Wednesday, May 16, 2018
if you're lucky, and the setting is right, i might let you have your way with me, kind of thing. this would require a careful combination of aggressive tactics and subtle manipulation, on your behalf. and, you'd ultimately need to have the right kind of personality for it, which i don't run into very often any more.
but, that hasn't happened in a really, really long time - and may very well never happen again.
i'm simply not going to fuck you - or make any attempt to seduce you at all.
at all.
ever.
but, that hasn't happened in a really, really long time - and may very well never happen again.
i'm simply not going to fuck you - or make any attempt to seduce you at all.
at all.
ever.
so, i ended up crashing this morning again.
i was up in the afternoon; the day is over.
i'm going to spend a few hours working, and get to checking listings around midnight, with the intent to start calling in the morning.
it's a long weekend in canada, and i can't find anything fun to do, so i'll probably stay in. but, it's a kind of calendar-changing date, too. i expect that the market will change next week.
i was up in the afternoon; the day is over.
i'm going to spend a few hours working, and get to checking listings around midnight, with the intent to start calling in the morning.
it's a long weekend in canada, and i can't find anything fun to do, so i'll probably stay in. but, it's a kind of calendar-changing date, too. i expect that the market will change next week.
of course i don't know how to fuck; i've spent my whole life fantasizing about having vaginal intercourse. why would you expect that i'd know how to fuck? or that i'd have any interest in learning how?
that's the whole point, you fucking idiot.
it's like asking a car why it can't fly. it's a fucking car; of course it can't fly. and, it probably wouldn't want to fly, if it had a personality. it'd just want to drive all day long.
it's been many years, but i have experience in lesbian-style sex. girl on girl. grinding. oral. i got some strong feedback on it. i don't think i was bad at it.
but, if you want to have sex with a transwoman, you'd better be willing to take control of the situation, because you're not going to get fucked the way you might imagine you would. you're going to be on top. you're going to be the one in charge; she's the one that's going to be bored. that's the point you're not getting.
if you want to get reamed by somebody with breasts and lipstick, you'd be better off asking a lady friend to use a strap-on.
that's the whole point, you fucking idiot.
it's like asking a car why it can't fly. it's a fucking car; of course it can't fly. and, it probably wouldn't want to fly, if it had a personality. it'd just want to drive all day long.
it's been many years, but i have experience in lesbian-style sex. girl on girl. grinding. oral. i got some strong feedback on it. i don't think i was bad at it.
but, if you want to have sex with a transwoman, you'd better be willing to take control of the situation, because you're not going to get fucked the way you might imagine you would. you're going to be on top. you're going to be the one in charge; she's the one that's going to be bored. that's the point you're not getting.
if you want to get reamed by somebody with breasts and lipstick, you'd be better off asking a lady friend to use a strap-on.
yesterday was a long day, and it seems like i crashed pretty hard. i've been reacting to the sun this year in ways i never did previously, so maybe that has something to do with it. i was up in the evening to get a smoothie, but i ended up crashing for the night.
i think i'm up now.
so, i can't comment on the air quality last night, but i woke up with a cough and a headache. there is the smell of a drier, lower quality herb coming up; i don't want to quite call it 'shake', but it's being smoked past it's best-before date. it has more of that chocolate-oregano smell (somebody might have also made coffee.) than the skunk that usually comes up from below me, so i'm actually thinking it's from one of the other units, although i don't know which one. i guess the other possibility is that it's third hand smoke, mixed with the coffee aroma.
she seems to usually be smoking outside, at this point. which is appreciated, but not good enough. and, if it's coming from every which way at this concentration, that's just more reason to leave, too
the fact that i'm tired after a walk in the sun yesterday could have multiple causes. and i'm clearly dehydrated. but, that cough is from breathing in the smoke...and it's not a pleasant thing to wake up to at all...
i was just confirmed as being in optimal health, yet again. i don't need this shit making me sick.
i was hoping to rebuild a little over night, but that opportunity is past. so, i'm going to get something to eat and get a start on looking for some other place to live.
i think i'm up now.
so, i can't comment on the air quality last night, but i woke up with a cough and a headache. there is the smell of a drier, lower quality herb coming up; i don't want to quite call it 'shake', but it's being smoked past it's best-before date. it has more of that chocolate-oregano smell (somebody might have also made coffee.) than the skunk that usually comes up from below me, so i'm actually thinking it's from one of the other units, although i don't know which one. i guess the other possibility is that it's third hand smoke, mixed with the coffee aroma.
she seems to usually be smoking outside, at this point. which is appreciated, but not good enough. and, if it's coming from every which way at this concentration, that's just more reason to leave, too
the fact that i'm tired after a walk in the sun yesterday could have multiple causes. and i'm clearly dehydrated. but, that cough is from breathing in the smoke...and it's not a pleasant thing to wake up to at all...
i was just confirmed as being in optimal health, yet again. i don't need this shit making me sick.
i was hoping to rebuild a little over night, but that opportunity is past. so, i'm going to get something to eat and get a start on looking for some other place to live.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
i need to be clear: while there was a component of ochlocratic terror to the chants at the trump rallies, and they got out of hand a few times, i don't have a basic opposition to calling your opponent a criminal, when the fact of the matter is that she actually is one. that's just calling a spade a spade.
and, the primary was almost certainly rigged, so you can't really blame democrats for nominating a criminal, either.
it's just bizarre to throw that at wynne, who has nothing approaching any criminal accusations directed at her.
and, the primary was almost certainly rigged, so you can't really blame democrats for nominating a criminal, either.
it's just bizarre to throw that at wynne, who has nothing approaching any criminal accusations directed at her.
well, what law is she accused of breaking?
clinton, on the other hand, is a war criminal.
it's a dumb comparison.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/15/wynne-blasts-ford-for-stoking-trump-style-lock-her-up-rhetoric.html
clinton, on the other hand, is a war criminal.
it's a dumb comparison.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/15/wynne-blasts-ford-for-stoking-trump-style-lock-her-up-rhetoric.html
ok, that gets me right through to the end of march
the air quality over the last 24 hours was better; i could smell it, but it wasn't coming up in plumes. it may have been third hand smoke. i don't know.
let's see how far into season 5 that i can get before i stop.
there's less than 200 pages left in the document, from april 1st to june 19th. i could do that in a weekend. so, this is nearly done.
the air quality over the last 24 hours was better; i could smell it, but it wasn't coming up in plumes. it may have been third hand smoke. i don't know.
let's see how far into season 5 that i can get before i stop.
there's less than 200 pages left in the document, from april 1st to june 19th. i could do that in a weekend. so, this is nearly done.
so, your parents came over here with a good education, got a swank job and raised you in a middle class suburb. you studied hard and went to a good school, where you learned about white people in a sociology class.
but, how many white people do you actually know, though?
have ever gone out to where they live and talked to them? listened to their music? hung out with them?
the critical race theory is useful in a very narrow context: it describes the relationship behind powerful landowners and slaves in the southern us, and the contemporary consequences of that historical system. it's about the legacy of slavery in a very limited geographical area.
the error you make when you take that very narrow theory and try to apply it the broader world around you is called generalizing the specific and is endemic in the social sciences.
and, it really fails the most basic empirical tests. but, if all you know about white people is what you've learned in a classroom - if you have no real direct experience with them - then you can't see how absurd the whole thing really is.
so, go out to a trailer park or a subsidized housing unit some time. spend an afternoon with some white people in the wild. see what they're really like.
but, how many white people do you actually know, though?
have ever gone out to where they live and talked to them? listened to their music? hung out with them?
the critical race theory is useful in a very narrow context: it describes the relationship behind powerful landowners and slaves in the southern us, and the contemporary consequences of that historical system. it's about the legacy of slavery in a very limited geographical area.
the error you make when you take that very narrow theory and try to apply it the broader world around you is called generalizing the specific and is endemic in the social sciences.
and, it really fails the most basic empirical tests. but, if all you know about white people is what you've learned in a classroom - if you have no real direct experience with them - then you can't see how absurd the whole thing really is.
so, go out to a trailer park or a subsidized housing unit some time. spend an afternoon with some white people in the wild. see what they're really like.
i want to clarify that my argument was that blue states are leaning sanders and red states are leaning clinton, so why didn't i argue that hawaii is a blue state and therefore should lean sanders?
at the time, i decided that this pattern was only going to be applicable in the lower 48, and i'd have to look at something else for hawaii. so, i looked at the data for samoa. in hindsight, i think that was silly; i shouldn't have treated hawaii differently, i should have just treated it like a blue state.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2016/03/j-reacts-to-mar-26-primary-results.html
at the time, i decided that this pattern was only going to be applicable in the lower 48, and i'd have to look at something else for hawaii. so, i looked at the data for samoa. in hindsight, i think that was silly; i shouldn't have treated hawaii differently, i should have just treated it like a blue state.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2016/03/j-reacts-to-mar-26-primary-results.html
this is not to discount my identification as female.
but i do wonder, sometimes, how functionally different i really am from a eunuch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
but i do wonder, sometimes, how functionally different i really am from a eunuch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
Monday, May 14, 2018
the term "corporate democrats" conjures up a disconnect between finance and populism, and that makes sense in the united states.
but, what if the corporate democrats were actually pretty liberal about it? i mean, the new deal wasn't charity for the sake of it - it was intended to promote a corporate agenda.
i've hit back at elizabeth warren pretty hard for being too right-wing, but that's in a spectrum where you only have two parties, and you consequently need to pull the democrats as far left as is potentially possible. in a three-party spectrum, you have that centrist path.
kathleen wynne is more like elizabeth warren than she is like hillary clinton. and, elizabeth warren is in truth a wall street democrat. they share the idea that finance doesn't need to be abolished, it can be regulated for the public good. and, they both think like corporate tax lawyers.
the ndp tend to be more fiscally conservative, because workers movements have always had that conservative strain. it's ultimately a religious thing, and there's a few different levels to it. but, it's rooted in some anachronistic worldviews about the source of wealth in the economy - anachronistic worldviews that are widespread amongst workers on both sides of the border of this continent. sanders also had that fiscally conservative streak, if you listened to him carefully, and he was just as wrong about it as the ndp broadly are.
i would have easily supported sanders over warren, but the context is dramatically different. the united states does not have a single-payer system, for example, and warren was flaky on that - as i actually expect wynne would be, if it didn't already exist. so, it's not as simple as just lining up positions.
