My 20 All Time Favorite Songs

Over in the realm of X (or Twitter, for those of us without more money than branding expertise), a musician named Nick Worrall posed a challenge to the world. It is not a silly challenge meant for the likes of influencers of TikTok or YouTube Shorts. This challenge was far more mentally taxing.

The challenge was to make a list of your all-time favourite songs. I’ll reference the Tweet/re-post itself as it far better describes the task we had at hand.

Honestly, my list took a slightly different direction than what was recommended. The key word here was joy. Call it what you will, but that word isn’t one I would typically associate with myself now or in the past.

That is not to say that my life has no positive aspects. It is more that most of the little joys in my life don’t tend to come from music. Music, for me, is more about stasis. A way to relax, unwind, or return from the brink of losing my fucking mind.

Though the original list had little order, I organized it here to showcase a spectrum. At the beginning, we start with arguably hopeful and inspiring songs. However, this is soon overtaken by far more dominant negative emotions of cynicism, depression and, of course, irritation and anger. I figured it would be more fitting to base my list on the side of the dichotomy that tends to be far more domineering than the positive. After all, I am far more familiar with the various layers of inner demons (and how they interact with music) than the reverse. It ends on a high note, however.

Thus far, every dark tunnel has had a light at the end. This list is no different.

Either way, here is the list as it stands for 2024 (it started in August 2023 and was completed in April 2024).
I don’t like the all-time aspect of the challenge since it insinuates that nothing can usurp any of it in the future. This is only possible if I get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Nonetheless, it serves as an interesting check-in. Even if it ends up changing eventually.

1. ) Innocent – Our Lady Peace

2.) Leave Them All Behind – Billy Talent

When hearing these songs, I can’t help but feel hopeful. However, there was a time when I had more or less given up on hope (considering it hopeium. It was good for the nerves but useless overall). But having a nephew (and seeing people around you raising a new generation) tends to change that. I may have been a cynic bordering closer to pessimism than much else, but I’m not a psychopath.

This and life isn’t worth living without anything to look forward to. There is only the same 9 to 5 schedule without hopes and dreams.

Day after day. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year.

Until you get to your so-called Golden Years. Just before you are dead (if lucky), you can enjoy your last 10 to 20 years on your terms. Now, worn out and feeble, you get to enjoy life.

3.) The Fight Song – Marilyn Manson

I loved this song from the first time I heard it in Micheal Moore’s film Bowling For Columbine. The song was essentially an anthem for a now faithless teenager coming off of a borderline traumatic grade 9 experience. A sort of fuck you to everyone who turned their backs when I needed them most. Like many acts and artists hated by the mediocre mainstream (Slipknot?), there was an inherent positivity in the bonds formed between the fans and their often shared situations. What might outwardly look slightly cultish can actually serve as both a giant emotional support center and an outlet for pent-up feelings.

This is something that said artists have been saying the whole time. But it is interesting to look back at it now from the point of view of an adult.

Of course, adulthood does change some things.

For one, the quality of the music didn’t really hold up as the years went on. Like most pop-punk of the early 2000s (Blink, Sum 41 etc.), you KNOW The Fight Song was aimed at the teenage demographic. Though Manson has been musically active since this now-ancient song was released, he’s never really grabbed my attention since, unlike Billy Talent (who only seems to get better with age) or even ACDC. Though their formula never seems to change, it does not necessarily have to.

Take their fun with the song Money Shot versus the similarly pandemic-themed Quarantine from Blink 182. Which song do you think people will still listen to on occasion 20 years from now?

I only listened to Quarantine in full once. And have never had any desire to do so since.

I was also profoundly disappointed when more than one individual exposed Marylin Manson in his own #ME2 scandal. The most disappointing part is that the allegations are entirely in character and believable. Indeed, there are two sides to every story. But I also don’t doubt that the power and untouchability that comes with stardom might be too much for many mortal humans to handle, including Brian Warner / Marylin Manson.

Though I’ve started occasionally listening to his music again, I will never see him the same way as I once did.

Some say that it is unwise to meet your heroes. I’m starting to think it is unwise to outlive them.

4.) These Days – The Foo Fighters

How could I not include this fantastic tune, whose lyrics are more in contrast to the instrumentals backing them than a bright yellow dot on a purple wall. The music says positive, while the lyrics say we’re fucked.

What’s not to love.

5.) Outta Know – Alanis Morrisette

Though Alanis has many iconic songs that I could have chosen, the aggression of this hit has always been great to hear. Compared to newer subdued crap like Taylor Swift’s Before He Cheats, you can feel the emotion.

Alanis was mad and wanted us to know.

6.) The Sound Of Silence – Disturbed

I loved this song from the first time I heard it. And I do think it is better than the original Simon & Garfunkel hit that it covered. This may be a biased response since I listened to their version after the cover and since Disturbed is another band I’ve held in high regard for a long time.

Nevermore also covered the song nicely on their album Dead Heart In A Dead World in 2000. Though I love what Nevermore did with the source material, I still appreciate the Disturbed variation. I find it hard to put one ahead of the other since they both shine in their own way.

7.) The Count Of Tuscany – Dream Theater

Though the Dream Theater catalogue has many songs I like and love (most from their 2009 album Black Clouds and Silver Linings), The Count Of Tuscany outdoes them all. With a runtime of just under 20 minutes and a musical script that takes you all over the place melody-wise, it is not for everyone. Most of Dream Theater’s best songs are not for everyone, really.

But if you want to relax, close your eyes and go on a journey, this song is for you. Really, the whole album is for you. Though it sometimes contains some rather overt Christian messaging, I am willing to overlook it, given what accompanies it. Even if the author’s stance is made evident, this is far more beefy than your average Christian rock or metal offering.

Though I have never listened to this song (or its accompanying album) high, it occurs to me that it might be an interesting experience. A low dose of cannabis certainly made for an excellent introduction to many songs in the following group’s catalogue.

8.) It’s Only Smiles – Periphery

Though I have heard Periphery before (I am fond of Letter Experiment on their first album), it was not a band I was all that familiar with. It was one of those bands that I tended to skip a lot of (short of a few known songs) since the first minute often didn’t appeal to my sober mind.

But then I found myself painting one night listening to a Periphery playlist. Having popped an edible candy earlier, I painted a daisey with colourful petals after the words Crazy Daisy! Inexplicably popped into my mind earlier that evening. And for music, I put on a Periphery playlist.

Though Periphery and Dream Theater are alike in many ways, Periphery is much less story-driven than Dream Theater. This isn’t a comparison (which one has better lyrics?), It’s more about how I interpret the music. While the meanderings of Dream Theater songs take us on a journey, the meanderings of Periphery paint the mind with colour, like the randomized visualizations of XP-era versions of the Windows media player.

I chose It’s Only Smiles because it’s uplifting and not too over the top, unlike the song Satellites (from the same album), which I can only describe as bipolar. I love it, but it certainly isn’t for everyone.

9.) Sentient 6 – Nevermore

I first heard this song (and Nevermore as a group) from a CD I bought on impulse at a local CD Plus. I don’t know exactly what made me pick it up, but I’m sure the cover had much to do with it.

It was full of good songs, but the one that stuck out the most was Sentient 6. The storyline of the sentient robot switches from seeing itself as an omnipotent leader of humanity to calling for humanity’s annihilation. Even before the questions and concerns of AI were brought to the forefront of discourse in the past few years, this song was poignant.

10.) The Unnamed Feeling – Metallica

From the band’s not-so-well-received St. Anger album (come on, people, it wasn’t that bad!), this song struck a chord when I first heard it on a Metallica music video compilation DVD bought at Best Buy sometime in 2006 or 2007. I liked it because it highlighted something I sometimes felt but could not pinpoint how to describe it.

The unnamed feeling.

The best adjective to describe these episodes would probably be a profound emptiness. I would not say it felt negative or numbing, just . . . a profound emptiness.

Hearing a musical description of something I’d felt on and off for years was interesting. Even if I don’t really endure such spells anymore.

11.) Survive – Rise Against

Though I will be forever fond of the raw vocals and sound of Siren Song Of The Counter Culture, no song quite approaches the resonance evoked by this song. While this was more poignant when I was younger (being more aware and in control of one’s emotions seems to be a product of maturity), I still occasionally can’t help but find myself in the same frame of mind. It’s hard not to have at least an occasional “FUCK THE WORLD!” episode, given the era in which we live. If it doesn’t happen to you, you are not paying attention, or I applaud your ability to turn a blind eye.

In high school, my nemeses were exams, cyber bullies, future education and career prospects. Now my nemeses are work issues, financial problems, worldwide political actions and movements, and many, MANY idiots that buy into some form of horseshit therein.

As long as capitalism exists, I feel this song will find relevance. As long as there is neoliberalism?

This song will remain relevant as long as the wealthy control the vast majority of human progress’s wealth.

12.) The Almighty Dollar – Ozzy Osbourne

Though I have known about this song since its release in 2007 (I bought the album at Best Buy), it took on a new meaning around Earth Day 2010. It was less that it took on an explicitly NEW meaning and more that I became hyper-aware of the message that Ozzy was conveying with the album (and pretty much every album after).

Around mid-April of that year, many of us became aware of the blowout surrounding BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. At first, it was just another story of many (overshadowed by the Olympics, which was happening then). But it would soon come to encompass my whole reality. You can read more about this turbulent part of my existence HERE.

I could not listen to The Almighty Dollar during the first months of my panicked reaction (May, June, July). If it came on while listening to a random playlist, and I had to turn it off. Even though I had heard the album and song many times before (it’s the only album I know most of the lyrics by heart), the lyrics suddenly became so real.

Death, doom and disaster. The point of no return.

No earthly life ever after. Is it to late to learn??

The Almighty Dollar – Ozzy Osbourne

Though I can again appreciate the album in its entirety (though I don’t listen to it often anymore), it took me a long time (probably over a year afterward) to go back to it.

I did have a cynical (bordering on pessimistic) phase in the years immediately following this period. This was nothing new (I have never trusted humans). What was new was a profound cynicism realized by acknowledging the wider world and realizing what a miracle it would probably take to turn things around. To accomplish what is required to right our sinking ship of a species seems nearly impossible.

How the late George Carlin handled this realization has always fascinated me. He said that everyone who is born gets a ticket to the freak show, and people born in America get a front-row seat. He also claimed to no longer have any stake in the outcome of the human race, opting just to sit back and be entertained by the show.

Though I greatly respect George Carlin, I always struggled with the last part of his equation. While I considered myself quite the misanthrope, I suppose I still didn’t want to fully grasp how bleak our reality was (at least as dictated by Carlin). If one does so, there is not much point in living.

Here we go again.

It is a weird thing. You would think that with what I know about our collective fate, I would welcome the dark embrace of death. I certainly did in high school when faced with far fewer high-stakes problems.

And yet, jump off a bridge, I have not. Nor has the thought ever really occurred to me for a long time. Despite a combination of the mind-numbing banality that comes from being in the workforce and the nerve-wracking awareness that comes from living the ultra-connected lives we all do today. If a supervolcano blew in Java, I/we would know within minutes.

By all measures, I have never felt more meaningless and hopeless as I have in the past few years. Yet, I don’t feel like hanging up my hat and saying, “Fuck it!” nor do I feel like just watching as the whole thing burns around me. I would love to be able to do something about it, though fuck if I know how I can make that happen.

While I’ve always had a bit of this in me, the rebellious nature of many within Gen Z has undoubtedly helped rekindle that flame for me. Though it is hardly a rebellion . . . more like a fight for their lives.

* * *

Then, there is my battle with nostalgia.

I am old enough that the music and media I was surrounded with in my teens are approaching (if not now beyond) 20 years old. It occurred to me when I realized Linkin Park’s Hybrid Theory was now two decades old (as of last year). And my favorite movie (Gone in 60 Seconds, circa 2000) . . . 24!

Nostalgia isn’t necessarily a BAD thing. It can just become significantly limiting very quickly.

