i'll remind you that this is the sum total of all communication that existed between myself and ryan myon, who later later claimed he was caroline chevalier (something i'm not entirely convinced about).

and, i don't care what ignorant or stupid people think, if they're wrong.

i'm interested solely in an objective analysis of the facts, and ensuring that the facts are made clear in the matter, and dishonest statements are not allowed to be made, unchallenged.

this is it. really. there was nothing else to it than this.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-ive-decided-that-im-going-to-publish.html

so, i passed out this morning and it was a hard pass out, due to a brutal migraine. i'm still suffering, but i'm not tired, so i'm going to try to eat.

i've got the documents emailed at least, although i'm going to have to get to the court on monday before i can mail them. 

after explaining it to her every day this week, the dumbass coordinator appears to have finally realized that she didn't send me the information i need to canvas the respondents, and sent it to me over the phone. i suspect that she should have done that two weeks ago. now, i may have to wait until the fall, due to her overwhelming incompetence.

i've done everything i can to get the process moving in a timely fashion, but i'm surrounded by morons who are slowing me down at every turn. but, i'm at least over the hump on it.

i have a lot of stuff to do this weekend and may not make it to poppy. i'm not sure i really feel like it, as well. we'll see, still, but i'd consider it very unlikely. it was always an excuse to get out and put on make up and go dancing, and that doesn't work if i'm dealing with headaches.

i need to eat, first, and clean, and hope it helps.

they got the fax yesterday, but i can't fax what i need to send next.

so, this is what i have to do.

1) email the documents to the oiprd.

2) go to the courthouse here and get an affidavit of service.

3) mail everything to toronto.

am i going to get this done by the end of the day? i require a nap. we'll see.

can i email attachments here?

they might actually expect me to just paste the cases into the document.

the headache came back today, and i actually think i have a fever, but i want this dealt with this morning...

i actually think i'm done.

but, now i'm confused.

do i file another book of authorities?

do i file an addendum to it?

let me look this up.

their arguments are really quite awful. i'm glad i finally got something out of them, but the truth is that this is a disingenuous and poorly written document that was not hard to rip to shreds.

that's actually not the case i want to cite.

there's a list of five conditions, of which an objective concept of fear is one of them. you need that to file or prosecute harassment in canada, and a competent cop has to know that before he makes an arrest under 264. i'm going to want to find the case that first laid them out....

the case they cited was about an actual stalker, and still upheld the need for an objective analysis to demonstrate that a reasonable person would interpret a conscious intent to instill fear in the victim. they took a line out of context. it's actually pretty brutal, really.

and, i was hardly catcalling somebody - i would never do that. i'm frequently on the receiving end of this bullshit, actually. i'd never talk to somebody like that.

but, this is a more useful precedent.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2007/2007canlii58260/2007canlii58260.html

i will cite both cases, though.

i'm mostly done, already. this was pretty quick, because it was pretty easy.

what i should do is call them tomorrow and ask about whether i can fax this.

i might have to mail it.

and, if i have to mail it, i'll have to ask for an extension.

strictly speaking, i should probably file a motion to reject the factum.

it's twice as long as it should be. and, it's introducing a completely different argument.

but, let's remember what i filed - i filed a request for certiorari due to the incompetence of the oiprd. and, they're arguing that the court doesn't have jurisdiction for that, but that's what certiorari is - it's a rule that the higher court has jurisdiction to pull the file. they're essentially denying the basis of certiorari, on what i don't know, but it's particularly weird in context, because it's actually statutorily enshrined. i'd be perfectly happy to argue that certiorari is an unwritten constitutional convention, but i don't have to - it's stated explicitly in the judicial review act. so, this idea that there's no statutory power is wrong, too.

so, i'd rather address these arguments than reject them. this is what the case is about, so let's address the issues rather than ignore them.

to put it another way, had they done this right in the first place, my original factum would have looked a lot like the reply factum that i'm going to file.

so, i'll point that out.  but, i feel the need to take this on head first.

so, they initially tried to justify the arrest under 495(1) by citing storrey, which was wrong.

now, they're trying to argue that the interpretation act overpowers 495(2), which is still wrong, regardless of how i'm interpreting the interpretation act. 495(2) provides a set of limitations that apply to all hybrid offences, regardless of whether the police wish to interpret the charges as indictable in other contexts, and regardless of how the crown elects to proceed, in the end.

and, i can find some references for that point.

no.

no.

that's a can of worms that seems unnecessary for right now.

i should be able to find more than enough scholarship and precedent to back up the supremacy of 495(2) over the interpretation act, and i should leave it at that.

but, if you read the act strictly literally, which you need to do with stuff like this...literalism is the right angle, here....

my concern is regarding the difficulty of winning this argument just right now. it's too much, and not necessary.

and, you know what?

i'm going to challenge the standard interpretation of the interpretation act. i think the precedent is wrong. this is what the statute says:

Indictable and summary conviction offences

34 (1) Where an enactment creates an offence,

(a) the offence is deemed to be an indictable offence if the enactment provides that the offender may be prosecuted for the offence by indictment;

(b) the offence is deemed to be one for which the offender is punishable on summary conviction if there is nothing in the context to indicate that the offence is an indictable offence; and

(c) if the offence is one for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which the offender is punishable on summary conviction, no person shall be considered to have been convicted of an indictable offence by reason only of having been convicted of the offence on summary conviction.

Criminal Code to apply

(2) All the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to indictable offences apply to indictable offences created by an enactment, and all the provisions of that Code relating to summary conviction offences apply to all other offences created by an enactment, except to the extent that the enactment otherwise provides.

to me, it seems obvious that this part of the code is meant to state that the machinery of indictable offense should only be applied to strictly indictable offences, and that anything that isn't strictly indictable should be interpreted as summary. that would appear to be the purpose of the subsection (2).

i've read enough case law to know that judges often actually aren't that bright, and sometimes apparently on purpose.

how did we get here? did somebody misunderstand this? let me understand this.

it shouldn't matter, logically speaking. 495(2) of the criminal code should supersede the interpretation act first, because it is explicit; the interpretation act should only kick in after 495(2) has been contemplated. but, it seems to me as though we've misinterpreted the interpretation act. or, that's my interpretation, anyways - i think this says the exact opposite of what the scholarship argues it does.

to be clear on the logic around 495(2) and the interpretation act, which everybody seems to find so confusing.

- s. 495 (1) governs the rules of arrests for indictable offences.

- s. 495 (2) governs the rules of arrests for hybrid offences.

and, s. 495(2) is very clear in it's wording:

A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for
(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or
in any case where
(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,
may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and
(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

lawyer after lawyer and cop after cop wants to ignore this, but the statute is crystal fucking clear - this is the law you have to apply, first and foremost, because it explicitly states that you can't arrest somebody on a specifically hybrid offence if these conditions apply.

now, it might be true that you can treat a hybrid offence like an indictable offence in a variety of circumstances, but you can't just ignore this clause like everybody wants to. this is the appropriate rule. this is what the cops have to follow.

it's only once they've decided that you actually are a flight risk, or they actually caught you in the act, or they need to identify your identity, that the machinery of indictable offences can be brought in.

they have to get through this first! but, they often gloss over it. and, this is a major civil rights problem that i'm more than happy to drag to the supreme court in order to get fixed.

the case may very well reduce to the primacy of s. 495(2) and the logic underlying it. that might be the precise debate that drags on. and, that's fine, if it is, because the cops need their powers of arrest reduced, clearly.

so, what i should do is sort through this and figure out precisely what i want to respond to.

Moving party reply factum

The moving party may serve a reply factum to address any new issues raised in the responding party's factum. The factum shall contain consecutively numbered paragraphs setting out the moving party's position on the issue, followed by a concise statement of the law and authorities relating to it.

