publishing inri017

these three tracks were not initially connected in any way, other than being the lead sequence on my second record. they are not even connected in time: the first section was written in late 1997 around the ry30, the second section was written in early 1997 around an octaver and the last section was written in mid 1998 as a sound design experiment. however, they've been connected together since they were sequenced together in early 1999.

it was in early 2014 that i first got the idea of splitting the opening sequence into it's own release, in order to upload the tracks together to youtube. i eventually ruled against it as it didn't have a deep enough conceptual unity to justify.

the idea has come back with the revisitation of my first period and the construction of a series of experimental singles. for reasons of chronology, it was somewhat necessary for me to release a single for idiotic in the summer of 1998. but what made the single worthwhile to me in this form was the ability to reversion the concept using the different glitch mixes of the first and third tracks. the result is a challenging and epic listen, and i hope you enjoy it.

--

section 2...

i was violently anti-tobacco in my teens. to an extent, i still am. but, i was also largely just repeating things that had been said to me, without the critical filter that comes with defining a sense of individuality. i think we probably all remember a time when we repeated things told to us by teachers, parents and the media without fully thinking them through. we don't, however, all have demos of songs that we wrote before we'd come to understand who we really are, as individuals.

looking back at the initial recording, i mostly just wish that i had articulated myself a little bit better. i never dropped my opposition to tobacco, not even when i was a smoker. i'm not sure that i ever really even admitted to myself that i was a smoker. so, i don't want to distance myself particularly far from the basic crux of my opinion that smoking tobacco is really pretty stupid - i never really altered that opinion. what i do want to distance myself from is some of the precise language and arguments that i used, as they are not reflective of my own thoughts.

for example, i wouldn't present the health care argument. first, i'm a strong advocate of universal health care. second, the accounting underlying the idea is not well defined, and difficult to construct. third, i reject the entire concept of currency. nor do i think we'd have to make resource-based decisions about health care if it weren't for the limits provided by currency. so, i'm retracting that statement - along with many others.

by the time i got to recording a second version of the track in mid 1998, i'd smoked a few other things and enjoyed them. a purely anti-tobacco song no longer seemed all that relevant to me; more relevant to me was a song comparing marijuana use to tobacco use. so, i hid the vocals through a very heavy vocoder effect and piled a lot of silly samples, many about marijuana, on top of the track. it stayed that way for almost fifteen years.

when i sat down to remaster in late 2013, removing samples was a dominant priority. thankfully, i actually had an archived instrumental version from back in 1998. this allowed me to replace the track with only minimal editing.

there were continuity reasons why i went with the sample version the first time around, but it was against my better judgement, even then. i should have followed my gut.

-

section 1...

i had earlier recorded a vocal version of this, but i had the good sense to realize it was awful and replaced the vocal parts with synth sections, creating an electronic/ambient piece with a liberal use of noise. it's admittedly a little elevator-music sounding, but i think that's sort of part of it's charm. it's very precious sounding.

this is one of my favourite early pieces. i used to just sit and play the simple guitar outro, with drum loop in my sennheiser 440-IIs, for hours at a time...

the decision to remove the vocals on this track was largely a reflection of my growing confidence in the quality of the music to stand up on it's own. over the '98-'99 period, i was largely aware of how cringeworthy my lyrics were and put them into three overlapping categories: (1) comedy/satire, in which case i let them stand as they were, (2) cries for help, in which case i upheld them as they were hoping somebody would listen, (3) songs that i had no lyrical idea for but that i felt needed lyrics, in which case i felt trapped by the genre conventions and upheld ideas that i truly didn't even like at the time simply so the songs would have vocals. over time, i eventually got to the point where i had enough confidence in the music that i no longer felt that the songs required lyrics, and i started to look at it as something to use sparingly based on whether i actually had an idea to express. while there are definitely songs in this period that i wish i had kept instrumental versions of, the final mixes only include a couple with lyrics that i actively regret. this is the first time i was able to mentally push back against myself and say "no. this song does not need lyrics.".

--

section 3...

this is what it sounds like when you open dlls with a wave editor. there was some strategic reshaping, but that's where the bulk of the sound comes from.

--

initially written over the course of 1997. recreated and expanded over the course of 1998. lead track first sequenced in this form in feb, 1999. further remixes generated over the course of 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013, and another in late 2015. remastered in november, 2016 from various sources, 1997-2015. finalized on nov 17, 2016. as always, please use headphones.

the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched

this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2015, 2016).

*download only

credits

released August 5, 1998

j - guitars, effects, bass, drum kit, synthesizers, sequencers, vocoders, octavers, drum programming, noise generators, sound design, sampling, digital wave editing, loops, a broken tape deck, production

i'd rather follow sarkozy's lead, pull out of nafta and put a carbon tariff up. there's more than one way to even the playing field.

the world needs to show some backbone in dealing with trump.

they don't make anything anymore, anyways.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trump-climate-change-1.3850223

it was CH4 that i was worried about, not CO

i just want to clarify that point - the reason i asked for the CO detector was because i hoped it would also have a CH4 detector in it, which i was worried about due to the rotting egg smell and the subsequent headaches. and, i'd just point out that if you're going to rewire the smoke alarm anyways, it would probably make sense to include a CH4 (that is, methane) detection in it. 'cause you're doing it anyways, right?

i mean, i use the stove down here all of the time. if there ever is a leak, and i don't notice it....

j

(no subject)

mom
Is this email address still working?   Cause, I want to permanently delete my facebook... Do I have to be on facebook to be in contact with you on your stuff?  Let me know...

jessica
this is my main email address. i don't check it every day, but i'm definitely reachable here.

continuing gas leak & carbon monoxide alarm

hi.

my nose suggests to me that the fumes are coming in via the ventilation system.

i know you had a co alarm for me, and it never got installed, but with the headache-inducing fumes down here, i need to insist.

and, it has been the law for a few years.

"17.    Do all existing residential buildings require CO alarms?

Existing residential occupancies that contain at least one
fuel-burning appliance (e.g., gas water heater or gas furnace),
fireplace or an attached garage, require the installation of a CO
alarm.

[Div. B, 2.16.1.1.(1)]"

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/FireMarshal/CarbonMonoxideAlarms/QuestionsandAnswers/OFM_COAlarms_QandA.html

the thing is that the co alarm is probably also a methane alarm. and if it's not, i'm going to need to find a way to test the air down here.

j

gas leak

hi.

i'm guessing you turned the gas on around the first because there appears to be a gas leak upstairs. i'm getting the smell of rotting eggs and mild headaches. this may be the cause of the migraines i was having last year.

i'm not going to be putting myself through the same literal headache this year. until this is resolved, i will be leaving the windows open to ensure a fresh air supply and turning the heat up to compensate.

j

it's not the first military & intelligence backed republican coup. you had bush in 2000. reagan in 1980. nixon in 1968. this isn't a rare occurrence at all.

but, it's becoming increasingly clear that we're stuck with trump whether we like it or not.

don't pretend like picking sanders over clinton would have gotten us out of this, either.

this is a really hack job. they're not even trying to hide it.

trump is the establishment candidate, now. and the establishment always wins.

well, "wins", anyways.

the abc tracking poll is beyond herding. that kind of movement, out of nowhere, and with no back-up, isn't even worth debunking. but, that's the poll that you're going to hear about.

there are going to be some massive contradictions. you'll never get a good answer. you'll just be expected to swallow them.

we did go through this once before. but, i fear that most of us didn't learn the correct lesson, which is that there wasn't a serious choice on offer. there was never actually an election between bush and gore. it was predetermined...

clinton may be putting up more of a fight, but that doesn't make the outcome any less certain.

i don't want to claim any insider knowledge. i'm not pretending i'm a psychic. i'm just pointing out the obvious.

that poll cannot merely be herding. it's too absurd for that, even.

in the end, the historical record will probably record that it was the emails - even though those of us that lived through it, and were paying close attention, will remember that they shifted the aggregates first, and then created their claimed reason for it afterwards.

