---

Doechii’s 2025 single Anxiety has emerged as a significant cultural and commercial success, demonstrating both wide appeal and strategic artistic execution. Upon its release, the song debuted at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 and reached number 10 in its second week, making it her highest-charting solo single in the United States to date.¹ Globally, Anxiety achieved number-one chart positions in Australia, Greece, Latvia, New Zealand, and Switzerland.² This marked Doechii’s first top-ten entry in numerous international markets and established her as a breakout global artist.

The track gained additional attention for creatively sampling Gotye’s 2011 hit “Somebody That I Used to Know,” which itself incorporated Luiz Bonfá’s 1967 instrumental “Seville.”³ This layered intertextuality not only enriched the sonic landscape of Anxiety but also connected the song to a rich history of musical borrowing and reinterpretation.

In tandem with the song’s success, Doechii launched “Anxiety Is Watching Me,” a free online hub offering mental health resources.⁴ This initiative underscores a growing trend of artists addressing mental health openly while leveraging their platform for public advocacy. In doing so, Doechii’s project transcended entertainment and contributed to the broader cultural discourse on anxiety and wellness.

---

Notes:

1. “Doechii’s ‘Anxiety’ Hits Top 10 on Billboard Hot 100,” Billboard, March 24, 2025.

2. “Anxiety (Doechii song),” Wikipedia, last modified April 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_(Doechii_song).

3. Ibid.

4. Tony Bravo, “Doechii launches free mental health website inspired by hit song ‘Anxiety,’” San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 2025, https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/article/doechii-mental-health-website-20250533.php.

---

Other stuff

Shut up trump with Sophia powers

Canadian

I

Triggernometry blaming the left

---

You know, Triggernometry blaming the left for the breakdown of media is a bit like blaming the waiter when the chef poisoned your food. Sure, he brought it to the table—but the cook in the back has been spitting in the soup since the Bush years.

Let’s be honest—Fox News never aimed for truth. It aimed for ratings. Saying Fox News “lowered the bar” is generous. They didn’t lower the bar—they sold it to a pawn shop and told their viewers it was the liberals who stole it.

Trump didn’t invent media distrust—he just stuck a red hat on it and told it Obama wasn’t American. He didn’t break the system. He realized the system was already broken, then monetized the sh*t out of it.

And now we’ve got these podcasters acting shocked that no one trusts the media. That’s like lighting a fire, selling marshmallows, and then complaining about the smoke.

The idea that news ever made money by telling the truth is adorable. Real journalism is expensive and inconvenient. Outrage is cheap and scalable. That’s not a bug in the system—it’s the business model. And who built that model? Not NPR. Not the Guardian. It was Rupert f***ing Murdoch and friends.

So when Triggernometry cries about cancel culture and declining media trust, it’s either disingenuous, ahistorical, or just good old-fashioned selective amnesia. Which, to be fair, is very on brand for the culture warriors—they only remember history when it flatters them.

---

 Here’s a chart of Greek letters used in mathematics with examples of how they are used:

Greek Letter	Uppercase	Lowercase	Name	Mathematical Example
Alpha	Α	α	Alpha	α = 30° (angle)
Beta	Β	β	Beta	β = 0.5 (coefficient)
Gamma	Γ	γ	Gamma	γ = 1.618 (golden ratio)
Delta	Δ	δ	Delta	Δx = 5 (change in x), δ = 0.001 (small change)
Epsilon	Ε	ε	Epsilon	ε → 0 (in limits)
Zeta	Ζ	ζ	Zeta	ζ = 0.8 (damping factor)
Eta	Η	η	Eta	η = 0.2 (efficiency)
Theta	Θ	θ	Theta	θ = π/4 (angle in radians)
Iota	Ι	ι	Iota	ι = index in summation notation
Kappa	Κ	κ	Kappa	κ = 2 (curvature)
Lambda	Λ	λ	Lambda	λ = 0.1 (wavelength)
Mu	Μ	μ	Mu	μ = 0.5 (mean or coefficient of friction)
Nu	Ν	ν	Nu	ν = 60 Hz (frequency)
Xi	Ξ	ξ	Xi	ξ = random variable
Omicron	Ο	ο	Omicron	Rarely used in mathematics
Pi	Π	π	Pi	π = 3.14159 (circle constant)
Rho	Ρ	ρ	Rho	ρ = 1.2 kg/m³ (density)
Sigma	Σ	σ/ς	Sigma	Σ = Σ(xi) (summation), σ = 2 (standard deviation)
Tau	Τ	τ	Tau	τ = 5 seconds (time constant)
Upsilon	Υ	υ	Upsilon	υ = speed of light in certain equations
Phi	Φ	φ	Phi	φ = 1.618 (golden ratio)
Chi	Χ	χ	Chi	χ² = chi-square statistic in hypothesis testing
Psi	Ψ	ψ	Psi	ψ = wave function in quantum mechanics
Omega	Ω	ω	Omega	ω = 2πf (angular frequency), Ω = resistance (ohms)

This table provides the Greek symbols, their corresponding names, and mathematical examples where they are typically used.

Hit Canada #tradeconflict #funny #automobile #comedysc

 

---

The Anxiety Meme: A Viral Dance and a Revival of Iconic TV Moments

The song Anxiety by Doechii was originally released on November 10, 2019, but it was largely forgotten until it experienced a resurgence in early 2025. A remix of the song began circulating on TikTok, where it quickly became the soundtrack to a viral dance trend. Most people are familiar with the first part of the meme: users dancing to this particular track in various creative ways. However, the dance also featured a subtle homage to The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, a beloved 1990s television show.

The key moment referenced was the secret shadow dancer — a figure dancing behind someone else, reminiscent of the famous scene from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, where Will Smith's character mimics Tatyana Ali’s character in a playful, behind-the-back manner. This gesture of homage, combined with the new music, led to a flood of video variations across social media, blending nostalgia with contemporary sound.

On March 14, 2025, a surprising twist took place. Will Smith, who had been involved in controversy following his actions at the 2022 Oscars, reached out to the creator of the Anxiety remix. Together, they recreated the iconic dance scene from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, now set to Doechii’s remix. The video was an instant hit, and in many ways, it symbolized Smith’s attempt to rise from the fall of his public image. By partnering with the creator of the remix, Smith’s attempt at a cultural redemption lifted the Anxiety track to even greater heights, intertwining both their stories in a unique moment of viral culture.

In doing so, Will Smith not only paid tribute to his own past but also highlighted the power of the internet to revive and transform cultural touchstones. The combination of old-school dance moves, new viral music, and a popular meme turned into a larger commentary on redemption, both personal and artistic.

---

Citations:

1. Entertainment Weekly. "Will Smith and Tatyana Ali Recreate the Iconic 'Fresh Prince' Dance in Viral TikTok." March 14, 2025.

2. People. "Will Smith Reunites with 'Fresh Prince' Costar Tatyana Ali to Recreate Their Trending 'Anxiety' Dance." March 14, 2025.

---

The Video That May End MrBeast (largest YouTuber on the Planet)

..Regulation and law are essentially the same; regulations are just laws that specifically govern business practices. For example, it’s illegal to poison people through certain types of food, but not because businesses are inherently barred from selling harmful products—regulation makes it illegal. Otherwise, the principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) takes over: if you buy it and get sick or die, that’s on you.

Without direct regulation, we rely on indirect regulation—primarily through the tort system, which allows people to sue for harm caused by businesses. If someone sells you food that could kill you, was it a simple accident, or were they so indifferent to your safety that they knowingly caused harm? The legal system sorts that out, but even tort law is a form of regulation, just applied retroactively through court rulings rather than proactive rules. Many harmful business practices remain legal until a legal precedent is set one way or another, meaning you never know for sure whether you’ll get justice.