The moving party shall file three (3) copies of the reply factum with proof of service within ten (10) days after the service of the responding party's factum.

===========

so, i can only respond to new issues raised in the factum.

and there are quite a few, actually - they essentially filed a report. if there was ever a time for a reply factum, this is it.

yeah, i have to essentially ask the judge to accept the reply.

there's a form. and a process.

let's get to it...

you can imagine i'm chomping at the bit to respond. i'm deathtokoalas, bitch. this is what i do.

i do have the ability to file something called a 'reply factum', and you can imagine that it won't take me long to do it. i just need to get the rules straight, because it seems to be invoking a set of more exotic rules that i don't fully grasp, yet.

i feel like i can win this. it seems like i've caught them off guard on a number of points; i think their factum is full of reaching arguments and awkward precedents, but what exactly i can do in the reply factum isn't clear, yet. i don't want to do this wrong; i need to get the plot right.

but, there are some deep ideological and philosophical faultlines here as well, for example around the function of certiorari, and how fundamental it is, where deference lies and even the definition of harassment. i'm unabashedly liberal on these issues, and not afraid to make arguments that might be considered unfashionable.

so, that's actually what i'm doing tonight, now. 

yeah, i'm sorting through that case and it actually upholds my argument, not theirs, as the case makes it clear that a stalking charge requires there to be an objective concept of fear.

i was applying for housing, something i have an explicit right to do under ontario's human rights code. the premise that i was stalking her is preposterous. in fact, i thought i was applying to a guy named ryan - i hadn't the slightest clue of the identity of the property owner, and i actually still don't. the only thing there's any evidence of is that she was suffering from some kind of schizophrenic fantasy.

but, i know as a matter of fact that this issue has been dealt with more recently and the supreme court has explicitly ruled on the question: being annoying is not harassment under the law.

so, they're admitting that there should have been an investigation into the legality of the arrest, and then essentially submitting a review to the court, in the absence of the one i rejected. that's why the factum is so long - it essentially has the review i asked for in the first place in it.

they're doing some weird things.

they're citing a case from 1979 to argue that the arrest was legal. the law i'm citing was written in 1985 and would overpower the precedent by means of parliamentary supremacy. it is exceedingly unusual to see pre-charter cases cited as precedent in canada, so this is kind of an admittance of defeat. they're just going through the motions, pardon the pun.

they're also citing a case from 1999 on the question of whether being annoyed is enough to be harassed, and i know i can defeat that on appeal with newer precedents, if i have to. i don't expect the judge to fall for that.

so, there's an argument here, but it's not a very good one, and we'll have to let the judge work it out.

this is going to the next level...

i just got a 53 page factum from the oiprd.

the statutory limit is 20 pages.

they're taking me seriously. that's good. 

i think i got the motion faxed. i'll need to double check in the morning.

and, the coordinator at the divisional court appears to be a complete idiot, but i need to work through it. we're playing phone tag. that's fine. she's telling me that i need to canvas, and i get it, but she hasn't given me any dates to canvas with. this is what she sent me:

(1) the hearing will likely be scheduled during the week of apr-may-jun
(2) the second panel sits in the week of mar 23rd

what the fuck is the week of apr-may-jun? that is incoherent. and, if it's likely to be scheduled between april and june, of what relevance is the date in march?

so, i can't canvas until they give me some useful dates to canvas around, and the woman appears to be too stupid to realize that she needs to do it, despite explaining it to her at least five times, now.

i have to keep trying. but, fuck. how do these people get these jobs? i often wonder this. you walk around the city, and you see phd students serving coffee, and people working $60,000/yr government jobs that can barely tie their own shoes.

i will need to read this stuff tonight.

so, i was hoping i could get through to the scheduling people today before i got to work on inri015, but i call and call and call and there's just no answer...

i'm going to type up that motion, first, and keep calling every few minutes.

it seems like the democrats want to frame everything in terms of morality nowadays, regardless of what it is, and it just makes them look dumb when they do it.

climate change, debt forgiveness, healthcare...there's all these great arguments to use, but democrats want to throw them all away and reframe everything in these lowest common denominator religious terms.

so, universal healthcare isn't the most efficient way to deliver healthcare. rather, healthcare is a human right! meh. i'd rather talk about efficiency...

climate change has become a religious conviction, rather than an empirical issue. and, debt forgiveness is a religious debate about usury, rather than a question of deadweight loss on the economy.

how does an educated person interface with all of this nonsense? i'm looking for a smart candidate with smart policies, and even the supposed "right side" of the debate just wants to frame everything in these backwards terms.

is the problem in america too deep to really resolve? is the culture fundamentally unsalvageable? i wonder, sometimes.

the democrats repeatedly remind me that they are actually the conservative party, and the idea of framing debt as a moral issue is just another reminder of it. as a leftist, that strikes me as crazy talk. but, the other option is the nihilists in the republican party. and, when the spectrum is conservative v nihilist, rather than left v right, everything gets very weird....

i just want to remind people that the issue of student loan forgiveness wasn't initially presented as a moral issue, and that these contradictions that arise from approaching it as such are....you've all lost the plot.

there is a student loan bubble that is threatening to tear down the economy. and, debt repayment is this massive deadweight loss on the economy that siphons wealth upwards at no benefit to the vast majority of people.

so, there is apparently a substantive backlash to this idea of debt forgiveness, because they feel it's unfair to good fiscal planners that did the "right thing" in saving. this is just another example of why you should avoid framing things in moral terms - that is a dumb argument, through and through, and any debate stemming from it would be dumb.

and, it's why democrats are increasingly looking more and more like the dumb party. they've been taken over by these "progressive" moral zealots that want to govern out of the back of a bible, or the footnotes of a koran.

the issue is economic, not moral. and, i'd really like to see the debate reframed in scientific terms, and these uneducated country bumpkin arguments about the moral ramifications of debt left on the side of the road where they belong....

this gets the right idea across, but i think what he's ultimately trying to say and not really saying is that polling is only accurate up to a reasonable margin, an error that media cannot correct itself on.

they want to tell you that a 3% bump in the polls is a headline, and you should buy their paper or click their links to learn more about it - which is nonsense. that is noise. and, most of what we've seen is noise.

so, when the polls have three or four candidates - and i think it's three now, in iowa - in a (15,25) percent interval, 95% of the time, they really don't say anything more specific than that there's a 95% chance that each of the candidates will fall in that range. 

a 10% range is very large, and so long as each of the candidates end up in that range, the polling will have been correct. people expecting more from the polling than that are really abusing the notation...

further, it's iowa in february. the weather and exams are both huge turnout factors that are very hard to predict with polling - that is what that extra 5% is about.

that said, i think there's three likely narratives.

1) the actual party gets the vote out, and biden wins via machinery politics. i'd guess this is the most likely outcome.

2) everybody knows that sanders has a dedicated base and that they do better in caucuses because they're so dedicated. he has a benefit in what has sometimes been called the "enthusiasm gap". but, i'm a little skeptical about how enthusiastic they still are. i know my own enthusiasm for sanders has waned rather considerably, as i've heard him speak on more topics. it is still possible that sanders' base could dominate, but i actually think that his pivot towards a more mainstream voting base is going to undermine his ability to do well in these kinds of caucuses, and that key aspects of his coalition will feel marginalized and not show up.

3) there are compelling, if shallow, reasons for buttigieg to do well on the floor. age is a real consideration. and, the religious thing can work as a browbeating in a caucus scenario in buttfuck, iowa.

