'll state the obvious: innovation is something that happens by accident. you don't plan for it. you don't budget around it. rather, you adjust to it when you see it. and, if there's a way for a government to create an "innovation budget", it is by funding research blindly, and not trying to micromanage where it ends up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-us-canada-budget-1.4005543
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
i have this playlist updated, now, which is actually a big step forwards.
and i'm going to stop to sleep...i've been awake since a little after midnight...
so, i have some good news in the sense that i got a full day in without serious headaches.
but, the real test is as to whether i wake up in the morning or not as i allow the aspirin's effects to wear off.
the windows have been closed for a few hours, and they have to be with the turn in the weather. the headache has actually stayed away, but it's like i'm walking a high wire act and prepared to fall off: i can feel the tension underneath, just waiting to reassert itself
i'm going to keep the windows closed for at least a few days, and we'll see what happens. do i wake up with a headache? does the aspirin work without opening the windows after all, and in such a way that suggests it's working as a blood thinner rather than an anti-inflammatory? and, if so what next...
i'm a little uneasy about this, actually. hopefully i'm still alive in a few hours and can get back to the more formal concert build-up.
and i'm going to stop to sleep...i've been awake since a little after midnight...
so, i have some good news in the sense that i got a full day in without serious headaches.
but, the real test is as to whether i wake up in the morning or not as i allow the aspirin's effects to wear off.
the windows have been closed for a few hours, and they have to be with the turn in the weather. the headache has actually stayed away, but it's like i'm walking a high wire act and prepared to fall off: i can feel the tension underneath, just waiting to reassert itself
i'm going to keep the windows closed for at least a few days, and we'll see what happens. do i wake up with a headache? does the aspirin work without opening the windows after all, and in such a way that suggests it's working as a blood thinner rather than an anti-inflammatory? and, if so what next...
i'm a little uneasy about this, actually. hopefully i'm still alive in a few hours and can get back to the more formal concert build-up.
in all seriousness, it would no doubt be a dramatic improvement if trump were to adopt something that is like our immigration system.
and, i'm not going to pretend like i'm shifting gears on the point, either. in fact, i've advocated the point for....i'm not old enough to say decades. not yet. but more than ten years, anyways.
so, sure: trump is right to look to our system as a model. it works.
now, if we could only get trudeau to hold closer to it....:\
and, i'm not going to pretend like i'm shifting gears on the point, either. in fact, i've advocated the point for....i'm not old enough to say decades. not yet. but more than ten years, anyways.
so, sure: trump is right to look to our system as a model. it works.
now, if we could only get trudeau to hold closer to it....:\
but, if it takes hours for the aspirin to relieve the pain, and it lasts hours longer than the aspirin itself does, does that imply that i'm actually dealing with a blood clot and the effectiveness of the aspirin is in it's blood-thinning qualities?
is that why the tylenol is now ineffective?
is it why i experienced bruising after a two week delay?
does that suggest i'm in risk of a stroke? and, if so, is aspirin actually the preferred treatment, anyways?
hrmmn.
is that why the tylenol is now ineffective?
is it why i experienced bruising after a two week delay?
does that suggest i'm in risk of a stroke? and, if so, is aspirin actually the preferred treatment, anyways?
hrmmn.
ok.
for the first time, the issue has resolved. and, of course the moment the words are typed....
solution: fresh air. & maybe a little aspirin, too.
i was expecting the aspirin to work within an hour, and then expecting to need to take more a few hours later. i can't isolate a single variable, but it may be the case that it takes closer to two hours to work and lasts for a good twelve hours - or at least does in the presence of fresh air. i dunno. i'm winging it...
for the first time, the issue has resolved. and, of course the moment the words are typed....
solution: fresh air. & maybe a little aspirin, too.
i was expecting the aspirin to work within an hour, and then expecting to need to take more a few hours later. i can't isolate a single variable, but it may be the case that it takes closer to two hours to work and lasts for a good twelve hours - or at least does in the presence of fresh air. i dunno. i'm winging it...