but, this is the dynamic: the liberals are a corporatist party, and they think like a corporation does, but their perspective on the value of government is more like adam smith than it is like milton friedmann; the ndp are a populist worker's party, and that seems attractive at first glance, but what that means is that they don't always fully understand what they're talking about at the same level as the lawyers in the liberal party do.
i'm an educated lower class anarchist. i don't fully identify with either. but, my brain usually tells me that the liberals are a better idea, in the context of what already exists.
but, what if the corporate democrats were actually pretty liberal about it? i mean, the new deal wasn't charity for the sake of it - it was intended to promote a corporate agenda.
i've hit back at elizabeth warren pretty hard for being too right-wing, but that's in a spectrum where you only have two parties, and you consequently need to pull the democrats as far left as is potentially possible. in a three-party spectrum, you have that centrist path.
kathleen wynne is more like elizabeth warren than she is like hillary clinton. and, elizabeth warren is in truth a wall street democrat. they share the idea that finance doesn't need to be abolished, it can be regulated for the public good. and, they both think like corporate tax lawyers.
the ndp tend to be more fiscally conservative, because workers movements have always had that conservative strain. it's ultimately a religious thing, and there's a few different levels to it. but, it's rooted in some anachronistic worldviews about the source of wealth in the economy - anachronistic worldviews that are widespread amongst workers on both sides of the border of this continent. sanders also had that fiscally conservative streak, if you listened to him carefully, and he was just as wrong about it as the ndp broadly are.
i would have easily supported sanders over warren, but the context is dramatically different. the united states does not have a single-payer system, for example, and warren was flaky on that - as i actually expect wynne would be, if it didn't already exist. so, it's not as simple as just lining up positions.
but, this is the dynamic: the liberals are a corporatist party, and they think like a corporation does, but their perspective on the value of government is more like adam smith than it is like milton friedmann; the ndp are a populist worker's party, and that seems attractive at first glance, but what that means is that they don't always fully understand what they're talking about at the same level as the lawyers in the liberal party do.
i'm an educated lower class anarchist. i don't fully identify with either. but, my brain usually tells me that the liberals are a better idea, in the context of what already exists.
in corporate finance, when a company identifies a means of maximizing profit, and does not do so, it is considered lost revenue. it's a part of the trade agreements built into the new world order; if a province passes an environmental regulation that prevents future profits, the province becomes liable for "lost profit" - and merely demonstrating the potential for lost profit is enough to win a settlement in these clown courts set up by the agreements.
the liberals are reversing this logic, here - they're claiming that not implementing spending increases is the same thing as implementing cuts. and, while your average pleb may scratch their head at this, it is entirely consistent with the type of logic utilized in corporate finance.
i'm not sure if it's going to connect with voters, who may find the argument a little too abstract.
that being said, there's something a little bit unsettling about the provincial ndp using the same fiscal arguments that stephen harper used against a very similar, if admittedly somewhat convoluted, attack from the corresponding liberals.
the takeaway is that the liberals are in fact going to spend more money on these particular programs, and the ndp admit that.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-liberals-attack-on-ndp-platform-error-a-graze-not-a-direct-hit
the liberals are reversing this logic, here - they're claiming that not implementing spending increases is the same thing as implementing cuts. and, while your average pleb may scratch their head at this, it is entirely consistent with the type of logic utilized in corporate finance.
i'm not sure if it's going to connect with voters, who may find the argument a little too abstract.
that being said, there's something a little bit unsettling about the provincial ndp using the same fiscal arguments that stephen harper used against a very similar, if admittedly somewhat convoluted, attack from the corresponding liberals.
the takeaway is that the liberals are in fact going to spend more money on these particular programs, and the ndp admit that.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-liberals-attack-on-ndp-platform-error-a-graze-not-a-direct-hit
but, yeah...
it's a guess. i don't have detailed data on undecideds.
but, i think that what's happening is that a lot of liberal voters are carefully studying the situation, and essentially trying to avoid splitting the vote, and that this is the only serious poll movement right now.
that's exactly what i'm doing, too.
the danger is that, if this is true, then there's enough people trying to avoid splitting the vote that we could swing it. oops.
your riding is unique. you can't generalize the specific; you can't take province-wide polls and try to cram them into your riding, with whatever local issues exist amongst whatever demographics. you need to know your riding's voting history (wikipedia helps.) and try and figure out what the zeitgeist is in it, right now. talk to your neighbours.
but, if your riding is a traditional liberal-tory battleground, then it probably still is, and you're probably better off voting liberal. and, if the ndp usually polls better, you shouldn't expect that to change now, either.
where we all need to be extra careful is in ridings where the liberals and ndp are usually at the top, and the conservatives are down a bit. a bad read could accidentally elect conservatives in these kinds of ridings.
but, there is not currently a strong argument that the kind of large shifts that we saw in the last federal election are happening in ontario right now. that could change. however, the evidence right now is toward stasis, even if people wish that the options were better.
don't believe the media. don't believe the hype.
it's a guess. i don't have detailed data on undecideds.
but, i think that what's happening is that a lot of liberal voters are carefully studying the situation, and essentially trying to avoid splitting the vote, and that this is the only serious poll movement right now.
that's exactly what i'm doing, too.
the danger is that, if this is true, then there's enough people trying to avoid splitting the vote that we could swing it. oops.
your riding is unique. you can't generalize the specific; you can't take province-wide polls and try to cram them into your riding, with whatever local issues exist amongst whatever demographics. you need to know your riding's voting history (wikipedia helps.) and try and figure out what the zeitgeist is in it, right now. talk to your neighbours.
but, if your riding is a traditional liberal-tory battleground, then it probably still is, and you're probably better off voting liberal. and, if the ndp usually polls better, you shouldn't expect that to change now, either.
where we all need to be extra careful is in ridings where the liberals and ndp are usually at the top, and the conservatives are down a bit. a bad read could accidentally elect conservatives in these kinds of ridings.
but, there is not currently a strong argument that the kind of large shifts that we saw in the last federal election are happening in ontario right now. that could change. however, the evidence right now is toward stasis, even if people wish that the options were better.
don't believe the media. don't believe the hype.
the media has been telling us for months that the liberals are going to lose, with little evidence to back it up.
so, liberal voters are now uncommitted.
but, neither of the other parties are actually gaining any support - liberal voters are just panicking that their party is going to lose and intent on voting strategically, to make the best of a bad situation. pragmatic. careful. very liberal, in canada.
if the liberals can get this across to them, they'll get those votes back. but, that's hard to do in a few weeks.
what is happening is really a powerful example of what happens when you have a media oligopoly focused on the interests of a specific party. and, the lesson that the liberals need to learn is that they can't let the tory media dominate the narrative like they have been.
so, liberal voters are now uncommitted.
but, neither of the other parties are actually gaining any support - liberal voters are just panicking that their party is going to lose and intent on voting strategically, to make the best of a bad situation. pragmatic. careful. very liberal, in canada.
if the liberals can get this across to them, they'll get those votes back. but, that's hard to do in a few weeks.
what is happening is really a powerful example of what happens when you have a media oligopoly focused on the interests of a specific party. and, the lesson that the liberals need to learn is that they can't let the tory media dominate the narrative like they have been.
mainstreet does good polling, so long as they publish the full results.
this is some reliable polling. finally.
and, this is what the headlines should say.
the conservative numbers are about where they always are; it's not at all clear that ford has expanded outside of the traditional tory base at all, but i do suspect you've seen some swapping in and out amongst the specific demographics i've pointed to: less upper class white voters, more middle class urban ethnic voters.
the ndp, once again, seem to be about steady.
but, the liberal support is caving - albeit not in any direction. and, this is the major thing that is happening: the conservatives and ndp seem to be holding steady to their base, while the liberal vote is really totally up in the air.
i normally talk about how not publishing the undecideds inflates conservative support, but, in this election, it appears to be inflating ndp support as well.
so, here's my conclusions about this poll:
1) the media narrative seems to be getting to liberal voters, who are being led to believe that they will need to vote for a different party if they want their vote to matter. they are not committing to anybody. but, they will decide the election - and they could still stick with the liberals, in the end.
2) this swath of undecided liberal voters is inflating numbers for both of the other parties.
but, this is the same place we were at six months ago.
i don't know who these undecided liberals are, so i don't have a lot of suggestions on what to do to get them. in past elections, it's been clear that we've been dealing with the disillusioned left of the party, but, right now, this appears to be manufactured dissent: voters in a panic to make sure their votes count, as a consequence of their preferred party unravelling.
the media created this story as a self-fulfilling prophesy, and here it is happening, in front of us.
there is some chance they could settle down, that they're just panicking.
one would actually expect the undecideds to start falling right now, not start increasing. the pollsters may tell you it's weak support, but it may be more about weak confidence than weak support. liberals are going to be a little less ideological and a little more pragmatic, because that's what they are; but, that pragmatism could lead them back rather than pull them away, in the end.
i have no deep insight into this other than to state it bluntly: liberal voters are up for grabs right now, and it's not entirely clear what they want.
but, they might be more afraid of ford than anything else.
this is some reliable polling. finally.
and, this is what the headlines should say.
the ndp, once again, seem to be about steady.
but, the liberal support is caving - albeit not in any direction. and, this is the major thing that is happening: the conservatives and ndp seem to be holding steady to their base, while the liberal vote is really totally up in the air.
i normally talk about how not publishing the undecideds inflates conservative support, but, in this election, it appears to be inflating ndp support as well.
so, here's my conclusions about this poll:
1) the media narrative seems to be getting to liberal voters, who are being led to believe that they will need to vote for a different party if they want their vote to matter. they are not committing to anybody. but, they will decide the election - and they could still stick with the liberals, in the end.
