and, i'm going to state this flat out: the reason i'm confusing to you, on point after point, is because the idea of free will has become foreign to people in this society - foreign or native born.
i'm not full of contradictions at all; i'm really quite consistent.
you just don't understand what agency is.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
maybe i should make this clear.
i have a ski mask. two of them, actually. i bought them for bicycling in subzero weather. but, it gets cold in canada, so sometimes i wear it to just walk around in.
i am not a muslim, and do not wear a hijab.
nor would i wear one in solidarity, as my solidarity would be with the women that throw away the hijab as a tool of oppression.
i have a ski mask. two of them, actually. i bought them for bicycling in subzero weather. but, it gets cold in canada, so sometimes i wear it to just walk around in.
i am not a muslim, and do not wear a hijab.
nor would i wear one in solidarity, as my solidarity would be with the women that throw away the hijab as a tool of oppression.
i was kind of hoping she was muslim. she's jewish...
but, i would encourage sports illustrated and others to reach out to muslims to start broadcasting this particular message, because it's true.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BfJR1JsFR8b/
but, i would encourage sports illustrated and others to reach out to muslims to start broadcasting this particular message, because it's true.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BfJR1JsFR8b/
i apologize for the untrustworthy source, but they cite their research well enough
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/health/us-life-expectancy-study/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/health/us-life-expectancy-study/index.html
science: we have a major obesity epidemic that needs a serious public education campaign to prevent us from actual decreasing our average life expectancies.
third-wave faux "feminists": but, what about attractive upper middle class white teenage girls obsessed with the male gaze and that spend more on fashion magazines and make-up in a month than they could even make on minimum wage?
third-wave faux "feminists": but, what about attractive upper middle class white teenage girls obsessed with the male gaze and that spend more on fashion magazines and make-up in a month than they could even make on minimum wage?
it boggles my mind that anybody could be so blind and/or daft as to not recognize obesity as an eating disorder.
but, when you live in a society where 60-70% are overweight, and those numbers are increasing, maybe it's at least easy to understand how people can't see their own disorders when they look in the mirror, and mistake themselves for being healthy when they're not. after all, they're the same size as everybody else around them, right?
of course obesity is an eating disorder. and, it dwarfs anorexia in terms of the number of people affected as well as the costs to society.
so, i'm not at all interested in hearing people argue that we can't address a problem that affects 70% of the public because doing so might upset 1% of it. that's just irrational.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-must-be-hungry/200909/is-obesity-eating-disorder
but, when you live in a society where 60-70% are overweight, and those numbers are increasing, maybe it's at least easy to understand how people can't see their own disorders when they look in the mirror, and mistake themselves for being healthy when they're not. after all, they're the same size as everybody else around them, right?
of course obesity is an eating disorder. and, it dwarfs anorexia in terms of the number of people affected as well as the costs to society.
so, i'm not at all interested in hearing people argue that we can't address a problem that affects 70% of the public because doing so might upset 1% of it. that's just irrational.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-must-be-hungry/200909/is-obesity-eating-disorder
i mean, i'm not going to vote for conservative economic "policies" just because the liberals have given up on policy; an absence of policy from the liberals doesn't make the enemy seem appealing, all of a sudden.
and, the ndp are still the stupid party...if anything, they're dumber than ever...
canada's system doesn't have primaries, so it's not likely to produce a sandersesque saviour. the flip side of that is that we have almost no restrictions on party membership, so it's a lot easier to create a new party. but, that means that we get movements on the ground, or nothing at all - which is better in the long run, but takes time to build.
i mean, you could argue that what the system here does is make the false hope presented by a populist sanders style jesus impossible, and rather forces us to build the kind of movement bernie really wanted in the first place - which is harder, but more effective. do we have the attention span? and the will? and the resolve?
a backbench revolt would be easier.
and, the ndp are still the stupid party...if anything, they're dumber than ever...
canada's system doesn't have primaries, so it's not likely to produce a sandersesque saviour. the flip side of that is that we have almost no restrictions on party membership, so it's a lot easier to create a new party. but, that means that we get movements on the ground, or nothing at all - which is better in the long run, but takes time to build.
i mean, you could argue that what the system here does is make the false hope presented by a populist sanders style jesus impossible, and rather forces us to build the kind of movement bernie really wanted in the first place - which is harder, but more effective. do we have the attention span? and the will? and the resolve?
a backbench revolt would be easier.
they've given up on policy; they're going to run on trudeau being a celebrity.
and, i'm going to make sure to hammer them on it...
...but i'm not going to say it's a losing strategy, because the other options are terrible. it should be a losing strategy. but, that's not clear.
i really wish the green party had spent the last four years preparing for a serious run in 2019, rather than on continuing to be a vanity press for elizabeth may (who is unacceptable as a serious candidate).
and, this is the problem: i want trudeau thrown out of office, and the door slammed on his ass as he's pushed out. but, i can't endorse anybody else to replace him.
so, i'm going to say it again: the best hope we have right now is a backbench revolt in the liberal party.
and, i'm going to make sure to hammer them on it...
...but i'm not going to say it's a losing strategy, because the other options are terrible. it should be a losing strategy. but, that's not clear.
i really wish the green party had spent the last four years preparing for a serious run in 2019, rather than on continuing to be a vanity press for elizabeth may (who is unacceptable as a serious candidate).
and, this is the problem: i want trudeau thrown out of office, and the door slammed on his ass as he's pushed out. but, i can't endorse anybody else to replace him.
so, i'm going to say it again: the best hope we have right now is a backbench revolt in the liberal party.
i have no problem looking a jew in the eye and saying "you stole this land from the canaanites, and you should give it back to them."
but, god said...
"that's not a valid argument. sorry. do you not admit, yourself, that you stole this land?"
...despite the fact that i know that's not actually true.
but, god said...
"that's not a valid argument. sorry. do you not admit, yourself, that you stole this land?"
...despite the fact that i know that's not actually true.
it's 8:00, and what's going on?
well, i'm feeling alright. the sum total of the smoke inhalation yesterday afternoon appears to be that i'm a little tired - and that i have a rash on the inside of my arm, that may be due to some nasty perspiration.
the remaining smell i'm getting is that smell you get when you cross a mild dish soap with heavy grease and let it sit. so, imagine using dawn to let a pot full of hamburger grease sit.
they could be doing dishes.
ugh. let's just hope it's gone by tomorrow.
once again, i would have liked to get more work done today. there's still some chance i could get a second wind.
well, i'm feeling alright. the sum total of the smoke inhalation yesterday afternoon appears to be that i'm a little tired - and that i have a rash on the inside of my arm, that may be due to some nasty perspiration.
the remaining smell i'm getting is that smell you get when you cross a mild dish soap with heavy grease and let it sit. so, imagine using dawn to let a pot full of hamburger grease sit.
they could be doing dishes.
ugh. let's just hope it's gone by tomorrow.
once again, i would have liked to get more work done today. there's still some chance i could get a second wind.
i just have no interest at fiction at this point in my life; i can't interpret sitting in front of a tv set as anything more than a waste of time.
that applies equally to the entire genre of film.
you could make a movie about me, and i wouldn't even know it exists.....
it might be a really good show. sure. i can still think of a million other things i'd rather be doing...
that applies equally to the entire genre of film.
you could make a movie about me, and i wouldn't even know it exists.....
it might be a really good show. sure. i can still think of a million other things i'd rather be doing...
that said, i'm starting to adjust my understanding of what's happening downstairs.
the smell has shifted this morning to a very strong chemical smell. so, i'm starting to think that i may be on top of a meth lab, and that the seemingly ridiculous amount of pot smoke may actually be intended to cover up the smell.
well, it's canada. pot will be legal here, soon.
this is a different sort of problem.
but, i'd still rather wait until tomorrow and hope they just clean up and set up elsewhere.
the smell has shifted this morning to a very strong chemical smell. so, i'm starting to think that i may be on top of a meth lab, and that the seemingly ridiculous amount of pot smoke may actually be intended to cover up the smell.
well, it's canada. pot will be legal here, soon.
this is a different sort of problem.
but, i'd still rather wait until tomorrow and hope they just clean up and set up elsewhere.
i need to remind you that i haven't watched tv since the 90s, and i have no concept of popular tv shows that have existed since then, at all.
i've had random people suggest to me that i remind them of a character named "dexter", but i simply don't understand the reference. and, that's all i have to say about it; i can't deny or affirm something i don't understand.
i've had random people suggest to me that i remind them of a character named "dexter", but i simply don't understand the reference. and, that's all i have to say about it; i can't deny or affirm something i don't understand.
i just want to point something out, though: i've run into the pcp problem before, i'd say on average every six-ten months, but this is the first time i've been convinced that i've run into meth-laced marijuana, and i'd have actually been the first to suggest that such a thing doesn't exist, if somebody had presented it to me before last week.
i'd be skeptical if i were you, too.
but, i'm good at logic, and i'm pretty much convinced that this is what we've got, here.
i'd be skeptical if i were you, too.
but, i'm good at logic, and i'm pretty much convinced that this is what we've got, here.
moments after i published the last post, i got bombarded with what felt like a chemical weapons attack: smoke coming from every room of the apartment at the same time, with an especially powerful concentration in the kitchen, which is a few feet away from any window and consequently almost impossible to neutralize without letting it air out.
it seemed both co-ordinated and intended to upset me.
the one thing you can do is try and steam it out by running hot water and burning water on the stove at the same time. but, the hot water was out - strangely. this is twilight zone shit, really.
about an hour in, i started to freak out: i had been drugged against my will yet again, and there was nothing i could do but escape. but, i couldn't escape...it was coming from every direction...
as somebody who has hotboxed many things, i would hazard a guess that there was roughly ten grams of pot released into the air over that hour. this wasn't a j or two. this was an onslaught...like they were burning open leaves as incense...
once again: i didn't feel stoned, i felt agitated and angry. i wanted to smash something in. the headache was creeping back (and is still there, nine hours later).
what does meth do? well, some of the literature focuses on the hormones, but this isn't really what a user actually experiences, despite the drug industry propaganda. the only hormonal reaction i'm getting is a headache, which is probably an acute withdrawal symptom. but, i don't want more drugs, i want to detox
what meth (also called speed) does is give you a really short burst of energy, followed by a really terrible crash. if you're dancing, you might look like this:
do they look that ridiculous?
worse.
because they can't dance like that. rather, they flop their arms around and stamp their feet like children having a temper tantrum. it lasts a few minutes - twenty at the most, but usually more like five. they can be easily identified by how obtuse they appear. and, then they zoom off the floor and go pass out somewhere.
the sensationalized media portrayal of meth is just that. most people at the rave really actually just have a few drinks, maybe a few tokes. mdma is fun, if you can find it. if you're of legal age, you probably know better. balloons are quite popular, as well. and, the people taking uppers that last the night are mostly taking very small hits of actual cocaine up their noses. these little spoons they carry around...
the speed addicts are really rather rare, and are the isolated losers; they don't last on the floor very long - because speed isn't an endurance drug but a short burst and a long crash. the effects of the drug might last you 12 hours, but the high is only a few minutes, and you'll spend most of the night struggling with the come down in the bathroom or outside by yourself. as addictive as it is, you often hear things like "i made the mistake of trying that once....never again...."
that's if you're dancing.
what if you're having an awful fucking day? then, that burst of energy is going to manifest itself as anger, as violence. and, that's what i've been going through repeatedly with this: the smell pisses me off, and then the effect of the drug takes over, and i get very uncharacteristically angry. i yell and scream for a few minutes, it passes through my system in an hour, and then i sleep it off for ten-twelve hours.
and, i don't want this to happen again. ever. there is no reason at all that i need to tolerate being drugged against my will - and arguments that i do are ridiculous. if you think that being a liberal means getting stoned because your neighbour is, you don't understand liberalism so well.
today, i stormed downstairs and banged on their door and demanded they cut down their intake. and, it seems to have had enough of an effect that i'm starting to clear it out of my system.
so, i'm going to give them a grace today, tomorrow.
but, i'll be at the clinic early monday morning if this happens again tomorrow night.
i've also decided that i need to apologize. i don't yell at people like that. it's deeply uncharacteristic. i need to explain that i believe my behaviour was a consequence of second-hand smoke exposure, and that what they're smoking is clearly laced with something. i'm going to present meth as the most likely culprit..
but, how much smoke is getting up here?