do i have a mold issue?
if i do, i can't see it. it would have to be behind the walls. and, i've been here long enough to doubt that, as there's no growth anywhere at all....
the only possible exception would be underneath the paneling in the bathroom...
it's an easy answer. i keep coming back to it. but i just don't see the evidence.
i'm not done eating yet, and the headache is in fact almost back. it's currently pouring rain out. but, i'm not wasting another night. i have enough evidence to deduce that it's likely that i'd be able to get around the problem by leaving the windows open and sitting in the tim horton's for a few hours. and, if leaving the basement works two days in a row, i'm going to have to call the landlord directly and confront him on it.
we might have to rip some walls open.
http://www.poison.org/articles/2011-oct/mold-101-effects-on-human-health
if i do, i can't see it. it would have to be behind the walls. and, i've been here long enough to doubt that, as there's no growth anywhere at all....
the only possible exception would be underneath the paneling in the bathroom...
it's an easy answer. i keep coming back to it. but i just don't see the evidence.
i'm not done eating yet, and the headache is in fact almost back. it's currently pouring rain out. but, i'm not wasting another night. i have enough evidence to deduce that it's likely that i'd be able to get around the problem by leaving the windows open and sitting in the tim horton's for a few hours. and, if leaving the basement works two days in a row, i'm going to have to call the landlord directly and confront him on it.
we might have to rip some walls open.
http://www.poison.org/articles/2011-oct/mold-101-effects-on-human-health
don't be confused.
it's not really that trump wants the united states to be more like canada, although i'd vote for that outcome. it's really more that trump wants to be as popular as he thinks justin trudeau is.
and, this is the same thinking underlying his relationship with nigel farage: what he wants is the adulation. the praise. the positive op-eds. the fawning pre-teens.
it's not really that trump wants the united states to be more like canada, although i'd vote for that outcome. it's really more that trump wants to be as popular as he thinks justin trudeau is.
and, this is the same thinking underlying his relationship with nigel farage: what he wants is the adulation. the praise. the positive op-eds. the fawning pre-teens.
i may have to invest in something like this to moisten the air up:
https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/sunbeam-34-l-warm-mist-humidifier-swm6000-cn/6000001838371?rrid=richrelevance
i just want to make sure i get a hot one, and not a cold one.
https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/sunbeam-34-l-warm-mist-humidifier-swm6000-cn/6000001838371?rrid=richrelevance
i just want to make sure i get a hot one, and not a cold one.
i had to get some "real sleep" this evening. i think i'm up...
i had to close the windows for the sleep because i let the temperature fall too far to keep them open. they're back open now.
while the headache hasn't come back in full, yet, i can feel the beginnings of the tension. more importantly, i can smell the gas...
i'm about to make some eggs. i'll check back when i'm done eating. but, the experiment is this: can i resolve the headache, should it come back, by getting some fresh air into the space?
i had to close the windows for the sleep because i let the temperature fall too far to keep them open. they're back open now.
while the headache hasn't come back in full, yet, i can feel the beginnings of the tension. more importantly, i can smell the gas...
i'm about to make some eggs. i'll check back when i'm done eating. but, the experiment is this: can i resolve the headache, should it come back, by getting some fresh air into the space?