and, in fact, this is evidence. if you start seeing the media claim that the numbers came down because of the emails? that's confirmation that this is a setup. because the numbers came down first. or, so they claim

oops?

no.

don't expect a good explanation. you'll never get it.

so, what is trump going to be like, then?

bush. reagan. nixon.

shrug

grab your pitchforks...

or go smoke a joint. whatever. it clearly doesn't matter much.

he's a puppet of the military. and, it's not even that people are too stupid to figure it out. it's that they don't care if people have figured it out or not. because what are we going to do about it?

it's brazen.

zero fucks given.

don't ask me exactly how they're doing this. but expect to guffaw, i think. he's going to "win" michigan, or something.

it will be outlandish...

and, don't expect an answer. you'll never get one.

it's not your fault, america. you didn't have a choice.

ok, i think i need to take a step back.

the intelligence industry is not a leviathan, and "the establishment" is not of a monolithic mind. we tend to get these notions in our heads that the elite operates in lock step. if it did, we wouldn't have wars.

i pointed out several months ago that there appears to be a part of the security establishment, specifically, that wants clinton barred from office. i don't think that this insight has proven wrong so much as that it seems that hillary is actually outflanking them. i understand that the security agencies are blaming things on russia, but these are exactly the same networks that seem like they're in control.

let's try a thought experiment.

suppose that you're deep state and you want to leak documents to julian assange to make hillary clinton look bad. assange doesn't need to know where he's getting the documents from. is there a non-zero probability that you wouldn't blame it on russia? i mean, all the other bad guys are gone, except that dipshit in north korea that nobody is going to believe can even spell his own name.

so, if you're trying to take her down from the inside, that's exactly what you do: you leak the documents and you blame it on russia.

the reason i've been avoiding this topic is not that the scenario is unclear so much as that it hasn't mattered. and, one could easily make the case that re-opening the email case isn't going to matter, either, because it's not an issue of much importance to anybody except the most extreme elements within the republican party - elements she was never going to reach, even if she's at least as good a candidate by their own metrics. i'd accept the argument, still.

however...

i'm a little uncomfortable about the way some of the polling is being manipulated. the abc tracking poll is particularly outrageous to me - this data is obviously being squeezed. why? well, ratings looks like a good reason. but, what if it's designed to provide evidence for a trump come back?

abc has very strong historical links to the security establishment that seems to be active in the election.

they have been accused, repeatedly, of acting as the propaganda arm of the security establishment.

something else that i pointed out at the time was that there may be some legitimate justification for this kind of deep state security interference. educated opinion on the topic does seem to be that there's a high chance that her foreign policy is essentially for sale. the emails and the benghazi thing may be largely frivolous, but that is a legitimate national security issue: the idea that she's for sale. if you're deep state, you likely know the answer with a higher degree of certainty. and, what if the details are bad enough that it's actually tripped us into a war game, a contingency plan?

i know this sounds outlandish. but, you need to adjust your mental goal posts. it really isn't.

what i'm getting at is that the idea of a rigged election to ensure the establishment candidate wins is perhaps not so absurd. it is basically what happened in 2000. but, maybe we should be more careful in determining what the establishment - the real establishment - actually is, and who their preferred candidate is.

however this works, it is absolutely clear that clinton has serious enemies in the deep state and that if the election is allowed to happen fairly then she's going to be spending her entire term fighting them.

clinton can't rig the election by herself. the security establishment can. and, i think it's clear that they're backing trump.

just keep this in mind: if trump ends up as president, it's not some accident. it's not some victory of the unwashed & ignorant. it's what the bastards actually want.

you don't defeat the establishment. especially not if you're donald fucking trump.

and, if you're one of these idiots that thinks otherwise, just remember: he only got there because he made a deal.

"nobody knows more about corruption than me, folks."

you could get donald trump to literally fuck himself in the ass if you dangle a dollar in front of him. you can't even get hillary clinton to drink a glass of water. who's going to be easier to control? the woman that thinks she's the second coming? or the guy that couldn't find benghazi on a map?

i'm not saying this is clear, yet. i'm saying it looks like it. i don't see any evidence that the polling has shifted - i think she's still ahead 9-10 points. in the end, that might not mean anything.

the surviving uncle
Been wondering how you're dealing with all that fucking humidity. Do you like Windsor? Seems to me, there must be all kinds of shit happening right across the border.Music, hockey, other things... It's been awhile so I'm gonna throw in a few things. What did you think of the Subban/Weber trade? Ever heard this? What do you think? Hear it through, it gets interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdQTYN05wqs

jessica
i actually love the humidity. i'd be happiest in malaysia or something - except that i have somewhat of an irrational fear of large cats, so i'd be constantly on the lookout for tigers.

what's pissing me off is that the guy upstairs wants the building bone dry and 15 degrees. he turned the air on in march and hasn't turned it off yet...

....so i actually had the windows open to let the humidity in and the heat set to 33 degrees all summer. and it was still cold in here, sometimes.

i would suppose that living in windsor is probably not a lot different than living in hull, except that detroit is a lot bigger than ottawa. it's dirt cheap. the small downtown core is nice, but the rest of it is falling apart, until you get out to the suburbs. there's lots of drunks. they smoke in church. i actually haven't been in a church
here, but indoor smoking is pretty standard...

i have been paying absolutely no attention to any sports at all whatsoever. that's the first i've heard of subban getting traded. but, my immediate impression would be that, from what i remember, weber always looked better on paper.

the music scene in windsor is actually fairly lively, but it's completely outside of my spectrum. i did not know before moving down here that windsor is a very active place for heavy metal. it's actually a bit annoying because the kinds of smaller, house party punk shows i would have gone to in ottawa are metal shows here; i have essentially no interest in the music scene here, as a result of it. i can get out to a few math rock shows, but they're infrequent.

detroit is actually not a lot better. the way that detroit has deindustrialized has turned it into a collection of loosely connected small towns, rather than an integrated metropolis. imagine the gta, without toronto. the result is a whole bunch of very small music scenes, none of which are of much note.

they get touring bands in, though. sort of. some of them won't even come into town, they make you transit out. i'm still getting to know the area, and floating around from place to place to see this or that band has actually really helped me do it.

i've always found the neo-prog thing to have lost the plot somewhere. it just doesn't have the excitement of novelty, and instead loses itself in this kind of bland product replication. but, you also have to understand that i grew up in the 90s, not the 70s. so, i see that stuff in a historical context. some of those records - not all of them - are legitimate works of art. when i pick up a crimson or floyd record or something, i'm not connecting with a memory or a point of  identity so much as i'm understanding a relic of the culture i exist in. listening to 70s prog isn't a lot different, to me, than listening to debussy or beethoven or something - and i mean that fully experientially. so, what is the point of reliving neo-prog to somebody that didn't live through it in the first place?

i'm usually going to want to get something at the source. but, my own logic kind of breaks down with a couple of types of punk rock. i'll listen to sonic youth knock-off artists by the bucketful, without enforcing any kind of artistic integrity on them because i just like the head cave. so, i get what you're coming from. i'm just very much attached to a different era.

i've taken to vlogging recently, which is the same thing as blogging except with a video camera. which basically means i'm running a video journal. so, i actually have quite a bit of footage built up of
concerts i've seen in detroit. it's up here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH9y-_dCwf0&list=PLrHImg7oLm2aBNQYDAsBZrz0eVnScD5yT

it's not completely comprehensive, but it's actually pretty close. i'm not sure how much of it you'll like but it's there...

life is otherwise actually pretty good. i'm focusing on finishing my own body of compositions, and while i got a little side tracked the last year or so i do think i'm back on track.

j

nana wants me to call her...

jessica
i'm going to.

but, i'm going to be calling her from a pay phone outside of a 7/11. i just never got a phone. i don't need one....

i'm a little apprehensive. are you aware of any reasons why nana would want me to call her? and am i better off getting them in an email than outside a 7/11?

i'm still vlogging daily adventures, however exciting or trivial:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinQSeEtF0vSN1XVhQGfwKA

sister
why don't you use gmail to call? that's how i do it. i don't have a phone either.

at its most simple, i can only think that she wants to talk with you. i'm not aware of any kind of 'situation' having occurred that might be relevant.

i hope all is well. let me know if you'd like to remain in contact otherwise. we are still in montreal.

