the reason that nobody talks to america anymore is that nobody trusts america anymore.
so, everybody appears to be operating around their airspace without telling them what they're doing. all of these alliances and strategic operations are taking place, and the americans are just out of the loop.
this has just left america grasping for a light switch in the dark.
they need to get out pronto. asap. now.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
the state department is clueless; the united states has no idea what's going on, anymore.
sadly, what's unfolding in the united states state department right now is justifying the kinds of arguments that authoritarian states - like russia and turkey - use to discredit democracy.
it's chaos. insanity. disorder.
tillerson was clueless enough, himself, and never should have been put into this position. now, the department is falling apart, you've got the second major turnover in months...and they can't do basic analysis any more...
is trump at least smart enough to realize he should recuse his country from a conflict that it no longer understands?
http://www.newsweek.com/us-actually-agrees-iran-syria-says-turkey-helping-isis-attacking-afrin-852159
sadly, what's unfolding in the united states state department right now is justifying the kinds of arguments that authoritarian states - like russia and turkey - use to discredit democracy.
it's chaos. insanity. disorder.
tillerson was clueless enough, himself, and never should have been put into this position. now, the department is falling apart, you've got the second major turnover in months...and they can't do basic analysis any more...
is trump at least smart enough to realize he should recuse his country from a conflict that it no longer understands?
http://www.newsweek.com/us-actually-agrees-iran-syria-says-turkey-helping-isis-attacking-afrin-852159
i still think the qs is poised for a major break through, and that the harder couilliard fights on his right, the larger the swing will be. these four-party spectrums get so messy.
the quebec liberals are too right-wing for my tastes. i would like to see qs cut substantively into their voting base, especially with recent immigrants.
but, if couilliard wants to split the caq vote up a bit, he might want to go out of his way to remind everybody that legault has renounced sovereigntism, making him a local representative of the federal conservative party.
this is no doubt the opposite of what he is thinking.
the quebec liberals are too right-wing for my tastes. i would like to see qs cut substantively into their voting base, especially with recent immigrants.
but, if couilliard wants to split the caq vote up a bit, he might want to go out of his way to remind everybody that legault has renounced sovereigntism, making him a local representative of the federal conservative party.
this is no doubt the opposite of what he is thinking.
i'm going to print this off and leave it on a few doors.
i'm not convinced that first-hand vaping is much better than smoking. but i've been around the pens at bars, and they don't produce the same level of second-hand smoke.
http://stonerpros.com/reasons-to-vape/
i'm not convinced that first-hand vaping is much better than smoking. but i've been around the pens at bars, and they don't produce the same level of second-hand smoke.
http://stonerpros.com/reasons-to-vape/
even norml comes right out and says it, although they're also being confusing, and it's kind of maddening.
there have been studies that have suggested that the active ingredients in marijuana - thc & cbd - may have anti-oxidant properties, but the way this is presented pretty much everywhere is grossly misleading.
some of the studies have even gone so far as to suggest that thc might shrink tumours, it is true, but what these studies did is inject the compound directly into the tumour at concentrations that are beyond anything we could imagine. you'd have to condense thousands and thousands of joints worth of thc into a syringe to get these kinds of properties. the amount of thc you get from smoking bud is absolutely clinically useless.
so, these reports say things like "it's true that marijuana smoke has been found to produce pre-cancerous cells...but it also has thc", with the implication that it balances out. but, that is dishonest. marijuana smoke has carcinogens in very, very high concentrations (equivalent or higher than tobacco smoke) and trace amounts of anti-oxidants. they don't balance out.
in very, very high concentrations, nicotine could potentially reverse ageing. but, nobody talks about that when discussing the effects of smoking.
you can wait fifty years for these studies to come back, but unless you've smoked yourself retarded, you know it's going to give you cancer - and there's no use in pretending you don't.
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk
there have been studies that have suggested that the active ingredients in marijuana - thc & cbd - may have anti-oxidant properties, but the way this is presented pretty much everywhere is grossly misleading.
some of the studies have even gone so far as to suggest that thc might shrink tumours, it is true, but what these studies did is inject the compound directly into the tumour at concentrations that are beyond anything we could imagine. you'd have to condense thousands and thousands of joints worth of thc into a syringe to get these kinds of properties. the amount of thc you get from smoking bud is absolutely clinically useless.
so, these reports say things like "it's true that marijuana smoke has been found to produce pre-cancerous cells...but it also has thc", with the implication that it balances out. but, that is dishonest. marijuana smoke has carcinogens in very, very high concentrations (equivalent or higher than tobacco smoke) and trace amounts of anti-oxidants. they don't balance out.
in very, very high concentrations, nicotine could potentially reverse ageing. but, nobody talks about that when discussing the effects of smoking.
you can wait fifty years for these studies to come back, but unless you've smoked yourself retarded, you know it's going to give you cancer - and there's no use in pretending you don't.
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk
“Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand,”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cancer-cannabis/cannabis-bigger-cancer-risk-than-cigarettes-study-idUSHKG10478820080129
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cancer-cannabis/cannabis-bigger-cancer-risk-than-cigarettes-study-idUSHKG10478820080129
i don't know why they attribute this to a conservative blowhard,
rather than a humanist scientist; it's a scientific fact, not a
religious opinion.
but it's true.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/
but it's true.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/
"they're not hurting anybody, police resources should be deployed towards people that are harming others."
https://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2013/dec/18/cigarettes-or-war-which-is-the-biggest-killer
https://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2013/dec/18/cigarettes-or-war-which-is-the-biggest-killer
so, what's the way out of this?
it's edibles.
if i were a sitting senator, i might contemplate sending the bill back in order to relegislate the issue around making access to edibles easier, and access to bud almost impossible.
as a society, we really ought to be coercing people to start eating it and stop smoking it - not just for the benefit of users, but also for the health of everybody else.
it's edibles.
if i were a sitting senator, i might contemplate sending the bill back in order to relegislate the issue around making access to edibles easier, and access to bud almost impossible.
as a society, we really ought to be coercing people to start eating it and stop smoking it - not just for the benefit of users, but also for the health of everybody else.
so, when you recognize that complications from smoke inhalation is the leading cause of death in society, what does it mean to argue that the cops are wasting their time dealing with smoke inhalation issues?
smoke kills more people than guns, gangs, alcohol, sexual violence & virtually everything else you can come up with, combined.
if we were to be rational about the data, we would have to conclude that the primary purpose of the police should be to ensure that people aren't smoking anywhere near where it can be inhaled by anybody. they should be in special facilities, that you need to put hazmat suits on to enter.
i need to repeat this: smoke is the leading cause of death.
smokers kill more people than gangs.
smoke is more dangerous than guns.
we've got this all backwards.
but, how can we be so ignorant? what's underlying this absurdity?
it's probably some good old fashioned toxic masculinity. for, while it may be true that smoke is more dangerous than guns, fighting smokers isn't quite like fighting gangs. it doesn't have that combat component, that feeling of danger.
but, we need to be more rational about this - and that means getting more strict on smokers, not less strict.
smoke kills more people than guns, gangs, alcohol, sexual violence & virtually everything else you can come up with, combined.
if we were to be rational about the data, we would have to conclude that the primary purpose of the police should be to ensure that people aren't smoking anywhere near where it can be inhaled by anybody. they should be in special facilities, that you need to put hazmat suits on to enter.
i need to repeat this: smoke is the leading cause of death.
smokers kill more people than gangs.
smoke is more dangerous than guns.
we've got this all backwards.
but, how can we be so ignorant? what's underlying this absurdity?
it's probably some good old fashioned toxic masculinity. for, while it may be true that smoke is more dangerous than guns, fighting smokers isn't quite like fighting gangs. it doesn't have that combat component, that feeling of danger.
but, we need to be more rational about this - and that means getting more strict on smokers, not less strict.
there's this idea that marijuana doesn't kill anybody. i've stated it myself. but it's wrong.
if you were to claim that tobacco doesn't create overdoses, you'd be correct. so, would you then claim that tobacco doesn't kill anybody?
overdose deaths from tobacco: 0.
in fact, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death.
one of the things about prohibition is that it skews the statistics, and i'll admit that it's never going to be easy to separate deaths caused by tobacco from deaths caused by marijuana, because it's such a heavy overlap. when a marijuana smoker gets lung cancer, or heart disease, it's never going to be clear if the primary cause is the marijuana or the tobacco that this person also smokes, along with the unhealthy diet and the sedentary lifestyle. what we can say, right now, is that prohibition removes marijuana from the statistics.
full legalization should hopefully allow us to better understand marijuana smoke as a risk factor for heart disease, for cancer, for emphysema, for diabetes, for stroke - for all the things we've tied so heavily to tobacco.
and, in a decade or two, this idea that marijuana doesn't kill anybody is going to be a surreal joke about how ignorant we were.
if you were to claim that tobacco doesn't create overdoses, you'd be correct. so, would you then claim that tobacco doesn't kill anybody?
overdose deaths from tobacco: 0.
in fact, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death.
one of the things about prohibition is that it skews the statistics, and i'll admit that it's never going to be easy to separate deaths caused by tobacco from deaths caused by marijuana, because it's such a heavy overlap. when a marijuana smoker gets lung cancer, or heart disease, it's never going to be clear if the primary cause is the marijuana or the tobacco that this person also smokes, along with the unhealthy diet and the sedentary lifestyle. what we can say, right now, is that prohibition removes marijuana from the statistics.
full legalization should hopefully allow us to better understand marijuana smoke as a risk factor for heart disease, for cancer, for emphysema, for diabetes, for stroke - for all the things we've tied so heavily to tobacco.
and, in a decade or two, this idea that marijuana doesn't kill anybody is going to be a surreal joke about how ignorant we were.
09/15 is finally done, and it was something like 3-4 months in size.
october should be much, much less intense.
this may end up being a short day, or i might just be taking a nap. the air in here is far better than before, but i had to hover over a space to block it and it's not clear at this point if it's made me tired, or if i'm just agitated and drained.
i wanted to make some calls but slept all day - again, possibly due to air pollution. hopefully, it's just a nap so i can get on to things tomorrow...
...but, i'm into the last few weeks of the election, now.
october should be much, much less intense.
this may end up being a short day, or i might just be taking a nap. the air in here is far better than before, but i had to hover over a space to block it and it's not clear at this point if it's made me tired, or if i'm just agitated and drained.
i wanted to make some calls but slept all day - again, possibly due to air pollution. hopefully, it's just a nap so i can get on to things tomorrow...
...but, i'm into the last few weeks of the election, now.
regarding the "free syrian army".
you need to be careful with videos coming to you from the region, because it's 98% propaganda, and intended to sway western attitudes. but, these aren't good guys, and they're going to do bad things.
the difference between the saudi-backed groups and the turkish-backed groups, however, is that the saudi-backed groups are being funded by people that want to set up these systems permanently, while the turkish-backed groups are foreign mercenaries being used as muscle - and the eventual intent is to clear them out and restore order.
so, yes: they are more or less the same thing, on the ground. but, the people paying them have almost diametrically different intentions. back when this was a turkish-saudi proxy war to take over the space left vacant by russian influence, there was little reason to think the turks would have supported anything other than a democratic transition, while the saudi aim appears to have been to prevent a democratic transition.
what the kurds were trying to do in the area was not sustainable, and not an intelligent approach, in the long run. they can't fight professional armies, like this. as a taz it served it's purpose; now, it's time to pack their things and start over somewhere else. and that is what this was - a taz. it could have never been permanent.
permanent change must be structural.
so, it's crazy to suggest they won't get slaughtered, if they stay.
the way to get rid of the fsa, from here on in, is through syrian law enforcement. expect the turks to cut the cord fairly soon.
you need to be careful with videos coming to you from the region, because it's 98% propaganda, and intended to sway western attitudes. but, these aren't good guys, and they're going to do bad things.
the difference between the saudi-backed groups and the turkish-backed groups, however, is that the saudi-backed groups are being funded by people that want to set up these systems permanently, while the turkish-backed groups are foreign mercenaries being used as muscle - and the eventual intent is to clear them out and restore order.
so, yes: they are more or less the same thing, on the ground. but, the people paying them have almost diametrically different intentions. back when this was a turkish-saudi proxy war to take over the space left vacant by russian influence, there was little reason to think the turks would have supported anything other than a democratic transition, while the saudi aim appears to have been to prevent a democratic transition.
what the kurds were trying to do in the area was not sustainable, and not an intelligent approach, in the long run. they can't fight professional armies, like this. as a taz it served it's purpose; now, it's time to pack their things and start over somewhere else. and that is what this was - a taz. it could have never been permanent.
permanent change must be structural.
so, it's crazy to suggest they won't get slaughtered, if they stay.
the way to get rid of the fsa, from here on in, is through syrian law enforcement. expect the turks to cut the cord fairly soon.
so, the kurds would be wise to retreat to safer areas, to let the turks run through. erdgan is a belligerent fool with a military force that cannot be effectively resisted. but, once the region is returned to assad, they will no doubt be allowed to return.
and, again: it defies reason to suggest that the turks have any interest in annexing this region, or in provoking a wider conflict with the kurds in the region.
the area on the other side of the euphrates is more complex, as it is not clear if or when the united states intends to leave. nobody wants the turks to get into a fight with the americans. but, the russians are going to agitate for the territorial integrity of the syrian state.
nor is the obvious solution of partition acceptable to the turks, because it would be a kurdish state.
it's consequently hard to see a way out of this: unless america acknowledges defeat and withdraws, turkey is on the path to direct conflict with the united states over a plot of land with virtually no strategic value to the empire at all.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/ypg-pushed-out-tal-rifaat.html
and, again: it defies reason to suggest that the turks have any interest in annexing this region, or in provoking a wider conflict with the kurds in the region.
the area on the other side of the euphrates is more complex, as it is not clear if or when the united states intends to leave. nobody wants the turks to get into a fight with the americans. but, the russians are going to agitate for the territorial integrity of the syrian state.
nor is the obvious solution of partition acceptable to the turks, because it would be a kurdish state.
it's consequently hard to see a way out of this: unless america acknowledges defeat and withdraws, turkey is on the path to direct conflict with the united states over a plot of land with virtually no strategic value to the empire at all.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/ypg-pushed-out-tal-rifaat.html
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
the spokesperson of my generation is not a dead musician, or a profound writer, or a fashion icon or an entrepreneur...
it's conan o'brien.
this guy.
nobody else permeates our thoughts the way that conan does.
and, this is how you know you're gen x - when the conan jokes flow like water, and the people around you get it instantly, and effortlessly join in.
it's conan o'brien.
this guy.
nobody else permeates our thoughts the way that conan does.
and, this is how you know you're gen x - when the conan jokes flow like water, and the people around you get it instantly, and effortlessly join in.
this is an essential services that sufficient tax revenue must be generated to fund.
next.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/recycling-blue-box-challenges-evolving-tonne-1.4584484
next.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/recycling-blue-box-challenges-evolving-tonne-1.4584484
john bolton is very scary, and i don't want to temper anything he's said - it's every bit as outrageous as anybody is saying.