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
you can have your mad cow disease if you insist.
i'll take the steak well done, myself, too.
and i'll generally take functionality over class, that is substance over style, any day.
it's a strange thing to criticize a man as vapid as trump for, to have the good sense to cook his meat before eating it; it might be the most sensible thing he ever does.
i'll take the steak well done, myself, too.
and i'll generally take functionality over class, that is substance over style, any day.
it's a strange thing to criticize a man as vapid as trump for, to have the good sense to cook his meat before eating it; it might be the most sensible thing he ever does.
the walk to the hospital was truly brutal - i was legitimately in some brutal pain, and rather concerned about it.
but, a funny thing happened when i got to the hospital: the headache slowly lifted. note that my experiences over the last several days has been that i get an hour or two when i wake up, and then a headache i can't deal with until i fall back asleep, when the pattern reverses.
it became clear while i was waiting in the waiting room that what's causing the headache is the gas leak, or the air quality down here, in general. and, that itself was remarkably relieving.
i'm not yet ruling out the possibility of head trauma - you'll recall that i lost my sense of smell for days - but i've got a strong cause and effect on the immediate cause of the headaches being environmental.
i waited to see the doctor, anyways. she actually offered me a catscan as a precautionary measure. i would have taken an mri, it's what i was there for after all, but i didn't see the need to put myself through the radiation risk of a catscan....
let's say i take the cat scan. what next?
you'll come back in a week for another cat scan.
so, how about i just wait a week, then?
it's up to you...
indeed, it is. pro-tip: never trust a doctor.
but i at least got a better grasp on what they can do, based on what it could be.
1) if it's a concussion, there's nothing i can do except wait.
2) if there's bruising or bleeding, they'll have to do scans and go from there.
i've only been back inside for a few moments and i'm already feeling queasy. we'll see how things change when i drop my cart back off and come back in.
it's clear enough, though: the air quality in this basement is toxic and the windows basically need to be open at all times until it's dealt with.
but, a funny thing happened when i got to the hospital: the headache slowly lifted. note that my experiences over the last several days has been that i get an hour or two when i wake up, and then a headache i can't deal with until i fall back asleep, when the pattern reverses.
it became clear while i was waiting in the waiting room that what's causing the headache is the gas leak, or the air quality down here, in general. and, that itself was remarkably relieving.
i'm not yet ruling out the possibility of head trauma - you'll recall that i lost my sense of smell for days - but i've got a strong cause and effect on the immediate cause of the headaches being environmental.
i waited to see the doctor, anyways. she actually offered me a catscan as a precautionary measure. i would have taken an mri, it's what i was there for after all, but i didn't see the need to put myself through the radiation risk of a catscan....
let's say i take the cat scan. what next?
you'll come back in a week for another cat scan.
so, how about i just wait a week, then?
it's up to you...
indeed, it is. pro-tip: never trust a doctor.
but i at least got a better grasp on what they can do, based on what it could be.
1) if it's a concussion, there's nothing i can do except wait.
2) if there's bruising or bleeding, they'll have to do scans and go from there.
i've only been back inside for a few moments and i'm already feeling queasy. we'll see how things change when i drop my cart back off and come back in.
it's clear enough, though: the air quality in this basement is toxic and the windows basically need to be open at all times until it's dealt with.
the tylenol stopped working a few days ago.
i tried aspirin this morning with no effect.
i am unable to do anything except stare at the wall. so, i am taking myself to the hospital.
yes: the hospital. a clinic could not do anything except give me drugs (which i don't want, and won't take, unless i get a clear diagnosis first) and send me to the hospital. i want some tests done regarding potential bruising or burst vessels, along with being checked for stroke symptoms....
i'm not walking out of there with a codeine prescription, either. that's how they get you. i'd take a gram of the green, but you have to fucking mail order it....
i tried aspirin this morning with no effect.
i am unable to do anything except stare at the wall. so, i am taking myself to the hospital.
yes: the hospital. a clinic could not do anything except give me drugs (which i don't want, and won't take, unless i get a clear diagnosis first) and send me to the hospital. i want some tests done regarding potential bruising or burst vessels, along with being checked for stroke symptoms....
i'm not walking out of there with a codeine prescription, either. that's how they get you. i'd take a gram of the green, but you have to fucking mail order it....
