i almost never vomit, actually. but, i was feeling it all morning; it was inevitable, and probably not entirely caused by the vodka, but also contributed to by my diet and the travelling and even the coffee. it could have happened hours earlier, really. as it is, it was the tums that triggered it.

i often bring antacids with me when i'm drinking, because the things we drink alcohol with are so inherently acidic. how many of us assume that that stomach ache you get after your third drink is because you've had too much alcohol? in fact, it's probably acid reflux, because you've consumed a litre of carbonated pop or whatever else in the process. maybe you want to take it as a cue to quit drinking, or maybe you don't - maybe you just want to pop a few grams of calcium to balance it out, and keep going. i find the latter usually works just fine...

so, i didn't think much about it when i started to feel it in my gut - i just got some tums at the corner store, scarfed them down and went back to browsing in the coffee shop. it was a little before 18:00, when i had to run outside...

i didn't take it seriously, at first. i put a shot in my coffee on the way in, but it was a tall cup, tall enough that i could have put in two. further, it took me five hours to drink it. so, i was only on my third drink in 10 hours. sure, i just had a big cup of coffee; sure, i hadn't eaten since early in the morning. but, i wasn't going to puke on three drinks in 10 hours was i? that would be lame.

so, i just sat outside the shop for a minute and waited. it's not going to happen...

...but, yes. it is going to happen.

i made it just past the band's vans for the first iteration, which was unfortunately directly on the sidewalk. well, i wasn't taking the situation seriously. i was able to get across the street into an alleyway for round two, to the concerns of some onlookers that were smoking something in the back.

"i'm alright. just a little too much vodka. nothing serious. i'll be fine in a few minutes. sorry for freaking you out."

this was met with some visually cautious skepticism, but at least the concern faded to indifference.

but, was it really too much vodka? i've never had difficulty with such little vodka, before. while i'll acknowledge that i hadn't had any alcohol at all since last may, it still seems like an absurdly low tolerance level. so, i'm going to reject the claim that i drank too much, and rather assert quite sternly that i wasn't even drunk. rather, i suspect that the coffee and the extra strength tums may have created an acid-base reaction that actually stimulated vomiting as a pressure release; this was more like a volcanic eruption in a grade school science fair project than alcohol poisoning.

i needed a third round before i was done and able to walk off.

"i'm fine. really. i'm sorry."

that was apparently more convincing, as i got a laugh and a wave.

the reality is that i wasn't feeling drunk before i puked, and i wasn't feeling drunk after i puked, either; the nausea faded a little, if not totally, but it didn't really make much of a difference at all, in terms of how i was feeling.

i made a choice, however, to stand outside, just in case - and to put my coffee away. it was about an hour's wait until doors.

there were some kids lined up early, so i just got in line behind them and waited.

"my friend is convinced he's in a coma and everything is just a dream."
"that's so ridiculously stupid, really. obviously false."
"i agree, but, like, how do you prove to him that it's wrong?"
"actually, maybe you can't do that, can you?"

*ahem*

that's right, kids. what you'd say is that that's not even wrong, that you could never disprove it and that it is therefore worthless as a hypothesis.

"makes sense."

the fact is that i've been to lots of shows with knapsacks, and nobody has ever given me a hard time about it before, so i couldn't imagine anybody giving me a hard time about it here. i expected there would be some kind of mosh pit, but moshing (or really dancing at all) to la dispute is like dancing at a funeral - it's inappropriate, in context. they're technically a hardcore band still, but they've always leaned towards beatnik poetry, and they're coming up on a flip over the cusp, to the point that i do suspect that there will be a time in a few years when the shows are almost entirely abandoned by hardcore fans. i didn't expect that to be true of this show, but my intent was to stand a little further back, out of the pit, while sipping on a beer and listening to the lyrics.

this isn't a rejection of the pit, it's just that la dispute is not really body music, it's more of an intellectual kind of thing, something that might even be better experienced at a seated venue than a general admission punk show. if you're showing up to a la dispute concert looking to dance it up and have a good time, you're kind of missing the plot.