1) enough that i can see it in the apartment. clearly. a stranger walking in here would assume i'm a smoker just via what they can see with their eyes.
2) enough that it's frizzing my hair out.
it's a lot...
it seemed both co-ordinated and intended to upset me.
the one thing you can do is try and steam it out by running hot water and burning water on the stove at the same time. but, the hot water was out - strangely. this is twilight zone shit, really.
about an hour in, i started to freak out: i had been drugged against my will yet again, and there was nothing i could do but escape. but, i couldn't escape...it was coming from every direction...
as somebody who has hotboxed many things, i would hazard a guess that there was roughly ten grams of pot released into the air over that hour. this wasn't a j or two. this was an onslaught...like they were burning open leaves as incense...
once again: i didn't feel stoned, i felt agitated and angry. i wanted to smash something in. the headache was creeping back (and is still there, nine hours later).
what does meth do? well, some of the literature focuses on the hormones, but this isn't really what a user actually experiences, despite the drug industry propaganda. the only hormonal reaction i'm getting is a headache, which is probably an acute withdrawal symptom. but, i don't want more drugs, i want to detox
what meth (also called speed) does is give you a really short burst of energy, followed by a really terrible crash. if you're dancing, you might look like this:
do they look that ridiculous?
worse.
because they can't dance like that. rather, they flop their arms around and stamp their feet like children having a temper tantrum. it lasts a few minutes - twenty at the most, but usually more like five. they can be easily identified by how obtuse they appear. and, then they zoom off the floor and go pass out somewhere.
the sensationalized media portrayal of meth is just that. most people at the rave really actually just have a few drinks, maybe a few tokes. mdma is fun, if you can find it. if you're of legal age, you probably know better. balloons are quite popular, as well. and, the people taking uppers that last the night are mostly taking very small hits of actual cocaine up their noses. these little spoons they carry around...
the speed addicts are really rather rare, and are the isolated losers; they don't last on the floor very long - because speed isn't an endurance drug but a short burst and a long crash. the effects of the drug might last you 12 hours, but the high is only a few minutes, and you'll spend most of the night struggling with the come down in the bathroom or outside by yourself. as addictive as it is, you often hear things like "i made the mistake of trying that once....never again...."
that's if you're dancing.
what if you're having an awful fucking day? then, that burst of energy is going to manifest itself as anger, as violence. and, that's what i've been going through repeatedly with this: the smell pisses me off, and then the effect of the drug takes over, and i get very uncharacteristically angry. i yell and scream for a few minutes, it passes through my system in an hour, and then i sleep it off for ten-twelve hours.
and, i don't want this to happen again. ever. there is no reason at all that i need to tolerate being drugged against my will - and arguments that i do are ridiculous. if you think that being a liberal means getting stoned because your neighbour is, you don't understand liberalism so well.
today, i stormed downstairs and banged on their door and demanded they cut down their intake. and, it seems to have had enough of an effect that i'm starting to clear it out of my system.
so, i'm going to give them a grace today, tomorrow.
but, i'll be at the clinic early monday morning if this happens again tomorrow night.
i've also decided that i need to apologize. i don't yell at people like that. it's deeply uncharacteristic. i need to explain that i believe my behaviour was a consequence of second-hand smoke exposure, and that what they're smoking is clearly laced with something. i'm going to present meth as the most likely culprit..
but, how much smoke is getting up here?
1) enough that i can see it in the apartment. clearly. a stranger walking in here would assume i'm a smoker just via what they can see with their eyes.
2) enough that it's frizzing my hair out.
it's a lot...
Saturday, March 3, 2018
i'm feeling far more alert, today...and i didn't go through a messy phase last night, although i slept a lot...
if i'm going to catch meth or crack in the urine, it's going to need to be within a few hours of being poisoned by it, so there's no use in going today, because i didn't feel it last night.
we'll see what i feel like in the morning.
i mean, if they're done, they're done. i mentioned that it wasn't bad until a few days ago; some of the vocal snippets i'm hearing from downstairs suggests that some parents or grandparents may have been away for the week.
that would explain everything....
if i'm going to catch meth or crack in the urine, it's going to need to be within a few hours of being poisoned by it, so there's no use in going today, because i didn't feel it last night.
we'll see what i feel like in the morning.
i mean, if they're done, they're done. i mentioned that it wasn't bad until a few days ago; some of the vocal snippets i'm hearing from downstairs suggests that some parents or grandparents may have been away for the week.
that would explain everything....
we don't really have separate branches of government in canada, like they do in the united states. our system of government is still the same system that the british set up in the colonial period; we have the system of government that america revolted against, and replaced. so, what we have is a parliament and a judiciary, and it's actually really the judiciary that sits at the top of the hierarchy and gets final decision making authority, here.
the most powerful person in the country is the chief justice of the supreme court, not the prime minister.
so, because the legislative and executive branches are not separate, we end up with internal power struggles - and that's fine, it prevents gridlock. but, the legislative branch is supposed to be the dominant focus; the executive branch is supposed to operate as an arm of parliament, and ultimately be subservient to it's decisions.
the prime minister is not even directly elected.
rather, the prime minister is merely first amongst equals - just one voice at the table, of no greater importance than any other. it is the mps that elect somebody to this office, not voters. that makes the prime minister no more powerful than the speaker. in theory, the office is actually superfluous in our system - it's unnecessary, and our system should be able to operate perfectly fine without it. in my more bitter moments, i've advocated doing just that - abolishing it.
but, as a first step, we need mps to stand up and take back their constitutional roles and stop letting this plastic jesus tell them what to do.
the most powerful person in the country is the chief justice of the supreme court, not the prime minister.
so, because the legislative and executive branches are not separate, we end up with internal power struggles - and that's fine, it prevents gridlock. but, the legislative branch is supposed to be the dominant focus; the executive branch is supposed to operate as an arm of parliament, and ultimately be subservient to it's decisions.
the prime minister is not even directly elected.
rather, the prime minister is merely first amongst equals - just one voice at the table, of no greater importance than any other. it is the mps that elect somebody to this office, not voters. that makes the prime minister no more powerful than the speaker. in theory, the office is actually superfluous in our system - it's unnecessary, and our system should be able to operate perfectly fine without it. in my more bitter moments, i've advocated doing just that - abolishing it.
but, as a first step, we need mps to stand up and take back their constitutional roles and stop letting this plastic jesus tell them what to do.
this is really a co-option of our system.
the idea that the prime minister can just pull the plug on a parliamentary committee, as though he's the king, is completely absurd in the context of a westminster system of government. but, we have a tradition of parliamentary spinelessness in this country that really needs to come to an end...
i think that the members of this parliament should have turfed trudeau months ago. and, i've been vocal about it. how long will they let him run roughshod over our democratic institutions for?
and how long will we keep electing mps that just do what they're told?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/03/02/the-trudeau-government-says-its-listening-if-so-not-to-parliament.html
the idea that the prime minister can just pull the plug on a parliamentary committee, as though he's the king, is completely absurd in the context of a westminster system of government. but, we have a tradition of parliamentary spinelessness in this country that really needs to come to an end...
i think that the members of this parliament should have turfed trudeau months ago. and, i've been vocal about it. how long will they let him run roughshod over our democratic institutions for?
and how long will we keep electing mps that just do what they're told?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/03/02/the-trudeau-government-says-its-listening-if-so-not-to-parliament.html
i think what donald trump meant to say is:
if you don't have stolen land then you don't have a colonial state.
right?
or
if you don't steal land, you don't have a country.
that could have been a daley-level typo. alas...
i think this article gets the right point:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/2/1745982/-Tariffs-aren-t-good-or-bad-but-the-way-Trump-is-imposing-them-could-be-a-disaster
if you don't have stolen land then you don't have a colonial state.
right?
or
if you don't steal land, you don't have a country.
that could have been a daley-level typo. alas...
i think this article gets the right point:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/2/1745982/-Tariffs-aren-t-good-or-bad-but-the-way-Trump-is-imposing-them-could-be-a-disaster
_cropped.jpg/220px-The_Honourable_Sir_Wilfrid_Laurier_Photo_A_(HS85-10-16871)_cropped.jpg)
i've made my views on tariffs clear...
they're neither good nor bad, but they're complicated. and, you need to be really, really, really smart if you're going to start throwing them around with any meaningful intent.
the trump administration is not smart enough to do this without it coming back to hurt them.
and, canada must immediately retaliate.
they're neither good nor bad, but they're complicated. and, you need to be really, really, really smart if you're going to start throwing them around with any meaningful intent.
the trump administration is not smart enough to do this without it coming back to hurt them.
and, canada must immediately retaliate.
i could no doubt deconstruct this into a probable actual movement from liberal to undecided (i promise you that the conservatives are not up 5 points), but the polls at this stage in the cycle are realy just propaganda, anyways, and that's the better way to look at.
what i'm going to tell the liberals is this: the pandering to minorities was always a bad idea, and is going to blow up in their faces if they don't stop. nobody is going to vote for trudeau because he wears traditional indian clothing on a trip, but lots of people might vote against him because of that.
minority voters are generally more sophisticated than this and will at best ignore it.
but, low education white voters (many middle class) are broadly not more sophisticated than this at all.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4058984/justin-trudeau-india-trip-ipsos-poll/
what i'm going to tell the liberals is this: the pandering to minorities was always a bad idea, and is going to blow up in their faces if they don't stop. nobody is going to vote for trudeau because he wears traditional indian clothing on a trip, but lots of people might vote against him because of that.
minority voters are generally more sophisticated than this and will at best ignore it.
but, low education white voters (many middle class) are broadly not more sophisticated than this at all.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4058984/justin-trudeau-india-trip-ipsos-poll/
“The therapeutic community claims a 30% success rate, but they only
count people who complete the program.” Califano adds that 70-80 percent have dropped out by the 3-6 month marker.
so, you're looking at something more like around a 6-9% success rate.
are you willing to redirect billions of dollars in health care spending for a program with a 95% failure rate?
you'd have to be pretty religious not to see the folly of this.
...or perhaps get very large checks from the relevant industries.
so, you're looking at something more like around a 6-9% success rate.
are you willing to redirect billions of dollars in health care spending for a program with a 95% failure rate?
you'd have to be pretty religious not to see the folly of this.