4) i think that warren has fallen out of contention, maybe a little later than i thought, but reasonably, anyways. and, i don't think klobuchar ever really had a serious chance.

but, the sterile, quantitative analysis is that we don't actually know what's going to happen - that either sanders or biden or buttigieg could win, and that the polling will not be "wrong", regardless of the outcome.

if yang or steyer wins, the polling will have been wrong.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-iowa-caucuses-are-in-4-days-almost-anything-could-still-happen/?ex_cid=2020-tracker

i don't always agree with mehdi hassan, but he is often refreshingly smart.

he tends to ask great questions.

the world isn't a fair place, and lots of bad things happen in it. so, i tend to react in sort of bewilderment when i see people try to argue for palestinian policy positions by producing appeals to morality, as though god herself is going to come down and set things straight if we whine and complain about it long enough.

it's not fair, and that's too fucking bad.

but, what palestine needs right now, more than ever, is to focus on a civil rights movement. i know - it's hard. the israelis are mean, and they're worse than mean sometimes, too. people are going to get hurt. but they have to do it.....

if there was some passing pretension towards the application of international law in the region in years past, what's happened over the last few days is that this has come to a close. that all got thrown out the window, and there's a new set of rules on the table, now.

there needs to be a change in the laws in israel to ensure that palestinians are treated as human beings. that's not going to be easy, but if they insist that it's too hard then they're just signing their own death warrant. it has to be the focus. and, they're going to fail over and over before they succeed, but they have to keep trying.

palestine will never have a state.

palestinians need to adjust and move on and refocus towards fighting a different battle.

i need to stop to eat & shower.

& i need to find some way to get a hold of the coordinator at the divisional court, in the morning.

inri029 updated and tested

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/warning

inri028 updated and tested

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/pop-music-a-tribute-to-carbon-dioxide

inri027 updated and tested

two more.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/gene-os-a-soundtrack-for-an-italian-breakfast-cereal

inri016 updated and tested

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/eat-my-fuck

inri003 is updated and tested

four more, and i'll be able to move on to inri015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inrisampled

inri002 updated and tested

this one had some typos that i really needed soundcard access to in order to fix

the last five should all be quite quick.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inricycled

ok, let's get to work on this for the night.

it did.

weird.

will this link broadcast?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/iran-strike-soldier-injuries-pentagon.html

i'm not out there mailing this stuff to random people. i'm not spamming anyone. this isn't going to people that don't want it.

it is only going to people that made the explicit, purposeful choice to sign up for it.

and, nobody - not any faceless government bureaucrat, not any empty suit in any corporate boardroom, not any self-appointed arbiter of moral goodness, not any despotic religious leader - has any right to get in between me and that person, and overturn the decision they made.

you're not that important.

when somebody signs up to receive notifications for this blog, they don't also sign up to have those notifications filtered by some self-important, dimwitted bureaucrat at google for some arbitrary concept of moralistic self-righteousness.

they signed up to get notified about all of the fucking posts - because they don't want to miss any.

and, if they don't want to receive notifications, they should unsubscribe, and fuck off while they're at it, for good measure.

as it is, i'm sorry - i do realize that posts aren't broadcasting, but i have no control over how google makes these choices, sadly. 

if this bothers you - and it should - you should contact google about it and raise a stink. i can't do anything from my end.

that system should be dismantled, and the person that implemented it should be fired.

see, it wouldn't broadcast this post, either:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/01/weird.html

to be clear, it posts.

the unwelcome moderation is happening at the broadcast list stage, not the posting stage.

so, if you're getting email updates, google has decided that they are important enough to determine what you're allowed to read and not - not you. they have taken that decision away from you, and they have no right to do it.

weird.

the link to the actual article at the bbc still won't post, as though it's going through a spam filter on a moderation site.

i do not want this site moderated. obviously. i am the moderator. and, fuck you for thinking you're important enough to interfere - you're not.

www dot bbc dot com slash news slash world-us-canada-51301825

test.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51301825

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51301825

any other president in the history of the country would have launched a major airstrike.

any other president in the history of the country would have launched a major

any other president in the history of the country would have launched a 

any other president in the history of the country would have launched

any other president in the history of the country would have

any other president in the history 

any other president

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51301825

it's on par with hillary's disaster in libya, and an embarrassment to nato dominance in the region.

any other president in the history of the country would have launched a major airstrike.

trump's decision not to retaliate will go down in history as a historic abrogation of his responsibilities as commander-in-chief, and apparently because he was too much of a weakling to react.

i didn't agree to having my emails filtered.

please disable that feature.

i'm just trying to figure out if i'm being actively screened by a person or if there's a program running....

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/01/an-independent-palestine-would-not.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/01/let-me-try-this-again.html

that last post won't broadcast over email.

will this broadcast?

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/01/let-me-try-this-again.html

let me try this again. is it something i said?

=======

trump's decision not to retaliate will go down in history as a historic abrogation of his responsibilities as commander-in-chief, and apparently because he was too much of a weakling to react.

any other president in the history of the country would have launched a major airstrike.

it's on par with hillary's disaster in libya, and an embarrassment to nato dominance in the region.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51301825

an independent palestine would not accept israel any more than israel accepts palestine.

setting up two states in the region is just an algorithm for perpetual conflict; this ends when the divisions come down, not when the fences are built at some sufficiently high level.

so, i'm not opposed to the annexation at all, i actually think it's a step in the right direction. but, there has to be an accompanying rights framework...

so, i suppose i would support regime change in israel, as well, in addition to supporting it in iran and saudi arabia.

secular democracy for all.

there should neither be two states defined by religious segregation and ethnic nationalism, nor should there be a binational state where the people are kept separated by antiquated notions about their belief systems.

there should be a single, secular, democratic state where people are treated equally under the law regardless of their background or beliefs.

as far as i can tell, the so-called deal in palestine is just an adoption of the status quo as official policy; this is exactly what they've been doing for years, anyways.

i'm not an advocate of a two-party state; i don't think that you create peace in the region via ethnic or religious segregation. i'm an advocate of a one-party state with equal rights for everybody. israel should be democratic, at the expense of being intrinsically jewish. 

i will reject ethnic nationalism, every time.

so, i'm not going to get particularly angry about this. trump hasn't actually done anything at all here, and the issue has been fundamentally about civil rights for palestinians for a long time now, anyways.

if they are going to annex the jordan valley, that should be interpreted as a first step towards the constitutional adoption of a proper rights framework for the palestinian people. that's what i care about here - civil rights - not which group claims which area as a consequence of which contrived dark age text.

trump's decision not to retaliate will go down in history as a historic abrogation of his responsibilities as commander-in-chief, and apparently because he was too much of a weakling to react.

any other president in the history of the country would have launched a major airstrike.

it's on par with hillary's disaster in libya, and an embarrassment to nato dominance in the region.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51301825

inri001 updated and tested

2 down, 6 to go.

i need to take a nap.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-2

inri000 updated and tested

that's step one.

there's only eight of them.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1

ok.

so, that minor change appears to have done exactly what i wanted it to do - it now loads flawlessly in both browsers.

now i have to fix it... 

to be clear, what i have to do is remove the codecs=CODEC section everywhere it exists.

the desktop uses about twice as much electricity as either the laptop or the chromebook (the 90s laptop is in between, when it's on), so i was expecting a spike, but it's been offset by the lesser fan use, and the fact that i avoided laundry this month. if i hadn't had the desktop on all month, i would have come in under the $45 limit and paid down the balance. as it is, it's going to be about $2.00 over.

i have no intention of paying this bill. i'm going to pay it off via electrical saving. i just need to get the laptop fixed, first, so i'm not running the desktop all of the time...and in fact running two computers all of the time....

i don't see any specific usage that i can attribute to the 90s laptop, but we're going to keep it off for a while, anyways. at least until i can figure out what's going on with the windows 7 box.