2) this swath of undecided liberal voters is inflating numbers for both of the other parties.
but, this is the same place we were at six months ago.
i don't know who these undecided liberals are, so i don't have a lot of suggestions on what to do to get them. in past elections, it's been clear that we've been dealing with the disillusioned left of the party, but, right now, this appears to be manufactured dissent: voters in a panic to make sure their votes count, as a consequence of their preferred party unravelling.
the media created this story as a self-fulfilling prophesy, and here it is happening, in front of us.
there is some chance they could settle down, that they're just panicking.
one would actually expect the undecideds to start falling right now, not start increasing. the pollsters may tell you it's weak support, but it may be more about weak confidence than weak support. liberals are going to be a little less ideological and a little more pragmatic, because that's what they are; but, that pragmatism could lead them back rather than pull them away, in the end.
i have no deep insight into this other than to state it bluntly: liberal voters are up for grabs right now, and it's not entirely clear what they want.
but, they might be more afraid of ford than anything else.
if horwath has no interest in a coalition government with the liberals, it logically follows that she will allow a conservative minority government to take power - that's what she's saying, that if we're in a scenario where she's monarch-maker, she will pick the conservatives over the liberals.
if you've been following horwath's career, you actually shouldn't be surprised by this.
but, i find the pledge to be very disappointing.
and, it may be a defining reason to vote liberal, in the end.
i know that the campaigns want to defy reality and project their own, but i'm not interested in this kind of magical thinking. we will have a conservative government or a coalition government. and, if horwath is ruling out a coalition government, and ensuring a conservative government, then that's a reason to ensure her party remains in third place.
if she's bluffing, she still has several weeks to face up to reality and produce a more honest reaction. but, i have no reason not to take her at her word, on this.
if you've been following horwath's career, you actually shouldn't be surprised by this.
but, i find the pledge to be very disappointing.
and, it may be a defining reason to vote liberal, in the end.
i know that the campaigns want to defy reality and project their own, but i'm not interested in this kind of magical thinking. we will have a conservative government or a coalition government. and, if horwath is ruling out a coalition government, and ensuring a conservative government, then that's a reason to ensure her party remains in third place.
if she's bluffing, she still has several weeks to face up to reality and produce a more honest reaction. but, i have no reason not to take her at her word, on this.
i'm a post-feminist in a patriarchal society, a society that seems more intent on redefining language than it is in redefining behaviour.
but, i'm also a liberal. and, that means that i don't take responsibility for your emancipation - i expect that you will take the initiative to fight for it, yourself.
and, if you won't, that's not my concern.
my concern is myself, and my own behaviour, and my own emancipation from patriarchy.
but, i'm also a liberal. and, that means that i don't take responsibility for your emancipation - i expect that you will take the initiative to fight for it, yourself.
and, if you won't, that's not my concern.
my concern is myself, and my own behaviour, and my own emancipation from patriarchy.
Aug 31, 2011
so, i experienced the princess paradox today.
again.
it's something i have to deal with fairly often. *most* men will likely have to deal with it at least a few times in the course of their life, but i get it on a weekly basis. it's likely the result of the obvious gender identification mismatch, it's exaggeration with princesses and the irrational things that princesses do to men's brains. i'll get to this...
for now, what is the princess paradox? i'll provide a definition and an example to explain it.
definition: the princess paradox is the condition where princesses demand unequal treatment from men and cry sexism when they don't receive that unfair treatment. it is a neat label to describe how it is that treating princesses with regular levels of egalitarian respect is paradoxically perceived by them as sexist, likely largely due to their conditioning of being treated with superiority due to their status as princesses. only exceptionally good treatment from men, which is by definition non-egalitarian, is perceived by them as not being sexist.
example...
so, this is what happened today.
i walk into a bank with a cheque. i want that cheque cashed immediately. i can't use a machine because they'll hold it. so, i bring the check and my card up to the counter. counter attendant? princess.
"i need to check to see if your name's on a list. you've been through this before, right? should just take a second."
"what? uh, no. why would you need to check if my name's on a list?"
"i can't cash government checks unless you're on the list."
"well, nobody's ever had to do that before. is it a new procedure?"
"just wait here while i check if your name's on the list."
(i wait a few minutes)
"your name isn't on the list. have you ever cashed a check here before?"
"listen, i don't think you need to check if my name's on a list. can you ask somebody for some help?"
now, my tone of voice was admittedly a little bitchy, and there was "you don't know what you're doing" tonality to it. you know what? she *didn't* know what she was doing, and she *did* need to ask somebody for some help.
regardless, that was a sin. men are allowed to question the competency of other men, and even of less attractive women, but never of princesses as that obviously implies superiority, regardless of the level of incompetency.
in the background a second princess chirps in...
"you don't have to be so patronizing, she's just learning."
a strong man appears out of nowhere..
(i'm exaggerating slightly)
man: "hi sweetie. is this horrible man bothering you?"
princess: "i think i can hand..."
man (to me): "if you don't stop giving her a hard time, we'll have you thrown out of here and banned forever. she's a new employee and she just needed a little help."
me: "well, yeah, that's what i suggested."
man: "do you understand me?"
(pause)
me: "no, not really. she needed some..."
man: "if you don't stop being such an asshole.."
me: "listen, i don't really know what you're talking about. can you help her cash the check?"
princess (to man): "i mean, i didn't even say i wouldn't cash it."
man (to me): "can't you see what you've done?"
(pause)
me: "accomplish my task of getting somebody to help her with cashing the check?"
man: "if you don't show some more respect i'm going to throw you out of here."
me: "listen, i just want to get the transaction done with quickly and get out of here."
as mentioned, i've exaggerated slightly, but you can see the underlying point: even fairly timid, indirect levels of frustration that would be totally normal in a female-female professional conversation are completely taboo in a male-princess conversation. i run into this all of the time: princesses that get upset when i talk to them like adults rather than like children.
this is a slightly boring example, too. i have one very vivid recollection of a princess walking into a door because i didn't hold it for her as she expected and then *yelling at me*, *blaming me for it* as though it was my fault that she didn't look where she was going, as though she *didn't* make the stupid, entitled assumption that it was my responsibility to hold the door for her.
i bet that would be a neat experiment, actually. how many women would follow what they think is a nice gentlemanly boy into work, make the assumption that the door will be held and then literally walk into it when it isn't?
what underlies this? what causes the princess paradox?
i've dealt with it enough to come up with some conclusions.
basically, i think that princesses are so used to being talked down to by men that when one *doesn't* it's such a strange occurrence that they don't know how to parse it. it's just a once in a blue moon thing for them. they're so used to men grovelling and trying to get laid that they interpret the lack of grovelling as a lack of respect. it's quite amazing really; those rare circumstances of communication with actual egalitarians become painful loss-of-status experiences, with the point of torture itself being precisely what they experience so rarely: somebody that sees them on an even level and isn't talking down to them in the expected, safe way. it's the very process of humanization itself that seems alien.
...and, it's actually quite sad when placed in that context.
it probably, ultimately, stems from sexist fathers.
i think that, within the princess' response, there may also be a bit of a reflexive psychological defense mechanism to attempt to masculinize me as my perceived feminine guyness would be naturally and instinctively interpreted as a trojan horse, due to a least risk algorithm, and rejected as anomalous. so, not only is the princess paradox demanding of unequal treatment, it is possibly suspicious of movements that promise equality under the fear that they will lead to inequality at less advantageous terms.
that's a complicated pseudo-syndrome.
so, i experienced the princess paradox today.
again.
it's something i have to deal with fairly often. *most* men will likely have to deal with it at least a few times in the course of their life, but i get it on a weekly basis. it's likely the result of the obvious gender identification mismatch, it's exaggeration with princesses and the irrational things that princesses do to men's brains. i'll get to this...
for now, what is the princess paradox? i'll provide a definition and an example to explain it.
definition: the princess paradox is the condition where princesses demand unequal treatment from men and cry sexism when they don't receive that unfair treatment. it is a neat label to describe how it is that treating princesses with regular levels of egalitarian respect is paradoxically perceived by them as sexist, likely largely due to their conditioning of being treated with superiority due to their status as princesses. only exceptionally good treatment from men, which is by definition non-egalitarian, is perceived by them as not being sexist.
example...
so, this is what happened today.
i walk into a bank with a cheque. i want that cheque cashed immediately. i can't use a machine because they'll hold it. so, i bring the check and my card up to the counter. counter attendant? princess.
"i need to check to see if your name's on a list. you've been through this before, right? should just take a second."
"what? uh, no. why would you need to check if my name's on a list?"
"i can't cash government checks unless you're on the list."
"well, nobody's ever had to do that before. is it a new procedure?"
"just wait here while i check if your name's on the list."
(i wait a few minutes)
"your name isn't on the list. have you ever cashed a check here before?"
"listen, i don't think you need to check if my name's on a list. can you ask somebody for some help?"
now, my tone of voice was admittedly a little bitchy, and there was "you don't know what you're doing" tonality to it. you know what? she *didn't* know what she was doing, and she *did* need to ask somebody for some help.
regardless, that was a sin. men are allowed to question the competency of other men, and even of less attractive women, but never of princesses as that obviously implies superiority, regardless of the level of incompetency.
in the background a second princess chirps in...
"you don't have to be so patronizing, she's just learning."
a strong man appears out of nowhere..
(i'm exaggerating slightly)
man: "hi sweetie. is this horrible man bothering you?"
princess: "i think i can hand..."
man (to me): "if you don't stop giving her a hard time, we'll have you thrown out of here and banned forever. she's a new employee and she just needed a little help."
me: "well, yeah, that's what i suggested."
man: "do you understand me?"
(pause)
me: "no, not really. she needed some..."
man: "if you don't stop being such an asshole.."
me: "listen, i don't really know what you're talking about. can you help her cash the check?"
princess (to man): "i mean, i didn't even say i wouldn't cash it."
man (to me): "can't you see what you've done?"
(pause)
me: "accomplish my task of getting somebody to help her with cashing the check?"
man: "if you don't show some more respect i'm going to throw you out of here."
me: "listen, i just want to get the transaction done with quickly and get out of here."
as mentioned, i've exaggerated slightly, but you can see the underlying point: even fairly timid, indirect levels of frustration that would be totally normal in a female-female professional conversation are completely taboo in a male-princess conversation. i run into this all of the time: princesses that get upset when i talk to them like adults rather than like children.
this is a slightly boring example, too. i have one very vivid recollection of a princess walking into a door because i didn't hold it for her as she expected and then *yelling at me*, *blaming me for it* as though it was my fault that she didn't look where she was going, as though she *didn't* make the stupid, entitled assumption that it was my responsibility to hold the door for her.
i bet that would be a neat experiment, actually. how many women would follow what they think is a nice gentlemanly boy into work, make the assumption that the door will be held and then literally walk into it when it isn't?
what underlies this? what causes the princess paradox?
i've dealt with it enough to come up with some conclusions.
basically, i think that princesses are so used to being talked down to by men that when one *doesn't* it's such a strange occurrence that they don't know how to parse it. it's just a once in a blue moon thing for them. they're so used to men grovelling and trying to get laid that they interpret the lack of grovelling as a lack of respect. it's quite amazing really; those rare circumstances of communication with actual egalitarians become painful loss-of-status experiences, with the point of torture itself being precisely what they experience so rarely: somebody that sees them on an even level and isn't talking down to them in the expected, safe way. it's the very process of humanization itself that seems alien.