...or perhaps get very large checks from the relevant industries.
and, i've been clear enough, but people kneejerk on this: i've never suggested punishing users, i'd rather advocate for non-intervention altogether, but i think that the dealers should be basically executed in public.
and, i mean, that doesn't mean that people should be denied services, either. if they want help, let them come to it. and, volunteer services should deal with this.
my concern is that the resources are limited, and i don't want to see money for addicts competing with money for other services. what bothers me are outreach services, and the amount of resources wasted by the system on a problem that shouldn't exist at all.
i'm sorry; i just don't consider this something that room should be made for in the public health budget.
and, i mean, that doesn't mean that people should be denied services, either. if they want help, let them come to it. and, volunteer services should deal with this.
my concern is that the resources are limited, and i don't want to see money for addicts competing with money for other services. what bothers me are outreach services, and the amount of resources wasted by the system on a problem that shouldn't exist at all.
i'm sorry; i just don't consider this something that room should be made for in the public health budget.
my mom is still alive.
i don't talk to her much, and haven't since i was a teenager and she got very heavy into heroin. i abandoned her more than she abandoned me, and i actually don't regret that; i could see as clear as day that she was hopeless, and that i had to make a choice about it: was i going to let this affect me for my whole life, or was i going to move on?
i was about 14 or 15 when i decided to move on.
there was never a talk or anything. i just showed up for a scheduled visit once to find her passed out, naked on the couch and washed my hands of her. we made no attempt to contact each other for years afterwards. i don't know if she had overdosed at the time or not.
to this day, she's a heavy methadone user that comes in and out of heroin relapses.
she got it through AA - drinking buddies looking for something stronger. she may have been blacked out when she first tried it; i don't know. maybe we can call that the "rob ford defense", moving forwards.
nobody and nothing gets 100% blame for this, and lots of entities get partial responsibility. but, knowing my mother, i don't think she would have sought it out. i think it was presented to her, and she went along to fit in. i'm consequently very much of the opinion that restricted access could have prevented her from walking down that path.
i don't talk to her much, and haven't since i was a teenager and she got very heavy into heroin. i abandoned her more than she abandoned me, and i actually don't regret that; i could see as clear as day that she was hopeless, and that i had to make a choice about it: was i going to let this affect me for my whole life, or was i going to move on?
i was about 14 or 15 when i decided to move on.
there was never a talk or anything. i just showed up for a scheduled visit once to find her passed out, naked on the couch and washed my hands of her. we made no attempt to contact each other for years afterwards. i don't know if she had overdosed at the time or not.
to this day, she's a heavy methadone user that comes in and out of heroin relapses.
she got it through AA - drinking buddies looking for something stronger. she may have been blacked out when she first tried it; i don't know. maybe we can call that the "rob ford defense", moving forwards.
nobody and nothing gets 100% blame for this, and lots of entities get partial responsibility. but, knowing my mother, i don't think she would have sought it out. i think it was presented to her, and she went along to fit in. i'm consequently very much of the opinion that restricted access could have prevented her from walking down that path.
Friday, March 2, 2018
there may even be a reason to think the reaction may be that much worse.
if you grew up in the 60s or 70s, you may have ended up bitter about your parents basically being stupid potheads. and, if you grew up in the 80s, you may have seen your hyper-materialist cokehead parents through a very unflattering prism.
but, kids of addicts growing up in the '10s are only going to hear stories about their parents.
because they're dead.
if you grew up in the 60s or 70s, you may have ended up bitter about your parents basically being stupid potheads. and, if you grew up in the 80s, you may have seen your hyper-materialist cokehead parents through a very unflattering prism.
but, kids of addicts growing up in the '10s are only going to hear stories about their parents.
because they're dead.
there's been a lot of ink spilled about how the collective consciousness of gen x was formed by revulsion at their parents' drug use. in that sense, i am firmly gen x.
but, how do you actually do this, then?
well, i've been clear that i support legalizing a handful of drugs. but, the ones that should not be mad e asily accessible are mostly heroin, meth and crack. what you'd do with these is shift to a kind of grey market - i don't want to blow up villages in costa rica to keep the crack out, but i don't want to make it available to buy at a store, or with a prescription, either.
i'm essentially an advocate of ignoring it and letting it run it's course.
but, how do you actually do this, then?
well, i've been clear that i support legalizing a handful of drugs. but, the ones that should not be mad e asily accessible are mostly heroin, meth and crack. what you'd do with these is shift to a kind of grey market - i don't want to blow up villages in costa rica to keep the crack out, but i don't want to make it available to buy at a store, or with a prescription, either.
i'm essentially an advocate of ignoring it and letting it run it's course.
i got some more sleep and am finally feeling a bit better.
20 years ago - even ten years ago - if somebody had told you that opposing the war on drugs meant being in favour of supporting drug use, the opposition to the war on drugs would have labelled that a ridiculous straw men.
for, the war on drugs was always really about controlling the supply of drugs. and, what opposing the war on drugs always meant was opposing war crimes in central america, not the free or liberalized use of chemical agents.
nowadays, opposing the war on drugs really does mean supporting widespread drug use, and arguing against widespread drug use is the same thing as supporting the war on drugs. i'd like to claim this is surreal. bur, it fits a pattern with the millennial generation, which has never known anything besides backwards orwellian arguments.
once again: i'm just waiting them out and crossing my fingers.
i think a good sign will be how the younger generation ultimately reacts to cell phones. if they grow up without really ever spending time on actual computers, we're probably screwed. but, if they're able to look at the phone and then at the laptop and say "that cell phone is of little actual use value", then there's some hope for the future.
20 years ago - even ten years ago - if somebody had told you that opposing the war on drugs meant being in favour of supporting drug use, the opposition to the war on drugs would have labelled that a ridiculous straw men.
for, the war on drugs was always really about controlling the supply of drugs. and, what opposing the war on drugs always meant was opposing war crimes in central america, not the free or liberalized use of chemical agents.
nowadays, opposing the war on drugs really does mean supporting widespread drug use, and arguing against widespread drug use is the same thing as supporting the war on drugs. i'd like to claim this is surreal. bur, it fits a pattern with the millennial generation, which has never known anything besides backwards orwellian arguments.
once again: i'm just waiting them out and crossing my fingers.
i think a good sign will be how the younger generation ultimately reacts to cell phones. if they grow up without really ever spending time on actual computers, we're probably screwed. but, if they're able to look at the phone and then at the laptop and say "that cell phone is of little actual use value", then there's some hope for the future.
i understand that the way meth is supposed to work is to mess up your rewards system. you end up addicted to a hormone, and not to meth itself.
but, my response is not give me rewards, or give me death!
rather, it's stop "rewarding me" and fuck off.
maybe there's some connection to the fact that i've never been a keener. i've never had an interest in being at the top of the class, or working my way up the ladder, or really winning at much of anything - i've always preferred to project mediocrity in the physical realm, and then be a god in my own fantasy reality. so, what meth is doing is setting off a hormonal reaction that i've never craved in the first place. and, i'm not craving for more, but pleading that they turn it off.
as i've always said: what "reaching for the top" means to me is that i must have left my beer on the top of the book shelf.
but, my response is not give me rewards, or give me death!
rather, it's stop "rewarding me" and fuck off.
maybe there's some connection to the fact that i've never been a keener. i've never had an interest in being at the top of the class, or working my way up the ladder, or really winning at much of anything - i've always preferred to project mediocrity in the physical realm, and then be a god in my own fantasy reality. so, what meth is doing is setting off a hormonal reaction that i've never craved in the first place. and, i'm not craving for more, but pleading that they turn it off.
as i've always said: what "reaching for the top" means to me is that i must have left my beer on the top of the book shelf.
getting out of the apartment this morning took me away from the poisonous smoke for long enough to allow me to come down, which gave me an opportunity to actually sleep this afternoon, and i took it over running around looking for a means to incriminate the source of the smoke.
i'll get the drug tests done in the morning.
i have the windows open and my winter jacket on to compensate. but, there will no doubt be plenty more poison wafting up tonight.
i'll get the drug tests done in the morning.
i have the windows open and my winter jacket on to compensate. but, there will no doubt be plenty more poison wafting up tonight.
occam's razor is that the doctor was/is a shill for the pharmaceutical company, and was just looking for a new victim.
but, is there a chart? and is somebody taking orders?
you can never be sure what they do or who they call when they turn that corner...and mu experiences have made the paranoia hard to completely shake...
i think they'd jump at the opportunity to wipe me out. sure.
but, is there a chart? and is somebody taking orders?
you can never be sure what they do or who they call when they turn that corner...and mu experiences have made the paranoia hard to completely shake...
i think they'd jump at the opportunity to wipe me out. sure.
and, to the fucking dipshit calvinists left standing, get this
through your thick heads: my aversion to labour has nothing to do with
drugs.
i am sober, and i still don't want to work.
and, if i had to waste all fucking day at some stupid waste of time piece of shit job, i guarantee you i'd be more interested in blasting away my individuality in a blaze of dead brain cells, because i'd have nothing else to live for besides my own self-destruction.
i've told you repeatedly that this is a philosophical position, not a mental illness. and, people of the future, in a post-labour world, will look back on me as the only sane person on the entire fucking planet.
i am sober, and i still don't want to work.
and, if i had to waste all fucking day at some stupid waste of time piece of shit job, i guarantee you i'd be more interested in blasting away my individuality in a blaze of dead brain cells, because i'd have nothing else to live for besides my own self-destruction.
i've told you repeatedly that this is a philosophical position, not a mental illness. and, people of the future, in a post-labour world, will look back on me as the only sane person on the entire fucking planet.
i'm not straight edge, but i'm a punk at heart, and i don't want to take non-recreational habit forming drugs unless i need to.
i have no interest in living in a designer drug society that prescribes a different pill for every problem.
so, you could imagine my frustration when the doctor listens to my description of being drugged by my neighbour's second hand meth smoke and responds with a suggestion to prescribe me painkillers.
i'll stick with aspirin, thanks.
"we don't prescribe aspirin."
yeah - i bet you don't have a contract with them, do you? you fucking pusher...
the thing is that she didn't drop it. she insisted that i accept an iv. and, i called her on being a pusher and stormed out.
all i wanted was a write-up for a vitals blood test. i want to know what they're poisoning me with, and how much damage it's done.
so, i'm going to try the clinic, instead.
fuck...
i have no interest in living in a designer drug society that prescribes a different pill for every problem.
so, you could imagine my frustration when the doctor listens to my description of being drugged by my neighbour's second hand meth smoke and responds with a suggestion to prescribe me painkillers.
i'll stick with aspirin, thanks.
"we don't prescribe aspirin."
yeah - i bet you don't have a contract with them, do you? you fucking pusher...
the thing is that she didn't drop it. she insisted that i accept an iv. and, i called her on being a pusher and stormed out.
all i wanted was a write-up for a vitals blood test. i want to know what they're poisoning me with, and how much damage it's done.
so, i'm going to try the clinic, instead.
fuck...
maybe i can try this...
i think we get the idea that if it's warming faster in the arctic then maybe that warmth can jump into the atmosphere, and split the vortex in half. it answers the question: where did the heat come from? i grasp this is easy to make sense of, it's just that the proposed physics of taking the heat from the land to the sky are getting a big thumbs down from the physicists, themselves.
but, you can at least make sense of a mechanism. what does it have to do with the sun?
well, it's kind of the opposite idea. every single winter, the vortex expands. but, this is a confusing way to state it, as the vortex does not expand so much as what was keeping it bottled up retreats. in physics, cold isn't actually a thing, but the absence of a thing, namely energy. so, the cold air doesn't expand; the hot air retreats. this isn't actually quite as simple as a reduction in sunlight, but it kind of is, though, yeah.
if the vortex expands far enough, it could break. it's less like pulling an elastic band apart and more like ripping a piece of bread in half. but, this would actually be a consequence of less energy in the atmosphere.
the air in the middle, where it's broken apart, would then be warmer because it's rushing in from all sides. you could imagine that being something more like ripping a bag of potato chips open. calling it "sudden warming" would then also be misleading, as it's really more of a sudden rushing.
we don't know which idea is right, yet. we know the mechanism for one of them is fishy, and we don't have definitive data for the other one, yet.
i think we get the idea that if it's warming faster in the arctic then maybe that warmth can jump into the atmosphere, and split the vortex in half. it answers the question: where did the heat come from? i grasp this is easy to make sense of, it's just that the proposed physics of taking the heat from the land to the sky are getting a big thumbs down from the physicists, themselves.
but, you can at least make sense of a mechanism. what does it have to do with the sun?