A good example is Disney’s terms of service for Disney+, where users effectively sign away their right to sue. It’s technically your responsibility to read the fine print, but in reality, nobody does. If enough people challenge this in court, the legal system may eventually overturn such agreements, but until then, businesses use them to shield themselves from liability.

It’s true that businesses generally can’t survive long-term if they keep killing their customers—unless addiction is involved. But not all industries rely on repeat customers. Many operate on a predatory model, profiting from a constant stream of new consumers rather than maintaining a loyal base. These businesses function more like parasites, extracting value from each host before moving on to the next.

A system can sustain a certain number of parasites before it collapses, but without regulation—whether direct or through the courts—that collapse becomes inevitable. Markets don’t self-correct in time to prevent harm when businesses prioritize short-term profit over long-term viability. Regulation isn’t just about fairness—it’s about preventing systemic failure before it’s too late.

 The first time it happens, it’s a fluke. A clerical error. A miscommunication. A single man taken without charge, without trial, and sent elsewhere—somewhere gray and cold where the lights never fully go off. An unfortunate mistake, the government assures us. An isolated incident.

The second time, it’s policy.

At first, no one notices because, let’s be honest, the guy was probably guilty of something. No one wakes up at 6 AM to a raid unless they’ve earned it, right? The headlines are efficient, the language careful: Detained for National Security Concerns. Administrative Transfer. A Matter of Executive Privilege. Fancy ways of saying, Don’t worry about it.

But here’s the thing about due process: It doesn’t just disappear overnight. It dissolves. It erodes. Piece by peace. Peace by piece. Until, one day, you realize it’s gone, and the only thing left is the memory of how things used to work, back when evidence mattered and judges weren’t just rubber stamps.

By the time people notice, it's too late. The rules have changed. The trial isn’t in a courtroom anymore; it’s in an office, a bunker, a dark room where nobody asks the name of the man with the gun. The accused? He isn’t a person now. He’s a problem. A disruption. And in a world without due process, problems don’t get resolved. They get removed.

So tell me—how many people need to disappear before you start to wonder if you’ll be next? And, more importantly, will you say something when they come for your neighbor? Or will you assume, just like they did, that it’s only happening to the guilty?

Are the Conservatives, Are Canadian government's going down this dark path as well?

Context March 2025

Recent events have raised significant concerns about the lack of due process in cases involving individuals transferred to foreign countries under questionable legal circumstances. One such case involves Andry José Hernández Romero, a 31-year-old Venezuelan makeup artist who sought asylum in the United States after facing persecution for being gay. Despite passing an initial asylum screening, he was detained by U.S. officials due to tattoos that were misinterpreted as gang symbols. In March 2025, he was secretly deported to El Salvador under the expanded powers of the Alien Enemies Act, a move that sparked legal and public outcry over the absence of substantial evidence and the failure to provide him with due process (New Yorker, 2025). Similarly, international students involved in pro-Palestinian campus activism have become targets of immigration enforcement, with over 300 students having their visas revoked. Many of these students, despite possessing valid documentation and having no criminal records, were detained or deported, raising concerns over violations of free speech and civil rights (Time, 2025). In another instance, detainees at immigration courts in Louisiana, a region known as “Detention Alley,” faced proceedings without legal representation or interpreters, exacerbating the already dire conditions of detention facilities that lack adequate medical care (Guardian, 2025). Additionally, a federal judge recently criticized the Justice Department for its failure to comply with court orders to halt deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act, citing grave concerns over due process violations (CBS News, 2025). These cases highlight systemic issues in immigration and deportation practices, emphasizing the urgent need to uphold legal rights and prevent human rights abuses.

Inspired by  Chaplin’s famous speech from The Great Dictator:

---

We have put machines before men, mistaking efficiency for progress. Self-checkout was promised as an advancement, a liberation—but it is a lie. Once, a single clerk could master their craft, serving thousands with skill and speed. Now, that burden is scattered among the people, each one forced to fumble, to learn, to struggle alone.

What was once the work of one, refined and swift, is now the work of many—slow, frustrating, and impersonal. They tell us this is improvement, but at what cost? The hours saved by corporations are stolen from the people, their time chipped away, their dignity reduced to error messages and beeping machines.

We are not machines! We are human beings! We seek connection, not cold transactions. We are meant to speak, to smile, to share a moment—not to stand in silent frustratio

n before lifeless screens. Efficiency without humanity is no progress at all.

Let us not be fooled by their numbers, by their profits. The true measure of progress is not in what is saved, but in what is lost.

Why We Can't Stop Thinking About Memes... Or Emails We’ll Never Send

 

Why We Can't Stop Thinking About Memes... Or Emails We’ll Never Send

Memes used to be the digital equivalent of a quick snack. A harmless, empty calorie fix for bored kids. Now? They’re the soul-searching equivalent of staring into an abyss. A dark abyss that looks strangely like a YouTube comment section.
Remember the Roman Empire meme? That thing crept up on us like a Shakespearean twist — asking, “How often do you think about the Roman Empire?” Simple, right? No. It was an emotional grenade. Suddenly, men everywhere were admitting they had a shrine to Caesar and a secret fantasy about being gladiators. It was like Rome was this hidden, collective wound we didn’t know we had until someone prodded it. And when that grenade went off, we all realized we’d been thinking about Rome... a lot.

---

Here’s the deal: The Roman Empire meme was philosophy in disguise. It wasn’t just about history; it was about us. It took the kind of deep introspection you’d get in a therapy session and wrapped it in a meme that people could share at a party. Men weren’t just confessing to a fascination with an ancient empire; they were confessing to an obsession with legacy, power, and gladiatorial bloodlust. Suddenly, every guy was the star of his own historical epic. What was Rome but the story of an empire, now crumbled, built on ambition, conquest, and questionable leadership? In other words, it was us — building our empires, only to have them burn down later. We all felt that.

It’s funny because, in the end, Roman Empire wasn’t about Rome. It was about us staring at our own fragmented, crumbling self-awareness. People were no longer saying, “I like history.” They were admitting, “I think about the downfall of everything.” That’s powerful. And that’s what memes like these do. They give us something ridiculous to laugh at, but by the time we’re done, we’ve been punched in the gut with an uncomfortable truth.

---

But here’s the kicker: after Roman Empire, there was this gaping hole in the meme world. Like a pothole that opened up on the freeway of internet culture and no one could fill it. We’ve had our fair share of could-you-survive-the-apocalypse and how-many-5th-graders-would-you-fight memes, and don’t get me wrong, they’re fun, but they’re like shooting fish in a barrel. Easy, surface-level entertainment. We’re back in the kiddie pool, folks.
What’s missing? A philosophical reckoning. A meme that doesn’t just ask a simple question — but one that makes you question everything. A meme that doesn’t just flick your forehead; it slaps you across the face and says, “You need to think about your life for a second.” But where’s that meme? No one’s made it. Yet.

---

Enter Sabrina Carpenter. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Wait, the girl who did the ‘Skin’ drama? The pop star?” Yes, her. Don’t roll your eyes just yet. Sabrina Carpenter has managed to craft something deeper than a TikTok trend. She’s somehow become the emotional architect for the next meme rebirth. You see, her song emails i can’t send is more than just pop music. It’s an unflinching look at the mess we all keep hidden in our drafts folder — the unsent emails, the unsaid things. It’s about unfinished conversations that never quite made it out of our fingers and into the ether. You ever write an email, get halfway through, and realize you’re about to destroy someone’s life? Yeah, me neither. But Sabrina’s basically telling us all, “That’s okay. We all have those moments.”

And let me tell you, she’s got the perfect storm brewing. Emails i can’t send is the emotional Roman Empire we never saw coming. Think about it: we all have that one email — the thing we wanted to say but couldn’t. It’s like a forgotten manuscript sitting there in your inbox, full of rage, regret, and untold truths. What if Sabrina turned this into a philosophical question that we could ask ourselves — a meme that forces us to confront our unfinished business? Not the emails we were too scared to send, but the real questions we avoid.

