https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Saturday, August 27, 2016
j reacts to a dream about genetic factors in gender identity
i've been over this a few times: i really don't think that gender is genetic in the sense that there's a gene for liking skirts or a gene for liking cars. rather, i think it's partly hormonal and partly experiential. the only serious genetic determinant going into somebody's gender identity is consequently the way that their bodies regulate hormones.
that means that there actually might be an observable physical trait that i demonstrate that has something to do with things, which is the fact that i've never grown a single hair on my chest in my life. this is actually very rare. the categorization of "apilose" means "less than 6%".
...and i'm not exaggerating. nary a hair. ever. in my entire life.
(i'll remind you that i'm nearly 36. it's never going to happen.)
how does that happen? well, here's the truth: this is androgenic hair. that is, it's presence is triggered by the release of testosterone during puberty. humans demonstrate lots of variation, as a species. so, some dudes release huge amounts of testosterone and end up looking like hairy man-apes. others release a lot less and just end up with a little baby fuzz. and, yes: some women release enough testosterone to end up with hair on their chests and faces, too.
the fact that i've never grown any chest on my hair at all ever means that i didn't go through that testosterone flush. i can't tell you why not with any real certainty, but it's almost certainly genetic. note that my dad was a typical hairy italian jew.
and, hence this is where one needs to look at the genetic basis of things, for me. as mentioned: i think this is overly facile. it's not that easy. it's at most one of multiple factors. but, if i was a geneticist, that's where i'd be looking: the genes that regulate hormone release during puberty.
as an aside, that makes the issue reducible to a "hormonal imbalance" and the treatment of hormone therapy rational. but, it also means that the ultimate truth here is that i very much had a choice in correcting the imbalance: that i could have equally well chosen to pop testosterone pills. the ultimate choice here, at the end, has to be experiential, when seen that way.
that means that there actually might be an observable physical trait that i demonstrate that has something to do with things, which is the fact that i've never grown a single hair on my chest in my life. this is actually very rare. the categorization of "apilose" means "less than 6%".
...and i'm not exaggerating. nary a hair. ever. in my entire life.
(i'll remind you that i'm nearly 36. it's never going to happen.)
how does that happen? well, here's the truth: this is androgenic hair. that is, it's presence is triggered by the release of testosterone during puberty. humans demonstrate lots of variation, as a species. so, some dudes release huge amounts of testosterone and end up looking like hairy man-apes. others release a lot less and just end up with a little baby fuzz. and, yes: some women release enough testosterone to end up with hair on their chests and faces, too.
the fact that i've never grown any chest on my hair at all ever means that i didn't go through that testosterone flush. i can't tell you why not with any real certainty, but it's almost certainly genetic. note that my dad was a typical hairy italian jew.
and, hence this is where one needs to look at the genetic basis of things, for me. as mentioned: i think this is overly facile. it's not that easy. it's at most one of multiple factors. but, if i was a geneticist, that's where i'd be looking: the genes that regulate hormone release during puberty.
as an aside, that makes the issue reducible to a "hormonal imbalance" and the treatment of hormone therapy rational. but, it also means that the ultimate truth here is that i very much had a choice in correcting the imbalance: that i could have equally well chosen to pop testosterone pills. the ultimate choice here, at the end, has to be experiential, when seen that way.
Connor_Phillipz
love how he completely forgets to discuss the libertarian platform of fiscal issues... why? because that's where the progressive agenda is weak. Libertarians are okay with welfare if the government can pay for it without going into debt. In a progressive society, the government would go bankrupt because the government would spend without limits.
jessica
if the government can spend without limits, what does it mean to go bankrupt?
robert h
if the gov is small and there is less corruption, the rich will pay more equal percent! witch should make billions of tax revenue! BUT at this point only the middle class pay for the poor and then pay to bail out the rich!!
jessica
what does the size of government have to do with tax fairness?
robert h
have you went to a forest but couldn`t see it `cuz all the other trees were in the way?
That is how our government is now!
For get just politicians , think of everyone who is part of the system, from the cops to the welfare people, everyone is part of government, so it will protecting its self...
~see Nazi Germany , not everyone agreed with the idea of Hitler, but then you can't bite the hand that feeds you, if you did you could be killed or made you into a known spy/terrorist, & all your family...
jessica
??
robert h
? that is mostly it, it is only part of a idea, not written in stone, I think it needs a little dash of communism...
Right now the Middle class pays for the poor and the rich!?(government protects its sefl)
We middle class, could pay for the poor for ever, but we can not bail out the rich & pay for the poor too?
Why & how did the middle class get the chance to protect the rich, it should never happen!!
Now the governments only chance is to import cheaper workers that will vote, to support...
jessica
if i'm able to piece together your thinking, what you appear to be suggesting is that reducing the size of government will reduce the amount of revenue required for government to operate, which will increase the percentage of expenditure attributed to the wealthy because the net expenditure will decrease. but, this is not a reduction of inequality, it's the institutionalization of it.
there's no causal relationship between tax fairness and the size of government.
why don't we just tax the rich?
robert h
google it!
jessica
i really think that google is more likely to provide me with reasons why we should tax the rich.
more broadly speaking - and language of trees and forests is truly ironic, here - this is a good example of the kind of demagogic argument that frequently pops up on the libertarian right. they consistently twist around concepts into these incoherent messes. i'm a message board veteran - i've been doing this for very close to twenty years, now. more than 19. i started on usenet. i can disassemble this nonsense pretty quickly. a lot of people can't.
casual observers/readers just need to know to be very, very wary of their arguments. most of what they throw at you is disingenuous at the source - worse is that a good percentage of them don't realize it, themselves.
there's a kind of honest conservative that i enjoy debating with. but, right libertarians are more often than not of the same mindset regarding the truth as the hosts on fox news.
they just don't care. they'll twist anything and everything in any and every direction....
robert h
I`m not sure if you are doing any good, after 19 +years? you are to confusing to read!
then you ask silly questions, that you already have the answer too, and like!... that is not debating, that is playing with people!?
No wonder you have to try so hard for so long...
on a side note~ Use caution with google that is the place to get the same answers everyone else got!
google ~ Mediocrity & equality @ its best...soon everyone will have the same FREEDUMB!
jessica
well, no - that's my point. i'm not intending to debate with you. i know better than to debate with people that are dishonest.
robert h
feeding off of others is why we are here, greed and personal power...
feed away if you are that hungry!
jessica
it's not a waste of time to debunk you. i'm simply clarifying the difference between debating and debunking. hey, man, you tied your own rope, i just gave it to you.
(deleted)
jessica
well, no. i don't accept any concept of property rights, so the term "take something away from others" is incoherent to me. rather, i would reject the idea of hoarding things from the common good. taxation is not theft. property is theft.
love how he completely forgets to discuss the libertarian platform of fiscal issues... why? because that's where the progressive agenda is weak. Libertarians are okay with welfare if the government can pay for it without going into debt. In a progressive society, the government would go bankrupt because the government would spend without limits.
jessica
if the government can spend without limits, what does it mean to go bankrupt?
robert h
if the gov is small and there is less corruption, the rich will pay more equal percent! witch should make billions of tax revenue! BUT at this point only the middle class pay for the poor and then pay to bail out the rich!!
jessica
what does the size of government have to do with tax fairness?
robert h
have you went to a forest but couldn`t see it `cuz all the other trees were in the way?
That is how our government is now!
For get just politicians , think of everyone who is part of the system, from the cops to the welfare people, everyone is part of government, so it will protecting its self...
~see Nazi Germany , not everyone agreed with the idea of Hitler, but then you can't bite the hand that feeds you, if you did you could be killed or made you into a known spy/terrorist, & all your family...
jessica
??
robert h
? that is mostly it, it is only part of a idea, not written in stone, I think it needs a little dash of communism...
Right now the Middle class pays for the poor and the rich!?(government protects its sefl)
We middle class, could pay for the poor for ever, but we can not bail out the rich & pay for the poor too?
Why & how did the middle class get the chance to protect the rich, it should never happen!!
Now the governments only chance is to import cheaper workers that will vote, to support...
jessica
if i'm able to piece together your thinking, what you appear to be suggesting is that reducing the size of government will reduce the amount of revenue required for government to operate, which will increase the percentage of expenditure attributed to the wealthy because the net expenditure will decrease. but, this is not a reduction of inequality, it's the institutionalization of it.
there's no causal relationship between tax fairness and the size of government.
why don't we just tax the rich?
robert h
google it!
jessica
i really think that google is more likely to provide me with reasons why we should tax the rich.
more broadly speaking - and language of trees and forests is truly ironic, here - this is a good example of the kind of demagogic argument that frequently pops up on the libertarian right. they consistently twist around concepts into these incoherent messes. i'm a message board veteran - i've been doing this for very close to twenty years, now. more than 19. i started on usenet. i can disassemble this nonsense pretty quickly. a lot of people can't.
casual observers/readers just need to know to be very, very wary of their arguments. most of what they throw at you is disingenuous at the source - worse is that a good percentage of them don't realize it, themselves.
there's a kind of honest conservative that i enjoy debating with. but, right libertarians are more often than not of the same mindset regarding the truth as the hosts on fox news.
they just don't care. they'll twist anything and everything in any and every direction....
robert h
I`m not sure if you are doing any good, after 19 +years? you are to confusing to read!
then you ask silly questions, that you already have the answer too, and like!... that is not debating, that is playing with people!?
No wonder you have to try so hard for so long...
on a side note~ Use caution with google that is the place to get the same answers everyone else got!
google ~ Mediocrity & equality @ its best...soon everyone will have the same FREEDUMB!
jessica
well, no - that's my point. i'm not intending to debate with you. i know better than to debate with people that are dishonest.
robert h
feeding off of others is why we are here, greed and personal power...
feed away if you are that hungry!
jessica
it's not a waste of time to debunk you. i'm simply clarifying the difference between debating and debunking. hey, man, you tied your own rope, i just gave it to you.
(deleted)
jessica
well, no. i don't accept any concept of property rights, so the term "take something away from others" is incoherent to me. rather, i would reject the idea of hoarding things from the common good. taxation is not theft. property is theft.
no, i'm a fan of drama.
i don't watch films, like, ever. but, when i did i always went right to the drama section.
the best are the hybrid comedy-drama films. jim carrey was always the best at that. robin williams. bill murray. steve martin. that's the good shit....
coen brothers.
tarantino, to an extent.
spacey...
i used to watch a lot of films with my dad & step-mother & sister. it was kind of a weekly thing. and, i'm not at all exaggerating when i say i always went right to the drama section. then, i'd more often than not end up watching the films by myself.
the other three would always go for action films. sci fi. military. murder/mystery. blockbuster type films. the only way i could get them to watch something at a slower pace was if it had certain actors in it. so, my step-mother liked nicholas cage. and my dad like kevin spacey. otherwise, the same thing would always happen - they'd watch the first twenty minutes, decide the film was boring and walk out.
i saw some classic films under those conditions. pi was one that i specifically remember everybody walking out on. pleasantville was another that nobody could get through. even my dad couldn't get through american beauty, despite the spacey...
by the time i got to my late teens, it was pretty much a routine. they'd watch their boring shoot 'em up thing, while i sat in my bedroom recording. when they were done, dad would (sometimes) come in and say he picked something up that he thought i'd like and try to get through it with me. they were actually often good films. he rarely made it through half. he tried, though :)
but, yeah. drama? i'm not opposed to it. i'm all about it.
i don't watch films, like, ever. but, when i did i always went right to the drama section.
the best are the hybrid comedy-drama films. jim carrey was always the best at that. robin williams. bill murray. steve martin. that's the good shit....
coen brothers.
tarantino, to an extent.
spacey...
i used to watch a lot of films with my dad & step-mother & sister. it was kind of a weekly thing. and, i'm not at all exaggerating when i say i always went right to the drama section. then, i'd more often than not end up watching the films by myself.
the other three would always go for action films. sci fi. military. murder/mystery. blockbuster type films. the only way i could get them to watch something at a slower pace was if it had certain actors in it. so, my step-mother liked nicholas cage. and my dad like kevin spacey. otherwise, the same thing would always happen - they'd watch the first twenty minutes, decide the film was boring and walk out.
i saw some classic films under those conditions. pi was one that i specifically remember everybody walking out on. pleasantville was another that nobody could get through. even my dad couldn't get through american beauty, despite the spacey...
by the time i got to my late teens, it was pretty much a routine. they'd watch their boring shoot 'em up thing, while i sat in my bedroom recording. when they were done, dad would (sometimes) come in and say he picked something up that he thought i'd like and try to get through it with me. they were actually often good films. he rarely made it through half. he tried, though :)
but, yeah. drama? i'm not opposed to it. i'm all about it.
j reacts to trump's obvious turn on immigration being obvious
i said from the start that trump seemed to be unaware that the major benefactor of the current immigration status quo in the southern part of the united states is the corporate interests that control the american right, and he'd have no choice but to modify his stance once he won the nomination. if he were to actually follow through on his proposals, you'd end up with hyperinflation in the price of food. this immigration rhetoric is a useful control mechanism, sure. but, don't be confused by it. the republican party will never do anything to restrict the flow of cheap labour into the united states. ann coulter knows that, too. she's just a troll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMA0r3esw8&lc=z12synpzoqffwrvfm23zstup5ye3gtsyy04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMA0r3esw8&lc=z12synpzoqffwrvfm23zstup5ye3gtsyy04
actually, i think that proper polling would uphold the hypothesis that trump's supporters are people that have never heard of brexit, think angela merkel is the lady from murder, she wrote and answer "american" when asked what language they speak. the association between clinton and merkel is just based on gender. it's that crude.
ppp could have some fun with these questions. you could probably get a sizeable number to answer murder she wrote. and, a vast majority would not be able to name who the chancellor is...
ppp could have some fun with these questions. you could probably get a sizeable number to answer murder she wrote. and, a vast majority would not be able to name who the chancellor is...