well, it's kind of the opposite idea. every single winter, the vortex expands. but, this is a confusing way to state it, as the vortex does not expand so much as what was keeping it bottled up retreats. in physics, cold isn't actually a thing, but the absence of a thing, namely energy. so, the cold air doesn't expand; the hot air retreats. this isn't actually quite as simple as a reduction in sunlight, but it kind of is, though, yeah.
if the vortex expands far enough, it could break. it's less like pulling an elastic band apart and more like ripping a piece of bread in half. but, this would actually be a consequence of less energy in the atmosphere.
the air in the middle, where it's broken apart, would then be warmer because it's rushing in from all sides. you could imagine that being something more like ripping a bag of potato chips open. calling it "sudden warming" would then also be misleading, as it's really more of a sudden rushing.
we don't know which idea is right, yet. we know the mechanism for one of them is fishy, and we don't have definitive data for the other one, yet.
the connection between the sun's output and the jet stream is not on a "how bright is it shining?" level, but on an ultraviolet radiation level. and, it has to do with how the ultraviolet energy spreads out as it hits the earth, on an angle.
so, while breaking the correlation between temperatures and solar output after 1980 was key in determining the relationship between carbon emissions and a warming climate, pointing to ssw when the sun is down at the north pole doesn't quite work out so well - because fluctuations in ultraviolet radiation happen nonetheless, and act at the place where they hit the surface.
those warm temperatures at the geographic north pole migrated in with weather systems from further south.
so, while breaking the correlation between temperatures and solar output after 1980 was key in determining the relationship between carbon emissions and a warming climate, pointing to ssw when the sun is down at the north pole doesn't quite work out so well - because fluctuations in ultraviolet radiation happen nonetheless, and act at the place where they hit the surface.
those warm temperatures at the geographic north pole migrated in with weather systems from further south.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
i think this is what i'm going to do:
i'm going to go to a clinic tomorrow and ask to get tested for everything they can test me for. then, i'll take the results to the landlord & the cops and ask them to move on it from there.
because, i don't know.
but, i'm starting to change my mind: i need to know.
i'm going to go to a clinic tomorrow and ask to get tested for everything they can test me for. then, i'll take the results to the landlord & the cops and ask them to move on it from there.
because, i don't know.
but, i'm starting to change my mind: i need to know.
i'm leaning towards it being meth.
this is a good summary of how i'm feeling.
http://www.methamphetamineaddiction.com/the-five-most-common-meth-withdrawal-signs-and-symptoms/
this is a good summary of how i'm feeling.
http://www.methamphetamineaddiction.com/the-five-most-common-meth-withdrawal-signs-and-symptoms/
ok, everything else aside, july of 2015 was actually a heavy posting month so let's hope i can pick things up in august.
the plumber fixed the shower but left a hole in the wall for smoke to seep in through, so i've moved into the living room until it gets plastered over. of course, the retards below me followed me in here - because they seem to be trying to get under my skin. you have to just ignore immature people, like that, and maybe hope somebody decides not to break for them, the next time they cross the street. they're obviously feeding off of my discomfort, due to there clearly being something wrong with them.
all of the windows are open and they will probably not close again until december. but, it's warmer in the other room, so it would be rational for them to stay on the other side of the building. hopefully, they take the bait.
i feel like i'm being harassed, but there's no use in letting whatever they're drugging me with get me upset about it.
all i can do is try and get as much oxygen in here, to fight the constant tension headaches being caused by whatever kind of hard drugs it is that they're doing, and i still have no idea if this is a meth addict or a crackhead, down there - because i've never been in direct contact with either substance.
i just feel tired, yet can't sleep. it's constant headaches, and constant stomach aches. i'm getting tracers, but it's not different from what i was getting with the migraines, and think they're being triggered by the headaches rather than by the drugs. so, you tell me: is that meth or crack? i don't know, and don't really care, i just want to air the place out.
there is no possibility that i'm going to ever enjoy whatever the fuck this is.
so, as has been the case the last few nights, i'm going to try and get some work done, with little confidence in my ability to do so. i will probably spend most of the night trying and failing to sleep.
the plumber fixed the shower but left a hole in the wall for smoke to seep in through, so i've moved into the living room until it gets plastered over. of course, the retards below me followed me in here - because they seem to be trying to get under my skin. you have to just ignore immature people, like that, and maybe hope somebody decides not to break for them, the next time they cross the street. they're obviously feeding off of my discomfort, due to there clearly being something wrong with them.
all of the windows are open and they will probably not close again until december. but, it's warmer in the other room, so it would be rational for them to stay on the other side of the building. hopefully, they take the bait.
i feel like i'm being harassed, but there's no use in letting whatever they're drugging me with get me upset about it.
all i can do is try and get as much oxygen in here, to fight the constant tension headaches being caused by whatever kind of hard drugs it is that they're doing, and i still have no idea if this is a meth addict or a crackhead, down there - because i've never been in direct contact with either substance.
i just feel tired, yet can't sleep. it's constant headaches, and constant stomach aches. i'm getting tracers, but it's not different from what i was getting with the migraines, and think they're being triggered by the headaches rather than by the drugs. so, you tell me: is that meth or crack? i don't know, and don't really care, i just want to air the place out.
there is no possibility that i'm going to ever enjoy whatever the fuck this is.
so, as has been the case the last few nights, i'm going to try and get some work done, with little confidence in my ability to do so. i will probably spend most of the night trying and failing to sleep.
how do i use so little electricity?
- i haven't turned the tv on since i moved in, and am considering trashing it.
- one computer on at a time. well, usually.
- no dishwasher.
- no a/c.
- i cook with the element but not with the stove.
i actually sleep with the lights on, usually.
things i have on all the time: fridge, cable modem, router & that's it, really.
- i haven't turned the tv on since i moved in, and am considering trashing it.
- one computer on at a time. well, usually.
- no dishwasher.
- no a/c.
- i cook with the element but not with the stove.
i actually sleep with the lights on, usually.
things i have on all the time: fridge, cable modem, router & that's it, really.
what kind of an idiot looks at a bill like this and blames the cost of electricity on the government?
the credit means that i have nothing to complain about.
$39*24 = $936.
are they going to pay that out at the end?
but, if i was going to get pissy about it, i'd be angry with enwin for the delivery charge being twice the cost of actual electricity.
$39*24 = $936.
are they going to pay that out at the end?
but, if i was going to get pissy about it, i'd be angry with enwin for the delivery charge being twice the cost of actual electricity.
erin was probably the least attractive person that i've ever met, and i found her revolting on multiple levels. not only did i make no attempt to make any pass at her, but i rejected her own advances on me on numerous occasions.
but, i respected her talents as a musician and was hoping to utilize them at some point. further, because she was so much younger than i was (and quite immature for her age, even), i often found myself in situations where i needed to act like an adult, for her benefit. i was too responsible to bail on her. perhaps that was an error.
that was all there ever was to it.
i have not spoken to her or thought much about her since i asked her not to talk to me any more, which was almost five years ago.
but, i respected her talents as a musician and was hoping to utilize them at some point. further, because she was so much younger than i was (and quite immature for her age, even), i often found myself in situations where i needed to act like an adult, for her benefit. i was too responsible to bail on her. perhaps that was an error.
that was all there ever was to it.
i have not spoken to her or thought much about her since i asked her not to talk to me any more, which was almost five years ago.
i'm not normally somebody that has difficulty focusing. when i sit down to do something, i normally have a really laser-sharp focus; i'll spend days or weeks lost in a task, to the expense of things around me, and not really care.
so, this is something i'm not sure i've experienced before. i have no memories of this, at the least.
i almost feel like i'm not the same person, or something.
the emotions i'm feeling are a combination of anger and frustration. it's making me want to lash out at something or somebody. it's beyond uncharacteristic. it's almost got me wondering if somebody's put something in my water, or something, as this is what i'd imagine that somebody on anti-depressants is likely to feel like.
but, i know it's the smoke and i know i just have to wait it out.
i do not think i suffer from depression. i have never been seriously diagnosed with depression. i do not think i have a chemical imbalance. and, if somebody is drugging me against my will, that person or entity should face severe penalties and consequences: because this is beyond unpleasant, and in no way medically jusrified.
i'm literally feeling an urge to beat something into a pulp. i'm somebody that has been on testosterone suppressors for almost ten years; that does not make sense. and, i've never experienced that before.
it's not pot. i don't know what it is; i've never done anti-depressents. i've never done cocaine. i've never done meth. i've never smoked crack. i don't know what they taste or smell like, or what they feel like.
but, i know that this is the worst i've ever felt in my life.
so, this is something i'm not sure i've experienced before. i have no memories of this, at the least.
i almost feel like i'm not the same person, or something.
the emotions i'm feeling are a combination of anger and frustration. it's making me want to lash out at something or somebody. it's beyond uncharacteristic. it's almost got me wondering if somebody's put something in my water, or something, as this is what i'd imagine that somebody on anti-depressants is likely to feel like.
but, i know it's the smoke and i know i just have to wait it out.
i do not think i suffer from depression. i have never been seriously diagnosed with depression. i do not think i have a chemical imbalance. and, if somebody is drugging me against my will, that person or entity should face severe penalties and consequences: because this is beyond unpleasant, and in no way medically jusrified.
i'm literally feeling an urge to beat something into a pulp. i'm somebody that has been on testosterone suppressors for almost ten years; that does not make sense. and, i've never experienced that before.
it's not pot. i don't know what it is; i've never done anti-depressents. i've never done cocaine. i've never done meth. i've never smoked crack. i don't know what they taste or smell like, or what they feel like.
but, i know that this is the worst i've ever felt in my life.
meth is not something you fuck around with.
an accidental overdose could lead to mass organ failure and instant death.
with the exception of heroin (& derivatives), it is singularly dangerous amongst "recreational" drugs.
i would literally go down there, knock their down and beat the shit out of them on the spot. i'd then blame it on the second-hand smoke wafting up, and intend to win the argument.
an accidental overdose could lead to mass organ failure and instant death.
with the exception of heroin (& derivatives), it is singularly dangerous amongst "recreational" drugs.
i would literally go down there, knock their down and beat the shit out of them on the spot. i'd then blame it on the second-hand smoke wafting up, and intend to win the argument.
see, i don't know why hoskins does this, unless he's serious. i'm sure part of the calculation is that he was looking for a way out of what might be a very bad election for the provincial liberals in june. but, he could have taken a job at a bank. i'm sure he's serious.
but, whether trudeau's handlers are just stringing him along is another question...
at this point, trudeau's credibility is so ridiculously shot that you can't give any statement from this government more than a 25% chance of being true, a priori.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/02/28/are-the-trudeau-liberals-serious-about-pharmacare-this-time.html
but, whether trudeau's handlers are just stringing him along is another question...
at this point, trudeau's credibility is so ridiculously shot that you can't give any statement from this government more than a 25% chance of being true, a priori.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/02/28/are-the-trudeau-liberals-serious-about-pharmacare-this-time.html
i got a few hours of sleep this afternoon, but i woke up disoriented, and i still feel like i had a lobotomy. my brain just feels gone. i'm not really here, and i don't like it at all. i'm taking aspirin every 5 or 6 hours and it helps with the headache, but not with the disorientation. i've also consumed something like two pots of coffee over the last 48 hours, and it's only barely helping me fight this crappy woozy feeling.
the plumber replaced the broken cartridge this morning, but he had to rebuild the system to do it, and now there's apparently a leak in the pipe behind the shower head, so he's going to have to come back tomorrow to tear the wall down.
i'm actually looking forward to this, because it should give me a better opportunity to patch the holes in the wall, in the long run.
i might not stay awake very long. but, i'm going to try to work through july tonight. and, then i'm going to need to pull everything out of the bedroom so he can work with the plaster in the morning. and, like i say - i'm ok with this, because it will give me a chance to tape the walls down.