Monday, February 27, 2017
what it does is cast doubt on the honesty of the investigation.
so, the feds have taken this company down by manufacturing charges against it (and note that the globe was complicit in this). are they doing this to pave the way for larger distributors (molson?) or are they backtracking on the policy altogether?
i will repeat what i stated a few weeks ago: at this time, i do not expect the government to carry through with it's campaign promise to legalize. rather, they seem to be in the process of shutting down the medical use of the drug, as well.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/company-caught-selling-tainted-marijuana-cant-trace-source-of-contamination/article34144902/
so, the feds have taken this company down by manufacturing charges against it (and note that the globe was complicit in this). are they doing this to pave the way for larger distributors (molson?) or are they backtracking on the policy altogether?
i will repeat what i stated a few weeks ago: at this time, i do not expect the government to carry through with it's campaign promise to legalize. rather, they seem to be in the process of shutting down the medical use of the drug, as well.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/company-caught-selling-tainted-marijuana-cant-trace-source-of-contamination/article34144902/
see, this is what i feared and predicted: they've managed to manipulate working class people into mobilizing to save obamacare......which is the republican healthcare plan designed to prevent a single payer universal health care system.
once again: a formal gramscian analysis on how we got to the point where self-identified leftists are standing up for the heritage institute's healthcare proposals would be an enticing read and an important contribution to the literature on the actual left.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/26/if-theyre-going-to-pass-trumps-agenda-republicans-first-have-to-weather-the-indivisible-movement.html
once again: a formal gramscian analysis on how we got to the point where self-identified leftists are standing up for the heritage institute's healthcare proposals would be an enticing read and an important contribution to the literature on the actual left.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/26/if-theyre-going-to-pass-trumps-agenda-republicans-first-have-to-weather-the-indivisible-movement.html
this is a bait and switch from electoral reform.
so, you should not just ignore it as paranoid idiocy, but should actively attempt to steer the topic back to electoral reform whenever it's brought up.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/27/cyberspy-agency-eyes-political-blackmail-as-risk-to-canadas-electoral-system.html
so, you should not just ignore it as paranoid idiocy, but should actively attempt to steer the topic back to electoral reform whenever it's brought up.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/27/cyberspy-agency-eyes-political-blackmail-as-risk-to-canadas-electoral-system.html
they should just let the seat sit vacant...
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/02/27/york-school-board-grapples-with-filling-elgies-seat.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/02/27/york-school-board-grapples-with-filling-elgies-seat.html
well, the good news is that my throat doesn't hurt anymore. but, that inflection point didn't go through: my head didn't fully clear yesterday, and took me out several times, including at the end of the night.
i woke up with a mild background headache: it's workable, but a reminder that i'm not over it, yet.
i just finished up the last few shows from 2011 this morning, so i'm making progress. slowly, through a difficult wrench, but surely. i'm going to eat now, and hopefully i'm able to be productive after lunch. but, i could end up waiting for the headache to pass, too.
is this all the result of whatever happened the other night at the festival? i've been noticing a symptom of very bloodshot eyes. but, you'll recall that i was complaining about that weeks ago, and that i thought it was connected to the hep b (which i don't actually have). and, you'll recall that i've been complaining about headaches connected to the gas leak in here...
my nose has not been working recently, but i'll point out that i woke up to that same nasty smell, this morning, that i've been associating with the leaks, which i've been associating with the headaches. how much of this is due to concussion, how much of it is due to gas leaks, how much of it is due to allergies and how much of it is due to the virus are things i'll probably never be able to disentangle.
what i really want is for the temperature to stay above ten degrees so that i can keep the windows open and get some fresh air in here without cranking the heat up.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/index.html
i woke up with a mild background headache: it's workable, but a reminder that i'm not over it, yet.
i just finished up the last few shows from 2011 this morning, so i'm making progress. slowly, through a difficult wrench, but surely. i'm going to eat now, and hopefully i'm able to be productive after lunch. but, i could end up waiting for the headache to pass, too.