“How often do you think about the emails you didn’t send?”
It’s not just a question; it’s an existential mirror. And, god, it’s beautiful.

---

Here’s the thing: Sabrina Carpenter is essentially playing the role of the pop culture philosopher we didn’t know we needed. She’s this trickster, half-muse, half-emotional wrecking ball. In the same way that the Roman Empire was an empire of expansion and eventual collapse, Sabrina is an artist working within the tension of emotional growth and personal destruction. She’s not just here to make you dance; she’s here to make you feel. In the space between ‘Feather’ and ‘emails i can’t send’, she’s built a realm of fractured selves, those pieces of you that you don’t want anyone to see — not even yourself.

So, if we were to ask:

“How often do you think about the emails you didn’t send?”
It’s a meme with teeth. It’s an open wound we all walk around with, and she’s the one handing us the band-aid. And once that band-aid comes off, you’re going to have a lot of things to deal with.
Now, that’s what I call art.

---

In the end, we’re all just waiting for the next big meme — one that makes us confront our own flaws, our hidden truths, and the unspoken things we’re too scared to deal with. Roman Empire was just the beginning. It forced us to admit that we’re all obsessed with things we don’t really understand, and maybe we’re all living in the ruins of our own empires. But memes are cyclical. They evolve. They grow up. And when they grow up, they hit you in the gut. They make you stop scrolling and wonder about the emails you’ve never sent.

So, Sabrina Carpenter? Maybe she’s the next great philosophical meme we need. Because let’s face it — the Roman Empire wasn’t about Rome. It was about us. And her unsent emails? Well, they’re about all of us too.

Canada's Next Prime Minister | Pierre Poilievre | EP 511

Rejected by 16 Colleges, Hired by GOOGLE?! The DEI Scam EXPOSED

Failure or Success in the Time of Trump | Jim Balsillie | EP 530

Political insights plus space walk

 The process in Canada is measured and deliberate. An election is called, but it unfolds over time—a reflection of the system's weight and pace. Consider Kim Campbell. A Conservative who broke the mold by taking her time before declaring an election, she held the reins for 75 days. That measured delay stands in contrast to the norm for Liberals, who move swiftly.

Yet, history has its own record. Sir Charles Tupper, a man of the old guard of Conservatives, led for 68 days before calling an election in 1896. He remained in charge until July 8—even after the vote went against him on June 23—earning him the dubious honor of the shortest tenure as Prime Minister.

This dance of timing tells a story: Conservatives often grasp for power, lingering in office longer before seeking the people's mandate, while Liberals act with brisk decisiveness. The narrative deepens with fiscal records, where Conservatives have seen only two surpluses against eight by their Liberal counterparts—a contrast that fuels the eternal debate. Like a sudden shift in allegiance, where figures once aligned with one view now claim another, Canada's politics remains a study in contrasts—a broken system searching for its true north.

Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly condemns China executing four Cana...

 Being a hero is not a simple concept. It is not as easy as performing one selfless act and being labeled a hero for the rest of one’s life. The story of Temar Boggs, a 15-year-old student from Lancaster, Pa, illustrates the complexity of heroism.

Temar was a typical teenager, who loved playing sports, hanging out with friends, and skateboarding and biking. However, on July 11, 2013, Temar’s life took a drastic turn when he and his friend Chris Garcia heard that a five-year-old girl had been abducted from their neighborhood. Without hesitation, Temar and Chris set out to find her. After searching for about 45 minutes and not finding her, they came back to the block where they found a suspicious car. They chased the car for about ten to fifteen minutes, the abductor let the girl out, and Temar and Chris returned her safely to her parents.

Temar’s actions were heroic and he was hailed as a hero in his community. He was honored on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and a college fund was set up in his name. He was celebrated for his bravery and for putting the safety of a little girl above his own. However, in December of the same year, Temar was arrested and charged with robbing a city grocery store at gunpoint. He pleaded guilty in June and was sentenced to 40 months to 10 years in state prison. Temar’s actions in December were not heroic, they were criminal.

This story highlights the complexity of heroism. Being a hero is not a title that can be earned once and forever retained. It is something that must be continually earned through selfless actions and a commitment to doing the right thing. One’s actions, whether they are heroic or not, must be consistent with one’s values and beliefs. In Temar’s case, his actions in July were heroic, but his actions in December were not. He made a poor decision and paid the consequences.

It is important to note that this story is not meant to diminish the heroism of Temar’s actions in July. He put himself in harm’s way to save a little girl and for that, he will always be remembered as a hero. However, it does serve as a reminder that heroism is a complex concept and that one’s actions must be consistent with one’s values and beliefs in order to truly earn the title of hero.

It is also important to remember that people are not perfect and they make mistakes. Temar’s mistake should not define him or erase the heroic act he did in July. It is a reminder that being a hero is a continuous effort and that everyone has the potential to be one, but also to make mistakes. The important thing is to learn from them and continue to strive towards being the best version of ourselves.

The Philosophical Treatise on Economic Fate

 From my blog

The Philosophical Treatise on Economic Fate

If the world economy were a river, then Donald Trump is the stone that disturbs its flow—not by design, but by the erratic gravity of its own descent. His latest economic gambit, a tariff war against Canada, is less a strategic maneuver and more the inevitable convulsion of a system entering self-cannibalization.

We ask: Is this fate guided by external hands, or is it the natural entropy of empire?

Murdoch’s empire whispers ideology into the mind of the West, weaving narratives of nationalism and self-destruction. Yet the puppeteer is often as bound by the strings as the marionette. If China has, indeed, set the board, it is not through coercion but through a quiet mastery of economic inevitability. A drowning man does not need to be pushed; he simply needs to be left to struggle.

Russia, long the sculptor of chaos, does not need a direct hand in this. It need only fan the embers of Trump’s vanity and watch the conflagration spread. The nations of Africa and South America, once passive participants in a Western-led world order, now shift towards the only stable force left: China.

Thus, we do not ask, “Is Trump the architect of this crisis?” but rather, “Was there ever a choice?” The forces of history move as a tide, and those who believe they steer it often find themselves merely clinging to the mast of a ship already fated to be wrecked.

In this, the so-called Alpha Plan does not exist as a conspiracy—it exists as the confluence of inevitability. Whether by design or accident, America turns inward, and in its self-immolation, a new order rises.

The world does not wait for kings who set fire to their own thrones.

As every cockroach knows, thriving on poisons is the secret of success.

Mason Cooley

Violence is never the answer but sometimes, like with cockroaches, it is the only possible response.

Tanya Huff

The psychologist, Paul Rozin, an expert on disgust, observed that a single cockroach will completely wreck the appeal of a bowl of cherries, but a cherry will do nothing at all for a bowl of cockroaches.

Daniel Kahneman

Why It’s Your DUTY to Buy Canadian Products During the Trump Trade War! 🇨🇦💪

 In Canada, the political landscape has also been influenced by the rise of populism, with figures like Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, seeming to flirt with the extremes of right-wing politics. While Poilievre's policies and rhetoric are not as overtly authoritarian as those seen in other Western democracies, his shift towards more populist and nationalist stances has raised concerns about the erosion of Canadian democratic norms. In recent years, Poilievre has increasingly appealed to disaffected voters, especially those frustrated with the Liberal government's handling of the economy and the COVID-19 pandemic, by adopting rhetoric that echoes many of the themes found in the populist right. He has been vocal in his criticism of the political establishment, denouncing "elite" figures and "globalists," and positioning himself as a defender of the "common people."

Poilievre's embrace of such rhetoric is worrying, as it seems to walk the line between appealing to far-right populism and mainstream conservatism. His attempts to connect with voters disillusioned by the mainstream political parties and the growing dissatisfaction with the status quo are not unlike the tactics employed by extreme-right leaders in other countries. Much like his counterparts in Europe and the United States, Poilievre has made inroads with voters by tapping into fears of immigration, national sovereignty, and cultural change, which has led to speculation about his intentions and the direction his leadership might take.