(although he happens to be correct about china, which should be obvious to anybody with a pulse.)
but, he's the national security advisor and not the national security dictator. and, we know that trump is ultimately inadvisable.
trump may very well be looking to start a war. but, there's not a lot of places to bomb right now. and, i suspect that when he finally does it, it will look more like the falklands than it does like fallujah.
the reality is that the left media has a narrative to uphold, here. it needs dollars, too.
(although he happens to be correct about china, which should be obvious to anybody with a pulse.)
but, he's the national security advisor and not the national security dictator. and, we know that trump is ultimately inadvisable.
trump may very well be looking to start a war. but, there's not a lot of places to bomb right now. and, i suspect that when he finally does it, it will look more like the falklands than it does like fallujah.
the reality is that the left media has a narrative to uphold, here. it needs dollars, too.
if the public school system had started at the same age as the catholic school system, i would have never been baptized, and would have been sent to a public school.
my maternal grandmother is an anglican; my mother isn't even really an atheist, so much as she's just disinterested in the topic altogether. my dad would have probably baptized me, but my mom didn't want me anywhere near the catholic church, as she was convinced all the priests were gay paedophiles. she was less pro-atheist and more anti-catholic.
but, the fact that she agitated for me to be baptized as a way to get me to school quicker indicates the deep disinterest in religion that i was raised into.
i vaguely remember it - i was just instructed to sit still while he sprinkled some water on me. i mean, it was kind of scary - i was old enough to be cognizant of what was happening, without being old enough to understand it. she attached absolutely no meaning to it, whatsoever.
my paternal grandmother (who is probably part genetically jewish, but was raised italian catholic) always saw me as a heathen.
my maternal grandmother is an anglican; my mother isn't even really an atheist, so much as she's just disinterested in the topic altogether. my dad would have probably baptized me, but my mom didn't want me anywhere near the catholic church, as she was convinced all the priests were gay paedophiles. she was less pro-atheist and more anti-catholic.
but, the fact that she agitated for me to be baptized as a way to get me to school quicker indicates the deep disinterest in religion that i was raised into.
i vaguely remember it - i was just instructed to sit still while he sprinkled some water on me. i mean, it was kind of scary - i was old enough to be cognizant of what was happening, without being old enough to understand it. she attached absolutely no meaning to it, whatsoever.
my paternal grandmother (who is probably part genetically jewish, but was raised italian catholic) always saw me as a heathen.
my mom sent me to pre-school because she was a negligent alcoholic that didn't want to take care of me. and, then she had me baptized at the age of four three to send me to a catholic school for the same reason (the public schools at the time only had kindergarten starting at age five).
but, i wasn't born smart. i'm a statistical norm; i got a head start.
but, i wasn't born smart. i'm a statistical norm; i got a head start.
i mean, i guess you can look at it two ways.
- is this designed to help mothers enter the workforce?
- is this designed to help kids achieve their full potential?
while both things are important, i'm kind of more interested in the latter. and, i guess the plan that was announced was more focused on the former.
i just don't know why you'd do this without focusing on the former though - it's kind of missing the broader point, in just focusing on the moms.
i liked the martin/dryden plan a lot, which would have ensured that we're not merely leaving kids with babysitters, but leaving them with licensed learning professionals that can help put them on the right path at an early age. studies are crystal clear that kids that go to pre-school are better positioned to learn as they advance through life.
if that is actually what is being proposed, wynne should announce it. i'm not directly affected by socialized babysitting; i wouldn't vote for or against it. but, the pre-school component is a broader social engineering change that i'd have a stronger level of direct support for, as it affects everybody's future in a positive way.
- is this designed to help mothers enter the workforce?
- is this designed to help kids achieve their full potential?
while both things are important, i'm kind of more interested in the latter. and, i guess the plan that was announced was more focused on the former.
i just don't know why you'd do this without focusing on the former though - it's kind of missing the broader point, in just focusing on the moms.
i liked the martin/dryden plan a lot, which would have ensured that we're not merely leaving kids with babysitters, but leaving them with licensed learning professionals that can help put them on the right path at an early age. studies are crystal clear that kids that go to pre-school are better positioned to learn as they advance through life.
if that is actually what is being proposed, wynne should announce it. i'm not directly affected by socialized babysitting; i wouldn't vote for or against it. but, the pre-school component is a broader social engineering change that i'd have a stronger level of direct support for, as it affects everybody's future in a positive way.
i'm unclear - is this socialized babysitting, or is it an expansion of the school system?
i would strongly support expanding the school system, but i....why promote socialized babysitting when you can expand the school system?
i guess the difference is that i'd actively support expanding the school system, and be more or less indifferent to socialized babysitting.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/03/27/ontario-budget-to-fund-free-child-care-for-preschoolers-by-2020-as-part-of-22-billion-plan.html
i would strongly support expanding the school system, but i....why promote socialized babysitting when you can expand the school system?
i guess the difference is that i'd actively support expanding the school system, and be more or less indifferent to socialized babysitting.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/03/27/ontario-budget-to-fund-free-child-care-for-preschoolers-by-2020-as-part-of-22-billion-plan.html
trudeau no doubt thinks that complying will take the issue off the table - because he doesn't realize that trump is just fucking around with him, anyways.
donald trump doesn't actually think that anybody is flooding the canadian market with anything. but, he does think that justin trudeau is a complete idiot. and, trudeau's reactions are, unfortunately, just proving trump right.
not only will trump not react positively to the concessions, he will hold them over trudeau as evidence that he was right all along - that canada really is getting flooded with cheap metals, as can be seen by the steps taken to prevent it.
but, we must not take this as evidence of trump's strategic brilliance - we must take it as evidence of trudeau's absolute idiocy.
for, it is easy for a bully to take advantage of a moron.
they should not be negotiating with trump at all; canada should refuse to negotiate with terrorists.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-gives-border-security-extra-powers-to-crack-down-on-cheap-steel-aluminum-1.3860246
donald trump doesn't actually think that anybody is flooding the canadian market with anything. but, he does think that justin trudeau is a complete idiot. and, trudeau's reactions are, unfortunately, just proving trump right.
not only will trump not react positively to the concessions, he will hold them over trudeau as evidence that he was right all along - that canada really is getting flooded with cheap metals, as can be seen by the steps taken to prevent it.
but, we must not take this as evidence of trump's strategic brilliance - we must take it as evidence of trudeau's absolute idiocy.
for, it is easy for a bully to take advantage of a moron.
they should not be negotiating with trump at all; canada should refuse to negotiate with terrorists.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-gives-border-security-extra-powers-to-crack-down-on-cheap-steel-aluminum-1.3860246
i'm just not somebody that wants to smoke pot at home; i'm somebody that likes to smoke pot when i'm out at a concert, or out dancing.
it's a social drug - very much like alcohol. and, the only people that smoke alone, at home, are the marijuana equivalents of sad alcoholics. losers. hopeless losers...
the vast majority of people are going to want to smoke with people, at a party, or at a bar.
all the concerts and parties are in detroit. it follows that it's actually detroit that i'm more interested in, when it comes to legalization; legalizing it here is actually kind of useless to me.
given where windsor is on the map, legalization in michigan will make going to windsor flat out stupid, because it will require passing the border twice. and, as everybody knows, the worse direction is on the way into the united staes.
no sane american would cross the canadian border to get stoned, and then go back through american customs. they'd be setting themselves up for detention. it would be far less dangerous to buy it illegally. but, if michigan legalizes, the decision to cross to be legal moots itself.
it's a social drug - very much like alcohol. and, the only people that smoke alone, at home, are the marijuana equivalents of sad alcoholics. losers. hopeless losers...
the vast majority of people are going to want to smoke with people, at a party, or at a bar.
all the concerts and parties are in detroit. it follows that it's actually detroit that i'm more interested in, when it comes to legalization; legalizing it here is actually kind of useless to me.
given where windsor is on the map, legalization in michigan will make going to windsor flat out stupid, because it will require passing the border twice. and, as everybody knows, the worse direction is on the way into the united staes.
no sane american would cross the canadian border to get stoned, and then go back through american customs. they'd be setting themselves up for detention. it would be far less dangerous to buy it illegally. but, if michigan legalizes, the decision to cross to be legal moots itself.
Monday, March 26, 2018
if i haven't been clear - and i think i have been - i have absolutely no opposition to gmos, and in fact tend to get rather snotty with people that think they pose some kind of threat. there is no logical reason to think they might, and the science is crystal clear that they don't.
if you want to have your food labelled, i don't have any particular opposition to this, but it's not something i'd think twice about. and, it's not my issue to fight.
to the contrary, i'm likely to get rather squeamish when i hear people repeating the same scaremongering, anti-science nonsense.
that said, i'm not happy about patenting grains, either. but, that's a separate issue than the safety concerns, which are as specious as anything you hear coming from anti-vaxxers.
if you want to have your food labelled, i don't have any particular opposition to this, but it's not something i'd think twice about. and, it's not my issue to fight.
to the contrary, i'm likely to get rather squeamish when i hear people repeating the same scaremongering, anti-science nonsense.
that said, i'm not happy about patenting grains, either. but, that's a separate issue than the safety concerns, which are as specious as anything you hear coming from anti-vaxxers.
"alleged incident of Qur'an-ripping"
it's all right-wing tory media, to this point, that's pushing this - media with very conservative perspectives. more balanced media sources haven't picked up on this, yet.
but, the language is highly concerning: as though disrespecting the koran is now being treated as a crime. is this where the conservatives are leading us?
i'm not there, yet. and, i'm trying not to kneejerk to the media coverage - i'm trying not to get alarmist. but, if this turns into something, we're going to have to organize a national day of koran ripping, in protest.
free speech is fundamental to a free society. it's one thing when it's just some religious people in a mosque or a church yelling at each other; it's another when the cops get involved.
nobody would think twice about it if they were ripping pages out of a bible....which is how it should be...
it's all right-wing tory media, to this point, that's pushing this - media with very conservative perspectives. more balanced media sources haven't picked up on this, yet.
but, the language is highly concerning: as though disrespecting the koran is now being treated as a crime. is this where the conservatives are leading us?
i'm not there, yet. and, i'm trying not to kneejerk to the media coverage - i'm trying not to get alarmist. but, if this turns into something, we're going to have to organize a national day of koran ripping, in protest.
free speech is fundamental to a free society. it's one thing when it's just some religious people in a mosque or a church yelling at each other; it's another when the cops get involved.
nobody would think twice about it if they were ripping pages out of a bible....which is how it should be...
no, navdeep.
the charter doesn't say you have the right to worship without criticism from private citizens. the freedom of assembly applies in this situation, not the right to religious freedom - and it applies equally to both parties. most importantly is the right to free expression, which is what the charter truly upholds, here.
this is a common mistake made by people without legal backgrounds.
what it says is that the state can't discriminate against people on the basis of religion.
somebody needs to give navdeep a crash course in constitutional law, clearly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-police-incidents-islamic-centres-hate-motivated-mischief-mosques-1.4592993
the charter doesn't say you have the right to worship without criticism from private citizens. the freedom of assembly applies in this situation, not the right to religious freedom - and it applies equally to both parties. most importantly is the right to free expression, which is what the charter truly upholds, here.
this is a common mistake made by people without legal backgrounds.
what it says is that the state can't discriminate against people on the basis of religion.
somebody needs to give navdeep a crash course in constitutional law, clearly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-police-incidents-islamic-centres-hate-motivated-mischief-mosques-1.4592993
two minutes of googling presents this, but it seems to be at some kind of an official event.
surely somebody has a picture of them. i don't mean in the act, i just mean at all.
here's the thing: when somebody frequently has sex for money over decades, it's easy to believe they would claim they had sex...for money. which isn't to say that she's lying, exactly, so much as it is to say that a prudent individual would require independent verification before taking her seriously, because who knows, really?
i'm just saying it's fishy. i have no idea. and i ultimately don't care.
surely somebody has a picture of them. i don't mean in the act, i just mean at all.
here's the thing: when somebody frequently has sex for money over decades, it's easy to believe they would claim they had sex...for money. which isn't to say that she's lying, exactly, so much as it is to say that a prudent individual would require independent verification before taking her seriously, because who knows, really?
i'm just saying it's fishy. i have no idea. and i ultimately don't care.
this is embarrassing.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/anti-islamic-pamphleteer-gets-nine-months-for-promoting-hate-but-can-still-hand-out-flyers/article17760151/
i mean, the court got it right in throwing out the charges (minus time served - which he should have been compensated for), but to think they locked him up for nine months for free speech is outrageous...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/anti-islamic-pamphleteer-gets-nine-months-for-promoting-hate-but-can-still-hand-out-flyers/article17760151/
i mean, the court got it right in throwing out the charges (minus time served - which he should have been compensated for), but to think they locked him up for nine months for free speech is outrageous...
could you imagine a dystopian future where the left leads the fight against pamphleteering?
that wouldn't be a left at all - that would be an authoritarian right. no left worth calling itself such would support any legal action against pamphleteering whatsoever.
i'm not being alarmist, or perhaps i'm being proactively alarmist; i understand that the police need to investigate a complaint, and i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be doing so.
but, the police should be coming back to the mosque with some stern words about freedom of expression - and a clear explanation that this type of behaviour is constitutionally protected in this country.
that wouldn't be a left at all - that would be an authoritarian right. no left worth calling itself such would support any legal action against pamphleteering whatsoever.
i'm not being alarmist, or perhaps i'm being proactively alarmist; i understand that the police need to investigate a complaint, and i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be doing so.
but, the police should be coming back to the mosque with some stern words about freedom of expression - and a clear explanation that this type of behaviour is constitutionally protected in this country.