...and, it's actually quite sad when placed in that context.
it probably, ultimately, stems from sexist fathers.
i think that, within the princess' response, there may also be a bit of a reflexive psychological defense mechanism to attempt to masculinize me as my perceived feminine guyness would be naturally and instinctively interpreted as a trojan horse, due to a least risk algorithm, and rejected as anomalous. so, not only is the princess paradox demanding of unequal treatment, it is possibly suspicious of movements that promise equality under the fear that they will lead to inequality at less advantageous terms.
that's a complicated pseudo-syndrome.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
one of the big things is likelihood to vote; another is response rates.
how often is your 65+ sample disproportionately skewed with people over 80, who are more likely to stay on the line and answer questions? and, at what age does the increased likelihood of seniors to vote start reversing?
you could end up with a large sample of 80+ in the 65+ demographic and conclude they're more likely to vote, when they in fact can barely leave the house at all.
and, opinions and worldviews are likely to be dramatically different nowadays between a fully functional 69 year old and a totally geriatric 87 year old.
how often is your 65+ sample disproportionately skewed with people over 80, who are more likely to stay on the line and answer questions? and, at what age does the increased likelihood of seniors to vote start reversing?
you could end up with a large sample of 80+ in the 65+ demographic and conclude they're more likely to vote, when they in fact can barely leave the house at all.
and, opinions and worldviews are likely to be dramatically different nowadays between a fully functional 69 year old and a totally geriatric 87 year old.
one of the things i point out in one of the videos coming up is that the age brackets polling firms use are out of date.
they'll do something like this:
18-35
35-50
50-65
65+
that was fine when life expectancy was 75. but, it's 85 now. and, the population is aging..
they need to split 65+ into a 65-80 bracket, and an 80+ bracket.
they'll do something like this:
18-35
35-50
50-65
65+
that was fine when life expectancy was 75. but, it's 85 now. and, the population is aging..
they need to split 65+ into a 65-80 bracket, and an 80+ bracket.
so, i haven't moved since friday night, except to sleep in short
shifts, naps, and to get up to eat, or use the washroom. i took a junk
food run last night...
i'm through the first half of march, which closes season 4 and takes me into the start of season 5. the music vlog picks back up again in mid june, so i'm down to three months to fill the gap. and, the period one discs start closing in early july.
the air quality has actually been alright over the last 24 hours. i'm not sure exactly what the reason for this is, but it might have to do with the fact that the heat came back on. she seems to have made eggs last night and then stopped. i'm not expecting the situation to last.
that said., if it were to stay exactly like this, it would be fine. and i'm still not excited about moving...
i haven't given a technical notice to move yet, but i'm still planning on starting to look on wednesday. i'm going to need a very lengthy period of clear air to have me change my mind, at this point.
i don't know exactly what the market looks like right now.
i'm through the first half of march, which closes season 4 and takes me into the start of season 5. the music vlog picks back up again in mid june, so i'm down to three months to fill the gap. and, the period one discs start closing in early july.
the air quality has actually been alright over the last 24 hours. i'm not sure exactly what the reason for this is, but it might have to do with the fact that the heat came back on. she seems to have made eggs last night and then stopped. i'm not expecting the situation to last.
that said., if it were to stay exactly like this, it would be fine. and i'm still not excited about moving...
i haven't given a technical notice to move yet, but i'm still planning on starting to look on wednesday. i'm going to need a very lengthy period of clear air to have me change my mind, at this point.
i don't know exactly what the market looks like right now.
i'm neither convinced that the russians are particularly upset about the israeli bombing runs in syria, nor that they weren't informed first.
i hear that netanyahu has actually been spending a lot of time with putin, lately.
it is the russian reaction that an escalation turns around; i expect it to be muted, as kicking the iranians out of syria is ultimately both in their interests, as well as in the interests of turkey.
the russians control the board, at this point. it's not clear how long that lasts, but it's what exists, right now.
i hear that netanyahu has actually been spending a lot of time with putin, lately.
it is the russian reaction that an escalation turns around; i expect it to be muted, as kicking the iranians out of syria is ultimately both in their interests, as well as in the interests of turkey.
the russians control the board, at this point. it's not clear how long that lasts, but it's what exists, right now.
ok, so, as far as i can tell, there's actually not a reason they can't remove their turban - like the hijab, it's really just a fashion decision.
what i already knew was all that there apparently is to know - that it's one of their "articles of faith" and that it's worn as an identity marker.
so, sikhs wear turbans because they're sikhs, and sikhs wear turbans.
that's fine and everything, so long as you're not going through a security screen, in which case that's simply not a valid argument.
it's not like they've been told they're going to go to hell or be excommunicated or something. it's just something they do because they want to, and because it makes them feel a part of a club. surely, removing the item from one's head for a few moments doesn't expel anybody from this club.
so, what's underlying the refusal, then, really isn't any religious significance, but rather just a trivial ethnic norm. and, that consequently isn't even a question of religious freedom, whatever you happen to think about it.
it would be one thing if somebody ripped it off his head and played soccer with it in front of him. that would be rude. but, everybody needs to go through some inconvenience, sometimes, to ensure we're all kept safe.
the real issue here is that navdeep bains appears to be a remarkably arrogant person that thinks he's special and deserves special treatment. he doesn't want to sacrifice for the team.
i repeat: i would like to see him defeated in the next election.
what i already knew was all that there apparently is to know - that it's one of their "articles of faith" and that it's worn as an identity marker.
so, sikhs wear turbans because they're sikhs, and sikhs wear turbans.
that's fine and everything, so long as you're not going through a security screen, in which case that's simply not a valid argument.
it's not like they've been told they're going to go to hell or be excommunicated or something. it's just something they do because they want to, and because it makes them feel a part of a club. surely, removing the item from one's head for a few moments doesn't expel anybody from this club.
so, what's underlying the refusal, then, really isn't any religious significance, but rather just a trivial ethnic norm. and, that consequently isn't even a question of religious freedom, whatever you happen to think about it.
it would be one thing if somebody ripped it off his head and played soccer with it in front of him. that would be rude. but, everybody needs to go through some inconvenience, sometimes, to ensure we're all kept safe.
the real issue here is that navdeep bains appears to be a remarkably arrogant person that thinks he's special and deserves special treatment. he doesn't want to sacrifice for the team.
i repeat: i would like to see him defeated in the next election.
i can respect honest differences in opinion. that's fine.
but, i can't respect things like magic beards - that's just stupid.
sorry.
let me see if i can figure out the exact reason why a sikh isn't supposed to take off his turban (i don't know, exactly), and we can analyse whether that holds up to any meaningful scrutiny in the face of a security screen at an airport.
but, i can't respect things like magic beards - that's just stupid.
sorry.
let me see if i can figure out the exact reason why a sikh isn't supposed to take off his turban (i don't know, exactly), and we can analyse whether that holds up to any meaningful scrutiny in the face of a security screen at an airport.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
"religious freedom" is not a trump card, or some special pass that means you don't have to follow the laws, or some grounds for special treatment.
it's simply the idea that the government isn't supposed to pick on you.
i'm actually of the view that it is a law giving sikhs special status at the airport that would be unconstitutional, not that they have some constitutional claim to special treatment because they hold to some specific superstition.
it's simply the idea that the government isn't supposed to pick on you.
i'm actually of the view that it is a law giving sikhs special status at the airport that would be unconstitutional, not that they have some constitutional claim to special treatment because they hold to some specific superstition.
when i go through customs, i'm sometimes asked to empty my bag or my pockets.
being fully rational about the situation means recognizing that it is, indeed, possible that there might be an object inside the turban: a weapon, some drugs. i guess the easiest thing to do is put the guy through a metal detector. but, if there is not one available, i actually think it's fair game that he be asked to remove the turban - and that he's being unreasonable in complaining about it.
i don't know what the government intends to accomplish by filing a frivolous complaint of this nature. and, frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
what i would tell sikhs is that the country's security is more important than whatever superstitions that they insist on holding to, and i'm not remotely upset if they find that insulting or demeaning.
sorry.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/10/after-a-liberal-minister-was-told-to-remove-his-turban-at-a-us-airport-the-canadian-government-sent-a-letter-of-protest.html
being fully rational about the situation means recognizing that it is, indeed, possible that there might be an object inside the turban: a weapon, some drugs. i guess the easiest thing to do is put the guy through a metal detector. but, if there is not one available, i actually think it's fair game that he be asked to remove the turban - and that he's being unreasonable in complaining about it.
i don't know what the government intends to accomplish by filing a frivolous complaint of this nature. and, frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
what i would tell sikhs is that the country's security is more important than whatever superstitions that they insist on holding to, and i'm not remotely upset if they find that insulting or demeaning.
sorry.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/10/after-a-liberal-minister-was-told-to-remove-his-turban-at-a-us-airport-the-canadian-government-sent-a-letter-of-protest.html
you'll find that there are some exceptions.
jews & arabs hold strong to identity, as their religion & ethnicity are seen by them as the same thing. further, the question of the effect of african-american identity on black canadians (most of whom are carribbean in origin, or straight from africa) is a complicated thing, as some will adopt it and others won't. the japanese are weird like this, too. but, these are small groups in canada.
more broadly speaking, people coming to canada are coming from big, complicated countries.
china & india & russia are all ethnic confederations, rather than nation states. they're not exactly "multicultural societies", so much as they are coalitions between what are at times rather disparate groups. and, together, they're both half the world's population and the biggest ethnic groups in the country. if you grew up in india, you're used to co-existence, however tenuous, between sikhs & muslims & hindus & buddhists & jains & parsees & ....; when you show up here, you're not going to cling to some narrow concept of what you were, you're going to try and determine where your values best align - if you're religious or traditionalist, you'll align with the conservatives and if you're secularist or progressive you'll end up a liberal or a new democrat. of course, your financial well-being will have something to do with that, as well. & similarly for a chinese immigrant, who is used to existing in a stew of ethnicities brought together by a lingua franca - it's not that different than here, really.