(pause)

in a freak coincidence, i clicked on a random video and you are talking about mri results?

i have this in my anterior left lobe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arteriovenous_malformation

after numerous scans, etc., i was told that they don't usually find something like this unless an autopsy is requested/performed (as a result of an unexplained death due to a brain related incident).

anyway, the more you know.

jessica
the last time i checked, that didn't work in canada. maybe it does now.

my vascular loop is behind my ear. i'm getting the hemi-facial spasms and the vertigo. there's some hearing loss. i had a period of aphasia last year that they told me was a common migraine side effect. except that i don't really have a history of migraines.

i managed to catch myself on camera sputtering out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgNetAISshM

it's after a long rant about the wisconsin primaries..and i'll warn you that it's pretty disturbing.

(although i didn't mention in the video that somebody gave me a handful of marinols of unknown dose at the son lux show the night before and i hadn't slept much in several days)

i don't how related this all is. the doctor wanted to check for a tumor, but i didn't think that was right. it's hard for me to explain what it feels like, other than that something in there is crooked - as though i feel off a bike and it never healed right or something. i was thinking i had a pinched nerve or a dislocation or even a bone fragment. the vascular loop is sort of like a pinched nerve, actually - what they're saying is that a specific nerve is tangled up with some blood vessels behind my cochlea.

i'm actually going this afternoon to talk to an ear doctor about a broader understanding and some tactics. my understanding is that there may be a surgical procedure to untangle the vein from the nerve. i can deal with a little bit of a facial spasm, but i want to save my hearing! i'm not done with recording yet...

and, you basically have the same thing. i guess that's a strong argument for genetics, especially considering what happened to dad. when they scanned you, did they inject you with gadolinium? because i refused this. i just don't have symptoms of cancer, and it's been bothering me for years. i'm wondering, now, if maybe i should request a deeper scan.

i sent you the email because my immediate thought is that it has something to do with mom. i would think, otherwise, that if nana wanted to talk to me, she'd ask mom to send me something over facebook. well, i'm going to call her soon...

sister
if gadolinium is the stuff that makes you feel like you peed your pants, then yes. fucking weird. i had multiple mri scans as well as a full cat.

they told me what i have is basically a clump of veins that doesn't drain properly, resulting in an intense feeling of pressure at the base of my head where it meets my neck. i, however, DO have a history of migraines, although i strongly believe them to have been hormone and diet related, as i have not experience one in a very long time.

do you also have pressure or discomfort in your sinuses or anything? that's all related in there. you may recall that i had my tonsils removed at the age of 27 (apparently THE MOST painful adult surgery), due to extreme inflammation. it definitely had effected my hearing, though i was not aware of any quantifiable difference until after they had been removed.

anyway, keep me posted, i'm interested to hear what they have to say (pardon the pun).

jessica
i'm actually going to get the sinus thing clarified today. it said something like "mild sinusitis". which i'm interpreting as meaning i had a cold..

i sneeze a lot. i tell people i'm allergic to nitrogen (and i'll probably marry the first person that actually gets the joke, rather than asks me what season that allergy is in). it's never bothered me enough to really figure out.

but they did pull something out on the scan.

gadolinium is a radioactive isotope designed to make bumps in the scan glow a little. one of the things i wanted tested for was ms lesions. it just struck me as an insane to inject me with a radioactive isotope of an earth metal when i had no real symptoms of cancer. but, it's apparently standard.

if they injected you with something, it was probably that.

the reason i'm asking is that the scans say the brain is "grossly normal", which *actually* means they can't see anything but can't rule out that a deeper scan would find something. i was happy with that until an hour ago... 

sister
i was never asked whether i wanted it or not, it was simply a part of the procedure so far as i understood. if my neurologist considered it necessary, i didn't really think to reflect on it first.

ground control to major tom.

also, in case you were not informed at some point, you have a niece. 

jessica
yeah. i'm not letting anybody inject me with anything until i figure out what it is first. it's a low probability concern, and probably at least as safe as a vaccine, but there are some potential neurogenerative side effects and what i think is a pretty high certainty that it's going to linger in your fatty tissues. what they're doing is basically injecting you with something that is completely foreign to your system (it's a specific isotope of an *earth metal*) and then assuming that your liver and pancreas can flush it out of your system. but, not only do i think that assumption is sketchy, i even think it's kind of obviously wrong. you could think of mercury as a comparison. small amounts of mercury that you ingest will stay in your body for years and years. in fact, if you ingest mercury, you're probably ingesting it from an animal that ingested it - and it got stuck in that animal's tissue, then isn't going to break down in your stomach and will instead get stuck in your tissue. and, sure enough, if you do a little research online, you'll see that there is evidence that that's exactly what's happening with gadolinium. so, you may be walking around now with some glowing earth metal build-up in your fatty tissue....

but, i mean, nothing's completely safe, right. i just saw it as a question of risk management. if i thought i had an advanced stage of cancer or something, a little bit of gadolinium in my fatty tissue would be a minor concern - and the small risk of a reaction would be reasonable to take. as it is, i saw no good reason to gamble on it.

it's the kind of thing that your doctor didn't design. the radiology department knows how to operate the machine and read the scan. the "contrast agent" is coming to you from a chemical company - like bayer or dow. and, these have historically been pretty disinterested in anything but maximizing profit. bayer ran the fucking gas chambers in nazi germany. and, google "bhopal incident" if you're not aware of it. so, i'm not saying not to trust your doctor. but, i am saying that you might want to think twice about trusting the corporations that are manufacturing the technology that the doctor is using, under the realization that your doctor is not a chemist or a technologist and probably doesn't know much more about how it actually works than you do.

i went down a winding path to end up at the doctor today. my gp initially wanted to send me to a neurologist, but i insisted on ruling out an ear infection before i jumped to something more complex. i didn't have an ear infection, but i remained convinced that there was something fundamentally wrong with my ear so the ear doctor suggested i do a hearing test to see if they could infer something, and it did come back with some hearing loss that she deduced must be due to pressure behind the ear. so, i went for the initial scan to check for a tumour. i was always skeptical about this but i thought the scan may pick something else up. the initial scan was inconclusive, so they wanted me to come back for a second one with the gadolinium; i did the second scan, but without the gadolinium. this is where they picked up the vascular loop, which i should point out is a controversial cause of the symptoms i'm experiencing (but which *is* associated, however weakly, with essentially all of them).

what the ent told me today was that because the vascular loop is behind the cochlea, it's out of her expertise and i need to see a neurologist. i'll need to see the gp again in early november.

sounds like a waste of time, but i actually think it worked out the way i wanted it to because now i can go in to the neurologist with some specific information about my ear and with ear related issues ruled out. i think being thorough is more important than playing probabilities.

sister
i care so little about the majority of the medical profession at this point that none of us have a doctor. if there is an emergency situation, i will deal with it then, instead of having 'regular checkups' with someone burnt out, not necessarily relevant, and barely in re/cognition of myself or my family.

my tests were done almost 10 years ago. i know the thing is there, but i would never have a surgery to deal with it, so it is what it is. i'm not aware of any hearing loss, though i do feel some pressure in my head still sometimes.

you can also tell the neurologist that your sister has an AVM, and your father was afflicted with a GBM. that will more than likely affect the way you are perceived and potentially diagnosed if there is any deeper or further cause.

as for the test, are you really so concerned about the metal in your system? i mean, you smoked for over a decade...just saying. 

jessica
but, i also quit smoking. mostly. habitually. i'm still smoking a little bit. like i say: it's risk management. but i think that maybe the disconnect is in realizing that we're talking about metal poisoning. if somebody told you they were going to crush a metallic rock up into a powder and inject it into your veins, you'd probably want to think about that; if the doctor just says "hold still, this is going to hurt for a second", it just never registers. 