"possible mischief with a hate bias"
what?
you can't arrest people for pamphleteering.
ever.
no exceptions.
and, canadians need to freak out if this ever starts happening.
islam must find a way to adjust to a free society; i'm not throwing away freedom of speech because some people find it upsetting.
right now, all i see is some police carrying out a report. they have a responsibility to the community to do this, on request. but, civil liberties groups need to be on stand by to mobilize against a possible assault on free expression, here.
what?
you can't arrest people for pamphleteering.
ever.
no exceptions.
and, canadians need to freak out if this ever starts happening.
islam must find a way to adjust to a free society; i'm not throwing away freedom of speech because some people find it upsetting.
right now, all i see is some police carrying out a report. they have a responsibility to the community to do this, on request. but, civil liberties groups need to be on stand by to mobilize against a possible assault on free expression, here.
i might suggest a more productive use of her time, but i'm going to freak out if somebody gets charged for desecrating the koran in canada.
that's not a 'hate crime'. that's the literal definition of free speech.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4103314/peel-police-investigating-hate-motivated-incident-islamic-centre/
that's not a 'hate crime'. that's the literal definition of free speech.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4103314/peel-police-investigating-hate-motivated-incident-islamic-centre/
again: the idea that the liberals were going to walk into the next election with 50% support was always absurd.
so long as they are polling in the 40+% range, they're outperforming realistic expectations.
they're not going to get more than 40% of the vote; don't imagine they are.
they will get somewhere in the mid to high 30s; that's a more realistic goal.
few people expected them to win a majority, in the first place, and they should probably not expect to hold on to it, either - unless they can sweep quebec. that's their only serious chance of holding on...
a realistic expectation is that they're going to lose seats in the east, in alberta and probably also in ontario. the only place for growth is quebec.
but, i would welcome a coalition government; it's what i wanted in the first place.
so long as they are polling in the 40+% range, they're outperforming realistic expectations.
they're not going to get more than 40% of the vote; don't imagine they are.
they will get somewhere in the mid to high 30s; that's a more realistic goal.
few people expected them to win a majority, in the first place, and they should probably not expect to hold on to it, either - unless they can sweep quebec. that's their only serious chance of holding on...
a realistic expectation is that they're going to lose seats in the east, in alberta and probably also in ontario. the only place for growth is quebec.
but, i would welcome a coalition government; it's what i wanted in the first place.
the vikings were really remarkably successful, weren't they?
maybe, a little too successful, if you see what i mean.
there's a developing understanding that the viking attack on europe was a reaction to the advance of christianization, and that the historical sources (written almost entirely by the church...) just kind of "forgot" to record that fact. but, you have to understand that the scale of devastation that the spread of christianity brought to northern europe was many times worse than anything the vikings produced. charlemagne literally slaughtered entire castes of people. again: the records are poor, but it could have been in the hundreds of thousands, in an era where the population was much, much lower than today.
if you're standing in denmark, and you're watching what's happening directly to your south, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want to respond. and, the culture to the north was shared, so the danes were capable of a call to arms.
again: this much is developing scholarship. i'm not making this up. this is not novel.
what i'm willing to put forward is the idea that they may have even been interpreted as liberators by a european population that was struggling against colonization by the roman/christian church. the vikings very specifically targeted the christians, pretty much everywhere they went, which is why the texts, written by monks, demonized them so terribly. and, sure - they burnt down a fair number of churches. the traditional explanation was that they were pillaging, although, as mentioned, this is evolving to the idea that the vikings were carrying out what they saw as acts of self-defense.
but, there are these reports of continuing odinism deep in england and france well into the enlightenment. the old religion really went underground. as far as anybody knows, it eventually disappeared; at the least, if they're still out there, it would be useful for them to inform the views of these "neo-pagans" that have as much in common with the indigenous european religions as harry potter - the old religion is lost to history. but, we know damned well that it survived way, way longer than history officially records.
and, even if the western europe of the time was pious to the church, what allegiance ought it have had to these frankish warlords, that ruled through tyranny and heavy taxation, as they put in motion the beginnings of feudalism? at least the vikings believed in democracy.
it's just hard to read the history critically without coming to the conclusion that there were substantive parts of these populations that helped the invasions. the timelines are incredible: paris conquered as quickly as it took to sail up the seine. how does that happen without local support?
but, the idea is taboo.
i would request that more serious historians look into this more carefully.
maybe, a little too successful, if you see what i mean.
there's a developing understanding that the viking attack on europe was a reaction to the advance of christianization, and that the historical sources (written almost entirely by the church...) just kind of "forgot" to record that fact. but, you have to understand that the scale of devastation that the spread of christianity brought to northern europe was many times worse than anything the vikings produced. charlemagne literally slaughtered entire castes of people. again: the records are poor, but it could have been in the hundreds of thousands, in an era where the population was much, much lower than today.
if you're standing in denmark, and you're watching what's happening directly to your south, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want to respond. and, the culture to the north was shared, so the danes were capable of a call to arms.
again: this much is developing scholarship. i'm not making this up. this is not novel.
what i'm willing to put forward is the idea that they may have even been interpreted as liberators by a european population that was struggling against colonization by the roman/christian church. the vikings very specifically targeted the christians, pretty much everywhere they went, which is why the texts, written by monks, demonized them so terribly. and, sure - they burnt down a fair number of churches. the traditional explanation was that they were pillaging, although, as mentioned, this is evolving to the idea that the vikings were carrying out what they saw as acts of self-defense.
but, there are these reports of continuing odinism deep in england and france well into the enlightenment. the old religion really went underground. as far as anybody knows, it eventually disappeared; at the least, if they're still out there, it would be useful for them to inform the views of these "neo-pagans" that have as much in common with the indigenous european religions as harry potter - the old religion is lost to history. but, we know damned well that it survived way, way longer than history officially records.
and, even if the western europe of the time was pious to the church, what allegiance ought it have had to these frankish warlords, that ruled through tyranny and heavy taxation, as they put in motion the beginnings of feudalism? at least the vikings believed in democracy.
it's just hard to read the history critically without coming to the conclusion that there were substantive parts of these populations that helped the invasions. the timelines are incredible: paris conquered as quickly as it took to sail up the seine. how does that happen without local support?
but, the idea is taboo.
i would request that more serious historians look into this more carefully.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
so, what is ghosts?
at the time, people were comparing it to the tail end of the aphex twin's career, even though reznor had been playing with the style for over a decade. it was a reflection of a deficit of context.
what reznor did with ghosts is kind of sneaky, as he would have released it with the title etudes in a previous era. and, i think that in order to understand what ghosts is you need to go to look into the genre itself, perhaps beginning with debussy's livres.
when you put it into this correct context, ghosts actually becomes an academic exploration of his composition style. reznor has a kind of idiosyncratic approach to tonality, defined by a highly minimalistic approach to dissonance. so, he uses a lot of pedal tones, and then sprinkles "wrong notes" over them in predictably calculated ways. that's the crux of his style, stated in easy to understand terms.
when understood this way, you can actually identify ghosts as somewhat of a pivot in his career. broadly speaking, these are not new themes. but, the disc defines the approach he's taken to soundtrack music, since.
if year zero was both a comeback and a coming-back-down-to-earth, ghosts was the logical conclusion of that process, in charting a new direction for his creative output. and, while i haven't followed this new direction as closely as i followed the previous one, or at least haven't up to this point, it is certainly a turn towards the tasteful that is worth respecting.
at the time, people were comparing it to the tail end of the aphex twin's career, even though reznor had been playing with the style for over a decade. it was a reflection of a deficit of context.
what reznor did with ghosts is kind of sneaky, as he would have released it with the title etudes in a previous era. and, i think that in order to understand what ghosts is you need to go to look into the genre itself, perhaps beginning with debussy's livres.
when you put it into this correct context, ghosts actually becomes an academic exploration of his composition style. reznor has a kind of idiosyncratic approach to tonality, defined by a highly minimalistic approach to dissonance. so, he uses a lot of pedal tones, and then sprinkles "wrong notes" over them in predictably calculated ways. that's the crux of his style, stated in easy to understand terms.
when understood this way, you can actually identify ghosts as somewhat of a pivot in his career. broadly speaking, these are not new themes. but, the disc defines the approach he's taken to soundtrack music, since.
if year zero was both a comeback and a coming-back-down-to-earth, ghosts was the logical conclusion of that process, in charting a new direction for his creative output. and, while i haven't followed this new direction as closely as i followed the previous one, or at least haven't up to this point, it is certainly a turn towards the tasteful that is worth respecting.
the language the cop used was "nice".
it was,
i talked to the tenant downstairs, and she seems really nice.
the cop then underhandedly implied i was a fag for trying to throw her out, rather than trying to get to know her. and, he was absolutely right, although i'd reject the implication that there's something wrong with that.
a lot of people of either gender are going to interpret a 30-something curvy pothead as "hot", and i don't doubt this. but, everything about what's happening is utterly revolting to me.
this is not my type, and never was.
i'm not likely to date anybody of either gender again, but i'd be more likely to go for an underweight straight-edge vegan than a pothead that looks like a stripper. insofar as i am attracted to women, or ever was, i definitely have always preferred the modern yoga body to the traditional hour-glass...
i'm actually just likely to interpret curvy women as overweight. that whole culture around large asses is just gross, to me, and i've always felt the same way about large breasts.
but, regardless, i wouldn't date a pothead. it would have been easier to stomach when i was a smoker, but now that i'm not, it's really a non-starter. it's just not a quality i'd want out of somebody i'm spending a lot of time with...
it was,
i talked to the tenant downstairs, and she seems really nice.
the cop then underhandedly implied i was a fag for trying to throw her out, rather than trying to get to know her. and, he was absolutely right, although i'd reject the implication that there's something wrong with that.
a lot of people of either gender are going to interpret a 30-something curvy pothead as "hot", and i don't doubt this. but, everything about what's happening is utterly revolting to me.
this is not my type, and never was.
i'm not likely to date anybody of either gender again, but i'd be more likely to go for an underweight straight-edge vegan than a pothead that looks like a stripper. insofar as i am attracted to women, or ever was, i definitely have always preferred the modern yoga body to the traditional hour-glass...
i'm actually just likely to interpret curvy women as overweight. that whole culture around large asses is just gross, to me, and i've always felt the same way about large breasts.
but, regardless, i wouldn't date a pothead. it would have been easier to stomach when i was a smoker, but now that i'm not, it's really a non-starter. it's just not a quality i'd want out of somebody i'm spending a lot of time with...
the reason i was thinking about sarah last night was that i had to call the cops, not once but twice. i was supposed to write this up a little, but the smoke has been so thick in here that i've been having trouble staying awake since i finally crashed on saturday morning...
i think i'm awake, now.
the cops think i'm wasting their time, but i don't remotely agree. libertarians might present arguments about legalization leading to less policing, but this is a guess - and i'm not sure an evidence-based analysis would uphold it. regardless, that has nothing to do with the reasons marijuana is being legalized, here. the government has been clear that the purpose of legalization is to reduce use - especially amongst youth - and not to promote wider use.
the government of canada recognizes that recreational marijuana use is a substantive health problem and is adjusting it's approach to the drug in order to reduce use. nothing in the changes to the laws sanctions or promotes consensual drug use, or ignores the damages created by second-hand smoke - especially to those that do not consent to be influenced by it.
if you think otherwise, you need to educate yourself on what is actually happening.
and, i don't expect it to be legalized, anyways.
if somebody put drugs in my drink that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody put drugs in my air supply?
if somebody was burning paint thinner in the apartment downstairs, that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody is burning marijuana?
we have these irrational ideas attached to consumption. but, if somebody makes a choice to burn any other carcinogenic chemical inside, we reference their choice in the matter as a legal concept called mens rea. that's all i'm getting out of this - that they're making the choice to pollute the air and make me sick, i.e. they're not doing it by accident and are consequently liable for the consequences.
but, drug addicts see themselves at the centre of the universe. they think everything is about them. no; this is about me, this is about my air, this is about my rights.
i was able to get the cops out here late on friday night and early on saturday night, so there will be two reports for me to reference to the landlord. the tenants eventually promised to smoke outside; we'll see if they do or not. evidence right now is sketchy. i'll make the foia request for data tomorrow.
i'll also be getting the hospital records from the times i went in for observation.