Friday, August 26, 2016
i don't have any patience for this kind of thing. if she wins, i hope she gets boycotted. you want a market? there you go.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/maple-syrup-goes-to-supreme-court-1.3736127
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/maple-syrup-goes-to-supreme-court-1.3736127
j reacts to the cult of success
those who seek "success" are merely slaves to the banking class. true emancipation from capital only lies in the glorification of failure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJQK6DExtIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJQK6DExtIg
j reacts to canada's anachronistic, but encouraging, return to peacekeeping
in theory, i would prefer to be involved in international peacekeeping than nato interventionism. but, this is complicated.
this is largely pr for the pmo. but, it's international pr with a functional purpose. i don't want to pretend that there's a monolithic canadian, but our general perspective for decades has been that we'd rather create goodwill than build a military. you often hear americans ask the question: why do they hate us? canadians tend to take it a step further in advocating a foreign policy that ensures they have no reason to hate us. we legitimately want mutual respect. the thinking is that we don't need a conventional force, that way - and that we can utilize our allies for nuclear deterrence.
on first glance, this is even more rational in a world where war is defined by terrorism than it was in the cold war. but, the only reason it was really possible in the first place was due to the alliances within the cold war. america may have been content to allow canada to kind of drag our feet on nato, so long as we were a useful diplomatic ally. that's not the way things are anymore.
so, what trudeau is no doubt thinking is that we can squirm out of these onerous demands to buy american weapons that they expect us to use to bomb syria by sending peacekeeping troops to africa, instead. he thinks that because it worked in the 60s and 70s. it kept us out of vietnam. it's just that it's not the 70s anymore.
i'm honestly not sure how the americans are going to react to this.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-peacekeeping-announcement-1.3736593
canada always has and always will contribute to legitimate defensive war efforts. but, as a people, we're just not committed to the idea of empire.
we want real multipolarity, not unilateralism and hegemony.
there have been times when we've even described ourselves as 'non-aligned'.
this is longstanding liberal party policy, and widely populist, here. i'm just not sure how to make sense of it in 2016. post-history. post 9/11.
i guess we'll have to check the details.
i mean, this was one of the big questions in the last election: what is the party going to do to adjust it's peacekeeping policies to make sense in today's world, where the president doesn't even consult congress anymore, let alone care about international law?
we never really got a good answer. i guess we'll see how it unfolds.
just to be clear...
canada contributed to the mission in afghanistan, but not the invasion of iraq. it wasn't arbitrary. it was just a question of international law.
chretien was widely quoted at the time explaining that canada would have gladly taken part in iraq if it wasn't illegal. more or less verbatim. that's been the liberal party's policy forever.
but, how do you put the wars that exist today in that kind of context? iraq blew the whole system up. the americans don't care about the un anymore. yet, we remain aligned with them. that's a huge problem for the party, which is up against a glaring contradiction.
if this is a way out, great. let's hope it works. but, i....
...i don't know how the americans are going to react because it's a decision that's made with flawed information. all of the models and simulations that the americans use are based on rational people. i would expect that they don't have a plan for this, because no foreign policy expert would consider it coherent. like i say - it's the return to canada's "way to escape the cold war" policy without any rational, meaningful context.
first, it's going to confuse the fuck out of them. then, they're going to have to figure out what to do. it could be anything from shrugging it off to taking him out.
like i say: if you're a canadian, this is highly populist. it's been liberal party policy since wwII. it's a part of our national identity. but, if you're an american foreign policy analyst operating in the context of contemporary conflicts in the middle east? it's just coming from absolutely nowhere, and is no doubt going to be hard to make sense of. so, it's hard to predict that response.
i really expected that the policy would need to be tweaked, rather than taken off the shelf and dusted off. we'll see what happens.
this is largely pr for the pmo. but, it's international pr with a functional purpose. i don't want to pretend that there's a monolithic canadian, but our general perspective for decades has been that we'd rather create goodwill than build a military. you often hear americans ask the question: why do they hate us? canadians tend to take it a step further in advocating a foreign policy that ensures they have no reason to hate us. we legitimately want mutual respect. the thinking is that we don't need a conventional force, that way - and that we can utilize our allies for nuclear deterrence.
on first glance, this is even more rational in a world where war is defined by terrorism than it was in the cold war. but, the only reason it was really possible in the first place was due to the alliances within the cold war. america may have been content to allow canada to kind of drag our feet on nato, so long as we were a useful diplomatic ally. that's not the way things are anymore.
so, what trudeau is no doubt thinking is that we can squirm out of these onerous demands to buy american weapons that they expect us to use to bomb syria by sending peacekeeping troops to africa, instead. he thinks that because it worked in the 60s and 70s. it kept us out of vietnam. it's just that it's not the 70s anymore.
i'm honestly not sure how the americans are going to react to this.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-peacekeeping-announcement-1.3736593
canada always has and always will contribute to legitimate defensive war efforts. but, as a people, we're just not committed to the idea of empire.
we want real multipolarity, not unilateralism and hegemony.
there have been times when we've even described ourselves as 'non-aligned'.
this is longstanding liberal party policy, and widely populist, here. i'm just not sure how to make sense of it in 2016. post-history. post 9/11.
i guess we'll have to check the details.
i mean, this was one of the big questions in the last election: what is the party going to do to adjust it's peacekeeping policies to make sense in today's world, where the president doesn't even consult congress anymore, let alone care about international law?
we never really got a good answer. i guess we'll see how it unfolds.
just to be clear...
canada contributed to the mission in afghanistan, but not the invasion of iraq. it wasn't arbitrary. it was just a question of international law.
chretien was widely quoted at the time explaining that canada would have gladly taken part in iraq if it wasn't illegal. more or less verbatim. that's been the liberal party's policy forever.
but, how do you put the wars that exist today in that kind of context? iraq blew the whole system up. the americans don't care about the un anymore. yet, we remain aligned with them. that's a huge problem for the party, which is up against a glaring contradiction.
if this is a way out, great. let's hope it works. but, i....
...i don't know how the americans are going to react because it's a decision that's made with flawed information. all of the models and simulations that the americans use are based on rational people. i would expect that they don't have a plan for this, because no foreign policy expert would consider it coherent. like i say - it's the return to canada's "way to escape the cold war" policy without any rational, meaningful context.
first, it's going to confuse the fuck out of them. then, they're going to have to figure out what to do. it could be anything from shrugging it off to taking him out.
like i say: if you're a canadian, this is highly populist. it's been liberal party policy since wwII. it's a part of our national identity. but, if you're an american foreign policy analyst operating in the context of contemporary conflicts in the middle east? it's just coming from absolutely nowhere, and is no doubt going to be hard to make sense of. so, it's hard to predict that response.
i really expected that the policy would need to be tweaked, rather than taken off the shelf and dusted off. we'll see what happens.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
j reacts to clinton and trump calling each other racists
both of the major candidates are racists.
clinton's rhetoric is over the top, but i'm not going to deny the crux of her claim. it's just that it's a little rich to hear it from her.
i mean, his history of racism is rhetorical. her history of racism is at the center of her policies.
in the end, clinton will be able to get away with more than trump will - both in her racism towards latinos and in her racism towards blacks.
clinton's rhetoric is over the top, but i'm not going to deny the crux of her claim. it's just that it's a little rich to hear it from her.
i mean, his history of racism is rhetorical. her history of racism is at the center of her policies.
in the end, clinton will be able to get away with more than trump will - both in her racism towards latinos and in her racism towards blacks.
nobody cares about $500. please report on substantive issues.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-fall-session-1.3735744
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-fall-session-1.3735744
j reacts to the idea that ethnic diversity trumps regional representation
there's some people arguing that regional representation is a relic of the past, and ethnic diversity is the wave of the future. but, that itself is an argument that elevates the primarily urban provinces (bc & ontario especially) over the primarily rural ones. so, the argument against regional representation as a relic is actually a demonstration of it's necessity.
i slept through the rain - you could tell it was coming down, certainly. and, i'm a bit north of it's path. enough that i don't expect to see any damage.
it's a little unnerving, though.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/tornado-windsor-lasalle-1.3734826
you guys are such fucking hosers. take off from the side of the window, eh?
it's a little unnerving, though.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/tornado-windsor-lasalle-1.3734826
you guys are such fucking hosers. take off from the side of the window, eh?
listening is moving slower than i'd like (as always....story of my life....), but i just want to update that i am 100% certain at this point about what is happening with the distorted audio. there's no longer any ambiguity at all whatsoever.
for some reason, the cord in this specific pair of headphones is picking up a charge. it's very easily grounded - all i have to do is touch the tips. but, it's audible, too. because i'm just that type of audio nerd...
the issue, of course, is not persistent. it will sometimes stop, which is why i had so many false positives. i'm still going to need to do a lot of testing to figure out exactly what it is that is creating the field and whether certain pieces of equipment are acting as catalysts or not.
but, the basic reality that i'm living in some kind of magnet is now beyond question. what i'm going to do about it is a little less clear.
i'm opting strongly for building a tent to place around the recording space.
for some reason, the cord in this specific pair of headphones is picking up a charge. it's very easily grounded - all i have to do is touch the tips. but, it's audible, too. because i'm just that type of audio nerd...
the issue, of course, is not persistent. it will sometimes stop, which is why i had so many false positives. i'm still going to need to do a lot of testing to figure out exactly what it is that is creating the field and whether certain pieces of equipment are acting as catalysts or not.
but, the basic reality that i'm living in some kind of magnet is now beyond question. what i'm going to do about it is a little less clear.
i'm opting strongly for building a tent to place around the recording space.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
j reacts to clinton's apparent rejection of the concept of a conflict of interest
so, apparently a conflict of interest is only an issue after proof of wrongdoing.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12630586/ap-response-clinton-foundation
i've never seen anybody make this argument that there's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, so long as you don't act on it. i don't really know how to react to it. i mean, it's obviously disingenuous. but, it's audacity is befuddling. this is trump level bullshit, really.
i guess what you have to take away from it is that she thinks she's above the law.
....and she thinks we should agree that the law doesn't apply to her.....?
it's just astounding to hear this from a serious candidate at this point in the cycle.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12630586/ap-response-clinton-foundation
i've never seen anybody make this argument that there's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, so long as you don't act on it. i don't really know how to react to it. i mean, it's obviously disingenuous. but, it's audacity is befuddling. this is trump level bullshit, really.
i guess what you have to take away from it is that she thinks she's above the law.
....and she thinks we should agree that the law doesn't apply to her.....?
it's just astounding to hear this from a serious candidate at this point in the cycle.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/
j reacts to 'stop white people'
"stop white people" is obviously completely moronic.
but, then you look at the racist reactions.
and, then you realize that that's the point: divide and conquer.
there's no use in bothering until people are cognizant of how they're being manipulated. so long as people continue to push back and forth with emotions driven entirely by identity, we will continue to get the conflict that's desired.
i'm just uneducated, i guess.
it's all that reading up on marxist histories. it's left me a hopelessly unread buffoon.
get this, guys: the second amendment. they wanted y'all to shoot each other. really. it's documented, even.
you can imagine these upper class land owners (farmers....slave owners....) trying to figure out how to stop the masses from realizing that - wait a second - there's this class of people that get everything and don't do anything...
"what if we convince them to quarrel amongst each other, instead of quarreling with us?"
"well, that's brilliant."
"it's the oldest trick in the book, actually. but how do we do it?"
"well, what if we gave them all guns? surely, they wouldn't be able to control their emotions. they would fight over their women, their horses - they'd never even get to thinking about us, they'd be so occupied."
"yes! yes! let's get this written into the document. this will be a system that will last into perpetuity, i can tell already!"
"oh, don't get too cocky, now."
and, as things developed, you start to see them using race as a dividing tactic, and then setting the fucking idiots off against each other. it develops very naturally out of the economic system: slavery, then abolition. there's two kinds of slaves: white ones and black ones. how to get them to fight each other, instead of the bourgeoisie? you divide them by race, of course!
there's a rich literature on the topic, actually. but, only the uneducated have read up on it.
so, when you see these minority groups on campus go after the white kids with a lot of overgeneralized nonsense, and the white kids reacting with flat out racist hyperbole, remember: there's a banker at the top of his tower counting his bills and thinking about a slave owner laughing in his grave.
but, then you look at the racist reactions.
and, then you realize that that's the point: divide and conquer.
there's no use in bothering until people are cognizant of how they're being manipulated. so long as people continue to push back and forth with emotions driven entirely by identity, we will continue to get the conflict that's desired.
i'm just uneducated, i guess.
it's all that reading up on marxist histories. it's left me a hopelessly unread buffoon.
get this, guys: the second amendment. they wanted y'all to shoot each other. really. it's documented, even.
you can imagine these upper class land owners (farmers....slave owners....) trying to figure out how to stop the masses from realizing that - wait a second - there's this class of people that get everything and don't do anything...