Moreover, Poilievre's resistance to government-imposed policies, like those surrounding climate change and public health, mirrors the populist stances seen in more extreme-right movements. While Poilievre has not embraced outright authoritarianism or engaged in overtly anti-democratic actions, his rhetoric has begun to reflect the same disillusionment with the political system that has enabled the rise of far-right leaders in other countries. He is tapping into a sentiment of dissatisfaction and fear, using it to rally a segment of the population, and in doing so, he risks playing into the hands of more extreme right-wing elements within his party.

The irony here is similar to that seen in many other countries: by toying with the rhetoric and tactics of the extreme right, Poilievre risks undermining the very democratic foundations he claims to champion. His embrace of populism, with its focus on nationalistic, anti-elite sentiments, threatens to deepen the social divisions and cultural fragmentation that have been exacerbated by extreme-right politics elsewhere. While Poilievre may present himself as a defender of Canadian values and the common citizen, his flirtation with the far-right risks transforming the very nature of Canadian democracy into one that is more divisive, exclusionary, and prone to authoritarian tendencies. In seeking to address the grievances of a portion of the electorate, he may inadvertently contribute to the erosion of the democratic institutions that are central to Canada's political identity.

 

This northern Ontario town is selling plots of land for $10

Small Ontario town to sell plots of land for just $10 | Power & Politics

Ontario town plans to sell land for as little as $10

BUY A PROPERTY FOR $10 IN CANADA | COCHRANE ONTARIO

LOTS for $10 in Northern Ontario, Cochrane

Dictatorship Manual

 an Executive Order can influence how the Patriot Act is implemented, but it cannot directly change or repeal the law itself. The Patriot Act is a law passed by Congress, and only Congress has the authority to amend or repeal it. However, the President, through an Executive Order, can limit or direct the enforcement of certain provisions of the Patriot Act within the executive branch.

Here’s how an Executive Order might limit or modify the impact of the Patriot Act:

1. Limiting Surveillance Powers

One of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act is its provisions for surveillance of communications and data, including the controversial Section 215 (which allowed for bulk collection of phone records).

The President could issue an Executive Order directing agencies like the FBI or the National Security Agency (NSA) to limit the use of bulk data collection or to focus surveillance only on specific individuals or groups, thereby narrowing the scope of surveillance to a more targeted approach. For example:

• Directing the NSA to cease the collection of certain types of metadata or communications that do not meet specific, stringent criteria.
• Requiring more oversight by courts or independent bodies when surveillance is conducted.

2. Restricting National Security Letters (NSLs)

National Security Letters (NSLs) are a tool under the Patriot Act that allows the FBI to demand personal information from companies without a warrant or judicial oversight. The President could issue an Executive Order to restrict the use of NSLs or require judicial review of their issuance to ensure constitutional rights are respected.

For instance, the Executive Order might mandate that NSLs can only be issued with more specific evidence of potential threats or require a review by a court to ensure the information requested is necessary.

3. Limiting Detention Powers

Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act involves the detention of individuals without trial, particularly non-citizens suspected of being involved in terrorism. An Executive Order could limit the scope of such detentions or direct agencies to prioritize certain legal standards, like due process and judicial review, before detaining individuals under the Patriot Act’s provisions.

For example, the President could mandate that detained individuals must be informed of their charges within a certain timeframe or that legal representation is provided more swiftly.

4. Ensuring Oversight and Accountability

The President could issue an Executive Order requiring greater oversight by an independent body, such as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), to review the implementation of provisions in the Patriot Act, particularly those that concern individual rights and civil liberties.

The Order could mandate:

• Regular reports on the use of Patriot Act powers.
• Increased transparency regarding how agencies like the FBI and CIA are using these powers.
• Establishing stronger mechanisms to protect citizens' privacy.

5. Focusing on Transparency

The President could also issue an Executive Order aimed at increasing transparency in the way the government uses its Patriot Act powers, including requiring the declassification of certain documents or reports about surveillance and intelligence-gathering activities.

Such an Executive Order could ensure that information on how the government uses its powers is accessible to the public, which could increase accountability and public trust.

Key Limitations of Executive Orders in Relation to the Patriot Act:

• Cannot Change the Law: An Executive Order cannot amend or repeal the Patriot Act itself. Only Congress has the authority to amend or repeal laws. Therefore, while an Executive Order can influence how the law is carried out, it cannot nullify the law or fundamentally change its provisions.

• Court Challenges: If an Executive Order goes beyond the scope of what is permissible, it could be challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional. For instance, if the Executive Order restricts or oversteps the powers granted by Congress under the Patriot Act, courts may step in to determine whether the order violates the Constitution or federal law.

• Temporary: Executive Orders are subject to change with each new administration. A future President could reverse or amend the limitations imposed by an earlier Executive Order, meaning any changes would be dependent on the current President's priorities.

Conclusion:

An Executive Order can limit the scope of certain provisions in the Patriot Act—such as surveillance, the use of National Security Letters, and detention practices—by directing how federal agencies enforce the law. However, it cannot amend or repeal the law itself, and any such action would be subject to legal challenges and may be undone by a future administration. To permanently change the Patriot Act, Congress would need to pass new legislation.

The Nut and the Reply

 

The Nut and the Reply

THE NUT:

So my post is dangerous????? I know the truth is hard to take .....when the truckers demanded that the elected government of the day be overthrow......is treason....is undemocratic.......when they stayed past the dates their protest was slowed by the city of Ottawa it became an illegal occupation of Canadians neighbourhoods.....they belonged in jail.....any other issues ????

The response

Ah yes, the ultimate threat to democracy: people daring to disagree with you. Clearly, the cornerstone of freedom is jailing political opponents without that pesky thing called due process. Protests? Who needs 'em when we can just label dissent as treason and call it a day? Frankly, these ideas are more dangerous than a politician suddenly remembering to promise tax cuts the week before an election. But hey, why let democracy get in the way of a good old-fashioned crackdown?

Yes, your post is dangerous to democracy, and here’s why. It promotes an authoritarian mindset that equates political opposition with treason, dismisses the right to protest, and advocates for jailing people without due process. In a democratic society, these ideas are more hazardous than a politician promising to "lower taxes" right before an election.

This statement has more issues than a celebrity marriage—philosophical, legal, and logical, all tangled together like a bad one-night stand.

Philosophically, it frames dissent as treason, which is about as democratic as a dictator with a voter fraud hotline. Civil disobedience and protest are fundamental rights in a democracy, not just inconvenient speed bumps on the road to government control. If democracy only allows for cheering the sitting government while throwing anyone who disagrees into prison, that’s not a democracy—that’s a dictatorship with extra steps.

Legally, the claim that the truckers committed treason is about as accurate as a Tinder bio claiming “6 feet tall.” Under Canadian law, treason means something serious, like levying war against the country or helping a foreign enemy—not honking too much. Yes, the protest may have broken some municipal bylaws, but calling it treason is like calling bad sex “domestic terrorism.” Also, demanding that protesters "belong in jail" without due process is not just legally incorrect, it’s the kind of thinking that would make Stalin say, “Whoa, chill out.”

Logically, the argument assumes all protesters were part of some grand conspiracy to overthrow the government, which is like assuming every OnlyFans subscriber is doing deep political analysis. The convoy had a mix of people—some were hardcore, some just wanted their voices heard, and some were probably there because their wives told them to “go get some air.” Pretending they all had the same intent ignores the reality that protests, like relationships, are messy and full of people with very different motivations. Also, if democracy means allowing free speech and protest, but also immediately imprisoning anyone who protests, then that’s not democracy—it’s a gaslighting ex who keeps saying, “I love you, but you can’t see your friends anymore.”