the cops kept telling me to call the landlord, but they appear to have gotten the process backwards. the cops are right that there's little they can do, and i understand that, but a warning from the cops is actually less of an escalation than a formal complaint. so, if i'm going to be doing this proportionately and fairly, i need to call the cops in to talk to them before i agitate for eviction. and, if they change their habits to smoking outside, then that request will have worked - they will have saved themselves from eviction, even if what that means is giving them more time to find a different place.
if they don't change their habits, i'll be able to present evidence to the landlord that the police officer identified the smell of marijuana, that the tenant admitted to smoking inside the unit (!) and that there is consequently grounds for eviction, due to illegal behaviour on the premises of the property.
i think i'm awake, now.
the cops think i'm wasting their time, but i don't remotely agree. libertarians might present arguments about legalization leading to less policing, but this is a guess - and i'm not sure an evidence-based analysis would uphold it. regardless, that has nothing to do with the reasons marijuana is being legalized, here. the government has been clear that the purpose of legalization is to reduce use - especially amongst youth - and not to promote wider use.
the government of canada recognizes that recreational marijuana use is a substantive health problem and is adjusting it's approach to the drug in order to reduce use. nothing in the changes to the laws sanctions or promotes consensual drug use, or ignores the damages created by second-hand smoke - especially to those that do not consent to be influenced by it.
if you think otherwise, you need to educate yourself on what is actually happening.
and, i don't expect it to be legalized, anyways.
if somebody put drugs in my drink that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody put drugs in my air supply?
if somebody was burning paint thinner in the apartment downstairs, that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody is burning marijuana?
we have these irrational ideas attached to consumption. but, if somebody makes a choice to burn any other carcinogenic chemical inside, we reference their choice in the matter as a legal concept called mens rea. that's all i'm getting out of this - that they're making the choice to pollute the air and make me sick, i.e. they're not doing it by accident and are consequently liable for the consequences.
but, drug addicts see themselves at the centre of the universe. they think everything is about them. no; this is about me, this is about my air, this is about my rights.
i was able to get the cops out here late on friday night and early on saturday night, so there will be two reports for me to reference to the landlord. the tenants eventually promised to smoke outside; we'll see if they do or not. evidence right now is sketchy. i'll make the foia request for data tomorrow.
i'll also be getting the hospital records from the times i went in for observation.
the cops kept telling me to call the landlord, but they appear to have gotten the process backwards. the cops are right that there's little they can do, and i understand that, but a warning from the cops is actually less of an escalation than a formal complaint. so, if i'm going to be doing this proportionately and fairly, i need to call the cops in to talk to them before i agitate for eviction. and, if they change their habits to smoking outside, then that request will have worked - they will have saved themselves from eviction, even if what that means is giving them more time to find a different place.
if they don't change their habits, i'll be able to present evidence to the landlord that the police officer identified the smell of marijuana, that the tenant admitted to smoking inside the unit (!) and that there is consequently grounds for eviction, due to illegal behaviour on the premises of the property.
and, what did i really think of sarah over all of those years?
i thought the idea was toxic; it could have only ended tragically. i was, frankly, morbidly afraid of impregnating her. it's a hard thing to articulate: it could have been a sweetheart story, and maybe in some ways even should have been, but it would never have lasted. she became sort of unstable in high school; i might have seriously damaged her. i actually think i did the right thing for both of us in avoiding her.
but, if you could have wiped away those memories, i might have accepted the advances.
you could write a movie about this and only scratch the surface, and it's not what i want to be ranting about tonight, which i've mostly spent cleaning.
i dated a different sarah in the early 00s. there's some substantive overlap in personality, beyond the given name.
i thought the idea was toxic; it could have only ended tragically. i was, frankly, morbidly afraid of impregnating her. it's a hard thing to articulate: it could have been a sweetheart story, and maybe in some ways even should have been, but it would never have lasted. she became sort of unstable in high school; i might have seriously damaged her. i actually think i did the right thing for both of us in avoiding her.
but, if you could have wiped away those memories, i might have accepted the advances.
you could write a movie about this and only scratch the surface, and it's not what i want to be ranting about tonight, which i've mostly spent cleaning.
i dated a different sarah in the early 00s. there's some substantive overlap in personality, beyond the given name.
actually, i should point out that sarah is responsible for one of the most profound & defining things that anybody has ever said to me, and she probably doesn't remember it - although she probably does remember most of the other things i've posted here.
it was on the bus. we only took the bus together for a few years, so it must have been between grades 6-8.
she sat down beside me - with a shirt on - and actually addressed me fairly sternly, using my full name, as per usual, which essentially nobody else ever did:
jason, everything in life is a joke to you, isn't it? you just refuse to take anything seriously. you think every single possible thing that happens is always a joke of some sort. but, there are things in life that are serious.
i'm not sure she was right about the second part. but, the first part allowed me to see myself in the mirror in a way i hadn't seen myself before, and it's stuck with me all these years for that reason....
it was on the bus. we only took the bus together for a few years, so it must have been between grades 6-8.
she sat down beside me - with a shirt on - and actually addressed me fairly sternly, using my full name, as per usual, which essentially nobody else ever did:
jason, everything in life is a joke to you, isn't it? you just refuse to take anything seriously. you think every single possible thing that happens is always a joke of some sort. but, there are things in life that are serious.
i'm not sure she was right about the second part. but, the first part allowed me to see myself in the mirror in a way i hadn't seen myself before, and it's stuck with me all these years for that reason....
i don't think sarah's crush on me ever receded, but rather went through a number of weird phases, all of which were no doubt outside of any reasonable approximation of reality, but purely in the realm of her own fantasy.
so, there was a period in the eighth grade where she'd take her shirt off and sit beside me on the school bus, or even sit in the seat in front of me and hover her bra an inch from my nose. i was the only 'boy' left on the bus for the rest of the ride; through whatever mix of coercion and thrill, she had a couple of her friends mimic her, as well. the game was that i had to keep ignoring her - but she was also no doubt demonstrating that she'd grown a pair, since she was little. i was always well trained, and fully capable of continuing to ignore her...but this went on for months....
it wasn't until the twelfth grade that she finally snapped. i had moved across town, so we weren't on the same bus, any more. we hadn't been in any of the same classes in years, either. but, i happened to get on a (city) bus she was also on; we made eye contact, and so i instantly stopped and sat a distance away from her, as i always did. she leaped up and came storming across the bus, screaming at me, startling confused passengers...
you're a fucking idiot. you know that? you think you're so damned smart, but you're just stupid. you're so stupid. so, so, so stupid.
my best guess is that she finally realized at that point that i was never going to stop ignoring her - and i never was.
i don't think i've seen her since.
so, there was a period in the eighth grade where she'd take her shirt off and sit beside me on the school bus, or even sit in the seat in front of me and hover her bra an inch from my nose. i was the only 'boy' left on the bus for the rest of the ride; through whatever mix of coercion and thrill, she had a couple of her friends mimic her, as well. the game was that i had to keep ignoring her - but she was also no doubt demonstrating that she'd grown a pair, since she was little. i was always well trained, and fully capable of continuing to ignore her...but this went on for months....
it wasn't until the twelfth grade that she finally snapped. i had moved across town, so we weren't on the same bus, any more. we hadn't been in any of the same classes in years, either. but, i happened to get on a (city) bus she was also on; we made eye contact, and so i instantly stopped and sat a distance away from her, as i always did. she leaped up and came storming across the bus, screaming at me, startling confused passengers...
you're a fucking idiot. you know that? you think you're so damned smart, but you're just stupid. you're so stupid. so, so, so stupid.
my best guess is that she finally realized at that point that i was never going to stop ignoring her - and i never was.
i don't think i've seen her since.
Saturday, March 24, 2018
when i was in the third grade, there was a girl that had a crush on me named sarah. i didn't realize it at the time, but, in hindsight, i'm sure that she picked me out because we both had vaguely latin backgrounds - she was hispanic, even had a very latin name, and i guess i was the only kid around for miles that looked a little like her. i can't remember what country in central america that her parents were from....
she was an awkward kid - quite dominant, in fact. she was a bit of a star hockey player, and known for it. so, she was quite fit - in very good shape. when she wanted something, she took control of the situation and went and got it; that was entirely natural to her....
i was a bookworm - and not interested. she kept trying various tactics, and i kept ignoring her. i don't know if i ever admitted to her that i was actually ignoring her, or if she just always thought i didn't notice; she doesn't seem to have figured it out on her own. she always got what she wanted by taking it, remember. in fact, she ended up escalating quite dramatically, by shooting elastic bands at me.
you know the way: elastic hand gun. you pull the trigger by removing your finger and it flies...
see, as mentioned, i fully well knew that she was trying to get my attention - and i wasn't at all interested. she really wasn't my type; i just saw her as a dumb jock. so, i went and told the teacher that she was shooting elastics at me.
he looked at me like i didn't have a father. "jason, when.."
"yeah, i know", i told him rather brusquely, "but i'm more concerned about my eyes.".
he rolled his own, and separated her from me. i was happy that she left me alone - but she confronted me about it afterwards, with tears in her eyes.
"jason, don't you know why i.."
"yeah, i do know." - i said, while walking away.
in the end, i gave in and let her take me to the dance. in the process, she probably became the first person to realize that i'm transgendered - before i even really did myself; she ended up crudely fag hagging me at eight years old, in the girls' washroom at the elementary school dance before leaving me there to go dance with some actual boys.
this is maybe the first of a dozen similar stories. and, all i can say is that past behaviour is a strong predictor of future behaviour.
she was an awkward kid - quite dominant, in fact. she was a bit of a star hockey player, and known for it. so, she was quite fit - in very good shape. when she wanted something, she took control of the situation and went and got it; that was entirely natural to her....
i was a bookworm - and not interested. she kept trying various tactics, and i kept ignoring her. i don't know if i ever admitted to her that i was actually ignoring her, or if she just always thought i didn't notice; she doesn't seem to have figured it out on her own. she always got what she wanted by taking it, remember. in fact, she ended up escalating quite dramatically, by shooting elastic bands at me.
you know the way: elastic hand gun. you pull the trigger by removing your finger and it flies...
see, as mentioned, i fully well knew that she was trying to get my attention - and i wasn't at all interested. she really wasn't my type; i just saw her as a dumb jock. so, i went and told the teacher that she was shooting elastics at me.
he looked at me like i didn't have a father. "jason, when.."
"yeah, i know", i told him rather brusquely, "but i'm more concerned about my eyes.".
he rolled his own, and separated her from me. i was happy that she left me alone - but she confronted me about it afterwards, with tears in her eyes.
"jason, don't you know why i.."
"yeah, i do know." - i said, while walking away.
in the end, i gave in and let her take me to the dance. in the process, she probably became the first person to realize that i'm transgendered - before i even really did myself; she ended up crudely fag hagging me at eight years old, in the girls' washroom at the elementary school dance before leaving me there to go dance with some actual boys.
this is maybe the first of a dozen similar stories. and, all i can say is that past behaviour is a strong predictor of future behaviour.
Friday, March 23, 2018
the reason i got out of it was the echo chamber effect, combined with the authoritarian power of the written media. but, both of these problems do have a solution - critical thinking skills. it's only when you add the third ingredient of a public school system that has minimized the importance of critical thinking that we end up with the problems we're facing, today.
apparently, studies suggest that people don't read the articles before they share them, but just get the information out of the headlines. headlines are even more authoritarian than stories, partly because they're so short.
what i found was that it was almost impossible to argue with people using facts once they fell down this rabbit hole of accepting headlines as authoritarian sources of knowledge. they would just respond by repeating more authoritarian headlines. or, the lovely "i don't believe your facts because they contradict the memes.".
i had to stop because i was driving myself crazy. my feed was just full of trash, and i had to debunk it, because i'm like that. so i found myself spending hours educating people that refused to be educated, and eventually gave up altogether.
if we can get to the kids then this shall pass. if we can't? it could be a problem.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-pessimists-might-be-right-social-media-may-have-plunged-us-into-a-new-dark-age
apparently, studies suggest that people don't read the articles before they share them, but just get the information out of the headlines. headlines are even more authoritarian than stories, partly because they're so short.
what i found was that it was almost impossible to argue with people using facts once they fell down this rabbit hole of accepting headlines as authoritarian sources of knowledge. they would just respond by repeating more authoritarian headlines. or, the lovely "i don't believe your facts because they contradict the memes.".
i had to stop because i was driving myself crazy. my feed was just full of trash, and i had to debunk it, because i'm like that. so i found myself spending hours educating people that refused to be educated, and eventually gave up altogether.
if we can get to the kids then this shall pass. if we can't? it could be a problem.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-pessimists-might-be-right-social-media-may-have-plunged-us-into-a-new-dark-age
what anarchists believe is that our rights end where the rights of others begin.
and, that is simply a statement that respect is the fundamental idea that society should be built around.
nihilism is consequently the anti-thesis of anarchism. and, as much as the new left is increasingly libertarian, the new right is increasingly nihilist...
and, that is simply a statement that respect is the fundamental idea that society should be built around.
nihilism is consequently the anti-thesis of anarchism. and, as much as the new left is increasingly libertarian, the new right is increasingly nihilist...
there's a broad consistency around these positions taken by these alt-right political commentators. on almost every single issue, the thing reduces to a refusal to behave respectfully - and this inherently american idea that freedom means the ability to be disrespectful towards the people around you.
it's this kind of evolution of thatcherism, this neo-randianism, this coalescence of these ideas that selfishness is a virtue and society doesn't exist, into this vehement insistence of the right to be disrespectful as a fundamental speech issue.
and, there probably isn't a solution besides treating these people the way that they insist on treating others, and hoping their nihilism means they die quickly.