sister
you call yet? 

jessica
yeah, i just got off the phone with her over google voice. an hour and a half. typical nana. but there was no issue, she just wanted to talk...

i have a voip mailbox that costs me a buck a month, which is useful for doctors and government agencies and stuff, and i've just been using a payphone for years to make outgoing calls when i have to. google voice is actually what i wanted to do when i moved down here, but it wasn't available here at the time. so, this is useful to know.

i will eventually get a used android phone and connect it to voip. for now, this is going to save me from standing outside and dropping coins on answering machines.

sister
do you want me to add you to my 'updates email' list? once a month or so, i send an email to a bunch of folks with pics of the kids, etc.

jessica
not really, no.

hillary is at best a teenager. but, trump is a screaming toddler.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-ohio-voters-1.3801038

finalizing inri015

it took eighteen years and multiple attempts at a construction, but this record is finally permanently completed as an instrumental electronic work and i am finally proud to refer to it as my first record.

while most of these songs have defined concepts underlying them, i have ejected these concepts from the final recording and left them in a series of singles. i would prefer that this album be understood solely as the instrumental recording of electronic music that i am presenting it as.

written and demoed in multiple stages from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reconstructed and resequenced jan 6-10, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. audio permanently closed on aug 10, 2016. finalized on oct 10, 2016. this is my first official record; as always, please use headphones.

the original, unaltered files are also available (along with the original 1998 cd sequence, the failed 2013 remasters and the final reconstructions - all in flac) as 112 kbps mp3s, as i found them, on inriℵ0:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1997, 1998, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).
credits
released June 20, 1998

j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, drum programming, orchestral & other sequencing, sampling, vocal relics, cool edit synthesis, windows 95 sound recorder, production, found sounds, strategies, soundraider, hammerhead, sound design, metronome, digital wave editing, production

the rendered electronic orchestra includes piano, organ, electric guitar, orchestra hit, pizzicato strings, synth pads, violin, viola, cello, contrabass, electric bass, sitar, tubular bells, tinkle bells, synthesizer effects and flute.

finalizing inri014

i'm moving slower than i'd like, but here's the first one, anyways:

--

this single was created by running tracks 9,10 and 11 on the cd together; it was never meant to be a unified track. 9 and 11 are proper tracks, whereas 10 is an experimental segue directly into 11. the process of compiling singles kind of accidentally led to this construction as a very natural combination and i'm now very content with it as the permanent home for both of these pieces.

these songs were both always musically driven, with kind of throwaway vocals that i don't really have any meaningful analysis for. neither of these tracks was ever conceptual or confessional or ever meant much to me on a personal level, so they don't have the kind of stories or explanations that the other tracks that were important to me do. i have not remixed the vocals into either of these songs; all of the tracks on the physical release are entirely instrumental. why bother releasing a single, then?

the reason is that i ended up with a number of mixes for both of them and just needed a place to house them. of course, that's not actually any kind of an interesting concept to build a single around. it was precisely because there was no retained concept underlying either of these tracks that the singles seemed pointless. but, once they were connected via the segue, the purpose of a single became readily apparent in that connection, itself.

the decision was sealed by a curious synchronicity in time. they were both originally written for the 1996 cassette demo, and separated there by a guitar/bass cover of "mellon collie and the infinite sadness". the entanglement is probably not entirely coincidental; i have a vague recollection of checking the tape to ensure i didn't forget any songs, and i may very well have repeated recording them in succession for that reason. however that happened to be, the synchronicity is a big part of what allowed me to create this ep the way that i've created it as it allowed me to label demo versions of the track with the same title.

while neither of these tracks have meaningful vocals, they are both important in my musical development. schizoid features my first multi-part string accompaniment and terrorists is a serious step forward in harmonic complexity. even the segue (titled "abusive") is something different: it's my first run at a 909 emulator, and a step out to lunch in abstract sound design.

so, as the last piece completed for my first record, this is somewhat of a portal to transit through, in terms of the developing complexity in my compositional abilities. but, it does not and never did have any worthwhile conceptual meaning to me. as such, there is no story to tell.

initially written in 1996. recreated mostly in feb, 1998 (schizoid, terrorists) but also partly in june, 1998 (abusive). sequenced in this form in june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. "terrorists" was reclaimed june 28-29, 2015 & remixed july 15, 2015. the main mix was corrected on nov 19, 2015. "schizoid" was reclaimed on july 12, 2015 & reprogrammed on dec 31, 2015. the main mix was corrected on jan 3, 2016 and remixed repeatedly jan 3-5, 2016. the lead track was sequenced on jan 5, 2016 and split back apart on jan 8, 2016. audio permanently closed on aug 1, 2016. release finalized on oct 9, 2016. as always, please use headphones.

the album version of this track appears on my first record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3

this release is compiled on inriℵ0.
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1998, 2013, 2015, 2016).

* - download only
credits
released June 16, 1998

j - guitars, effects, bass, vocals, synths, drum kit, drum programming, sequencing, soundraider, hammerhead, cool edit synthesis, tapes, noises, found sounds, sound design, sampling, digital wave editing, production.

the rendered electronic orchestra includes organ, sitar, bells, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and synthesizer effects.

how about this, guys?

it doesn't make any difference at all. it's just politics. the government is pretending it's doing something about the problem, while the opposition is pretending that it's going to be a catastrophe.

if you have a lot of wealth and use a lot of energy then your taxes will go up (you're supposed to use less energy, not complain about your taxes). if you're poor and use minimal energy then you'll get a rebate. if you're in the middle, it will truly be revenue neutral. the right answer is that lisa's friends will probably get a check at the end of the month at the expense of trudeau's family, which will get a tax increase.

the media has a responsibility to explain this. but, they'll sell far more papers scare-mongering about tax increases. which is why it's essential that the government implements the policy immediately so the checks are already out by the next writ drop. which, of course, they're not doing.

so, that's the money question: as wealth is strongly correlated with energy use, the policy will redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom through the intermediary of taxation. those that are legitimately concerned about the poor should look at the policy more carefully and understand that it is in their benefit. beware of demagogues that try and take advantage of the ignorant and uneducated in order to scare them.

but, what about emissions? will it reduce them?

the answer is that this doesn't work as an emissions reduction plan. the rich eat the costs because they can afford it, anyways. again: it's going to offset with the middle classes. and, the poor (who don't use much energy...) will get checks in the mail from it.

i'm poor. i don't have a car. most of the food here is imported. i couldn't do much more to reduce emissions if i wanted to. but, i'm likely to get a nice check in the mail. to me, this is just money from the sky. it's not going to change my behaviour...

if i was in the middle class, it would balance out. i need to be clear: i don't expect this to drive inflation and nobody else does, either. you won't find a working economist that thinks prices are going up. it's just scare mongering, really. but, they'll spend a little more on energy and then get it back through tax cuts. how does that change behaviour if it comes out in the wash?

if i was rich, i'd spend a lot of money on energy and i wouldn't care if taxes go up because i have a lot of money, anyways. they don't change behaviour, either, then.

so, if nobody has a meaningful incentive to reduce their use, how do emissions reduce?

here's the thing, then - do you want some wealth redistribution? are you down with that? do you think it's a good idea to tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor? well, this is a good way to do that. it *will* work in accomplishing *this* task.

but, do you really want emissions to come down, too? are you concerned that we're not meeting our international obligations? well, you might want to push for a different policy, like direct investment in converting infrastructure.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-climate-change-trudeau-raitt-1.3792865

his platform didn't talk about carbon pricing, it talked about an investment bank for green infrastructure. if you care about something that will be *effective* in reducing emissions, the infrastructure bank in the platform was a far superior approach. in fact, it's the primary reason i voted for the liberals.

the truth is that this isn't a serious discussion. the science is in: carbon pricing doesn't work in reducing emissions. rather, this is smoke and mirrors for political purposes.

but, i'm frankly not opposed to that, if it has the effect of keeping the conservatives out of power. i don't care if they do this or not. what i want to see is that infrastructure bank set up and put in motion in actually converting infrastructure.