I’ve always been annoyed at boomer nostalgia, probably because I don’t fully understand the cultural context (cultural artifacts like Grease or Footloose can shed some light on this). Similarly, I’ve started to run into instances where people are unfamiliar with my cultural anecdotes (for example, South Park references).

I read somewhere that the 30s tend to be a time when this cultural stuff tends to solidify for life. No matter what quality comes next or what crap came before, people tend to become dead-set on what they know and love (or at least are familiar with). Having seen that process start to take hold (with modern-day streaming algorithms not helping the matter in their super-tailored nature), I try my best to fight the bias. Instead of automatically labelling anything new and trendy as trash (at times, going against a part of me that actually doesn’t mind the material), I try to be a neutral observer. I don’t always have the patience I would have if I were evaluating something new and appealing to me (particularly country music. I’ve never been a big fan), but I certainly try.

As for how this relates to The Almighty Dollar, in a way, it does not. This is certainly far more concerning of my inner workings than anything about the song or its concerns. Nonetheless, there is a connection.

A calcified mind is unlikely to help anyone seeking significant change in favour of the greater good. You don’t have to take my word for it—just put on CSPAN (for Americans) or watch a few debates of your nation’s national parliament.

Calcified minds sit idle even as the fires are being lit at the gate’s edge of the empire. Maluble minds can react better to these changes.

13.) Under The Blade – Twisted Sister

Twisted Sister will always have a soft spot in my heart as arguably the first stepping stone on my journey to discover metal.

Growing up, my dad owned Twisted Sister – The Essentials, and I heard the first 3 songs on the album (We’re Not Gonna Take It, I Wanna Rock and Leader Of The Pack) many times over the years. However, during a picnic wherein the CD was playing (and the adults weren’t paying much attention), I heard the greatness of the rest of the disk.

Under the Blade. Come Out And Play. Stay Hungry. Shoot ’em’ Down. That entire album is a rarity with back-to-back bangers.

I chose Under The Blade precisely because of the energy. Slowly, slowly, we revved it up . . . BLADE!!!!
It’s a song that makes it hard not to jump up, grab a broom and start air guitaring and headbanging like a crazed madman.

The fact that the song (through Dee Snider’s arguments) ended up making Al Gore’s wife look like a complete ass in front of Congress and millions of watching viewers is but the icing on the cake.

It’s not about weird, kinky sex shit. It’s about surgery. But sure, you can read into it whatever you want :P.

14.) Live Again – Sevendust

I would be remiss to write a list of songs that have affected me without including Sevendust in the mix. In this case, it was less a song than an entire album that helped me through a rough period of life.

It all started with a walk home from school in what must have been 2000. Laying on the side of the road was a blank white burnt CD amongst the trash blown over from a nearby 7/11 store. I picked it up and brought it home, but I didn’t pay much attention to it then.

Eventually, it ended up in the household collection of CDs shared between me and my sister. I wouldn’t listen to the CD until sometime in late 2003/early 2004, but the album would have a profound effect on my life at the time.

High school (as I probably stated before) was not a period of happiness for me. Though most of the strife was limited to the 9th grade, that year pretty much set the tone for the rest of the time there. The songs on this CD seemed to perfectly match the turmoil I was living through. However, I didn’t know who the artist was behind the songs.

On the CD were two albums. The first was the aggressive nu-metal album, which resonated with my life at the time. The second was a more comedic album. Seemingly a weird combination (looking back on it now), it almost served as comedic relief to the aggression that came before it. However, I’m sure that was never the intention of the original curator.

It would not be until well after high school that I learned the identities of both artists burnt onto the now-long-lost white CD. Three years later, while listening to a metal station on Sirius XM, they played the band Sevendusts’ newly released single Driven. Not only did I like what I heard, but I also recognized the lead singer’s voice and the band’s overall sound. A quick search of the name on YouTube brought up both the songs I was familiar with and the album on which they were released.

Animosity. It could not have been more aptly named.

As for the song I chose, the message is mirrored in the title. I wasn’t in a great headspace for a long time, and it was sometimes hard to find people who would understand that, let alone relate to the sentiment. But the song essentially said to keep pushing on because you are stronger than anything that anyone can throw at you.

YOU can live again.

It took many years for me to realize that the song was correct. But I am glad I had the song around seemingly right when I needed it.

Who knows? Maybe I was always too weak to do something as drastic as offing myself. I’m glad I had the song to help keep things in perspective.

15.) F**k Her Gently – Tenacious D

In the previous entry, I mentioned that the long-lost CD had 2 different albums recorded onto it, the group identities of which I didn’t know. I learned that one of these groups was Sevendust. Not long after this, likely after another YouTube encounter, I realized the other group’s identity. The band was Jack Black’s Tenacious D, and the album was their first release, which was self-titled.

Though this one arguably doesn’t have as much meaning to me as Sevendust, I got a lot of amusement from songs like Rock Your Socks and Kielbasa. This kind of music was a treat because my childhood home did not get broadband internet until early 2005 / late 2006, the time period during which I discovered Limewire and (among many others) Weird Al and Maclean and Maclean.

Though both are in the realm of comedy, their discographies could not be further apart. Weird Al is family-friendly and silly. Meanwhile, Maclean and Maclean are NOT family friendly in the slightest.

Nuff said, lol.

If Sevendust helped me deal with my inner angst and animosity with the humans around me, then that partially playable Tenacious D portion at the back of the album (the disk had been outside for a while before I’d found it. Its outer edges were damaged) certainly helped take the edge off. I may have been angry, depressed and suicidal, but at least I was able to have a good laugh at this hilarious album.

For that, I thank Jack Black and Kyle Grass.

16.) Hurt – Johny Cash

Knowing what I have just written, it shouldn’t be surprising that I would resonate with this Nine Inch Nails cover. However, I admit that I was surprised to learn precisely who the cover artist was (me being a Marylin Manson fan and knowing about Personal Jesus). Nonetheless, Johny certainly stole the thunder regarding that end result.

While some may disagree with how this turned out, I see no issue with it. Here is the original for context.

17.) Wherein Lies Continue – Slipknot

Though I have been a metal fan since my teenage years, it took me some time to become a fan of Slipknot. While I have explored forms of metal other than nu and Thrash, most of that focus has been in the progressive range.

Back in around 2011, I talked to a fan of both Dream Theater and Periphery regularly, and as such, both groups became prominent in my music rotation. As stated previously, I liked DT’s album Black Clouds and Silver Linings and Periphery’s song Letter Experiment. Though I’ve been keeping up with Dream Theater’s releases since I didn’t become reacquainted with Periphery’s newer catalogue until last year with the help of cannabis edible.

This is by no means an insult. Unlike alcohol, cannabis is hardly a drug that makes bad music tolerable. Though increasing one’s alcohol input is a great way to decrease one’s standard of quality in terms of music, cannabis is more like a magnifying glass for every little detail. And as such, lousy music becomes as apparent as a red dot on a snowy white cardigan.
For example, Katy Perry’s Dark Horse. In my quest to listen to some pop music and not become a snob of anything but the heavy, I decided to try some pop. I heard Dark Horse a time or two sober and didn’t think twice about it.

Then I listened to it under the influence of an edible. I could not help but burst out laughing at the absurdity. Not so much with Katy Perry’s input, but more when Juicy J chimes in with his nonsense.

Though I was doing something else at the time (possibly painting), I had to stop because the absurdity was unbelievably distracting. On the one hand, the background melody showcases one mood, but on the other, this rapper spews utter nonsense. My mind struggled to make sense of the utterly senseless.
Needless to say, I have not listened to the song since. There is no unhearing that.

Now, Slipknot . . .

I did not become acquainted with them until around 10 years ago, when I worked with (and subsequently befriended) a big fan of all things Corey Taylor. I was quickly introduced to Slipknot and Stoned Sour. While I feel like calling SS a sort of hard rock brother group to Slipknot, some may take issue with that classification.

But who gives a shit. They are both incredible in their own right.

When it comes to Slipknot, I first became fond of their album All Hope Is Gone, which was one of their more recent albums (despite already being 6 years old at the time). The song Wherein Lies Continue perfectly reflected my very atheistic and cynical stances towards life and the future of civilization as we know it.
Though I have since toned down many of the more annoying aspects of these 2 traits (particularly those concerning my Atheist stance), the song still resonates.

I like some songs from The Grey Chapter (released in 2014), but I am far more fond of 2019’s We Are Not Your Kind. Namely All Out Life.

Though Slipknot’s older catalogue does contain some gems, I can not get into most of it (even now). Something which makes sense since the group’s sound has obviously changed over time. I’m just glad I don’t have the task of categorizing them into one genre. Now, there are not as much of a pain in the ass in this regard as Tool would be, but still . . .

I liked Stoned Sour’s album Audio Secrecy, probably because I was heavily exposed to it around 2014/2015. Come What(ever) May also has a few gems. I’m not so much a fan of what the band has put out since (aside from a couple covers from Burbank), but they also haven’t put much out since (being on hiatus since 2020).

18.) Comfortably Numb – Pink Floyd

This is another tune that I’ve come back to again and again since I was a teenager (though it has been a while since my last listen, come to think of it). While I enjoy the entirety of the song, my favourite portion is the instrumental that finishes the track off. Though I would probably vote Dream Theater’s The Best Of Times as #1 and Periphery’s Satellites as #2 in a personal list of best song-closing instrumentals, Comfortably Numb still occupies the #3 spot.

Interestingly, the song was written to describe, quote, a “state of delirium; a feeling of being detached from reality.” Though one can no doubt also attribute drugs to the meaning of this song, that doesn’t seem to be the primary source of the material (according to Roger Waters).

Though I kept returning to the song as a teenager for its instrumental exit, it is interesting that I was drawn to the song being the state I often felt myself in as a teen. I wouldn’t necessarily call it delirious (I know that feeling, having lived it a time or 2). But certainly empty.

19.) Suburbia – Mathew Good Band

From the 1999 album release A Beautiful Midnight (my favourite album from the band), I’m not sure why I was drawn so much to this song. Part of it could have been the name. As a teenager, I always envied the suburban lifestyle portrayed in shows like Desperate Housewives and pretty much every American movie based even partially in a neighbourhood. Though I lived in a single-family home with a perfectly reasonably sized backyard, it wasn’t enough.

Maybe it never is. The flaw of the human condition.

Either way, despite my interpretation being antithetical to the song’s entire premise (it is hardly the first piece of media to critique the tedious nature of suburban life), I probably felt similar boredom. Once my various social battles of grade 9 fizzled out over the summer and into the following year, my life was filled with boredom. Though I knew that this state was, in fact, better than the previous one, I did at times (oddly enough) yearn for the days of ole.
At least I had a nemesis to focus on, as opposed to a lot of nothing interesting happening—just the same old stuff every day.

In hindsight, I’m glad I never had either the money or the social connections to start using drugs at this time (mostly the money). I was very much anti-drug at this time. But I also was at age 18 when my best friend handed me a grape cigarillo for the first time. And that was all it took to make me a smoker. Given the right conditions, I may have chosen a different path earlier.

But fortunately, that didn’t happen. Thus, my relationship with drugs over time remained healthy. I neither became the cited example of why drugs are BAD, nor (worse) the “I couldn’t handle my drugs, so; therefore, you should NEVER EVER TRY THEM!!” version of social insufferability.

20.) Hallelujah – Leonard Cohen

I am not a godly person. Quite the opposite, actually. I would say that I am proudly Atheist, but I hesitate to associate myself with many others who call themselves proud atheists. So-called rationalists can be just as dogmatic, judgemental and idiotic as the theists they often go out of their way to shine a light on.

Despite my heathenistic ways, I must admit that this song strikes a chord within me—not so much in its original form (Sorry, Leonard), but more in the many covers made by others over the years. And the doubtless many more renditions that were sung by novices and professionals alike but never recorded.