it's this kind of evolution of thatcherism, this neo-randianism, this coalescence of these ideas that selfishness is a virtue and society doesn't exist, into this vehement insistence of the right to be disrespectful as a fundamental speech issue.
and, there probably isn't a solution besides treating these people the way that they insist on treating others, and hoping their nihilism means they die quickly.
tory media,
can you write me an essay explaining to me why it is that you have such a hard time understanding why it's disrespectful to gender people without their permission? in the process, can you explain to me what the purpose of nonchalantly gendering people as an irrelevant triviality in unrelated conversations is in the first place?
the last part is important.
thanks,
dtk
can you write me an essay explaining to me why it is that you have such a hard time understanding why it's disrespectful to gender people without their permission? in the process, can you explain to me what the purpose of nonchalantly gendering people as an irrelevant triviality in unrelated conversations is in the first place?
the last part is important.
thanks,
dtk
i'm going to file a formal complaint for the tenants downstairs due to the smoke, but i'm going to wait until they're not expecting it.
i'm not sure when.
i'm not broadcasting it...
they're growing plants in there. i want to make sure the landlord catches them red-handed.
in the mean time, i'm going to be very quiet, and just carefully go about doing things that are designed to upset them - because i'm convinced that their behaviour is malicious, at this point.
i'm not sure when.
i'm not broadcasting it...
they're growing plants in there. i want to make sure the landlord catches them red-handed.
in the mean time, i'm going to be very quiet, and just carefully go about doing things that are designed to upset them - because i'm convinced that their behaviour is malicious, at this point.
it's perhaps useful to enumerate the ways in which a chinese presence exists here, but it's disingenuous to suggest that the russian influence here is much less - or that our own influence in asia is much different.
the fundamental difference is how they see us.
russia views canada as an old british colony - a former ally against the nazis, and, as a descendant of roman christianity, a cultural cousin. russia legitimately wants peace. russia truly wants friendship.
the chinese view canada as a satellite of the united states, and the continent of north america, more broadly, as an open land to colonize - not dissimilarly to how europeans once saw this continent.
so, the russians seek co-existence; the chinese seek control and dominance.
might that change? it's unlikely, really, because it's cultural. the chinese are supremacists. they want to dominate the world, and subjugate everybody else. we were once like that, too, but we only changed by assimilating the conquered peoples - which means that if the chinese are to follow us into cosmopolitanism, they will have to defeat us, first.
i don't think there's some easy solution. china prides itself on the age of it's civilization, but that perception of itself as central to history is exactly what the problem is.
china probably has to be destroyed.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/china-is-a-bigger-threat-than-russia-but-you-wont-hear-trudeau-say-it/
the fundamental difference is how they see us.
russia views canada as an old british colony - a former ally against the nazis, and, as a descendant of roman christianity, a cultural cousin. russia legitimately wants peace. russia truly wants friendship.
the chinese view canada as a satellite of the united states, and the continent of north america, more broadly, as an open land to colonize - not dissimilarly to how europeans once saw this continent.
so, the russians seek co-existence; the chinese seek control and dominance.
might that change? it's unlikely, really, because it's cultural. the chinese are supremacists. they want to dominate the world, and subjugate everybody else. we were once like that, too, but we only changed by assimilating the conquered peoples - which means that if the chinese are to follow us into cosmopolitanism, they will have to defeat us, first.
i don't think there's some easy solution. china prides itself on the age of it's civilization, but that perception of itself as central to history is exactly what the problem is.
china probably has to be destroyed.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/china-is-a-bigger-threat-than-russia-but-you-wont-hear-trudeau-say-it/
Thursday, March 22, 2018
year zero is a come back record, but it's also a coming-back-down-to-earth record.
at that stage in somebody's career, it's usually enough to get a solid record, and that's exactly what it is. it's just hard to put it in the right context, because it reaches so far beyond what it actually accomplishes. so, it kind of gets forgotten...
at that stage in somebody's career, it's usually enough to get a solid record, and that's exactly what it is. it's just hard to put it in the right context, because it reaches so far beyond what it actually accomplishes. so, it kind of gets forgotten...
so, the question du jour in the media is trying to figure out why wynne is so unpopular. and, a lot of people are going to come up with these cause and effect arguments, trying to find some mistake.
but, as everybody keeps pointing out, her policies are popular.
the hydro one thing was stupid, but it was only stupid because it let the opposition frame her so badly. and, i think that's the real crux of the problem: she didn't spin herself well. or, said differently, she doesn't have the media reach required to spin herself well...
this is a big problem in canada. the conservatives own all the media, define the narrative and may be finally starting to elect governments. the only thing that's prevented us from becoming a play thing of murdoch wannabes is the fact that we seem to know better - and, perhaps, the existence of the toronto star.
but, the liberals need to be more media savvy, moving forwards. nobody watches ctv or reads asper media, any more. they can and should be hitting people over the internet, to try and avoid or pervert the dominance of the old tory guard in the traditional media.
in the short run, wynne may end up as a casualty of her refusal to define her own narrative. and, the liberals need to learn from this, not complain about it.
but, as everybody keeps pointing out, her policies are popular.
the hydro one thing was stupid, but it was only stupid because it let the opposition frame her so badly. and, i think that's the real crux of the problem: she didn't spin herself well. or, said differently, she doesn't have the media reach required to spin herself well...
this is a big problem in canada. the conservatives own all the media, define the narrative and may be finally starting to elect governments. the only thing that's prevented us from becoming a play thing of murdoch wannabes is the fact that we seem to know better - and, perhaps, the existence of the toronto star.
but, the liberals need to be more media savvy, moving forwards. nobody watches ctv or reads asper media, any more. they can and should be hitting people over the internet, to try and avoid or pervert the dominance of the old tory guard in the traditional media.
in the short run, wynne may end up as a casualty of her refusal to define her own narrative. and, the liberals need to learn from this, not complain about it.
trump may not really be getting the plot about why china has tariffs on american goods but america doesn't have tariffs on chinese goods (hint: they're largely american goods made in china, rather than chinese goods), but i actually applaud any steps taken to erect trade barriers that put an end to the existing relationship, which is both unjust and unsustainable.
the consequences of his actions might not be what he's thinking, either, but they'll no doubt be for the greater good, in the end.
the consequences of his actions might not be what he's thinking, either, but they'll no doubt be for the greater good, in the end.
i'm not a prophet, i'm a logician.
and, none of this makes any sense - unless the plan was to derail it from the start.
so, don't be a sap and blame the tories. trudeau set this up. it's his fault.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-cannabis-bill-live-die-vote-1.4586113
and, none of this makes any sense - unless the plan was to derail it from the start.
so, don't be a sap and blame the tories. trudeau set this up. it's his fault.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-cannabis-bill-live-die-vote-1.4586113
so, if gender is just a choice, should i be allowed in exclusive gendered spaces, then?
well, it's 2018. why are we still gendering spaces?
so, what i'd actually tell you is this: if you're intent on gendering the space, i can almost guarantee you i don't want to enter it.
but, i believe in democracy, which means i believe it's up to the people that inhabit the space to determine entry on whatever criteria they want, and not up to a legislature to enforce rules from a distance under the threat of coercion or force. i'd just ask them to question the value of their criteria...and to recognize the consequences of being exclusive....
any group that wishes to be exclusive can always be mirrored by a group that aims for inclusion.
now, that said, there's some spaces where exclusion does make some sense, and i would respect whatever decisions exist, should i be excluded, for whatever reason. but, i'd also probably be able to figure that out on my own, without having to be told.
well, it's 2018. why are we still gendering spaces?
so, what i'd actually tell you is this: if you're intent on gendering the space, i can almost guarantee you i don't want to enter it.
but, i believe in democracy, which means i believe it's up to the people that inhabit the space to determine entry on whatever criteria they want, and not up to a legislature to enforce rules from a distance under the threat of coercion or force. i'd just ask them to question the value of their criteria...and to recognize the consequences of being exclusive....
any group that wishes to be exclusive can always be mirrored by a group that aims for inclusion.
now, that said, there's some spaces where exclusion does make some sense, and i would respect whatever decisions exist, should i be excluded, for whatever reason. but, i'd also probably be able to figure that out on my own, without having to be told.
it is the hornone itself that exists in a spectrum. this is the part so few people grasp.
have you ever wondered why some women are curvy bombshells and others look like boys their whole lives? some get more estrogen than others. it's complicated - genetics, environment, experience, diet - but there's not a gene for huge breasts or a gene for manly calves. it's just hormones. it's just chemistry.
all of these questions - not homosexuality, mind you, but gender - revolve around these hormones, what proportion of them we have and what proportion of them we want.
my first shrink tried to get me to answer why i didn't want to just take steroids, if i was unhappy with my body image - and i had no meaningful answer for him, other than that i didn't want to. there isn't one....
have you ever wondered why some women are curvy bombshells and others look like boys their whole lives? some get more estrogen than others. it's complicated - genetics, environment, experience, diet - but there's not a gene for huge breasts or a gene for manly calves. it's just hormones. it's just chemistry.
all of these questions - not homosexuality, mind you, but gender - revolve around these hormones, what proportion of them we have and what proportion of them we want.
my first shrink tried to get me to answer why i didn't want to just take steroids, if i was unhappy with my body image - and i had no meaningful answer for him, other than that i didn't want to. there isn't one....
"so why can't i identify as a chair or a couch?"
so, what you're saying is that you want me to sit on your face, then?
"no, i'm just..."
you're obviously not a chair.
"you're obviously not a woman."
and, why is that obvious?
"well, you've said that you don't have a vagina."
but, that can be altered, if desired. you acknowledge, then, that gender is fluid, rather than fixed.
"but you don't have..."
i can get anything i don't have, alright? and, i can get rid of anything i don't want, too.
"not genes."
we can actually edit our genes, in theory. not much longer. but, you don't know what the genes code for do, you?
*pause*
"not exactly."
it's hormones. that's all.
sex is not innate. it's just chemistry. and, you can swap it back and forth all you want.
so, what you're saying is that you want me to sit on your face, then?
"no, i'm just..."
you're obviously not a chair.
"you're obviously not a woman."
and, why is that obvious?
"well, you've said that you don't have a vagina."
but, that can be altered, if desired. you acknowledge, then, that gender is fluid, rather than fixed.
"but you don't have..."
i can get anything i don't have, alright? and, i can get rid of anything i don't want, too.
"not genes."
we can actually edit our genes, in theory. not much longer. but, you don't know what the genes code for do, you?
*pause*
"not exactly."
it's hormones. that's all.
sex is not innate. it's just chemistry. and, you can swap it back and forth all you want.
the green bonds and the infrastructure bank both just evaporated. they were in the platform, but there's no trace of them, now, anywhere.
no denials. no 'splaining. just nothing.
mulcair would have been as bad as notley....
it's less that i saw trudeau as some kind of saviour; they all supported the pipelines. they were all pro-oil. but, trudeau was at least presenting feasible ideas to shift.
what i was hoping was that we'd get both: we might have to stomach trudeau's support for pipelines (and fight it in court), while they put the money down on a proper transition strategy at the same time. if your goal is profit maximization, there's no contradiction in funding both sides. and, that seemed to be the best option.
instead, we got neither - and a real do-nothing parliament, all-around.
they sent dion packing a few months in and are unlikely to campaign on this again; either way, it would be hard to take them seriously.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/09/ive-been-leading-up-to-this-for-while.html
no denials. no 'splaining. just nothing.
mulcair would have been as bad as notley....
it's less that i saw trudeau as some kind of saviour; they all supported the pipelines. they were all pro-oil. but, trudeau was at least presenting feasible ideas to shift.
what i was hoping was that we'd get both: we might have to stomach trudeau's support for pipelines (and fight it in court), while they put the money down on a proper transition strategy at the same time. if your goal is profit maximization, there's no contradiction in funding both sides. and, that seemed to be the best option.
instead, we got neither - and a real do-nothing parliament, all-around.
they sent dion packing a few months in and are unlikely to campaign on this again; either way, it would be hard to take them seriously.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/09/ive-been-leading-up-to-this-for-while.html
see, and this is the wildcard in provincial elections - rino is popular, here.
this could be a three-way race. ford will do well with all the recent immigrants, the ndp will hold their own with older voters and rino will do well with the hipsters and students.
i dunno yet..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/rino-bortolin-liberals-windsor-west-1.4587488
this could be a three-way race. ford will do well with all the recent immigrants, the ndp will hold their own with older voters and rino will do well with the hipsters and students.
i dunno yet..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/rino-bortolin-liberals-windsor-west-1.4587488
this is something approaching reliable polling, and the first thing i've seen in months - although it appears to have been taken over march break, which no doubt exaggerates the inherent pc bias in phone polling.
but, this is what the poll says:
cons - 40.7
libs - 22.2
undecided - 15.6
ndp - 15.1
greens - 5.3
correcting for the bias puts the conservatives a few points under 40, but it's not clear where it goes.
in our spectrum, conservatives tend to have a very hard time gaining undecided voters and as hard a time keeping leaning voters. their base is solid, but they don't usually move far out of it; the undecideds tend to lean heavily to the left. you can't distribute undecideds in canada. but, i'm willing to take this as the first valid snap shot in months.
and, what it suggests is that traditional liberal voters are currently disengaged. if they swing hard to the ndp, they could win a surprise victory - but, again, it's hard to understand what's taking them so long. if they vote liberal in the end, she has a chance. and, if they split, or stay home, then the conservatives win.
this is not dissimilar to what we saw in the last federal election, where the conservatives polled ahead until the last weeks, when the undecideds finally decided in favour of the liberals. i'm not convinced that we'll see the same end, but it's the same set-up: mass apathy across the spectrum, with two broad camps - the hardcore conservative base, and everybody else (which remains broadly abc in mindset).