put another way: i don't care who pays for this. i'm tired of stalling over budgets. i want to see shovels in the ground.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-climate-change-1.3788825

j reacts to the "right-libertarian" fantasy reality about police and property rights

actually, when i loudly throw in the faces of right-libertarians that the cops standing down would lead to riots and looting, i don't see that as a negative or a reason to argue in favour of policing or the state. i'm an anarchist, remember. what i'm pointing out is that their concept of statelessness is impossible: that real statelessness would not have the consequence of spontaneous order and people basically obeying the status quo (as though the cops are merely extraneous, unnecessary bureaucracy....), but of spontaneous redistribution of wealth.

and, i'm in favour of this.

what the right-libertarians don't understand is that the state exists to protect property rights. see, as an anarcho-communist, an actual anarchist, i don't like calling them libertarians - i'd rather just call them liberals. but, people that call themselves liberals almost universally understand the simple truth that the state exists explicitly to uphold property. not as a corollary. not as an accident. as it's primary and at times singular purpose. the state is property rights.

to argue you can have property rights without a state is incoherent.

that is my point.

right-libertarians want everything the state provides, but without a state itself. or to put it another way: they want a state, but they don't want to be taxed to pay for it.

the cops are never going to stand down, of course. but, if they did, i would expect that the looting and rioting would be temporary and fizzle out along with the inequality that exists as a function of the property that can't exist without them.

but, the looting would be legitimate. it would be a process of distributive justice.

that's what the revolution is, right?

you don't throw away the state for no reason. you throw it away because it upholds property, and property is at the root of all injustice.

what the revolution means is abolishing property.

so, how can you say there can be property after the revolution? this is counter-revolutionary, at best. but it's just status quo-ism, truly.

right-libertarians don't believe in a commons, though. they believe that the commons should be converted into private property. they'll argue that rivers and lakes and even sections of the air should be sold off, that nothing at all should be under common ownership. in fact, that's the most common answer you hear from them to the global warming issue: property rights. in their minds, if you sold all the green spaces off to private owners then those private owners would ensure the land is taken care of. if you sold the air off to private investors, they would keep it clean to maximize their investment. and, then they can sue each other over rights-infringements whenever somebody pollutes their air.

j reacts to push back on the requirement that supreme court judges be bilingual

i actually have no problem with the bilingual requirement, though. actually, i would insist upon it - and argue that those arguing otherwise are just being dense. it's a functional job requirement to be able to hear cases from quebec, which means you need to be able to understand the vernacular. you simply can't do this job if you don't speak french, and if you don't realize this then you just don't understand what the job is.

the bilingual requirement is not identity politics. it's not francocentric.

it's a basic job requirement.

and, it's long past due that this is formally enforced.

no, stop. it's actually really, really outrageous for an anglophone canadian to stand there and claim that a francophone canadian is not entitled to justice in their native language. how would you feel about going up against a court that only speaks french, and only understands civil law? you'd feel like you were living in a foreign country.

this is not a serious debate. and, it's kind of depressing that there are people that think that it is.

http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/beverley-mclachlin-says-bilingualism-necessary-for-some-judges

j reacts to the polling situation going into the debates

i want to be clear as the week ends: my analysis of the polling is that donald trump has not actually made up any ground at all, but that various polling firms - no doubt in cahoots with the media -  have manipulated data to make the race appear closer than it actually is. this has been done via a decision to eliminate minorities and young people from the polling results under the argument that they're less likely to vote. this change happened across the board in september; it seems to be organized. the motive is to avoid the appearance of an uncompetitive race and the low ratings such a scenario would bring.

when polling results have been released this week that include the raw data, it can be seen that the actual story is stasis since late august. the numbers have not changed. the way they're being reported has.

while i continue to believe that clinton is very vulnerable to a terrorist attack, both on account of being a democrat and on account of being a woman, as well as in contrast to trump's messaging, the recent terrorist attacks did not gain the media traction that i feared they would and consequently do not seem to have had a polling effect. a future attack still might. i also continue to believe that clinton's best strategy is to run on economic and otherwise fiscal issues, including the strength of the stock market. i also believe that she needs to focus less on winning young voters (who will likely only be swayed by marijuana legalization) and more on winning older voters.

the broad takeaway is that clinton is currently safe in at least 270 electoral votes, which means the current state of the election is to determine the size and shape of her victory.

this poll did not provide raw data, suggesting they're hiding something.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article103597232.ece/BINARY/The%20full%20McClatchy-Marist%20poll

i never identified well as a capricorn. apparently, the math was all wrong and i was a sagittarius all along. i don't actually know what that means or if it fits better.

http://kdvr.com/2016/09/22/your-horoscope-may-have-just-changed-nasa-reveals-13th-zodiac-sign/

meh. the independent, emotionally detached philosopher part fits well. the extroverted, outdoorsy socialite part doesn't at all.

this will be instantly turned into a joke-meme and ridiculed for months after the election.

the candidates suck. they offer nothing to young people. you're wasting time and resources. go after older voters.

maybe the democrats should open the primaries up a little, if they don't want old people picking candidates that young people can't stand?

the bed is made.

you have to win boomers.

yeah. i'm getting 500-1000 views a day here. what's the deal with that, anyways?

who are these people?

again - she's up by 6-8 in this one, as though nothing has happened in weeks.

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/September-2016-AP-GfK-Poll-Topline-Clinton.pdf

j reacts to the idea that clinton is a lock on 270 ev, but less certain to win

see, now we're very close to a point of agreement. i'd just question the idea that the margins cited are nearly as meaningful as suggested (especially between ohio and pennsylvania, which have often voted differently). that's the same question of demographics being predictive or not, which, remember, i largely reject.

and, i'd have to wonder aloud how anybody could agree that it is almost certain that she's going to win at least 270 electoral votes, and yet much less certain that she's going to win the election. because if that isn't a contradiction (it is), it's at least cognitive dissonance.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-leading-in-exactly-the-states-she-needs-to-win/

(independent random variables should be very familiar not just to statisticians, but to anybody with a remotely mathematical background - computer scientists, physicists, engineers. you may not have even ventured past them, if you're less theoretical and more practical.

you couldn't do this in canada - and if you could, it wouldn't really mean anything. but, given that there is ample data for states in the american election, and the unit of the state is paramount, i might suggest that the way to model elections is to assign each state as an independent random variable. this assumes that data in ohio and pennsylvania (and in any other two states) is entirely independent. and, i think this is correct.

this isn't exotic. it's textbook. it's just a different assumption. but, if anybody knows of anybody doing modelling like this, i'd like to see it.

https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter3/3_1_4_independent_random_var.php)

(i'm just trying to tersely explain what an independent random variable is for random onlookers.)

j reacts to the estate tax hike as bad politics (this election is about winning boomers)

this is good policy.

but, in a year when disproportionately wealthy aging boomers are going to determine the election, the reality is that it's terrible politics.

you want to do it. but, you want to bury it somewhere.

i just don't get it: the inability to adapt. broadly. what, is it supposed to attract young voters? because they don't want to inherit anything? i...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-proposes-65-tax-on-largest-estates-1474559914

again...

who picked clinton over sanders? boomers.
who picked trump over the field? boomers.
who are the issues directed at? boomers.
what is the age of the candidates? boomers.
who are going to vote in the largest numbers? boomers.

here's a (not so) bold prediction: whomever wins boomers will be the next president.

hopefully, this is a last hurrah. an end of an era.

but they created this election, and it is theirs to decide.

while the battles of that generation go through their final motions, the kids are going to remain off in the distance smoking a joint and laughing about how absurd the charade is.

nobody's going to swing them. not these candidates. accept it...

you have to win boomers, democrats.

ok. i'm confident in stating i'm over it, even if i feel a little rough in the morning for the next five or six days. but, when you're sick for four days, it really feels like one big long day that never starts. you wake up, you eat, you fall asleep. repeat.

i happen to have gotten a lot of ranting in, so i could upload four separate vlogs full of rants. but, if i were to remove the ranting, there wouldn't be anything left except talking about how i'm sick. see, i try to separate my vlogs by chunks of consciousness. normally, that works by partitioning over sleeps, meaning i'll connect together several days through the property of awakeness. in this case, i basically slept for four days, so it would be consistent in a broader sense to combine them all together through the property of asleepness, even if i happen to have woken up for a few hours in between to do things like eat and rant.

i just feel that the best way to do this is to combine it all together into a single sick vlog in order to capture that experience as a single, uninterrupted whole. which means a relatively lengthy vlog for the 18th-21st (inclusive) will come up on the 29th.

there will be nightly reacts videos published as they are appropriate.