the desktop will only be on like this for a few more days. i was hoping to get all of this done. life's always more complicated than i want it to be. but, i should start the troubleshooting process on friday or saturday...

the soundcard installed cleanly, so that's at least easy. and, i guess i'll need to install a recent version of chrome in the virtual machine to do the testing i need to do.

but, i'm concluding that i probably need to remove the line "codecs=flac". and, if i'm going to do that, i should remove the other codec specifications, too. just let me be sure that it actually works...

there are flac codecs in the system, but the version of the chrome browser that is installed on the 90s laptop is too old to be able to launch flac over html5, and it's picked for a reason - if i start using newer versions of the browser, the system won't run.

i'm a little concerned about that machine, though. i've been noticing for a while that every time i take it out of hibernation, it shuts off. this is actually primarily frustrating because it means i lose my place in the youtube video i'm watching and have to start over again. i don't have any interest in what's happening on that machine in general, but it was really overheating, and i'm concerned about the electrical, and it kind of defeats the point if i have to start the video over again every time i turn it on. so, it's now going to sit unplugged from the internet. there's no wireless in the device. and, let me check my electrical...

yeah, this is weird.

this is an example of my control:

<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player">
<source id=flac src="../inri - inrisampled - 02 war.flac" type='audio/flac; codecs="flac"'>
<source id=mp3 src="../inri - inrisampled - 02 war.mp3" type='audio/mpeg; codecs="mp3"'>
<source id=aac src="../inri - inrisampled - 02 war.m4a" type='audio/mp4'>
<source id=wav src="../inri - inrisampled - 02 war.wav" type='audio/wav'>
<source id=ogg src="../inri - inrisampled - 02 war.ogg" type='audio/ogg; codecs="vorbis"'>
</audio>

the controls work for all five types on firefox in windows, and for the last four types on chrome in the chrome os. i don't see any logical reason why flac breaks when mp3 doesn't, other than that chrome doesn't like being told to use that codec. so, i think that's more of a chrome-specific thing.

i want it to work, though....

i'm not even going to test on...they call ie "edge" now, right? whatever.

the fourth major browser is safari, and i don't have an apple device, so i don't do any testing with anything to do with apple - no apple lossless, no safari, none of it, because i just don't have access to it. sorry...

so, i can test with firefox and with chrome, on windows and on the chrome os, giving me four possible testing scenarios.

i'm going to then argue it's irrational to run firefox on the chrome os and rule out that possibility. so, the last thing i can try is the chrome browser in windows, and i do use chrome on the 90s laptop, because it's too old to launch a version of firefox that is new enough to run html5, which you now need for youtube. they forced me into it, basically. 

i just did a search to make sure i'm not missing anything, and firefox' share has sure declined recently, although it's actually safari's share that seems to have gone strangely up. chrome has been at 65% for a while, now - i'm not surprised by that. but, how did safari get to 25%? i thought iphones were losing badly to android? double-checked - yup. are apple pcs up, then? no, they're down. ??. so, how can safari have a 25% market share if the iphone is at 15% and apple pcs are at 10%?

the last version of safari for windows was in 2013, and you would bizarrely need to run it via wine to use it on linux, according to a cursory google search.

but, you can install safari on android devices. so, i guess that a lot of people have switched from iphone to android, but don't want to let go of safari just yet? even so, the numbers are still weird.

it may be closer to the truth that firefox' decline is tied more to the general decline of the desktop/laptop and it's increasing replacement with phones. it may be less that people are moving away from firefox, and more that people are moving away from computers altogether.

i'm going to continue to resist this, and when i do finally move past firefox, it's going to be to some kind of fork. i could end up migrating to linux, and using a linux fork of firefox. i don't know what's still kicking, it's been a long time.

i've just had issues with chrome being particularly invasive, in terms of spyware. i had it installed for a while, years ago, but i kept finding it dialing home, and every time i turned it off, it would install itself back into the startup menu. it was acting like a virus, basically, and i don't have a lot of patience for aggressive corporate spyware like that. so, i ripped it right out of my machine, and i've avoided it ever since. i don't intend to go back to it....

but, i should check to see how this thing behaves on the 90s laptop, first. if...does it even have flac codecs at all?

if it was funny over aac or ogg, i wouldn't mind so much, but i expect people to download in flac, so i want this to work on the chromebook. in the world of windows and linux, flac is the default lossless audio codec.

we're reimaging. that's fine. it will be quick, there's nothing to play with this time, i didn't really alter anything.

on second thought....no. 

this is what i had:

type='audio/flac; codec="flac"'

i thought i had dropped the ' after the flac, and changing it to:

type='audio/flac'; codec="flac"'

did actually get it to work in the chrome browser, but now i'm concerned that it's going to be broken in firefox, because it should actually be wrong, and i don't have a soundcard...

these finicky browsers, huh? fuck...

i'm convinced that my hard drive is fine, so i'm going to turn the hd audio chip on in the bios and take my chances. i may have to reimage. whatever. i need sound. when i come up in the laptop next week, i'll need to add hardware components back in one at a time - including my new wired usb keyboard.

but, it's hard to understand how it could be a driver issue if it boots fine and is fine for a day or two. that doesn't add up.

i'm also going to copy over all five options for inri003 and test them thoroughly in the chrome os to see if i can figure out a pattern.

i think i want:

type="audio/flac"

...i.e. i should drop the codec specification. that seems to be what's confusing things. but i need to make sure it actually works.

so, let's try to get the audio up on the desktop, here we go....

to be clear, it's just the html5 frontends that need the update. the pdfs & docs are fine, so the stuff at noise trade can stay, and the music journals are ok, too.

it's just the zip files in each of the liner note packages...

and, then i'll have to redownload everything again and replace it on the external.

this is a pain in the ass. absolutely. but, it's just time consuming, it's not hard.

*sigh*.

i had only previously tested in firefox, and everything worked perfectly. so, i was a little surprised to realize that flac wasn't playing back on the chromebook.

it turns out i dropped a ' in the controls, and i did it consistently - hundreds of times.

so, i have to go back and fix everything. 

that should take the rest of the night.

to be clear: it's very minor. but i have to do it.

it will give me some time to listen, and there's maybe more going on this month than i thought, after all.

if you know a little bit about the history, this should not surprise you.

the assimilation policy has remained essentially unchanged for the last 250 years, since the 1763 proclamation.

the government of canada intends to eventually get rid of the native population through a combination of eugenics and assimilation. and, we broadly don't understand this, because they've gone out of their way to obscure it.

every once in a while, they come clean - like the chretien white paper did - but the policy has remained unchanged the whole time, and it doesn't seem likely that anything will ever change it.

rather, the indigenous population in canada needs to adopt a more adversarial approach and stop buying into the lie of reconciliation.

https://aptnnews.ca/2020/01/27/cynical-ploy-trudeau-government-flip-flops-now-plans-to-fight-child-welfare-class-action/

i mean, my rejection of sanders is not about some broad moral principle. it's neither deontological, nor is it consequentialist, although i would usually lean more towards consequentialism, and i agree that colin powell is infinitely worse than joe rogan.

rather, he's made it clear to me that it would not be in my self-interest, as a trans person, to support him - because he'd throw me under the bus as soon as it's expedient to do so.

and, yes - this is frustrating, because he's the only mainstream candidate with anything approaching a political program that i'd even consider supporting. warren has made attempts to court voters like me, but i don't support her politics, and i'm not going to pick appeals to identity over economic self-interest.

i need to retreat back to the far left, which is where i came from.

joe rogan is not on the ballot.

but, he does have the inalienable right to cast one, and what the rest of the world thinks about that doesn't actually matter.