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ford-pcs-21-point-lead-wynne-liberals/
but, this is what the poll says:
cons - 40.7
libs - 22.2
undecided - 15.6
ndp - 15.1
greens - 5.3
correcting for the bias puts the conservatives a few points under 40, but it's not clear where it goes.
in our spectrum, conservatives tend to have a very hard time gaining undecided voters and as hard a time keeping leaning voters. their base is solid, but they don't usually move far out of it; the undecideds tend to lean heavily to the left. you can't distribute undecideds in canada. but, i'm willing to take this as the first valid snap shot in months.
and, what it suggests is that traditional liberal voters are currently disengaged. if they swing hard to the ndp, they could win a surprise victory - but, again, it's hard to understand what's taking them so long. if they vote liberal in the end, she has a chance. and, if they split, or stay home, then the conservatives win.
this is not dissimilar to what we saw in the last federal election, where the conservatives polled ahead until the last weeks, when the undecideds finally decided in favour of the liberals. i'm not convinced that we'll see the same end, but it's the same set-up: mass apathy across the spectrum, with two broad camps - the hardcore conservative base, and everybody else (which remains broadly abc in mindset).
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ford-pcs-21-point-lead-wynne-liberals/
grenier is always wrong. he shouldn't have his job, any more.
his weighted average of polls has been wrong, wrong and wronger for years. the reason is that he mixes up good polls and bad polls, which just has the effect of polluting the data. he includes every poll he can find under the argument that it's a crapshoot anyways, and then gets essentially what he assumes.
are the liberals in worse shape than before? i don't know. because i haven't seen any reliable polling. and, that's the actually correct answer right now - we haven't seen any reliable polling so we don't know where the numbers are.
when we finally do get some reliable polling, it could be shocking because you've been conditioned to a foregone conclusion by all this tory media propaganda. but, you shouldn't be shocked - you should just learn the lesson you won't learn, which is that online "polling" isn't polling
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ontario-polls-comebacks-1.4585921
his weighted average of polls has been wrong, wrong and wronger for years. the reason is that he mixes up good polls and bad polls, which just has the effect of polluting the data. he includes every poll he can find under the argument that it's a crapshoot anyways, and then gets essentially what he assumes.
are the liberals in worse shape than before? i don't know. because i haven't seen any reliable polling. and, that's the actually correct answer right now - we haven't seen any reliable polling so we don't know where the numbers are.
when we finally do get some reliable polling, it could be shocking because you've been conditioned to a foregone conclusion by all this tory media propaganda. but, you shouldn't be shocked - you should just learn the lesson you won't learn, which is that online "polling" isn't polling
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ontario-polls-comebacks-1.4585921
no.
the ban on smoking near buildings is municipal, and windsor is one of the few cities that doesn't have one.
and, smoking out of a window is most like smoking on a balcony, which is not addressed anywhere - and would be difficult to argue.
there's no such thing as a non-smoking building, here. somebody could put it in a lease, but it's non-enforceable. so, i have no choice but to fight.
at the moment, i don't have an actionable complaint; i will no doubt be told to close the window, which i can't/won't do. i need a large amount of fresh air intake into the unit...
i know this is being done to irk me. so, i've done what i can to mitigate, and i'm going to have to wait them out. they don't want to smoke outside, and will eventually stop doing it.
the ban on smoking near buildings is municipal, and windsor is one of the few cities that doesn't have one.
and, smoking out of a window is most like smoking on a balcony, which is not addressed anywhere - and would be difficult to argue.
there's no such thing as a non-smoking building, here. somebody could put it in a lease, but it's non-enforceable. so, i have no choice but to fight.
at the moment, i don't have an actionable complaint; i will no doubt be told to close the window, which i can't/won't do. i need a large amount of fresh air intake into the unit...
i know this is being done to irk me. so, i've done what i can to mitigate, and i'm going to have to wait them out. they don't want to smoke outside, and will eventually stop doing it.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
the heat turned on before 11:00.
after i had blocked every hole in the apartment, they started blowing it in the windows. that's just a lack of respect. i mean, it's one thing when we're talking about competing rights and seeking mutual co-existence; it's another when you're taking about an infringement of personal space. so, i had to threaten the crackheads with police action. it seems to have worked, for now.
it's probably the only thing they would have responded to; i probably didn't have another option. i hate cops, but i also hate crackheads. i don't know who i hate more.
the law in ontario is that you need to go eight feet away from a public building. most people don't follow that, but i'm willing to enforce it. does that mean i can force them to close the window? i need to look into that.
if i can get through the night without being bothered, i might change my mind. but, as of right now, i've resolved to filing a complaint with the landlord tomorrow morning.
after i had blocked every hole in the apartment, they started blowing it in the windows. that's just a lack of respect. i mean, it's one thing when we're talking about competing rights and seeking mutual co-existence; it's another when you're taking about an infringement of personal space. so, i had to threaten the crackheads with police action. it seems to have worked, for now.
it's probably the only thing they would have responded to; i probably didn't have another option. i hate cops, but i also hate crackheads. i don't know who i hate more.
the law in ontario is that you need to go eight feet away from a public building. most people don't follow that, but i'm willing to enforce it. does that mean i can force them to close the window? i need to look into that.
if i can get through the night without being bothered, i might change my mind. but, as of right now, i've resolved to filing a complaint with the landlord tomorrow morning.
what a disaster.
i spent all day taping the windows open, only to have the heat turn off this afternoon, which is not legal.
i repeat: the windows are taped open. they won't be closed again until november.
it's just below freezing. so, if the heat doesn't turn on soon, it's going to be cold in here tonight....
i spent all day taping the windows open, only to have the heat turn off this afternoon, which is not legal.
i repeat: the windows are taped open. they won't be closed again until november.
it's just below freezing. so, if the heat doesn't turn on soon, it's going to be cold in here tonight....
again: my experiences with the mental health system aren't that it needs more funding, but that it needs better standards.
all these years later, and i've been unable to get a serious diagnosis. i'm obviously crazy, right? well, i can't get a doctor to acknowledge it. they're all convinced there's nothing wrong with me.
or, to put it in more honest terms: they're all convinced that i'm white. if i'm white, i must be privileged. so, i'm not crazy. i'm just a whiner.
the problem is in the academic system.
all these years later, and i've been unable to get a serious diagnosis. i'm obviously crazy, right? well, i can't get a doctor to acknowledge it. they're all convinced there's nothing wrong with me.
or, to put it in more honest terms: they're all convinced that i'm white. if i'm white, i must be privileged. so, i'm not crazy. i'm just a whiner.
the problem is in the academic system.
some of these people are professors, and have some grounds to claim they are presenting controversial academic topics.
but, the ones like goldy that are just idiot trolls should be told to go speak in an elementary school cafeteria, or a legion hall, instead.
she's making a mockery of academia.
but, this is the school's responsibility to prevent, and it is the school's fault for not stepping in and upholding some concept of rigour.
but, the ones like goldy that are just idiot trolls should be told to go speak in an elementary school cafeteria, or a legion hall, instead.
she's making a mockery of academia.
but, this is the school's responsibility to prevent, and it is the school's fault for not stepping in and upholding some concept of rigour.
i would think that any university willing to host a talk by faith goldy should lose their accreditation.
it's not even because she's a nazi.
it's because she's an idiot.
has she written or published anything in an academic journal? did she even graduate high school? there has to be some concept of academic standards, and even the most lenient concept would tell her to rent a hall off campus.
i have less opposition to her speaking, in general. but, she has no business speaking at a place of learning.
it's not even because she's a nazi.
it's because she's an idiot.
has she written or published anything in an academic journal? did she even graduate high school? there has to be some concept of academic standards, and even the most lenient concept would tell her to rent a hall off campus.
i have less opposition to her speaking, in general. but, she has no business speaking at a place of learning.
listen: regardless of whatever lies other people are saying about me, the fact is that i had quit smoking (except at concerts) for nearly two years before i relapsed over the move, and the only real purpose of the relapse was as a massive stimulant for those couple of weeks, as i needed it. as i've stated repeatedly: i'll always pick nicotine over cocaine when i need the pick up. this was extended by the fact that i couldn't get on the internet for a month and had to walk around outside every day, and then again by my yearly christmas ritual, which was a little longer than normal this year - but needed, given everything that was happening.
i had no intention of starting smoking again. and, the routine had already been broken, so it really wasn't that hard to stop. by the end of the ritual, i was finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid nicotine altogether over the next ritual. i found myself forcing myself to smoke, and then skipping smokes for days altogether. even if i buy another pack next ritual, i could very well not smoke any of it directly...
i haven't smoked anything in well over a month, and i haven't had any difficulty with it, either.
i said something around this time last year about how i wanted to go to zero smoking at concerts as a last step, and concluded a few months later that this was infeasible until legalization happens on both sides of the border. this is probably still true. but, if my concert schedule stays minimal, it's going to mean my habits will, too.
there is absolutely no reason at all to expect me to relapse again any time soon.
i had no intention of starting smoking again. and, the routine had already been broken, so it really wasn't that hard to stop. by the end of the ritual, i was finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid nicotine altogether over the next ritual. i found myself forcing myself to smoke, and then skipping smokes for days altogether. even if i buy another pack next ritual, i could very well not smoke any of it directly...
i haven't smoked anything in well over a month, and i haven't had any difficulty with it, either.
i said something around this time last year about how i wanted to go to zero smoking at concerts as a last step, and concluded a few months later that this was infeasible until legalization happens on both sides of the border. this is probably still true. but, if my concert schedule stays minimal, it's going to mean my habits will, too.
there is absolutely no reason at all to expect me to relapse again any time soon.
the attacks in yemen are aerial. so, it's probably true that the vehicles haven't been used for any atrocities....yet.
if i were dictator of canada, i would have quashed the deal. but, we have to deal with the liberals being rational again, here.
first, the deal was already agreed upon. the tradition in canada - and, indeed, in most parliamentary democracies - is that the incoming government doesn't undo what the previous government did. otherwise, we'd just be spinning around in circles. it may not have been entirely unprecedented, but it would have gone against our own democratic norms and traditions.
second, it is no doubt true that they would have just bought the same thing from somebody else. so, not selling them the weapons wouldn't have spared any lives. this is broadly true across the spectrum of weapons sales - and what it means is that these protests are more about our own egos than they are about the lives of foreign peoples, yemenis or otherwise.
third, it then follows that, if we want to actually influence saudi opinion, we need to sit down and talk to them - not threaten them by demanding they buy weapons from somebody else. and, this is indeed the crux of historical canadian policy: engagement. it's another question if they actually engaged or not...
like i say - i wouldn't have done it.
but, it's harder to come up with a reasonable criticism of this than first appears obvious, unless you're approaching it solely from a position of indignant self-righteousness - which a rational mind would reject.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-lav-deal-1.4585035
if i were dictator of canada, i would have quashed the deal. but, we have to deal with the liberals being rational again, here.
first, the deal was already agreed upon. the tradition in canada - and, indeed, in most parliamentary democracies - is that the incoming government doesn't undo what the previous government did. otherwise, we'd just be spinning around in circles. it may not have been entirely unprecedented, but it would have gone against our own democratic norms and traditions.
second, it is no doubt true that they would have just bought the same thing from somebody else. so, not selling them the weapons wouldn't have spared any lives. this is broadly true across the spectrum of weapons sales - and what it means is that these protests are more about our own egos than they are about the lives of foreign peoples, yemenis or otherwise.
third, it then follows that, if we want to actually influence saudi opinion, we need to sit down and talk to them - not threaten them by demanding they buy weapons from somebody else. and, this is indeed the crux of historical canadian policy: engagement. it's another question if they actually engaged or not...
like i say - i wouldn't have done it.
but, it's harder to come up with a reasonable criticism of this than first appears obvious, unless you're approaching it solely from a position of indignant self-righteousness - which a rational mind would reject.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-lav-deal-1.4585035
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
that was another 18 hours of sleep. almost. i got up to eat. hopefully, i'm awake....
that angus reid online "poll" is a good example of how the media uses "polling" as propaganda to further it's aims.
i can't say if trudeau's approval rating has fallen below 50%. you'd need to do some polling to determine if that is true or not.
but, the media coverage is intense. every paper - and this is distorted by the fact that there are only a handful of media companies in this country - is screaming it across headlines. it is fact. after all, it is a poll.
but, polls are not facts.
and, it is not a poll, either.
i would suspect that it is probably true that trudeau's numbers have been on a downward trend over the last several months, due to many, many factors - including ennui. whether the numbers have crossed 50% or not is not particularly important, either, as one only requires ~35% to win a majority government, in this country. i'm not exactly disputing the narrative.
i'm just pointing out the process.
this is right-wing media propaganda. stated simply.
(and, angus reid 's track record is so bad that they should not even be consulted any more. they have repeatedly not even been close.)
that angus reid online "poll" is a good example of how the media uses "polling" as propaganda to further it's aims.
i can't say if trudeau's approval rating has fallen below 50%. you'd need to do some polling to determine if that is true or not.
but, the media coverage is intense. every paper - and this is distorted by the fact that there are only a handful of media companies in this country - is screaming it across headlines. it is fact. after all, it is a poll.
but, polls are not facts.
and, it is not a poll, either.
i would suspect that it is probably true that trudeau's numbers have been on a downward trend over the last several months, due to many, many factors - including ennui. whether the numbers have crossed 50% or not is not particularly important, either, as one only requires ~35% to win a majority government, in this country. i'm not exactly disputing the narrative.
i'm just pointing out the process.
this is right-wing media propaganda. stated simply.