is this all the result of whatever happened the other night at the festival? i've been noticing a symptom of very bloodshot eyes. but, you'll recall that i was complaining about that weeks ago, and that i thought it was connected to the hep b (which i don't actually have). and, you'll recall that i've been complaining about headaches connected to the gas leak in here...
my nose has not been working recently, but i'll point out that i woke up to that same nasty smell, this morning, that i've been associating with the leaks, which i've been associating with the headaches. how much of this is due to concussion, how much of it is due to gas leaks, how much of it is due to allergies and how much of it is due to the virus are things i'll probably never be able to disentangle.
what i really want is for the temperature to stay above ten degrees so that i can keep the windows open and get some fresh air in here without cranking the heat up.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/index.html
so, let's understand what happened with the dapl.
1) obama cancelled it, which was not an honest order but merely intended to clear the camp.
2) the new administration created a distraction around refugee policy to coerce the lifers into a different direction.
3) once the camp was cleared, and the cold of winter had set in, the new administration reversed obama's order to cancel it.
4) various factors (including the distraction around refugee policy, the weather, the fashionable nature of protest in the 21st century (#dapl is so last year) and what could be called 'protest fatigue') prevented re-mobilization from being powerful enough to cause a serious disincentive towards the use of force.
5) the camp was shut down, and the pipeline was finished.
so, what can we learn from this?
i suppose the immediate thing to analyze is what could have been done differently. the obvious point is that the new administration would have had a harder time ramming through the new policy if the camp hadn't cleared on it's own. but, we cannot blame activists for being tricked by obama, can we?
well, we can, actually: i saw this coming, and i'm sure many other people did, too.
so, the immediate lesson is that protest spaces should never be cleared in a transfer of power, especially not one from a more friendly government to a less friendly one. but, did people really not know that? and, why didn't they come back?
i've been over this with other protest movements. the essential root problem is that activists have adopted the language and tactics of viral marketing campaigns. now, i need to be clear: these tactics can be potentially effective if you need large numbers of people for a short amount of time. but, people are trained to understand the substance of viral marketing as inherently limited in temporal scope.
when you assemble people with a viral marketing campaign, you need to expect that the group will be disassembled by the next viral marketing campaign. what you've done is reduce the resistance to a type of fashion, a fad to discard for the next fad.
the next fad is in fighting "islamophobia". and, that's where everybody went.
on the other hand, this realization merely serves to amplify the importance of ensuring that activists do not allow camps to clear until objectives are confirmed. realizing the short attention span of #hashtag protestors is in some ways just a pre-requisite to developing tactics to neutralize that short attention span. but, the deeper lesson needs to be that viral marketing, as useful as it may be in some ways, is not a replacement for movement building - and can in fact act against it.
so,
1) the immediate lesson is not to disperse until you've won.
2) but, the broader lesson is that #hashtag activism is fleeting, and cannot replace deeper movement building. to the contrary, the shorter attention spans of young people (as brought on by viral marketing...) is an obstacle to deal with in deeper movement building.
1) obama cancelled it, which was not an honest order but merely intended to clear the camp.
2) the new administration created a distraction around refugee policy to coerce the lifers into a different direction.
3) once the camp was cleared, and the cold of winter had set in, the new administration reversed obama's order to cancel it.
4) various factors (including the distraction around refugee policy, the weather, the fashionable nature of protest in the 21st century (#dapl is so last year) and what could be called 'protest fatigue') prevented re-mobilization from being powerful enough to cause a serious disincentive towards the use of force.
