Thursday, August 13, 2020

here's the 7th-9th summary, as kept in my own records.

aug 7

this was much later, but it's also still, to my knowledge, the highest selling indie record of all time. so, any records that sold more than this were always on major record labels.

punk as a movement didn't release many records on major labels and the only thing i can think of that sold more than this off the top of my head is actually nevermind.

that means this was the centerpiece of one of the most recognizable punk rock records ever released.

and. well...listen to it...

16:00


16:01

i'm not sure if dexter holland ever finished his phd in microbiology or not.


16:05


16:06

remember...

when life's a waste, just run away.

i think i've got my point across - this wasn't a minority view in the punk scene, especially not after about 1982-1983. it was a dominant component of what punk was from the start, to the end.

the fans may have been less into the messaging than the bands, and i get that. but, the general perception of drug use in the punk movement was never particularly positive; they seem to have broadly seen potheads as losers, and people that did heavy drugs as giving up on themselves.

and, they made fun of them for it.


16:32

post not broadcast:
16:33

aug 8

is gretchen whitmer a reasonable choice?

let's hope this isn't creepy joe at play, here. listen - this is a potential problem that could develop with a number of people around him. i keep saying he's the mirror reflection of trump...

trump seems to have a kind of specific hate-on for her, as well, which could work to his advantage if he's subtle (which he never is.) but could backfire if he gets desperate, or just overwhelmed with misogyny. that's a real wildcard. my impression is that she's a strong campaigner, and might be able to push the right buttons so that he self-destructs. pence is more self-disciplined, and also more hateful to his core being, so that's a weird dynamic.

it would seem to me that a whitmer pick would put her at the front of the ticket, in the sense that she would be the media front for a biden-overseen background operation. she's relatively young, comfortable in front of the camera and fairly photogenic. the fact that she's still in contention suggests that, creepy joe or not, he is valuing these qualities rather highly.

her main strike against her would be a lack of meaningful executive experience, although she has a lot of legislative experience, and a feeling that she's kind of jumping the gun. she's a bit of a black box as to what she might actually do.

her pandemic rules appear to have deeply over-reacted to the scenario and had little effect on reducing the spread of the disease, but that's a problem with all democrats, who are not interested in following the science on the issue, even when they play political games about it. so, we know she has a fascistic streak to her, which is a downside - but to the party in general, not just her.

iirc, she ran on an infrastructure mandate, and all she's really had time to do since elected is focus on disaster relief. i remember some encouraging words to the effect that queer people actually have rights coming from the attorney general's office, but that's a separate election, right? it would be helpful from an analytical standpoint to have data from less chaotic times to get a chance to see how she might govern a few years from now; as it is, and from what i can tell, she seems to be about a middle-of-the-road centre-left democrat that should check all the boxes for most of the big single-issue voters but isn't going to be very appealing to leftists, who don't really matter, anyways.

so, it's electorally reasonable, and perhaps more so than it is a reasonable governing option. but, i'd assign a wide margin of error; what i'm saying is that we don't really have the data to know.

so, i'd need to focus on the campaign to determine whether i'd want to vote for her or abstain.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/07/politics/gretchen-whitmer-joe-biden-meeting/index.html


5:15


"but, he's a decent guy."

he's really not, he's a total creep.

5:16

i need to make this point very clear. i do it every election, because you people always want to take sides, and create friends and enemies, and split people apart...

i don't approach elections like they're sports tournaments, or competitive games, and consequently don't take sides or pit groups against each other in the process.

i hate the democrats
i hate conservatives
i hate the liberals
i hate the republicans
i hate the ndp
and i hate the greens, too

ok?

i hate you all to your core, from my core, all the time, in every way.

so, i may very well post the most vicious attacks you've ever seen on biden one minute, then suggest i'm endorsing him the next. if you interpret my attacks from a partisan perspective, you're going to be run astray.

no, attacking your opponent doesn't mean i'm on your side - and i might not be. and, attacking you doesn't mean i won't endorse you.

i am not a team player, i do not want to cooperate and i'm not interested in repeating party lines.

i have no party membership and don't want to join one. if i were going to join a party, it would be something more like the communist party.