so, in my mind, it wouldn't be much of a problem if i brought my bag in, considering i was going to be standing in the back, anyways. but, i wasn't able to get the point across to security, who just insisted they were sold out. well, they couldn't be that sold out; surely, they're not being reasonable. but, i simply wasn't getting in with the bag, so i had to relent and leave it at coat check, along with everything in it. they insisted it was safe...

so, i get in and learn it's $9 for a beer at the opera house in toronto. it was at least a big beer, but i only got one...

the place was about half full for the first act, called slow mass, which didn't make much of an impression on me. what they sound like is a parody of mopey 90s alt rock, without even the minimal amounts of tension that you got out of a genre that was intended to town done. there were some unnecessary outbursts of noise by the drummer and guitarist, but it just kind of added to the buttoned up feel of the show by telling the audience that the band itself recognizes that they are actually boring, and are even bored with being boring. while the self-awareness is perhaps a positive step, i don't have much else to say about this, other than to point out that this is indiscernible from any of the other thousand bands that have sounded exactly like this over the last forty years.

i let them finish, downed my beer and then went to retrieve my marijuana from my bag, which i had absent-mindedly left in there when i was unexpectedly coat-checked. i wasn't sure if it would be a hassle or not...

"sorry, there's just too many bags."

and, there were, indeed, a lot of bags.

"listen, i could understand if there was a long line-up here and i was in your way, but it looks like the place has mostly filled up, and you're just kind of sitting around, so..."
"were you in recently or near the start?"
"i was one of the first people in."
"so, i'm going to have to sort through this to the bottom. there's no way."
"well, you're going to have to do this eventually, right?"
"what?"
"well, i'm going to eventually pick the bag up."
"but, that's only if you're here at the start of the line."
"i need to catch a bus out."
"so, i'll have to do it anyways. ugh. fine. i'm making you pay to recheck it, though: $4."

it was a good night for logic in toronto, at least.

i've rolled up a lot of marijuana in a lot of toilet stalls in a lot of cities, but this was the first time it was actually legal.....

a few minutes later, and i'm overhearing some lesbians talk to each other, as they're standing a few feet in front of me.

"my grandmother thinks we're all monsters. like, she seriously thinks we're evil. it's crazy. i love my grandmother and everything, but it kind of scares me. so, i'm just never telling her. ever. we're just not having this talk. she'll die thinking i'm straight."

i had to interject.

until she starts bothering you about having kids, then you're going to have to bring it up.

laughs from the crowd, as always.

"she already bugs me."

it's just going to get worse.

"well, it's not like i don't plan to have kids. i'll have kids, just not with a dude."

you're still going to have to bring it up.

"well..."

listen, studies have been done on this. your grandmother is an individual, but homophobic people often find themselves with a change of opinion when they are confronted with queer family members, as it presents them with a reality rather than an abstraction. i mean, she's going to go to some church or something..

"mosque."

right. whatever. so, she's going to go to that mosque, and they're going to say all kinds of hateful, damaging things about queer people as though they're some distant other, as though they don't actually exist as human beings, but then she's going to go home and see somebody she loves, and she's going to have to make a choice to trust these words that are thrown at her abstractly by this stranger on a podium, or a person in front of her that she know and loves and trusts.

"i'm not telling her."

that bad, huh?

a passing homeless person then interrupted the conversation with a request for change, of which neither of us had any. but, the other lesbian was upset about it.

"i wish i had some change. i once gave somebody $20."

the male member of the group that included the two lesbians is upset about this.

"you gave him $20?"
"i'm a generous person."
"but, they're all drug addicts. it's really hard to be homeless in canada, you know."

ugh. not on my sidewalk.

poverty does exist, you know. i mean, it might be true that there's a high percentage of drug addicts in the homeless population, but you can't just jump to the conclusion that if you're homeless then you're a drug addict. that would just be wrong.