"what if we convince them to quarrel amongst each other, instead of quarreling with us?"
"well, that's brilliant."
"it's the oldest trick in the book, actually. but how do we do it?"
"well, what if we gave them all guns? surely, they wouldn't be able to control their emotions. they would fight over their women, their horses - they'd never even get to thinking about us, they'd be so occupied."
"yes! yes! let's get this written into the document. this will be a system that will last into perpetuity, i can tell already!"
"oh, don't get too cocky, now."
and, as things developed, you start to see them using race as a dividing tactic, and then setting the fucking idiots off against each other. it develops very naturally out of the economic system: slavery, then abolition. there's two kinds of slaves: white ones and black ones. how to get them to fight each other, instead of the bourgeoisie? you divide them by race, of course!
there's a rich literature on the topic, actually. but, only the uneducated have read up on it.
so, when you see these minority groups on campus go after the white kids with a lot of overgeneralized nonsense, and the white kids reacting with flat out racist hyperbole, remember: there's a banker at the top of his tower counting his bills and thinking about a slave owner laughing in his grave.
i think there's a lot of confusion about cocaine. is it in the pile of drugs to try, or the pile to avoid?
it may be the only one in the "depends" pile. really. nothing else is "depends". everything else is binary.
marijuana: harmless
lsd: not harmless, but go ahead, if you're in a safe space.
e: make sure it's actually e. but it's just serotonin. it can't actually hurt you - if it's e.
heroin: evil.
meth: evil.
crack: evil.
cocaine: meh....?
see, and here's the reason why: it's the underlying conditions. you could use it socially for years and never have it hurt you, or you could destroy your whole life in the space of a week. what cocaine is is a catalyst, in ways that those other drugs aren't.
so, no - you can't really blame it on the drugs. you have to blame it on depression, or loneliness or some chemical imbalance. fucking your life up on a cocaine binge is always a symptom and never a cause. but, it's also a fucking violent catalyst under the right (wrong?) conditions. careful thinking aside, it doesn't make the outcome any less horrific.
i've avoided it. but i've seen it, too. i don't need to prove to anybody i can handle it. i'm comfortable in the realization that i probably couldn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyQpAiMXkg
it may be the only one in the "depends" pile. really. nothing else is "depends". everything else is binary.
marijuana: harmless
lsd: not harmless, but go ahead, if you're in a safe space.
e: make sure it's actually e. but it's just serotonin. it can't actually hurt you - if it's e.
heroin: evil.
meth: evil.
crack: evil.
cocaine: meh....?
see, and here's the reason why: it's the underlying conditions. you could use it socially for years and never have it hurt you, or you could destroy your whole life in the space of a week. what cocaine is is a catalyst, in ways that those other drugs aren't.
so, no - you can't really blame it on the drugs. you have to blame it on depression, or loneliness or some chemical imbalance. fucking your life up on a cocaine binge is always a symptom and never a cause. but, it's also a fucking violent catalyst under the right (wrong?) conditions. careful thinking aside, it doesn't make the outcome any less horrific.
i've avoided it. but i've seen it, too. i don't need to prove to anybody i can handle it. i'm comfortable in the realization that i probably couldn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyQpAiMXkg
j reacts to obama's lack of any discernible legacy
so, what is barack obama's legacy? i might hazard a guess that he won't have one at all.
it's foolish to predict the future, but his foreign policy is likely to bleed in between the stasis constructed by bush and clinton. this is exaggerated by the reality that clinton was an active secretary of state. a good history will need to say a word about how john kerry tried (and failed) to change directions on a number of issues, but the consensus is likely going to see a broad continuum in policy from bush through to clinton and more or less ignore that a president named barack obama existed at all.
if the tpp passes, clinton will get credit for it as a part of her asia pivot. the narrative will be how she set this - as well as syria and libya - in motion and then followed through on it, perhaps overcoming dissent from kerry. so, where is obama? just a name on a list...
on domestic policy, his major initiative has been obamacare. does anybody think this will survive very long? the future may be single payer, or it may be a reversal to the previous state of affairs. but the system he set up is doomed to failure and likely prompt replacement. rather than being a good compromise, it's been a failure from all angles - people are losing coverage amidst falling revenues. worse, it's a simple market failure that anybody that isn't a market fundamentalist should have and in fact did see coming.
his attempt to push bipartisan legislation has led to six years of impossible gridlock. i say six, and not eight, because he had the opportunity to plow things through quickly - but he instead opted for compromise and consensus. some histories may say nothing at all about president obama besides the clear stupidity of this tactic.
so, what's left?
nothing.
just a name in a list...
it's foolish to predict the future, but his foreign policy is likely to bleed in between the stasis constructed by bush and clinton. this is exaggerated by the reality that clinton was an active secretary of state. a good history will need to say a word about how john kerry tried (and failed) to change directions on a number of issues, but the consensus is likely going to see a broad continuum in policy from bush through to clinton and more or less ignore that a president named barack obama existed at all.
if the tpp passes, clinton will get credit for it as a part of her asia pivot. the narrative will be how she set this - as well as syria and libya - in motion and then followed through on it, perhaps overcoming dissent from kerry. so, where is obama? just a name on a list...
on domestic policy, his major initiative has been obamacare. does anybody think this will survive very long? the future may be single payer, or it may be a reversal to the previous state of affairs. but the system he set up is doomed to failure and likely prompt replacement. rather than being a good compromise, it's been a failure from all angles - people are losing coverage amidst falling revenues. worse, it's a simple market failure that anybody that isn't a market fundamentalist should have and in fact did see coming.
his attempt to push bipartisan legislation has led to six years of impossible gridlock. i say six, and not eight, because he had the opportunity to plow things through quickly - but he instead opted for compromise and consensus. some histories may say nothing at all about president obama besides the clear stupidity of this tactic.
so, what's left?
nothing.
just a name in a list...
j reacts to trump's appeal to inner city voters (he's half right...)
see, this is another issue where the reality is that trump is right in his analysis: decades of one-party rule has failed, in some cases disastrously. but, he doesn't have any good answers. does urban america need to ditch the democrats? sure. but, it needs to move left, and not right. it needs more socialism and less cronyism. in the sense that trump is right, he's also the exact embodiment of the problem.
i don't know. i haven't looked it up. but, has he ever built a subsidized rental unit to compensate for the low rent housing he's displaced with his casinos? i doubt it. has he ever put money into gambling addiction facilities that is more than a tax write-off? i doubt it.
he's right to point to the democrats as enablers. he's wrong to point to himself as the solution.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/22/trump_democrats_have_run_cities_for_decades_and_have_produced_only_poverty_failing_schools_and_broken_homes.html
i don't know. i haven't looked it up. but, has he ever built a subsidized rental unit to compensate for the low rent housing he's displaced with his casinos? i doubt it. has he ever put money into gambling addiction facilities that is more than a tax write-off? i doubt it.
he's right to point to the democrats as enablers. he's wrong to point to himself as the solution.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/22/trump_democrats_have_run_cities_for_decades_and_have_produced_only_poverty_failing_schools_and_broken_homes.html
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
j reacts to trudeau's curious decision to emulate obama, and why it empowers the right
i just want to point out that nobody - no academic, no civil servant, no politician - really thinks that this is sufficient stimulus for meaningful job creation. they'd have to spend way more to get any kind of measurable result.
....but, the infrastructure spending is necessary because we're behind on it. we need the work done. and, it's what a government does.
the government should probably be aligning it's messaging with it's actual analysis, so as to create a proper set of expectations. and, fwiw, this isn't actually a partisan issue up here in canada, either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/infrastructure-ontario-1.3731947
again: the media in canada is very right-wing. all they want to talk about is the budget, and they want to frame every issue in terms of budget expenses. there was an important infrastructure announcement today, but all the media wants to talk about is how much it cost for the ministers to travel and do promotional work.
i frankly don't care how much these things cost. but, if i did, i'd hardly even find what's been reported upsetting. it's just this constant dull narrative of expense accounting. and, it's directed at baby boomers.
i really think that he needs to do everything he can to not just reject this narrative but make moving past it an issue of generational overturn.
the minister needs to get around. no, she's not going to take the bus. get over it.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-not-ruling-out-changes-to-reporting-expenses-1.3040094?autoPlay=false
....but, the infrastructure spending is necessary because we're behind on it. we need the work done. and, it's what a government does.
the government should probably be aligning it's messaging with it's actual analysis, so as to create a proper set of expectations. and, fwiw, this isn't actually a partisan issue up here in canada, either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/infrastructure-ontario-1.3731947
again: the media in canada is very right-wing. all they want to talk about is the budget, and they want to frame every issue in terms of budget expenses. there was an important infrastructure announcement today, but all the media wants to talk about is how much it cost for the ministers to travel and do promotional work.
i frankly don't care how much these things cost. but, if i did, i'd hardly even find what's been reported upsetting. it's just this constant dull narrative of expense accounting. and, it's directed at baby boomers.
i really think that he needs to do everything he can to not just reject this narrative but make moving past it an issue of generational overturn.
the minister needs to get around. no, she's not going to take the bus. get over it.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-not-ruling-out-changes-to-reporting-expenses-1.3040094?autoPlay=false
j reacts to the long term consequences of virginia becoming a blue state
if those kinds of numbers from virginia hold up (clinton +15? that's absurd. it's virginia.), then there is essentially nothing trump can do to win the election. and, if virginia has truly flipped entirely from red to blue over one cycle, the republicans are going to need to implode before they can grow. they'll lose every election for the foreseeable future. there's just no way to make the map work that doesn't involve reclaiming virginia for the south. they're going to have to start doing crazy things like rebranding themselves as libertarians in oregon.
the democrats could be in charge of the white house for the next fifty years.
honestly. not exaggerating.
it'd be nice to pull them a little back to the left...
but, thanks dubya?
==
i don't expect it to be this close. but, this is pretty much the best map that trump can possibly hope for - and probably the best map that any republican can hope for for a generation, at least.
so, again: if he doesn't win virginia, what else is he going to do? he's going to have to get creative. but, it doesn't currently look competitive.
the democrats could be in charge of the white house for the next fifty years.
honestly. not exaggerating.
it'd be nice to pull them a little back to the left...
but, thanks dubya?
==
i don't expect it to be this close. but, this is pretty much the best map that trump can possibly hope for - and probably the best map that any republican can hope for for a generation, at least.
so, again: if he doesn't win virginia, what else is he going to do? he's going to have to get creative. but, it doesn't currently look competitive.
Monday, August 22, 2016
very briefly
"Owing to variations in humidity and likely clothing, recommendations for summer and winter may vary; a suggested typical range for summer is 23 °C (73 °F) to 25.5 °C (78 °F), with that for winter being 20 °C (68 °F) to 23.5 °C (74 °F)."
https://books.google.ca/books?id=KBbHmp2yisEC&lpg=PA149&ots=yTqUP4xIOx&dq=%2BASHRAE+%2B%22recommended+temperatures%22&pg=PA149&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%20ASHRAE%20%20%22recommended%20temperatures%22&f=false
my personal preference would be in the higher end of that range - and actually even higher than that, if the external temperature allows for it.
j
https://books.google.ca/books?id=KBbHmp2yisEC&lpg=PA149&ots=yTqUP4xIOx&dq=%2BASHRAE+%2B%22recommended+temperatures%22&pg=PA149&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%20ASHRAE%20%20%22recommended%20temperatures%22&f=false
my personal preference would be in the higher end of that range - and actually even higher than that, if the external temperature allows for it.
j
fwiw, i am in the midst of some massive insomnia in what is now a three day and may become a four day vlog. i've had several two-three hour naps
over the last three days, but every time it seems like i'm going to actually sleep i end up jolted awake....
i haven't been as productive as i'd have liked. there have been some annoying issues that have had to be tended to, and a little bit of time wasting,
although i am finally a good ways of the way through the final sansa listen. that is: mp3--sansa--440-IIs. it sounds great, so far. but, these are the
unshielded cables that are prone to interference.
thankfully, the temperature has come down. the a/c is off, so the heat is off.