and, i can't vote in this election or any other american election.

the choices in this election are truly particularly disgusting, even relative to a long series of uninspiring choices; i thought 2016 was bad, but biden really makes clinton look pretty compelling, in comparison (not enough to seriously endorse her).

so don't try to put me on a team, or assign me to a side.

i'm an independent agent, a loose canon, a free radical. and, i'll happily demonstrate all manners of bipolarism in my analysis, and not care if you think that's "inconsistent"; it's only inconsistent if you see it as a competition between two antagonistic forces, of which you have to choose a side.

when you have no intention of choosing either side, there's no process of the sort at play.

i will no doubt produce an opinion in the end, but not before ripping my endorsement to shreds, first, and perhaps no more than five minutes after i correctly and convincingly explain why they're unfit to govern.

it's the reality of existing in (or near) a system where democratic choice is really little more than an illusion.

5:37

and, no, i don't care if you don't like how i behave, because i'm not on your side, anyways - even if i endorse you, in the end.

and i don't care if you don't want my endorsement; you're getting it anyways, if i decide i hate your opponent more than i hate you.

5:40

call me post-partisan.

even if i'd really rather send a pox on both your houses.

and, i might get it.

5:41

so, i understand that biden people might read this blog and conclude i must be a trump supporter, but it's just the fallacy of the excluded middle at play; the idea that not(biden) = trump is a logical fallacy, and i'm happy to demonstrate it for you.

conversely, trump people might read this and conclude i must be working for biden, but they're wrong for all the same reasons.

and, in my view, if you both think i'm working for the other party, that means i'm demonstrating a proper level of impartiality.

5:47

the reality is that they're both unelectable and they're both unfit for office.

i'm not going to pretend otherwise, or trick myself into thinking differently.

5:50

but, if you're reading this, do also realize this truth:

i am the elusive educated swing voter; statistically, i don't exist, but we know i'm the ultimate arbiter of elections, when they are free. you may in the end only succeed in reducing my scorn from active to passive hate, but i am the key to victory, on all sides, and my opinion is of paramount concern.

6:01

while dmitri & glen may have broader disagreements about the benefits of capitalism (and i think these are likely even minimal, as glen is further left than he's projecting, and dmitri is actually a little further right than he's projecting, too), the difference between "enforcing your will on the corporate sector" and "working with the corporate sector" has more to do with language than a meaningful difference in policy.

while dimitri might perceive that an authoritarian articulation of positive law is a more effective means forward, he must certainly realize that he can't just pass a proclamation, and then it will just be. if we could all just chant a spell that emissions shalt recede, right? why stop there, though? i hereby declare that atmospheric carbon concentrations will recede to pre-industrial levels! make it so. what, in actuality does imposing one's will on the corporate sector mean? it means working with them to help them meet legislated targets.

likewise, glen is surely cognizant of the reality that any interaction with the corporate sector will require explicit legislation regulating it, as a basis for action in the first place. the regulators that he sends will be there to enforce the legislation, unless somebody pays them off between now and then, or the body overseeing it gets captured.

they're saying the same thing, they're just restating equivalent statements to emphasize different parts of a machinated process, rather than focus on the machinated process itself, as a holistic entity. it's a truly dumb argument.

as an aside, i've watched a few of these now and, while glen ought to win this thing easily, the format of these debates is not helping him get a wonkish message across and neither the moderators nor the other candidates seem to like him much. i would like to see a very data-oriented person in the leadership role, and he does strike me as the best candidate from that perspective, by a good margin. i haven't seen any polling; your guess is as good as mine. but, i'm getting the feeling that i'm going to walk out of this process with more respect for a defeated glen than the party, which is maybe moving away from climate change as a central point of concern.


9:44


9:45

i think i've seen enough to produce a ranked ballot. however, i'm not going to analyze this further. it gets a little blurry after 4 or so.

i'm not looking up spelling, and don't care if i spell their names correctly right now.