the temperature outside has fallen, but i don't really care. i'm going to need the windows open until i can find a way to stop the smoke from seeping in.
the plumber replaced the broken cartridge this morning, but he had to rebuild the system to do it, and now there's apparently a leak in the pipe behind the shower head, so he's going to have to come back tomorrow to tear the wall down.
i'm actually looking forward to this, because it should give me a better opportunity to patch the holes in the wall, in the long run.
i might not stay awake very long. but, i'm going to try to work through july tonight. and, then i'm going to need to pull everything out of the bedroom so he can work with the plaster in the morning. and, like i say - i'm ok with this, because it will give me a chance to tape the walls down.
the temperature outside has fallen, but i don't really care. i'm going to need the windows open until i can find a way to stop the smoke from seeping in.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
wait.
you're not still talking about the philips curve in 2018, are you?
that was debunked like 50 years ago. which is laffier at this point?
listen: you can't get out of this by boosting interest rates and cutting spending, either. that's even worse. you'll get a recession in no time.
there's no reason for us to be paying interest on government debt.
you're not still talking about the philips curve in 2018, are you?
that was debunked like 50 years ago. which is laffier at this point?
listen: you can't get out of this by boosting interest rates and cutting spending, either. that's even worse. you'll get a recession in no time.
there's no reason for us to be paying interest on government debt.
i've posted about this at length elsewhere, but, just to clarify, if i wasn't clear: the problem that canada faced with the imf in the 90s wasn't actually about debt. it was about interest rates. it's not that we "spent too much" - that doesn't mean anything - it's that we borrowed it from banks at 15-20% interest rates.
then, chretien inherits this ridiculous debt (that ballooned under mulroney, not trudeau). but, the debt was not spurred by spending in the 60s and early 70s, it was all interest accumulated in the late 70s and early 80s...
what this did was give investors leverage over the government, because we owed them their pound of flesh. so, they started thinking they could tell us what to do.
and, thankfully, our government at the time didn't fold. it restructured, and it sold off some assets (oil, planes) but it didn't touch the social fabric of the country. harper would have. i think trudeau will, too, if we get there.
the solution is not to cut spending. that doesn't matter. and, it has it's own negative consequences, too.
the solution is to ensure that interest rates stay low, so we don't build up this external debt. or, if we find ourselves unable to control the rates, to stop borrowing from private lenders.
then, chretien inherits this ridiculous debt (that ballooned under mulroney, not trudeau). but, the debt was not spurred by spending in the 60s and early 70s, it was all interest accumulated in the late 70s and early 80s...
what this did was give investors leverage over the government, because we owed them their pound of flesh. so, they started thinking they could tell us what to do.
and, thankfully, our government at the time didn't fold. it restructured, and it sold off some assets (oil, planes) but it didn't touch the social fabric of the country. harper would have. i think trudeau will, too, if we get there.
the solution is not to cut spending. that doesn't matter. and, it has it's own negative consequences, too.
the solution is to ensure that interest rates stay low, so we don't build up this external debt. or, if we find ourselves unable to control the rates, to stop borrowing from private lenders.
and, no - a quarter percent modification of the interest rate doesn't lead anybody to change their decisions.
if interest rates have any effect at all - and i'm not even at this point - then it is purely on the level of statist brainwashing. this is gramscian theory, not economic theory.
but, what is bad about high interest rates is that it makes it harder for governments to run deficits, which just contributes to the downward spiral created by removing the stimulus.
if interest rates have any effect at all - and i'm not even at this point - then it is purely on the level of statist brainwashing. this is gramscian theory, not economic theory.
but, what is bad about high interest rates is that it makes it harder for governments to run deficits, which just contributes to the downward spiral created by removing the stimulus.
again: you'll have to wait a few months to see what i'm saying play out. and, something else could happen to negate what i'm saying.
but, two major things happened with the market:
1) the end of quantitative easing, which should plunge the market by tens of thousands of points by the time it's done and is both structural and long term.
2) tax cuts, which should provide a short term burst that fizzles out, relatively quickly.
so, the tax cuts are having this kind of buoyant effect.
but, it's like putting a life jacket on the titanic.
or using an umbrella to protect yourself against a falling piano.
and, this is just what capitalism is.
but, two major things happened with the market:
1) the end of quantitative easing, which should plunge the market by tens of thousands of points by the time it's done and is both structural and long term.
2) tax cuts, which should provide a short term burst that fizzles out, relatively quickly.
so, the tax cuts are having this kind of buoyant effect.
but, it's like putting a life jacket on the titanic.
or using an umbrella to protect yourself against a falling piano.
and, this is just what capitalism is.
the area we today call afghanistan was actually once the wealthiest and most advanced parts of persian civilization, rich in irrigation systems, and both at the centre of global trade routes (and perhaps of global trade, itself) and a distant refuge of learning and spirituality. those bamyan statues were perhaps the last relic of what was truly greatness.
white people right?
well, the persians kinda were white at the time, actually.
it was the mongols. they slaughtered entire cities, laying waste to the whole countryside, destroying irrigation systems, raping whatever was left and leaving desolated and expanding desertification in their wake.
it was so total, that it's never been rebuilt.
to truly rebuild afghanistan would be the legacy of a god-king. and, one might hope that that is one of the upsides of the expanding chinese dominance in the region, as they no doubt remember it as it was better than anybody else.
white people right?
well, the persians kinda were white at the time, actually.
it was the mongols. they slaughtered entire cities, laying waste to the whole countryside, destroying irrigation systems, raping whatever was left and leaving desolated and expanding desertification in their wake.
it was so total, that it's never been rebuilt.
to truly rebuild afghanistan would be the legacy of a god-king. and, one might hope that that is one of the upsides of the expanding chinese dominance in the region, as they no doubt remember it as it was better than anybody else.
the last couple of days have been pretty brutal.
i've been unable to sleep for something like a week. an hour or two here and there. i've spent most of the last 15+ hours trying to sleep with no success...
this has left me with a headache and a stomach ache, both of which are being compounded by a large amount of second hand smoke coming up through a hole in the floor, which is going to need to stay open until i can get the plumbing fixed, and it is unclear when that will happen.
i feel like death.
in the mean time, i've been forced to leave every window open in the apartment, and i have no intention of closing them until i can fix the hole in the floor that's exacerbating the headache.
back at the old apartment, i pointed out repeatedly that there was no solution in moving to a different apartment, as i'd just recreate the same problems. up until last week or so, this place legitimately seemed a lot better, but there appears to be a lot of marijuana coming up from the floors all of a sudden. i think i can fix this by taping over it. but, i have to wait until the plumbing is fixed.
i don't expect to be able to do much of anything useful until this problem is resolved, and it's unclear how long this is going to take.
but, as was the case before, there is no solution in changing apartments - as i've just demonstrated.
i really wish there was a law against smoking inside of apartment buildings...
as it is, i have no recourse but to slowly seal off all of the cracks, until they're all gone.
i've been unable to sleep for something like a week. an hour or two here and there. i've spent most of the last 15+ hours trying to sleep with no success...
this has left me with a headache and a stomach ache, both of which are being compounded by a large amount of second hand smoke coming up through a hole in the floor, which is going to need to stay open until i can get the plumbing fixed, and it is unclear when that will happen.
i feel like death.
in the mean time, i've been forced to leave every window open in the apartment, and i have no intention of closing them until i can fix the hole in the floor that's exacerbating the headache.
back at the old apartment, i pointed out repeatedly that there was no solution in moving to a different apartment, as i'd just recreate the same problems. up until last week or so, this place legitimately seemed a lot better, but there appears to be a lot of marijuana coming up from the floors all of a sudden. i think i can fix this by taping over it. but, i have to wait until the plumbing is fixed.
i don't expect to be able to do much of anything useful until this problem is resolved, and it's unclear how long this is going to take.
but, as was the case before, there is no solution in changing apartments - as i've just demonstrated.
i really wish there was a law against smoking inside of apartment buildings...
as it is, i have no recourse but to slowly seal off all of the cracks, until they're all gone.
i mean, it's nice to pat yourself on the back thinking you did something good, for whatever trivial reason, but it's really only your ego that's benefiting if an objective factual analysis concludes that everybody is worse off by your supposed act of beneficence.
and, a rational agent is just going to conclude that you're all completely insane.
and, a rational agent is just going to conclude that you're all completely insane.
see, i don't have any contempt for these people.
but, i just want you to read the article and ask yourself whether it made sense to bring them here, at great expense, and for little gain.
i'd have rather have sent the assad regime weapons to help them fight isis.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/syrian-refugee-update-1.4545226
but, i just want you to read the article and ask yourself whether it made sense to bring them here, at great expense, and for little gain.
i'd have rather have sent the assad regime weapons to help them fight isis.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/syrian-refugee-update-1.4545226
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
spoiler: i endorsed trudeau for the singular reason that i thought he'd be better than mulcair on climate change.
it was a hail mary, granted. there was this infrastructure bank in the platform that has since evaporated.
it's been a disappointing several years. but, i'll stand by my claim that mulcair would have been worse.
it was a hail mary, granted. there was this infrastructure bank in the platform that has since evaporated.
it's been a disappointing several years. but, i'll stand by my claim that mulcair would have been worse.
i don't see anything i'm opposed to.
more money for science sounds good, but i don't know what that actually means. i doubt that the feminist bit ends up more than pr.
the absence of carbon transition commitments is no longer surprising but is jarring and disappointing.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/27/news/budget-delivers-new-conservation-fund-avoids-climate-commitments
more money for science sounds good, but i don't know what that actually means. i doubt that the feminist bit ends up more than pr.
the absence of carbon transition commitments is no longer surprising but is jarring and disappointing.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/27/news/budget-delivers-new-conservation-fund-avoids-climate-commitments
i'd like to comment on the janus case, but this is a situation where the american jurisprudence is so different than the canadian jurisprudence that i can barely understand it.
not only does right to work not exist anywhere in canada, but i am not aware of any politician at any level even thinking about contemplating it, for the reason that it would be instant political suicide. it would be on the absolute fringe of canadian politics. in fact, one of the demands that trudeau made around nafta was that the president abolish right to work at a federal level.
put bluntly, i don't understand what free speech has to do with union dues. not even abstractly. i can normally imagine an argument, and debunk it; but, i don't think that free speech and union dues have anything more to do with each other than bananas and sauerkraut - it's just incoherent on it's face.
so, i'd have to start at the very beginning, and walk very slowly down this path. i'm no doubt going to find many, many things that strike me as basic logical errors at the very beginning of the argument, and that even the american left has taken as precedent.
the way i would analyze this, without looking at the case law, would be that taking a job means signing a contract, and that if union dues are a part of the contract then employment becomes conditional on paying them. you can't sign a contract and then pick the parts you like, and then ask a judge to scratch out the parts you don't like, claiming "free speech". you can breach the contract if you like, but that would mean your employer could fire you for breach of contract.
i'm just not able to imagine where the first amendment enters into this, or at least not on my own.
canada and america are close neighbours and everything, but this is really foreign to me.
not only does right to work not exist anywhere in canada, but i am not aware of any politician at any level even thinking about contemplating it, for the reason that it would be instant political suicide. it would be on the absolute fringe of canadian politics. in fact, one of the demands that trudeau made around nafta was that the president abolish right to work at a federal level.
put bluntly, i don't understand what free speech has to do with union dues. not even abstractly. i can normally imagine an argument, and debunk it; but, i don't think that free speech and union dues have anything more to do with each other than bananas and sauerkraut - it's just incoherent on it's face.
so, i'd have to start at the very beginning, and walk very slowly down this path. i'm no doubt going to find many, many things that strike me as basic logical errors at the very beginning of the argument, and that even the american left has taken as precedent.