& all i've been saying forever is that if we want a liberal society, we need to attract liberal immigrants or at least stop attracting conservative ones - because the conservatives have figured out that their best shot at avoiding irrelevance is bringing in more conservative immigrants.
which is what we're seeing happen here, in ontario.
and which is what is short-circuiting our premier.
what identity politics does is create unnecessary divisions in the body politic, and that does not help the left. ever. if anybody wants to roll this shit out, it should be ford; the left needs to knock it fucking off.
jews & arabs hold strong to identity, as their religion & ethnicity are seen by them as the same thing. further, the question of the effect of african-american identity on black canadians (most of whom are carribbean in origin, or straight from africa) is a complicated thing, as some will adopt it and others won't. the japanese are weird like this, too. but, these are small groups in canada.
more broadly speaking, people coming to canada are coming from big, complicated countries.
china & india & russia are all ethnic confederations, rather than nation states. they're not exactly "multicultural societies", so much as they are coalitions between what are at times rather disparate groups. and, together, they're both half the world's population and the biggest ethnic groups in the country. if you grew up in india, you're used to co-existence, however tenuous, between sikhs & muslims & hindus & buddhists & jains & parsees & ....; when you show up here, you're not going to cling to some narrow concept of what you were, you're going to try and determine where your values best align - if you're religious or traditionalist, you'll align with the conservatives and if you're secularist or progressive you'll end up a liberal or a new democrat. of course, your financial well-being will have something to do with that, as well. & similarly for a chinese immigrant, who is used to existing in a stew of ethnicities brought together by a lingua franca - it's not that different than here, really.
& all i've been saying forever is that if we want a liberal society, we need to attract liberal immigrants or at least stop attracting conservative ones - because the conservatives have figured out that their best shot at avoiding irrelevance is bringing in more conservative immigrants.
which is what we're seeing happen here, in ontario.
and which is what is short-circuiting our premier.
what identity politics does is create unnecessary divisions in the body politic, and that does not help the left. ever. if anybody wants to roll this shit out, it should be ford; the left needs to knock it fucking off.
this entire discourse exists in the realm of fantasy.
it is in fact current provincial (& federal) policy to ensure that resource development projects prioritize local employment opportunities over temporary workers, which are even banned in many circumstances. and, the controversy has generally stemmed in the other direction: when companies want to bring in tfws to displace local workers.
so, imagine a state-owned company from china coming in and opening a mine here (why don't we have our own state-owned companies, anyways?), and wanting to bring it's own workers in to work in it. there are strict restrictions on this, and it really isn't controversial. that's something that almost everybody will support.
so, ford floats a goofy comment to try and peel off ndp supporters, and wynne reacts equally delusionally with a lame attempt to smear him as a racist. they both deserve contempt for this.
but, the most disappointing reaction is from horwath. wynne is a liberal, so you ultimately expect her to work for bay street. you expect her to be beholden to the interests of shareholders. that's her job. but, horwath is supposed to represent workers, and supposed to be there to stand up to foreign multinationals that want to bring in tfws to displace local workers. she should have clearly stated her support for local workers.
if i was in the north, i wouldn't vote for any of them, as they're all in the pockets of the banks. but, it is really the left that needs a revitalization, here. the north could be the right place to start it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4204511/party-leaders-ontario-election-day-4/
the error that i'm talking past here is the idea that the comments had to do with identity, rather than with class.
ford did not mention an ethnic identity, he suggested that local workers deserve priority - and, as mentioned, that is not going to be controversial anywhere outside of these bogus pseudo-science psychology lectures that the liberals & ndp seem to be getting. it is existing policy.
wynne is just acting like a dummy, at this point; in a confused and desperate attempt to appeal to the ethnic votes she is losing due to differing values, she's attacking potential voters that may share her values because they don't have the right identity. it's like she's collapsed into the ultraparadoxical phase, or she got some kind of ideological cancer that's led to her attacking herself. perhaps foucauldianism is best described as a cancer...
& horwath reacted with identity, when she should have reacted with class.
voters in northern ontario will interpret the comments through the prism of class, not the prism of identity. they will hear wynne say that she wants to take away their jobs, and horwath agreeing with her. and, they will react terribly to this. this is a problem of their own doing, as ford's comment was pretty innocuous, as a statement of existing policy.
then, these foucauldian pseudo-scientists will complete the circle in their backwards logic and call the people that live there racists for standing up for themselves when they hear politicians from toronto come in and threaten to take away their jobs.
and, if they keep it up, ford will win the election because the left keeps following the advice of these quacks pushing identity as a voting decision, and keeps attacking it's own voters as a result of it.
there was no reason that this election should have had anything to do with the 2016 presidential election - except that the canadian left seems intent on following the same failing strategy that clinton used.
and, we're all going to have to suffer for their idiocy, in the end.
==
critical race theory is not a science.
political science is not a science.
social science is not science, either.
quackery, the lot of it.
it is in fact current provincial (& federal) policy to ensure that resource development projects prioritize local employment opportunities over temporary workers, which are even banned in many circumstances. and, the controversy has generally stemmed in the other direction: when companies want to bring in tfws to displace local workers.
so, imagine a state-owned company from china coming in and opening a mine here (why don't we have our own state-owned companies, anyways?), and wanting to bring it's own workers in to work in it. there are strict restrictions on this, and it really isn't controversial. that's something that almost everybody will support.
so, ford floats a goofy comment to try and peel off ndp supporters, and wynne reacts equally delusionally with a lame attempt to smear him as a racist. they both deserve contempt for this.
but, the most disappointing reaction is from horwath. wynne is a liberal, so you ultimately expect her to work for bay street. you expect her to be beholden to the interests of shareholders. that's her job. but, horwath is supposed to represent workers, and supposed to be there to stand up to foreign multinationals that want to bring in tfws to displace local workers. she should have clearly stated her support for local workers.
if i was in the north, i wouldn't vote for any of them, as they're all in the pockets of the banks. but, it is really the left that needs a revitalization, here. the north could be the right place to start it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4204511/party-leaders-ontario-election-day-4/
the error that i'm talking past here is the idea that the comments had to do with identity, rather than with class.
ford did not mention an ethnic identity, he suggested that local workers deserve priority - and, as mentioned, that is not going to be controversial anywhere outside of these bogus pseudo-science psychology lectures that the liberals & ndp seem to be getting. it is existing policy.
wynne is just acting like a dummy, at this point; in a confused and desperate attempt to appeal to the ethnic votes she is losing due to differing values, she's attacking potential voters that may share her values because they don't have the right identity. it's like she's collapsed into the ultraparadoxical phase, or she got some kind of ideological cancer that's led to her attacking herself. perhaps foucauldianism is best described as a cancer...
& horwath reacted with identity, when she should have reacted with class.
voters in northern ontario will interpret the comments through the prism of class, not the prism of identity. they will hear wynne say that she wants to take away their jobs, and horwath agreeing with her. and, they will react terribly to this. this is a problem of their own doing, as ford's comment was pretty innocuous, as a statement of existing policy.
then, these foucauldian pseudo-scientists will complete the circle in their backwards logic and call the people that live there racists for standing up for themselves when they hear politicians from toronto come in and threaten to take away their jobs.
and, if they keep it up, ford will win the election because the left keeps following the advice of these quacks pushing identity as a voting decision, and keeps attacking it's own voters as a result of it.
there was no reason that this election should have had anything to do with the 2016 presidential election - except that the canadian left seems intent on following the same failing strategy that clinton used.
and, we're all going to have to suffer for their idiocy, in the end.
==
critical race theory is not a science.
political science is not a science.
social science is not science, either.
quackery, the lot of it.
blaming the problem on parents doesn't solve it, though, i agree.
it's a cultural problem - and this is not something you can fix with a tweak. it's the media we consume. it's the attitudes we inherit. as a culture, we have a hostility to learning, and we're teaching it to our kids.
sports and fashion and propaganda and mass consumerism are cool; math and science and literature and independent thought are not.
they keep you doped on religion and sex and tv; then, they hate you if you're clever.
you can try to get to the kids young; i don't have much use for traditional families, or see much value in raising people together based on arbitrary considerations like bloodlines. but, i'm not expecting a fundamental shift in the way we exist to be a ballot issue in the next provincial election. that's not up for vote; we have to do that.
in the mean time, the reality is that the system is intended for ruthless competition, and that, with math and science, the kids really need to sink or swim in terms of taking an initiative on their own.
that michelle pfeiffer movie is not real life; you can't teach kids that don't want to learn. you can try subtle mind tricks to try to get them to learn, but then they magically teach themselves.
see, a corollary of this perspective is that i actually don't have a lot of use for teachers, either, because i realize that the kids that want to learn don't need them, and the kids that don't want to learn are a waste of time.
but, the math curriculum, specifically? i don't know that there's a problem with the curriculum. if there is, let's get somebody other than doug ford on that.
it's a cultural problem - and this is not something you can fix with a tweak. it's the media we consume. it's the attitudes we inherit. as a culture, we have a hostility to learning, and we're teaching it to our kids.
sports and fashion and propaganda and mass consumerism are cool; math and science and literature and independent thought are not.
they keep you doped on religion and sex and tv; then, they hate you if you're clever.
you can try to get to the kids young; i don't have much use for traditional families, or see much value in raising people together based on arbitrary considerations like bloodlines. but, i'm not expecting a fundamental shift in the way we exist to be a ballot issue in the next provincial election. that's not up for vote; we have to do that.
in the mean time, the reality is that the system is intended for ruthless competition, and that, with math and science, the kids really need to sink or swim in terms of taking an initiative on their own.
that michelle pfeiffer movie is not real life; you can't teach kids that don't want to learn. you can try subtle mind tricks to try to get them to learn, but then they magically teach themselves.
see, a corollary of this perspective is that i actually don't have a lot of use for teachers, either, because i realize that the kids that want to learn don't need them, and the kids that don't want to learn are a waste of time.
but, the math curriculum, specifically? i don't know that there's a problem with the curriculum. if there is, let's get somebody other than doug ford on that.
just to be clear: i was in the last class to take grade 13/oac.
i did not experience the changes that harris made to the curriculum, although the students in the grades below me did.
and, i have no understanding of this "new math" they speak of, or whether it's good or bad.
i don't think doug ford is the guy to fix the math curriculum, though. curriculums can't be glowered at. and, his own skills of arithmetic don't seem to be very good.
i would not be opposed, a priori, to implementing the recommendations of a study on the topic.
but, there is no royal road to geometry. the fact is that math is hard work, and if kids are failing then the problem is at home.
i did not experience the changes that harris made to the curriculum, although the students in the grades below me did.
and, i have no understanding of this "new math" they speak of, or whether it's good or bad.
i don't think doug ford is the guy to fix the math curriculum, though. curriculums can't be glowered at. and, his own skills of arithmetic don't seem to be very good.