i think there's a difference between talking to joe rogan - which didn't bother me much - and accepting his endorsement, which leans more towards shrugging off his politics. but, bernie sanders has already established a pattern with this, and this doesn't surprise me.

however.

i sometimes feel like we get this backwards.

i reject claims that being critical of islam is "bigoted" or "racist", especially due to the fact that so much of the criticism is due to islam's own inherent racism and bigotry - and homophobia and misogyny. it's a false equivalency. while it's important to recognize that humans are individuals, and wrong to prejudge them based on their background, it nonetheless remains the case that standing up against prejudice means standing against islam, rather than with it. you can't pretend to stand for equality if you're standing there endorsing islam - it's preposterous, and that kind of hypocrisy needs to be called out loudly. i'm wiling to do that openly, and i'm willing to take flack for it.

so, i reject the idea that i'm in any way promoting oppression - i insist that i'm consistently fighting against it, and my critics are deeply confused as to what the right side of this debate is, or actively supporting oppression, themselves.

but, i recognize that a lot of people might not want my endorsement, either because they legitimately disagree with me (in which case they're wrong, and need to be convinced of it) or because they just don't want to engage in as subtle a debate as this is. they don't want the controversy...

but, i'd basically tell them to fuck off if they told me that, because politicians don't pick voters, voters pick politicians.

i've decided i'm not endorsing sanders, i'm going to support the greens. the greens might not exactly like my endorsement - i would hope they'd see where i'm coming from, and there are issues that for me are not ballot issues where we'd disagree (such as iran. i'm not voting on iran.), but they might make the choice to say "we don't want this", and that's fine. but, that doesn't change where my self-interest is...

if my ballot issue is about health care, and the party that best represents my interests in health care (speciously) thinks i'm a racist, that doesn't change where my interests on health care are. i'm still going to vote and support the group that is best for me, whether they like it or not.

i think a lot of the disconnect with this comes up with the concept of identity voting. if voting is about joining a club, i'm willing to acknowledge that i'm certainly not in the democratic club, and that i'd no doubt have a lot of disagreements with anybody in the green socialist club. i'd want to join the insurrectionary anarchist club, but that would be a very small club. i completely reject this, though. voting is not about joining a club, it's about advancing one's self interests. i consequently don't really care about these identity issues. but, i abstractly grasp where people are coming from with this, too.

so, should sanders reject rogan's endorsement? i think that if you were expecting him to, you haven't really been paying attention - that wasn't an expectation that is supported by the evidence built up over the last few years. i think he might not realize that it's in his self-interest to say something about it, and that, if he doesn't, it might hurt him with key demographics that he's likely to do poorly with, anyways. he seems to have a flawed concept of the demographics that he needs to win; this is a broad strategic problem, and we'll see how it plays out over the next few weeks. i think he's going to regret the decisions he's made, and his uncritical acceptance of rogan's endorsement is just one example of this.

but, it's ultimately not his place to pick his voters, it's ultimately the place of voters to pick the candidates that best represent their interests.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/27/21081876/joe-rogan-bernie-sanders-henry-kissinger

so, i've got the list built up, but i'm actually mostly going to be listening to classical music for the next however long.

i told you this was coming.

i like ravel, but i couldn't imagine going to one of his operas. the "debussy and ravel" night the week after is more likely. and, then they're doing beethoven's sixth the week after that.

as for rock shows, it is very likely that i'll hit man or astroman at the end of the month - that's actually a kind of a bucket list show, for me. that's the only thing i'm taking seriously, right now.

there are a few shows in march, but it looks like april is particularly stacked. i may find myself wanting to save up, instead.

so, i'll be spending the day listening and testing.

this is our last solar cycle to figure this out in.

and, if business continues as normal, we probably won't make it through it without seeing irreversible climate change kick in.

i remember back around 2013 or so i was saying things like "this might be the last serious winter that we get here".

then we got some brutal winters. and, i had to adjust my thinking around the topic.

the way climate change has been affecting us here has been to incrementally shift the oscillations upwards. there are 11 and 22 year solar cycles (roughly), and climate change doesn't reverse or negate those, but it can exaggerate or blunt them. the last couple of years have felt very cold, it is true, and we have seen some record breaking temperatures as well, but, on average, they've trended upwards.

but, we were at the low point of the cycle, and we're coming out of it now...

the northern hemisphere has an exaggerated importance regarding climate feedbacks. the next 11-22 years are really critical. politicians keep looking for deadlines, because they think we need some kind of business normality, that we need to get the fucking memo, but of course it's not going to actually work like that - we can't calculate the exact moment where we're officially fucked. we won't know it until it happens....

but, what we can say with some certainty is that we're entering the end game. we don't know how strong this solar cycle is going to be. if it's really, really weak then maybe we eek out another cycle before we're officially fucked; more likely is that the coming tipping points are now imminent, and we're in a race against time, as the sun starts to accelerate the process rather than slow it down.

if these tipping points click in over the next 11-22 years, then winter's years in southern canada may be numbered, and we may have seen our last serious winter, here. 

ok.

so, i'm out of the shower, and i kind of lost the day, but i guess that's expected.

i actually haven't finished testing the stuff i uploaded yesterday, yet. i'm about half done. it's really a formality.

but, if i'm going to have the chromebook on anyways, then i'm going to use it to do the february lookahead. i've 95% convinced myself that the hard drive and operating system are stable, but i want to leave it on until i get groceries, which will probably be on friday. at that point, if it hasn't crashed, i'll pretty much have proven the point....

that means i have no audio on my main system for the week.

but, i'm going to plan to set up the list for the month first, then finish the testing and then get on to the next thing. 

i must call the court early in the morning.

and, i'll want to get the motion in the mail on friday.

i'm clearly not going to get this finished by the end of the night. i haven't started.

rather, i'm going to gorge myself, shower and then focus very strictly on finishing everything up over the next couple of days.

i would go after adam schiff on his finances.

he comes off as some kind of jerry falwell type figure, where he's preaching the gospel during the day, and taking it in the ass every night.

when somebody files their contributions with $720,000 from "retired  people", the third most in congress, that should probably raise some red flags about him hiding the identity of his backers.

i mean, he can't be that popular with the old folks.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=W06%20%20&cycle=2020&recipdetail=H&Mem=Y&sortorder=U

$40,000 from the defense industry, huh.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/pacs?cid=N00009585&cycle=2020

i really haven't been paying attention to this stuff recently, i've been immersed in my art, i just happened to tune in here recently because i was wondering where i'd go to keep loosely informed now that the real news has imploded (it seems like everybody's moved over to here), and, crikey, schiff has gone and brought back the john birch society...

i think any sane person would recognize the absolute absurdity of this rant. but, i've tuned out of this for a reason - this is the reason - so it's particularly surreal to get a mouthful of it out of the blue, like somebody left some rat droppings in your bag of skittles. yikes. 

and, maybe the fact that i've been so completely disinterested in this for so long gives me some clarity in reaction, as well, in the face of pretty much everybody's neuroticism, one way or the other. like, i've been under a self-imposed blackout on this. this is completely fresh to me. 

my immediate thoughts are that i'm walking into a debate, one that may be closing, on what america's make believe enemy ought to be. what schiff seems to be doing is appropriating a lot of the arguments that you heard during the war on terrorism and reapplying them towards russia. these weren't really cold war arguments, either, they were specific to islamic extremism. so, for example, you never heard anyone argue that you had to fight the soviets in vietnam so you didn't have to fight them at berkeley - that's an argument that you heard from the likes of ann coulter, as applied to iraq. i'm sure - certain - that there are direct quotes from ann coulter, where she argued in favour of the iraq war by suggesting that if you don't fight them in the middle east, they'll come to america, and she was really just channeling byzantine military strategy in the region when she was saying that - it's a barbarian management strategy. likewise, the wounded animal analogy is something that i've actually applied myself, i think far more accurately, to isis. 