17-09-2016: strange, beautiful music?

show footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLrHImg7oLm2bSDSUjouBjmlxDDpHYKf8p&v=Srwfn616CMc

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/09/17.html

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

17-09-2016: strange beautiful music IX (detroit)

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/09/17.html

vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17zX0Orny4k

j reacts to everybody moving to "likely voter" polling at the exact same time

i'm retracting my statement that the polls are tightening. on closer look, i actually think we have no valid data at all.

i'm not joking. look at this:

"The sample of likely voters is modeled among registered voters (N=1,433), assigning each respondent a probability of voting based on their responses. The margin of error for the sample of likely voters is plus or minus three points."

...meaning it's completely arbitrary, and probably designed to manufacture a race where there isn't one.

listen: i get that not everybody is going to vote. but, what these companies are doing is just making shit up. what they're doing makes the polling useless.

this is my honest take on the polls recently.

can we please get a good telephone poll of registered voters that isn't full of manipulated data?

i'm not saying clinton is still winning by a big margin. i'm saying the polling is useless, and we actually have no real idea at all.

i'm not exaggerating. every single one of those polls is trash.

that's all polls, so far, for september.

how's that for cherry-picking?

what they should be doing is reporting decided voters, leaning voters and completely undecided voters separately, not pulling probabilities out of their asses.

remember: the media doesn't care who wins. well...trump is less boring. but, they just want an exciting race. they want ratings.

the effect of this data manipulation appears to be that they are removing young people and minorities from the responses, under the argument that they won't vote. which is almost like they're modelling voter suppression.

of course that's going to inflate trump's numbers....

i mean, you can't even get polled in america anymore if you're latino or black? wtf...

"these polls are going to hurt ratings, so we'll just delete minority opinions. they don't watch us, anyways."

i'm glad i live up here. i really am.

and, with that, i think i'm going to legitimately follow through on my longstanding threat to tune out, which i haven't been able to do up to this point. what's the use in analyzing cooked data?

but, get this: i've been arguing they're both racists. i may have missed the larger point. which is that the system is already racist. and, this fear that electing somebody with white supremacist support is going to be some kind of change is really just willful blindness.

they're modelling voter suppression.

i'm sure the health thing has had some negative effect. but, the reason the polls have changed is because everybody changed the way they poll at the same time. and, it does seem like collusion....

what you're missing here is a class analysis. that is, we still don't know why these words are "bad".

you'll notice that the crude words are all very german sounding, and that they start to develop a crude context around the time of the norman takeover. english is of course a german language (spoken by invading angles and saxons). the norman ruling class mostly spoke french.

so, you ended up with certain words being looked down upon because they were only used by the non-aristocratic classes. to use these words would define you that way. avoiding them was consequently of the utmost importance, to maximize social advancement.

we don't swear like dukes, or duchesses. we swear like sailors.

the flaw in jimmy's reasoning is that, if he's right, what it does is set the stage for the democrats to sweep back into power with a big tent that bleeds into the center right. think of it like this: if you put bush back in power, the end result is that obama gets elected again.

it's an algorithm that pulls the democrats further and further to the right...

there's a video on my channel where i go over this. but, bernie is absolutely right. if you see them as interchangeable (and i do, mostly), then you should let hillary become the villain. the backlash has to be against the democrats, not co-opted by them.

i have the drivers uninstalled, myself.

and the device disabled.

15/16-09-2016: still floating through in a confused haze

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

actually, assumptions are required to make deductions.

basic rule of inference.

there's nothing shameful with being wrong in your assumptions, either. what's important is that you state them at the start, so that the reader knows what they are.

they are, after all, assumptions. they are required. but, they are also arbitrary.

i mean, if you think that you can present to me an argument that is void of assumptions, be prepared for me to find one.

that's ok. as mentioned: assumptions are necessary. what's important is knowing where they are.

the american white woman remains amongst the most (mentally) enslaved people on the planet

while racism lingers, the actual economic system of slavery was abolished. the economic system of patriarchy (marriage) continues to exist.

it is white women that have this enforced through culture more strongly than any other women. and, you hear it if you pay attention. you see it. even amongst those who gain power as they advance through their lives.

privilege, for the white woman, is something that is taught in the private schools of the upper classes. you're born into it through wealth, but it must be taught. you don't inherit it with skin colour. and not everybody learns it.

but, to the poor white woman, the white woman born without status or wealth, those mental chains are daunting. wealth itself will not break them, it will only lead to insane decisions. that mirror must be held up, first.

bicycles are way sexier than motorcycles. sorry.

work it, bitch.

no, really.

motorcycles are gross. the exhaust is flat out disgusting, ok? in my ideal city, there would be an absolute ban.

have you ever been walking down the street and got stuck with a lung full of motorcycle exhaust? it's up there with the most disgusting things one could possibly think of.

like, falling in dog shit.

worse, is they think they're "cool".

so, no motorcycles. yuck. gross.

bicycles, on the other hand, are a workout. upper body, too. when you see somebody ride by on a bicycle, you know they exercise. you know they're in good shape. and, you'll probably get a nice smell, too.

i mean, compare smells.

a) motorcycle: exhaust fume.
b) bicycle: pheromones.

which sounds more attractive?

not everybody is going to agree with me. but, the smart ones will.

this is going to backfire, but let's say it doesn't. what does he want? a general strike?

you can't turn the clock back on abortion. you'll get riots. mass civil disobedience. the doctors will keep doing it. the marches will be unheard of.

it's always been an empty threat, for that reason.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/16/trump_steps_up_anti-abortion_stance_taps_dannenfelser_131809.html

j reacts to the idea of canada on the united nations security council

why? so we can vote with the americans on every issue? and, think about what might happen if we don't. we should be avoiding this....there's better ways to have influence than to baldly challenge the hegemon.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-united-nations-security-council-1.3764441

also, it would be useful to acknowledge that the rise of all of this xenophobia is a consequence of the failure of the free trade regime, rather than pretend the answer is more of the problem.

season 10 v2 cropped

season 10 v2 shifted

i'm behind on everything. i hope to be caught up by the next sleep.

j reacts to the deplorables comment

clinton does not appear to be taking the election seriously.

she needs to talk policy. this is a stupid strategy.

when your opponent is donald trump, and you seem like the bigger clown?

it's pathetic.

hate the guy, but he's out there laying down a platform. she's avoiding reporters and calling people names.

this is starting to look more and more like 2000.

is she trying to lose?

is that it? did she win the nomination, only to hand the presidency to the republicans (who she usually agrees with more)?

forget about trump working for clinton. right now, it looks more like clinton is working for trump.

"clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,"

"Clinton’s remarks drew comparisons to rhetoric from former failed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who pointed to the 47 percent of America that were just looking for a handout from the government."

they're right.

what a buffoon...

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/09/hillary-clintons-47-percent-moment-calls-trump-supporters-racist-sexist-homophobic-xenophobic-islamaphobic/

it doesn't matter if it's true. she's trying to win an election. that means, she wants at least a couple of those people to vote for her.

"you're deplorable. can i count on your vote?"

fucking dipshit...

no. no. listen. it doesn't matter where you stand on the spectrum. it doesn't matter who you support. this is an objectively stupid thing to stand up and say in front of the press.

i had the view count disabled...