i would not be opposed, a priori, to implementing the recommendations of a study on the topic.
but, there is no royal road to geometry. the fact is that math is hard work, and if kids are failing then the problem is at home.
liberals are liberals. they're often a lesser evil, but they're the bourgeois party, and we all know it. even when we vote for the liberals, we know what we're doing.
but, we don't expect a nominally socialist party to support foreign capital flooding local communities with foreign labour, at the exclusion of local populations.
that is shocking.
that is a scandal.
that needs a reaction.
but, we don't expect a nominally socialist party to support foreign capital flooding local communities with foreign labour, at the exclusion of local populations.
that is shocking.
that is a scandal.
that needs a reaction.
where is the political movement towards self-ownership over natural resources, and putting an end to selling it off to foreign capital, then begging them to hire locally?
ironically, it's in the conservative movement towards loosened regulations, as the companies are essentially operating offshore to avoid canadian law. but, it's naive to expect a positive outcome.
i'm an anarchist. that means i want worker self-ownership, rather than state control. but, these regulations were designed with an intent that was never carried through with. if you're going to heavily regulate everything, you can't expect a market to work under those regulations. it's logically a step towards eventual nationalization.
the result is that the conservative position of cutting red tape is at least consistent (to a point; a totally 'free market' always collapses into a monopoly), even if i'd prefer the nationalization of natural resources. but, the liberal position just shifts the corruption outside of the country. and, the ndp don't seem to want to be the ndp - they're just the same as the liberals.
if i was in northern ontario, i wouldn't support any of these parties; i'd realize the need for a local worker's party to actualize the self-interest of the region's inhabitants. the conservatives are telling you what you want to hear, but all three of the parties are beholden to the interests of shareholders ahead of the interests of local populations.
local disappointment around the ndp's position on this should not be let go, but exploited to create a new party. the ndp has been a dead vessel for years. the left needs to build a new ship to sail...
ironically, it's in the conservative movement towards loosened regulations, as the companies are essentially operating offshore to avoid canadian law. but, it's naive to expect a positive outcome.
i'm an anarchist. that means i want worker self-ownership, rather than state control. but, these regulations were designed with an intent that was never carried through with. if you're going to heavily regulate everything, you can't expect a market to work under those regulations. it's logically a step towards eventual nationalization.
the result is that the conservative position of cutting red tape is at least consistent (to a point; a totally 'free market' always collapses into a monopoly), even if i'd prefer the nationalization of natural resources. but, the liberal position just shifts the corruption outside of the country. and, the ndp don't seem to want to be the ndp - they're just the same as the liberals.
if i was in northern ontario, i wouldn't support any of these parties; i'd realize the need for a local worker's party to actualize the self-interest of the region's inhabitants. the conservatives are telling you what you want to hear, but all three of the parties are beholden to the interests of shareholders ahead of the interests of local populations.
local disappointment around the ndp's position on this should not be let go, but exploited to create a new party. the ndp has been a dead vessel for years. the left needs to build a new ship to sail...
"we at the liberal party of ontario want to stand up for the rights of foreign capital to bring in foreign workers to displace local communities and disrupt local economies. because shareholders."
"and, if you disagree, you're racist! the ndp is always on the side of taking away economic opportunities from local communities and giving them to foreigners. that's what settler colonialism is all about!"
what a couple of fucking retards.
now, i happen to know that this issue is actually a key aspect of these agreements, especially regarding the question of indigenous workers. this is political. but, it's completely backwards. and, the only person that benefits from this discussion is doug ford.
of course ontarians are going to put their own interests ahead of the interests of foreigners.
duh?
"and, if you disagree, you're racist! the ndp is always on the side of taking away economic opportunities from local communities and giving them to foreigners. that's what settler colonialism is all about!"
what a couple of fucking retards.
now, i happen to know that this issue is actually a key aspect of these agreements, especially regarding the question of indigenous workers. this is political. but, it's completely backwards. and, the only person that benefits from this discussion is doug ford.
of course ontarians are going to put their own interests ahead of the interests of foreigners.
duh?
i think it's fairly obvious that he was suggesting that existing canadians should be given priority over people in other countries when it comes to analysing who benefits from employment opportunities in canada.
so, for example, if a chinese company wants to come in and set up a mining project, it should be forced to hire people that live in the region, rather than bring it's own workers from china.
and, trying to pick a fight over this is absolute stupidity, on wynne's behalf. literally nobody is going to argue this point, except foreign capital. even recent immigrants are going to see the injustice in bringing in foreign workers.
this can't be controversial....?
so, is a vote for the liberals a vote for foreign capital? i think a lot of liberals are going to push back on that.
but, this is backwards. the left is supposed to support local workers. it's the right that is supposed to be in the pockets of foreign capital. and, the irony here is that i don't expect ford to protect those jobs, anyways.
the ndp position on this is particularly disappointing. liberals are flaky on this kind of thing. the ndp literally can't be if it wants to compete - it needs these votes.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4204511/party-leaders-ontario-election-day-4/
so, for example, if a chinese company wants to come in and set up a mining project, it should be forced to hire people that live in the region, rather than bring it's own workers from china.
and, trying to pick a fight over this is absolute stupidity, on wynne's behalf. literally nobody is going to argue this point, except foreign capital. even recent immigrants are going to see the injustice in bringing in foreign workers.
this can't be controversial....?
so, is a vote for the liberals a vote for foreign capital? i think a lot of liberals are going to push back on that.
but, this is backwards. the left is supposed to support local workers. it's the right that is supposed to be in the pockets of foreign capital. and, the irony here is that i don't expect ford to protect those jobs, anyways.
the ndp position on this is particularly disappointing. liberals are flaky on this kind of thing. the ndp literally can't be if it wants to compete - it needs these votes.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4204511/party-leaders-ontario-election-day-4/
ok, i'm through february.
the air quality in here is horrendous, but there's not any use in pretending i can do anything about it until the court date. it's not just the marijuana, it's the cigarettes. and, it's enough that it is physically making me sick - i have a brutally sore throat, which is a condition that i'm not used to at all.
i'm only still awake because i haven't eaten in 36 hours. it's time to eat....
i will have to call on monday or tuesday to ask about the other room, and i'll point out that there has been no change in habits. i don't expect a response, but whatever.
i can't articulate how disgusting the situation is, or how profoundly negatively it is affecting me. it's just constant. she simply doesn't stop smoking. ever.
the air quality in here is horrendous, but there's not any use in pretending i can do anything about it until the court date. it's not just the marijuana, it's the cigarettes. and, it's enough that it is physically making me sick - i have a brutally sore throat, which is a condition that i'm not used to at all.
i'm only still awake because i haven't eaten in 36 hours. it's time to eat....
i will have to call on monday or tuesday to ask about the other room, and i'll point out that there has been no change in habits. i don't expect a response, but whatever.
i can't articulate how disgusting the situation is, or how profoundly negatively it is affecting me. it's just constant. she simply doesn't stop smoking. ever.
Friday, May 11, 2018
it's really an empirical question, and it's by no means a strange one.
are people born in the 80s more like people born in the 70s or more like people born in the 90s? you've been told for decades that they're more like people born in the 90s. you were told this before we were old enough to vote, and have been told it ever since.
but, it's really equally likely that people born in the 80s are going to be more like people born in the 70s, isn't it?
people are individuals; i'm talking statistics, i'm talking aggregates.
but, i'm certain that the data will tell you that the generation does not turn around 1980, it turns around 1990 - that's when the cusp really asserts itself. if you were born in 1990, you were 15 when youtube launched & in high school when facebook asserted itself. and, you actually grew up with netflix & google.
that means that these "milennials" don't actually exist - that the older ones are really just a part of gen x and the younger ones are a part of the next generation.
are people born in the 80s more like people born in the 70s or more like people born in the 90s? you've been told for decades that they're more like people born in the 90s. you were told this before we were old enough to vote, and have been told it ever since.
but, it's really equally likely that people born in the 80s are going to be more like people born in the 70s, isn't it?
people are individuals; i'm talking statistics, i'm talking aggregates.
but, i'm certain that the data will tell you that the generation does not turn around 1980, it turns around 1990 - that's when the cusp really asserts itself. if you were born in 1990, you were 15 when youtube launched & in high school when facebook asserted itself. and, you actually grew up with netflix & google.
that means that these "milennials" don't actually exist - that the older ones are really just a part of gen x and the younger ones are a part of the next generation.
it's really the catch-22 thing again.
as an unemployed person, i prefer sobriety most of the time. but, if you gave me a job tomorrow, and it involved any kind of social interaction at all, i'd probably have to get drunk to do it. then, when i inevitably get fired, i'd end up sober again.
so, it only seems like i belong on disability for the length of time i'm employed.
there is a solution, of course: i'd need to work in a cubicle away from people. i did ok in call centres. but, it's not a rewarding job, either.
as an unemployed person, i prefer sobriety most of the time. but, if you gave me a job tomorrow, and it involved any kind of social interaction at all, i'd probably have to get drunk to do it. then, when i inevitably get fired, i'd end up sober again.
so, it only seems like i belong on disability for the length of time i'm employed.
there is a solution, of course: i'd need to work in a cubicle away from people. i did ok in call centres. but, it's not a rewarding job, either.
so, the status quo is not likely to change: you're not likely to ever get to know my sober side. or, to put it another way, this vlog/blog combo is the closest thing that the world will ever get to coming to know me as a sober person.
i will continue to get drunk before i go out, and nurture it while i'm out.
but, i'm not an addict. because i'm just not.
i will continue to get drunk before i go out, and nurture it while i'm out.
but, i'm not an addict. because i'm just not.
i was reading an article asking the reader to self-examine whether or not they have characteristics of alcoholism, and i actually don't have any of them. i'm not an alcoholic or an addict that structures my life around inebriation; what i am is a ridiculously shy introvert that can't function in social situations unless i've been lubricated a little.
i live on disability, but i'm not diagnosed with depression. what i'm diagnosed with is social anxiety.
it's not denial. it's just not actually true.
i'm maybe a binge drinker in social situations, but it's infrequent and i'm not unhappy about it.
you might claim you'd like to get to know my sober side, but you probably don't. when i'm sober, i can't interact with people in any way. i just sit quietly. i don't interrupt people, true. but, i don't participate in conversations at all. i just sit quietly from a distance and watch the world happen without me.
empirically: people that can function well socially don't type as much as i do.