....but i'm getting the feeling that things are 'back to normal' for me, meaning that these multi-day vlogs will be the new normal and sleeping more than
three hours at a time will only happen when my body just refuses to co-operate any further.
what that also means is that the vlogs may start to come up two-three times a week, but in extra long installments. i simply don't know how much
longer i'll be awake for. but, this at least three day vlog is currently over two hours.
i've stated repeatedly that this is documentation. i split the chunks of time up the way i do for a reason. and, if i can't sleep for a week then the vlog
will be 8 hours and you'll just have to accept it as it is.
over the last three days, but every time it seems like i'm going to actually sleep i end up jolted awake....
i haven't been as productive as i'd have liked. there have been some annoying issues that have had to be tended to, and a little bit of time wasting,
although i am finally a good ways of the way through the final sansa listen. that is: mp3--sansa--440-IIs. it sounds great, so far. but, these are the
unshielded cables that are prone to interference.
thankfully, the temperature has come down. the a/c is off, so the heat is off.
....but i'm getting the feeling that things are 'back to normal' for me, meaning that these multi-day vlogs will be the new normal and sleeping more than
three hours at a time will only happen when my body just refuses to co-operate any further.
what that also means is that the vlogs may start to come up two-three times a week, but in extra long installments. i simply don't know how much
longer i'll be awake for. but, this at least three day vlog is currently over two hours.
i've stated repeatedly that this is documentation. i split the chunks of time up the way i do for a reason. and, if i can't sleep for a week then the vlog
will be 8 hours and you'll just have to accept it as it is.
the device is unfrozen
i don't know when it unfroze. i know the heat was on full blast most of the morning. i just checked now because i felt it cooling down in here and it was working again.
i guess it will happen again at some point, but it's useful to know that the situation is recoverable and it's up to you whether or not it's worth swapping out.
j
i guess it will happen again at some point, but it's useful to know that the situation is recoverable and it's up to you whether or not it's worth swapping out.
j
j reacts to the media's curious focus on 'debunking conspiracies' about clinton's health
if the accusations about clinton's health were as frivolous as are being claimed, the media would just ignore them. they don't dedicate that kind of air time to the clinton body count, or the theories of david icke or any other idea that is firmly in the realm of the absurd (although it's almost impossible to argue that all of those dead bodies are a consequence of coincidence).
i'm not going to dwell on this, but let's be clear.
1) there's clearly an issue of some sort. i see no evidence of any specific diagnosis, like parkinson's. but, the clinton campaign has not provided a good explanation for any of the unusual images or videos that have surfaced. while we should all realize that we are not doctors and should not diagnose at a distance, we should also realize that the evidence before us requires some explanation that has not surfaced.
2) clinton cannot rely on 'trust us'. she's a known liar. only the very core of her base will accept this. the left will not. the right will not. the swing in the middle will not.
she may have dug herself into a hole. the clintons are experts at hole-digging, after all. but, she needs to be more clear about what's happening. if it turns out that all that's happening is that she's a 70 year old woman in terrible shape, so be it. but, she'll have to own up to it rather than continue to deny it.
it could be a real factor in terms of creating voter apathy. but, what can i say? she's obviously not very healthy....
i'm not going to dwell on this, but let's be clear.
1) there's clearly an issue of some sort. i see no evidence of any specific diagnosis, like parkinson's. but, the clinton campaign has not provided a good explanation for any of the unusual images or videos that have surfaced. while we should all realize that we are not doctors and should not diagnose at a distance, we should also realize that the evidence before us requires some explanation that has not surfaced.
2) clinton cannot rely on 'trust us'. she's a known liar. only the very core of her base will accept this. the left will not. the right will not. the swing in the middle will not.
she may have dug herself into a hole. the clintons are experts at hole-digging, after all. but, she needs to be more clear about what's happening. if it turns out that all that's happening is that she's a 70 year old woman in terrible shape, so be it. but, she'll have to own up to it rather than continue to deny it.
it could be a real factor in terms of creating voter apathy. but, what can i say? she's obviously not very healthy....
Sunday, August 21, 2016
j reacts to the inexcusable use of textspeak on youtube
there is not a single fucking word in the dictionary that ends with the character '8', you pretentious piece of shit wankers.
i'm a grammar anti-authoritarian, granted. but i nonetheless insist upon the use of letters when constructing words into sentences.
i have no patience for your retard speak.
....and the gr8 b8 shit really pisses me off, particularly.
you know, i was pretty close to becoming a teacher, at one point. i probably would have been teaching math & science, not english. i say probably because i could see myself getting a real BA one day (i got a good ways through a sociology/law program last session). you can imagine what i'd be like....
not strict, mind you. i'm not hitting anybody with any rulers. it's more apathetic, and almost taking pleasure in watching students fail.
"you got an F in grade 9 math, you stupid piece of shit. no, i don't give a fuck. you deserved it. i'd give you a fucking G if i could. maybe try putting down your goddamned space invaders and taking the time to learn how to distribute? it's not that fucking complicated.
i bet you can't even spell FOIL.
no. shut up. stop your fucking whining. i don't give a fuck if i have to fail you three times before you can figure this out. although, i'm not sure you ever will figure this out.
you're the reason why the school-to-prison pipeline makes sense.
get out of my fucking classroom, you clown."
i actually have a very vivid memory of something sort of like that happening in elementary school, but it was between two students, neither of whom i was friends with. it was the very first day of school in grade....2? it would have to be grade 2. yeah. there's reasons. i just remember over-hearing this conversation:
kid one: are you in my class this year?
kid two: no. i failed.
k1: you failed?
k2: yeah.
pause
k1: how the fuck do you fail grade one?
pause
k1: you failed grade one? you fucking idiot. you goddamned retard.
(now, while running off...)
k1: this idiot failed grade one!
even the teacher was laughing.
i'm a grammar anti-authoritarian, granted. but i nonetheless insist upon the use of letters when constructing words into sentences.
i have no patience for your retard speak.
....and the gr8 b8 shit really pisses me off, particularly.
you know, i was pretty close to becoming a teacher, at one point. i probably would have been teaching math & science, not english. i say probably because i could see myself getting a real BA one day (i got a good ways through a sociology/law program last session). you can imagine what i'd be like....
not strict, mind you. i'm not hitting anybody with any rulers. it's more apathetic, and almost taking pleasure in watching students fail.
"you got an F in grade 9 math, you stupid piece of shit. no, i don't give a fuck. you deserved it. i'd give you a fucking G if i could. maybe try putting down your goddamned space invaders and taking the time to learn how to distribute? it's not that fucking complicated.
i bet you can't even spell FOIL.
no. shut up. stop your fucking whining. i don't give a fuck if i have to fail you three times before you can figure this out. although, i'm not sure you ever will figure this out.
you're the reason why the school-to-prison pipeline makes sense.
get out of my fucking classroom, you clown."
i actually have a very vivid memory of something sort of like that happening in elementary school, but it was between two students, neither of whom i was friends with. it was the very first day of school in grade....2? it would have to be grade 2. yeah. there's reasons. i just remember over-hearing this conversation:
kid one: are you in my class this year?
kid two: no. i failed.
k1: you failed?
k2: yeah.
pause
k1: how the fuck do you fail grade one?
pause
k1: you failed grade one? you fucking idiot. you goddamned retard.
(now, while running off...)
k1: this idiot failed grade one!
even the teacher was laughing.
& there's no excuse for water falling through the ceiling
i haven't heard from anybody about the electrical yet.
but i'll tell you that if that happens one more time, i'm going to caulk over the wood panelling and you can deal with the water damage upstairs.
j
but i'll tell you that if that happens one more time, i'm going to caulk over the wood panelling and you can deal with the water damage upstairs.
j
j reacts to the daily show's cyclical stunt (they never do this for democrats, but...)
i don't doubt that this is your average trump supporter. what you're missing is that the average clinton supporter is just as clueless (and there are similar films floating around that demonstrate this). and, so the proper conclusion is not that republicans are morons, although they are, so much as it is that americans are morons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBbGkVIiT_M&lc=z13tebpgfxuwsxxpj04cjz3beortchnb3vs0k
the united states already has a deportation force, and it was expanded and given extra powers by the current administration. it's called ICE. and, in the end, it may be obama's most enduring legacy.
this is why the immigration rhetoric from trump doesn't really phase me. yeah, it sounds awful. but, he's often describing what already exists and that you don't know already exists.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/21/trump_campaign_manager_kellyanne_conway_a_deportation_force_for_illegal_immigrants_may_not_be_needed_to_be_determined.html
https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/22/part_2_us_citizen_sent_to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBbGkVIiT_M&lc=z13tebpgfxuwsxxpj04cjz3beortchnb3vs0k
the united states already has a deportation force, and it was expanded and given extra powers by the current administration. it's called ICE. and, in the end, it may be obama's most enduring legacy.
this is why the immigration rhetoric from trump doesn't really phase me. yeah, it sounds awful. but, he's often describing what already exists and that you don't know already exists.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/21/trump_campaign_manager_kellyanne_conway_a_deportation_force_for_illegal_immigrants_may_not_be_needed_to_be_determined.html
https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/22/part_2_us_citizen_sent_to
Saturday, August 20, 2016
j reacts to the tragically hip (trigger warning....)
i'm going to wait a little bit before i post my thoughts on the tragically hip; for right now, i'm opting for "nothing at all".
they are overrated in a way that needs to be measured on the richter scale.
i don't know how many records they released, but a greatest hits cd of value would have difficulty getting to 80 minutes.
such a greatest hits record would have been worthwhile in the cd era, but only in the sense of it sitting on your shelf, unplayed. so that you can say it's there.
i don't think they're as influential as some would claim, either. if you look around the country, you don't see a real legacy. rather, it's better to measure them as a relic of the past.
they showed up at the very moment when the boomers were fading away and mostly picked up an older audience that was starting to lose touch with reality. they were kind of the last gasp of a dying era. the last great boomer rock band.
they existed in the 90s, but they sound of the 70s.
greatest canadian rock band? no. sorry. they're not even in my top 20. unless that list is most overrated canadian rock bands.
but, hey. grab your pack of molson and cheat death on a dui through the back roads while blaring them out of your pick-up truck, if you must. if you want to call that 'canadian', good for you. i'll pass, thanks.
they are overrated in a way that needs to be measured on the richter scale.
i don't know how many records they released, but a greatest hits cd of value would have difficulty getting to 80 minutes.
such a greatest hits record would have been worthwhile in the cd era, but only in the sense of it sitting on your shelf, unplayed. so that you can say it's there.
i don't think they're as influential as some would claim, either. if you look around the country, you don't see a real legacy. rather, it's better to measure them as a relic of the past.
they showed up at the very moment when the boomers were fading away and mostly picked up an older audience that was starting to lose touch with reality. they were kind of the last gasp of a dying era. the last great boomer rock band.
they existed in the 90s, but they sound of the 70s.
greatest canadian rock band? no. sorry. they're not even in my top 20. unless that list is most overrated canadian rock bands.
but, hey. grab your pack of molson and cheat death on a dui through the back roads while blaring them out of your pick-up truck, if you must. if you want to call that 'canadian', good for you. i'll pass, thanks.
j reacts to the importance of the past, and the fools that deny it
only a fool would reject the past as meaningless. it's literally a rejection of causality - it's magical thinking. the past is everything.
there's no secret wisdom. you're just an asshole.
there's no secret wisdom. you're just an asshole.
that same electrical box blew again..
hi.
the one on top of the couch. i think this is the third time, now.
i just want to clarify that i really require the heat on because of the a/c upstairs. i understand that the upstairs tenant has weight problems and needs for it to be unreasonably cool, but that absolutely requires me to turn the heat on to compensate. otherwise, the conditions down here would be equivalent to a meat locker. even opening the window has no effect. i've tried reducing the heat on multiple occasions and i've found myself in really dangerous situations. i've woken up shivering, for example. clammy skin. it's like living inside a fridge. yes, it's unpleasant. but, it's worse - it's dangerous.
you have to keep in mind that the listed temperature on the thermostat becomes somewhat meaningless in the face of the refrigeration. it's like the wind chill effect, or the humidity effect. they'll say it's 27 degrees, but feels like 40 with the humidity. if i turn the heat off, the thermostat will say 27 degrees but it will feel like 18 with the a/c.
it's the summer. i like it in the mid to high 20s. i feel i have every right to enjoy that and that if he needs the a/c on so high that it overpowers it then he's liable to compensate that through electrical costs.
so, i'm sorry - but i need that device replaced yet again. i'm going to go ask paul, but i know he'll need to call you anyways. and, so i again need to suggest that something be done about the electrical, which probably includes finding a way to either turn his a/c down or put it on a separate circuit.
(pause)
it just came back, but now it's frozen on full blast at 43 degrees celsius, which is obviously unsafe....
(pause)
it's back off again. i've explained to paul that it is probably a fire hazard, but he said he'll wait to call ryan in the morning.