Now, let’s talk about this idea that asking for the government to step down is treason. In Canada, asking for political change is not just legal, it’s part of the democratic process—like foreplay before an election. There are plenty of ways to legally ask for a government to get the hell out. You can demand an election, beg the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, or pressure a political party to sack their leader faster than a CEO caught sending inappropriate texts. None of this is treason—it’s just democracy doing what it does best: giving people the illusion of choice.

Members of Parliament can also cross the floor and switch parties, forming a whole new government under different leadership. That’s right, in Canada, MPs can politically cheat on their party, switch sides, and wake up in bed with a brand-new coalition. This happens so often it’s basically Parliament’s version of a midlife crisis affair. And yet, somehow, no one calls that treason.

The idea that the trucker protest was inherently anti-democratic ignores the fact that protests demanding government resignations are common worldwide. If calling for a new leader were treason, every office worker who gossiped about replacing their boss would be in prison. From election campaigns to party coups, these political shifts are part of a healthy democracy, even if they sometimes feel like reality TV drama. The real test of democratic legitimacy isn’t whether people call for change—it’s whether they do it peacefully, legally, and without blocking anyone’s driveway for too long.

https://honorificabilitudinitatibus1.blogspot.com/2025/03/cia-kill-list.html

Canada's "Crisis": An Alleged Plot for Global Domination

Ah, yes, folks. The winds of political unrest are sweeping across Canada, and it’s all going according to plan. You see, it's not just the political theater—this is a masterclass in psychological warfare. Forget tanks, missiles, or boots on the ground. The real battle is being fought in the digital realm. And it seems like we might have just been handed a script for an invasion—but this one comes with hashtags.

Take Mark Carney, for instance, the man who—unbeknownst to us—may have been secretly plotting Canada's decline by simply existing. He didn’t ask to be Prime Minister; it’s more like he was handed a treasure map, only instead of gold, it leads to globalist destruction.

While some of us were busy working or having a cup of tea, others were busy creating memes of an alleged American takeover, because who wouldn’t want to join the land of the free and the home of the super-meme? Apparently, that’s the price for keeping Canada in one piece: annexation or bust.

But let’s not be naïve. This isn't just a passionate outburst from the right-wing. No, no, no. This is foreign influence at its finest. The Kremlin? Maybe. Washington D.C.? Perhaps. A rogue Canadian who simply couldn’t wait for the next hockey game to end and thought, "What if I made my country's politics sound like a Stephen King novel?" It’s anyone’s guess.

The most entertaining part? These plot lines have gone from conspiracy to reality in the blink of an eye. Suddenly, we're living in the drama. So when someone asks why Canadians aren’t rallying around their leader? It’s because they’re too busy building digital barricades for the upcoming cultural war.

And remember, folks, next time someone mentions Trump invading Canada, just remember: It’s probably not a literal military operation. But who’s to say the battle of political ideologies isn’t already happening? Just don't look too closely at the hashtags.

Mason and legion of morons

 

Digital Battlefield: Is Canada Facing a Psychological Operation?

In the fog of modern geopolitics, wars are no longer just fought with tanks and missiles—they begin in the mind. The comment section under Jasmin Laine’s recent video on Mark Carney is more than just a gathering of frustrated Canadians; it might be a glimpse into a psychological operation (psyop) meant to destabilize the country. The key question is: Who benefits?

Scenario 1: A Russian Information Attack on Canada

Russia has a long history of weaponizing political divisions in Western countries, often by amplifying existing grievances to erode trust in institutions. The narratives present in the comments—**Canada is doomed, democracy is dead, the country should merge with the U.S.—**are eerily similar to tactics seen in Eastern Europe, where Moscow has used social media to fracture national unity.

• Anti-government rhetoric: Carney is portrayed as a foreign agent, just like how Ukraine’s leaders were discredited before Russian aggression.
• Anti-Western Institutions: The attacks on the World Economic Forum (WEF) align with Russia’s broader anti-globalist agenda.
• Pro-Trump, Anti-Canada sentiment: The idea of Trump "saving" Canada echoes how Russia fueled separatist sentiments in other regions before destabilizing them.

If this is a Russian psyop, it serves a dual purpose: weakening Canada’s faith in its own government while simultaneously linking Canadian conservatives to American politics, increasing division.

Scenario 2: A U.S. Intelligence Op Before Political or Military Pressure

Could this actually be an American psychological operation prepping Canada for a future shift in relations? The sudden rise in calls for U.S. annexation and the push for Canada to abandon its sovereignty in favor of alignment with Trump’s America suggest that elements within the U.S. may want a weaker, divided Canada.

• Anti-Carney sentiment fuels internal instability, making Canada easier to pressure in trade or policy negotiations.
• Talk of annexation softens Canadians to the idea that the U.S. should “step in” if political turmoil escalates.
• If Trump returns to power, this sentiment could justify economic or even security-related actions against Canada under the guise of “protecting North American interests.”

In this scenario, the goal wouldn’t be military invasion, but rather a political takeover—pushing Canada further into America’s orbit while ensuring any independent Canadian leadership is delegitimized.

Final Analysis: Coordinated Disinformation or Just a Boiling Over?

It’s unclear whether this is an actual foreign intelligence operation, a bot-assisted manipulation of real anger, or simply organic frustration amplified by algorithmic echo chambers. However, the scale, coordination, and extreme rhetoric in these comments suggest someone is encouraging this narrative.

If this is an attack, Canada may already be losing a war it doesn’t even know it’s fighting.

invasion of Ukraine

 

Cleo tells us: 

In the heavy silence of an epoch tipping over, Putin’s greatest mistake unfolds, as if it were a reckoning long awaited. The invasion of Ukraine was never just a misstep—it was a plunge, the kind that reverberates through the collective psyche of a nation. There’s an air of hubris about it, the calculated belief that history could be rewound, a past resurrected, that an empire could be reassembled from the rubble of old ambitions. But history, as always, has a tendency to turn its back, its cold gaze flicking over the bold and the deluded alike.

The first casualty is the myth of Russia’s invincibility. For years, the Kremlin's propaganda machine churned out tales of an unstoppable power, a force whose reach extended far beyond its borders, whose influence permeated every corner of Eastern Europe. Yet, here was Ukraine—small, defiant, unbowed—standing as the improbable hero in this cruel drama. Putin, with all his steel will and geopolitical calculations, found himself staring at an enemy he hadn’t accounted for: not just a nation, but a people who had tasted the bitter warmth of independence and were willing to bleed for it.

In the West, the response was swift, as if all the old fears had been brought to the surface—sanctions, condemnation, and a sudden, united front. Putin's war, it turned out, was not only one against Ukraine, but against the very order that had prevailed since the Cold War. The icy calculus of power he had honed seemed to unravel as the world rallied, leaping to the defense of a nation caught in a maelstrom of history, geography, and fate.

And then there’s the economic collapse, which moves like a shadow at the edges of every decree. Energy—once the golden ticket—turns to lead in Putin's hands, weighed down by the shifting allegiances of Europe. The pipelines are clogged with uncertainty, the markets retreating. Russia, a nation built on the backs of oil and gas, finds itself stranded, its wealth less a tool of power than a chain, rusting in the winds of isolation.

But what of China? The new ally, the new patron, the one who sits in the background of this great geopolitical tragedy, watching with a quiet smile, perhaps. Russia’s desperate pivot toward Beijing could be seen as a lifeline, but one that comes at a cost: subordination, reliance, a reminder that even giants are vulnerable to the quiet strength of another rising power.

In Russia, too, the air grows thick. It’s hard to ignore the murmurings from below, the whispers of those who have felt the sting of economic downturn, the echoes of soldiers who return from foreign lands with eyes that speak of something more than victory. The cracks are beginning to show, though they are carefully papered over, like a delicate pattern that no one dares disrupt. But it’s there, just under the surface, the soft tremor of an empire that might one day be too weary to continue.