one of the questions is whether i centre my social interactions around drinking, and i'm going to claim that i actually don't. what i centre my social interactions around is music. i go to concerts, or dj sets. you'll never see me out unless i'm attending an event. so, it's not as though i go out to get drunk; i'm not a religious person, and wouldn't have any moral problem with just staying home and getting drunk. cheaper. less people. but, it never happens. no: i'm out to see the show. rather, it's the other way around: i need the inebriation to be able to deal with the people in the social situation.
so, i don't go out to get drunk; but, i need to get drunk to deal with the anxiety created by going out.
i live on disability, but i'm not diagnosed with depression. what i'm diagnosed with is social anxiety.
it's not denial. it's just not actually true.
i'm maybe a binge drinker in social situations, but it's infrequent and i'm not unhappy about it.
you might claim you'd like to get to know my sober side, but you probably don't. when i'm sober, i can't interact with people in any way. i just sit quietly. i don't interrupt people, true. but, i don't participate in conversations at all. i just sit quietly from a distance and watch the world happen without me.
empirically: people that can function well socially don't type as much as i do.
one of the questions is whether i centre my social interactions around drinking, and i'm going to claim that i actually don't. what i centre my social interactions around is music. i go to concerts, or dj sets. you'll never see me out unless i'm attending an event. so, it's not as though i go out to get drunk; i'm not a religious person, and wouldn't have any moral problem with just staying home and getting drunk. cheaper. less people. but, it never happens. no: i'm out to see the show. rather, it's the other way around: i need the inebriation to be able to deal with the people in the social situation.
so, i don't go out to get drunk; but, i need to get drunk to deal with the anxiety created by going out.
i will acknowledge that it's very possible that, if you live in the region, you may have met me a dozen times and never seen me sober.
it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that i'm some kind of drunk or some kind of addict.
but, what you don't know is that i'm almost straight edge in between trips to detroit, which are really only a few times a month. so, i'm actually completely sober for 25+ days a month. ahahaha. you don't know me at all....
it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that i'm some kind of drunk or some kind of addict.
but, what you don't know is that i'm almost straight edge in between trips to detroit, which are really only a few times a month. so, i'm actually completely sober for 25+ days a month. ahahaha. you don't know me at all....
Thursday, May 10, 2018
the word "swagger", as used by our prime minister, is unclear in it's intent.
i'm going to hope he meant to use it in the way i would use the word flair rather than in what is also a 50s greaser film context, as a term to denote male sexual dominance.
because i would actually be uncomfortable with the prime minister telling the country to strut. that would be some rather stupid patriarchal heteronormative macho bullshit, wouldn't it? and, while i don't know what he's feeling, you don't hear him talk like that...ever.
he almost certainly meant flair.
he just may want to work on his vocabulary, a little.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4199109/justin-trudeau-swaggering-world-stage/
i'm going to hope he meant to use it in the way i would use the word flair rather than in what is also a 50s greaser film context, as a term to denote male sexual dominance.
because i would actually be uncomfortable with the prime minister telling the country to strut. that would be some rather stupid patriarchal heteronormative macho bullshit, wouldn't it? and, while i don't know what he's feeling, you don't hear him talk like that...ever.
he almost certainly meant flair.
he just may want to work on his vocabulary, a little.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4199109/justin-trudeau-swaggering-world-stage/
"man up" is an anachronism. it's not something you expect people to say in the twenty-first century, it's something out of a 1950s greaser film - and it upholds outdated concepts of masculinity that are less offensive and more just absurdly outdated.
it's hard to get upset, because it's more comically absurd than offensive. it's like telling a woman to go back to the kitchen - you just laugh, it's ridiculous.
so, this guy is stuck in the twentieth century and doesn't belong on council. clearly.
but, that said, we can't have people hovering over our elected officials and firing them for being douche bags. you just vote this dipshit out.
and if you're feeling cheeky you can tell him to man up to his behaviour.
windsorstar.com/news/local-news/citizen-complains-after-elliott-tells-fellow-councillor-rino-bortolin-to-man-up
it's hard to get upset, because it's more comically absurd than offensive. it's like telling a woman to go back to the kitchen - you just laugh, it's ridiculous.
so, this guy is stuck in the twentieth century and doesn't belong on council. clearly.
but, that said, we can't have people hovering over our elected officials and firing them for being douche bags. you just vote this dipshit out.
and if you're feeling cheeky you can tell him to man up to his behaviour.
windsorstar.com/news/local-news/citizen-complains-after-elliott-tells-fellow-councillor-rino-bortolin-to-man-up
it's not about europe standing up to trump on iran.
what it's about is europe moving in lockstep with china on iran. this is the cost-benefit analysis for europe: do they want to move with china (and russia...) on this, or with america?
i'm not privy to careful accounting numbers. but, it is intuitively obvious that europe is better off following china.
and, what trump is really doing with this is foolishly handing over power to beijing.
that's a couple of times, now, isn't it?
we might even be able to pull out a pattern: trump's decisions often have beijing as the primary benefactor.
what it's about is europe moving in lockstep with china on iran. this is the cost-benefit analysis for europe: do they want to move with china (and russia...) on this, or with america?
i'm not privy to careful accounting numbers. but, it is intuitively obvious that europe is better off following china.
and, what trump is really doing with this is foolishly handing over power to beijing.
that's a couple of times, now, isn't it?
we might even be able to pull out a pattern: trump's decisions often have beijing as the primary benefactor.
i got my blood taken. almost fainted, and i think he left a bruise. whatever.
seems like a boring weekend here. well, relative to my tastes. and, the weather is not conducive to drunken adventures and/or mindless dancing.
i think i'm staying in....
that will give me the chance to try and get through a good chunk of what's left, and get ready for serious house-hunting on...
...wednesday, actually. just 'cause i have the follow-up on tuesday, and it compartmentalizes that way.
could i get done by tuesday?
well, that depends on how much time i'm forced to waste sleeping.
seems like a boring weekend here. well, relative to my tastes. and, the weather is not conducive to drunken adventures and/or mindless dancing.
i think i'm staying in....
that will give me the chance to try and get through a good chunk of what's left, and get ready for serious house-hunting on...
...wednesday, actually. just 'cause i have the follow-up on tuesday, and it compartmentalizes that way.
could i get done by tuesday?
well, that depends on how much time i'm forced to waste sleeping.
maybe i should make something clear.
my schedule is erratic. but, generally speaking, 4:20 am is neither the beginning of the day for me, nor is it the end of it.
it's often just a point in the middle of it.
today, i want to be awake all morning and go to an appointment around noon.
i do not want to be stoned.
i do not want to go to sleep.
at all.
my schedule is erratic. but, generally speaking, 4:20 am is neither the beginning of the day for me, nor is it the end of it.
it's often just a point in the middle of it.
today, i want to be awake all morning and go to an appointment around noon.
i do not want to be stoned.
i do not want to go to sleep.
at all.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
the smoke in here was heavy tonight (and i'm documenting this for the court date.), but the windows are also completely wide open. the wet weather is helping a lot....
i just finished season 3, which is up to february 8th.
time to eat. and fast.
and, hopefully i get another good chunk in afterwards.
i just finished season 3, which is up to february 8th.
time to eat. and fast.
and, hopefully i get another good chunk in afterwards.
today is a good example of how the smoke from downstairs is degrading my quality of life.
i woke up late in the evening, meaning i should have been able to stay awake until the afternoon, at least. but, she started blazing at 7:00, and i was passed out like a rock by 8:00 - and not able to molve again until after 2:00.
i wanted to hit my blood test this morning; i even fasted overnight for it. instead, i wasted the day sleeping.
i wanted to get my estrogen tested, but then i got high.
...even though, i'm of course not actually getting high, i'm just getting a headache and falling asleep.
:(.
i ended up leaving in a dirty rush - uncombed hair, unshaved face. like, just gross looking. but, i forgot my sheet, so i had to go back home.
i guess i'll have to try again tomorrow.
i got up to the end of january done last night and i'm going to try and push through a little further tonight.
i need to start looking for a new apartment on monday at the latest.
i woke up late in the evening, meaning i should have been able to stay awake until the afternoon, at least. but, she started blazing at 7:00, and i was passed out like a rock by 8:00 - and not able to molve again until after 2:00.
i wanted to hit my blood test this morning; i even fasted overnight for it. instead, i wasted the day sleeping.
i wanted to get my estrogen tested, but then i got high.
...even though, i'm of course not actually getting high, i'm just getting a headache and falling asleep.
:(.
i ended up leaving in a dirty rush - uncombed hair, unshaved face. like, just gross looking. but, i forgot my sheet, so i had to go back home.
i guess i'll have to try again tomorrow.
i got up to the end of january done last night and i'm going to try and push through a little further tonight.
i need to start looking for a new apartment on monday at the latest.
no. listen.
wynne's problem is that people aren't quite sure that she's human. they like her policies. they like her record. they don't like her.
if ford hits her the right way, it could be enough to drop the alien gloss, or the superhuman veneer, or whatever it is, and remind people that if you prick kathleen wynne, she bleeds too.
it's just a very delicate process. because she can't let it phase her too much, either.
i frankly don't think wynne saw that coming. but, her instincts might have been enough to produce the best possible outcome.
that said, this is subtle. it's tone-setting. you'll have difficulty producing cause and effect, one way or another.
wynne's problem is that people aren't quite sure that she's human. they like her policies. they like her record. they don't like her.
if ford hits her the right way, it could be enough to drop the alien gloss, or the superhuman veneer, or whatever it is, and remind people that if you prick kathleen wynne, she bleeds too.
it's just a very delicate process. because she can't let it phase her too much, either.
i frankly don't think wynne saw that coming. but, her instincts might have been enough to produce the best possible outcome.
that said, this is subtle. it's tone-setting. you'll have difficulty producing cause and effect, one way or another.
when nazi murderers argued they were 'just following orders', we didn't call them victims and give them empathy - we told them that that's not an excuse, and we executed them.
and, i don't think anything has or should have changed.
if your superiors give you orders that you don't want to follow, you break ranks - you don't just blindly follow, and then claim you're a victim. whether that's about killing jews or having sex doesn't matter.
this is a more important discussion, as it has to with concepts of just and unjust laws, of moral conviction and of individualism and free will. we need to reassert concepts of agency, not pretend as though we're all pliable and malleable buffoons.
i'm never going to buy the argument that you lack responsibility for your actions because somebody above you in some hierarchy told you to do it. that abolishes the individual's agency. it's absolutely foreign to our legal culture; complete bullshit.