5) the camp was shut down, and the pipeline was finished.
so, what can we learn from this?
i suppose the immediate thing to analyze is what could have been done differently. the obvious point is that the new administration would have had a harder time ramming through the new policy if the camp hadn't cleared on it's own. but, we cannot blame activists for being tricked by obama, can we?
well, we can, actually: i saw this coming, and i'm sure many other people did, too.
so, the immediate lesson is that protest spaces should never be cleared in a transfer of power, especially not one from a more friendly government to a less friendly one. but, did people really not know that? and, why didn't they come back?
i've been over this with other protest movements. the essential root problem is that activists have adopted the language and tactics of viral marketing campaigns. now, i need to be clear: these tactics can be potentially effective if you need large numbers of people for a short amount of time. but, people are trained to understand the substance of viral marketing as inherently limited in temporal scope.
when you assemble people with a viral marketing campaign, you need to expect that the group will be disassembled by the next viral marketing campaign. what you've done is reduce the resistance to a type of fashion, a fad to discard for the next fad.
the next fad is in fighting "islamophobia". and, that's where everybody went.
on the other hand, this realization merely serves to amplify the importance of ensuring that activists do not allow camps to clear until objectives are confirmed. realizing the short attention span of #hashtag protestors is in some ways just a pre-requisite to developing tactics to neutralize that short attention span. but, the deeper lesson needs to be that viral marketing, as useful as it may be in some ways, is not a replacement for movement building - and can in fact act against it.
so,
1) the immediate lesson is not to disperse until you've won.
2) but, the broader lesson is that #hashtag activism is fleeting, and cannot replace deeper movement building. to the contrary, the shorter attention spans of young people (as brought on by viral marketing...) is an obstacle to deal with in deeper movement building.
reality check: forcing constituents to accept senior staffers with almost no connection to their ridings as candidates is called nepotism and is a type of corruption. the fact that it is relatively common in our system does not make it ok. and, everybody should support the local candidates in their aim to ensure that the riding maintains local representation. mccallum was a good mp with strong ties to the riding, and he should not be replaced by a staffer that is being flown in on the pmo's direction.
seats in the house of commons are not perks to be handed out to political cronies in exchange for political favours, or as rewards for good behaviour. and, this comes just weeks after the government rejected electoral reform under concerns that a proportional system would minimize local representation...?
the hypocrisy is stunning.
this should be a very big deal. and, it should cost them the seat, out of principle.
and, they should stop fucking doing this, already.
seats in the house of commons are not perks to be handed out to political cronies in exchange for political favours, or as rewards for good behaviour. and, this comes just weeks after the government rejected electoral reform under concerns that a proportional system would minimize local representation...?
the hypocrisy is stunning.
this should be a very big deal. and, it should cost them the seat, out of principle.
and, they should stop fucking doing this, already.
i've seen this happen about a dozen times, now, and the candidate that the party tries to push down never survives. the party has blown safe seats this way. it has sen leaders lose their seats this way. and, why wouldn't it expect blowback from what is quite obviously the subversion of a basic democratic principle of self-determination?
so, this is the question we're going to be asking ourselves over the next couple of years: why is the liberal party of canada incapable of learning simple lessons from simple errors?
http://www.hilltimes.com/2017/02/27/markham-thornhill-liberals-open-revolt-alleging-party-rigging-nomination-process-get-pm-trudeaus-top-adviser-ng-elected-candidate/97556
so, this is the question we're going to be asking ourselves over the next couple of years: why is the liberal party of canada incapable of learning simple lessons from simple errors?
http://www.hilltimes.com/2017/02/27/markham-thornhill-liberals-open-revolt-alleging-party-rigging-nomination-process-get-pm-trudeaus-top-adviser-ng-elected-candidate/97556
you know, i'd like to see a formal gramscian analysis of working class support for increasing immigration of unskilled workers. it might be hard for a lot of people to read. it would no doubt create the expected reactionary responses of accusations of privilege and racial bias. but, it would be tough medicine, in the end, because it's the harsh reality of it: they've got you supporting policies that are going to minimize your bargaining power. they've got you working in their interests...
so, do you have a thesis to write? do you understand what i'm getting at? then, write it up and get it circling around online.
so, do you have a thesis to write? do you understand what i'm getting at? then, write it up and get it circling around online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)