the way i would analyze this, without looking at the case law, would be that taking a job means signing a contract, and that if union dues are a part of the contract then employment becomes conditional on paying them. you can't sign a contract and then pick the parts you like, and then ask a judge to scratch out the parts you don't like, claiming "free speech". you can breach the contract if you like, but that would mean your employer could fire you for breach of contract.
i'm just not able to imagine where the first amendment enters into this, or at least not on my own.
canada and america are close neighbours and everything, but this is really foreign to me.
i've always just assumed that few people really believe the theology, anyways.
so, you can talk about a jew, a christian and amuslim buddhist walking into a bar and getting along, because none of them believe any of it, anyways. it's when they do believe it that they start fighting over it.
but, that's hardly optimal, then, is it? why don't they just drop the bullshit, so we can say "three people walked into a bar..."
https://www.alternet.org/story/149588/no%2C_atheists_don%27t_have_to_show_%22respect%22_for_religion
so, you can talk about a jew, a christian and a
but, that's hardly optimal, then, is it? why don't they just drop the bullshit, so we can say "three people walked into a bar..."
https://www.alternet.org/story/149588/no%2C_atheists_don%27t_have_to_show_%22respect%22_for_religion
a secular left would not be interested in making accommodations for religious minorities, but would rather deflect that kind of thing to the conservative parties.
instead, a secular left would lay down a system of civil rights and expect that the law conform to those civil rights, regardless of whether those laws contradict those texts or not.
instead, a secular left would lay down a system of civil rights and expect that the law conform to those civil rights, regardless of whether those laws contradict those texts or not.
what i am presenting is a secular left, and then arguing that it has no common cause with a "religious left" at all, which is in truth just the same thing as the religious right. a trojan horse, if you will.
the secular left is a far less racist choice than any religious left would be, and prioritizes equal rights for everybody, regardless of what obsolete bronze age texts claim, or what internalized systems of heteropatriarchy push down.
so, a secular left is not interested in debates about abortion or queer equality.
what i want to happen is for a competition to take place and voters to make their choice: do they want a secular left or a religious one?
again: i claim you cannot have both, and that the so-called religious left should realign on the right, where it belongs.
clearly, we don't like each other, do we?
so, let's let voters decide which option they like better.
i understand that i will lose this argument with older voters, including most millennial voters. but, i think my arguments will be quite well received by younger voters, over the upcoming years.
you can choose irrelevancy if you'd prefer. what do i fucking care?
the secular left is a far less racist choice than any religious left would be, and prioritizes equal rights for everybody, regardless of what obsolete bronze age texts claim, or what internalized systems of heteropatriarchy push down.
so, a secular left is not interested in debates about abortion or queer equality.
what i want to happen is for a competition to take place and voters to make their choice: do they want a secular left or a religious one?
again: i claim you cannot have both, and that the so-called religious left should realign on the right, where it belongs.
clearly, we don't like each other, do we?
so, let's let voters decide which option they like better.
i understand that i will lose this argument with older voters, including most millennial voters. but, i think my arguments will be quite well received by younger voters, over the upcoming years.
you can choose irrelevancy if you'd prefer. what do i fucking care?
see, i don't believe in morals, but i do believe in rights.
and, we get to make those rights up, too - we don't need a divine source or an objective truth.
but, if we're convinced of their truths, or even their idealistic projection as truths, via whatever argumentation, we should uphold them as best as we can.
yes - that will lead to conflict. this isn't just ok. it's necessary: that conflict will propel us forwards.
leftists, after all, are all about conflict. conflict drives progress...
if you want harmony, your home is on the right.
and, we get to make those rights up, too - we don't need a divine source or an objective truth.
but, if we're convinced of their truths, or even their idealistic projection as truths, via whatever argumentation, we should uphold them as best as we can.
yes - that will lead to conflict. this isn't just ok. it's necessary: that conflict will propel us forwards.
leftists, after all, are all about conflict. conflict drives progress...
if you want harmony, your home is on the right.
there's this group of anarcho-pacifists, but they're broadly seen as not getting it.
anarchists are, in truth, usually very dismissive of pacifism. we're radical revolutionaries, at the core. some of us are smarter than others regarding tactics, but we know we'll have to fight the existing structure to build the world we want, at some point along the way.
sorry.
anarchists are, in truth, usually very dismissive of pacifism. we're radical revolutionaries, at the core. some of us are smarter than others regarding tactics, but we know we'll have to fight the existing structure to build the world we want, at some point along the way.
sorry.
there are certain segments of the left that would call you paranoid for refusing to walk into a lion's den.
what is really behind this is not arrogance but white supremacism, but it's that kind of peculiar american white supremacism that extends to non-white americans, too: you might be better off to think of it as american supremacism, but you'd be deluding yourself into not understanding it as racism.
so, despite being a brutal fascist empire that is bent on colonial expansion and has already wreaked havoc through central and eastern asia, the chinese could not possibly be a threat to america, for two reasons:
1) as they aren't white, they aren't really threatening. they're just noble savages, really.
2) white america is, of course, invincible, anyways.
you can't win the argument because it isn't based in evidence, it's based on an internalized racial hierarchy that places america at the top - and can never be altered.
america will fall. that is certain. it will be violent, and deeply unpleasant for all. so, the question is in identifying which agents are most likely to bring us to this end point.
nobody with clear vision will pick anybody other than china.
besides, you could always ask them. you might not like what they tell you, or be prepared to hear it...
what is really behind this is not arrogance but white supremacism, but it's that kind of peculiar american white supremacism that extends to non-white americans, too: you might be better off to think of it as american supremacism, but you'd be deluding yourself into not understanding it as racism.
so, despite being a brutal fascist empire that is bent on colonial expansion and has already wreaked havoc through central and eastern asia, the chinese could not possibly be a threat to america, for two reasons:
1) as they aren't white, they aren't really threatening. they're just noble savages, really.
2) white america is, of course, invincible, anyways.
you can't win the argument because it isn't based in evidence, it's based on an internalized racial hierarchy that places america at the top - and can never be altered.
america will fall. that is certain. it will be violent, and deeply unpleasant for all. so, the question is in identifying which agents are most likely to bring us to this end point.
nobody with clear vision will pick anybody other than china.
besides, you could always ask them. you might not like what they tell you, or be prepared to hear it...
Monday, February 26, 2018
i'll bite tonight on north korea, but i usually don't pay a lot of attention.
the reason is that north korea is an absolute stalemate. mathemtically, tactically, strategically - there is no move on either side that is possible. and, the truth is that the nuclear deterrent doesn't really alter anything at all.
so, nobody makes any moves, because there aren't any to make.
....except the guy that doesn't understand anything about tactics, strategy or mathematics. that guy thinks he can solve the problem nobody else can, because, by the sheer magnitude of his ignorance, he is the only one smart enough to do it. over confidence is a dangerous trait for a world leader.
in this sense, trump is more jong-il than they are, themselves.
but, that doesn't mean that anybody is going to let trump actually do anything substantive. i'm going to put this down starkly: trump is more likely to get assassinated than he is to succeed in launching any kind of an attack on north korea. so, we just have to be patient about this, and hope that the chinese are wise enough (sorry....) to see the situation for what it is and wait it out.
but, let's suppose that, somehow, trump wins this argument, and the generals let him put the army guys in korea, so he can do his little tour, and pretend he's avenging the other mccarthy - no, the other other mccarthy*. then what?
i honestly don't think the chinese react, or at least not immediately. there's that river. that's the red line. and, if a more competent leader were to do this, they might have to. but, trump? no...
what the chinese are going to do is look at what happened in iraq, and try to emulate it. iran could have never removed saddam hussein on it's own. but, once he was gone, they walked into the power vacuum and have converted an enemy into an ally.
likewise, what the chinese are going to do is lay low for a little while and then take advantage of the situation on the ground. that will include taking advantage of angst from countries like south korea and potentially japan about american recklessness.
ten years after the american invasion, the korean problem will be solved - by annexation.
....and, there may be aspects of the chinese leadership that are consequently hoping he does it....
....but i don't expect this stalemate to break any time soon, because there really isn't a way to break it. so, on to other matters.
*the mccarthier one.
the reason is that north korea is an absolute stalemate. mathemtically, tactically, strategically - there is no move on either side that is possible. and, the truth is that the nuclear deterrent doesn't really alter anything at all.
so, nobody makes any moves, because there aren't any to make.
....except the guy that doesn't understand anything about tactics, strategy or mathematics. that guy thinks he can solve the problem nobody else can, because, by the sheer magnitude of his ignorance, he is the only one smart enough to do it. over confidence is a dangerous trait for a world leader.
in this sense, trump is more jong-il than they are, themselves.
but, that doesn't mean that anybody is going to let trump actually do anything substantive. i'm going to put this down starkly: trump is more likely to get assassinated than he is to succeed in launching any kind of an attack on north korea. so, we just have to be patient about this, and hope that the chinese are wise enough (sorry....) to see the situation for what it is and wait it out.
but, let's suppose that, somehow, trump wins this argument, and the generals let him put the army guys in korea, so he can do his little tour, and pretend he's avenging the other mccarthy - no, the other other mccarthy*. then what?
i honestly don't think the chinese react, or at least not immediately. there's that river. that's the red line. and, if a more competent leader were to do this, they might have to. but, trump? no...
what the chinese are going to do is look at what happened in iraq, and try to emulate it. iran could have never removed saddam hussein on it's own. but, once he was gone, they walked into the power vacuum and have converted an enemy into an ally.
likewise, what the chinese are going to do is lay low for a little while and then take advantage of the situation on the ground. that will include taking advantage of angst from countries like south korea and potentially japan about american recklessness.
ten years after the american invasion, the korean problem will be solved - by annexation.
....and, there may be aspects of the chinese leadership that are consequently hoping he does it....
....but i don't expect this stalemate to break any time soon, because there really isn't a way to break it. so, on to other matters.
*the mccarthier one.
fuck this, we should seize it back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/26/real-estate-canada-anbang_a_23371224/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/26/real-estate-canada-anbang_a_23371224/
on being beautiful, once
perhaps what this intends to illustrate is the connection between religious fundamentalism, mental illness and irrational behaviour?
i don't understand how you can relate with the male character here, at all. this is is just insane behaviour, all around. and, this man needs to speak with a mental health professional.
you seem to be mostly coming from jewish or christian backgrounds. but, this story is more important in the muslim tradition, where it informs one of the eid festivals. the narrative in the muslim tradition is a little different as well: in the muslim tradition, this is meant to celebrate abraham's faith - which, in context, presents the idea that he might actually do it as the most supreme act of righteousness possible. abraham is presented as a hero, here, and his faith as something to emulate.
i've never been able to interpret this as anything more or less than simple crazy talk. and, the only lesson i get from the story or ever did get from it when i read it as a child is about the dangers of faith, and how it can lead to poor decision making.
when i first heard the song, it reminded me of trump's campaign slogan: make america great again. but, i remember thinking that the irony wasn't cognizant in his mind. he didn't realize he was making the exact same error, or that that kind of thinking would have the exact same outcome. this is common in people of faith, that can't see through this two-way mirror, and often don't realize it's there.
after watching the video, i'm not so sure anymore. because, this can be seen as an indictment as easily as it can be seen as anything else. and, i guess that kind of ambiguity is what defines a lot of art as what it is.
i don't understand how you can relate with the male character here, at all. this is is just insane behaviour, all around. and, this man needs to speak with a mental health professional.
you seem to be mostly coming from jewish or christian backgrounds. but, this story is more important in the muslim tradition, where it informs one of the eid festivals. the narrative in the muslim tradition is a little different as well: in the muslim tradition, this is meant to celebrate abraham's faith - which, in context, presents the idea that he might actually do it as the most supreme act of righteousness possible. abraham is presented as a hero, here, and his faith as something to emulate.