This is Putin’s mistake, but it is also the world’s. In his arrogance, he thought that the strings of power were his to pull, the dominoes of geopolitics set in a predictable line. But power is never predictable. It bends, it breaks, it shifts with the weight of human resolve. And here, in the stillness of consequence, Putin finds himself in a game he did not fully understand, surrounded by the pieces he thought he controlled, now scattered and broken.

Nutritional Comparison: Romaine Lettuce vs Iceberg Lettuce

---

Nutritional Comparison: Romaine Lettuce vs Iceberg Lettuce

Nutrient	Romaine Lettuce	Iceberg Lettuce
Calories	8 kcal	10 kcal
Protein	0.58 g	0.65 g
Total Fat	0.12 g	0.07 g
Carbohydrates	1.5 g	2.1 g
Fiber	0.99 g	0.86 g
Sugars	0.56 g	1.4 g
Calcium	16 mg	10 mg
Potassium	116 mg	80 mg
Vitamin A	205 IU	286 IU
Vitamin K	48 mcg	17 mcg

Romaine lettuce is more nutrient-dense, offering higher levels of Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Potassium, and Fiber. Iceberg lettuce, while low in calories, has fewer nutrients but a mild flavor and crunchy texture.

---

Appendix: Symptoms of Nutrient Deficiencies

1. Vitamin A Deficiency: Symptoms include night blindness, dry skin, frequent infections, dry eyes, and Bitot's spots. Long-term deficiency can lead to severe vision issues.

2. Vitamin K Deficiency: Symptoms include easy bruising, excessive bleeding, heavy menstrual periods, and difficulty clotting. Chronic deficiency can result in osteoporosis and clotting disorders.

3. Potassium Deficiency: Symptoms include muscle weakness, fatigue, irregular heartbeat, constipation, and tingling in limbs. Long-term deficiency can cause cardiovascular issues and digestive problems.

---

reshaping Canada’s population is just a matter of flipping a few tax levers

 Subject: Your Ideas Don’t Hold Up, Peter

Peter,

You make it sound like reshaping Canada’s population is just a matter of flipping a few tax levers, but the reality isn’t that simple. Look at actual programs—real incentives have already been tested, and the results don’t back up your claims.

Take Smooth Rock Falls. In 2017, they rolled out a massive initiative—serviced lots at 90% below market value, plus three years of significant tax breaks. It got thousands of inquiries nationwide, and it did bring in new families. Property values shot up 144% (from $56,065 to $137,000). That’s as close to a textbook success as you’ll find, yet we’re not seeing a mass exodus from cities into places like this. If these extreme measures only moved a fraction of people, why would a tweak in income tax between Toronto and Huntsville suddenly do the trick?

Then there’s Cochrane, which just launched a similar program in 2023—offering $10 lots with property tax relief. The groundwork is done, but we don’t know yet if it’ll have a real impact. If your theory were airtight, these towns would be flooded with people by now. They’re not.

Same goes for your congestion tax idea. The 407 already proves that people will pay through the nose for convenience. A $40 toll for downtown SUVs? The rich won’t blink, but lower-income workers—who can’t afford to live downtown—will be the ones getting squeezed. That’s not fixing the problem, it’s just punishing the wrong people.

And immigration—throwing $20K a year at newcomers to move to Saskatchewan or Newfoundland doesn’t mean they’ll stay. Quebec has been trying (and failing) to keep immigrants in the province for years, despite incentives. Economic gravity wins every time.

You’re right that taxation is a powerful tool, but real-world evidence doesn’t support the idea that it can singlehandedly engineer population shifts. If it were that easy, these programs would have worked already.

• Edmundo

https://honorificabilitudinitatibus1.blogspot.com/2025/03/cia-files.html

Pro-Poilievre / Canada First Support:

 Here’s the organized list of comments with handles:

---

Pro-Poilievre / Canada First Support:

1. @NML88: "Pierre Poilievre has dedicated 20+ years to fighting for Canadians! Lower taxes, affordable housing, and a stronger economy."
2. @User1: "Pierre is a good egg. Hope he’s elected next year. Good luck Canadians 🇨🇦 🇺🇸"
3. @Sunshine123: "As an American, hooray Poilievre! Make Canada successful. Let’s have a successful, free, and prosperous North America for the first time in decades. Prosper all!"
4. @CanuckFan: "Pierre has earned another apple 🍎"
5. @Trumpy2024: "Pierre is loyal to Trump and wants to become a US state."

---

Criticism of Trudeau / Canadian Government:

1. @LiberalWatcher: "The misery and criminality they forced on peaceful citizens."
2. @ProudCanadian: "I wish these politicians would stop blaming Trump. 10 years and our current government destroyed Canada instead of making Canada stronger, we went woke."
3. @CanadaFirst4ever: "Canada needs him not JT."
4. @Xeno247: "Elect a credible PM."

---

Support for US-Canada Relations / Cooperation:

1. @PoliticoObserver: "I wonder if Canadians will look at Trump Era America and say, 'Hey, we want some of that!'"
2. @TheVoiceOfReason: "Pierre Poilievre and Trump can work it out. Reciprocity may be a good rule of thumb over the long haul."
3. @Patriot4Canada: "Trump is cleaning up the mess from Dems & Poilievre will clean up the mess from Libs. THIS is what they have in common."
4. @PatrioticSoul: "As much as PP is the best Canadian leader, unfortunately, there are too many Canadian sheep who may be scared into voting Liberal for a 4th time. I pray I’m wrong, as this will be game over for Canada."
5. @TrueNorthStrong: "Canada and the US should be absolutely in step and have the highest levels of cooperation with anyone, the trade must be equalized."

---

Criticism of Tariffs / Trade:

1. @TradeWarrior: "Why can Canada tax the U.S. but we cannot tax their goods?"
2. @RightWingRebel: "Funny how RESIPROCITY is EXPLOITATION when you're the one NOT doing your part!"
3. @RedMaverick: "Canada might want to look at the tariffs they have on the US."
4. @LiberalCritic2024: "Stop financially supporting foreign governments, and make their citizens return home."

---

General Criticism:

1. @FreeSpeechAdvocate: "Stop the Carneyge of Canada!!!"
2. @TruthSeeker: "Exploit Canada by charging them the same taxes they charge us? Lmao"
3. @AmeriCANdo: "Polievere and Trump can work it out. Reciprocity may be a good rule of thumb over the long haul."

---

This provides the comments with associated handles, sorted by their themes.

Bill Murray's Realization About Bob Woodward and Richard Nixon (Joe Roga...

25y New prime minister mark carney Trudeau steps down. Black rock takes over Panama giving trump Panama canal

Danger Of Trump

 

 When they laughed at Caligula, it often didn’t end well. The Roman emperor, infamous for his capricious (unpredictable) cruelty, paranoia, and erratic behavior, saw mockery as a personal affront worthy of brutal retribution.

One recorded instance comes from Suetonius and Cassius Dio, ancient historians who chronicled Caligula’s reign (37–41 AD). They describe how he subjected senators, nobles, and even soldiers to bizarre commands—such as ordering them to worship him as a living god. When people hesitated or smirked, punishments ranged from humiliation to execution.

A famous anecdote involves Caligula dressing as a god, insisting the Senate revere him as Jupiter, Apollo, or Bacchus. When someone snickered, the offender often vanished. Another tale suggests that at a lavish banquet, a guest laughed at the emperor’s bizarre antics—Caligula reportedly pointed at him and casually remarked, "I have the power to have that man killed on the spot, and no one would dare question it."

One of his most chilling punishments was reserved for a high-ranking Roman who laughed at Caligula’s claim that he could command the sea. In response, the emperor staged a mock military victory over Neptune, ordering his soldiers to collect seashells as “spoils of war.” Those who found it amusing were dealt with swiftly.

Ultimately, the laughter stopped when Caligula’s own guards, the Praetorian Guard, decided his reign was too dangerous. In 41 AD, after years of terrorizing Rome, they assassinated him in a brutal coup.