(some applause on the street)

but, he didn't want a debate; he went inside, and i followed not far behind him.

the fiasco with the bag, and subsequent detour rolling and smoking, meant i actually missed most of the second band's set. the place also filled up to the brim in the time i was gone, forcing me to watch from the landing, which was actually the plan anyways, but perhaps not in the space i ended up in. gouge away are named after a pixies track, and sounded like it. the following audiotree set has some generic pixies-type tracks and some noisier hardcore; the bit of the set that i caught was in the generic pixies-type track style, and didn't appeal much to me. in fact, i decided to find somewhere to sit and take a rest...

i went directly back to the floor when the set was done, trying to measure the size of the crowd and how to set up and came to the conclusion that the place was packed as tight as possible; they weren't exaggerating about the place being sold out, and there really wasn't room to stand with a bag. that said, leaving my bag in coat check didn't all of a sudden make me want to go into the pit - i was still hoping to hang back a little and just watch. but there was barely even anywhere to stand. so, i decided i'd wait the pit out a little and then try and work my way in.

they started off with some less intense tracks, so i couldn't really get a feel on the size of the pit, or what was going to happen when they clicked in. if i could get some separation so that i could stand on the edge of the pit, it could work, but there just didn't look like there was much space. i was hoping to wait a little longer, wait for them to tire themselves out, so i could move up. but, the opposite happened: i saw the train of frat boys walk by me from the back a few songs in, and realized i was going to need to hang back.

if i had a chance to escape the back at that point, it closed pretty quickly, as this annoying teenage girl decided she was going to dance in front of me all night. i've been through this before; the girl wants to dance, but she doesn't want to get molested at the punk show, so she parks herself directly on top of the obvious fag, after testing it first to make sure it's safe. it's then my instant responsibility to make sure she's safe until she walks off, whether i asked for it or not and she inevitably gets pissy when i don't react, which is really quite the contradiction. if you check my reviews, you'll see me point to this happening repeatedly, and pretty much always at punk shows. in general, i can handle this - i can even enjoy dancing, and often do - but the lack of space on this floor, combined with the nature of the music, just made the scenario comical. even if there was space to dance, i would not have wanted to on this night - i wanted to watch the band. a lot of these lyrics are really quite morbid. and, this girl wanted to dance too - bumping into me repeatedly, flipping her hair around and just generally trying to get me grooving. nope...

in order to get by her, i would have had to shove her out of the way, and i wasn't going to do that. i didn't see any obvious space, anyway, as the pit seemed to take up most of the floor, and nothing was opening up. so, i spent most of the concert trying to dodge tassled hair flying into my face from this hyperactive kid that was hopping all over me, apparently desiring some kind of response.

if they had played for another hour, i would have moved up. alas...

and, what of these moshers? is it not somewhat perverse to mosh to la dispute? if anything, they ate it up. it was lines like "we buried our son today!" that got the pit in motion. i'm not going to pretend i understand that, but so be it. i'd rather be a little bit more sombre about such things and watch quietly from the side...

how was the show, though?

this is the third time i saw la dispute, but the second time was an acoustic set in detroit. the first time i saw them was with touche amore & balance & composure at maverick's in ottawa in 2011, and what i remember about the show is that the songs were unrecognizable when compared to the recordings. at the time, i decided that i hadn't listened to the material that much, and i was just not following it because i didn't know it. but, the same thing happened in toronto, on this night - i could sort of make out the songs, but not really. i mean, some of them were clear, but some of them seemed radically different and hard to follow.

i'm left to wonder if the band radically rearranges it's studio material for performance - or perhaps radically rearranges it's live material in studio - and if there's an entirely parallel discography that i'm not aware of. the other option is that the sound tech is terrible, but this seems unlikely, given that i experienced the same thing in two different bars, in two different cities and separated by 7.5 years.

a quick run through the setlist suggests that it may have mostly been tracks from rooms of the house that were rearranged, and i guess i can get my head around that, even if it threw me for a bit of a loop. there's some bands you go to see just expecting something new, and there's some that you go to see with the discography burned directly into your cortex, and la dispute are really in the latter category.

i don't want to play the show down; i enjoyed the components that i recognized, even as i was spitting the hair out of my mouth and craning my neck around to get a view. but, there were tracks i only half-recognized, and it left me wondering what was really going on.

i can't currently find a recent show on youtube and don't want to post an old one, so we'll leave this space open until one appears.