(pause)
i don't know if it will come on and off or not, but at least it seems to be shutting itself off when it overloads
(pause)
.....and now it's back on again, so that's what's happening. it's in a loop. it comes on, it overloads, it shuts off, it comes on, it overloads, it shuts off - and it's frozen, i can't do anything.
j
the one on top of the couch. i think this is the third time, now.
i just want to clarify that i really require the heat on because of the a/c upstairs. i understand that the upstairs tenant has weight problems and needs for it to be unreasonably cool, but that absolutely requires me to turn the heat on to compensate. otherwise, the conditions down here would be equivalent to a meat locker. even opening the window has no effect. i've tried reducing the heat on multiple occasions and i've found myself in really dangerous situations. i've woken up shivering, for example. clammy skin. it's like living inside a fridge. yes, it's unpleasant. but, it's worse - it's dangerous.
you have to keep in mind that the listed temperature on the thermostat becomes somewhat meaningless in the face of the refrigeration. it's like the wind chill effect, or the humidity effect. they'll say it's 27 degrees, but feels like 40 with the humidity. if i turn the heat off, the thermostat will say 27 degrees but it will feel like 18 with the a/c.
it's the summer. i like it in the mid to high 20s. i feel i have every right to enjoy that and that if he needs the a/c on so high that it overpowers it then he's liable to compensate that through electrical costs.
so, i'm sorry - but i need that device replaced yet again. i'm going to go ask paul, but i know he'll need to call you anyways. and, so i again need to suggest that something be done about the electrical, which probably includes finding a way to either turn his a/c down or put it on a separate circuit.
(pause)
it just came back, but now it's frozen on full blast at 43 degrees celsius, which is obviously unsafe....
(pause)
it's back off again. i've explained to paul that it is probably a fire hazard, but he said he'll wait to call ryan in the morning.
(pause)
i don't know if it will come on and off or not, but at least it seems to be shutting itself off when it overloads
(pause)
.....and now it's back on again, so that's what's happening. it's in a loop. it comes on, it overloads, it shuts off, it comes on, it overloads, it shuts off - and it's frozen, i can't do anything.
j
i still haven't slept, fwiw. that's coming up on two full days, awake -
excluding a short nap yesterday afternoon that i can't consider
delineating. this could be a three day vlog. even if i crash soon, if i
crash long...
i've spoken at length on my tendency to be awake for long periods, but i don't have a lot of evidence to show for it to this point. i think it's because i was still getting over the physical effects of nicotine withdrawal, which i found to be very powerful. i was also still smoking, if infrequently, meaning i kept pushing myself back off and into reset. it's been a month cold turkey, now - although this is not really intentional and after a long period of barely smoking. so, it's not the same as quitting cold turkey. it's more like a detox.
what i'm getting at is that it kind of feels like i tripped a wire or something. i've been doing something the last 36 hours that i actually rarely do: putting myself to bed. more characteristic is that i tend to wait until i just fall over. the result is that this very long day has not been productive.
but, it could be a sign of things to come. i could be back to my normal self, which is routine 45+ hour days. we'll see....
right now, i'm very hungry. we'll see how long i'm awake for after i get the blood sugar back up. long enough to finally finish with the 449s?
i've spoken at length on my tendency to be awake for long periods, but i don't have a lot of evidence to show for it to this point. i think it's because i was still getting over the physical effects of nicotine withdrawal, which i found to be very powerful. i was also still smoking, if infrequently, meaning i kept pushing myself back off and into reset. it's been a month cold turkey, now - although this is not really intentional and after a long period of barely smoking. so, it's not the same as quitting cold turkey. it's more like a detox.
what i'm getting at is that it kind of feels like i tripped a wire or something. i've been doing something the last 36 hours that i actually rarely do: putting myself to bed. more characteristic is that i tend to wait until i just fall over. the result is that this very long day has not been productive.
but, it could be a sign of things to come. i could be back to my normal self, which is routine 45+ hour days. we'll see....
right now, i'm very hungry. we'll see how long i'm awake for after i get the blood sugar back up. long enough to finally finish with the 449s?
this program should not exist at all. if there's a shortage of labour in alberta, they should be looking to other provinces to make up the difference - not importing slaves from the third world.
drop the bullshit language. this is legalized slavery, and should be immediately abolished.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-foreign-worker-report-coming-1.3729002
drop the bullshit language. this is legalized slavery, and should be immediately abolished.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-foreign-worker-report-coming-1.3729002
he's still in the grace period for some of this stuff, but if the upcoming sitting is not productive then expect a huge backlash from the substantive players on the left. we've been more than generous.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/justin-trudeau-transparency_b_11594200.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/justin-trudeau-transparency_b_11594200.html
Friday, August 19, 2016
i have to point this out every now again...
i'm not even sure which sex i like better. well, i'm 35. nearly 36. shouldn't i have that figured out? so, perhaps what that indicates is that i really don't like either.
there was a time where i reasoned that women were lesser douchebags, but i no longer think that that is true - women are just as douchey as men. that language is difficult, but i don't think it's confusing. but, i've discarded this thinking that women are emotionally superior, or something. we all have layers of hierarchy to disentangle. but, that means that i've discarded both sex and gender, preferentially. it's down entirely to individuality.
...and i hate everybody, as individuals. as people. as collections of character traits. almost everybody is a horrific asshole.
i don't even pretend to try.
yet, is it the case that i'm disinterested in others or the case that i'm obsessed with myself? there's a synthesis, no doubt.
if you cross out sex and gender as irrelevant altogether, and ignore that nobody agrees with this, what i've learned is that the biggest obstacle to a purely emotional relationship is that people want children. they say they don't, but they actually do.
therefore, i've concluded that i'm simply too young for a relationship.
there is some possibility that i may end up dating when i'm older, but my tinder profile will specify that i'm only interested in people that have adult children and that have minimal relationships with those adult children. that is my true sexual orientation: i'm only attracted to people that have a 0% interest in wanting to raise kids.
for now, file me under hyper-individualist asexual loner.
i'm not even sure which sex i like better. well, i'm 35. nearly 36. shouldn't i have that figured out? so, perhaps what that indicates is that i really don't like either.
there was a time where i reasoned that women were lesser douchebags, but i no longer think that that is true - women are just as douchey as men. that language is difficult, but i don't think it's confusing. but, i've discarded this thinking that women are emotionally superior, or something. we all have layers of hierarchy to disentangle. but, that means that i've discarded both sex and gender, preferentially. it's down entirely to individuality.
...and i hate everybody, as individuals. as people. as collections of character traits. almost everybody is a horrific asshole.
i don't even pretend to try.
yet, is it the case that i'm disinterested in others or the case that i'm obsessed with myself? there's a synthesis, no doubt.
if you cross out sex and gender as irrelevant altogether, and ignore that nobody agrees with this, what i've learned is that the biggest obstacle to a purely emotional relationship is that people want children. they say they don't, but they actually do.
therefore, i've concluded that i'm simply too young for a relationship.
there is some possibility that i may end up dating when i'm older, but my tinder profile will specify that i'm only interested in people that have adult children and that have minimal relationships with those adult children. that is my true sexual orientation: i'm only attracted to people that have a 0% interest in wanting to raise kids.
for now, file me under hyper-individualist asexual loner.
it's noon, but i've been up all night and should be tired. as it is, i can't sleep.
so, i want to make some distant comments on the roman-britney-fousey triangle, if you want to call it that. i don't know the precise details, other than that it's obvious at this point that britney & fousey are openly fucking & roman is basically in shock as to how to deal with it.
i know these are real people. vlogging this kind of thing in real time must be horrific. but, they've chosen this lifestyle and the trauma that comes with it. and, from my perspective it's actually hard to even see them as real people, even though i'm aware that this is exactly what they are. i have to interpret them as characters...
certain details are important if you want to get into the granular details. like i say: i don't know what happened. did an initial threesome lead to roman watching his girlfriend orgasm for the first time in her life, and then that lead to repeat encounters without him? did behind-his-back frolicking get to the point where everybody knew except him? did anybody bother to actually tell him? these are all gutwrenching scenarios for the guy, and if you have any empathy at all you should recoil. but, watch the last week's worth of vlogs from fousey and the last week of vlogs from roman - where they weren't aborted. there should be little doubt about the basic narrative. the mysteries are in the precise details.
but, those precise details don't matter for what i'm about to say.
the obvious takeaway is that:
1) fousey is a piece of shit.
2) britney is a slut.
3) roman is a moron.
the point that i want to make is that this is a backwards analysis. i don't want to attack our nature as deprived. i want to suggest that we're unrealistic about who and what we are.
how did the three of them find themselves in a situation in the first place where two of them wanted to fuck and the third is somehow an interested party? see, that is the problem, here. it's not that a relationship was broken, it's that a relationship existed. what is the use in erecting these arbitrary concepts of monogamy, glorifying them as desirable ends and then attacking each other for failing to live up to them? in a real sense, it's a tempest in a teapot.
i know that doesn't make the situation any easier to watch. roman is a likeable guy. he only has himself to blame, here. how many times did she broadcast to him that he needs to take better care of himself, only for him to ignore it over and over? and, if you watch the vlogs, you can see that he has control issues. he routinely uploads footage of his girlfriend rejecting his advances. why does he need to put him hitting on her on youtube in the first place? the reason is to broadcast that control. so, he has nobody to blame but himself when she makes a scene about undoing it.
i don't know how much of this will end up on the internet. fousey doesn't seem to want to date her - he just wants to fuck her. she may have been misled, intentionally or not. roman may be fool enough to look the other way. if that happens, it will manifest itself elsewhere. they're done.
but, if this does explode as it is and you take the time to analyze the situation carefully rather than through kneejerk emotional responses, i think there's a lot to learn from the situation as a microcosm of human behaviour. i don't have interest in their vlogs, but the dynamics of this is a long-running plot line going back a good ways and it has captured me. so, just try to approach what unfolds through the lens of cause and effect rather than pass judgement based on arbitrary and largely deprecated concepts of morals.
so, i want to make some distant comments on the roman-britney-fousey triangle, if you want to call it that. i don't know the precise details, other than that it's obvious at this point that britney & fousey are openly fucking & roman is basically in shock as to how to deal with it.
i know these are real people. vlogging this kind of thing in real time must be horrific. but, they've chosen this lifestyle and the trauma that comes with it. and, from my perspective it's actually hard to even see them as real people, even though i'm aware that this is exactly what they are. i have to interpret them as characters...
certain details are important if you want to get into the granular details. like i say: i don't know what happened. did an initial threesome lead to roman watching his girlfriend orgasm for the first time in her life, and then that lead to repeat encounters without him? did behind-his-back frolicking get to the point where everybody knew except him? did anybody bother to actually tell him? these are all gutwrenching scenarios for the guy, and if you have any empathy at all you should recoil. but, watch the last week's worth of vlogs from fousey and the last week of vlogs from roman - where they weren't aborted. there should be little doubt about the basic narrative. the mysteries are in the precise details.
but, those precise details don't matter for what i'm about to say.
the obvious takeaway is that:
1) fousey is a piece of shit.
2) britney is a slut.
3) roman is a moron.
the point that i want to make is that this is a backwards analysis. i don't want to attack our nature as deprived. i want to suggest that we're unrealistic about who and what we are.
how did the three of them find themselves in a situation in the first place where two of them wanted to fuck and the third is somehow an interested party? see, that is the problem, here. it's not that a relationship was broken, it's that a relationship existed. what is the use in erecting these arbitrary concepts of monogamy, glorifying them as desirable ends and then attacking each other for failing to live up to them? in a real sense, it's a tempest in a teapot.
i know that doesn't make the situation any easier to watch. roman is a likeable guy. he only has himself to blame, here. how many times did she broadcast to him that he needs to take better care of himself, only for him to ignore it over and over? and, if you watch the vlogs, you can see that he has control issues. he routinely uploads footage of his girlfriend rejecting his advances. why does he need to put him hitting on her on youtube in the first place? the reason is to broadcast that control. so, he has nobody to blame but himself when she makes a scene about undoing it.
i don't know how much of this will end up on the internet. fousey doesn't seem to want to date her - he just wants to fuck her. she may have been misled, intentionally or not. roman may be fool enough to look the other way. if that happens, it will manifest itself elsewhere. they're done.
but, if this does explode as it is and you take the time to analyze the situation carefully rather than through kneejerk emotional responses, i think there's a lot to learn from the situation as a microcosm of human behaviour. i don't have interest in their vlogs, but the dynamics of this is a long-running plot line going back a good ways and it has captured me. so, just try to approach what unfolds through the lens of cause and effect rather than pass judgement based on arbitrary and largely deprecated concepts of morals.
j reacts to an example of how trudeau is opening a clean system to rampant corruption
but, this is exactly what i was saying about these "independent, non-partisan" bodies.
as usual, the tories are clueless, or at least pretending to be. the issue here isn't the independence of the board. that's just typical right-wing bloviating. the problem here is the independence of the board. if we had less independence, we would have more oversight, and what's happening would be essentially impossible.
the whole point of setting up an independent advisory board like this is so that you can put a lobbyist on it. if you left the process inside of government, you'd have to put a public servant in charge that is either elected or promoted. "independence" means removing oversight and making corruption easier.
it's not even the money that's the problem, it's the fact that they're selling off the seat at the table. what concerns me is the consequences of that influence peddling. when you put a lawyer on an environmental board, they themselves are doing the work of their clients. and, you don't have to read the article to know who that would be.
you can argue this is how government works, and i'm actually going to agree with you to an extent. but, there's lines. they're doing this for the fucking supreme court. and, that must be fought against.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environmental-assessment-panel-liberal-donors-1.3726695
in order to minimize corruption, the board should be run by career civil servants. says who? pierre elliot trudeau.
that was the major thrust of his government, and it's been undone in months by his idiot son.
you cannot blame a fool for being a fool. i again call on the party to send him on vacation...
the system of government that pierre trudeau set up in canada was designed explicitly to prevent this from happening. it was a kind of a twist on the marxist concept of the state withering away. and, so when justin trudeau talks about removing the partisanship from government, there is some ideological continuity - in theory. it's just that in the name of non-partisanship, justin trudeau is doing exactly what his father tried to prevent from happening.
think about it for a second. what is less partisan: the civil service, which exists independent of parliament, or an "independent advisory board" that is picked by the prime minister?
but, again, i don't want to throw orwell at you. i really don't. ok - maybe somewhere in his staff of advisers, there's somebody with a warped sense of humour and a lot of bad intentions. but, i think his intentions are actually extremely pure. i really don't think he's corrupt. i just think he's really fucking stupid.
what pierre trudeau imagined was that by this point in time we would have a civil service that was dominant in society and operated largely independently from parliamentary oversight, with it's primary check on power coming from the judiciary. that would reduce the parliament to a kind of minarchist distraction, responsible for setting the direction of policy but not the policy itself.
he wanted a government run by social scientists, not politicians. again: it's basically marxist in concept. and, ironically, what we're seeing from his son is exactly the reason why...
if you listen to justin, you can hear that he sat at the dinner table and listened to his dad talk quite a bit. the same broad themes are present. it's just that he demonstrates essentially no understanding of what he's saying - and his policies uphold the accusation.
tersely: if you set up an "independent body" to overrule the civil service, which is actually already independent of parliament by design, then what you are doing is abolishing the independence of the decision making process and concentrating power in the pmo.
what "independent" means in context is "independent of the independent body", which by definition means dependent on the party.
it's literally a direct undoing of his father's legacy. but, i really think it's legitimately unintentional.
what he knows are the buzz words. he doesn't know the details. and, apparently, neither do his advisers.
that's not justin, it's his little brother michel.