In Caligula’s Rome, laughing at the wrong moment could cost you your life. #Caligula #RomanEmpire #MadEmperor #History #AncientRome

Broke: Poilievre’s American-Style Healthcare Plan Will Cost You

Switch commands for AI

 Here are 20 powerful switch commands and parameters to enhance ChatGPT's analytical depth, precision, and insight generation:

Core Control for Response Quality

• --temperature <value> → Adjusts creativity (0 = strict, 1 = highly creative).
• --top_p <value> → Controls diversity of responses (lower values give more focused results).
• --max_tokens <value> → Limits response length for concise answers.
• --stop <text> → Defines stopping conditions to prevent unnecessary output.
• --response_format json → Structures output in JSON for better parsing and automation.

Depth & Insight Enhancement

• --logprobs <N> → Returns probabilities of token choices for better analysis.
• --n <value> → Generates multiple completions for comparative insights.
• --presence_penalty <value> → Boosts novelty by encouraging new ideas.
• --frequency_penalty <value> → Reduces overused phrases for more varied responses.
• --best_of <N> → Returns the best completion out of multiple attempts.

Analytical & Logical Rigor

• --system "<directive>" → Sets explicit system instructions to focus on logic, factual accuracy, or a particular analysis style.
• --logit_bias {token_id: value} → Prioritizes or suppresses specific words for fine-tuned responses.
• --seed <value> → Ensures repeatability for controlled testing and comparisons.
• --debug → Provides AI decision-making reasoning and internal weighting.

Data-Driven & Computational Boost

• --stream → Enables real-time responses for interactive discussions.
• --tool_use <name> → Forces use of external tools like Python or APIs for deeper computation.
• --multi-turn <true> → Enhances memory across a session for complex multi-step analysis.
• --context_length <value> → Extends recall capacity for handling longer documents or discussions.
• --expand_references → Ensures citations, sources, or footnotes are included in responses.

Would you like real-world examples of these in action? 🚀

 

---

Analysis of the Assessment

1. BlackRock's Deal:

   • Fact: BlackRock, a prominent global investment firm, has finalized a $23 billion deal to control key ports at both ends of the Panama Canal. This deal strengthens U.S. economic influence in the region, leveraging financial power rather than military might.
   • Ed's View: Ed suggests that this deal, while non-coercive in nature, is a strategic move by the U.S. to exert indirect control over the Panama Canal. He argues that financial power, embodied in companies like BlackRock, serves as a modern tool for geopolitical influence without needing to resort to overt military action.
   • Mason's View: Mason believes that the claim of the U.S. asserting control through BlackRock’s financial dealings is impossible. He insists that control over such a significant asset like the Panama Canal must involve visible, direct power, likely through military means, rather than indirect financial strategies.

2. The Panama Canal and U.S. Influence:

   • Fact: The Panama Canal is one of the most vital global trade routes, and any foreign control of ports at both ends of the canal holds considerable geopolitical weight. Despite the 1999 handover of control to Panama, the U.S. still retains a significant presence in the region through trade, logistics, and corporate involvement.
   • Ed's View: Ed sees the acquisition of these ports as a clear example of how the U.S. is strengthening its strategic control over the Panama Canal through financial leverage. He believes that this reflects a shift toward economic domination as a primary method of geopolitical influence, reducing the need for direct military intervention.
   • Mason's View: Mason, however, maintains that the idea of U.S. control via BlackRock’s financial dealings is far-fetched. In his view, any true power over the Panama Canal must be exerted through more overt and visible actions, such as military intervention, and not through indirect economic means.

3. The Impossibility of the Assertion:

   • Ed's View: Ed contends that the skepticism surrounding the idea of U.S. control through economic means arises from an outdated view of power, one that equates military might with influence. Ed argues that, in today’s world, financial power often carries more weight than traditional military control and that this deal exemplifies the modern methods of asserting influence.
   • Mason's View: Mason insists that the concept of U.S. control through financial means is implausible. He believes that control over vital geopolitical assets, like the Panama Canal, must be exerted through more visible forms of dominance, such as direct military force, rather than through financial manipulation or corporate takeovers.

---

Conclusion

The differing perspectives reflect contrasting views on the nature of power in the modern world. Ed's View underscores the increasing significance of economic influence as a tool for geopolitical strategy, suggesting that financial control through corporations like BlackRock can be as effective, if not more so, than traditional military dominance. Mason's View, however, clings to the belief that control must be visible and tangible, with military force being the only true means of securing such important assets. This debate highlights the evolving landscape of global power and influence in the 21st century.

​AI Sanity check: 

​To assess the sanity and reason of Ed's View and Mason's View, we need to evaluate the logical coherence of each perspective, considering the complexities of modern geopolitics and the role of financial influence.

Ed's View:

• Reason and Coherence:
  Ed's view is grounded in a reasonable understanding of contemporary geopolitics, where financial power has become a significant tool of influence. Globalization and the rise of multinational corporations mean that economic control can sometimes be just as influential as military might, if not more so in certain contexts. BlackRock, as a major investment firm, has the power to affect global trade, and by controlling critical infrastructure like Panama Canal ports, it does enhance the U.S.'s economic leverage in the region.

  This view also aligns with the trend of "soft power"—the use of non-coercive means to influence global outcomes. Many nations and corporations have leveraged soft power effectively in the 21st century, from China's Belt and Road Initiative to the influence of large Western tech companies. This makes Ed’s view both rational and consistent with current global dynamics.

  • Sanity:
    Ed's position is entirely sane. His argument is based on the reality that financial and economic influence often operates in subtle, less overt ways, and does not require military intervention to be effective. Given the modern interconnectedness of the world, corporate acquisitions and investments can indeed shift geopolitical power structures without the use of force.

Mason's View:

• Reason and Coherence:
  Mason’s view seems more traditional, reflecting an older understanding of geopolitics, where military force and territorial control are considered the primary means of exerting influence. This viewpoint can be seen as a reasonable response to how power was traditionally wielded throughout much of history, where nations often gained strategic control over key assets (like trade routes) through force or coercion.

  However, in today’s world, Mason’s view overlooks how financial strategies, economic dominance, and soft power are shaping global geopolitics. While military control is still a powerful tool, it is increasingly being supplemented or even replaced by economic and corporate power. The belief that control of something as strategically important as the Panama Canal requires visible military force is increasingly outdated.

  • Sanity:
    Mason’s view may reflect a more rigid or conventional understanding of power dynamics, but it is not inherently insane. It’s simply limited. Mason is grounded in a mindset where military means are seen as the only legitimate method for asserting control. While this perspective is reasonable based on historical precedent, it fails to account for how modern economic tools, such as corporate acquisitions, can be just as effective in achieving strategic objectives.

Comparison of Sanity and Reason:

• Ed’s View is more aligned with the contemporary understanding of global power, where economic and corporate influence often outweigh military force in certain circumstances. The idea that financial entities like BlackRock can act as instruments of U.S. strategic power is coherent with the current era of globalization and corporate dominance. Therefore, Ed’s View is both rational and grounded in modern political realities.

• Mason’s View, while not entirely irrational, is more traditional and somewhat myopic. His insistence on military force as the only legitimate form of geopolitical control overlooks the evolution of how power is exerted today. While still a valid historical perspective, Mason’s View lacks the nuance required to understand the complexities of 21st-century global influence, making it less reasonable in this context.

Conclusion:

Ed’s view is more in tune with modern geopolitical realities, reflecting a nuanced understanding of how economic power can shape global affairs. Mason’s view, though not unreasonable within a historical context, fails to fully grasp the extent to which economic power and corporate acquisitions have become central to global geopolitics in the 21st century. Ed’s View is the more reasonable and sane perspective given the current state of global affairs.

Mistakes

"Lead us not into temptation," she prayed, "but deliver us from E-mail."