Though I have definitely heard the song before, the first rendition that struck me was at my former company’s holiday party. One of my coworkers also happened to be a singer, and she did an excellent job in singing it.

The original source material’s magic lies in the slow buildup to the chorus. It serves as a good test of a singer’s low and high notes and allows them to put their stamp on it.
Alexandra Burke’s version demonstrates this. It helped her win 1st place on X-factor and became the UK’s #1 selling single of 2008.

With that, I round up my 20 most resonating songs as of April 2024. This journey has brought us all over the map in terms of the music landscape and a relatively small map compared to my overall map of music preferences. I also now include a bit of modern hip hop (drill rap), pop, and even a little country.

I have to blame/thank another co-worker for exposing me to drill rap on our many rides home after work between 2019 and 2021. Then, there were many trips in the delivery van in 2020 and 2021, while The Weeknd’s Blinding Lights and Billy Eilish’s Bad Guy were often played on the radio. Both songs (along with modern pop music) started to grow on me again.

Anyway, that is my list of 20 all-time favourite songs.

Bill Barr Talks Out Of His Ass On Cannabis

*sigh*

God damned boomers, man. Will they ever shut the f*** up?

Today’s irritation-fueled rant is based off of this article, written by Jacob Sollum and published on Reason.com. Since the arguments made by Bill Barr and John Walters therein are nothing new in terms of this kind of anti-cannabis argumentation (SHOCKING, I know), I won’t bother covering the vast majority of their comments. Just one little excerpt which speaks volumes.

“Greater marijuana use has contributed to the steady erosion of the civic responsibility, self-discipline, and sobriety required of citizens to sustain our system of limited government and broad personal liberty,” they write. “A doped-up country is a nation in decline.”

https://reason.com/2024/03/15/because-marijuana-is-dangerous-2-inveterate-drug-warriors-say-legalizing-it-was-a-mistake/

First of all, let’s explore John Walters’s resume.

Walters was Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in the George W. Bush administration. He held that position from February 5, 2001 to January 20, 2009. As the U.S. “Drug Czar”, Walters coordinated all aspects of federal anti-drug policies and spending. As drug czar, he was a staunch opponent of drug decriminalization, legalization, and medical marijuana.[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Walters

While Bill Barr’s past jobs are less affiliated with all things substance-related, he has never been far from the state regarding his affiliations with American law. While he has had stints at law firms and such, he has also spent a large amount of time working for the government as Attorney General, among other roles.

Either way, I can’t help but view their concern about a quote doped up nation as quite ironic since they seem very fixated on a substance that, by and large, is far from proliferating all aspects of society. Not just in terms of alcohol and tobacco . . . how about opioids.

Though the government seems to be finally getting its shit together on that front NOW, there was a very long period in which corporately created opioids were running rampant across the nation and destroying lives everywhere. Unlike cannabis, these opioids were more often than not doctor-prescribed. One day you have a car accident or a work place injury that inflicts pain, the next month you find yourself cured but unable to stop the medication. Because unlike the unstudied cannabis that people keep freaking out about, these well-studied pharmaceuticals were being dispensed despite the dangers at times being known well before they became too hard to ignore.

While THIS was happening, during a period wherein 85% of the entire oxycodone supply created for the United States was being shipped to Florida (where 90 of the top 100 opioid-prescribing doctors resided), people like Barr and Walters didn’t seem at all concerned. In fact, Walters was far worried about a very different scourge in his mind . . . medicinal marijuana.

When will we recognize people like Walters and Barr for what they really are . . . completely out of touch and totally full of shit.

The Unthinkable

Daily writing prompt
Write a letter to your 100-year-old self.

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening,

Congratulations.

Congratulations on hitting a massive milestone in terms of human longevity and on hitting a milestone that was once thought to be 100% impossible. Well, thought to be impossible by us.

Me, as it were.

Thinking way back to almost the beginning, there was the high school experience. We never thought that we would get through that and see 18/19/20. We certainly didn’t do anything to PLAN for that eventuality.
Yet here I am, 35 years of age. And here we are, 100 years of age. Though the calming embrace of lights out was thought to be our only option, we made it past this.

And this was not the only time when death was not far from the forefront of your mind, either. Even far beyond the hormone-influenced turmoils of high school, death was once part of the equation. However, this time, it was a retirement plan.

From your late 20s onward, you were quite the cynic. Quite the cynic boarding on the straight-out pessimist, really. You often found yourself telling people that you only would live to 50. Which at this point means I only have 15 years left on this rock.

People didn’t understand. People DON’T understand.

But, such are people. They have a way of seeing everything around them through rose-coloured glasses. Though it is easy to see this as irritating and deceiving behaviour (in terms of their own well-being), I also can’t help but be just a little bit envious.

I have never had a good opinion of people. Back in high school, this was shaped by the cyber bullying slash relationship extortion messes that screwed up my entire freshman year (and arguably, the whole of my high school experience). Progressing later in life, this was shaped by working in customer service-oriented jobs and the occasional conflict with a close friend.

But as minds do (at least THIS one), I matured. I realized that I can expect people to do whatever I want, but chances are they will be shitty. Because that is often the easier way to be. Humans, as a species, tend to be emotionally messy, short-sighted, stubborn and lazy. Thus, keep your expectations low, and you will never be disappointed.

Far beyond the reaches of my own personal influence, I (we) seen things spinning seemingly out of control.
Facists coming out of the woodwork and worming their way into the discourse of societies the world over. World leaders with one foot in the grave refusing to relinquish their grip on the levers of power or trying to recreate their long since passed good ole’ days of burgeoning empire. All this while everyday people, unknowingly influenced by the addictive and manipulative properties of modern-day Social Media technology, lose their fucking minds over the most trivial shit imaginable.

And on the personal front, you have the friend struggling with personal demons. The friend who once expressed their own suicidal ideation due to constant and never-ending struggles. The friend that you never once pushed back on these ideations, despite decades of friendship by this point.
The lack of pushback was not because we didn’t want to see them stick around and continue living up to their full potential. It was more because, at the time, saying that seemed like extremely insultingly empty words. Even though the short-term, mid-term, term AND long-term futures show no real improvements anywhere down the line, let’s lie about it just to make ourselves feel better.

Nope. As much as the possibility of an exit scared us, we never tried to use false hope to steer them away from the brink.
Fortunately, it would not matter later, as things did eventually pan out for this person. Now meaningfully employed, someone has finally shown them some human dignity. Though they now struggle with the same hampster wheel cycle that I do, it still beats the alternative.

Despite not seeing a future past 18, then past 50, we have reached 100.

I have so many questions:

1.) I am currently witnessing the dawn of the era of Artificial Intelligence making its debut in the mainstream. Did it eventually try to overtake us?

2.) How is the Natural resources situation on earth (or beyond)? Did we make it, or did we hit a wall and face a collapse of unprecedented proportions?

3.) How has the progression of climate change impacted day-to-day life?

4.) Are we the last generation with the privilege of a 100 year lifespan?

Yours truly,

Me Myself & I

It’s Time For Biden To Step Back + Other Commentaries On Today’s Political Climate

It has been some time since I’ve waded into the realm of the political, particularly American politics. Though I consider myself very much politically aware (or at least I try to be more aware than most), I have not found myself able to add anything new to the conversation.

Pretty much anything that I have to say has been said. And in terms of the adverse reactions towards our current day situation . . . there is enough of that in the zeitgeist already. I COULD try and debunk the non-stop flood of reactionary, inflammatory nonsense that always seems to keep right-wing podcasters wealthy (and right-wing political leaners angry) . . . but I can’t be bothered anymore.

Maybe I would if I didn’t have to work for a living and had no hobbies. But as it stands, few of these individuals are interested in anything that goes against their conclusions. The complexity of humanity and the world’s problems be damned, these people can’t deal with complexity. Right-wing narratives tend to be simplistic and easy to digest, and therefore, hitting back with nuance is often useless. And for those that try, convenient pre-fabricated phrases like Woke exist to write off anything that the listener cannot fathom.

I hear and see these mindsets everywhere in my day-to-day life, from the pages of social media, to my and friends and acquaintances at the coffee shop, to dealings with total strangers.
I say nothing to this often unprovoked assault of nonsense on the brain (anti-Trudeau and anti-liberal sentiments are not hard to come by on the prairies these days). It is but a part of freedom of speech, a freedom that these people are always quick to point out is being withheld because social media company A took a stand against whatever for whatever reason.
Like politics, I can’t be bothered to explain the differences between the public square and the private entities that are social media platforms. Mainly because I’ve done it before.

Either way, I listen to this reactionary babbling almost every day, from friends and family to strangers. And what triggers these folk . . . private businesses and other organizations displaying rainbow flags. They view it as a form of shoving an ideology into their faces.

I hear it, but I can’t be bothered to engage normally. Freedom of speech irony be damned.

In a sense, I feel a bit of empathy for many of these individuals. Social media has become extremely good at conditioning content around people’s traits and biases. Something which is even riskier if the person has a mental illness, which further limits their ability to critically analyze the information they are being fed.
An even more fascinating (and possibly overlapping) observation is how social media can affect those prone to distrust of governing bodies and authority. Social media is a treasure trove when it comes to finding proof that the government is lying to you and other self-serving and ego-boosting materials like this.

And it is extremely easy for those with big-monied agendas to manipulate this content. All you need is people with podcasts and YouTube followers and an agenda which is conveniently free from questioning or changing any of the status quo.

Several years ago, I realized that manipulating social media is much easier (and cheaper!) than manipulating legacy media. Instead of spending millions buying TV stations, publications, and the like, you just need to spend a few million to sprout various podcasters and YouTube streamers that showcase favourable ideals. They do not have to be outright pro-business; they just need to align with inherently business-friendly philosophies. The rich don’t care if you are a conservative, a libertarian, an anarchist, or an individualistic conspiracy theory proponent. All are (or CAN BE) entirely non-confrontational to big business status quo’s.

I heard a fascinating example of this when a fellow (one of those who is preconditioned to distrust authority in all its forms) dismissed the electrification of transportation and promoted the fossil fuel status quo. It is hardly a new mindset (particularly in a place like the Canadian prairies). But what I found fascinating was how the anti-authority pro-individuality crowd has apparently become pro-fossil fuel.
This makes no sense since reliance on fossil fuels is inherently un-individualistic (you are reliant on your means of survival) instead of electric options, which can operate even off the grid. It is not easy (modern amenities take a lot of power, certainly so if you expect level 2 charging ability), but it can be done.

Either way, I don’t bother to wade into this conversation much anymore because it has become almost stagnant. Though the arguments and conclusions of the right are as diverse as any other crowd of humans, there tends to be a throughline that binds together the most reactionary and aggrieved. It is a throughline often traced back to the many right-leaning (or at least right-adjacent) podcasts. I consider figures like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson to be right-adjacent. I don’t know if they have ever explicitly picked a side, but I do know who tends to cite them repeatedly. And it ain’t leftists.

Whether we are dealing with Right-wing, libertarian, or right-adjacent figureheads, the result is the same. Nowhere in these podcasting networks will you find a dissenting word about entrenched corporate power and greed. Well, unless we are talking about Pfizer and Moderna, anyway. But you will find plenty of other targets for your reactionary wrath. Most notably, visible minorities of all statuses and classes.

Which is where I will end my rant based on my anecdotal (yet I don’t doubt, somewhat relatable) experience. In a sense, I understand why this is a thing . . . social media keeps those whom are even remotely politically inclined bathing in content that fits their chosen narrative. It is a hard habit to break.

But holy shit . . . rare in my experience are the liberals or leftists that drop their ideological viewpoints at any and every opportunity. Yet it is something I hear from those on the other side of the aisle all the time. In fact, I can almost predict what is going to be coming just based on what the podcaster parrots are going on about at any time. Trans people in bathrooms, CRT, drag shows, bullshit which makes Donald Trump seem less culpable . . .