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/margaret-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all
that's the elder trudeau.
it's not hyperbole. trudeauism is legitimately a branch of marxism. it's a mixed economy. and, it seeks to have the state wither away on the path to communism.
it was very popular, here. and i'm an advocate of it as an excellent compromise.
it's sad to see what's happening. but, there's no reason to think it's irreversible.
https://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/pierre-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=940&h=705
as usual, the tories are clueless, or at least pretending to be. the issue here isn't the independence of the board. that's just typical right-wing bloviating. the problem here is the independence of the board. if we had less independence, we would have more oversight, and what's happening would be essentially impossible.
the whole point of setting up an independent advisory board like this is so that you can put a lobbyist on it. if you left the process inside of government, you'd have to put a public servant in charge that is either elected or promoted. "independence" means removing oversight and making corruption easier.
it's not even the money that's the problem, it's the fact that they're selling off the seat at the table. what concerns me is the consequences of that influence peddling. when you put a lawyer on an environmental board, they themselves are doing the work of their clients. and, you don't have to read the article to know who that would be.
you can argue this is how government works, and i'm actually going to agree with you to an extent. but, there's lines. they're doing this for the fucking supreme court. and, that must be fought against.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environmental-assessment-panel-liberal-donors-1.3726695
in order to minimize corruption, the board should be run by career civil servants. says who? pierre elliot trudeau.
that was the major thrust of his government, and it's been undone in months by his idiot son.
you cannot blame a fool for being a fool. i again call on the party to send him on vacation...
the system of government that pierre trudeau set up in canada was designed explicitly to prevent this from happening. it was a kind of a twist on the marxist concept of the state withering away. and, so when justin trudeau talks about removing the partisanship from government, there is some ideological continuity - in theory. it's just that in the name of non-partisanship, justin trudeau is doing exactly what his father tried to prevent from happening.
think about it for a second. what is less partisan: the civil service, which exists independent of parliament, or an "independent advisory board" that is picked by the prime minister?
but, again, i don't want to throw orwell at you. i really don't. ok - maybe somewhere in his staff of advisers, there's somebody with a warped sense of humour and a lot of bad intentions. but, i think his intentions are actually extremely pure. i really don't think he's corrupt. i just think he's really fucking stupid.
what pierre trudeau imagined was that by this point in time we would have a civil service that was dominant in society and operated largely independently from parliamentary oversight, with it's primary check on power coming from the judiciary. that would reduce the parliament to a kind of minarchist distraction, responsible for setting the direction of policy but not the policy itself.
he wanted a government run by social scientists, not politicians. again: it's basically marxist in concept. and, ironically, what we're seeing from his son is exactly the reason why...
if you listen to justin, you can hear that he sat at the dinner table and listened to his dad talk quite a bit. the same broad themes are present. it's just that he demonstrates essentially no understanding of what he's saying - and his policies uphold the accusation.
tersely: if you set up an "independent body" to overrule the civil service, which is actually already independent of parliament by design, then what you are doing is abolishing the independence of the decision making process and concentrating power in the pmo.
what "independent" means in context is "independent of the independent body", which by definition means dependent on the party.
it's literally a direct undoing of his father's legacy. but, i really think it's legitimately unintentional.
what he knows are the buzz words. he doesn't know the details. and, apparently, neither do his advisers.
that's not justin, it's his little brother michel.
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/margaret-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all
that's the elder trudeau.
it's not hyperbole. trudeauism is legitimately a branch of marxism. it's a mixed economy. and, it seeks to have the state wither away on the path to communism.
it was very popular, here. and i'm an advocate of it as an excellent compromise.
it's sad to see what's happening. but, there's no reason to think it's irreversible.
https://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/pierre-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=940&h=705
well, ok. i'm actually a fan of ralph goodale. and, this is more along the lines of the kind of thing i actually expected.
now, let's hope the pmo stays out of the way. we don't need any "independent advisory committees" staffed by conservatives, here. the liberal party is more than capable of governing on it's own.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/16/c-51-review-expected-to-launch-before-parliament-resumes/
they should send justin out surfing and just tell him to sign what ralph brings to the table.
now, let's hope the pmo stays out of the way. we don't need any "independent advisory committees" staffed by conservatives, here. the liberal party is more than capable of governing on it's own.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/16/c-51-review-expected-to-launch-before-parliament-resumes/
they should send justin out surfing and just tell him to sign what ralph brings to the table.
alter-reality update
august 19, 1996
that was a lot longer between updates than expected, but i have good news - the room is finished and i've largely taken it over. i've been trying to find some friends to come down and jam but have been completely unsuccessful in convincing anybody. well, the truth is that there are at most three people on the planet that would admit to being a friend of mine, and none of them seriously want to play music. one of them is a skateboarder kid that i've known since the third grade and just listens to trendy hip-hop. we don't have much in common except that we went to a small school and have just kind of clung together as a consequence of it. there's some concept of trust there, at least, and sometimes that can be mutually reassuring. the other is a bmx kid that's into punk rock (sort of - i question his authenticity), but he has the attention span of a gnat and just could not make it through anything. i'm only really friends with him because of the assigned seating at school and, ironically, because i'm old friends with the other kid. they have a lot more in common with each other and get along better with each other. i'm kind of more of a conduit. i don't begrudge them - good for them. i'm happy i helped them find each other. it's more that i don't really know why i stick around with them, except that there's safety in some numbers. the other option is to turn myself into a sitting duck for bullies. again: at least there's some concept of trust with these two. but, they're the kind of teenagers that want to play outside on their boards/bikes or stay in and play video games. there's just no interest in any kind of art. i did ask the bmx kid already to try out the drums, and he just kind of laughed at me, as though he was obviously incapable. he said he didn't want me to yell at him for sucking. to be honest, i think he's right to react that way!
that's not to say that they don't respect my craft on some level. you have to remember that, while i'm only 15, i've been playing guitar for a long time, already. i can pick up just about anything in the style i like, which is broadly categorized as alternative/grunge. i'm truly pretty impressive for my age. but, for them, that's more intimidating than reassuring, especially considering that they can't put it into context. further, i don't have a reputation for patience. so, they can tell ahead of time what this is going to be like - i'm going to yell at them for not being able to keep up, and they're going to get frustrated and give up. then, i'm going to pout. again: they're right. that's exactly what would happen...
the third kid is a little more promising. he's a big marilyn manson fan and seems to legitimately want to start a punk band. i don't really like marilyn manson, but i am a really big nine inch nails fan and i like punk, too, so surely we can find some common ground. the problem is that he's kind of flaky. he wants to play bass, but he's more concerned about the image involved in getting a "goth guitar" than he is in getting something that sounds good. he's also stood me up a few times, already. so, i don't know if i can really rely on him. he seems like the type that would get bored and give up really easily if it doesn't immediately work out. i don't think he really wants to just jam...
i'm kind of thinking that it might be a better idea to just start recording on my own. i mean, none of these kids can play anything. at all. i can probably play drums better than the bmx kid, anyways. i'm sure i can play bass better than the goth kid - that's not even a serious question. i have this room here, and i'm in it quite a bit. why am i waiting for other people? why don't i just record the parts myself? if trent reznor and billy corgan can do it, why can't i?
speaking of the room, perhaps i should describe it. i wish i had a camera, but i wouldn't know how to get it on the internet, anyways. dad says you need a 'scanner', but i don't know what that is.
i've had a subscription to guitar world for a few years, now. it was a christmas present. well, she offered me national geographic - and i do legitimately like to read up on science - but i requested the guitar world because i thought i'd get more out of it. so, i had about fifty magazines to cut & paste into a collage to spread across the wall, which is now full of alternative rock icons.
in one corner of the room, there's a table with a luxman receiver connected to a tascam four-track that was borrowed from my dad's friend, larry. the tascam connects to a mixdown tape deck through the luxman. larry also left an acoustic guitar and an mxr phaser down here. he said he doesn't play van halen any more and the phaser is cheesy, otherwise. personally, i can't tell the difference between his phaser and the flanger in my multi-effects unit but i'm told there's an engineering difference in the effects.
as for my guitar setup, i really have everything i need to record in a small space. i'm on my second guitar, now, which is an entry level ibanez with a locking bridge. i moved up a little while back from your standard piece of shit hondo. the ibanez has a three-way selector switch and a very clean signal, which are things that i like, but there's also a knot in the neck that was lacquered over at the store and has become somewhat of a splinter hazard. there's some fret wear, too. believe it or not, sometimes the problems with the guitar make me miss my old hondo! but, the important thing is that it sounds good through the signal path, which is into a zoom 1010 multieffects unit and out into a cheri practice amplifier. the amp came with my first guitar, whereas i purchased the multieffects unit in 1995 with combined christmas money.
there is an electric bass on the table behind the recording devices. there are no speakers in the room, but there is a pair of sennheiser 440-II headphones. dad said they're awesome headphones and i should 'baby' them so they last. there are two microphones in this room, connected to sponges to deaden the sound. and, there is for real a drum kit in the other corner of the room along with a selection of sticks and a pair of brushes. the space in between is very cramped - we could fit at most two adults in here, and at most four kids. nor is there any ventilation (as it was designed to be sound proof), so it gets very hot with the equipment, very fast. i'll admit that i've overheated and had to leave the room a couple of times...
so, i've been down here all night playing guitar for most of the month. sometimes i'm practicing other people's music, and sometimes i'm playing my own. while i haven't started to do any recording yet, because i want to wait to find people to play with, i've been mapping out a number of songs using a combination of tablature and notation on some left over loose leaf from last year. i have a lot of music already written, some of it going back to 1994. i even have some notes that i wrote back in 1994. it's all carefully organized in a binder, waiting to be actualized.
but, am i ever going to find anybody to jam with? what if i don't? i'm really seriously considering just starting to record by myself. then, maybe, i can teach the parts to other people, after. do you think that's a good idea?
i also picked up the new white zombie record, which is a remix record. i'm not a really big white zombie fan, but i do enjoy their other records and i reasoned that experimental remixes of white zombie songs would have to be really amazing to hear. so, i was hoping it would be a little more abstract, like those crazy nine inch nails remix records that i really like. on first listen, i found it to be too techno for me but it's grown on me a little and i think that it's really flat out demented qualities may prove it to be somewhat of a keeper, in the long run. what do you think?