57,000? what?

i have 4,000 views on youtube, guys. that's a pretty dramatic difference. you know i have a youtube page, right?

or a bandcamp site? in the description. pinned, even.

i got about 250,000 views with my dtk account over roughly two years (and 40,000 views on youtube). i've got 50,000 k here in almost a year, but only 4,000 views on youtube.  that's half as much traffic, but a tenth of the views.

i get that my vlogs may be less interesting than my music. but, i want you to go to bandcamp to listen. youtube is useless to me, as a musician.

i'm more curious about why i have 60,000 views. what are people coming here for? the political analysis?

ok, you guys know these are only sketches, right? that the real political analysis is in the videos, right? i'm not just reading things verbatim. that is where i have the really interesting discussions of things, not here.

but, on another note? you could try interacting a little bit. i don't bite. well, at least not unless you ask.

(i actually do bite :P)

no, really. 60,000 views but no comments? c'mon. let me know who you are....

i mean, i suppose i could starting posting videos here, but that would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? every day, guys. 12:30 am...

j reacts to healthcare spending as financial stimulus

in canada, massive government spending on health care would probably be more effective than massive government spending on infrastructure.

and, it would be incredibly popular, too.

i'm not saying that you should see this as a choice, we need both.

but in terms of multiplier effects, job growth, tax revenue, etc? health care is probably the better investment.

crunch the numbers. find out.

j reacts to the apparent non-existence of dark matter

i think that the answer is that we live in an open universe.

it's purely intuitive.

what that would mean is that our universe is being acted upon by outside forces.

i've been over this elsewhere, and don't really feel like it right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/opinions/dark-matter-analysis-lincoln/

the math in the big bang theory actually doesn't add up. if the big bang happened, and nothing previously existed, then we shouldn't exist either.

some kind of explosion happened - we have the cosmic radiation. we can be pretty sure of it. but, the right reading of the theory (this is highly unorthodox) is actually that it couldn't be the sole source of matter around us, that there must have been some other source of matter.

see, we've boxed ourselves into a corner with this. we seek a beginning. but, this is a religious assumption and not a scientific deduction. we are searching for something we've already decided must exist. we're not really measuring evidence and trying to determine if there was actually a beginning or not.

again: i think that if you really look at what we know carefully, and discard all extraneous assumptions, what the evidence proves is that the big bang was not the beginning of anything, and that we must be in an open universe.

this is important in context, because it opens up the possibility that these galaxies are being dragged by something outside of the observable universe - and that was already there before the big bang happened.

listen: the dark matter isn't there. it's just the recycled ether hypothesis, anyways. einstein got rid of the ether, then it snuck back in as dark matter. whether my idea is right or wrong, the ether isn't there and it's time we came to terms with it.

i just want to clarify that when i say "open universe", what i mean is that events outside of the universe can affect events within it and not something about the shape of the universe. that was sloppy.

this is where the language comes from, but it's not at all what i mean to say. i don't mean to say that some supernatural entity is pulling strings. i just mean to say that i think there's something else physically out there, and that it may not obey the physics we understand.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Philosophy/Articles/Other/causal_closure.htm

j reacts to the unusual emerson polling results

these emerson polls are producing very different results. i don''t know why.

it's ivr + landline only.

the last canadian election had a company doing polling with a similar method (ivr) and with the same argument that it "reduces bias" (which is just a guess, really, and not a good one). they consistently had the conservatives five or six points higher than anybody else. and, they ended the election with the worst results.

i don't think that ivr "reduces human bias". rather, i think that what it does is it reduces the sample space and creates a distorted outcome.

their results are just widely deviant. and, i'd be careful with them.

the best polls are with human interviewers. this is very well understood.

the vlog for last weekend is done, and it's arguably not even a vlog but a film. well, i guess it can be both. 3 hours. it covers the events over the 9th, 10th and 11th. it gets a little dramatic. but it is what it is.....

i'm finally sleeping. and now i can't wake up.

whatever happened...last...

it was last week, now.

but it wired me awake.

for a week...

the sleep feels good. i'm going to let it run it's course.

j reacts to the polling fallout from the clinton health scare

again: he can win ohio & florida & nevada & iowa and it won't matter if she wins virginia.

so, yes - the polls are tightening. does that mean the regression analysis was right? no. it means people are freaked out that clinton keeps collapsing in public. this guy does everything wrong and keeps fluking out...

the situation is fundamentally different now than it was a few weeks ago. this is a different race than it was last month.

we'll have to wait and see how it stabilizes.

my guess is that trump stays roughly flat, while clinton bleeds to third party candidates. it might be enough that he can win on the split.

but, if she can convince people she's ok, it will also probably snap back in place.

i mean, the basic shape hasn't altered - the right shape is a big distance, and the tightening is the noise. if you ask people in january, you'll likely get that big lead, again. if you look at it over five years, ten years you'll see something kind of sinusoidal where the gap is usually large but sometimes decreases. it's just that this is not the right time to be falling over in public. and, if the election coincides with a period of flux, she's in for a loss.

i said previously that the only way he could win is a terrorist attack. well, ok, i'll add a second way - and that's if people become convinced that she's dying. you'll excuse me for not foreseeing that.

it's the same basic dynamic, though. she will only lose through perceived weakness.

also note that you still need to be careful about ignoring online polls, which seem to be reporting an exaggerated effect.

i posted this back at the end of july. i think it's still relevant.

i just want to point out that with ohio, i don't think it's about trade or about abortion, i think it's more about nascar - it's cultural. that's why bush won twice. most of ohio is really a southern state. this is where mccain and romney coming across as out of touch elitists hurt them, and where clinton's status as an elite hurts her.

if anything, the abortion thing is going to make what should be a walk for trump a lot closer as it's going to get the vote out in the northern part of the state. but, trump wins here for the same reasons that bush did.

she has a better chance in florida. but, i think you'll see the same basic dynamic assert itself on a slightly lower level. the north of florida is the south; while anti-trump feeling will likely increase turnout in the south, it's cultural affinities will overpower in ways that romney and mccain couldn't orchestrate. again: bush won florida. twice.

due to recent demographic changes, north carolina is maybe a wildcard. but, i think it's a stretch to argue it's a swing state. one win in the modern era does not a swing state make. indiana is not a swing state, either.

the map technically has her less than 270, but that doesn't really put the election in play. if she wins virginia, she wins. if she wins missouri, she wins. if she wins both iowa and nevada, she wins. what are the chances of none of that happening? of trump carrying 3 of those 4 states? they're not very high.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8cmUHDQyeA

the above graph was based on the assumption that trump would fall in line and essentially be the same candidate as bush.

the reasons i started thinking about a clinton landslide were two-fold.

1) the polls were careening that way.
2) trump was not following orders.

this threatened to create a revolt in the republican base that would produce a result more similar to '92 or '96.

but, clinton's health has since become an issue. it was the coughing fit last week that started freaking people out. she could barely get through the address. it probably cost her ohio.

i don't think that's going to have the effect of undoing the republican revolt so much as it has the effect of creating a similar backlash amongst democrats, or left-leaning independents. and, it may also make johnson seem more attractive to republicans that can't vote for trump.

the end result is that while the bleeding on the right might not stop, the bleeding on the left might increase, and it could in the end balance out.

the newest poll had johnson at 13 and stein at 4. they're both up. i know not to read too heavily. but, i doubt it's coincidental.

so, instead of having this situation where they're tied at 48, you're going to get this situation where they're tied at 38. and it's just going to bring us back to where we were.

i'd have to hit the history books to find a comparable situation.

but, note what i'm doing here: i'm reacting to events. i'm adjusting to evidence. i'm not making predictions.

there is some chance that you could end up with 92 or 96 after all - but with the parties reversed.

in the popular vote. of course. that would create chaos on the map.

you could end up with bizarre outcomes like the republicans winning new jersey and the democrats winning texas.

or, people could, in the end, not freak out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4m-lNi61Rk

i want to be clear: clinton may lose the popular vote, but still win. the map is just daunting.

i'm not predicting that. i don't think it's likely.

i'm just saying that being ahead in the popular vote this election doesn't necessarily help him much.