why is schiff speaking in these precise terms? well, it seems scripted - these are talking points. there seems to be a conscious intent, here, to shift the focus of american military aggression out of the middle east and back towards russia, and that's just the tip of this long standing debate around who it is that america should be flailing against - the russians or the muslims. to an extent, it's a question of if we're at war with eurasia or eastasia, right. it's perhaps naive to expect this to resolve itself, but it's a definite faultline that exists in the power elite. 

i'm actually wondering if schiff is basically being lobbied by the saudis, though.

i mean, there's two layers to this. there's a legitimate strategic dialogue, and honest questions around how america should be directing it's military resources, and this is healthy. but, if this is essentially a struggle between the russians and the saudis for influence in washington, the reality is that the russians just don't lobby the way the saudis do. a lot of these people are essentially just being bought off with arab blood money, and paid to recite what are ridiculous lines, with the intent to shift the dialogue. this might be the reason he's using the precise language he's using. this is speculation...

what i think is more than speculation is that he is very consciously attempting to appropriate the language from the war on terrorism and reutilize it against the russians, and that this is happening in the context of this broader strategic debate. and, that should make everybody think carefully about the path they're being led down....

i think most people would concede that it was just a matter of time before peter mackay took a serious run at the prime minister's office, and, unlike scheer, he's an opponent that trudeau needs to take seriously.

just winning a dozen seats in the maritimes alone could shift the balance of power, and mackay will do better in urban canada than scheer did. it's very far out, but i'd have to give them equal chances, at a great distance.

what is peter mackay? well, the irony is that he's in many ways the mirror reflection of justin trudeau - he's a spoiled rich kid from an old money lineage that doesn't really deserve anything he has, and would have never gotten to where he is in life had he not been born into it. he's an aristocrat. and, he's not very bright.

the difference is just that mackay has been around for twice as long, so he gives off the impression of having worked his way up. and, he has held a few cabinet positions, sure.

he would be indiscernible from justin trudeau, in the sense that he'd be doing what he's told, and that's a new normal that's sunk in that should really be resisted. say what you will about harper, but at least he was his own man. he was a Strong Leader, after all. going back from harper, canada actually has a tradition of independent-minded leaders. if there's one thing we should avoid, it's replacing trudeau with another pawn....

is trudeau a failed experiment? see, i'd argue he is. his puppet masters might have a different argument. perspective is key.

but, my single request to the conservative party is to pick somebody who is in charge of their own itinerary, so to speak, because it's not clear that the country can survive another government full of corporate puppets that just do what they're told.

so, you'll no doubt hear all kinds of terrible things about peter mackay from the usual partisan sources, and it's less that it's not true, and more that it's largely the same thing we have now. there will be some minor differences on the margins regarding social issues, but he's not a rabid social conservative (and trudeau's not really all that liberal, either). they're basically the same on economics and basically the same on foreign policy, because they're basically told the same things by what are basically the same people.

the more important question may be whether trudeau wants to move on. if he does, peter mackay will be a perfectly acceptable establishment replacement, and they'll be happy to ease him in.

but, i hope the conservative party picks somebody that demonstrates a deeper level of independent thinking and, frankly, has a deeper level of intellect.

to the canadian parliament, including the canadian senate,

please conduct a thorough and careful review of the new free trade legislation, and ensure that enough debate is carried forward that any issues can be identified before it is too late.

you may also want to take note of the inevitability of an election within the next 12-24 months.

thanks.

i left them a message.

i'll try again very early in the morning and several times over the day tomorrow....

i'm going to try to get these liner notes for inri015 done before midnight first, and then get a start on the motion afterwards.

so, the first task was to figure out what the deal with this factum from the windsor police was.

they're basically claiming that, because they didn't make the decision, they shouldn't be named on the case. they're asking for the case to be dismissed against them.

i've had some discussion regarding this with them, and they seem to be entirely disinterested in discourse. i've sent them arguments, and all they've been done is repeat themselves. they are now repeating themselves again on the factum.

but, their position is ridiculous; the windsor police are both the authors and the subject of the report, and consequently must be named as respondents because they are central to the topic at hand.

but, what i'm concerned about is them using it as a stalling tactic. they could show up and claim they didn't prepare because they were expecting a dismissal. they are otherwise providing no legal argument. the tactic here appears to be to create a distraction, and hope they can avoid the issue.

i'm not playing that game.

i have two useful precedents.

this is an example of a similar case (up to a difference in scale), where the cops are named as defendants on a judicial review:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2019/2019onsc180/2019onsc180.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAYInBvbGljZSByZXZpZXcgZGlyZWN0b3IiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2

and, this case discusses the issue at some length:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2016/2016onsc5824/2016onsc5824.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAkImluZGVwZW5kZW50IHBvbGljZSByZXZpZXcgZGlyZWN0b3IiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=29

Beyond the decision maker, it is generally understood that all persons who participated in the administrative hearing under review should be named as respondents.

again: their position is beyond wrong, it's incomprehensible. they wrote the damned report!

as it turns out, there's a part in the statute that lets me file a motion to ask for clarification on the issue.

so, i am going to do that in the next few days, and they will need to react appropriately. if the court lets them off then that's fine, but i've done my due diligence. if the court orders that they take part, they'll need to prepare for an actual defence...

i need to call toronto, now.

the desktop is still up, btw.

so, i'm ruling out the hard drive....which i knew....

i have to be thorough in testing this, though. i have to give it more time.

it still might be a short in the electricity. but, we'll see what a usb keyboard fixes and what it doesn't.

i wanted to shower this morning, but my stomach wouldn't allow it and i passed out instead.

i need to focus on the court stuff first.

again: i don't think there's any evidence that iran is building a bomb, and i don't think that's a left/right issue. it's an empirical question. you don't figure this out by citing bakunin (or adam smith), you figure it out by consulting the people doing the work on the ground, and they're all absolutely adamant: there's no evidence of any weapons program.

i'm not interested in conspiracy theories that rely on covert israeli intelligence, either. the motives behind these conspiracy theories are crystal clear.

so, no - iran does not appear to be building a bomb.

but, i don't actually think this is a choice, like it is here in canada. up in canada, we have reactors online. we sold the technology to india, actually. we really could build them if we wanted to, and really don't want to.

i think the actual reason that iran isn't enriching is that they wouldn't have a fucking clue what to do with the enriched product - it's reflective of how primitive their technological capacity actually is. they might not even be able to store it. their "nuclear program" is really more of a propaganda ploy to stick it to the empire, and try and demonstrate that the revolution has made them powerful. with allah's help, they will control the atom! but, it's just a line of complete bullshit. the west buys into it because it props up the military-industrial complex and keeps an enemy lined up, but iran would be lucky to get a bomb built before 2200. science doesn't tend to do well under totalitarian theocratic rule; that's a general pattern in history. iran doesn't have an actual fucking clue - it's a backwards society, with retarded levels of innovation due to the theocracy snubbing everything out. they kill or imprison all of the smart people.

the saudis are in a similar scenario. they keep buying these advanced weapons systems, and it looks really scary, but the fact is that they need to hire an american military planner to turn any of it on. yes, it's irresponsible to sell this shit to these crazy religious nutcases. but, the sobering reality is that they don't have a fucking clue how to use any of it.

so, i don't want to even have this debate.

but, i wouldn't want to have it, anyways. if iran was enriching, i would actually support their right to do that, in principle. i don't think the empire has any particular authority to come in and say "stop doing this". and, they clearly have some reason to need to defend themselves.

so, they aren't doing it, and i would support their right to do it if they were.