(insert youtube link)

i wasn't first in line, but i was near the front of the line, and the coat check had it ready for me.

"see, this is actually better, right? 'cause the line moves faster."
"oh, shut up."
"ok. have a good night.."

i had to step into the bathroom for a few minutes, again.

i was out before 11:30, so i just walked back to the greyhound. the subways were all closed, unfortunately, so no late night sub on the bus. it was a short wait, meaning i have a working model, even if this is not a frequent trip.

the migraine and the rain started almost immediately, and almost simultaneously, leaving me crunched up in pain and kind of freaked out, at the same time. i tried to sleep the migraine off, but it wouldn't come. the rain was so heavy that you could barely see the streetlamps, making it hard to tell where i actually was. yet, the driver of this express bus was not interested in slowing down, regardless of visibility, of the slippery roads or of the potholes that the bus was ripping through. but, it actually seemed like a short ride, somehow. and, i was in windsor and off the bus in no time - and home by around 6:30 in the morning.

so, would i do that again? yeah, for the right act. i just wish the weather was a little nicer.

it's now thursday afternoon, and i'm typing from home in windsor. i wanted to do some typing on the bus on the way home, but the migraine hit as soon as i sat down, and i was really just done for the ride; i wasn't able to sleep it off as i like to, but i nonetheless didn't want to do anything except roll up in a ball. as mentioned, i was nauseous on the way in as well, so i'm thinking it was partly to do with the air quality on the bus. the third hand smoke was noticeable - even after i'd smoked a few myself - but i'm wondering if it was more about a lack of circulation. it was also raining very hard through a lot of the ride, and i know i'm sensitive to the weather. whatever it was, it actually made the trip seem very short, as uncomfortable as it was.

i wanted to eat and shower first, but i was passed out within minutes of coming in on wednesday morning. i've tried to wake up a few times since yesterday afternoon, but it hasn't really succeeded; i've mostly been asleep since i got home. well, i'm up now, so i'm going to pick up where i left off...

so, i got a large amount of sleep....

i hadn't slept much in days; i crashed when i got in yesterday morning, then again last night, and then again this morning. so, i was awake for a few hours yesterday, and a few hours this morning, but never really got up. i think i'm finally awake...

i wasn't hungry when i got in, either, which is extra strange.

i wanted to make some calls today, but i guess it will need to wait until tomorrow.

so, i'm going to get to finishing up those reviews at the travel blog, and cross-post them properly, and then get back to rebuilding the archive for august, 2013 - which should be much shorter than the one for july. let's try to get this done for the weekend...

the more that i listen to the arguments against the secularism bill in quebec, the more i'm beginning to understand the debate as an argument between american and french concepts of secularism.

this was recently released in a statement by the mayor of montreal, who opposes the bill.

that the City of Montreal reaffirm the importance of the secularism of municipal rules debated and passed in our democratic institutions, without regard for the religion of those who make the rules, debate them or apply them.

that is essentially the establishment clause of the first amendment to the united states constitution - it is a quintessentially american way to understand secularism.

the french revolution produced the following statement: 

Article X – No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law. 

this is a dramatically different statement. whereas the american constitution rejects any sort of law about religion at all, the french revolutionaries rather argued for conditions in which the state has the authority to intervene and produce laws that restrict "religious freedom", under the condition that the religion is troubling the public order as established by the law, which i think is clearly the case when it comes to allowing teachers to bring religious symbols into the classroom.

it wasn't really clear until they wrote it down, but once they did, it became clear what is happening here: the (largely anglophone) opposition is trying to apply an american concept of religious freedom to quebec law, whereas quebeckers are overwhelmingly pushing back with a more francophone conception of it, rooted in their own history and their own revolutionary discourse.

and, what do the laws in canada say? are they more like the establishment clause, that forbids any religious legislation, or more like article X, which sets a condition on appropriate state regulation?