In life, I don’t expect people to censor themselves for my benefit. That would be hypocritical, and that would also make for a VERY boring world. But if you are going to be acting like you are the stewards of information that others are to brainwashed, WOKE or WHATEVER to fathom . . . bring something to the table that isn’t just another form of ideological pablum. Don’t question what news sources I read while consuming Tim Pool, Jordan Peterson and other such content all day.

Much of my news does indeed come from left leaning sources. I use the CBC when it comes to most things Canadian Political, and The Majority Report for most things American political.

Is the Majority Report necessarily a NEWS source?

No. But any news material that they cover is backed up with source material from other journalists (and also easy to confirm). And they are also my main source of information in terms of what is happening in Right Wing Podcast land at any one time.

* * *

Now that I have that out of the way, I’ll switch to the topic that made me start writing this rant in the first place. The uncomfortable question that is the wisdom of running Joe Biden yet again for president.

In a sense, I hate that I am finding a need to say this. Given the trajectory of the United States of late (are we seeing a repeat of the Weimar Republic?), it could be said that having such an opinion as this could be detrimental to the process of liberal democracy itself.

I don’t know if Joe Biden is the only thing that stands between full on fascism, and democracy in the United States. Given the incompetence and also increasing senility of what stands at the head of the GOP at the moment, I feel like the assumption is just a little rash. But even the most incompetent leader can oversee big change if there is enough organization working under them. And if there is anything we know about evangelical Republicans, it’s that they are in it for the long game.

Either way, it is not me (or any other Biden critic) that should be shouldering the weight of this political transaction, however. Unlike the so called Democratic Party, WE did not choose to run a vanilla candidate (again) that had little favoribility to begin with. It was the closed ranks of the DNC that made that decision. So I encourage everyone to remember THAT before they start blaming Biden critics for the breakdown of democracy in the United States.

Without further ado, lets get into this:

The special counsel report released Thursday paints the 81-year-old president as suffering from mental decline. And it points to several examples from Biden’s hours-long interviews with investigators.

They include Biden struggling to remember what years he was vice-president and being way off when discussing the year of his son’s death.

This report landed amid stinging headlines involving the president’s repeated references lately to having recent conversations with long-dead world leaders.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/special-counsel-faculties-biden-analysis-1.7109811?cmp=newsletter_Morning%20Headlines%20from%20CBC%20News_1613_1393148

Arguably, anyone watching almost any Biden speech of any length over 5 or 10 minutes has figured this out already. But this seems to illustrate a problem greater than I am guessing the DNC wanted us to be aware of. Given what happened with Dianne Feinstein, it wouldn’t be the first time that a democrat has chosen their career over allowing the political and judicial process to function as freely as it can.

On the bright side, this report didn’t charge Biden for the documents which were found in his garage (though some were mislabelled). Unlike in the case of his GOP presidential counterpart (who went out of his way to attempt to hide the documents by having them moved around by Mar a Logo staffers and his not so smart attorneys), Biden was a wilful participant in the investigation. Given the amount that the guy likely has going on at any one time, i’m not surprised be probably overlooked some documentation in a house in Delaware that he likely rarely visits. You don’t have to be senile to make a mistake like that.

His memory “appeared to have significant limitations.”

It also said these lapses were evident not only in interviews with investigators last year, but also in recorded 2017 interviews Biden gave to his book ghostwriter.

The report says Biden struggled to remember what years he was vice-president: “If it was 2013 — when did I stop being vice-president?” it quotes him saying during an interview last fall. He left the vice-presidency in 2017.

The report also says: “He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died,” which was in 2015.

It also says his memory appeared “hazy” when describing a debate about troop levels in Afghanistan during the Obama administration.

That debate was once important to Biden, says the document, yet he struggled to remember basic details, describing one general he agreed with as someone he disagreed with.

The bottom line: “Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview… as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/special-counsel-faculties-biden-analysis-1.7109811?cmp=newsletter_Morning%20Headlines%20from%20CBC%20News_1613_1393148

Is this the man I want to be in charge of the Nuclear football until he is 84 years old? Then again, Donald Trump isn’t far behind him at 77 years old.

What a great choice Americans have this time around. Oh boy.

Americans have told pollsters they are concerned about the mental and physical health of both leading presidential candidates, Biden and Republican Donald Trump. In a recent speech, Trump, 77, mixed up his primary rival Nikki Haley with Democrat and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/special-counsel-faculties-biden-analysis-1.7109811?cmp=newsletter_Morning%20Headlines%20from%20CBC%20News_1613_1393148

Though the DNC (and probably Biden) has certainly not made this a great race by any means, this is not a reason to stay home. This may be one of the most high stakes elections in the history of the United States.

No matter what happens, remember that Biden is only the first in the chain of command. Next in line is the perfectly competent Kamala Harris. While she also may not have been your first choice, save that hesitation for 2028.

Can We Not Do This?

I guess I shouldn’t be taking meme culture so seriously. The meme is in line with my sense of humour. But none the less . . . god dammit metalheads.

If only the world were so simple.

1.) The Scene Then vs. Now

Being how much the cannabis potency argument annoys me (“This is not the pot your grandparents smoked!“) it might surprise people that I am going to use a similar argument here. In this case, however, it is less about the potency of the drug itself than it is about what could be cut along with it.

For starters, Ozzy’s drug preferences over the years seemed to be downers, many of which were opioid derivatives which would build a tolerance over time. This is very different from the party drugs and other drugs which many young people are taking today which are increasingly cut with substances like fentanyl and carfentanil.

b.) Don’t Glorify Disfunction

Whatever the reasons that Ozzy used drugs over the years, we shouldn’t be promoting or glamorizing the lifestyle. After all, even he decided to quit the lifestyle lest he end up dead like his worst drinking partners.

“I was saying to Sharon the other day, ‘Every one of my bad drinking partners are all dead.’ No one’s come back and said, ‘Hi, Oz, it’s cooler on this side. Come and join us,’” he said.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2017/09/14/ozzy-osbourne-reveals-the-disgusting-reason-he-finally-got-sober/

As the man himself realized, he could just as easily have joined the list of celeberties who died of overdoses or complications caused by their addictions.

If this seems hypocritical coming from a pro-cannabis advocate . . . then you are an idiot. If you are incapible of comprehending the diffrence between canabis and opioids (or even alcohol), you are not worth my time.

c.) Consequences Of The Black Market? / Final Thoughts

When it comes to the overdoses of today or in previous eras, I can’t help but wonder how much of it is driven by the unregulated nature of the entire market. This of course being in combination with the zeal for which law enforcement once put into enforcing all manor of drug policy. Not only are users novis and experienced consuming substances which were produced without any quality controls, but simply being in the presence of the substances may cause problems. How many people have died because companions were too afraid to dial 911 when a person clearly took a turn for the worst?

It has been the case enough times for the Canadian Association of Cheifs of Police to change its tune.

“Arresting individuals for simple possession of illicit drugs has proven to be ineffective. It does not save lives,” Palmer said. “The CACP recognizes substance use and addiction as a public health issue. Being addicted to a controlled substance is not a crime and should not be treated as such.

“We recommend that Canada’s enforcement-based approach for possession be replaced with a health-care approach that diverts people from the criminal justice system.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chiefs-police-decriminalize-posession-personal-use-1.5643687

While I applaude the work of the CACP for publicly taking the decriminalisation stance (and the province of British Columbia for enecting it as law, even if only temporarily), I remain on the side of legalization of all drugs.

Indeed, this is a big sell to a beaurocracy that still views cannabis with far more suspition than almost any other substance that has crossed its path (from various opioid compounds, to vaping technology). None the less, I view it as the only way to efficiently deal with the drug epidemic as it stands now.

As we should have learned from many decades of fighting the drug war world wide, there is no way to really control the flow of these substances into free societies. Hell, these things even find their way into closed societies, so what chance do we have of steming the tide?

So we should stop trying. Instead of fighting the unwinnible battle that is stopping illicit substances from entering our various nations, we should instead become invested in the production of these substances ourselves. Standardise variables like quality control, ingredients and potency, put the substances either into the age restricted, behind the counter, or the prescription required teirs of substance control.

Make sure to invest a good portion of the cash which was once used to fight drug offences into the health care system so as to ensure that help is availible to people that need it and feel ready to persue it. Ensure that information related to getting help for addictions is readily availible where such substances are sold, and even with the substances themselves. Much like how the canadian government mandates that a document showcasing a substances risks comes with any purchase/perscription of cannabis or opioids.

As much as some would like it, some people will never get the help that arguably need for their addiction. Whatever the reason for that unfortenute outcome is irrelevant.

Whether you are a believer in liberty (people should be free to consume the substance they choose to) or just a support regulation because it is the right thing to do. After all, if we are to overlook the effects of alcohol, why draw the line there?

From Now On, My Life Is X Free

Tonight, I come with an announcement that I feel will become quite common reasonably soon. Upon further inspiration from the Rocket Man himself, I finally decided it was time to entirely rescind my X (formerly Twitter) presence.

A funny tidbit . . . the emails from the company actually say X (formerly Twitter), to not confuse their users with their porn subscriptions?
Had I not already known that Xtube was a Mindgeek property, I may well have made the same mistake too. Even though even Xtube seems to be defunct now (yes, I checked).

Either way, I decided to close/deactivate all 3 of my Twitter identities because of one of Elon’s potential new ways of saving his sinking ship of an investment. Charging users a monthly fee for using the platform.

As the owner of the platform and the IP and such, that is completely his choice to make. I don’t think it a wise choice, nor did I think it wise to rebrand a social media site to something porn adjacent, but it isn’t my voice that matters. But my data does have a part in the operation for as long as I am using the platform and being served its notifications on the various peripheral devices that make up my life.

So I closed it all.

I don’t need a profile in my real name for the search engine crawlers because I have other cleaned-up legit profiles for employers and others to find. The profile meant to bring these blog posts to Twitter became useless once Elon and Automattic’s relationship broke down and the link was severed. Or, to put it simply, X got greedy. And my other profile (essentially a pseudonym) wasn’t getting much use, anyway.

In fact, none of the profiles were getting much use. Because every time I logged into any of them, I would see some form of the same right-leaning nonsense. Whether it’s Elon, Jorden Peterson, and an endless stream of Republican or Progressive Conservative politicians or other right-wing wingnuts, long gone are the days of browsing for interesting threads, let alone potential content for this blog. It was a platform gaining far more from me than I was getting from it. Particularly when I can’t even share my work on it.

So away from X I shall go. Since I’m already parked on Mastadon, maybe that will be my new choice?

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/29/23812780/tweet-change-name-post-x

If I were still a betting man, I would be taking bets on which company will last the longest at this point . . . X . . . or Lastpass.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/7/23862658/lastpass-security-breach-crypto-heists-hackers

Opioid Crisis Overlooking Former White House Drug Control Policy Advisor Thinks Rescheduling Cannabis “Does Not Follow The Science”

Of course, when I have stuff to do, Kevin Sebat would decide to bring his horseshit to Newsweek. Though he overlooked a greed-driven prescription narcotic epidemic for the better part of a decade, now he is getting real . . . with cannabis.

Yeah, this asshole boils my blood, so I won’t try to bother remaining neutral. As for the implication in the title, that background information can be found on his Wikipedia page (and is used as a credential by others referencing his opinions). Needless to say, I’ve about had it with this boomer hack and his little pro-prohibition organization trying to keep us in a failed status quo.

Even though there would seem to be nothing more American than supporting the failed status quo. Either way, on with the nonsense.

Now is not the time to change our national health mantra from “follow the science” to “follow the polls.” But that appears to be the motivation behind the August 29 announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that it submitted a letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) urging the agency to reschedule marijuana to Schedule III, one of the lowest schedules available, from the strictest category, Schedule I, where the drug has sat for more than 50 years.

https://www.newsweek.com/proposed-marijuana-rescheduling-doesnt-follow-science-opinion-1826107

How convenient that Sebat proposes we follow the science now when the overall knowledge of the substance is in its infancy. A void of information caused by the vicious prohibition of the substance enacted over the last 5 decades.