i've never been able to interpret this as anything more or less than simple crazy talk. and, the only lesson i get from the story or ever did get from it when i read it as a child is about the dangers of faith, and how it can lead to poor decision making.
when i first heard the song, it reminded me of trump's campaign slogan: make america great again. but, i remember thinking that the irony wasn't cognizant in his mind. he didn't realize he was making the exact same error, or that that kind of thinking would have the exact same outcome. this is common in people of faith, that can't see through this two-way mirror, and often don't realize it's there.
after watching the video, i'm not so sure anymore. because, this can be seen as an indictment as easily as it can be seen as anything else. and, i guess that kind of ambiguity is what defines a lot of art as what it is.
i mean, you could say the same thing about not eating pork.
if you lived in the desert before the invention of refrigeration, pork was probably going to make you really sick. so, that's a good rule for bronze age nomads.
but, nowadays, you can just throw the bacon in the fridge.
well, if you have electricity, anyways.
if you lived in the desert before the invention of refrigeration, pork was probably going to make you really sick. so, that's a good rule for bronze age nomads.
but, nowadays, you can just throw the bacon in the fridge.
well, if you have electricity, anyways.
fwiw, what is my take on the origin of the story?
well, there's this interesting idea running through roman history that the carthaginians practiced child sacrifice as a part of their religious rituals. the carthaginians were a semitic people that colonized the coasts of north africa and southern spain, from home bases in modern day lebanon. the romans successfully wiped them off the face of the earth like jagmeet singh's beard must eventually be wiped off of the face of the earth, leaving nothing much at all but scattered traces and broken latin translations of their science, but it is well understood that they were the most advanced civilization of their period.
both the phoenicians and the hebrews came from cultural canaanite origins. and, it may be that this ritual of sacrifice was widespread in the areas that judaism eventually evolved in.
the timelines are very rough, but fit with a broad hypothesis that this story was meant to end an endemic practice of child sacrifice in society. the important part of the story may consequently not have had much to do with faith at all, but been more about the ram that was presented instead - the lesson being to kill the ram, not the kids.
(and, what do we call young goats?)
some caution is required, as i'm basically arguing that the ancient jews were baby eaters, and i'm aware of the path i'm walking down. but, i'm going to flip this over: the accusations are as old as history is. and, we do actually have archaeological evidence that does seem to suggest that child sacrifice is something that happened in pre-roman canaanite civilization. as far as we can tell, this is something that happened in the mists of history, even if there isn't any evidence that it has happened since.
as is the case regarding much of the bible, if that is true then it was an important lesson in the bronze age, wasn't it? how many children's lives did the story save?
but, it would also follow that the lesson we are to learn today is one of distancing ourselves from faith.
well, there's this interesting idea running through roman history that the carthaginians practiced child sacrifice as a part of their religious rituals. the carthaginians were a semitic people that colonized the coasts of north africa and southern spain, from home bases in modern day lebanon. the romans successfully wiped them off the face of the earth like jagmeet singh's beard must eventually be wiped off of the face of the earth, leaving nothing much at all but scattered traces and broken latin translations of their science, but it is well understood that they were the most advanced civilization of their period.
both the phoenicians and the hebrews came from cultural canaanite origins. and, it may be that this ritual of sacrifice was widespread in the areas that judaism eventually evolved in.
the timelines are very rough, but fit with a broad hypothesis that this story was meant to end an endemic practice of child sacrifice in society. the important part of the story may consequently not have had much to do with faith at all, but been more about the ram that was presented instead - the lesson being to kill the ram, not the kids.
(and, what do we call young goats?)
some caution is required, as i'm basically arguing that the ancient jews were baby eaters, and i'm aware of the path i'm walking down. but, i'm going to flip this over: the accusations are as old as history is. and, we do actually have archaeological evidence that does seem to suggest that child sacrifice is something that happened in pre-roman canaanite civilization. as far as we can tell, this is something that happened in the mists of history, even if there isn't any evidence that it has happened since.
as is the case regarding much of the bible, if that is true then it was an important lesson in the bronze age, wasn't it? how many children's lives did the story save?
but, it would also follow that the lesson we are to learn today is one of distancing ourselves from faith.
my official take on the existential literature is that i haven't spent the time exploring it for the reason that it would feel like i'm reading my own thoughts.
i know that i have an exceedingly deep connection to this - to the point that i don't feel i'd learn anything from reading it.
it's basically innate to who i am; instinct, almost.
so, i'm aware that i sound like i've read mountains of camus and kierkegaard and the rest. in truth, i've only explored it at a very cursory level.
my brain is just wired to make the same deductions, independently.
i will get to it, eventually.
i know that i have an exceedingly deep connection to this - to the point that i don't feel i'd learn anything from reading it.
it's basically innate to who i am; instinct, almost.
so, i'm aware that i sound like i've read mountains of camus and kierkegaard and the rest. in truth, i've only explored it at a very cursory level.
my brain is just wired to make the same deductions, independently.
i will get to it, eventually.
i mean, maybe that's a tactic we should be more aware of, and maybe this is one of the ways that we defeat religion, in the end. it's their own tactic. christmas, as we celebrate it, is more pagan than jewish; that's no accident, it's what the church did to convert people.
so, why don't we take their stories and turn them back around on them?
this particular story really is a powerful parable, and it really does have an important lesson about the irrationality and dangers of uncritical faith. so, let's get that lesson across to our kids.
so, why don't we take their stories and turn them back around on them?
this particular story really is a powerful parable, and it really does have an important lesson about the irrationality and dangers of uncritical faith. so, let's get that lesson across to our kids.
there is an excellent parable in this story. i remember learning a lot from it - it was one of the stories that made me question the value of faith, and taught me that faith can lead to poor decision making....
so, i don't think this story should be forgotten, or that it's pages should be burned.
but, none of the religions draw the right conclusions.
the way that religion teaches this story is really a good example of the blind leading the blind.
so, i don't think this story should be forgotten, or that it's pages should be burned.
but, none of the religions draw the right conclusions.
the way that religion teaches this story is really a good example of the blind leading the blind.
i think, in the long run, we're going to realize that the big bang theory is a way to "scientize" religion, rather than truly objective or truly correct science.
as i said a few years ago, it's not a question of if an explosion happened. we can be absolutely certain that the explosion happened....
...but, it requires a leap of faith to conclude that this explosion was special, or even that it resulted in the creation of anything.
as mentioned, i tend towards this idea in m-theory that new universes are created all of the time. but, it could have very well just been something exploding.
as i said a few years ago, it's not a question of if an explosion happened. we can be absolutely certain that the explosion happened....
...but, it requires a leap of faith to conclude that this explosion was special, or even that it resulted in the creation of anything.
as mentioned, i tend towards this idea in m-theory that new universes are created all of the time. but, it could have very well just been something exploding.
i want to temper criticism by pointing out that the policy of coming down harder on opiate dealers is not meant as deterrence; i agree that it's not likely to reduce use, and that separate educational programs (for kids....) are required for that.
....although, i'd broadly advocate non-interference for adults. there's a point where you can't do anything for somebody besides locking them up for detox, because they've lost anything resembling free will.
no. this is about retribution.
it's about punishment.
....although, i'd broadly advocate non-interference for adults. there's a point where you can't do anything for somebody besides locking them up for detox, because they've lost anything resembling free will.
no. this is about retribution.
it's about punishment.
it depends on the drug. but, i don't think i ever suggested killing them.
a death sentence is always a problem, because we can never be sure.
but, i'll reiterate my claim that public castration is a good idea, when it comes to heroin dealers.
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-telling-people-he-wants-start-executing-drug-dealers
a death sentence is always a problem, because we can never be sure.
but, i'll reiterate my claim that public castration is a good idea, when it comes to heroin dealers.
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-telling-people-he-wants-start-executing-drug-dealers
i've said before many times that preliminary data suggests that i may end up liking the aggregate views of the next generation far more than those of millennials (which i despise) or gen x (which i prefer, but only loosely identify with).
as it is, i find myself most broadly in agreement with the children of the depression. this is my grandparents' generation. i can hardly identify as belonging to it, but these are the views i'm more likely to hold to.
and, likewise, i won't be able to identify as a child of a recession i spent my late 20s and early 30s in. but, it appears to be where my moral support is going to end up falling....
it means i have several more cycles in the wilderness. and, that's ok.
as it is, i find myself most broadly in agreement with the children of the depression. this is my grandparents' generation. i can hardly identify as belonging to it, but these are the views i'm more likely to hold to.
and, likewise, i won't be able to identify as a child of a recession i spent my late 20s and early 30s in. but, it appears to be where my moral support is going to end up falling....
it means i have several more cycles in the wilderness. and, that's ok.
we have to guide the demographics properly, though.
a lot of my pushback is based in the idea that we're throwing away the youth vote to appeal to an unattainable fantasy (not my fantasy) - that the mainstream left is going to wake up one day and realize it's lost the younger generation by pushing this outdated burkean hippie vision of a religiously fluid & harmonious multicultural society, while young people don't even accept the reality of race any more and just don't want to talk about religion at all.
you have to get them while they're young. and, the mainstream left is in danger of permanently losing the culture war by refusing to burst it's own bubble, opening up a space in the spectrum for this reactionary "secular right".
young people may very well prefer what i'm saying to what breitbart is pushing. but, in the end, the bannonesque vision may prove more appealing than some politicized hipsterism fantasizing about a return to the 60s.
so, let's avoid this spectrum where the choice is between bannon and trudeau....
identity politics is cancer.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-bet-on-the-emergence-of-a-religious-left/
a lot of my pushback is based in the idea that we're throwing away the youth vote to appeal to an unattainable fantasy (not my fantasy) - that the mainstream left is going to wake up one day and realize it's lost the younger generation by pushing this outdated burkean hippie vision of a religiously fluid & harmonious multicultural society, while young people don't even accept the reality of race any more and just don't want to talk about religion at all.
you have to get them while they're young. and, the mainstream left is in danger of permanently losing the culture war by refusing to burst it's own bubble, opening up a space in the spectrum for this reactionary "secular right".
young people may very well prefer what i'm saying to what breitbart is pushing. but, in the end, the bannonesque vision may prove more appealing than some politicized hipsterism fantasizing about a return to the 60s.
so, let's avoid this spectrum where the choice is between bannon and trudeau....
identity politics is cancer.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-bet-on-the-emergence-of-a-religious-left/
conversely, if i was going to articulate an argument against the existing liberal status quo, it would be about privatizing public resources - this is my big complaint about the sitting government - and not about immigration or race.
i mean, they could fuck that up by supporting sharia courts, or something.
but, kathleen wynne & her party have been absolutely correct in their stances on this, up to now: one law for everyone...
i mean, they could fuck that up by supporting sharia courts, or something.
but, kathleen wynne & her party have been absolutely correct in their stances on this, up to now: one law for everyone...
i'm vocal about immigration - because the left needs a course correction - but it's hardly going to be something that's going to decide how or if i vote.
nor would the right present me with an opinion on immigration that i'd support, anyways. i don't think christians are better than muslims, or have some preference for white people.
race does not exist.
...& i'm both a godless liberal & secular humanist and, as i keep saying, very brown.
so, i could name 20 or 30 things off of the top of my head that are more important to me, and will have a bigger effect on how i vote, than that.
sorry.
nor would the right present me with an opinion on immigration that i'd support, anyways. i don't think christians are better than muslims, or have some preference for white people.
race does not exist.
...& i'm both a godless liberal & secular humanist and, as i keep saying, very brown.
so, i could name 20 or 30 things off of the top of my head that are more important to me, and will have a bigger effect on how i vote, than that.
sorry.
but, this is a consequence of nafta being flawed.
again: wynne is right. i'm going to sound like a broken record over the next several months.
free trade with the united states, or 'reciprocity', was always a good idea. but, nafta isn't a free trade agreement, as we see happening here.
