i'm going to jump ahead a little bit. but this is a sidenote.
this is inri002; it's what i've been listening to in the other room for the last day or so. what it does is combine bits and pieces of my first two demos, which are largely unlistenable, into something that can actually be enjoyed. i've pointed out that the first demo has a kind of abstract quality to it that has the potential to find an extreme niche audience somewhere between philosophy of the world and trout mask replica. that's great and all, but most people find that kind of thing too challenging.
this is far more digestible - which also means far less cringe-y. there are some short vocal sections, but it's broadly instrumental. the sections are usually short. so, it's a mix tape. all of the snippets were recorded in 1996 or 1997, but the mix was constructed in 2013. and, i believe that i will expand it in the upcoming days into a full 90 minute mix tape. it's currently sequenced for cd.
i'm posting this now because i'm enjoying it for what it is. i've come to the conclusion that this is a really seriously worthwhile addition to my discography. when i first mixed it, it was more as a way to save face - i wanted to be able to do something with all these little pieces of sound that were ruined by bad lyrics. it's grown on me as a really positive decision.
it's weird. very weird. that's why i like it so much. but, it's contained and sort of catchy, too. there's an audience for this, for sure. and i'm proud of this now, finally.
Saturday, July 2, 2016
ok. i feel i'm a decent mediator here, because i'm in between generations and i'm in between ages. i also have little interest in either antagonist.
the way i see it is that young people have a lot of bent up frustrations, right now. this is a trivial example, really - but it demonstrates a larger point. let's forget about the arguments for a minute and who's right and who's stupid. is a strongly emphasized pejorative a rhetorical smack down, nowadays, anyways? what is demolished, here? the child's play pin?
but, look at the anger. the bent up rage. the bottled up hate.
live this:
don't move
don't talk out of time
don't think
don't worry
everything's just fine
just fine
just fine
don't grab
don't clutch
don't hope for too much
don't breathe
don't achieve
or grieve without leave
don't check
just balance on the fence
don't answer
don't ask
don't try and make sense
don't whisper
don't talk
don't run if you can walk
don't cheat, compete
don't miss the one beat
know nothing else.
you'd be kind of testy, too. i get it, man. i gave up. fuck that.
policies aside, this anger needs to be dealt with by analyzing the system of order that fused it into such a frighteningly explosive mess. if some pressure is not relieved, the whole thing might blow.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/louis_c_k_gets_demolished_by_24_year_old_were_the_future_and_you_dont_belong_in_it/
the way i see it is that young people have a lot of bent up frustrations, right now. this is a trivial example, really - but it demonstrates a larger point. let's forget about the arguments for a minute and who's right and who's stupid. is a strongly emphasized pejorative a rhetorical smack down, nowadays, anyways? what is demolished, here? the child's play pin?
but, look at the anger. the bent up rage. the bottled up hate.
live this:
don't move
don't talk out of time
don't think
don't worry
everything's just fine
just fine
just fine
don't grab
don't clutch
don't hope for too much
don't breathe
don't achieve
or grieve without leave
don't check
just balance on the fence
don't answer
don't ask
don't try and make sense
don't whisper
don't talk
don't run if you can walk
don't cheat, compete
don't miss the one beat
know nothing else.
you'd be kind of testy, too. i get it, man. i gave up. fuck that.
policies aside, this anger needs to be dealt with by analyzing the system of order that fused it into such a frighteningly explosive mess. if some pressure is not relieved, the whole thing might blow.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/louis_c_k_gets_demolished_by_24_year_old_were_the_future_and_you_dont_belong_in_it/
at
10:43
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to apparent serious opposition from the deep state to a clinton presidency
here's a half-baked idea that may actually have some truth to it.
the united states military maintains a large number of contingency plans. they have like a whole unit of game theorists and propaganda experts working together to devise strategies to react to any conceivable scenario. for example, they had a contingency plan to launch an invasion of montreal should quebec vote to separate. clinton actually had the jets on stand-by.
what if there's a contingency plan to stop hillary clinton, and even bill is acting on it?
the e-mail thing just seems so orchestrated. it's centralized. scripted. this is a show trial. but, what is orchestrating it?
hillary's tenure at the state department was apparently rough on an interpersonal level, many times over. worse, she seems to be for sale to foreign interests through her foundation connections. if the system has self-disciplining algorithms - error-correction - then it would just be doing it's job in picking this up. maybe. this is a half-baked idea, remember.
i don't know the plot line of this tale, but it seems like it's going to be narrated for us. i just find the idea of the deep state reacting to a presidential candidate on national security grounds to be intriguing. great theatre, at least.