And it was not like the prohibition was brought on due to health or science reasons, either. Prohibiting marijuana and other psychedelic substances served as a convenient way to break down the irritating hippy movements of the 60s AND target primarily African-American individuals.

“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?

We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. 

Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon

Health and science were never taken into consideration.

If we were to consider such things, one has to question the legitimacy of the well-established but very dangerous alcohol market. Or a recent one that addicted a new generation to the age-old substance of nicotine, vaping.

And, of course, the hands-off approach that was taken towards stronger and stronger opioids. Take American Greed’s coverage of both Insys Pharmaceuticals and . . . countless other tales of doctors, companies and even college kids (I’m not kidding) profiting from this laissez-faire drug policy. Speaking of college kids profiting from opioids . . . one statistic mentioned on the program stands out. In the late 2000s, over 95% of opioids produced for the US market were being shipped to Florida.

95%.

WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU THEN, KEVIN?! THIS HAPPENED RIGHT UNDER YOUR FUCKING NOSE!!

This proposed change, like the drug up for discussion, doesn’t smell right. It comes just after intense pressure from pro-marijuana politicians in Congress and soon before a national presidential election. The precise timing of the announcement (HHS released it at 4:20pm) will make potheads around the country nod in approval, but DEA should reject this recommendation.

https://www.newsweek.com/proposed-marijuana-rescheduling-doesnt-follow-science-opinion-1826107

That is the thing about natural substances. Unlike the highly processed and manufactured ones Kevin prefers, nature sometimes comes with quite a skunky stench.

Let’s see how he backs his reasoning this time.

The recommendation comes after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed a supposedly exhaustive (but in reality rushed) “eight-factor analysis” to determine the new schedule. One wonders how it got there. The Obama administration last evaluated the drug in 2016 and found overwhelming evidence marijuana should remain in its current schedule. And any scientist following the latest research will tell you that today’s new, highly potent, THC-laden marijuana has only gotten much more damaging. To think the opposite, now implied by the new recommendation, is to employ the logic of Cheech and Chong.

What is Schedule III? It’s the category for drugs that have less abuse potential than Schedule I and II drugs like heroin, cocaine, LSD, and various opiates. Schedule III drugs include prescription steroids and some depressants not preferred by those with a drug use disorder (those are in Schedule II).

Some might think Schedule III is appropriate given marijuana’s mild reputation. But today’s marijuana is anything but mild: new research has found that users of high-potency THC products are nearly five times more likely to develop psychosis than nonusers. The NIH has warned that “higher doses of THC are more likely to produce anxiety, agitation, paranoia, and psychosis.” Use also increases suicide risk several times over.

https://www.newsweek.com/proposed-marijuana-rescheduling-doesnt-follow-science-opinion-1826107

Telltale boomer reference, of course (Cheech and Chong). And, of course, the old staple of the super duper potent cannabis of today.

It is not necessarily that this is wrong. It’s more that this is the case BECAUSE of cannabis has been illegal and unregulated for so long. There has never been much of a market for low to medium-dose THC (or, for that matter, balanced CBD and THC). Since most people didn’t use cannabis constantly in the illegal era, the focus has always been on the chronic return customers. As tolerance builds, the dosages always have to rise to keep pace. The result has been that newcomers to the substance have no option to “take it low and slow” (as is the recommendation of government literature here in Canada). You didn’t know what you were getting off the street dealer, but chances are you would be going for quite the ride. I remember some good trips, and I remember a couple overpowering ones.

Unlike the new Canadian market wherein the maximum dose of any edible product is 10mgs, I don’t quite understand how the dosages on the prerolls or the bulk (bagged) stuff is calculated, but there is also a maximum.

If you buy drinks, the dosages are generally 2.5, 5 or 10 mgs. The candies are generally sold in 10mg total doses but are easy to break apart for smaller doses (IE 2 or 4 candies. easy to break up chocolates, etc.).

It is much easier to control your experience post-2018 than in 2006. Although one of my recent experiences was borderline overpowering (I ate a whole 10mg chocolate bar and was not quite ready for that level of intoxication), it has not happened since. My dose is around 5mgs every so often.

Cannabis does not have to be overpowering and hazardous to new entrants to the substance. It can be regulated and controlled. Will that stop people from becoming addicted to it or running into mental health conditions because of it?

No. However, that has never caused any other substance to be scrubbed from the marketplace. Most notably, alcohol.

Higher use rates correspond to increases in adverse effects, from large increases in adolescent ER visits and increased hyperemesis syndrome (chronic vomiting) to higher marijuana addiction rates. And yes, marijuana is addictive. Studies show as many as one in three past-year users have cannabis use disorder, and a new study released last week from Washington state shows legalization has increased marijuana addiction.

Schedule III is also a head-scratcher because marijuana per se is not an FDA-approved drug. Schedule III drugs are all individually approved products traced by the government and tracked by pharmacies. No reasonable person thinks the FDA will now flex its enforcement power and do what DEA has never done—shut down all pot shops in noncompliance.

1.) When you add a new substance to the marketplace, it is only logical that all associated negatives and positives will go up correspondingly.

More parents improperly storing cannabis (just as many do alcohol and other drugs. I guess we don’t care about that, though). More people will become addicted, particularly if they switch from other substances (alcohol!) or suffer through a bad time in life. Which many people are at the moment.

As for hyperemesis syndrome (chronic vomiting), only further research will give us insight into why this is a thing for some heavy users of cannabis. Fortunately, the cure for this is generally abstaining from cannabis.

2.) Nitpicking the Schedule III designation is hilarious since you can only get there through research. Research that has not happened because of prohibition actions like those driven by Sebat here.

How convenient that your agenda creates the crux of your argument.

But this new schedule would allow the industry to deduct ordinary business expenses, as it would no longer be subject to Section 280E of the IRS regulations, which stops businesses from deducting expenses related to the trafficking of Schedule I drugs. This would make the marijuana industry much more profitable. Expect it to deduct ad expenses and widely promote THC-laced gummies, candies, and other products appealing to kids—the last thing this country needs. Like its Big Tobacco predecessor, the marijuana industry is predatory—it feeds a business model focused on serving high-frequency, high-potency users. It targets people of color: pot shops are concentrated in poorer neighborhoods (as liquor stores are) and the people benefiting from this new industry certainly do not come from those communities. It is hardly a beacon of social justice.

https://www.newsweek.com/proposed-marijuana-rescheduling-doesnt-follow-science-opinion-1826107

1.) The alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries can claim and write off their expenses and losses. So, for that matter, can the fast and processed food industries. Yet you only care about cannabis?

2.) The candies and such can be packaged in a manner that makes them less child-enticing. As they are in the Canadian market. If you want to solve the problem, you can.

3.) Of course, after overlooking the deaths of likely 10s of thousands of Americans at the hands of improperly prescribed and illegally obtained opioids, NOW Kevin Sebat cares about social justice. Now, he cares about the safety of our communities. NOW, he is a beacon of social justice.

What a piece of shit.

Medical formulations of THC are currently available on Schedule III for legitimate medical use. That does not need to change. But there is no reason to pretend marijuana is less harmful today than it was before.

https://www.newsweek.com/proposed-marijuana-rescheduling-doesnt-follow-science-opinion-1826107

Pretend cannabis is less harmful than it really is? Do you mean like you have been doing with opioids for your entire career?

There is no need to pretend. The market can be whatever you make of it.

It is highly unusual for one agency to announce—let alone at 4:20, the official “stoner hour”—a scheduling recommendation to another agency. In doing so, HHS put DEA in a difficult public position as the latter considers next steps, and factors outside of the HHS analysis, as the law allows it to do. Now, DEA has a chance to send a message that our kids’ future is more important than this industry’s bottom line. Let’s hope it makes the right choice.

https://www.newsweek.com/proposed-marijuana-rescheduling-doesnt-follow-science-opinion-1826107

I’m amused that the HHS would have the sense of humour to announce this at 4:20pm. I’m shocked that Kevin would not find this humorous.

But I do hope that the DEA does finally make the right decision.

It is time for dinosaurs like Kevin Sebat out of their misery. Because though they may claim decades of experience, they clearly have no fucking idea of what they are talking about.

Canadian Study Attributing Cannabis Impairment With Driving Injuries . . . Is Hot Garbage

https://www.firstpost.com/world/phd-students-shocked-after-viral-image-from-canada-varsity-shows-thesis-being-discarded-in-trash-cans-12630062.html

Unfortunately, those red books are not copies of this study. They, instead, are copies of the final thesis assignments of hundreds of (presumably) former University of Alberta (Edmonton) students. It’s unfortunate since I would hazard that they were more careful in their research than the authors of the cannabis driving study.

And all I was looking for was a dumpster full of books to make a point!

* * *

I have been seeing mention of this cannabis-driving study everywhere (from news agencies in Canada and the US), and I was curious about it. But it wasn’t really anything that seemed truly earth-shattering. After all, more and more of these studies are dropping daily, with ones highlighting negative effects going viral and ones highlighting anything positive primarily staying within the dedicated cannabis community. Exceptions happen when evidence is uncovered for some widespread medicinal purpose, but these are few and far between.

Having an active Google Alert on Marijuana research, I see these trends happen all the time. Another benefit is seeing when people present a wise antidote to the mass-published nonsense of these faulty research studies.

Which is exactly what we have today. Written by Sarah Friedman and published on Cannadelics, the article is called Canadian Study Ties Cannabis To Driving Injuries; But Is It Relevant?

We’ll get to the part where nothing makes sense, in a minute. But first, let’s take a look at the study in question. The study is called Cannabis-Involved Traffic Injury Emergency Department Visits After Cannabis Legalization and Commercialization; and undertook the question of whether cannabis use has had an impact on driving accidents.

The study did not collect its own data, rather it pulled from data sources. I always like to remind, in these cases, it means investigators are merely looking at records, with no ability to ask questions. This includes of patients, emergency room staff, or anyone else involved; like witnesses, or other participants. It involved no informed consent. It focused just on the province of Ontario, and looked at records for all emergency visits related to traffic injuries, which included cyclists and pedestrians, as well. Only the records of those 16 years and above were used.

The data was from January 2010 to December 2021. The investigators broke this down into three separate time frames for comparison: 1) January 2010-September 2018, which accounted for before legalization. 2) October 2018-March 2020, which accounted for the beginning period of legalization without a large-scale market. And 3) April 2020-December 2021, which accounted for after the market expanded out.

Investigators looked at reports of traffic injuries via the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). According to researchers, “We then identified traffic injuries with a documented diagnosis of cannabis involvement when an ICD-10 code for a mental and behavioral disorder due to cannabis use (F12.X) or for cannabis poisoning (T40.7) was listed as the main or contributing reason for the traffic injury ED visit.” Realistically (and logically), this only accounts for certain, on a positive cannabis test, physical product found, or a person admitting they used it.

This is important. As are the terms ‘main’ or ‘contributing.’ ‘Main’ means it’s the reason something happened. While ‘contributing’ doesn’t have to have any value to anything. For example, if a person goes to the hospital because they feel sick, and they’re diagnosed with lead poisoning as the main reason, that makes sense. But if that person also shows a positive cannabis test, the cannabis could then be considered a contributing factor, even though realistically, we know it was the lead.

In fact, researchers continue, “We also considered traffic injury ED visits to have cannabis involvement if a cannabis code was used during admission to the hospital or transfer to another ED.” Which means, if this is identified at the time of admission to the hospital, it ONLY means cannabis was found at the scene of the accident, or a person confirmed they used it; as no other tests could have been performed by that time.

https://cannadelics.com/2023/09/09/canadian-study-ties-cannabis-to-driving-injuries-but-is-it-relevant/

Imagine if a study was published using the same methodology but swapping out caffeine instead of cannabis. Imagine the number of injuries and fatalities one could theoretically find on North American roadways if everyone who admitted to consuming caffeine or was found with a coffee cup, pop/soda bottle or energy drink in their vehicle was counted in such a study.