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/1996/08/the-logistics-around-finding-ways-to.html
the logistics around finding ways to create some supersexy swingin' sounds of my own
that was a lot longer between updates than expected, but i have good news - the room is finished and i've largely taken it over. i've been trying to find some friends to come down and jam but have been completely unsuccessful in convincing anybody. well, the truth is that there are at most three people on the planet that would admit to being a friend of mine, and none of them seriously want to play music. one of them is a skateboarder kid that i've known since the third grade and just listens to trendy hip-hop. we don't have much in common except that we went to a small school and have just kind of clung together as a consequence of it. there's some concept of trust there, at least, and sometimes that can be mutually reassuring. the other is a bmx kid that's into punk rock (sort of - i question his authenticity), but he has the attention span of a gnat and just could not make it through anything. i'm only really friends with him because of the assigned seating at school and, ironically, because i'm old friends with the other kid. they have a lot more in common with each other and get along better with each other. i'm kind of more of a conduit. i don't begrudge them - good for them. i'm happy i helped them find each other. it's more that i don't really know why i stick around with them, except that there's safety in some numbers. the other option is to turn myself into a sitting duck for bullies. again: at least there's some concept of trust with these two. but, they're the kind of teenagers that want to play outside on their boards/bikes or stay in and play video games. there's just no interest in any kind of art. i did ask the bmx kid already to try out the drums, and he just kind of laughed at me, as though he was obviously incapable. he said he didn't want me to yell at him for sucking. to be honest, i think he's right to react that way!
that's not to say that they don't respect my craft on some level. you have to remember that, while i'm only 15, i've been playing guitar for a long time, already. i can pick up just about anything in the style i like, which is broadly categorized as alternative/grunge. i'm truly pretty impressive for my age. but, for them, that's more intimidating than reassuring, especially considering that they can't put it into context. further, i don't have a reputation for patience. so, they can tell ahead of time what this is going to be like - i'm going to yell at them for not being able to keep up, and they're going to get frustrated and give up. then, i'm going to pout. again: they're right. that's exactly what would happen...
the third kid is a little more promising. he's a big marilyn manson fan and seems to legitimately want to start a punk band. i don't really like marilyn manson, but i am a really big nine inch nails fan and i like punk, too, so surely we can find some common ground. the problem is that he's kind of flaky. he wants to play bass, but he's more concerned about the image involved in getting a "goth guitar" than he is in getting something that sounds good. he's also stood me up a few times, already. so, i don't know if i can really rely on him. he seems like the type that would get bored and give up really easily if it doesn't immediately work out. i don't think he really wants to just jam...
i'm kind of thinking that it might be a better idea to just start recording on my own. i mean, none of these kids can play anything. at all. i can probably play drums better than the bmx kid, anyways. i'm sure i can play bass better than the goth kid - that's not even a serious question. i have this room here, and i'm in it quite a bit. why am i waiting for other people? why don't i just record the parts myself? if trent reznor and billy corgan can do it, why can't i?
speaking of the room, perhaps i should describe it. i wish i had a camera, but i wouldn't know how to get it on the internet, anyways. dad says you need a 'scanner', but i don't know what that is.
i've had a subscription to guitar world for a few years, now. it was a christmas present. well, she offered me national geographic - and i do legitimately like to read up on science - but i requested the guitar world because i thought i'd get more out of it. so, i had about fifty magazines to cut & paste into a collage to spread across the wall, which is now full of alternative rock icons.
in one corner of the room, there's a table with a luxman receiver connected to a tascam four-track that was borrowed from my dad's friend, larry. the tascam connects to a mixdown tape deck through the luxman. larry also left an acoustic guitar and an mxr phaser down here. he said he doesn't play van halen any more and the phaser is cheesy, otherwise. personally, i can't tell the difference between his phaser and the flanger in my multi-effects unit but i'm told there's an engineering difference in the effects.
as for my guitar setup, i really have everything i need to record in a small space. i'm on my second guitar, now, which is an entry level ibanez with a locking bridge. i moved up a little while back from your standard piece of shit hondo. the ibanez has a three-way selector switch and a very clean signal, which are things that i like, but there's also a knot in the neck that was lacquered over at the store and has become somewhat of a splinter hazard. there's some fret wear, too. believe it or not, sometimes the problems with the guitar make me miss my old hondo! but, the important thing is that it sounds good through the signal path, which is into a zoom 1010 multieffects unit and out into a cheri practice amplifier. the amp came with my first guitar, whereas i purchased the multieffects unit in 1995 with combined christmas money.
there is an electric bass on the table behind the recording devices. there are no speakers in the room, but there is a pair of sennheiser 440-II headphones. dad said they're awesome headphones and i should 'baby' them so they last. there are two microphones in this room, connected to sponges to deaden the sound. and, there is for real a drum kit in the other corner of the room along with a selection of sticks and a pair of brushes. the space in between is very cramped - we could fit at most two adults in here, and at most four kids. nor is there any ventilation (as it was designed to be sound proof), so it gets very hot with the equipment, very fast. i'll admit that i've overheated and had to leave the room a couple of times...
so, i've been down here all night playing guitar for most of the month. sometimes i'm practicing other people's music, and sometimes i'm playing my own. while i haven't started to do any recording yet, because i want to wait to find people to play with, i've been mapping out a number of songs using a combination of tablature and notation on some left over loose leaf from last year. i have a lot of music already written, some of it going back to 1994. i even have some notes that i wrote back in 1994. it's all carefully organized in a binder, waiting to be actualized.
but, am i ever going to find anybody to jam with? what if i don't? i'm really seriously considering just starting to record by myself. then, maybe, i can teach the parts to other people, after. do you think that's a good idea?
i also picked up the new white zombie record, which is a remix record. i'm not a really big white zombie fan, but i do enjoy their other records and i reasoned that experimental remixes of white zombie songs would have to be really amazing to hear. so, i was hoping it would be a little more abstract, like those crazy nine inch nails remix records that i really like. on first listen, i found it to be too techno for me but it's grown on me a little and i think that it's really flat out demented qualities may prove it to be somewhat of a keeper, in the long run. what do you think?
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/1996/08/the-logistics-around-finding-ways-to.html
Thursday, August 18, 2016
we're simply not post-racial, yet. and, i'll be the first to push back against the idea that we're post-gender. but, we've certainly made enough process that i'm going to get flat out hostile with anybody that starts throwing around appeals to gender in this election cycle.
i'm talking about things like "women need to stick together". fuck off. leave your knitting club in the nineteenth century. fuck the groupthink: assert your individuality. use your own brain. don't let others think for you.
it hasn't been bad, yet. i'm seeing signs. stop. and, i'd actually like to hear some leadership from the candidate on this point.
i'm talking about things like "women need to stick together". fuck off. leave your knitting club in the nineteenth century. fuck the groupthink: assert your individuality. use your own brain. don't let others think for you.
it hasn't been bad, yet. i'm seeing signs. stop. and, i'd actually like to hear some leadership from the candidate on this point.
j reacts to the rare election poll from pew
pew research is not an unbiased source - their international polling is often done on behalf of intelligence interests - but they are a bit of a special case in the sense that they have a specialized audience.
when a media institution does a poll, it's intended audience is it's readers and so you need to mentally adjust for the various biases. when pew does a poll, the intended audience is....how to say this...washington. "serious people". they consequently have a heightened level of importance.
that doesn't mean they're more right. it just means that the results reflect what a component of the inside wants another component of the inside to think.
trump at 37 is not particular impressive. but, clinton at 41 is surprisingly low.
it's curious to me that pew's results are quite similar to breitbart's, given that this was the poll that breitbart apparently commissioned to "correct the skew".
when a media institution does a poll, it's intended audience is it's readers and so you need to mentally adjust for the various biases. when pew does a poll, the intended audience is....how to say this...washington. "serious people". they consequently have a heightened level of importance.
that doesn't mean they're more right. it just means that the results reflect what a component of the inside wants another component of the inside to think.
trump at 37 is not particular impressive. but, clinton at 41 is surprisingly low.
it's curious to me that pew's results are quite similar to breitbart's, given that this was the poll that breitbart apparently commissioned to "correct the skew".
do we still seriously doubt that anything besides flooding was the dominant factor?
well, first of all let's take a moment to reflect that almost nobody knows that st. louis was conquered and renamed rather than settled.
but, i think we have enough background now to realize that this is going to be a challenging region to settle, long term. floods. tornadoes. kind of makes migrating seem rational, huh?
i don't mean to trivialize what's happening in the delta. but, if you live there, you might want to get out before you drown. this is now a persistent problem that is not going to get better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
well, first of all let's take a moment to reflect that almost nobody knows that st. louis was conquered and renamed rather than settled.
but, i think we have enough background now to realize that this is going to be a challenging region to settle, long term. floods. tornadoes. kind of makes migrating seem rational, huh?
i don't mean to trivialize what's happening in the delta. but, if you live there, you might want to get out before you drown. this is now a persistent problem that is not going to get better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
most police officers i've met should consider it an honour to be elevated to the role of social worker.
we need less thugs on patrol and more social programs that get at root causes. what a frustrating headline.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-dallas-poverty-idUSKCN10Q0VE?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=morefromreuters
we need less thugs on patrol and more social programs that get at root causes. what a frustrating headline.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-dallas-poverty-idUSKCN10Q0VE?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=morefromreuters
my perspective - and i've actually stated this repeatedly - is that open racism is actually trump's best, only chance. he had a decent tactic with libertarians at one point, but the window is long closed.
i've said this about hillary a bunch of times, too. i don't like what he's doing. but, it's actually his best move - so long as he's setting the audience up for something. all the hate and crazy on it's own will sputter out to nowhere. it needs the visual.
keep an eye out for it, and...
see, the best way to stop it from working is to plant the seed. now who's the conspiracy theorist?
madness. but, with these candidates, it could be nothing else.
i've said this about hillary a bunch of times, too. i don't like what he's doing. but, it's actually his best move - so long as he's setting the audience up for something. all the hate and crazy on it's own will sputter out to nowhere. it needs the visual.
keep an eye out for it, and...
see, the best way to stop it from working is to plant the seed. now who's the conspiracy theorist?
madness. but, with these candidates, it could be nothing else.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
neo-conservatism.
discuss.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-case-for-elizabeth-may-as-the-next-ndp-leader/article31411637/
there's been talk of the ndp changing their name. i've got a great idea: the new conservative party.
....but c is always bad news in any acronym, due to the existence of the word clown. and they have to win before they can start removing things from the dictionary. foiled...
she can't run the ndp. she's pro-life. it's a non-starter. i've been over this. she'll never win the nomination, she'll just create a movement against her.
this is actually a really good record.
"if you hate america so much, why don't you leave?"
this guy took 'em up on it and went backpacking through asia. landed in borneo, and hitchhiked to turkey. he wrote a concept record about it...
you may remember him from the band cop shoot cop, which showed up at the tail end of the no wave moment. or maybe not. it's more of a psychedelic pop record, with a big world music feel. well, he was backpacking through asia...
discuss.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-case-for-elizabeth-may-as-the-next-ndp-leader/article31411637/
there's been talk of the ndp changing their name. i've got a great idea: the new conservative party.
....but c is always bad news in any acronym, due to the existence of the word clown. and they have to win before they can start removing things from the dictionary. foiled...
she can't run the ndp. she's pro-life. it's a non-starter. i've been over this. she'll never win the nomination, she'll just create a movement against her.
this is actually a really good record.
"if you hate america so much, why don't you leave?"
this guy took 'em up on it and went backpacking through asia. landed in borneo, and hitchhiked to turkey. he wrote a concept record about it...
you may remember him from the band cop shoot cop, which showed up at the tail end of the no wave moment. or maybe not. it's more of a psychedelic pop record, with a big world music feel. well, he was backpacking through asia...
it was always intended to be a way to get people back and forth from the hockey arena, and little else.
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2016/01/18/lets-be-honest-detroits-m-1-rail-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-streetcar-that-leaves-much-to-be-desired
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2016/01/18/lets-be-honest-detroits-m-1-rail-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-streetcar-that-leaves-much-to-be-desired
j reacts to trump's likely reaction to his wife's immigration status being a liability
if donald trump thinks his wife is a liability, he'll just get a new wife.
i'm not really trying to draw a contrast or pass a judgement. i'm just saying.
"get her out of here!"
i'm not really trying to draw a contrast or pass a judgement. i'm just saying.
"get her out of here!"
fuse situation less urgent (still would be nice to fix soon...)
hi.
it turns out the outlets around the stove are on the stove breaker. so, i dragged the fridge across the kitchen and also moved the internet into the kitchen. i guess i'll want to avoid making eggs until it's back up. but, that means that the immediate concern is not pressing and i can wait it out. although, i mean....it's out everywhere except those two outlets around the stove. it's not a good situation. it's just not urgent anymore.
i'm assuming it''s the fuse. i don't know, really. i know i heard something pop when the microwave was at 0:01, and then everything was out.
j
it turns out the outlets around the stove are on the stove breaker. so, i dragged the fridge across the kitchen and also moved the internet into the kitchen. i guess i'll want to avoid making eggs until it's back up. but, that means that the immediate concern is not pressing and i can wait it out. although, i mean....it's out everywhere except those two outlets around the stove. it's not a good situation. it's just not urgent anymore.
i'm assuming it''s the fuse. i don't know, really. i know i heard something pop when the microwave was at 0:01, and then everything was out.
j
i think i blew a fuse down here this evening. around 7ish. i thought i was done for the night. but, it turns out that the breaker around the stove is still up. i only have one way on to the internet down here...
i could live for a few hours without the internet. i mean, i've chosen not to. but i'd be ok. i'm more relived by getting the fridge plugged back in (by dragging it across the kitchen...).
that just means that i'm that much further behind. but it's a minor annoyance, really, in the bigger scheme.
i'm hoping to get most of the sansa listening done tonight, so i can finish it up tomorrow.
i could live for a few hours without the internet. i mean, i've chosen not to. but i'd be ok. i'm more relived by getting the fridge plugged back in (by dragging it across the kitchen...).
that just means that i'm that much further behind. but it's a minor annoyance, really, in the bigger scheme.
i'm hoping to get most of the sansa listening done tonight, so i can finish it up tomorrow.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
j reacts to trudeau not picking his battles well and wasting everybody's time
i'm confused. what does this "terrorist attack" have to do with the constitutionality of the legislation?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-c51-terrorism-balance-rights-security-1.3723167
if it was unconstitutional last year, surely it remains unconstitutional today.