(and, angus reid 's track record is so bad that they should not even be consulted any more. they have repeatedly not even been close.)
the last thing the turks want is more kurds.
http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-high-kurdish-birth-rate-raises-questions-about-future-705488
http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-high-kurdish-birth-rate-raises-questions-about-future-705488
there's a dumb saying from free market idiots:
those that do do, those that can't teach.
or something along those lines.
it's probably an ayn rand quote, or something.
in math, the only structure that exists is the university; those that do have no option but to teach. there's no free market for abstract math; mathematicians just make it up as it comes to them, and put it aside for somebody else.
we pride ourselves in our platonic disinterest in application.
we openly make fun of engineers....
but i may suggest tracking down the works of alexander grothendieck for some alternative views from a distinguished mathematician.
those that do do, those that can't teach.
or something along those lines.
it's probably an ayn rand quote, or something.
in math, the only structure that exists is the university; those that do have no option but to teach. there's no free market for abstract math; mathematicians just make it up as it comes to them, and put it aside for somebody else.
we pride ourselves in our platonic disinterest in application.
we openly make fun of engineers....
but i may suggest tracking down the works of alexander grothendieck for some alternative views from a distinguished mathematician.
it's also a strong argument for a gai.
i mean, this is my vision for who takes the gai: artists seeking escape from markets, academics seeking escape from the university, etc.
if you weigh the pros & cons for an independent researcher, disability is a far better choice than lecturing.
the only substantive con that really jumps out is sex; one is less likely to find a partner on disability than as a lecturer. but, if you don't care about that...or even see a less active sex life as a pro....
i mean, this is my vision for who takes the gai: artists seeking escape from markets, academics seeking escape from the university, etc.
if you weigh the pros & cons for an independent researcher, disability is a far better choice than lecturing.
the only substantive con that really jumps out is sex; one is less likely to find a partner on disability than as a lecturer. but, if you don't care about that...or even see a less active sex life as a pro....
i had profs describe their jobs like living through groundhog day.
they'd show up drunk. lament about how they're wasting their lives with children. complain that they didn't have enough time for their work.
math probably self-selects for introverts, but it can't be much different than other fields.
this is a part of the reason why i'm an advocate of converting the university system into four extra years of high school, and leaving the universities as research institutions: to emancipate professors from the doldrums of teaching.
the most miserable people i've ever met are profs. you spend enough time around them, you learn the lesson: get out while you can.
they'd show up drunk. lament about how they're wasting their lives with children. complain that they didn't have enough time for their work.
math probably self-selects for introverts, but it can't be much different than other fields.
this is a part of the reason why i'm an advocate of converting the university system into four extra years of high school, and leaving the universities as research institutions: to emancipate professors from the doldrums of teaching.
the most miserable people i've ever met are profs. you spend enough time around them, you learn the lesson: get out while you can.
so, am i mathematician or not?
well, it depends on how you define it.
some people will claim that a mathematician is somebody that has a degree in mathematics, and i certainly adhere to that categorization, and then some. my sole awarded degree is a four year b. mathematics (honours) (2006), but i could apply for a graduate degree if i wanted to - although that statement may not be true for much longer, as those extra credits will eventually run out.
others will claim that, to truly be a mathematician, one must work in the field and publish papers. i have not done that and will not be doing that any time soon.
so, if i have a math degree, why don't i get a job as a mathematician? well, it's not exactly something that you apply for online, to start with. that basically means being a math prof. the other option is building weapons, and you know i wouldn't like that. and, let's be real - this is in fact a really shitty job with poor pay, bad benefits, zero security, awful hours and poor career advancement.
the reason i'm not technically a mathematician is in truth because i decided i didn't want to be one. i decided i'd rather be a musician.
if we're having a discussion about deep topics at the graduate level, you can call me on this, and i won't push back. i'm honest about this; i'll defer when necessary. but, you don't have a math degree, do you? and, you don't have a dozen graduate courses under your belt, either, right? or minors in related fields like economics, physics and computer science, either, right? usually, i'm the one that should be deferred to. you'd have to get very specialized to get out of my league...
if we're having a discussion about polling methods, or basic calculus, or introductory game theory, i have all the specialized knowledge you need. and, you can choose not to trust me if you want, but i'd point to my track record on that.
well, it depends on how you define it.
some people will claim that a mathematician is somebody that has a degree in mathematics, and i certainly adhere to that categorization, and then some. my sole awarded degree is a four year b. mathematics (honours) (2006), but i could apply for a graduate degree if i wanted to - although that statement may not be true for much longer, as those extra credits will eventually run out.
others will claim that, to truly be a mathematician, one must work in the field and publish papers. i have not done that and will not be doing that any time soon.
so, if i have a math degree, why don't i get a job as a mathematician? well, it's not exactly something that you apply for online, to start with. that basically means being a math prof. the other option is building weapons, and you know i wouldn't like that. and, let's be real - this is in fact a really shitty job with poor pay, bad benefits, zero security, awful hours and poor career advancement.
the reason i'm not technically a mathematician is in truth because i decided i didn't want to be one. i decided i'd rather be a musician.
if we're having a discussion about deep topics at the graduate level, you can call me on this, and i won't push back. i'm honest about this; i'll defer when necessary. but, you don't have a math degree, do you? and, you don't have a dozen graduate courses under your belt, either, right? or minors in related fields like economics, physics and computer science, either, right? usually, i'm the one that should be deferred to. you'd have to get very specialized to get out of my league...
if we're having a discussion about polling methods, or basic calculus, or introductory game theory, i have all the specialized knowledge you need. and, you can choose not to trust me if you want, but i'd point to my track record on that.
i never got started today and am about to pass out early, yet again.
i thought i had this fixed. almost all the holes were blocked. finally. but, the idiots downstairs thought it would be a good idea to blow smoke into the apartment from outside by blowing up through the window sill.
no joke: they are sticking their head out their window and blowing the smoke up. i guess they expect me to close the window? they may just be trying to irk me.....
...but, obviously, the more smoke they blow in, the longer it takes to clear out. fucking idiots.
it's going to take all night to clear. but, the effects are felt.
so, i am once again crashing early due to the draining effects of second hand thc. ugh.
the next time that happens, i'm going to have to dump water on their heads. but, this is also getting into the realm of something that i could potentially prosecute as harassment...
i thought i had this fixed. almost all the holes were blocked. finally. but, the idiots downstairs thought it would be a good idea to blow smoke into the apartment from outside by blowing up through the window sill.
no joke: they are sticking their head out their window and blowing the smoke up. i guess they expect me to close the window? they may just be trying to irk me.....
...but, obviously, the more smoke they blow in, the longer it takes to clear out. fucking idiots.
it's going to take all night to clear. but, the effects are felt.
so, i am once again crashing early due to the draining effects of second hand thc. ugh.
the next time that happens, i'm going to have to dump water on their heads. but, this is also getting into the realm of something that i could potentially prosecute as harassment...
Monday, March 19, 2018
horwath's biggest advantage, right now, is of course that she's not wynne.
i don't mean that horwath needs to come up with a precise answer that is going to appeal to everybody. that would be impossible.
what i mean is that wynne has already helped horwath tremendously by going out of her way to blur the differences between them. a sitting premier should have an incumbency advantage; wynne has wiped that away, by adopting virtually every position horwath has presented and by going out of her way to have them appear essentially the same.
again: in a situation where a premier is popular, this is a good idea as it makes the change option seem pointless. why vote for a change when they're both the same? but, in a situation where a premier is unpopular, it abolishes the incumbency advantage. why vote for wynne when horwath is basically the same, and represents the change that everybody wants?
this is the thing that wynne will probably never acknowledge.
horwath still must differentiate herself. not on a specific thing like a dental plan, or a marijuana policy. but, overall. she has to convert "basically the same, but a change" into "a change for the better".
where wynne is, right now, she should be campaigning on how much of a dramatic change the scary ndp would be - she wants voters to exaggerate the difference, and be fearful of it.
i don't mean that horwath needs to come up with a precise answer that is going to appeal to everybody. that would be impossible.
what i mean is that wynne has already helped horwath tremendously by going out of her way to blur the differences between them. a sitting premier should have an incumbency advantage; wynne has wiped that away, by adopting virtually every position horwath has presented and by going out of her way to have them appear essentially the same.
again: in a situation where a premier is popular, this is a good idea as it makes the change option seem pointless. why vote for a change when they're both the same? but, in a situation where a premier is unpopular, it abolishes the incumbency advantage. why vote for wynne when horwath is basically the same, and represents the change that everybody wants?
this is the thing that wynne will probably never acknowledge.
horwath still must differentiate herself. not on a specific thing like a dental plan, or a marijuana policy. but, overall. she has to convert "basically the same, but a change" into "a change for the better".
where wynne is, right now, she should be campaigning on how much of a dramatic change the scary ndp would be - she wants voters to exaggerate the difference, and be fearful of it.
to be clear: wynne thinks she can block horwath by copying her.
that only works when you're in a dominant position.
horwath is, in fact, in the dominant position, right now. and, wynne's attempts to block her by copying her are actually going to aid her.
so, horwath now needs to give people a reason to vote ndp instead of liberal.
that only works when you're in a dominant position.
horwath is, in fact, in the dominant position, right now. and, wynne's attempts to block her by copying her are actually going to aid her.
so, horwath now needs to give people a reason to vote ndp instead of liberal.
if they split the vote, is there some way we could repeat 1985, and put the liberals and ndp in coalition?
that's not what happened in 1985; in 1985, the liberals got 37% of the vote.
if we end up in a situation where they both have around 25-30%, the liberals could be wiped off the map as they end up second everywhere. and, kathleen wynne will be personally responsible - not for her policies, which are popular, but for her narcissistic and nihilistic strategies.
she's campaigning from a position of strength, while in a position of abject weakness.
she may be incapable of admitting weakness.
that's not what happened in 1985; in 1985, the liberals got 37% of the vote.
if we end up in a situation where they both have around 25-30%, the liberals could be wiped off the map as they end up second everywhere. and, kathleen wynne will be personally responsible - not for her policies, which are popular, but for her narcissistic and nihilistic strategies.
she's campaigning from a position of strength, while in a position of abject weakness.
she may be incapable of admitting weakness.
wynne is maybe the worst politician i've ever seen.
so, in a scenario where she needs to be drawing contrasts between herself and horwath, she is instead trying to copy her positions and make the choice between them blurry. and, if that reality holds, ford wins by splitting the vote.
and, i'm actually starting to lose patience with her. her incompetency here is really singularly bizarre. and, it's pissing me off enough to consider voting against her out of spite.
i mean, talk about reckless.
horwath needs to define herself differently than wynne, so voters are given a clear choice and don't accidentally elect a mental midget because the premier can't admit that she's - personally - too unpopular to be running.
so, in a scenario where she needs to be drawing contrasts between herself and horwath, she is instead trying to copy her positions and make the choice between them blurry. and, if that reality holds, ford wins by splitting the vote.
and, i'm actually starting to lose patience with her. her incompetency here is really singularly bizarre. and, it's pissing me off enough to consider voting against her out of spite.
i mean, talk about reckless.
horwath needs to define herself differently than wynne, so voters are given a clear choice and don't accidentally elect a mental midget because the premier can't admit that she's - personally - too unpopular to be running.
i decided walking in that it would be a better strategy to be honest about small things (like marijuana, and j-walking - which i'm brutal about), because if i told him i hadn't, and he thought i was lying, i'd be less likely to get approved than if i told him i had.
by being honest about the pot, and denying using other drugs, i established a level of trust that may have been decisive, in the end.
i mean, i don't think he would have believed me if i lied about the pot. he couldn't prove i was lying, but it might not matter. and then i'm in much bigger trouble...
by being honest about the pot, and denying using other drugs, i established a level of trust that may have been decisive, in the end.
i mean, i don't think he would have believed me if i lied about the pot. he couldn't prove i was lying, but it might not matter. and then i'm in much bigger trouble...
i admitted to smoking marijuana in the past when i was doing my nexus interview.
the question was whether i've done "any drugs". i said i'd smoked some marijuana, previously.
the interviewer shrugged.
"any other drugs?"
i lied and said no.
the card showed up in the mail a few weeks later. and, i now have advanced clearance to the united states....
the point is that this is bullshit. it's all discretionary. the reality is that i'm not very scary when sober (and even less so when stoned), and that fact won out in the end.
trudeau is unlikely to face many problems, unless he applies for residency, which is not impossible. if he ends up in hollywood, he may be better off not applying for anything.
i can't believe we let all these war criminal former presidents in our own country, though. the younger bush, especially, should be arrested at the airport.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/19/trudeau-could-be-barred-from-u-s-after-hes-pm-because-he-smoked-pot-u-s-lawyer/
the question was whether i've done "any drugs". i said i'd smoked some marijuana, previously.
the interviewer shrugged.
"any other drugs?"
i lied and said no.
the card showed up in the mail a few weeks later. and, i now have advanced clearance to the united states....
the point is that this is bullshit. it's all discretionary. the reality is that i'm not very scary when sober (and even less so when stoned), and that fact won out in the end.
trudeau is unlikely to face many problems, unless he applies for residency, which is not impossible. if he ends up in hollywood, he may be better off not applying for anything.
i can't believe we let all these war criminal former presidents in our own country, though. the younger bush, especially, should be arrested at the airport.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/19/trudeau-could-be-barred-from-u-s-after-hes-pm-because-he-smoked-pot-u-s-lawyer/
how does putin get these ridiculous numbers? aren't they beyond credulity?
in russia, election rig you - which means that if they're going to fuck with it, they'll go all out. 99%.