You drive through an intersection on a green light and get sideswiped by someone running their red light. You are injured and end up being taken to the hospital. Though you can not talk, a half-full energy drink is found in your cupholder, so officers automatically assume you must have been drowsy. Even though it’s 7:30 a.m., and you always have some sort of caffeinated beverage on your morning commute. As is the case with literally millions of people around the world.

It really is that stupid.

Within the time frame investigated, researchers report there were 947,604 emergency room visits from traffic accidents. According to researchers, there were 426 defined as ‘traffic injury ED visits’ involving cannabis. That’s .04%, compared to the 7,564 involving alcohol, which accounts for .8%. Then the writers give a gender breakdown, but change the number of cannabis documented cases to 418, calling them ‘individuals with documented cannabis involvement.’ Perhaps only one implies documentation was available? Its unnecessarily unclear.

Investigators claim “Annual rates of cannabis-involved traffic injury ED visits increased 475.3% over the study period.” Apparently, during the same time, alcohol related emergency room visits went up 9.4%. The paper is saying that driving injuries went up when weed was legalized, at a far higher rate than alcohol-related driving injuries did, during the same time.

The authors conclude: “This cross-sectional study found large increases in cannabis involvement in ED visits for traffic injury over time, which may have accelerated following non-medical cannabis commercialization. Although the frequency of visits was rare, they may reflect broader changes in cannabis-impaired driving. Greater prevention efforts, including targeted education and policy measures, in regions with legal cannabis are indicated.”

https://cannadelics.com/2023/09/09/canadian-study-ties-cannabis-to-driving-injuries-but-is-it-relevant/

Interestingly enough, this could explain the cannabis education frenzy that has recently started where I live (Manitoba). Every bus, bus stop and anywhere else advertising is permitted now carries a couple warnings to the cannabis-consuming citizens of this province:

  • 19 years years and older only! Don’t buy it for under 18s!
  • Don’t drive when high, or you’re committing a DUI!

Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a bad thing. I was just curious about the reason for the sudden push. Maybe because of the upcoming stress of back to school and the ever-approaching holiday season?

No matter the reason, there are many reasons why this study is hot garbage.

his study is nothing more than an example of a study that needs to be retracted. Not only does it not inform us with any new information, but it seemingly seeks to make connections that aren’t there, in an effort to make a statement about cannabis being unsafe for roadways, . . .

  • People drive on cannabis all the time, and often while making other bad, and unrelated decisions. Like drinking alcohol. Like talking on a phone. Like eating. Like changing a music playlist. It’s like the example I gave of going to the hospital with lead-poisoning. That lead-poisoning is the issue, whether the person turns up positive for a cannabis test or not. The cannabis is not always (or seemingly, generally) relevant.
  • We have 0 other information of what else was going on. For example, how many of the people identified for cannabis, swerved from hitting a deer? How many were first-time drivers perhaps, or driving in horrible snow storms. It’s not even just that the weed presence doesn’t have to be a factor, but we don’t know literally anything else about the environment.
  • This study goes by the logic that no one smoked before legalization, only a few smoked during the beginning period, and then everyone else joined in after. This, of course, is known to be untrue. In fact, the push for the legalization was because of the massive size of the illicit market. People didn’t just start smoking and driving. Its downright silly to even make the assertion that a legalization increased the number of people driving stoned, at all. Its just a difference of whether they used legal or illicit weed to do it. It was already happening. Weed was already everywhere.

https://cannadelics.com/2023/09/09/canadian-study-ties-cannabis-to-driving-injuries-but-is-it-relevant/

I will push back on this point, though just a little. Though I don’t know how the numbers pan out, I have no doubt that there may be at least a slight increase in people driving high after legalization. No matter the state of the market beforehand, many people (me included) would have been excluded from it on account of not wanting to deal with the illicit part of it. Though I technically DID smoke cannabis when it was still illegal in 2006 to 2007 (ish), I never purchased it directly. I didn’t know where to get it; I was and would have been very leery even if I did.

Buying it with a credit card and having Canada Post deliver it to my house really made a huge difference. I have not even set foot in a dispensary yet!

Though I again don’t know the numbers, I would be curious how many people switch to cannabis from alcohol. I would guess that these people, like me, would be much more likely to embrace cannabis without the necessity of dealing with some Walter White-esk character. I would also hazard that they may take their bad habits (like driving drunk) to the new substance.

I saw no mention of anything related to testing frequency for cannabis in road accidents. As in, perhaps at a certain time, testing for that picked up speed, when it might not have otherwise been tested for all the time. Likewise, did all hospitals always test traffic accident victims for weed? Or did this increase at points during the time frame investigated? If it changed at any time, literally none of this is relevant. That information is painfully, and vitally important; and it wasn’t included.

https://cannadelics.com/2023/09/09/canadian-study-ties-cannabis-to-driving-injuries-but-is-it-relevant/

I couldn’t really find anything on this front. Possibly since roadside cannabis impairment is still much harder to detect than alcohol. Although one of the mechanisms for ridding the body of alcohol is the lungs, this is not the case for cannabis. And swab tests may detect cannabinoids long after the user has come down from the plateau of their high.

There is mixed research on this topic, but everything else with a similar statement, was investigated similarly. When looking at it in terms of insurance premiums (you know, the fees that go up when you drive badly?) this study found that locations with medical cannabis had decreased premiums, which implies less accidents and injuries. That was in the US. This isn’t to say that that study is definitely the right one. But if cannabis is related to confidently to so many accidents and injuries, wouldn’t we be talking about higher premiums for drivers, like, all the time?

https://cannadelics.com/2023/09/09/canadian-study-ties-cannabis-to-driving-injuries-but-is-it-relevant/

This seems like a good point. While not an answer to the above question, this insurer offers insight into how the Canadian insurance industry views cannabis.

In a nutshell:

Home Insurence: Excluding Manitoba and Quebec, each household can grow 4 cannabis plants (they are covered like any other plants you may own). Any number of plants over that can result in a voided policy. Cannabis smokers are ineligible for the non-smoker’s discount.

Auto Insurance: Being caught driving under the influence of cannabis will result in higher insurance rates and possibly other ramifications.

Life Insurance: Medicinal cannabis users will be questioned about their condition. Though recreational users don’t have to worry much, heavy users may face higher rates or policy disqualification.

The rest of the article warns about the perils of the perpetuation of this garbage research in the fast-moving news cycle (even if the study is retracted, that news rarely gets the attention of the original rubbish). The article author also recommends that the authors and publisher retract the original study due to its flawed nature.

Though that is unlikely (not to mention that the damage is already done), I agree. Rather than dominating the front pages of news sites, this study belongs in the depths of a dumpster.

If I Had The Money To Buy My Dream Home . . .

Daily writing prompt
What does your ideal home look like?

Today’s daily writing prompt posed an interesting question. It is a question to which the answer has changed over the years.

To start, I will go back to the answer of old. From when I started considering such things (early teens?) right up to my 30s, my ideal home would have been very much suburban. I now blame Hollywood for this, as a solid 95% of all media (popular or otherwise) I viewed at the time (beloved or not) was situated in picturesque American suburbia.

Though the mansions of films and shows such as Home Alone were certainly something to marvel at, I never even considered one of those homes. Take this modern equivalent in the University Park suburb of Dallas, Texas.

https://www.idesignarch.com/exquisite-suburban-home-in-dallas-with-curb-appeal/

Being a fan of the comedic drama Desperate Housewives since its debut in late 2004, my idea of the ideal home was far more ordinary. Unlike the status symbol mansions of Kevin McCallister’s neighbourhood on the outskirts of Chicago, the homes of Wisteria Lane were much more attainable. Though elegant and luxurious homes were available (like those occupied by Bre and Gabrielle), there were also many more affordable options for every type of buyer (from the family of 6 to the senior citizen living alone).

Here are a couple real-world examples.

Of course, I now know that the picture-perfect lawns and homes of Wisteria Lane are far from the reality of the everyday suburb conceived in much of North America today. A far better representation of this reality can arguably be found in the film The Watch.

The movie is idiotic and arguably a very expensive ad for the Costco Corporation. But few shows or films capture the empty reality of the mass consumption of suburban life quite as well as this film does unintentionally. Since the film tanked (hardly making more than its original costs), one has to question whether the reality hit too close to home for many in the audience.

Either way, my profound dislike of the suburban lifestyle is about more than just the empty promises. The older I get, the more aware I become that the fantasy almost never lives up to itself in the realm of reality (regardless of context). Plenty of media depicts that aspect of suburban living (be it intentionally or not).

One of the reasons I have turned my back on my former suburban dream comes from the self-realization that I am lazy. I already hardly have the time to keep up with the day-to-day housework required to keep a house functioning, let alone find time to carve out social calls with friends and hobbies. I don’t have the time or the desire to deal with mowing and caring for a lawn, the exterior of a home or any other associated tasks or expenses (pool?). Sure, you can hire people to do all of those things for you. But again, for an increasingly marked-up price.

Speaking of prices, taking on a new job in a large and popular department store has shown me how much maintaining the homes and lawns of suburbia costs. First, you need a lawn mower, weed whacker, and all little to large tools and implements to keep the greenery at bay. Then there is the grass seed, fertilizer, spreaders, aerators, sprinklers and other accessories that help keep the lawn golf course grade. Don’t forget the rake and the leaf blower for the fall cleanup and onset into winter.

Speaking of winter, snowblowers, shovels, ice picks, and sidewalk salt to eliminate pesky ice patches.

Come spring, a bag of concrete or a new cement tile to replace a salt-destroyed sidewalk or set of stairs (if you or a former owner used the wrong kind of concrete for the job. A common mistake!). Flowers to spruce up the house and help everyone forget about the hellish cold that just went away. And when spring turns to summer, the cycle starts all over again.

Even if I COULD afford to play in that multi-billion dollar game that is lawn maintenance, I don’t want to. Would it be nice to have a spacious backyard to relax in during the evening?

Maybe. But not for the amount of use I would get out of it. If I spent my evenings on a balcony and the occasional weekend at a cottage far from the light pollution and noise of the city, that would suit me just fine.

This brings me to my main reason for dropping the suburban dream (at least in the context of North American suburbs). Not only do they tend to be extremely unfulfilling to those enthralled in the lifestyle they entail, but they are also inherently unsustainable and very ecologically destructive. On top of this, they tend to be a financial burden on the cities and towns in which they surround.

The financial issues of suburbia boil down to what brings people out to them in the first place (space). The ecological problems mainly stem from the single form of transportation that drives North American suburban sprawl (cars).

Though the suburban lifestyle often screams wealth and prosperity, this is not a reality shared by the municipality tasked with serving the residents with the various essential services required to operate a neighbourhood. Not only is suburban sprawl a questionable use of land at the best of times, but sprawl is also very expensive to service and maintain.
Everything being further out and apart means more electrical/cable/telephone/fibre transmission lines, more piping for gas/water/sewage/storm drains, and more pavement to build streets and connecting highways. More fuel to power garbage trucks collecting the massive amount of garbage created by mass consumption and planned obsolescence.

And that is just the initial expense.

Infrastructure needs maintenance to remain fully functional (something particularly noticeable with roads and highways). The older these various systems become, the more cash is needed to maintain them to an operable condition. This is not even considering upgrades (which may be deemed necessary since legislation and environmental conditions change (climate change, anyone?!). Also not considered is inflation (today’s news story aside, everything gets more expensive with time, almost as a rule).

Unlike the operational costs of suburbia, what does not grow is the tax base relying on this infrastructure. Though it would likely be possible to boost the number of residents in an area through the subdivision of existing plots, chances are good that current residents will oppose such a measure. Many moved there for the space to begin with, after all.
This leaves a city with increasingly costly maintenance bills and stagnant tax pools. After all, people often don’t want to pay taxes (let alone the amount required to foot the increasing bill). And as the economy moves into questionable territory, people’s ability to pay a higher tax rate may become problematic.