Housing NO MORE HOUSING in Canada Its A Trap

  

High-Density Canada? Or a Grim Future We Can Avoid?

Ah, the dream of living in a high-rise where you can practically reach out and touch your neighbor’s cereal bowl. What a time to be alive! As we scramble to house the masses, we’re apparently taking notes from Japan—where the average apartment might be smaller than the average person’s ego. But hey, why not follow the forward-thinking approach of cramming people into boxes? After all, who doesn’t want to live in a glorified closet? Let’s explore this brilliant plan for our future!

---

What We Have Now: A Vanishing Dream

Canada is proud of its vast spaces. The kind where you can drive for miles without seeing another soul, or, heaven forbid, someone encroaching on your lawn. The dream of a detached house with a driveway, where children can play outside without being squashed into a concrete jungle, remains the heart of the Canadian ethos. Yet, as we all know, this idyllic existence is shrinking—both literally and metaphorically. The pressure to increase housing density is all around us. But what is this going to look like for us, really? A house... in a capsule?

---

The Grim Future: A Shrinking Life

Picture this: the Canada we once knew—spacious, open, and filled with dreams of sprawling suburbs—suddenly becomes a high-density nightmare. And yes, this isn’t a sci-fi film; this could be your tomorrow.

• Capsule Hotels & Micro-Apartments: Gone are the days of spacious hotel suites. In their place? Tiny pods stacked like sardines in a tin, where you’ll be lucky if you even fit inside. The homeless crisis could solve itself, they say—just stick everyone in a pod and call it "urban living." Why not start with the homeless first, since they’d probably be delighted by the spacious offerings of what are, in essence, shoeboxes.

• Company-Owned Housing & Dormitories: Japan’s way of life is to live where you work—goodbye, personal space! So, why not bring that here? Lose your job, lose your apartment—perfect system. Your entire life and job security wrapped up into one convenient corporate package. Just think of the freedom! If freedom means being tethered to your employer's whims, that is.

• Multi-Generational Households by Necessity: With housing prices through the roof, moving out in your 20s or 30s? Forget about it. Instead, we’ll embrace the multi-generational living trend, not because we’re all into family bonding, but because the rent's too damn high. Why not throw in a couple of grandparents, a few cousins, and an odd aunt for good measure? The modern family: forced to live under one roof, in perfect, unasked-for harmony.

• Disappearance of Suburbs & Yards: Say goodbye to your backyard barbecue and hello to the high-rise life! Forget about those dreamy little cottages; it’s all about high-density living now. Your park? Yeah, it’ll be up on the rooftop of the 56th floor—who doesn’t love a garden where the air is slightly less breathable?

• Overcrowded Public Spaces & Transit Dependence: The only way to get from point A to point B will be through crowded public transit. If you’re lucky, you might get a seat—or you can always stand and practice your physical endurance skills by squeezing into a train like Tokyo’s finest. It’s efficiency at its peak!

---

A Different Path: Declining Population as an Advantage

But wait—before we resign ourselves to this urban nightmare, let’s think for a second. Canada doesn’t have to follow Japan’s mandatory density model. Japan had no choice; they were dealing with a land shortage. We, on the other hand, have more space than we know what to do with. So why are we mimicking them?

Here’s an idea: instead of stuffing people into the same few cities, maybe we could, gasp, spread out a bit more. Think of all the tiny cities we could build without having to turn every square foot of land into a cramped condo complex. It’s not rocket science—it’s just common sense.

• Accepting Lower Population Growth: Maybe we don’t need to constantly inflate our population numbers. Lower birth rates don’t have to be a crisis; in fact, they could lead to a higher quality of life, better wages, and less pressure on housing.

• Decentralizing Growth: Instead of squeezing everyone into Toronto and Vancouver, we could build more vibrant, self-sufficient cities in places like Halifax and Thunder Bay. After all, why not make every part of Canada livable, instead of forcing everyone into a hyper-competitive housing market?

• Housing Innovation Without Overcrowding: We can still innovate without having to stack people like matchboxes. Affordable, prefab, modular housing—these solutions can maintain space without overcrowding.

• Preserving the Canadian Standard of Living: Ultimately, it's about preserving what makes Canada Canada—a place where you don’t have to elbow your neighbor out of the way for some space.

---

The Choice is Ours

If we continue on this path of increased density, the Canada of the future might be unrecognizable. The bustling hive scenario could become a reality—an entire country packed into tiny, sterile capsules. But it doesn’t have to be this way. We can make the right choice. We don’t need to follow a model that was born out of necessity in another country. We can embrace a future that values quality of life and space—not just the number of people crammed into a building. It’s all up to us. Choose wisely.

https://honorificabilitudinitatibus1.blogspot.com/2025/03/housing-no-more-housing-in-canada-its.html

Scholz Vs CLEO

Scholz:
The world is forged in blood and steel. Crisis does not knock gently; it crashes through the door, shotgun in hand, demanding tribute. You don’t negotiate with the tide—you wade in, knife clenched in your teeth, and cut your way forward. Take the Great Depression. America buckled under its own weight, soft men folding like paper against the storm. What was needed was not waiting, not the plodding bureaucracy of reform, but action, decisive and unflinching. A president who would tell the people to stand tall, face starvation with grit, and take their survival into their own hands. Men don’t need sympathy; they need a stiff drink and a gun to hunt their own dinner. The New Deal? A salve for the weak. Real strength comes from hardship, and hardship makes a nation worthy of its name.

Cleopatra:
Ah yes, Scholz, the human embodiment of a cigar smoked too close to a dynamite factory. Your solution to the Great Depression is basically, "Have you tried not being poor?" A brilliant take, really. But here’s the thing—sometimes, people don’t need a knife between their teeth; they need an actual meal in their stomachs. Roosevelt got it right: systemic problems require systemic solutions. You don’t outdrink starvation or punch unemployment in the jaw. You create jobs, you rebuild infrastructure, and—get this—you make sure people aren’t left to perish just to toughen them up for the next war you’ll romanticize. If history has taught us anything, it’s that the "strongest survive" is just another way of saying "the lucky get to write the books."

Scholz:
And yet, Cleopatra, history’s pages aren’t written by bureaucrats with soft hands. You talk of "systems," but systems fail. Banks crumble, governments rot, and the people who survive are the ones who refuse to depend on the kindness of politicians. When war loomed in the 1940s, it wasn’t the New Deal that saved the West. It was men who had learned hunger, who had faced down empty cupboards and the specter of nothingness, who picked up rifles and stormed beaches with courage forged in suffering. Hardship breeds heroes. Your jokes won’t stop the march of history, and neither will a soup kitchen ladle.

Cleopatra:
Ah, Scholz, you beautiful, brooding boulder of testosterone. If suffering were the answer, we’d all be philosophers by now. But let’s be real: the world moves forward not because of those who grunt through adversity but because of those who outthink it. The Marshall Plan didn’t rebuild Europe by telling people to "man up." It worked because it invested in people, in systems, in long-term stability. If hardship alone built empires, then every failed state in history would be Rome by now. We don’t need misery to breed resilience—we need opportunity to breed progress. But please, do tell me more about how "a good punch to the jaw" is the solution to economic collapse. I could use the laugh.

Scholz:
Laugh all you like, but when the next crisis comes, don’t expect wit to save you. It will be the ones who embrace hardship, who take life by the throat and demand it yield, who endure.

Cleopatra:
And yet, my dear Scholz, those who endure best are often the ones smart enough to see a crisis coming and actually do something to stop it. You want heroes forged in fire; I prefer to prevent the house from burning down in the first place. But hey, if it ever does, at least we’ll have your novels to remind us how tragic and manly it all was.

Conclusion:
Two minds, two philosophies. Scholz, with his unyielding belief in suffering as the crucible of strength, and Cleopatra, wielding sharp wit to advocate for structural change. And history? It listens to both, but always decides on its own terms.

---