1. glen murray
2. courtney howard
3. amita kutner
4. dmitri lascaris
5. judy foote
6. miriam haddad
7. david merner
8. annamie paul
9. andrew west

15:11

i've been over this a few times before; i understand that i'm an omnivore, that this is necessary, but if you look at the animals that we choose to eat...

like, go hang out with a pig some time. these are intuitive, playful creatures that are considerably more intelligent than the animals we keep as pets, cats and dogs. they have individual personalities that you learn when you rear them for slaughter, will respond to names if you give one to them and can even be effectively toilet trained. they seem far too intelligent to be raised in cages for the purposes of consumption.

humans and pigs share some weird similarities as well, like brain structure and skin composition. i've even wondered if pigs may be currently phylogenetically miscategorized as ruminants when they're really descendants of a horrid lost human culture that enslaved and converted a conquered tribe into livestock; the dna may suggest otherwise, but one wonders how powerful a role the environment can play in convergence, via epigenetic expression. hey, humans can grow tails and horns; i'm sure we have the code to grow hooves, too. some back-crossing with the right mutation, and you'd get hooved homo sapiens in no time.

i've never lived on a farm myself, but i've heard from multiple people that there's an almost traumatic rite of passage involved with coming to terms with the fact that the animal friend that you've been playing with in the yard for the last two years is going away because your family is going to eat it. that's a very difficult memory that multiple people i've met have, which demonstrates the point - you feel empathy for the animal, because you've experienced it's cognition.

these issues just don't exist with a species like crickets, who have primitive neuron-like structures but do not technically have brains. it's hard to understand what the signals they experience are like, but we can state confidently that they don't have personalities, that they don't respond to names and that they have no meaningful cognition or intelligence. i wouldn't view raising and eating crickets that differently than i view plant-based agriculture; the best way to do it is probably even in a greenhouse.

21:15

you're going to tell me a cricket has a brain.

a cricket has an eye, but it doesn't really have a brain. the nervous system is actually really localized, so it's able to function independently when parts of the body get chopped off. one wonders if that's a first step to regeneration, or a mostly lost memory of it. but, what that means is that the neurons in the head of the insect, in addition to the optic neurons, are just the local cluster for functions in the head (like eating), and are not any different than the local clusters elsewhere in the body, that are for movement and reproduction.

a brain is supposed to be a centralized processing unit that oversees the control of the entire organism, and insects do not have that; they have an optic bundle that controls for functions in the head and a series of other bundles that control for other localized functions.

so, then, do they have six brains? it's a meaningless compound phrase, a contradiction in terms. i was taught that they have a ganglia that exists throughout their body, rather than multiple brains. but, we can call things what we want, i guess, so long as you realize that "six brains" is sort of an incoherent idea, and that what you're calling brains are very limited and segmented in the scope of their functions.

it's interesting to look at insects that have eyes, though, because it seems to suggest that brains may have evolved from eyes, rather than the other way around. further, who knows; in a few million years, maybe some insects with eyes may develop actual brains, as the optic nerve takes control of the ganglia system.

21:41

aug 9

i want to be clear....

my skepticism about the virus, and criticism towards public health measures, isn't rooted in a political persuasion. i'm not sitting here hoping that people get sick, and if i thought we could have stamped the virus out, i would have supported it.

but, my analysis of the situation was that the virus would not be suppressed. this was based on what i was able to gather about the contagiousness of the virus, combined with what kind of measures could be realistically put in place; i pointed out that the social distancing thing was really just a ridiculous joke in terms of keeping people apart from each other, and that the laboratory assumptions put in place in these studies around mask use did not reflect the realities of people fidgeting with masks, putting them in their pockets, accepting them from centralized locations that are touched and breathed on by dozens or hundreds of people, etc.

i legitimately expected these measures to fail - not because i wanted them to, but because a sober analysis concluded that they just would. and, if you listen to the public health experts, it was clear that they all knew that, they were just reacting out of desperation, to try to solve something they didn't know how to deal with.

see, here is where i maybe get political, but i'd challenge somebody to negate this phrase and argue it: i don't think it's the role of government to take wild guesses on policy and hope it works, but rather that it is the role of government to look at the data through sober, critical filters and make the clearest deductions from it possible. if government had done that, if it had truly followed the science rather than base it's policy on faith and hope, then it would have concluded that it should have brought in policies to mitigate the eventual spread, rather than policies to stop it from spreading.