Because of this, many North American cities face the very ironic reality of higher-density inner-city neighbourhoods filled with lower-income residents subsidizing lower-density yet higher-income suburban neighbourhoods.

As for the disastrous ecological impacts, it comes largely down to the scale of the development. Smaller neighbourhood populations live in bigger homes and drive around in larger vehicles (SUVs and light trucks).
Most of these homes are heated with fossil fuels in the winter months (since natural gas is almost always cheaper than electricity) and potentially cooled with them in the summer months (depending on the grid mix of the area). Heating and cooling alone create a larger carbon footprint than smaller homes elsewhere in the city.
But the biggest factor is the driving. Since walking and non-car transportation are often but an afterthought of residential development, people are forced to drive everywhere for everything. You can walk in these places, but the environment looks very different from the pedestrian’s perspective than a driver’s.

It is the difference between parking 2 or 300 feet away from the front door of a big box chain store versus being dropped off at the edge of the complex over 1000 feet away. Put another way, you want to go to Walmart but have to walk across Home Depot, Best Buy, and Petland’s parking lots before you even reach the edge of the Walmart lot.
And this is assuming you can even get public transportation to the location (presumably by bus). Good luck navigating the often segregated and overly car-centric sprawl of many subdivisions before you even GET to the shopping center.

The current configuration of most suburban living in North America is not sustainable by any means. Not only does suburban living consume massive amounts of energy in all forms, but the return on that investment is questionable. Though the suburbs have fans and proponents, discontent with the lifestyle has become so well-known that it is now a Hollywood trope.
If a phenomenon costs us so much and seemingly does not even bring all that much collective happiness in the interim, why do we continue enabling it to the point of self-destruction?

It’s insanity on a continental scale.

As you now know, my idea of what constitutes my ideal home has shifted drastically over the years. Though I am now fairly well-versed in the dynamics of walkable cities and new urbanism, a documentary called The End Of Suburbia planted the first seeds of doubt.

This was just one in a series of doomy documentaries I watched between 2010 and 2011 after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster scared the shit out of me.

I am uncertain how the information in this documentary holds up (I have since found a far more in-depth explanation of the 2003 blackout, for example).
Another question I have lies with the main premise of the doc . . . In a nutshell, there soon will not be enough fossil fuel energy left to keep running everything that we are running today. Or, more accurately, it will not be economically feasible to keep running everything we are running today.
On the one hand, the price of petroleum has been spiking and spiking all through the 2010s and into the 2020s (particularly with recent world instability). But on the other hand, oil companies and cartels (yes, this is a proper use of the word) are limiting their output to the max despite sky-high post-pandemic demand. Because, as it turns out, you can essentially print fiat currency of any kind when you control the output of the resource that runs the world. Because when everyone is so busy blaming their national leadership, the real villains of the situation (corporate oligarchs) can continue to milk the fakeflation crisis for all its worth.

That isn’t a real word? Neither were greedflation, shrinkflarion or tipflation until recently. Welcome to the 2020s!

Now that I have thoroughly torched what remained of my once prominent suburban dream, I suppose it is time to move on to the next phase. Where do I want to live?

Amsterdam?

Maybe Switzerland?

Since I don’t see myself crossing the pond anytime soon, however, this likely will not be a reality. At least not anytime soon.

I should start with my requirements. At least 2 bedrooms. Another bedroom (or a room that can function as a private office slash painting studio). The rest isn’t all that important.

This would certainly suffice. Though the view may well mess with my fear of heights, imagine the mornings and evenings you could spend on that balcony. And the weather watching . . . that would be a beautiful spot to watch thunderstorms. It’s spacious enough for every present and future hobby I could ever engage in.

But it’s just a tad out of my price range. I don’t know exactly HOW much, but that view isn’t cheap. That, and it is in Dallas. I’m not sure that I want to be many stories in the air in a state with questionable water security in the coming decades.

I guess we’re not done with the dark clouds after all!

As it turns out, though, this isn’t necessarily bad. What type of home would fit a gloomy cynic like me?

Clearly, a Victorian! Though I am a fan of the painted lady style, I am very fond of the gothic style of Victorian. The Darker, the better!

Check out this specimen located in Macungie, Pennsylvania:

https://www.oldhousedreams.com/2021/11/13/1874-gothic-revival-in-macungie-pa/

It may as well be called the brick beauty! Though my initial thought was to paint the pink parts black, that would ruin some of the future curbside appeal. So, I would settle for painting the white trimming and the back porch black.

Though the 6 bedrooms would indeed be over the top for my needs (I guess I would need to take in 2 renters), Having more than enough space for my everyday needs and my hobbies would be great. Hell, I could have an office AND my own space for painting in the tower!

One issue with that little room is things may get a little chilly in the winter and toasty in the summer. But that is hardly an issue with several bedrooms and a giant sunroom in which could also become the painting studio.

One thing is for sure, though . . . the interior white has to go.

While the interior does not have to be quite THAT dark, the white space should definitely be in contrast instead of the overwhelming tone.

If I purchased this house, my speech about not living beyond your needs and my rant about lawn care would go out the window. In my defence, however, I said I would take in a renter or 3. Though the house is oversized for my needs, you don’t see many NIMBY-spewing suburbanites wanting renters even in the subdivision (let alone in the spare bedroom!).
This, and the fact that lawn care companies exist. Not to mention that there are various ways to convert a lawn to other lower maintenance (and much more sustainable) turfs. However, that will depend on the local ordinances and neighbours.

After all, I’m already changing the exterior facade of a local landmark. Turning the lawn into a giant rock garden may put the old-timers in town over the edge.

Biology vs Dogma – Richard Dawkins addresses The Gender Question

Today we will be looking into an article in which Richard Dawkins exposes his opinion regarding the importance of biological sex. Published in The New Statesman by Richard Dawkins, the article is titled “Why Biological Sex Matters” with the secondary headline “Some argue that lived experience and personal choice trump biology – but they are wrong“.

Though I have heard this conversation happening more and more in the past few years, I had initially decided not to chime in because, frankly, why bother. My days of pissing in the wind (ie attempting to change the mind of people who have no intention of questioning their stances) have long since passed.
But then I happened upon this article. An article which used the word thinker to describe someone with an opinion that comes across (at least on the surface) as equally childish as the average justification for theism. Given the article’s author, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow.

Let us begin.

In 2011, I was invited to guest edit the Christmas double issue of the New Statesman. I enjoyed the experience, which involved a visit to Christopher Hitchens in Texas to conduct what turned out to be his last interview. I didn’t ask him, “What is a woman?” In 2011, it wouldn’t have occurred to anyone to ask such a daft question. Today it is hurled at embarrassed and perplexed politicians, in tones that are challenging to the point of belligerence. It isn’t hard to imagine Hitchens’ response if he could be asked it today.

My main contribution to that Christmas issue was a long essay on “The tyranny of the discontinuous mind”. Everywhere you look, smooth continua are gratuitously carved into discrete categories. Social scientists count how many people lie below “the poverty line”, as though there really were a boundary, instead of a continuum measured in real income. “Pro-life” and pro-choice advocates fret about the moment in embryology when personhood begins, instead of recognising the reality, which is a smooth ascent from zygotehood. An American might be called “black”, even if seven eighths of his ancestors were white.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

1.) Considering Hitchens wrote Why Women Are Not Funny, this may be a sign of how the winds of that inquiry would blow. Since dead men tell to tails, however, I feel no need to guess what he may or may not have thought about this question.

2.) What?!

2 paragraphs in and I don’t see anything but unrelated rambling.

Anthropologists quarrel over whether a fossil is late Homo erectus or early Homo sapiens. But it is of the very nature of evolution that there must be a continuous sequence of intermediates. You can vote on your 18th birthday but not before, as though the stroke of midnight signals a quantum leap in your political competence. Universities award first-, upper second-, lower second- and third-class degrees, even though everyone knows that the top of any one class is much further from the bottom of the same class than it is from the bottom of the class above. There are Oxford dons with faith in something they call “the alpha mind”, a Platonic “ideal form”, like a perfect triangle hanging pristine and aloof above messy reality.

If the editor had challenged me to come up with examples where the discontinuous mind really does get it right, I’d have struggled. Tall vs short, fat vs thin, strong vs weak, fast vs slow, old vs young, drunk vs sober, safe vs unsafe, even guilty vs not guilty: these are the ends of continuous if not always bell-shaped distributions. As a biologist, the only strongly discontinuous binary I can think of has weirdly become violently controversial. It is sex: male vs female. You can be cancelled, vilified, even physically threatened if you dare to suggest that an adult human must be either man or woman. But it is true; for once, the discontinuous mind is right. And the tyranny comes from the other direction, as that brave hero JK Rowling could testify.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

And we go right from babbling rambling nonsense to persecution complex and hero worship in the span of a single paragraph.

God damn. Richard Dawkins knows how to segway.

Sex is a true binary. It all started with the evolution of anisogamy – sexual reproduction where the gametes are of two discontinuous sizes: macrogametes or eggs, and microgametes or sperm. The difference is huge. You could pack 15,000 sperm into one human egg. When two individuals jointly invest in a baby, and one invests 15,000 times as much as the other, you might say that she (see how pronouns creep in unannounced) has made a greater commitment to the partnership.

Anisogamy is the rule in most animals, but it hasn’t always been so. Some primitive animals and plants are still “isogamous”: instead of macrogametes and microgametes, they have medium-sized (iso)gametes. Both partners contribute equally to the joint investment. To make a viable zygote you need the sum of two isogametes, each worth half a zygote. The same requisite sum can be achieved if one partner contributes a slightly smaller isogamete, but this will work only if the other partner chips in with a larger isogamete to redress the shortfall. You could say the minority investor is exploiting the partner who commits the larger gamete.

Generally speaking, I don’t doubt that this is the rule of thumb. After all, it would be very difficult to pass on an understanding of various worldly phenomena without establishing clear boundaries to start from. However, these are again but a starting point.

Viewing the male versus female gender binary as anything but a starting point leaves out many perfectly legitimate phenomenons, such as intersex individuals. To quote the Clevland Clinic website:

People who are intersex have genitals, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don’t fit into a male/female sex binary.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/16324-intersex

What of these people?

You can perhaps see where this argument is going, and it has indeed been modelled mathematically. Isogamy is unstable. Under plausible conditions, we get runaway evolution towards some individuals making smaller and smaller gametes, while others go in the other direction, making larger and larger gametes. At the end of the runaway, we now have microgametes that actively seek out macrogametes, and they evolve wriggling tails to propel their pursuit. Macrogametes are in demand, and have no need to go out looking for microgametes. Because microgametes are so small, individuals who make them can afford to make many. Macrogametes have to be few because, as economists love to say, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The imbalance also means that microgamete producers (“he/him”) can mate with lots of different macrogamete producers (“she/her”), deserting each one in turn. Or they can sequester for themselves a harem of she/hers. There’d be no point in a she/her gathering a harem of he/hims around her: she doesn’t have enough macrogametes to benefit.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

As not a biologist, I admit that I can not follow what is being said here. As such, I’m not going to give a comment.

The anisogamy binary furnishes the oldest and deepest way to distinguish the sexes. There are others, but they are less universally applicable. In mammals and birds, you can do it with chromosomes. Each body cell of a normal human has 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Among these are two sex chromosomes, called X or Y, one from each parent. Females have two Xs, males one X and one Y. Any mammal with a Y chromosome will develop as a male. When a male makes sperm (“haploid”, having only one set of 23 chromosomes), 50 per cent of them are Y sperm, destined to beget sons, and 50 per cent are X sperm, which make daughters. Birds and butterflies have a similar system, but the other way around. It is females that have XY, except that they’re called ZW. In flies, the equivalent of the Y chromosome is a zero. If a fly has two sex chromosomes she’s female. A fly with only one sex chromosome is male. Many reptiles use temperature instead of chromosomes. Turtles that are incubated below 27.7°C develop as male, warmer eggs as female.