99.9%.
and, then they'll drag the seventeen poor bastards that dared vote otherwise on to tv, and insult them for it.
russia knows how to rig an election, alright. and, 75% is not a rigged election.
in russia, election rig you - which means that if they're going to fuck with it, they'll go all out. 99%.
99.9%.
and, then they'll drag the seventeen poor bastards that dared vote otherwise on to tv, and insult them for it.
russia knows how to rig an election, alright. and, 75% is not a rigged election.
so, how does this happen, then?
these are the results:
vladimir putin - 75.0 pct (liberal-conservative party - united russia)
pavel grudinin - 13.3 pct (communist party - literally)
vladimir zhirinovsky - 6.3 pct (these are literally fascists)
so, imagine walking into a polling booth and having the following options in front of you:
1) liberal-conservatives (or just 'capitalists')
2) the historical soviet/communist party of russia
3) fascists
which of these options would you prefer?
it's a non-choice. so, 75% is actually absolutely believable, when you recognize the reality of the options.
and, is this so outrageous, in comparison to other democracies?
corbyn & may got over 82% of the vote, together. so, if there was a conservative-labour party in the uk, no doubt led by the ghost of winston churchill, it would have been more popular than putin. a liberal-conservative party would have received over 70% of the vote in the last canadian election. and a democratic-republican party would get over 95% of the vote.
if we stop to consider the nature of our two-headed monsters, it doesn't seem so different does it? and, a little bit of historical knowledge will bring out the following stark truth: liberal-conservative and democratic-republican are real historical entities.
at some point, united russia will split into liberal and conservative factions. for the time being, the capitalist class sees it in it's self interest to remain united, rather than to divide and conquer.
the fascists probably aren't a serious threat.
but, the communists are.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
i have not been keeping up to date on the conflict in mali. africa is such a giant place, and what's happening on the ground is so difficult to get decent information about due to the fact that it remains a technological backwater, that i tend to block it out. i mean, you need to block things out.
these conflicts are all about oil and minerals and diamonds, and there's generally three sides, if you ignore all the complexities between the proxies: the americans and chinese are competing with each for colonial influence, while indigenous voices usually struggle to be heard, at all. the americans have taken over for the british (the french, in some ways, never really left), while the chinese have taken over for the russians. but, it's the same basic conflict.
and, sometimes the nato forces are the lesser evil, while, sometimes, the chinese forces are - although the cubans, when they were active, were legitimately almost always good guys. it was only ever the cubans that were worthy of serious moral support....
what canada has historically done in these situations is try and focus on the humanitarian side of the nato missions. and, sometimes that means being the softer face of something rather nasty and rather evil, which invites a lot of valid criticism. but, the reality is that we often have the choice of trying to minimize the slaughter or doing nothing in the face of it at all - we cannot offer a meaningful front of resistance. we just can't.
on top of that, we have our own mining interests, and they tend to be some of the worst human rights abusers going.
and, we have our own geo-political interests, as well, which i'll get to in a moment.
the last time i checked in to what was happening in mali, you had these rebel groups coming in from the north with weapons stolen from ghadaffi, and they were causing havoc in certain oil-producing regions. these are your typical saudi-backed lunatics that want to implement a strict religious order (including the enslavement or worse of the black africans in the south of the country), but this is really a conflict over who gets to control the supply of oil. so, it's essentially a conflict between arabs and europeans over who gets to steal the oil from the africans. much of the history of western africa is about arabs and europeans competing with each other, to determine who is the more brutal colonizer.
what canada is likely to be doing in this situation is two things. first, canada specializes in protecting civilian populations in these conflicts - which is very important to the nato mission, because the intent is to win hearts & minds. it's really a fluke of history that we managed to make ourselves the hewers of aid supplies and drawers of water like this, but it's what we do - it's what we're trained to do, and we're good at it, too. we'll also no doubt be on the front lines of this, trying to push out the tuareg rebels.
any development that follows from this mission will be created in the broader scope of the military objective of controlling the oil field. but, will anybody remember why the road was built, in the end?
as exporters of oil, is this even in our interest?
well, it is if it lets us duck out of getting too involved in ukraine.
and, that is the real purpose of pearsonian peace-keeping. rather than get bogged down in vietnam, we helped the empire build roads in africa - a no less important task for the projection of global power, but a far more benign one.
i'm consequently going to leave the criticism for historians - so long as the longer term strategy does, in fact, work itself out. if we start invading russia, this negates it's own worth, and all bets are off.
these conflicts are all about oil and minerals and diamonds, and there's generally three sides, if you ignore all the complexities between the proxies: the americans and chinese are competing with each for colonial influence, while indigenous voices usually struggle to be heard, at all. the americans have taken over for the british (the french, in some ways, never really left), while the chinese have taken over for the russians. but, it's the same basic conflict.
and, sometimes the nato forces are the lesser evil, while, sometimes, the chinese forces are - although the cubans, when they were active, were legitimately almost always good guys. it was only ever the cubans that were worthy of serious moral support....
what canada has historically done in these situations is try and focus on the humanitarian side of the nato missions. and, sometimes that means being the softer face of something rather nasty and rather evil, which invites a lot of valid criticism. but, the reality is that we often have the choice of trying to minimize the slaughter or doing nothing in the face of it at all - we cannot offer a meaningful front of resistance. we just can't.
on top of that, we have our own mining interests, and they tend to be some of the worst human rights abusers going.
and, we have our own geo-political interests, as well, which i'll get to in a moment.
the last time i checked in to what was happening in mali, you had these rebel groups coming in from the north with weapons stolen from ghadaffi, and they were causing havoc in certain oil-producing regions. these are your typical saudi-backed lunatics that want to implement a strict religious order (including the enslavement or worse of the black africans in the south of the country), but this is really a conflict over who gets to control the supply of oil. so, it's essentially a conflict between arabs and europeans over who gets to steal the oil from the africans. much of the history of western africa is about arabs and europeans competing with each other, to determine who is the more brutal colonizer.
what canada is likely to be doing in this situation is two things. first, canada specializes in protecting civilian populations in these conflicts - which is very important to the nato mission, because the intent is to win hearts & minds. it's really a fluke of history that we managed to make ourselves the hewers of aid supplies and drawers of water like this, but it's what we do - it's what we're trained to do, and we're good at it, too. we'll also no doubt be on the front lines of this, trying to push out the tuareg rebels.
any development that follows from this mission will be created in the broader scope of the military objective of controlling the oil field. but, will anybody remember why the road was built, in the end?
as exporters of oil, is this even in our interest?
well, it is if it lets us duck out of getting too involved in ukraine.
and, that is the real purpose of pearsonian peace-keeping. rather than get bogged down in vietnam, we helped the empire build roads in africa - a no less important task for the projection of global power, but a far more benign one.
i'm consequently going to leave the criticism for historians - so long as the longer term strategy does, in fact, work itself out. if we start invading russia, this negates it's own worth, and all bets are off.
so, expect the liberals & ndp to start accusing anybody that criticizes their non-plan on emissions reductions as being russian spies.
to me, the biggest story that came out of the russia hoax is the revelation that american liberals are, in fact, as stupid as american conservatives - that the stupidity is an american thing, rather than a conservative thing.
i actually don't expect this to work, here.
notley is done, anyways. her election was a fluke. and, she's blown the one opportunity that the province had to stop itself from imminent collapse due to the resource curse. but, part of me would like to see trudeau fall on his own sword.
go ahead, justin.
call me a russian spy.
i dare you.
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/notorious-russian-troll-farm-also-took-swipes-at-canadian-targets-oil-pm
to me, the biggest story that came out of the russia hoax is the revelation that american liberals are, in fact, as stupid as american conservatives - that the stupidity is an american thing, rather than a conservative thing.
i actually don't expect this to work, here.
notley is done, anyways. her election was a fluke. and, she's blown the one opportunity that the province had to stop itself from imminent collapse due to the resource curse. but, part of me would like to see trudeau fall on his own sword.
go ahead, justin.
call me a russian spy.
i dare you.
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/notorious-russian-troll-farm-also-took-swipes-at-canadian-targets-oil-pm
the functional difference facing society is this: do you want to accept the scientific fact of gender fluidity, or do you want to maintain these arbitrary concepts of gender exclusivity, at the expense of maintaining a large social welfare state?
the idea that you can force boys to be boys and force girls to be girls isn't an actual choice in front of you - because these are not categories that exist in biology, but categories that only exist in disney films.
and, frankly, i'm happy to live a bourgeois life on disability, if you won't let me work. but, you have to allow for this. you can't just tell us to starve. even the christians have a problem with this.
a proper cost-benefit analysis would expose the stupidity of holding to fairy tales. but, the social sciences aren't good at math.
the idea that you can force boys to be boys and force girls to be girls isn't an actual choice in front of you - because these are not categories that exist in biology, but categories that only exist in disney films.
and, frankly, i'm happy to live a bourgeois life on disability, if you won't let me work. but, you have to allow for this. you can't just tell us to starve. even the christians have a problem with this.
a proper cost-benefit analysis would expose the stupidity of holding to fairy tales. but, the social sciences aren't good at math.
i mean, maybe we could have a debate about why the collective should determine jordan's hair cut for him, while we're at it.
maybe we can pick out his clothes for him.
tell him who he should want to have sex with, where he should piss, what he should smoke.
nonono. he has to listen.
because we said so.
maybe we can pick out his clothes for him.
tell him who he should want to have sex with, where he should piss, what he should smoke.
nonono. he has to listen.
because we said so.
i think that this is a part of the disconnect, and it comes out of the fact that christianity is a collectivist and authoritarian system of thought that thinks it can write rules that other people have to follow.
even if the jordan petersons of the world could manage to pass a decree with 95% support, i still don't care - because it's not up for the collective to make these decisions on the behalf of an individual. it's just going to increase the chances that we're going to end up in a court.
so, nothing can come of such a debate. and, it's not worth wasting time over.
that said, you'll notice i'm not out there trying to shut him down, either. i think these people are harming their own cause - which is also my cause. and, i'd rather they let him circle jerk to the choir and find something better to do.
even if the jordan petersons of the world could manage to pass a decree with 95% support, i still don't care - because it's not up for the collective to make these decisions on the behalf of an individual. it's just going to increase the chances that we're going to end up in a court.
so, nothing can come of such a debate. and, it's not worth wasting time over.
that said, you'll notice i'm not out there trying to shut him down, either. i think these people are harming their own cause - which is also my cause. and, i'd rather they let him circle jerk to the choir and find something better to do.
no, listen, i don't know what you think a debate with somebody like jordan peterson would be like.
so long as he didn't make any factual errors, i'd probably let him finish. without interrupting him.
and, i'm not likely to say much besides "that's nice.", or "you're entitled to your opinion."....
...because i ultimately don't have any interest in winning a debate with somebody like this. or really any interest in bothering to listen to him express his viewpoints on the matter at all.
it's of no relevance to me.
in the end, i'd be more likely to make an argument about the uselessness of bourgeois rights - and how rights aren't something that come from a legislature, but something that come from lived experience.
which isn't to say i don't support the amendments, so much as to suggest that i don't think they're going to actually make anybody's lives better.
i made no effort to agitate for these amendments.
because, news flash: i'm not going to follow the law, anyways. i haven't up to now. if the thing gets defeated, or reversed, i'm not going to change my behaviour, either.
so, it's only at the moment that he tries to physically intervene that i have some reason to care what he thinks. and, at that point, i'm more likely to call the police than i am to try and debate with him.
individual rights aren't up for debate like this. we take them for ourselves. and, we fight with those that want to restrict them.
so long as he didn't make any factual errors, i'd probably let him finish. without interrupting him.
and, i'm not likely to say much besides "that's nice.", or "you're entitled to your opinion."....
...because i ultimately don't have any interest in winning a debate with somebody like this. or really any interest in bothering to listen to him express his viewpoints on the matter at all.
it's of no relevance to me.
in the end, i'd be more likely to make an argument about the uselessness of bourgeois rights - and how rights aren't something that come from a legislature, but something that come from lived experience.
which isn't to say i don't support the amendments, so much as to suggest that i don't think they're going to actually make anybody's lives better.
i made no effort to agitate for these amendments.
because, news flash: i'm not going to follow the law, anyways. i haven't up to now. if the thing gets defeated, or reversed, i'm not going to change my behaviour, either.
so, it's only at the moment that he tries to physically intervene that i have some reason to care what he thinks. and, at that point, i'm more likely to call the police than i am to try and debate with him.
individual rights aren't up for debate like this. we take them for ourselves. and, we fight with those that want to restrict them.
i can't have a mid-life crisis, because i never grew up in the first place.
but we'd be better off if more people had more mid-life crises, younger - and stopped snapping out of them.
we should be thinking of mid-life crises as though they're moments of clarity, not moments of insanity.
because, it's our 30s that are always our low points.
that moment of transcendence comes when we realize we've spent our lives running from ourselves, and stop doing it. how many of us never get there?
but we'd be better off if more people had more mid-life crises, younger - and stopped snapping out of them.
we should be thinking of mid-life crises as though they're moments of clarity, not moments of insanity.
because, it's our 30s that are always our low points.
that moment of transcendence comes when we realize we've spent our lives running from ourselves, and stop doing it. how many of us never get there?
to all you grown-ups, let me ask: where did you find all of these things that are real and true?
was it under your bed?
in your closet?
at your place of employment?
in your sex life?
or did you, in truth, just delude yourself into living in denial - like your parents did.
for that's what being an adult is really about, isn't it?
was it under your bed?
in your closet?
at your place of employment?
in your sex life?
or did you, in truth, just delude yourself into living in denial - like your parents did.
for that's what being an adult is really about, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)