j reacts to leap, ndp/green parties and the future of the post-industrial left

the green anarchism of the green party is the future of the left. that has been clear for quite a while now. and, while the leap manifesto is a little bit scant on details, naomi klein is one of the leading proponents of the new left. so, everything is lining up, right?

no.

the ndp is run by the fossil fuel industry. it's an unholy alliance of capital and labour, bent on destroying the planet for short term gain. the hard reality is that it is no more likely to pick these ideas up than the liberal party is. and, i think everybody is fully cognizant of this, too. there's just that bit of cognitive dissonance...

it's easy to suggest that the issue should have been ignored rather than dragged on. the party would no doubt keep it's base of dues-paying union members happy. sure. and it may have expanded a little on the right, too. but, then the party leadership will wake up one day, two years from now, to find it is competing with the greens for third party status.

the green party platform is available on the internet. and, it's more than two pages of vague platitudes, too.

ask yourself this question: given that the party is probably going to win in the end, is it worth this level of struggle to merely fail at reinventing the wheel? or are you better off abandoning the ndp for the greens immediately, and trying to peel off progressive aspects of the union movement one-by-one?

i fear that the future is obvious: this goes on forever. in the end, the party wins. and, everybody has wasted years they should have spent organizing outside of the party.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2016/04/leap-time-reality-check

j reacts to the irrelevant political calculations around the tar sands shut down

the author's kinda biased. but, let's give him a mild benefit of the doubt.

here's the thing: whether this is toxic or not, it is necessary that the left wins the debate. i'm not convinced it's quite that bad, really. but, even if it is, it doesn't matter. i'm willing to lose every election for the next thirty years. it's one of those issues that has a moral aspect to it that is more important than short-term politics.

i mean, you could have said something similar about the whigs, fighting against slavery. it was madness. did they want to start a civil war? well, it might not have been anybody's first choice, but the fact is that it had to happen.

so, you can look at this how you will. but the people fighting for the ideas in the manifesto will not stop until the tar sands are shut down. and, you're consequently going to have to get used to fighting us.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/13/leap-will-kill-notleys-government-unless-she-turns-it-into-a-weapon/

malatesta was right: unions are conservative organs of the status quo, and can only ever serve the interests of capital.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/13/jerry-dias-leap-manifesto-ndp-rachel-notley_n_9682484.html

j reacts to government restrictions on personal autonomy [the right to death]

i don't know who the government is trying to appeal to in placing these kinds of restrictions on access to death.

it's really simple, guys. it's my body. i get to decide what to do with it. not subject to a series of tests, but in an absolute and inalienable sense.

i believe that the following is true: if i do not have the absolute and inalienable right to die on my own terms, then i do not have any rights at all.

i look forward to the supreme court throwing this out and sending it back to the house for a more liberal interpretation. this is not good enough.

my body, my choice.

let's rewind back to the initial liberalization of abortion. it came with a set of clauses that we mostly all can't even understand anymore. in time, the entire debate was thrown out the window. we see it today as an inalienable choice that can never be interfered with.

i don't know why the government is bothering to slow down the process. it does not show prudence, or good judgement. it merely shows a lack of foresight.

the issue will be in the courts again within days of passing into law. hopefully, the next minister gets it right.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/14/assisted-dying-bill-sets-minimum-age-limit-at-18/

j reacts to yet more scary, dystopian language suppression from the clinton campaign

hillary clinton performs political tasks in exchange for money. i believe that fits the literal definition of a corporate whore. and, no amount of hurt feelings - feigned or real - will change that.

stating the truth is more important than protecting feelings. and, the more offensive the truth is, the more important it is to state it.

please do not be silenced by the language police.

i mean, you can try and reclaim the term, if you want. is it truly so terrible to be a corporate whore? i mean, that's basically what her candidacy reduces to, right?

but don't pretend like it's inaccurate, or, worse, like it's ok to silence true words because they hurt your feelings.

to put it another way: the truth hurts, sometimes.

shit hillary said vol 29

"You know, I agree that we should be testing new teachers. I believe that we ought to have pay for performance where we evaluate teachers. I think we ought to streamline the due process standards so that teachers that don’t measure up would no longer be in the classroom."

j reacts to the truncated spectrum

see, this is another example of the warped spectrum: the idea that equality of opportunity is an idea on the left, and the only other option is to reject equality and align with the right. this is the truncated spectrum:

a) you believe in equality of opportunity (and are a leftist: a liberal, a democrat), or
b) you do not believe in equality at all (and are a right-winger: a conservative, a republican).

the idea of equality of outcome does not exist in the discourse. if it is mentioned at all, it is immediately rejected as extreme.

and, what that does is entrench a class hierarchy as beyond any kind of debate. we can talk about making it easier for people of colour to climb into the hierarchy - and then we label that "left-wing". but, we cannot talk about tearing the class hierarchy down.

so, when i show up and say "actually, this equality of opportunity stuff is a bunch of right-wing bullshit", it is immediately assumed that i do not believe in equality at all - because equality of outcome is not a feasible position.

there is no left in our society. there is merely degrees of the right.

13-04-2016: death and ... archiving?

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1