Clownfish determine sex not by temperature but by dominance. All but one of the members of a group are male, and like many animals they sort themselves into a dominance hierarchy. There is only one female in the group. When she dies, the dominant male changes sex and becomes the female. What this means in gametic terms is that his testes shrink and ovaries grow instead. The principle of binary sex at the level of micro- and macro-gametes is maintained. Hermaphrodites such as earthworms and land snails have testes and ovaries all in the same body at the same time. Snails are capable of exchanging sperm both ways, having first violently fired harpoons into each other. Angler fish also have both male and female organs in the same body. But it comes about in a curious way. Males are diminutive dwarves; they locate a female, sink their jaws into her body wall, and then become part of her as no more than a tiny testicular excrescence.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

I appreciate the lesson on reproduction. But again, all I see are the guidelines set forth in any biology textbook. We KNOW this is how things more or less work out to be. But the world is made up of more than just the perfectly reproduced offspring of this argument.

Dare I say, intersexed people? Homosexual people?

Where does this well-established group within our society fit into this dichotomy? Oh yeah . . . THEY DON’T.

In mammals, including humans, there are occasional intersexes. Babies can be born with ambiguous genitalia. These cases are rare. The highest estimate, 1.7 per cent of the population, comes from the US biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling. But she inflated her estimate hugely by including Klinefelter and Turner syndromes, neither of which are true intersexes. Klinefelter individuals have an extra X chromosome (XXY) but their Y chromosome ensures that they are obvious males, producing microgametes, albeit from reduced testes. Turner individuals are unambiguous females with no Y chromosome and only one (functioning) X chromosome. They have a vagina and uterus, and their ovaries, if any, are non-functional. Obviously, Klinefelter (always male) and Turner (always female) individuals must be eliminated from counts of intersexes, in which case Fausto-Sterling’s estimate shrinks from 1.7 per cent to less than 0.02 per cent. Genuine intersexes are way too rare to challenge the statement that sex is binary. There are two sexes in mammals, and that’s that.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

Well, at least we’re finally acknowledging the elephant in the room.

It is interesting to me to see this gatekeeping as to what counts as intersexed. Whether or not Klinefelter and Turner syndromes count shows an entirely dogmatic process in thinking on Dawkins’s part. There are far too few truly intersexed people to ever discount the notion that Man is man and Women is women.

Period.

I can understand wherein this tendency is coming from. The sciences are all about reproducing results. It makes perfect sense to stick to expect the guidelines to always be applicable in fields such as chemistry and physics. They are called the Laws of physics, after all.

While it is understandable that people would bring this (dare I say) philosophy to biology and the life sciences, I don’t think it is correct. For one thing, what of the edge cases such as intersex individuals?

If someone found an edge case in the realm of physics, the reaction would not be to brush this aside as a mere inconvenience to the mass of data already pointing elsewhere. The response of the scientific community would be to investigate and further replicate.

An example that comes to mind is the Kings Cross Tube Station Fire in 1987 (in London). Amongst the many lessons the authorities took from that blaze, the entire physics community also took a lesson.

The trench effect.

The trench effect is a combination of circumstances that can rush a fire up an inclined surface. It depends on two well-understood but separate ideas: the Coandă effect from fluid dynamics and the flashover concept from fire dynamics:

The Coandă effect is the tendency of a fast stream of gases to bend towards, and adhere to, nearby surfaces. The stream’s static pressure tends to decrease, which creates a pressure difference between the surface and areas far from it. This bends the stream towards the surface and tends to keep it attached to that surface.
Flashover is a sudden widespread fire, which occurs when most surfaces in a space are heated until they emit flammable gases hot enough to auto-ignite. Before flashover, flammable gases may be emitted but are too cool to ignite.

The trench effect occurs when a fire burns beside a steeply inclined surface. The flames lie down along the surface, demonstrating the Coandă effect. The flames heat the material farther up: these emit gases that autoignite in a flashover event. The flames from these areas are themselves subject to the Coandă effect and blow a jet of flame up to the end of the inclined surface. This jet continues until the fuel depletes.

https://www.hellenicaworld.com/Science/Physics/en/Trencheffect.html

Imagine if the reaction to this seeming abnormality within the dynamics of physics were dealt with in the same way that Richard Dawkins (and people like him) are dealing with the abnormalities of biology. Imagine if the physics world ignored the implications of the trench effect.

It’s hard to imagine to the point of being asinine. Why wouldn’t we want to learn more about a phenomenon with real-world implications, such as dealing with wildfires?

While ignoring outcasts of the gender binary presented by people such as Dawkins may not seem as inherently dangerous as the previous topic, consider it from the individual perspective of the people involved. Because of the capitalistic reward system of our society, people in these tiny outcast groups will be underrepresented in terms of the medical community. It is not financially worthwhile for drug manufacturers to pursue medications for such individuals because of the lack of financial reward.

But what about gender? What is gender, and how many genders are there? It is now fashionable to use “gender” for what we might call fictive sex: a person’s “gender” is the sex to which they feel that they belong, as opposed to their biological sex. In this meaning, “genders” have proliferated wildly. When I last heard, there were 83. But that was yesterday. What does “gender” actually mean?

Language evolves, and many words change their meaning on a timescale of centuries. But “gender” has been fast-tracked. It is primarily a linguistic technical term. Linguists classify words of a given language according to such things as the suffixes on adjectives that qualify them, or their agreeing pronouns and articles. All French nouns follow either le or la. They take different pronouns, and adjectives agree with them in a gendered way (le chapeau blanc but la robe blanche). Normally (there are exceptions, such as la souris for a mouse of either sex) males are le and females la. This makes it convenient to use the label “masculine” for le words and “feminine” for la words. Table is a feminine word, but French speakers don’t think of a table as a female piece of furniture. It’s just a la word. Lithuanian also has two genders, but possessive pronouns agree with the gender of the possessor (as in English) whereas in French they agree with the gender of the object possessed. Estonian has only one gender, which I suppose means no gender – the very idea of gender is meaningless. Some Bantu languages such as Nyanja, the dominant language of my childhood home of Malawi, have many. Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct quotes Kivunjo as having 16 genders. These are not 16 sexual identities, they are 16 families of nouns classified according to how verbs agree with them.

In English, as in French, gender and sex align. All female animals are of feminine gender, all males are masculine, all inanimate things are neuter (with whimsical exceptions such as ships and nations, which can be feminine). Because of the perfect correlation between sex and gender in English grammar, it was natural for English speakers to adopt “gender” as a genteel euphemism for sex: “Sam is of female gender” sounded more polite than “of female sex”.

But that convention recently gave way to another one. The fashion for females to “identify as” male and for males to “identify as” female has emplaced an assertive new convention. Your genes and chromosomes may determine your sex, but your gender is whatever floats your boat: “I was assigned male at birth, but I identify as a woman.” Finally, the wheel turns full circle, and self-identification has now gone so far as to usurp even “sex”. A “woman” is defined as anyone who chooses to call herself a woman, and never mind if she has a penis and a hairy chest. And of course this entitles her to enter women’s changing rooms and athletic competitions. Why should she not? She is, after all, a woman, is she not? Deny it and you are a transphobic bigot.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

You are a transphobic bigot. At least you got one thing right, Richard.

When confronted with this old argument again, I can’t help but think of what has always been my reply . . . who cares?! I don’t care if you feel male, female or neither. It has no bearing on my life whatsoever.

Use whatever restroom you choose. I don’t care, and neither should anyone else.

High priests of postmodernism teach that lived experience and feelings trump science (which is just the mythology of a tribe of oppressive colonialists). Catholic (but not Protestant) theologians declare that consecrated wine actually becomes the blood of Christ. The dilute alcohol solution that remains in the chalice is but an Aristotelian “accidental”. The “whole substance” (hence the word “transubstantiation”) is divine blood in true reality. In the new religion of transsexual transubstantiation, a “woman’s penis” is just an “accidental”, a mere social construct. In “whole substance” she is a woman. A trans-substantiated woman.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

It is rather telling here that Richard is citing the dogmatic nature of religion to make his case because he has done exactly the same thing with science. Instead of expressing the curiosity of a physicist discovering a new behaviour in fluid and fire dynamics, he is digging his heels in like a typical preacher or priest. Hardly the behaviour of someone who was once considered a top-notch rationalist.

Sarcasm aside, gender dysphoria is a real thing. Those who sincerely feel themselves born in the wrong body deserve sympathy and respect.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

And yet, here we are.

I was convinced of this when I read Jan Morris’s moving memoir, Conundrum (1974). As what she called a “true transsexual”, she distanced herself from “the poor cast-aways of intersex, the misguided homosexuals, the transvestites, the psychotic exhibitionists, who tumble through this half-world like painted clowns, pitiful to others and often horrible to themselves”. Under “misguided” she might have added today’s unfortunate children who, latching on to a playground craze, find themselves eagerly affirmed by “supportive” teachers, and au courant doctors with knives and hormones. See Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (2020); Kathleen Stock’s Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism (2021); and Helen Joyce’s Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality (2021). Many of us know people who choose to identify with the sex opposite to their biological reality. It is polite and friendly to call them by the name and pronouns that they prefer. They have a right to that respect and sympathy. Their militantly vocal supporters do not have a right to commandeer our words and impose idiosyncratic redefinitions on the rest of us. You have a right to your private lexicon, but you are not entitled to insist that we change our language to suit your whim. And you absolutely have no right to bully and intimidate those who follow common usage and biological reality in their usage of “woman” as honoured descriptor for half the population. A woman is an adult human female, free of Y chromosomes.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

And so we end this long-winded babbling with yet another showcase of Dawkins’s persecution complex and a firm commitment to never change his mind on the subject. Quite the display of aloofness from a once renowned communicator of science.

I may have my issues with Neil Degrasse Tyson, but at least he knows how to handle this subject and all the social implications that come with it.

When I look at the arguments that people like Richard Dawkins and JK Rowling bring to the table, I see nothing more than science being exploited to cover either bigotry or lack of understanding of the complexity that makes up now just the human condition but life in general. Even if the rules of biology and evolution more or less explain much of what we can see and study around us, there is and always has been some messiness that does not fit into these neat little explanations.

Mutations and the results of genetic mistakes or errors are one example. To focus on another, homosexuality. Given what we know about sexual reproduction, there would seem no purpose for this trait in the animal kingdom. Yet it still persists both in the human population AND in the animal community.

Though it’s been years since I last cited this National Geographic video, here it is again (the quality certainly shows its age).

When I consider the bias of homosexuality from the perspective of a typical bigot, religious views (it’s a sin) account for part of the problem. However, the far more prominent belief comes in the notion that homosexuality is inherently unnatural.

We know this isn’t true. But it makes for a convenient cover argument for those who don’t understand nature’s dynamics and have alternative agendas. Plus, the notion of homosexuality as unnatural behaviour makes perfect sense in an ordered universe with a hand guiding every moving part.

There are no doubt many factors at play when it comes to so-called rationalists digging in their heels when it comes to changing ideals. Humans are as much a black box as any AI algorithm that scares the crap out of people. The driver of a conclusion in 1 person may be completely different from what drives a similar conclusion in another person.
Where these rationalists and theists may meet is in their flawed notion of nature having a guiding hand. Or, to put it another way, the idea of things like reproduction as having a purpose.

There is no purpose to any of this. The only purpose in the world is the purpose WE ascribe to things. To cite the famous phrase of this era:

I could, of course, be wrong with this hypothesis. But I can’t comprehend what else would drive such an irrational belief in a person. A life without purpose is a life without meaning, and a life without meaning as one approaches death could be quite a bitter pill to swallow.

But it does not have to be. Take a cue from Neil Degrasse Tyson.