but, i'd still like to overthrow the government there, because it's still particularly brutal, wmds or not, and i'm willing to be pragmatic about finding creative ways to take the mullahs out. if this is how you do it....

this is what happens when you wake up and realize the left has been co-opted by the traditionalist right. so-called left-wing voices are all of a sudden pushing some kind of religiously motivated opposition to war on moral principles, rather than agitating for revolutionary overthrow of capitalist states. it's exactly what the bourgeoisie always dreamed of. and, they're willing to stand with the worst abusers of human rights on the planet. it's positively orwellian. truly.

i don't like aligning with the right, and need to be clear what my differences in operating philosophy are with them. i'm not particularly concerned about wmds in iran at all, actually. but, i have no patience with these groups that stand with the mullahs and the sheikhs by hiding behind these flimsy anti-colonial theories, that are really just rebranded, if somewhat inverted, orientalism.

i'm disenfranchised; the left, overall, is. i know it....

when your stomach has shrunken so much that you feel like you're going to burst after your first appetizer....

ok.

are we done here for the night?

i think we are.

i need to eat...and then i need to organize all of this loose data, before i get on to inri015.

that's all of the uploading for tonight.

i will need to reconstruct the music blog when i get to the general cleanup, but the general & dtk blogs are updated.

the facebook pages are updated for the night.

so, what's left to do is download the packages from bandcamp and cross-reference them to make sure they're correct.

the pdf conversion via microsoft's cloud seems to be flawless, even over 1500 page documents. google's conversion is terrible. so is adobe's. everybody should take note of that. but, i'm anal...i will bitwise compare in notepad++ and carefully sort through line by line to make sure it's lined up...

my desktop is still running. it doesn't have a soundcard, though. i stripped everything out when i was fighting with the interference patterns.

i will need to prioritize the court stuff when i wake up tomorrow, but i'm hoping i can accomplish the following posting schedule:

1) inri015 by the end of the day on the 27th (today). i'm looking at about 125 pages, but a lot of it is overlap with inri000-inri002.

2) inri021 by the end of the day on the 28th. it's also 125 pages, but it's the same overlap.

3) inri022 by the end of the day on the 29th.

4) inri023 by the end of the day on the 30th.

and, i will then need to do a february look ahead before i can get to finishing january, 2014. in fact, i could maybe start on that this week.

the factum from the oiprd will be here by the 31st.

i *am* going to want to try to load the laptop some time this week.

the liner notes for inri029 have been augmented by 4 pages, and the video for inertia has been added.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/warning

the liner notes for inri028 have been augmented by 2 pages, as well.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/pop-music-a-tribute-to-carbon-dioxide

the liner notes for inri027 have been augmented by two pages.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/gene-os-a-soundtrack-for-an-italian-breakfast-cereal

the liner notes for inri016 have been increased by one post from dec, 2013.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/eat-my-fuck

this has now been updated as well, but the update is a single line in each of the documents, to stamp the release as 'jam001', and will not be noted further.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inrisampled

first liner note release for inri002

i've released a dozen different things with the title "inricycled", making it more of a concept than a release. it's not just the material i'm recycling, now, it's the idea of recycling material.

i hope this is the final iteration. the difference, here, is that i'm trying to isolate segments of songs that people interested in my more recent compositions would find interesting. these fragments aren't entirely void of lyrics, but they're very minimal. they're also quite short.

i've retitled most of the tracks to get a feel of what the music sounds like and/or what i was thinking as i was writing it.

the material in this volume is taken from the following cassette demos, , inri000 and inri001:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1 (1996)
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-2 (1997)

this is the best possible absolute starting point for my musical material.

written and recorded over 1996 and 1997. digitally remastered, sequenced and mildly modified in the fall of 2013. released dec 11, 2013. finalized as lp000 on july 3, 2016. first liner note release added on jan 26, 2020. i consider this my unofficial zeroth record. as always, please use headphones.

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 2013-2020). as of jan 26, 2020, the release includes a 106 page booklet in doc, pdf & html, with an html5 audio & video frontend, that includes journal entries from the remastering process over sept-dec, 2013, as well as the video for inertia, from dec, 2013 .

credits

released July 1, 1997

j - guitars, effects, bass, drums, vocals, keyboards, tapes, found sounds, metronomes, digital wave editing, production.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inricycled

so, we're doing this one at a time, which means the posts will be stretched out a little. it seems like it's the long way if it's you, but it's really not if it's me.

inri001 has been updated to include the video for inertia, which also added a half a page to the liner notes at the very end. the doc & pdf files just had hyperlinks added, but the html file embedded it. this is consistent with the other media files.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-2

i'm having difficulty focusing, again.

i've got the typos corrected for inri000. this is not a re-release, and barely justifies mentioning it.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1

the pdfs - there's 8 - are all downloaded and they look proper, but i'll have to rigorously run through them before i move on.

let's get the seven existing packages updated, first.

so, there was a shutdown on thursday morning, and i spent the day thursday finishing up the archiving from the desktop, and then uploaded everything thursday night and into friday morning. i reimaged the machine, got some fruit and passed out and slept until friday afternoon when i intended to start fresh and get a good session in, to finish everything up for sunday night....

there actually wasn't any reason to turn the modem on, as i didn't intend to connect from that laptop, and i had plenty of work to do offline. i was hoping to get everything updated, and turn the modem on when i was done. i had some concerns that they may have been using the chromebook as a relay, and i don't know how linux networking works, really, at all, so i felt there was little i could do to react to it. so, i shut it down partly to save electricity and partly to keep the fuckers out while i was working.

unfortunately, friday was really a waste. i simply couldn't focus, and i don't actually think it was pot, or at least not until later in the night. it actually felt like i was on mushrooms, and i don't have any good explanation for that at all. but, if you've ever tried reading on mushrooms....you can't.....it's impossible.....

i took a shower and made some coffee around 4:00, but i passed out not longer after. it was just a bust....

i was up in the afternoon, and i actually got a lot more done, before the machine went down again around 22:00. i have updates for inri000, inri001, inri003, inri016 & inri027-inri029, and i'm also going to be doing a first liner note release for inri002 by the end of the night. i was most of the way done inri002 when the machine went out...

this is a situation that caused me some serious pause. all evidence suggested that i was being shut down remotely by a server that was trying to deploy something, but the situation seemed to belie that - not only had i not connected this machine to the internet at all, but no machine in the apartment had been connected, and the modem was actually turned off.

if i was being shutdown remotely, it would have to be via a wireless connection that i didn't understand. there was only one networking device in the entire apartment - my wireless keyboard, a bluetooth device with a range of a hundred metres, at most.

in fact, i noticed on saturday night that my wireless keyboard was connecting as a composite device, indicating that it was accepting signals from more than just the keyboard.

i also noticed on friday night that i was able to activate windows without connecting to the internet - an obvious absurdity. but, it would indicate a backdoor connection.

further, my wireless keyboard is manufactured by microsoft.

you can see what i'm putting together with this.

i have three ps/2 keyboards, and a half dozen connectors the other way, but no way to connect a keyboard to a laptop via usb without using wireless, just right now. i'd have to get out to the factory direct, and i did resolve to do so, but i wanted to get this done first. next week...

i then accidentally booted into the laptop's hard drive using the desktop's motherboard, and i knew at that point that i had to test it - i could use the ps/2 keyboard on the desktop, and if there's something else going on in the laptop, i have no expectation that they've gotten to the desktop. not yet...

if the pc crashes the same way in the end, i'm going to have to try to swap out the hard drives. i've been resisting this because it isn't rational, but short of the operating system expiring, the hard drive would be the only remaining shared component. if the same thing happens, it has to be the drive....