-
see, i think there's recent precedent for this, too - although, now i'm stacking baked ideas on top of each other, so extreme caveat lector.
i think that this is basically what happened in russia around the ukrainian issue. western-backed factions in ukraine were calculated as such an existential threat that they launched the deep state into a security operation, and the military has taken over.
i don't want to get too far ahead of myself in assigning prescriptions to a scenario i invented out of whole cloth, but perhaps it demonstrates the dangers of allowing intelligence agencies control over any kind of state machinery. democracy becomes an impossible illusion, as flawed as the (coerced) choices may be. even the facade is a distraction for the naive.
the united states military maintains a large number of contingency plans. they have like a whole unit of game theorists and propaganda experts working together to devise strategies to react to any conceivable scenario. for example, they had a contingency plan to launch an invasion of montreal should quebec vote to separate. clinton actually had the jets on stand-by.
what if there's a contingency plan to stop hillary clinton, and even bill is acting on it?
the e-mail thing just seems so orchestrated. it's centralized. scripted. this is a show trial. but, what is orchestrating it?
hillary's tenure at the state department was apparently rough on an interpersonal level, many times over. worse, she seems to be for sale to foreign interests through her foundation connections. if the system has self-disciplining algorithms - error-correction - then it would just be doing it's job in picking this up. maybe. this is a half-baked idea, remember.
i don't know the plot line of this tale, but it seems like it's going to be narrated for us. i just find the idea of the deep state reacting to a presidential candidate on national security grounds to be intriguing. great theatre, at least.
-
see, i think there's recent precedent for this, too - although, now i'm stacking baked ideas on top of each other, so extreme caveat lector.
i think that this is basically what happened in russia around the ukrainian issue. western-backed factions in ukraine were calculated as such an existential threat that they launched the deep state into a security operation, and the military has taken over.
i don't want to get too far ahead of myself in assigning prescriptions to a scenario i invented out of whole cloth, but perhaps it demonstrates the dangers of allowing intelligence agencies control over any kind of state machinery. democracy becomes an impossible illusion, as flawed as the (coerced) choices may be. even the facade is a distraction for the naive.
at
10:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
jessica
i understand why the young turks is pushing this argument, but i think that the totality of events actually undermines the narrative that has been developing in the independent press and the independent press needs to take a step back on it. what you want to see is that it's a democratic administration colluding with a democratic candidate to help the democratic party. but, then, how'd it get so far into the process in the first place?
what lynch was trying to broadcast in the video was that she has no actual influence in the matter. she could in theory send down a set of directives from the top, but that would be completely illegal. the matter is being dealt with by career justice department people - the civil service - and not by the elected administration. that's why it doesn't matter.
further, what the department is broadcasting is that the meeting was not planned on her behalf - rather that clinton tracked her down and ambushed her at the airport. is that realistic? if it is, it just demonstrates the seriousness of the indictment. which again brings us to the question of why exactly it is that this is an issue in the first place.
as far as i can tell, the evidence we have before us actually strongly suggests that clinton was out to cut some kind of dirty deal, and he got snubbed.
read into that what you will. but, it seems to have at best backfired.
multidinero
On the contrary. The reality of things is that as the chief prosecutor on the case, she is the ultimate power in what is brought forth and used against HRC in the case. If it's not already public knowledge or decided to be not used by the prosecution to strengthen the case, they will essentially stymie their own case to make it seem not as valid. Frankly, being crooked in action or giving the feeling of possible impropriety only makes the whole Democratic party and its countless acts of corruption and staking the deck against those who would ultimately "Rock the boat", look more valid and separates them from The People even more. Though, of course, they think the masses are too stupid to notice.