....and very right-wing, in broad scope,
and, i don't think anything has or should have changed.
if your superiors give you orders that you don't want to follow, you break ranks - you don't just blindly follow, and then claim you're a victim. whether that's about killing jews or having sex doesn't matter.
this is a more important discussion, as it has to with concepts of just and unjust laws, of moral conviction and of individualism and free will. we need to reassert concepts of agency, not pretend as though we're all pliable and malleable buffoons.
i'm never going to buy the argument that you lack responsibility for your actions because somebody above you in some hierarchy told you to do it. that abolishes the individual's agency. it's absolutely foreign to our legal culture; complete bullshit.
....and very right-wing, in broad scope,
lol.
the gong show continues.
will they have any candidates left by 2019?
remember that singh himself does not currently have a seat.
i didn't understand the accusations against weir. i understand these a little better, but i'm not sure they're grounds for removal, either.
i just find this whole narrative to be remarkably conservative.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-moore-allegations-1.4652994
the gong show continues.
will they have any candidates left by 2019?
remember that singh himself does not currently have a seat.
i didn't understand the accusations against weir. i understand these a little better, but i'm not sure they're grounds for removal, either.
i just find this whole narrative to be remarkably conservative.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-moore-allegations-1.4652994
so, i got a message this afternoon denying my request to move the hearing up. what they said was that changes to the process are going to lead to longer delays, and i was simply scheduled as quickly as i could be.
i've looked into the amending process as well, and the person i talked to on the phone seems to have misunderstood what i requested.
i can't walk into a hearing on july 5th with the possibility of severing the lease on august 1st, and hope it's extended until september or october. that's insane. i could end up homeless. i mean, i should have more faith in the system than that, but i'm not into taking stupid risks.
so, the realistic options i have in front of me are to withdraw & resubmit or to negotiate an exit to the lease, and use the hearing strictly for the purposes of requesting damages.
i don't think that the owners are going to have a problem with me giving them notice.
i've decided that i need to move. there's no way around it. now, the hallways are full of shit again, too; this place is disgusting. no, let me be more clear: this place is full of disgusting people. if i don't get damages, i'm going to need to move, anyways, even if i have to leave some furniture behind. so, i'd might as well just give them 60 days.
i need to get my bloodwork done tomorrow. i was hoping to spend the day working, but i should get a few hours in, at least.
and...i guess i should start looking for august 1st asap.
this sucks. but there's not a better answer.
i've looked into the amending process as well, and the person i talked to on the phone seems to have misunderstood what i requested.
i can't walk into a hearing on july 5th with the possibility of severing the lease on august 1st, and hope it's extended until september or october. that's insane. i could end up homeless. i mean, i should have more faith in the system than that, but i'm not into taking stupid risks.
so, the realistic options i have in front of me are to withdraw & resubmit or to negotiate an exit to the lease, and use the hearing strictly for the purposes of requesting damages.
i don't think that the owners are going to have a problem with me giving them notice.
i've decided that i need to move. there's no way around it. now, the hallways are full of shit again, too; this place is disgusting. no, let me be more clear: this place is full of disgusting people. if i don't get damages, i'm going to need to move, anyways, even if i have to leave some furniture behind. so, i'd might as well just give them 60 days.
i need to get my bloodwork done tomorrow. i was hoping to spend the day working, but i should get a few hours in, at least.
and...i guess i should start looking for august 1st asap.
this sucks. but there's not a better answer.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
the most important thing you need to know right now is that the media in ontario is almost 100% behind the conservatives, at all times.
they will run smear jobs. they will support third party candidates. they will make shit up. they will do everything they possibly can to help the conservatives.
he wasn't their guy, but he's in charge of their party.
i read a lot of international media. and, there is no media in the world that is less biased than the tory media in canada.
you have to go to blogs or "online papers" to get unbiased writing.
they will run smear jobs. they will support third party candidates. they will make shit up. they will do everything they possibly can to help the conservatives.
he wasn't their guy, but he's in charge of their party.
i read a lot of international media. and, there is no media in the world that is less biased than the tory media in canada.
you have to go to blogs or "online papers" to get unbiased writing.
i have been consistent on this point: i have refused to analyse "online polling" in any way whatsoever.
it's unscientific; i just ignore it.
you're not going to get a different reaction from this source. it doesn't matter if we're a day before the election, and all we have is "online polls" - i'll just tell you that there's no data to draw on for strategic voting, so vote with your heart.
the fact is that we saw the same thing in 2014. we got a bunch of "online polls" - funded by tory media sources - that said the conservatives were going to win in a landslide. then, when some reliable polling said otherwise, it was completely ignored.
then, the tory media blames their error on "unreliable polling" - which is what any educated person would have told you about the "online polling" they were citing in the first place.
there were good polls in 2014. there will be good polls in 2018, too. wait for it.
my best guess is that the tory media is inflating ndp support in an attempt to try to split the vote.
it's unscientific; i just ignore it.
you're not going to get a different reaction from this source. it doesn't matter if we're a day before the election, and all we have is "online polls" - i'll just tell you that there's no data to draw on for strategic voting, so vote with your heart.
the fact is that we saw the same thing in 2014. we got a bunch of "online polls" - funded by tory media sources - that said the conservatives were going to win in a landslide. then, when some reliable polling said otherwise, it was completely ignored.
then, the tory media blames their error on "unreliable polling" - which is what any educated person would have told you about the "online polling" they were citing in the first place.
there were good polls in 2014. there will be good polls in 2018, too. wait for it.
my best guess is that the tory media is inflating ndp support in an attempt to try to split the vote.
i used to think that obama's decision to put sanctions on russia was the single biggest error in the history of anerican foreign policy, but that has now been eclipsed by trump pulling out of the nuclear deal.
america is facing absolute international irrelevance as a consequence of this.
and it may never recover it's influence.
america is facing absolute international irrelevance as a consequence of this.
and it may never recover it's influence.
maybe i am feeling a little unusually hungover after all.
i finally crashed about 6:00 this morning, and i've barely been able to move, since. but, i actually think that this has a lot to do with the downstairs tenant's move back to indoor smoking, because i was fine before that happened - and it's whatever that she's smoking that consistently knocks me out like this, rather than anything else.
i didn't do anything today except sleep.
and, i'm still feeling tired & miserable in the familiar way caused by that second-hand smoke. but i'm going to try and get up to eat.
i finally crashed about 6:00 this morning, and i've barely been able to move, since. but, i actually think that this has a lot to do with the downstairs tenant's move back to indoor smoking, because i was fine before that happened - and it's whatever that she's smoking that consistently knocks me out like this, rather than anything else.
i didn't do anything today except sleep.
and, i'm still feeling tired & miserable in the familiar way caused by that second-hand smoke. but i'm going to try and get up to eat.
the nice smile quip.
yes, ford was copying trump, here; the intent was to intimidate her - to throw out macho energy and try and force her into a submissive position. that might seem taboo, and it is and should be amongst the dominant culture, but you have to understand that ontario has a large recent migrant population, and that they are going to view gender relations through a different prism. it's a subtle psychological thing, but that man-oeuvre could help him win the votes of certain types of women.
that said, wynne is a little bit scrappier than clinton. and, by not letting that kind of shit phase her (clinton was frequently obviously upset and badly phased when trump pulled off these kinds of stunts), the result may be that it may backfire a little on ford.
i think maybe the more profound reading is that it's a window into the psychology of the conservative party, which is clearly broadcasting that it feels that an opinionated woman should submit to a dominant male when he walks in the room.
yes, ford was copying trump, here; the intent was to intimidate her - to throw out macho energy and try and force her into a submissive position. that might seem taboo, and it is and should be amongst the dominant culture, but you have to understand that ontario has a large recent migrant population, and that they are going to view gender relations through a different prism. it's a subtle psychological thing, but that man-oeuvre could help him win the votes of certain types of women.
that said, wynne is a little bit scrappier than clinton. and, by not letting that kind of shit phase her (clinton was frequently obviously upset and badly phased when trump pulled off these kinds of stunts), the result may be that it may backfire a little on ford.
i think maybe the more profound reading is that it's a window into the psychology of the conservative party, which is clearly broadcasting that it feels that an opinionated woman should submit to a dominant male when he walks in the room.
it has to be unusually high cbd, and almost no thc, because it really does just give you a headache and make you want to sleep for a week.
she'd might as well just be taking valium...
and, i'm left to wonder: did she ever smoke recreationally? does she know what marijuana is supposed to feel like, or did she just get diagnosed by some quack and pushed something that is powerful enough that some people think it might help with heroin addiction?
the kind of pot i'm used to smoking here and there is not going to help anybody with heroin addiction. i think i want to avoid anything that's been engineered to be that powerful, that's for sure.
she'd might as well just be taking valium...
and, i'm left to wonder: did she ever smoke recreationally? does she know what marijuana is supposed to feel like, or did she just get diagnosed by some quack and pushed something that is powerful enough that some people think it might help with heroin addiction?
the kind of pot i'm used to smoking here and there is not going to help anybody with heroin addiction. i think i want to avoid anything that's been engineered to be that powerful, that's for sure.
Monday, May 7, 2018
she's been blazing hard since she got into that fight downstairs, and i just have to repeat what i've said before: the pot she's smoking doesn't get you high, it just makes you overwhelmingly tired. it's like getting hit with a tranquillizer. why does she even enjoy this?
on saturday night, i drank two shots of jager before i left, took a shot of vodka at the bus stop (don't ask.), drank half a rockstar vodka on the way to hamtramck, had four beers at the bar, finished the rock star vodka, nearly chugged a tall boy and then got through three cranberry somethings of questionable integrity before i blacked out, all without falling asleep. in between, i found some random hits of pot.
but, the second hand smoke from the "medical" marijuana user downstairs is frequently enough to physically knock me out.
it's nasty stuff, whatever it is.
don't expect to have any fun smoking this buzzkill prozac shit...
on saturday night, i drank two shots of jager before i left, took a shot of vodka at the bus stop (don't ask.), drank half a rockstar vodka on the way to hamtramck, had four beers at the bar, finished the rock star vodka, nearly chugged a tall boy and then got through three cranberry somethings of questionable integrity before i blacked out, all without falling asleep. in between, i found some random hits of pot.
but, the second hand smoke from the "medical" marijuana user downstairs is frequently enough to physically knock me out.
it's nasty stuff, whatever it is.
don't expect to have any fun smoking this buzzkill prozac shit...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)