13/14-09-2016: the insomnia continues (day spent editing) - and decision to remove testicles

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to the idea of politicians taking drug tests during and after elections

should public officials have to take periodic drug tests?

hear me out.

i should begin by stating that i would oppose this policy in the way it is usually presented, which is as a means to deny people access to help. but, this actually isn't on a libertarian basis, it's on a socialist basis. i would argue that drug addiction is a public health issue and that social services should exist to deal with it. not on the cheap, either. it's what government does.

to deny people welfare because they're on drugs is completely absurd. should they go rob a bank instead?

i have somewhat of a hazier view about whether employers should be allowed to test employees. it seems unnecessary to test a fast food worker - you'll be able to figure out fairly quickly whether it's impeding them or not. but it's probably a good idea to test a structural engineer from time to time. i'd reverse the normal logic: the more complex the job is, the more important it is that the person that's doing it is sober when they're working.

elected officials take the issue to the highest level. i think this falls into the category of public accountability.

pissing in a bottle a few times a year is hardly onerous. but, it would help us ensure that our government is being run by people that are clear-minded.

throughout history, the motive of philosophers and scientists has never been understood by merchants. we seek to understand for the sake of understanding. we seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

the merchant needs to put this in the context that he understands, and comes up with strange, if predictable conclusions. these conclusions always exist solely in the context of capital, of market exchange. how could they think otherwise? they is what they is.

but, the merchant can at least believe the philosopher when the philosopher explains: knowledge is a reward unto itself. the scientist would further clarify that the best way to attain knowledge is through observation.

you don't have to understand it to get it.

j reacts to the irrelevance, and actual obscurity, of watergate in 2016

the vast majority of eligible voters have never heard of watergate, and most of those who have heard of it barely understand what it was about.

let's say you were young in 1970. 20. you'd be 66 years old today.

the reality is that you'd have to be retired to remember nixon.

it's ancient history.

i just want a shift in discourse. these dinosaurs are so out of touch that it's just getting surreal.

i'd like to see a survey done of eligible voters to determine how many of them could pick what president it applied to.

easy question.

which president was involved in the watergate scandal?

a) clinton
b) reagan
c) kennedy
d) nixon

i bet you get as many people that say clinton (confusing it with whitewater) as you do that say nixon.

yeah, i'm drunk in an upload. so, put an ad for alcohol on it. do you think this content is directed at kids when i'm not drunk?

the policy won't alter my content. it will just cost the platform money.

j reacts to the benefits of electing a terminally ill hillary clinton

the last time the americans elected a cripple for president, his wife ended up running things behind the scenes. it wasn't so bad, really. she was actually a pretty good president.

i'm just saying.

a lot of people think there was already a female president.

i'm not exactly a fan of bill clinton. but, he's at least to her left.

...and, bill v trump is a non-starter. i couldn't ever vote for hillary. i'd probably actually vote for bill.

i know it was always a team effort. hillary was  always very influential. i get that. but, the things they disagree on are exactly my fears.

look at the policy towards russia in the 90s, for example. or the way that clinton handled iraq. he's not the hawk she is.

i would have actually liked to see him run for a third term. he would have beaten dubya. and, we'd live in a very different world. i don't think gore would have been different than bush. but, clinton demonstrated that he would have been.

it's not a perfect situation. granted. i have a pretty long list of criticisms. but, the idea that hillary may be unable to govern may actually be a good thing.

david axelrod has been very critical as well. and, note that obama himself waited until it was over before he endorsed her. i think what you're seeing is that that unity was never there in the first place, and that some people are concerned about various fundamentals.

if they thought she could win, they would wait until she wins and then worry about her stepping down. this is about not thinking she can win...

i don't know who they're thinking about floating, though. it's hard to see who they think would be better.

the reality is that biden wasn't even close in '08.

-----

Jacob Davis
It's not that if she's sick it means she's mentally unstable. It's that depending on HOW SICK she is, she shouldn't be running for President. Otherwise we might be electing Tim Kaine President. ;)

jessica
see, if the higher ups thought that was actually going to happen, they'd just let it happen. that would be workable. and preferable to kicking her out in october.

this is pretty serious.

yeah.

i've decided to finally get rid of my testicles. if i can. this is not the sex change operation, which i simply don't want to do out of sequence. it would be done by now if i could find a way to fund electrolysis, but that will likely remain impossible for the foreseeable future. i just think it's crazy to try and get a full sex change while i'm still growing chin hair. and, there's a bureaucracy in canada that is actually unnecessarily restrictive - the process takes forever and rejects a lot of candidates. i wouldn't expect to be approved pre-electrolysis. but, i can't fund the electrolysis until i'm post-op. catch-22. the rational procedure is to go on hormones for a while, get the hair removal done and then get the testicles removed with the sex change. i'm just stuck at the hormone stage for financial reasons.

but, i'm getting restless. i see no conceivable way to fund the hair removal. and, i've just been on pause, waiting, for too long. i need a way forward.

the thing is that i may be able to get the testicle removal done under ohip. i don't know yet. it's ambiguous. but, if it's conceivable, i should do it. it's a next step that could be very positive.

why now?

what i'm noticing over the last four or five days (it's been building for the last few months....) is that i'm in need of a boost in dosage for the anti-androgens. this is after i just boosted my estrogen a few months ago. i'm getting to the point where dosage boosts may begin to get dangerous. and then what?

i think i should acknowledge that i have a choice: i can boost the anti-androgens (and keep up this arms war with my body), or i can just get my testicles taken out.

if i can do the latter, i should notice a lot of positive benefits:

1) i can go off the anti-androgens altogether.
2) reduced hair growth.
3) because the estrogen i take orally will no longer be fighting with the testosterone i produce naturally, it should be more effective.

i probably should have done this years ago. but, i figured i would eventually find a way to fund hair removal and do this in the usual order. and, the testosterone suppressors were working. they're starting to fade, and i don't want to just keep boosting dosages, so i need to take a different approach.

i'm going to have to talk to some doctors.

my argument is going to be that it's a path of least harm. and, i'll have to hope that they can find a way to get it covered.

fwiw, i have no interest in kids. that has little to do with gender identity - i made that choice when i was about 12. somebody talked me into freezing sperm once, but i don't even know if it's still in the freezer. or even care.

actually, it was that doctor in ottawa that got shut down for handing out the wrong sperm. so, i may have kids out there after all.

but, i'm just not remotely interested in spending any time at all with anybody under the age of 15 for any reason. sorry.

12-09-2016: still in a haze; not able to focus on catching up on things

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

i have to point this out from time to time. people get curious and are afraid to ask. or they make poor assumptions.

i'm a mutt in the most extreme terms possible.

dad's side:
cree, italian, jewish, french canadian. meditteranean, broadly. i can at times look overly jewish or overly italian, although i can get the marseilles look from time to time, too. the biggest marker is the nose.

mom's side:
finnish, norwegian, welsh, irish, scottish, british. celtic-norse-finnish is actually a mix found across a broad swath of eastern europe, including ukraine. it makes a strange amount of sense to label my mom's side slavic, even though there isn't any directly. whether i look more scottish or more norwegian or more welsh has a lot to do with what features my hair colour pulls out. blonde can make me look very slavic. red makes me look more scottish...

again, i'm sorry, but i'm not trying to present a false image to sell t-shirts; i'm trying to document my life as a composer for the historical record. i had a messy week. the vlogs will reflect that. if that upsets you, too bad.

but you might want to get ready for it.

real life gets messy sometimes. and, i'm trying to keep it as real as i can.

but, i also need to be clear that there is only one character here, and it's me. i'll admit that this makes things a lot easier in terms of the dynamics of the thing. but, it actually also necessitates that i open up, because that's the entire point.

when your vlog is essentially a video-based journal, it doesn't make sense to be fake. it's real or it just doesn't exist.

maybe think of it like this: most vlogs are g rated sitcoms meant to run in the after school time slot. i'm aiming more for a late night cable drama, with an older and more mature audience.

i don't really know of any parallels.