jessica
the attorney general only interferes in these matters under extreme circumstances. ironically, just about the only time an attorney general would interfere would be due to political pressure - something political like a case against edward snowden or mumia or something. in almost all cases, the documents that her office signs off on are examined by bureaucrats and signed off by staff.
for her to send a letter down from the top demanding that a certain outcome be adhered to would not be lawful.
multidinero
For the DNC to collude with HRC before and during her presidential campaign was also not lawful. For HRC to coordinate with the SuperPacs that help her is also not lawful. Yet, she did it without hesitation. Why wouldn't she cosign this action? Legality is not part of her ultimate concerns, as the powers that be are still ultimately behind her.
jessica
oh, i have no doubt that clinton was looking to cut a deal. what doesn't seem to me to fit the evidence is the idea that lynch was willing to play ball. as stated: i think he got snubbed, and the fall out is going to make the situation that much harder for her.
the process appears to be going ahead.
---
jessica
jimmy, when you get tracked down on the tarmac by a former president, you can't just tell him to fuck off.
he's not just the presumptive nominee's husband. he was president for eight years.
she can't know why he's there ahead of time. what if the strike codes are being launched? no, this is for real. it's out of protocol. but she has to grant the audience.
i understand why the young turks is pushing this argument, but i think that the totality of events actually undermines the narrative that has been developing in the independent press and the independent press needs to take a step back on it. what you want to see is that it's a democratic administration colluding with a democratic candidate to help the democratic party. but, then, how'd it get so far into the process in the first place?
what lynch was trying to broadcast in the video was that she has no actual influence in the matter. she could in theory send down a set of directives from the top, but that would be completely illegal. the matter is being dealt with by career justice department people - the civil service - and not by the elected administration. that's why it doesn't matter.
further, what the department is broadcasting is that the meeting was not planned on her behalf - rather that clinton tracked her down and ambushed her at the airport. is that realistic? if it is, it just demonstrates the seriousness of the indictment. which again brings us to the question of why exactly it is that this is an issue in the first place.
as far as i can tell, the evidence we have before us actually strongly suggests that clinton was out to cut some kind of dirty deal, and he got snubbed.
read into that what you will. but, it seems to have at best backfired.
multidinero
On the contrary. The reality of things is that as the chief prosecutor on the case, she is the ultimate power in what is brought forth and used against HRC in the case. If it's not already public knowledge or decided to be not used by the prosecution to strengthen the case, they will essentially stymie their own case to make it seem not as valid. Frankly, being crooked in action or giving the feeling of possible impropriety only makes the whole Democratic party and its countless acts of corruption and staking the deck against those who would ultimately "Rock the boat", look more valid and separates them from The People even more. Though, of course, they think the masses are too stupid to notice.
jessica
the attorney general only interferes in these matters under extreme circumstances. ironically, just about the only time an attorney general would interfere would be due to political pressure - something political like a case against edward snowden or mumia or something. in almost all cases, the documents that her office signs off on are examined by bureaucrats and signed off by staff.
for her to send a letter down from the top demanding that a certain outcome be adhered to would not be lawful.
multidinero
For the DNC to collude with HRC before and during her presidential campaign was also not lawful. For HRC to coordinate with the SuperPacs that help her is also not lawful. Yet, she did it without hesitation. Why wouldn't she cosign this action? Legality is not part of her ultimate concerns, as the powers that be are still ultimately behind her.
jessica
oh, i have no doubt that clinton was looking to cut a deal. what doesn't seem to me to fit the evidence is the idea that lynch was willing to play ball. as stated: i think he got snubbed, and the fall out is going to make the situation that much harder for her.
the process appears to be going ahead.
---
jessica
jimmy, when you get tracked down on the tarmac by a former president, you can't just tell him to fuck off.
he's not just the presumptive nominee's husband. he was president for eight years.
she can't know why he's there ahead of time. what if the strike codes are being launched? no, this is for real. it's out of protocol. but she has to grant the audience.
at
00:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)