but, if the pc stays up for the next week, i'm going to need to buy a usb keyboard, i guess. we can't have wireless keyboards in canada, i guess - the cops will use them to hack into your computer and shut you down. the true north strong and free, huh. so long as you don't think for yourself, i guess...

you are free to shut up and be a good slave.

you are free to do what you're told....

tellingly, i've been unable to activate, indicating there's no backdoor. and, i've been getting weird error messages informing me that i'm disconnected from the remote server.

in the long run, i'm clearly going to need to wipe this down. but, it's not going to help if they just capture the machine again.

it's one thing to have these paranoid observations. it's another to have them confirm themselves. it's still another for the confirmations to build up.

it really, honestly seems like somebody is slaving my windows box to a domain server via the bluetooth in my wireless keyboard - a shortwave radio with a very short range connection, so short range that that person would basically need to be directly upstairs.....

i crashed from about 5:00-11:00, and finished up inri002 this afternoon. here she comes....

but, first...

no, justin. juan guaido is not the interim president of anything.

at this point, he's actually just a random dude from venezuela, and nothing more. and, by meeting with him, the canadian government is broadcasting that it's going to be actively supporting the violent overthrow of the venezuelan government.

the second in line is the vice president, delcy rodriguez.

juan guaido holds no elected office at all.

i'm on the chromebook....

what happened?

well, to start with, i just noticed that my local archiving is working again, which is a good thing. i think it might be suggestive of a pullback in surveillance, actually. you'd think it's a matter of time before they pull their heads out of their asses...

i'm concerned about missing email, though. what else didn't get through over the last year or so?

i've actually had an eventful weekend. and, there's stuff on it's way up to bandcamp soon.

re: court stuff - i got a factum from the windsor police that i haven't read yet, and i'll need to call the divisional court in the morning, because they left a message. this is actually all going according to plans.

but, let's start with a narrative of the weekend, because i think i'm coming to some very unsettling and very startling conclusions.

the political orientation of third-world governments matters.

i will stand up for nominally leftist states, whatever their failings, in ways i won't stand up for juntas or theocracies.

umm.

is justin trudeau referring to juan guaido as the "interim president of venezuela"?

is he ignorant, or is he stupid? it's not clear.

the media is referring to him as an opposition leader, which is at least mildly accurate.

i'd call him the self-appointed, autocratic leader of a failed coup, myself. and, i'm very, very uncomfortable about the prime minister meeting with him.

don't ask me why i was thinking of this yesterday, but there was a kid in my class for a few years named emma lester. 

i'm not joking. i don't remember bugging her, really, but you can imagine how brutal that must have been, to go through middle school with a name like that.

it makes you wonder: were her parents sadistic freaks, or just completely oblivious buffoons? out of all the things you can name a miss lester, you'd think you'd avoid that particular name, of emma. 

if they had a son would they name him moe? just to make sure he didn't get too entitled? fuck.

some people...

no. the media narrative around sanders' "momentum", as usual, is disconnected from the facts, and what i care about is the facts, the truth. i'm not trying to mess with you, i just want an empirical breakdown...

he's running exactly where he was in july, before warren pissed on his parade. but, the damage is already done, now.

so, at best you could argue that he's regained the ground he lost over the fall. but, this is a swing that is barely discernible from a reasonable margin of error. his numbers are really not defined by waning interest and rising momentum but by a large amount of stability - biden is running pretty smoothly at 30-35, and sanders is running just as smoothly at 20-25.

warren is noticeably down. but, it's bloomberg that seems to be the beneficiary.

i'm somewhat surprised that buttigieg made exactly the same error as sanders, but i'm not surprised that it's had more or less exactly the same outcome. i was expecting him to come down a little. but, bloomberg is just as old as biden & sanders, and he does still remain the most likely beneficiary of a collapse in the gerontocracy, should he hold on for long enough. again: bloomberg seems to be hurting him a little.

what i will say is that if the party wants to run 37 centrists into may, that is going to certainly help sanders out quite a bit. the question is whether that's likely or not, and it isn't - as soon as some people start dropping, these numbers are going to coalesce in a way that kills his chances. 

so, there is no momentum. there is only stasis. it's all hype.

no, i'm a left-anarchist in the tradition of bakunin or kropotkin. it's mostly about the question of property - if you reject property, you align on the left.

it's just that in america, words don't mean what they mean everywhere else. barack obama and bernie sanders would be considered conservatives in most places, while donald trump would be considered to be decidedly liberal. the meaning of things get confused.

it's been a while since i called the lot of you conservatives, but it's still true.

pacifism, for example, is a conservative ideology. leftists believe in armed revolution, and a diversity of tactics around how to get there. i know this is confusing if you went to school here, but it's true - pacifism aligns with the religious and traditionalist types, like the quakers and orthodox jews, whereas the left is all hankering to burn the place down. now, i'll admit that bombing iraq is not the same thing as executing the pope, but there's still a fundamental point of confusion here between who is a radical pushing for change and who is a conservative trying to stop it. if you associate anti-war movements with the left, you're deeply confused. 

there's other examples; not right now. i've done it before, and i'll do it again.

to the extent that it's the really existing movements on the ground that are important rather than the abstract labels, what that means is that a person like me that tries to react to the actual meaning of words needs to be empirical - and it took me a few tries, but i've figured that out, now. chances are actually pretty good that your local socialist 101 is actually full of religious conservatives, rather than marxist or anarchist radicals. if you're looking for radicals, you're better of trying the religious groups. & etc. you've just gotta do the research, find the mapping, figure out how things actually are...

i'm done my fruit, so i'm shutting down.

but, it smells like a fucking dumpster fire in here.

and, i'll say it again.

you might think that you'd be free to smoke all day every day in a stateless society. who would stop you, right? but, i'll tell you - it's the cops that are protecting you from people that want to bang your door down and yell your face off, and drive you out of fucking town. you get rid of the state to protect you, and you won't like what happens next....

if you believed in liberty, you would respect the rights of your neighbours to sobriety, and to clean air.

you don't believe in liberty in any rational way.

you just believe in selfishness.

if you want to throw around libertarian arguments, be rigorous about it.

otherwise, what you are is a fucking nihilist - a randian objectivist, a utility monster and a piece of shit

but, listen.

that's not the point.

smoke yourself retarded. i don't give a fuck. just respect the fact that i don't want in on this and make sure your habits aren't bothering me.

it's a basic non-aggression principle - if your rights end where mine begin, that means you keep your smoke to yourself, and you take responsibility for it when people bitch about it.

this idea that you have some right to smoke wherever you want and fuck everybody else is fucking asinine.

and, every court system on the planet will uphold that it is, even if the cops in this city are fucking morons.

the un convention on the rights to smoke yourself retarded.

it's a fucking joke.

how many conventions and documents talk about the right to fresh air?

now, how many talk about the right to get stoned?

it's not a serious debate. one is a fundamental right and freedom, and the other is a lot of baloney.

and, would that piece of shit go smoke somewhere else?

i should have the right to fresh air, along with my right to hot air. the right to clear thinking is just as fundamental as the right to free speech....

let these petite bourgeois tinpot dictators be exposed for what they are.

let them work through the obvious absurdity of attacking the blatant anarchist as a foreign agent, on it's face. 

it's preposterous. 

...because i make my politics crystal clear.

and it's pretty plain that they don't align with any state actor, anywhere, but are rather pretty hostile to the concept of the state, altogether.

i will win this debate, if they are foolish enough to have it, and i will ensure that nobody else needs to engage in it. it's outlandish....

i work for the hope and dream of one day living in a canada that is free from capitalism and exploitation, within a world that shares that vision and priority.

i work for a world without states - without this one, without that one and without the other one.

so, imagine there's no countries, guys. it isn't hard to do. 

and, no religion, too. that's key. central.