(this was not only the position of protestors, but also of the liberal party, who got this perfectly right at the time)
under an actual free trade agreement, which is what interlinked economies with comparable labour standards should strive for, none of this would be legal. and, we wouldn't be threatening retaliation, but merely upholding the law.
what nafta always was was an investors rights agreement, designed to benefit the highest levels of capital at the exclusion of workers. and, i would like to see it replaced with or superseded by an actual free trade agreement that either excludes mexico or puts conditions on it that are so onerous that it is forced to rapidly modernize.
in the mean time, we have to retaliate. it's not a choice....
https://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2018/02/21/ontario-will-not-blink-in-face-of-buy-america-policies-says-wynne.html
again: wynne is right. i'm going to sound like a broken record over the next several months.
free trade with the united states, or 'reciprocity', was always a good idea. but, nafta isn't a free trade agreement, as we see happening here.
(this was not only the position of protestors, but also of the liberal party, who got this perfectly right at the time)
under an actual free trade agreement, which is what interlinked economies with comparable labour standards should strive for, none of this would be legal. and, we wouldn't be threatening retaliation, but merely upholding the law.
what nafta always was was an investors rights agreement, designed to benefit the highest levels of capital at the exclusion of workers. and, i would like to see it replaced with or superseded by an actual free trade agreement that either excludes mexico or puts conditions on it that are so onerous that it is forced to rapidly modernize.
in the mean time, we have to retaliate. it's not a choice....
https://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2018/02/21/ontario-will-not-blink-in-face-of-buy-america-policies-says-wynne.html
Sunday, February 25, 2018
fwiw, i've explained in many places that the accusations against zappa regarding misogyny are simply not well grounded.
zappa does not tend to present women as less intelligent than men at all. in fact, the women in his universe are refreshingly real, in contrast to the women in much of the rest of the counter-culture. in zappa's universe, women have names, they have defined goals, they speak for themselves and they act independently of anybody's authority, often to the frustration of the men in his universe.
zappa also had prominent female members of his band, like ruth underwood.
what zappa's message really was was misanthropic. it was satire, of course. but, the core idea of his early work was not that women were stupid but that hippies were stupid. what critics tended to do was to isolate little pieces of his work, take them out of context and then present them in skewed and unrepresentative ways. it was really a hit/smear job, to the core - because his politics were threatening, and he had a really dedicated cult following.
it is no doubt true that very few of his critics really listened to much of his work. if they did, they'd realize that he presented male hippies as equally dumb.
rock music didn't really let women in as equals until the punk era. you're not going to find much 60s or 70s rock music that is more feminist than this, for example:
but, i'm going to request that you focus less on the female character and more on the satirical attack of toxic masculinity embedded in the male character.
zappa does not tend to present women as less intelligent than men at all. in fact, the women in his universe are refreshingly real, in contrast to the women in much of the rest of the counter-culture. in zappa's universe, women have names, they have defined goals, they speak for themselves and they act independently of anybody's authority, often to the frustration of the men in his universe.
zappa also had prominent female members of his band, like ruth underwood.
what zappa's message really was was misanthropic. it was satire, of course. but, the core idea of his early work was not that women were stupid but that hippies were stupid. what critics tended to do was to isolate little pieces of his work, take them out of context and then present them in skewed and unrepresentative ways. it was really a hit/smear job, to the core - because his politics were threatening, and he had a really dedicated cult following.
it is no doubt true that very few of his critics really listened to much of his work. if they did, they'd realize that he presented male hippies as equally dumb.
rock music didn't really let women in as equals until the punk era. you're not going to find much 60s or 70s rock music that is more feminist than this, for example:
but, i'm going to request that you focus less on the female character and more on the satirical attack of toxic masculinity embedded in the male character.
joseph mccarthy was neither allen dulles nor j. edgar hoover
he was never inside; always on the outside.
a loose cannon.
the media was exceedingly critical the whole time; edward murrow's eventual smack down was only effective because it was the establishment position on the matter.
so, the russia fiasco is fundamentally incomparable to the red scare. the red scare was carried out mostly by conservatives at the fringe of the political spectrum, and received little support from the deep state establishment; indeed, the red scare was scary precisely because it was seen as a possible vehicle for an authoritarian uprising - and ignored by most because that couldn't happen here.
the russia fiasco is being pushed by the most resilient members of the deep state in order to take down a sitting president - a sitting president that they installed, themselves.
i understand that "mccarthyite" is more of an english word at this point, with a specific meaning. so, something doesn't have to be much like the red scare to be mccarthyite. but, it's still recent enough to bring up the history in the minds of those that know it.
generally, the cia wants you to shut up and buy shit, not cower in the corner waiting for the apocalypse. the russia narrative is a necessary evil, to stop people from putting together the actual pieces: namely that the cia fed assange the information to prevent hillary from winning. but, it's extremely uncharacteristic.
and, i wouldn't expect a parallel to this any time soon - or even to really find a good one in american history.
he was never inside; always on the outside.
a loose cannon.
the media was exceedingly critical the whole time; edward murrow's eventual smack down was only effective because it was the establishment position on the matter.
so, the russia fiasco is fundamentally incomparable to the red scare. the red scare was carried out mostly by conservatives at the fringe of the political spectrum, and received little support from the deep state establishment; indeed, the red scare was scary precisely because it was seen as a possible vehicle for an authoritarian uprising - and ignored by most because that couldn't happen here.
the russia fiasco is being pushed by the most resilient members of the deep state in order to take down a sitting president - a sitting president that they installed, themselves.
i understand that "mccarthyite" is more of an english word at this point, with a specific meaning. so, something doesn't have to be much like the red scare to be mccarthyite. but, it's still recent enough to bring up the history in the minds of those that know it.
generally, the cia wants you to shut up and buy shit, not cower in the corner waiting for the apocalypse. the russia narrative is a necessary evil, to stop people from putting together the actual pieces: namely that the cia fed assange the information to prevent hillary from winning. but, it's extremely uncharacteristic.
and, i wouldn't expect a parallel to this any time soon - or even to really find a good one in american history.
i think that being a card-carrying member of a political party is kind of a comical anachronism in 2018 - almost as comical as going to a religious service every week.
it's just not how people interact with politics.
i'm going to vote for my self-interest, not based on some archaic concept of tribal allegiance.
more people should do what this guy is doing.
that said, he's not doing this right. if i were to do this, i'd vote for the least electable candidate, which would be tga.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2018/02/24/hes-a-green-backer-voting-in-the-ontario-pc-race-should-we-care.html
it's just not how people interact with politics.
i'm going to vote for my self-interest, not based on some archaic concept of tribal allegiance.
more people should do what this guy is doing.
that said, he's not doing this right. if i were to do this, i'd vote for the least electable candidate, which would be tga.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2018/02/24/hes-a-green-backer-voting-in-the-ontario-pc-race-should-we-care.html
i'm somewhere in between.
but, i'd absolutely identify as second-wave before i'd identify as third-wave
i'd fall just short of the idea that the third-wave of feminism was the undoing of it. in a lot of ways, it was. i'm not buying into the idea that patriarchy can be relabelled as feminism via the power of magical thinking, so i'm broadly going to reject the idea that perpetuating patriarchy via pretending that you're in charge (which might even be the fucking kink) is somehow some kind of end to it.. i've said this before: it is your mom's feminism, for the precise reason that your mom was a feminist, and you're not. you're not even close to one. but, it's not the case across the board. this theory of "intersectionality" is just burkean conservative rebranded with an orwellian flair, but the premise of needing to expand the definition of feminism beyond the middle class was certainly long overdue.
and, yes, i'm as frustrated as the next transwoman about radical feminism's exclusionary basis, but the fact is that i'd be hard-pressed to find much of anything else that i disagree with radfems about.
i have and will continue to argue these points where necessary. it's too big a topic to lay down without prodding.
but, i'm more critical of the third wave than i am supportive of it. and, all i can say is that i hope that the next generation has better skills of analysis and independent thought in being able to deconstruct the corporatocracy's attempts to reassert patriarchy via popular media, from the truly disgusting catastrophe that is brittney spears to the pawning off of rape culture as entertainment.
but, i'd absolutely identify as second-wave before i'd identify as third-wave
i'd fall just short of the idea that the third-wave of feminism was the undoing of it. in a lot of ways, it was. i'm not buying into the idea that patriarchy can be relabelled as feminism via the power of magical thinking, so i'm broadly going to reject the idea that perpetuating patriarchy via pretending that you're in charge (which might even be the fucking kink) is somehow some kind of end to it.. i've said this before: it is your mom's feminism, for the precise reason that your mom was a feminist, and you're not. you're not even close to one. but, it's not the case across the board. this theory of "intersectionality" is just burkean conservative rebranded with an orwellian flair, but the premise of needing to expand the definition of feminism beyond the middle class was certainly long overdue.
and, yes, i'm as frustrated as the next transwoman about radical feminism's exclusionary basis, but the fact is that i'd be hard-pressed to find much of anything else that i disagree with radfems about.
i have and will continue to argue these points where necessary. it's too big a topic to lay down without prodding.
but, i'm more critical of the third wave than i am supportive of it. and, all i can say is that i hope that the next generation has better skills of analysis and independent thought in being able to deconstruct the corporatocracy's attempts to reassert patriarchy via popular media, from the truly disgusting catastrophe that is brittney spears to the pawning off of rape culture as entertainment.
as i suggested months ago, the bc ndp never seriously opposed this pipeline. the ndp does not have provincial wings; the whole thing was theatre, so it would seem like bc would get something from it.
and, alberta can hardly be a large enough consumer of bc wine for this threat to have had any serious substance. it would have been more likely to hurt notley, in the long run.
now, the ndp will almost certainly lose the next election in both provinces; they never had a serious chance in alberta, and they've just stabbed their base in the back in bc.
the greens should pull the plug and force an election as soon as possible.
and, alberta can hardly be a large enough consumer of bc wine for this threat to have had any serious substance. it would have been more likely to hurt notley, in the long run.
now, the ndp will almost certainly lose the next election in both provinces; they never had a serious chance in alberta, and they've just stabbed their base in the back in bc.
the greens should pull the plug and force an election as soon as possible.
but, again - wynne is right. as is almost universally the case when she starts arguing with horwath.
the reason i'm posting this is that it demonstrates the point about how little influence the premier has. the fact is that the prime minister has signed a deal that benefits alberta at the expense of ontario, and there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it, here, at the provincial level, except figure out a way to adjust.
if the deal gets signed, the jobs are gone and they're not coming back. so, let's talk about what happens next, not project fantasies to confuse workers with.
and, she has every right to ask the feds for the funds, too.
although, if this keeps happening, we're going to have to start asking how long we're planning on sticking around in this country for, given that the feds are so singularly focused on alberta and simply don't seem to care about our interests here in ontario at all.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/22/ontario-needs-funds-to-help-weather-pacific-trade-pact-wynne-says.html
the reason i'm posting this is that it demonstrates the point about how little influence the premier has. the fact is that the prime minister has signed a deal that benefits alberta at the expense of ontario, and there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it, here, at the provincial level, except figure out a way to adjust.
if the deal gets signed, the jobs are gone and they're not coming back. so, let's talk about what happens next, not project fantasies to confuse workers with.
and, she has every right to ask the feds for the funds, too.
although, if this keeps happening, we're going to have to start asking how long we're planning on sticking around in this country for, given that the feds are so singularly focused on alberta and simply don't seem to care about our interests here in ontario at all.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/22/ontario-needs-funds-to-help-weather-pacific-trade-pact-wynne-says.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)