??
i mean, unless the constitution was changed at some point when we weren't paying attention.....!?
forget the ndp. the only way anything gets done in this country is through the courts. let's get a constitutional challenge, please.
i need to be clear: current events don't affect the constitutionality of the legislation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c-51-sees-charter-challenge-from-civil-liberties-press-freedom-advocates-1.3161435
"The lawsuit is now on hold in court pending a response from the government."
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/cjfe/2016/07/one-year-after-initiating-charter-challenge-cjfe-renews-campaign-to-revi
the last government didn't want to follow the constitution, and got gutted by the courts over and over.
it seems like this government doesn't want to follow the constitution and will get gutted by the courts over and over.
hopefully, the next government will have more respect for the constitution. if not...
you don't overrule the constitution with identity politics and appeals to authority. the prime minister is neither king nor president. the office is not above the rule of law. nor does canada have any legal concept of an "executive order".
there is no choice in the matter. if he does not want to follow the rule of law, he must resign or be removed.
we don't need to change the way the senate operates, or the way the supreme court is chosen. but, i would support legislation to reduce the power of the prime minister's office and essentially abolish the application of executive power.
good.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/toronto-lawyer-watching-trudeaus-supreme-court-pick-closely/article31440520/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-c51-terrorism-balance-rights-security-1.3723167
if it was unconstitutional last year, surely it remains unconstitutional today.
??
i mean, unless the constitution was changed at some point when we weren't paying attention.....!?
forget the ndp. the only way anything gets done in this country is through the courts. let's get a constitutional challenge, please.
i need to be clear: current events don't affect the constitutionality of the legislation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c-51-sees-charter-challenge-from-civil-liberties-press-freedom-advocates-1.3161435
"The lawsuit is now on hold in court pending a response from the government."
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/cjfe/2016/07/one-year-after-initiating-charter-challenge-cjfe-renews-campaign-to-revi
the last government didn't want to follow the constitution, and got gutted by the courts over and over.
it seems like this government doesn't want to follow the constitution and will get gutted by the courts over and over.
hopefully, the next government will have more respect for the constitution. if not...
you don't overrule the constitution with identity politics and appeals to authority. the prime minister is neither king nor president. the office is not above the rule of law. nor does canada have any legal concept of an "executive order".
there is no choice in the matter. if he does not want to follow the rule of law, he must resign or be removed.
we don't need to change the way the senate operates, or the way the supreme court is chosen. but, i would support legislation to reduce the power of the prime minister's office and essentially abolish the application of executive power.
good.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/toronto-lawyer-watching-trudeaus-supreme-court-pick-closely/article31440520/
Aetna says it lost money in the Obamacare marketplaces because the people who signed up were sicker than expected. And while most insurers did expect sicker patients to sign up early — those who needed care the most would likely be Obamacare’s most enthusiastic customers — Aetna’s struggles haven’t improved. The insurer says its membership population actually got sicker in 2016.
--
you have no idea how absurd this entire conversation is to anybody outside the united states.
gingrichcare was never a good idea. it didn't matter who the spokesperson was, or how it was tweaked. it was always just a fundamentally incoherent way to provide health care.
i don't like market theory in it's most neutral applications. but, the right way to understand markets in the context of health care is that the product undermines the market. it's simply never going to make sense to have a market in health care....
it's single payer or barbarism. it really is.
--
you have no idea how absurd this entire conversation is to anybody outside the united states.
gingrichcare was never a good idea. it didn't matter who the spokesperson was, or how it was tweaked. it was always just a fundamentally incoherent way to provide health care.
i don't like market theory in it's most neutral applications. but, the right way to understand markets in the context of health care is that the product undermines the market. it's simply never going to make sense to have a market in health care....
it's single payer or barbarism. it really is.
j reacts to twitter use as trump's tragic flaw (and if he's right about being defamed)
this article is a lot of words to miss the basic point trump was getting across. it's focusing on the question of whether the lie was intentional, as though the crime is in the dishonesty. the crime of course is in the malice. you have to intentionally misconstrue in order to be malicious. but, it's the malice that is the crime - and the existence of harm that is the test.
our legal system is not a sunday school. you are not punished for doing wrong. rather, you are required to compensate those whom you do financial harm to. there's no moral question, here. it's dollars and cents.
the actual problem here is the character limit that twitter pushes down, which is forcing trump to truncate his arguments in such a way that they can be misinterpreted essentially at will. one of the best things he can do for himself at this point is to move to a platform that doesn't have character limits. this should be a lesson for future candidates, as well. it's practically an algorithm to be taken out of context.
had trump said "It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want with the intent to harm me, in contempt of the truth !"
...then he would be right. which is of course what he means to say. nobody thinks the media is neutral.
the bottom line is that i've seen quite a few stories that he would be right to launch legal action against, and would probably win compensation regarding if he did. this is not in the realm of discourse, and does not provide a reason to vote for him. but, he is raising a very valid concern about the level of discourse and the role that an incompetent media can play in the election cycle.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/
fwiw, this is the exact, precise reason that i have refused to use twitter from day one. this is the only twitter profile i've ever created.
https://twitter.com/dgkfgjklgjkgjka
our legal system is not a sunday school. you are not punished for doing wrong. rather, you are required to compensate those whom you do financial harm to. there's no moral question, here. it's dollars and cents.
the actual problem here is the character limit that twitter pushes down, which is forcing trump to truncate his arguments in such a way that they can be misinterpreted essentially at will. one of the best things he can do for himself at this point is to move to a platform that doesn't have character limits. this should be a lesson for future candidates, as well. it's practically an algorithm to be taken out of context.
had trump said "It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want with the intent to harm me, in contempt of the truth !"
...then he would be right. which is of course what he means to say. nobody thinks the media is neutral.
the bottom line is that i've seen quite a few stories that he would be right to launch legal action against, and would probably win compensation regarding if he did. this is not in the realm of discourse, and does not provide a reason to vote for him. but, he is raising a very valid concern about the level of discourse and the role that an incompetent media can play in the election cycle.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/
fwiw, this is the exact, precise reason that i have refused to use twitter from day one. this is the only twitter profile i've ever created.
https://twitter.com/dgkfgjklgjkgjka
j reacts to the tactic of calling hillary clinton a liar
this angle may be more legally successful, but it won't have any voter effect, i don't think. the reason is that everybody already know she's a liar. i mean, it's like trying a lion for killing gazelle. everybody knows that lions are assholes. yet, we somehow continue to have this strange attachment to them. you can show the lionphiles hours of footage of lions being assholes, and all you're likely to get out of them in the end is some kind of twisted admiration.
here is the surreal truth: every single clinton voter, if pressed, will acknowledge they are voting for a liar. nobody is going to defend her. they'll just rationalize it.
the reason the email angle was threatening to her had to do with how it made her seem on national security. the pay-to-play thing remains possibly damaging, but it's the kind of thing that you have to slowly explain to people and nail for weeks and then patiently wait out. and, trump isn't exactly inspiring, either.
this, on the other hand, strikes me as a waste of time.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291494-gop-lays-out-case-for-charging-clinton-with-perjury
here is the surreal truth: every single clinton voter, if pressed, will acknowledge they are voting for a liar. nobody is going to defend her. they'll just rationalize it.
the reason the email angle was threatening to her had to do with how it made her seem on national security. the pay-to-play thing remains possibly damaging, but it's the kind of thing that you have to slowly explain to people and nail for weeks and then patiently wait out. and, trump isn't exactly inspiring, either.
this, on the other hand, strikes me as a waste of time.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291494-gop-lays-out-case-for-charging-clinton-with-perjury
Monday, August 15, 2016
frankly, i don't think the prime minister actually has a choice, here. a pattern is developing of contempt for the constitution, and for constitutional norms, that can't be tolerated. so, i hope that somebody challenges the nomination.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-supreme-court-judge-atlantic-canada-1.3721255
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-supreme-court-judge-atlantic-canada-1.3721255
j reacts to the effects of terrorism on trump's polling numbers
this is characteristically hokey hogwash from vox. no historical context. but, it gets the right idea. and, if you're going to pay attention to the polls over the next few months, this is what you should be looking at.
first, it's not like you can separate the population into "authoritarians" and "non-authoritarians". like every other measurable trait, everybody has some kind of authoritarian streak and it can be turned up or down depending on reactions to events.
second, it's not like trump is some kind of new phenomenon. canadians will recognize that this is the same voting base that brought us stephen harper and his "strong leadership" propaganda.
third, it's not like conservatism is historically divorced from authoritarianism. not even recently. have we forgotten george w. bush so quickly?
fourth, this isn't obscure, either. it's called neo-conservatism. it's neo-hobbesianism. it's leo strauss. it's michael ignatieff. it's all over the fucking place.
fifth, it's not like the democrats don't use this tactic, either. in fact, if this election were between clinton and jeb bush, she'd probably be the one pushing the neo-con "activation" jargon. in fact, she's tried a few times already, and may try again before november.
i do not believe that either candidate got bumps from their respective conventions. i believe that trump got a bump from the spate of terrorist attacks last month but that it faded quickly - and that any such bump will follow a similar pattern because it is emotional rather than intellectual. and, i believe that this is the factor that will "activate" potential trump voters.
those charts about terrorism, iran, russia - that was what clinton wanted to run on. but, the situation got flipped over.
there is only one scenario in which donald trump wins the election: a serious terrorist attack at exactly the right moment. and, it will not simply be people labelled "authoritarians" that vote for him. it will be an expression of mass temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of extreme rage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YU9djt_CQM
first, it's not like you can separate the population into "authoritarians" and "non-authoritarians". like every other measurable trait, everybody has some kind of authoritarian streak and it can be turned up or down depending on reactions to events.
second, it's not like trump is some kind of new phenomenon. canadians will recognize that this is the same voting base that brought us stephen harper and his "strong leadership" propaganda.
third, it's not like conservatism is historically divorced from authoritarianism. not even recently. have we forgotten george w. bush so quickly?
fourth, this isn't obscure, either. it's called neo-conservatism. it's neo-hobbesianism. it's leo strauss. it's michael ignatieff. it's all over the fucking place.
fifth, it's not like the democrats don't use this tactic, either. in fact, if this election were between clinton and jeb bush, she'd probably be the one pushing the neo-con "activation" jargon. in fact, she's tried a few times already, and may try again before november.
i do not believe that either candidate got bumps from their respective conventions. i believe that trump got a bump from the spate of terrorist attacks last month but that it faded quickly - and that any such bump will follow a similar pattern because it is emotional rather than intellectual. and, i believe that this is the factor that will "activate" potential trump voters.
those charts about terrorism, iran, russia - that was what clinton wanted to run on. but, the situation got flipped over.
there is only one scenario in which donald trump wins the election: a serious terrorist attack at exactly the right moment. and, it will not simply be people labelled "authoritarians" that vote for him. it will be an expression of mass temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of extreme rage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YU9djt_CQM
j reacts to malia obama not knowing how to hold a j
seems like malia needs an intervention.
"no, sweetie, you hold it like this."
didn't they teach her anything? if i had a daughter, i'd never let her be photographed holding a j like that. it's embarrassing.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/11/19/371F38DE00000578-3733490-image-a-1_1470939229783.jpg
"no, sweetie, you hold it like this."
didn't they teach her anything? if i had a daughter, i'd never let her be photographed holding a j like that. it's embarrassing.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/11/19/371F38DE00000578-3733490-image-a-1_1470939229783.jpg
if nobody gets to 270, shouldn't the sitting president get another term?
i'm not even a fan, really. it's clear. i'm just looking for a way out.
we need an undo button, here.
ctrl-z. ctrl-z. dammit...
i know there's an amendment. but if we can get congress to make a deal in the background, an active attempt to thwart anybody from getting to 270 is a way to keep her out without electing him.
i'm not even a fan, really. it's clear. i'm just looking for a way out.
we need an undo button, here.
ctrl-z. ctrl-z. dammit...
i know there's an amendment. but if we can get congress to make a deal in the background, an active attempt to thwart anybody from getting to 270 is a way to keep her out without electing him.
wait. when did the election get overturned? i thought we elected the liberals in a landslide in order to undo what the conservatives have done over the last ten years. where does the media get off in pretending the election never happened?
this was a populist issue. unlike what he's doing to the senate and supreme court, this is something he has a mandate for. he should stay the course.
if rona ambrose wants to govern, she's going to need to win an election, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
this was a populist issue. unlike what he's doing to the senate and supreme court, this is something he has a mandate for. he should stay the course.
if rona ambrose wants to govern, she's going to need to win an election, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)