our constitutional and human rights documents simply list "freedom of religion" in a list of freedoms that a person has, with little further clarification. our constitution certainly has nothing at all like an establishment clause, but it does allow for two ways to suspend rights: (1) through judicial interpretation and (2) through the notwithstanding clause. so, our human rights framework when it comes to religion is substantively more similar to that which exists in france than that which exists in the united states.

i haven't changed my views: i support the thrust of the law, but think it should be subject to judicial interpretation to smooth the edges out around it.

but, the arguments coming from the opposition are perhaps demonstrating more about their mindset than they realize.

quebec is not a part of the united states, and does not share a legal or political history with the thirteen colonies. it was rather a rival colony, from an entirely different country, with an entirely different legal tradition, and, whether anybody realizes it or not, showing up in montreal and citing jeffersonian arguments from the united states constitution as an argument against the rights of the state to enforce a policy of secularism is exactly the kind of cultural infringement they're trying to prevent; the more that valerie plante pushes the establishment clause over article X, the more she demonstrates the need for the law.

it would be nice if people would send me some links, though.

i have this moderate perception that there's an entire, alternate reality of which i'm a part of, and that i don't actually know exists. and, i simply don't have the social network required to find it. somebody is going to have to tell me where it is...

see, this is the fun part, though - because i have no interest in exerting any kind of power over anybody, and i don't remotely care what you think of me, i'll still be here typing when all of today's politicians are out of the papers.

so, you can smear me all you want; i really, honestly don't give a fuck. anybody that actually wants to read what i have to say can come here and learn the truth, and if you're too stupid to do that then i can't be bothered with you, anyways. the smears won't silence me, or keep me away. and, over time, honesty always wins, because people eventually check the facts.

i've spent my whole life trying to avoid responsibility in order to maximize my own freedom.

it would be entirely incoherent for me to decide all of a sudden that i want responsibility over everybody else.

there's a strain in socratic philosophy that argues that it is better to watch the olympic games than take part, as it is a more enjoyable experience to observe and analyze from a distance than to participate or compete directly on the ground.

my head has been in that space since i was a kid, when i didn't care that i never got picked because i'd rather watch anyways.

and, this is the other point about asking me what kind of politician it is that i'm like. politicians have to win elections, which means they have to have some kind of interest in the popular will, be willing to present themselves in a way that is appealing to the masses, etc. i don't have the slightest fucking interest in being popular, i never did and i'm not going to develop one to get a job that i don't actually want.

if you're coming at me from this angle, you're hopelessly wrong. i'm an activist, i'm an artist, i'm a thinker, i'm a rambler - i'm not an actor, or a dictator, or a leader or much of a participant in much of anything at all.

i have always stood from a distance and watched, and i will continue to do so, as long as i can.

what politician am i most like, in terms of personality traits?

i would be a terrible politician, and i don't want to be one, and i don't know why anybody would think i would want to be one. what i am is a left-wing social activist that places the abolition of property rights as my most pressing political concern, and rejects the concept of state authority.

to be a politician, you have to be able to at least feign working in groups - something i am absolutely terrible at, regardless of context. i couldn't work in groups - even groups of two - at school. i was the kid that insisted on doing the group project by myself. i can't work with other musicians. i wasn't able to work in teams at work, either. technically speaking, the reason i live on disability is that i can't work in groups due to the presence of overwhelming social anxiety, and you have to be able to work in groups to do much of anything.

or, if you can't work as a team, you have to be a dictator, and i can't even handle ordering a pet around. sit. lay down. oh, whatever, i don't give a fuck. "power is the province of miserable pricks".

so, the answer to the question is that i don't have a personality type that is well-suited for politics, and there really isn't a very close comparison in the spectrum. i am not a politician, but a political analyst; not an actor, but an observer. so, if you want a comparison, you need to look away from the stage and more towards the sidelines, where you start seeing better comparisons: chomsky, voltaire, paine, etc.

that cathedral in france was always a sign of christian colonialism and roman occupation. they should tear it down to the ground and build a museum for celtic studies on the former site.