and, then, what does mitigation mean? it means protecting the elderly and weak, and trying to keep the spread within communities that have the highest chances of fighting it off. something we've learned is that the spread of the virus comes down substantively at around 20% exposure. while the measurements we've observed around that magic number of 20% represent a broad cross-section of the population that is at least partly demographically representative of the population as a whole, the lesson from that observation is that the contagiousness of the virus decreases to a manageable level when you can provide immunity to as little as one out of five possible spreaders. policy should then be shaped around building in immunity in the much greater than 20% of the population that is at least risk of mortality.

at this stage in the pandemic, opening the universities is probably the best thing they can do.

but, if you're old, stay inside and away from students during september, please.

4:15

well, he's got the ndp in place to blame, when the bankers grill him on it.

but, people are losing or have lost patience. if he's serious, he'd better be spending his vacation working something out (wouldn't that be a dramatic change, itself) and be ready to ram it through on day one, because he doesn't have much public goodwill left, and consequently doesn't have much time left to change minds.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/08/08/insiders-say-justin-trudeau-doesnt-want-an-election-he-wants-to-remake-canada.html

4:34


4:35

time's just about up, justin.

4:37

i support them in principle, but this is maybe not the best idea just right now. 

if you don't want to wear a mask, then don't. it's not necessary to gather in the park and make a show of it; in a sense, they've got you, if they can get you to do that.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/anti-mask-march-montreal-aug-8-1.5679598

4:42


4:43

guinea pigs. what have we done to them?

it was the other night, walking home with groceries, maskless, that i was thinking about the virus, and potential vaccination approaches. with all of this skepticism around basic science (people challenging the science around antibodies, for example) that i'm pushing back against, it's frustrating that we're not seeing a more healthy skepticism around vaccine use; the potential dangers of handing out an untested vaccine don't seem to be registering with the general population, who seem a little bit frighteningly naive about the safety of untested vaccines, as they've been conditioned to be by a media that understandably targets vaccine skeptics as a public health nuisance.

but, i need to stress that a tetanus shot has been widely tested for a long period of time. we know that adverse reactions are rare, and it's a relatively safe way to protect yourself from something that can legitimately kill you. it's going to be impossible to do proper testing with these covid-19 vaccines before releasing them; the safety trial is going to be the first deployment of the vaccine.

so, the people that get the vaccine first are going to be...guinea pigs. you want to argue you should give it the elderly first, but given that the first recipients are going to be guinea pigs, is it potentially better to give it to a more resilient population, like kids?

but, then do you support treating kids like....guinea pigs?

and, i stopped and decided that, no, i don't support treating kids like guinea pigs - it is the elderly at risk, and they must assume it.

but, then i stopped to realize that i don't even support treating guinea pigs like guinea pigs.

what have we done to these creatures? we have entirely co-opted their identity, fully stolen their existence from them. for when we think of guinea pigs, we no longer imagine vibrant, high-strung rodents flopping around the edges of the forest floor, but imagine animals in cages under human experimentation. they exist, in our language, solely for our own amusement.

there's a historical parallel in how we've used racial terms to refer to slaves in various languages, so that the word that we use to describe that racial group is the same word we used to describe the concept of a slave. in english, we've adopted the word slave from anglo-norman invaders, who brought it to the island with a germano-latin ruling class that enslaved the slavic-speaking speakers to the east of europe, largely to sell them to the arabic rulers in the middle east. so, in english, our word for slave is the same as our word for slav. in arabic, the concept of slavery is intrinsically tied into the physicality of blackness, which is something that partially developed in the united states, as well.

6:15

so, it took me a few days longer than i'd have liked it to get groceries done; i picked up a few things late on thursday, a few more on friday and had to wait until saturday afternoon to get some raspberries & strawberries at the far store, as they were overpriced at the close ones. so, i'm a few days behind.

i've got my workstation set back up now and am ready to get back to work in rapidly finishing up the consistency check over 2014 and moving to rebuilding 2015 in one swoop.

8:06

190
at
Location: