and, no, i'm not calling bill clinton a retard - he knew it was just a front for continuing settler expansion. if you believed him, though...

the focus in israel needs to be on integrating the population to prevent a genocide - and if you ever thought that segregation was a viable answer, then you're a retard.

alright, alright - so he had no idea what he was talking about.

again, though - it would be nice if he meant what he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-ambassador-donald-trump-two-state-solution-contradicts-israel-palestine-conflict-latest-a7584386.html

listen: people clinging to this idea of a two-state solution are living in a complete fantasy reality. you've seen the maps demonstrating settlement expansion. there is absolutely nothing left. if you think the israelis are ever going to withdraw...

so, this is not a real option. it's just a ploy the israelis use to avoid real negotiations. it will eventually be discarded as useless; my reaction was merely premature - what i thought had finally happened is what is going to eventually happen, and probably within the next 4-8 years. we're on the cusp of a shift, here. the viability of a palestinian state is long dead, and a generational shift will end the delusion.

even if a second state is somehow arrived at, it will merely continue the status quo. two states are not a solution, they are just a way to further the conflict. a palestinian state will never accept israel, and an israeli state will never end the occupation. it's not an end to anything.

to solve problems, you must get to root causes, and two-states doesn't even get close to doing that.

the actual options in front of us are as follows:

1) the israelis can succeed in ethnically cleansing the region of muslims, which is what they are currently planning around and what will probably actually happen. they've dropped mixed signals: while they used to view the final solution as expulsion, they seem to be open to more grisly approaches, nowadays.

2) or they can give up and succumb to the demographic problem. everybody knows that this is the inevitable result, should expulsion not happen.

the existential reality in front of the israelis makes the future clear: a massacre is waiting to happen. the longer the palestinians pretend that a separate state is viable, the stronger the inevitability becomes.

...and if you're offended, you're clueless, and nobody should give a fuck. stop whining and go educate yourself on the situation.

while it is stated nowhere in the article, deborah coyne was/is also justin trudeau's step-mother.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/deborah-coyne/justin-trudeau-electoral-reform_b_14736656.html

as for the contents of the post, i would rather support a revolt than reform. fucking reformists, right? but, it's good to see that at least some section of the elite sees the need for reform out of self-interest. that is the only mindset that has ever lead us to real progress.

this has to be resisted.

i can't find anything on this in the united states or canada.

http://www.politico.eu/article/germany-mulls-scrapping-minimum-wage-for-refugees/

it's shit like this that i won't tolerate.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/imf-recommends-paying-refugees-below-the-minimum-wage/

actually, these are the kinds of programs that we need to put in place if we're going to bring all of these refugees in. they need language programs and they need jobs - at the same wages that starbucks would pay people that aren't refugees. i don't think that this is socially beneficial for the broader economy, but i would rather bring refugees in and give them jobs at coffee shops (again - for equal wages. i cannot stress this point enough. they must be compensated at the same rate. there cannot be special "refugee wages".) than bring them in and park them on welfare.

and, the truth is that this is the only way that a lot of them are going to find jobs.

i guess the opposition to this is the same kind of right-wing non-logic that opposes abortion, but won't pay out for social services.

i mean, they're here. this is what they need, and what they're not getting in some places. starbucks didn't bring them here. so, i'll applaud them for helping deal with the problem... 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-starbucks-idUSKBN15H24F

i'm not commenting much on this, because i continue to be of the opinion (and that's what it is at this point) that the trump-is-in-bed-with-putin line is essentially a cia psy-op that is being developed to remove trump from office. the real establishment guy here is pence and has been from the start.

i just want to point out that it's playing out roughly as i suggested, which is as follows.

1) do everything possible to stop sanders. he's the real threat. they even let clinton win the nomination - that's how much they feared sanders.
2) but, then it's clinton v. trump, which is crazy v. crazy. it really put the intelligence establishment in a lose-lose situation. trump may have even caught them off guard, when they were focusing on stopping sanders. and, then, it's, like "shit...".
3) so, the plan was to rig the election to prevent clinton from winning, but that meant rigging it for trump. so, they did it in such a way that would allow them to take trump down after. namely, they leaked all kinds of shit and then blamed it on russia. this reading of the situation means that it wasn't russia that hacked the dnc and leaked the file to wikileaks, but the cia that did it - and that they then blamed it on russia, because...
4) the next step is to take trump out. i don't know how this works. do you impeach him? force him to resign?

the scenario could have been different had trump not picked an insider like pence. but, he did. and i'm expecting that pence ends up as president sometime in the next year or two, as trump is pushed out on this russia thing - which is not actually a real thing, but a manufactured cia plot to push him out.

it's easy to call me names and stuff, but it keeps playing out the way i'm suggesting it will. so...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN15U1IK

will the alt-right approve or disapprove of this?

it's been clear from the start that trump is not only not anti-semitic, but vehemently pro-zionist.

he will be the most pro-israel president in the history of the country.

that said, this is actually a formality. the two state solution has been dead for years - decades. i've long supported a single state solution based on equal rights for palestinians and jews.

the struggle for palestinians is now, and has been for some time, to break down the apartheid state in favour of one where everybody has equal rights - equal rights to labour, equal rights to land, equal access to religion, etc.

the government, in the end, should be run by neither israelis nor palestinians but by big tent parties that represent cross-sections of society.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-trump.html

i'm expecting the government to backtrack, under the excuse that it can't ensure the safety of the product. what they're doing suggests that they may even pull medicinal herb.

we elected an ideologically conservative leadership on the back of a lot of lies and in direct contradiction to what people made it clear that they wanted.

barring some unforeseen catastrophe, i'd expect an ndp majority in 2019. at the least, it's theirs to lose, right now. all they really need to do is not run mulcair...anybody at all that's able to present themselves as reliably left-of-centre will suffice, really.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/more-than-1-million-of-tainted-medical-marijuana-destroyed/article34026223/

even trudeau's feminism is thoroughly second-wave and overwhelmingly conservative :\.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/american-anarchists-ypg-kurdish-militia-syria-isis-islamic-state-w466069

i would suspect that the countries of europe would be more likely to spend more on defense if the weapons were made in europe - either by european firms, or at least contracted out to european labour.

but, i suspect that the pentagon would be less insistent, should that arrangement be presented.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-defence-idUSKBN15T31U

i forced myself to sleep a little longer this morning.

i was a little oozy at first, but i got some glucose in me fast and now i'm feeling pretty sound.

facebook changed the way it deals with events, and it put me in a bit of a scramble. i was primarily worried that i was going to lose my subscriptions altogether. there's about 500 pages in total. i only take about 50 seriously, but it's useful to me to know what's happening. i tend to end up at places on a whim, and then go back. and, knowing late night spots around rock venues is sometimes a necessity. i mean, i'm rarely going to go out unless i'm attending a concert but once i'm there it's fair game...

as an example, i may be planning a two or three day excursion to ann arbor at the beginning of june. there's a noise rock festival at the same time as a sgt peppers symposium. if the timing works out, that could be an awesome weekend. i wouldn't know that if i wasn't checking those sites...

for now, i've got a handle on it enough to put it aside. and, i've accomplished what i've wanted to do: i bookmarked all of the pages before they possibly disappear from my event log.

i'm going to spend the rest of the day getting the concert section up, and hopefully writing reviews for the last two shows i went to.

i didn't take footage of the barely human fest, because i interpreted the bands as djs. apologies if that's insulting to anybody, i guess. but my intent was just to dance. i wasn't there to see anybody particular, and didn't really see the event in those terms.

i'm toying with finally going to the contemporary art institute in detroit, tomorrow.

oh, detroit:

that's legit. not joking.

the performance tomorrow is cage, glass and some local artists, including this:


it's right up my alley. but, i need to check how i'm feeling. and i need to make sure finances are good.

the following show on friday is firmer:

a real left in north america - and i'm aware that this does exist, despite being very small - would be working with resistance groups and accepting volunteers, not opening up pathways to rob the resistance of soldiers.

the orwells and hemingways of the past would have skewered these kids as spineless buffoons.

welcome to the left, kids.

we don't flee fascists, here. we fight them.

you want to fight supremacism? you want to fight the fuckers? you want to take them down?

great. i'm with you.

reality check: the people you're fighting for don't.

otherwise, you wouldn't be fighting for them, because they wouldn't be trying to get out - they would be engaging.

did you leave your grandmother behind in the war zone, sir?

did you flee to the border, while she cried for you to help?

or was that your wife?

or your daughter?

fighting isis is not like destroying imaginary wmds in iraq. this isn't about punishing insolence. this is not a war of colonialism. this is a civil war for control of the near east. and, should the forces behind isis win the day, it is merely a prelude for a global conflict.

if you thought the nazis needed to be stopped, you must support the war against isis, as well. and, you should support tactics every bit as brutal to wipe them out.

providing safe passage for people to flee the area merely plays into the hands of this enemy. they need to be organized and sent back to fight.

and, if they refuse, we should not want them, for they are cowards and bastards.

if the young men of syria and iraq will not stay in the region and fight and defeat isis, who will?

who will organize the resistance against the men that come to steal the children, to be sold into slavery?

who will protect the women from being converted from autonomous human beings into livestock in baby-producing factory farms, raped at will because they are, after all, merely property?

who will stand up for the queers that are under threat of execution for living in freedom?

and, who will rebuild when it is all said and done?

it was kind of hard to miss.

but it was equally obvious that justin wasn't having nothing of it. nope. no way.

the guy is actually obviously kind of used to this. there's curious pictures and video footage of him with a wide assortment of female politicians in canada, of all three parties. basically, every time he meets a woman face to face, he has to deal with this. what a burden, right?

you can tell that he's at least acknowledging it when he falls into this "not looking at you, thinking of sophie" routine, which involves avoiding eye contact and speaking to the other half of the room.
 
http://www.mtlblog.com/2017/02/ivanka-trump-in-love-with-justin-trudeau-10-photos/

it's funny how this blew up days after reports - no doubt leaked by he, himself - came out that he couldn't answer a set of 3 am questions from trump about the strength of the dollar.

some advisor, right?

i don't mind if he fires some of these guys. but, who is next on the list, though?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/michael-flynn-nsa-resigns-trump-1.3981476

i'd give it a 4 and a very short review: it's boring.

i'm fighting with facebook, today. i don't expect to get much done. but, we'll see how long i'm awake for...

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/22796-future-politics/

some good news out of ontario. they're panicking, clearly. but, these are the right choices.

this is what they have to do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-bills-global-adjustment-kathleen-wynne-1.3975946

and this is long overdue, but it's good to see some movement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/ontario-mercury-clean-up-1.3979912

there's a section at the end where a former trump insider explains that trump actually sees canada's immigration system as a possible model to emulate.

i hope that that is correct.

and, i hope that it is a bit of a wake-up call for justin trudeau, on that file.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVj53-eYC0E&feature=youtu.be

He is a strong proponent of Canada joining the U.S. missile shield as a way to modernize NORAD.

“If the North Koreans are able to fling missiles at the United States, there is no reason to think they couldn’t go off course and miss Seattle and hit Vancouver,” he said. “Absolutely we should be in their missile defence because it is in both countries’ interest. It’s not a favour to them, it’s a favour to us.”

john manley is a strange animal in canada - he identifies as a republican, but in a politics-of-government sense rather than a partisan sense. that is, he thinks that canada should be a republic, that it should have a president. and, why do you think that is?

it should be noted that this is not just an issue of an unusual position in a vacuum. in articulating a system of centralized federal power that minimizes provincial power, canada's separation division of powers was explicitly designed to prevent the states' rights issues that led to the civil war in the united states (our date of founding is july 1, 1867). our system of government at every step of it's development has been designed to prevent the errors made in the united states, rather than to emulate them. this isn't an empty statement of superiority; rather, we should thank the americans for making these mistakes for us so that we don't have to. i'm merely drawing attention to the ahistorical position that manley holds. canada has always sought to learn from the mistakes of america, and has never sought to emulate it.

this is important, in context, because this position on north korea misunderstands or glosses over the broader geopolitical problems around canada making itself a target. the missile defense shield is of course not about defending anybody from north korea, but about an offensive weapons capacity aimed towards russia and china. by stationing missile defense equipment inside our borders, we are creating targets for hostile actions by the asian powers. we need to be cultivating our relationship with these asian powers, as they will be important in the context of a melting arctic.

it follows that volunteering to work in the missile defense is a stupid tactical position, unless canada plans to cede it's sovereignty to the united states - which is why previous governments have rejected it.

there is also the issue of boycotting it as a means to prevent it. should the russians ever send a missile over the north pole, it's going to get shot down over canada and leave debris on our soil. it may even be strategic for the russians to send missiles over (via north korea) with the intent of damaging the oil industry. why would we sign up for a system that would leave us as a wasteland if it was ever implemented?

this is an issue that snuck up out of nowhere. the liberals opposed the bmd under paul martin. when did this position change? and why wasn't there a public discussion about it?

supporting bmd is not in the national interest. it threatens our relationship with asian partners and puts us in increased danger of attack, as well as increased danger of fallout.

fwiw: i have no strong opinion on child care. it really has absolutely no effect on me at all, whatsoever, as i am violently opposed to the premise of raising children, in any gender context. life is too short to give it away to your children; my life belongs to me, and they can't have it.

that said,

1) i recognize the benefits of a potential universal child care plan, probably modeled after the one in quebec, but i would even go so far as to consider it invasive for me to get involved in the details.

2) from a broader social context, i'd argue that there ought to be a strong focus on minimizing the role of "babysitters" and putting a stronger emphasis on ece-style early learning. so, i would support the professionalization of child care.

but, this isn't an issue i have much to say about.

i understand that this is a distraction. the hope is that the media will run with this story instead of the real one, which may be nasty. this will give them the opportunity to do some photo ops on terms that are mutually beneficial: trudeau gets to avoid bad press, and trump gets to reach out to a demographic he's no doubt apprehensive about, despite overperforming with in the last election.

....but, i hardly think that canada has anything positive to gain from discussing child care plans with the americans.

i can imagine a universal american child care plan. the way it would work would be that you pay an insurance company through your employer. your employer would then determine the basic rules about the plan. you would have the opportunity to buy in at different levels of coverage, and your rates would increase or decrease depending on how challenging care for your child is. children with pre-existing conditions would be unlikely to get coverage.

i think canadians should look to canadian models for successful social systems, and to american ones for warnings on failed systems that should be avoided. this would consequently actually be extremely scary, if it weren't so obviously contrived.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trump-trudeau-to-discuss-women-in-the-workforce-1.3282108

you have to get your head around the reality that a lot of liberals - and i'm going after legitimate liberalism, this time - just don't understand that their value systems aren't universal. it's a subtle logical error to deduce that the equality of individuals implies the equality of cultures. if we're all equal before the law, we should believe in the same laws; or, so goes the exercise in circular reasoning.

i'm not talking about these make-believe "moral relativists" that the alt-right goes after. the vulgar marxists are truly their own kind: nihilists. they're neo-cons.

liberals do not believe in relativism but in a higher concept of universal morality arrived at through reason. they reject authority in favour of logic, but that is not relativism; they reject relativism, in favour of logic, as well.

but, to them that means that all people must have the same value systems, because we all arrive at our value systems through appeals to logic. muslims and jews and christians and buddhists all really believe the same thing. this is the deism that defines the lodge, after all.

of course, it's wrong. but, it's really hard to get it across. just because the law should treat everybody equally doesn't mean everybody believes in the same laws...

that guy in edmonton may very well not think he's done anything wrong. and, in syria, he may not have been charged.

from the terrible alt-right nazis at the bbc:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37617523

i can't tell if this article is being disingenuous on purpose or not...

the reason that the background of the accused is presented in the story is because the culture the accused was raised in is widely perceived by westerners as being unacceptably permissive of sex with minors. there is plenty of evidence to support this narrative, as well. the story, from this perspective, is that the incident is an example of a refugee bringing a moral value system into the country that is considered to be incompatible with canadian values.

we can discuss whether this is accurate or not. but, to suggest that it's irrelevant to the story is absurd. if this is the line the government is adopting, it should expect a reaction. that is horribly tone deaf.

these discussions are necessary. value systems are not interchangeable. non-western cultures and customs exist. our laws are not rooted in a universal morality, because that is something that doesn't exist.

if you bring in thousands of people from a culture that has different attitudes towards sex with children, you have to put programs in place to deal with it. you can't just expect that they'll leave their culture at the door.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/syrian-refugee-west-edmonton-mall-sexual-assault-reaction-racism-1.3973831

this is a find. i was there. filed away for my own records...

nobody plays two hour sets anymore. but, the truth is that you could barely drag these guys off the stage at the end of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzTY3qg0G6I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat#Anarchist_and_late_20th-century_perspectives

my informed (through experience...) opinion about what is being discussed in this article?

the idea that you'd meet a spontaneous, organic protest movement that is tactical enough to realize that it's unsafe to charge the stage at a clinton event defies credulity. they are far too organized and far too logical to be anything but cops - because only cops have that kind of training.

this tears down the propaganda you hear on the right that wants to argue that these leftist groups are funded and organized and a serious threat to order - trust me, that's nonsense. the real protestors are a combination of students, addicts, the unemployed and people on lifetime disability. it's a struggle to get them up and out to the protest, because they're always hungover. the reality in the existing economy is that people with jobs and families either don't have time to join a chaptered protest movement or don't have the incentives to.

the marxist language, here, is to separate between a lumpenproletariat and a proletariat. spontaneous, organic protest movements like blm and occupy are always expressions of the lumpenproletariat, and always rejected by actual workers. as an anarchist, this is actually where i'd prefer to organize. but, to reach critical mass, you need a large-scale economic crisis. the opportunity presented by the 2008 crash seems to have passed us by.

a real organic protest movement would not be able to weight the relative safety hazards of rushing sanders or rushing clinton - or would seek to use it against her, if it was really savvy. the last thing clinton wants is dead black protestors at her event. a real movement would use that leverage, if it somehow realized it exists. but, it would probably just rush the stage, ham-fisted...

i mean, there's a contradiction in the analysis, right? they claim that rushing the stage at the sanders event was the consequence of youthful rage - pure emotion. but, then they claim a calculated response in avoiding the dangers of rushing clinton?

they're cops. i'm sorry. they are.

go (re)-read 1984.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/15/who-really-runs-blacklivesmatter.html

but, i just want to be clear: i'm not going to argue against the term "black lives matter". i think it's a stupid, semantic debate. they could have done themselves a favour and picked a different slogan; i've suggested "black lives matter, too.". but, the logic is that if you really think that all lives matter then you shouldn't have a problem stating that "black lives matter", even if you append an *.

if XCY and Y==T then X==T.

very simple concept.

what bothers me about them is that they're fucking foucauldians: they're burkean conservatives hiding behind a bunch of absurd language. the idea that black lives matter (too) is maybe the only thing i'll agree with them on.

....that and, as mentioned, i'm fully cognizant of the reality that these multi-chapter groups are all police fronts. which is not to say that some of them aren't real people, so much as to point out that it isn't a real protest movement.

that was a disappointing day: too much ranting.

i should have finished this today. i at least got the framework down.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/index.html

back at it tomorrow...

http://www.ward27news.ca/prideandpolice

yeah. i've seen this language before. so, i'm going to translate this for you...

the blm movement is a data mining operation that is infested with cops, who have decided that they no longer want to be involved with the pride festival because they're a bunch of homophobic conservatives. the next step will be to remove funding from city council.

i don't have an opinion: i avoid pride like the plague that it is, and think it probably broadly counteracts queer interests. what pride is is a way for the business community to advertise their inclusiveness, largely at the annoyance of the general population. the money that comes into the festival is mostly from large corporations with nefarious operations. given the context, it's consequently actually probably useful to let the cops participate.

but, i mean, this is typical of foucauldians: they never make any sense. if they're going to protest police involvement on the grounds that it's a type of  "queerwashing", they should be protesting the entire festival from the top down.

i mean, look at these sponsors:
http://www.pridetoronto.com/sponsors/

manulife. td. olg. and, you go after the cops? what an absurd farce. or, at least, it would be if it wasn't so obviously false flag.

besides - don't they have any workplaces to organize? well, i suppose they would if they weren't cops, right...

a little context, for those (mentally) under 70.

https://albinger.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/pierre-and-justin-trudeau-in-canoe.jpg?w=584

the way that we deal with "not criminally responsible" is incoherent, because we focus the law around the concept of punishment rather than around the concept of prevention.

a punitive system has no choice but to conclude that somebody that is incapable of understanding what they are doing should not be punished for their actions. and, i'll agree that - on that basis - a punishment does seem unfair.

but, a preventative system would conclude that somebody that is incapable of understanding what they are doing couldn't possibly be released because there is no way to conclude that they will not pose a threat to the community.

it is obviously the case that vince li should be in a hospital for the rest of his life, with no chance of release. he walked on to a bus and beheaded somebody. it is absurd to even consider the premise of releasing him, after this. the correct way to arise at this obvious outcome is by avoiding the discussion of whether he should be punished or not and focusing on the question of preventing harm to the community.

once again, we see that socialists have different value systems than conservatives - even when we agree on outcomes.

not criminally responsible should be a life sentence with no parole.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vince-li-discharge-1.3977278

so, the canadian right is very upset about this following motion:

"That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid%2888849%29/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8661986

we have our own steve bannon up in canada. his name is ezra levant. you can't believe a word he says; as usual, he's lying through his teeth. i won't repeat what he said, because it's not worth it.

what is my analysis of the motion?

i think that this is a political pastiche of incoherent buzz words designed to increase the profile of the mp. this is cynical self-promotion. for example, consider the following line:

condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination 

how do you make sense of the idea of islamophobia as "systemic racism and religious discrimination" in the context of canada, where the entire establishment from the top down is falling all over itself to appear inviting, and the push back is coming from isolated weirdos that live in their parents' basements? the motion is being brought up in the context of the mosque attack, which very clearly demonstrated the reality that the system has work to do in enforcing tolerance from the top down, while the self-identified pure laine quebecois struggle and resist against this elitist push for social engineering.

so, yes: this exposes the flaws of unthinkingly importing theories and language from the united states. it makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against blacks in georgia, and it even makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against indigenous groups in canada. but, there is no "systemic racism" against muslims in canada; this is a total fabrication, a complete fiction. there is, rather, a strong social engineering push to manufacture harmony within diversity. but, that's all there really is to it: it's just a bunch of incoherent buzz words strung together for self-interest. if it passes, as a non-binding motion, it means nothing. some students will clap, some old men will jeer. life moves along.

but, what the reaction really draws attention to is the need to define the term islamophobia, especially in the context of hate crimes legislation. how can you vote on a measure like this without defining the idea you're voting on? the mp did not think that through for the simple reason that it's nothing more than a pr stunt. that leaves it to observers to do so.

does this refer to a healthy skepticism of religion, as i've outlined in my previous posts? if so, i could hardly support the motion, and would agree that it's a step backwards towards religious despotism. but, it seems unlikely than anybody intended for this interpretation, or any court would pick it up. does it instead refer to violent attacks on muslims? i would be more likely to support a non-binding resolution in the latter context, but apprehensive in going beyond it as i think the existing laws are more than sufficient.

see, here's the thing: while i'm never going to buy into the narratives presented on the right, because they are so frequently obvious excuses to push racist nonsense, i am actually aware of the reality that free speech is considered incompatible with islam by most muslims. i'm exceedingly apprehensive about religious groups co-opting left-leaning political parties as a consequence of not being welcomed by the right, which is where their views more accurately align. this is actually a legitimate concern.

they have to define islamophobia to clarify their intent; in doing so, they should probably eject the term from the motion and in the future avoid using it altogether. the court would smack something stupid down, here, pretty fast. but, there's little reason to fight a losing battle on multiple fronts that has the potential to cut deep into the party's actual base.

i think that a body of evidence is emerging that trump has been successfully brainwashed by the christians. frankly, i think he's an easy target....

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-wants-to-tear-down-the-wall/

we're all going to spend the next eight to twelve years fighting christians tooth and nail on everything imaginable, and while we can rely on strong solidarity from non-believers of middle eastern descent, we will not get an ounce of it from practicing muslims, who will align with the christians at every step of the way.

wake up, guys.

you're fighting the wrong battle...

actually, i think that all sane people should fear islam; if you're not afraid of muslims, you need to get your head checked. but, you should also fear christians and jews and buddhists and...

the reason is that these people want to tell you how to live your life. they want to enforce repressive systems of thought, and reject anybody that is different from them. they want draconian laws. your ignorance on the matter doesn't change the reality of the situation.

so, this term "islamophobia" is kind of stupid - as though islam is something we shouldn't fear, and it is irrational to be afraid of religion. right. people that read books that advocate stoning people in public shouldn't be feared. there's nothing at all that is scary about people that believe that quasi-historical figures rode chariots to heaven. and, thinking somebody died for your sins 2000 years ago, and is going to return from the dead and separate the righteous from the wicked? there's nothing loopy about that at all (or in thinking a messiah is on the way, to smite the enemies of your race, for that matter). this is all perfectly reasonable - not at all crazy. what's crazy is fearing this.

i mean, you can be naive about this, if you want. but, i'm not going to follow you into a future of religious despotism. i will stand up for secularism at every step of the way. and, if that upsets you then i guess we're not on the same side.

know your history, people: religion experiences down points, but it doesn't moderate. there's no such thing as a "moderate christian" or a "moderate muslim". the inherently extremist nature of religion always remains dormant, waiting for an opportunity to seize power. you may think that secularism is dominant, but the religious right is about to seize power in the united states in a way that it perhaps never has. reproductive rights are going to experience serious setbacks. science is under serious attack. mike pence is the fucking vice president. and, what side are the muslims on? they're on the same side as the christians.

we have to remain vigilant - or we're going to suffer the consequences.

so, this process was a little slower yesterday than i'd have liked it to be, and i'm slow getting back to it today, but i'm about to get back to it and expect to get at least most of it done by the end of the day.

the air quality is poor this morning, but it's middling: the fan is enough. but it's annoying. i'll be glad when it warms up enough that i can just keep the windows open all of the time.

i'm firming up saturday as a night out. it's going to depend on how i feel tomorrow. but, i'm actually really not at all interested in anything on the bill; it's all very generic and largely boring. it's the kind of thing that's all image and no substance. it's billing itself as an "industrial" festival, but i'd describe it more as a bunch of millenial hipsters imagining what they think industrial was through the filter of bad films and shitty books. see, i'm willing to shrug all that off, though, for the opportunity to just dance all night. but, i'm a little iffy on the weather. if i don't go, that's a shame; but, i don't feel like i'm missing anything, either. the actual upside is that i'm definitely going to miss the bus, so i'd end up at the works for the rest of the night. that really extends the night. but, the walk is...i dunno...i'm still thinking about it...

if i go, it's going to be against my better instincts. but, i kind of want to support the festival, too, even if i think it's a little weak to start off with, because it's at least a good idea.

for right now, i want to get back to it and hopefully get close to finishing...

https://sdion.liberal.ca/en/news-nouvelles/p3-voting-system-canada/

one of the things that trump has talked about is "eliminating the food police".

i kind of like having a food police. and, as a member of a foreign country, i'm kind of apprehensive of importing food from a country that doesn't have a food police, anymore.

it turns out that we're going to have to renegotiate the trade agreement we have with the united states. can we ensure that we retain the ability to block imports that don't meet stringent regulatory requirements?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWgphYPf0PA

i have very little respect for paul wells, but i agree with him on this. we have to be firm, no doubt. but just about the worst thing we could do is send somebody down there that is going to talk over trump.

george w. bush took a particular liking to tony blair. blair could have exploited this better, even if the feeling wasn't mutual. but, the reason that dubya like him is that he didn't speak down to him, and he didn't threaten him. chretien and martin had a lot harder time trying to juggle their contempt - which, to be fair, was a lot deeper.

trump doesn't want to deal with strong egos. he doesn't want to be talked down to. he doesn't want to be grovelled at, either. and, he likes to be around attractive people, too.

trudeau's weaknesses are in his grasp of policy, not in his people skills. he'll be fine. and, i'd actually struggle to suggest a better alternative.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/09/a-face-to-face-meeting-is-trudeaus-best-bet-for-dealing-with-trump-paul-wells.html

https://www.good.is/articles/immigration-ban-distraction

i mean, let's take a step back and understand what's happening from a distance.

1) the ban is a political tactic to distract from things like the collapse of glass-steagall dodd-frank, or the return of the dapl. trump himself has pointed out that he's not getting any push back on dapl. of course he isn't; that's what the muslim ban is for. this logically follows directly from the campaign, which generated xenophobia as a way to distract from the economy.

2) as such, the ban is temporary. the administration knows it's unconstitutional. they know it's a waste of time; that's the entire point.

3) the judiciary is actually taking the bait in pushing down unusual and obviously political rulings, but we'll have to see how long that goes on for.

if the judiciary would have ruled in favour of the ban, it would have run out. if they rule against it in the end, it still runs out. this outcome is not in question: it will be gone in a few months. but, what is he ramming through while you're not paying attention?

"The government argued that not having the refugee and visa ban in place would cause the United States immediate harm, by increasing the risk of a terrorist attack. 

That argument has often inspired deference from judges; they don’t think it’s their job to weigh security risks. But the Ninth Circuit has rejected it.

The states in this case have argued that — from its origins as a campaign promise to ban “Muslims” from entering the US to President Trump’s promise, the day the executive order was signed, to make an exception to the refugee ban for “Middle Eastern Christians” — there’s a lot of evidence that this ban is discriminatory in a way that’s too blatant for the courts to ignore."

but, this isn't an argument. 

the precedent, from my understanding, and certainly in canada, is that the judges really don't think it's their job to weigh security risks, or interfere with executive orders of this nature. that's the norm that was always in place.

so, it's never ok for the judges to assume the role of the executive branch, except when they decide that it is because their actions are "discriminatory"?

i mean, everybody knows that the courts wouldn't rule this way on search and seizure rights, or even on freedom of assembly. why is discrimination more important than freedom of assembly?

vox probably has the right answer:

they really didn’t like the federal government’s contention that the executive order is beyond the scope of the courts to review at all.

right. of course.

this is a power struggle, no doubt informed by the judiciary buying into the media narrative about trump being an autocrat. and, keep in mind that conservatives and liberals both bought into this. i don't think pointing to reagan or bush appointees is some way out of a critical analysis.

i'm not arguing against the likelihood that the order is probably going to be declared unconstitutional, i'm just very surprised that this is being used as a reason to stop the ban, given that it normally wouldn't be (consider laws on wiretapping, or orders to clear public spaces - and canada has a process in the constitution for this situation). and, i have to again suggest that this is a political ruling, rather than a legal one - and that some attention should be drawn to this, even if you agree with it.

"We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay."

see, this is a different argument, and i think it speaks to the incoherency of the order in the first place. even so, i'm a little surprised that they took the approach of arguing that the illegality of the order overpowered the separation of powers; the exact opposite would have happened in canada. and, we're supposed to have the more powerful judiciary....

let's consider the possibility that the court would have allowed the ban to come back into force. it would have been appealed, for precedent if nothing else. but, by the time the appeal would have been heard, the ban would be over. what happens then? do the groups drop the appeal?

see, it is for this reason that i would have argued it more likely that the courts would step back and let the executive implement it's power. but, it seems to rather be arguing that the entire thing is a waste of time. and, i must again point to this zealous use of power by the judiciary as a bit of an ominous problem. they're vetoing an executive order, here...

...but, now, the problem has been shifted to the administration: what is the point of appealing a gag on an order that is going to run out before the appeal is finished? and, if that happens, the only logic towards reapplying the ban is that they were incompetent at resolving the issues the ban was put in place to resolve.

pro-tip: the reasons doctors don't say what i'm saying is not because they disagree (they know i'm right...), but because they don't think it will work. they're convinced that north americans are hopeless, fat slobs with irreversibly sedentary lifestyles, and they'll never get anywhere telling them to decrease their total intake. so, they just give up on them and try and tweak their diets, instead.

when your doctor tells you to change your diet, this is harm reduction. the actual solution is to modify your energy intake to be more in line with your energy expenditure so that you aren't storing fuel for later, and then internally imploding like the scene from se7en.

not only is sugar certainly not terrible for you, it is the only fuel that your body understands.

you are not a hybrid vehicle. you take sugar. that's it.

so, virtually everything you eat is converted to glucose along the way. if you eat the glucose straight, your body just requires less energy in converting it. that is all.

that said, if you eat too much sugar then your body needs to find a way to store it, and that is where you get the various problems that are said to be associated with sugar, such as high cholesterol and diabetes.

but, the actual blunt reality is that these are actually not problems with sugar but problems with over-eating. it's really just a simple conservation of energy problem: if you don't eat too much, then your body won't store it the wrong way.

once again: the issue is not what you eat, but how much you eat. you are not what you eat. you are how much you eat.

so, don't worry too much about that errant can of pop or that odd bag of doritos. just watch the total intake.

i was worried that i was going to have to find a way around my router. but, the update was both a little deeper and a lot less complicated than i thought.

so, the appspot site is now serving from python 2.7:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/

...which means that google won't shut me down in the summer.

now, to get the show reviews up...

the show schedule for the rest of the month is going to depend on the weather, but is made up of an array of classical & jazz performances and techno nights.

it's not that there aren't rock shows happening, it's that the genre is no longer consistently creative. i understand that rock shows, moving forward, are going to be sporadic. i will need electronic, jazz and classical forms to fill the vacuum...

i'm staying in tonight...

...and then i could be out every other night or stay in for weeks. saturday depends on the timing of the cold front; it's going to have to be warm, though, and seems unlikely.

now, i need to figure out how to upgrade from python 2.5 to python 2.7. 

and, to me, this is not surprising. but, let us understand it: it is a consequence of an immigration policy that does not screen for education levels.

when you have an open door policy like europe has had, and i understand that the circumstances are dire in syria, but, nonetheless, when you let refugees in with little if any screening, then these refugees act as ambassadors for their entire religion and their entire ethnicity and opinions and perceptions are formed based on what people see in front of them: because, of course, many of the europeans that the refugees are coming into contact with are not particularly skilled or intelligent, themselves.

i do agree that the way the situation was handled in europe was shockingly poor, and that there are going to be long term circumstances. i mean, there's a "jungle" of refugees in calais. there are camps of hundreds or thousands of people. when the government lets this happen (and, again, i know it's hard), you have to expect the outcomes you're seeing.

i don't live in europe. i live in canada. and the government needs to understand that it's all in the implementation: the system that pearson designed works, and now is not the time to fuck with it - lest we see results like this begin to appear.

that means that we can't let the whole world in; it means that we need to address the problem at the source. a good sales strategy would be to convince the protestors that this is rational, just and correct. you won't convince all of them, but it is so obvious that i think that most of them can be convinced that wide open immigration is not the answer to the problems they're identifying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/most-europeans-want-muslim-ban-immigration-control-middle-east-countries-syria-iran-iraq-poll-a7567301.html

as mentioned, yesterday ended up split between days. that happens when my schedule clashes with my circadian cycle: i end up napping out of sequence, then stumbling through the end of the day until i get back in the cycle. so, i was eventually up yesterday evening around 20:00 and able to lock back into the pattern. i was a little slow getting started, but i'm back into it.

that said, i'm planning on shifting gears for the night, and getting back at the rebuild tomorrow.

first off, i skipped a band called lemuria tonight...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ4n2b2_RxY

i stated that february could have a lot of shows; it seems like it's going to rather have a lot of skipped shows.

again: i'm not actually a fan of this band. in truth, i had not even heard of them until about a week ago. so, this was another whim show just to go out and have a beer and enjoy the walk. but, the weather turned nasty (again...) and i decided against it.

i think i probably should have heard of them previously as they exist in a genre i like and seem to be good at it, but this is right in the middle of my kind of deadzone period, about 2005-2009. i was more introverted than usual over these years...

as it is, i don't have those memories, and didn't want to go out in the cold.

delicate steve is tonight and it's also pretty unlikely, although i haven't ruled it out entirely, yet. it's just too cold out. i know delicate steve a little bit better: this is a kind of a twisted, post-modern joke that i suspect a large percentage of people aren't really in on. if i were to go at all, it would be solely on a lark, kind of thing. i know i'm going to cringe. the point is enjoying the cringe...

but, i want to do a little research on what the live show is actually like before i rule it out altogether. i dunno - you tell me: is this worth it, or is it just a frustrating tease that ultimately spins out and would be worth a beer on a nice night but is just not worth braving the cold for on this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4BvqSE2G7U

it's very low probability. but, i could surprise myself at the last minute. i've done it before...

but, now that i'm past the cloud nothings show last night, what i need to do tonight is my formal run through for the month. that will take a few hours and make the rest of the month make more sense. major question to answer: am i going to have extra cash at the end of february if i don't go to the al di meola show, which is considerably more expensive than the shows i'm used to going to?

when i'm done, i'm going to pivot into rebuilding the show review archive:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/index.html

this is clearly very out of date, with links to dead facebook posts and a cut off date in january, 2014. but, it will not be very time consuming because all of the reviews are written....

...except the one for the show last night. so, i'll need to do that....

...and we'll have to see where we are when i get there.

reality check: the colonization of eastern canada has failed.

deal with it.

see, this is the kind of stupidity that underlies the historical conservative economic and immigration policies in this country.

the population is declining because there aren't any jobs. locals are getting up and leaving to areas where there is greater economic opportunity: there isn't any in these regions. so, what do the conservatives at the globe propose? increasing immigration to offset the outflow caused by the absence of an economy!

....because, the lack of a local economy will be magically transformed over night by migrants that neither know the land, nor the customs, nor the language. that makes perfect sense, right ibbitson?

faith is a terrible disability, whether it be in religion or in economics. he is being blinded by faith, here, and it is harming his ability to reason.

the population decline should simply be accepted for what it is and we should move on. the area has a brighter future as a cheap retirement destination. and, perhaps the indigenous inhabitants will reclaim the land, as they claim is inevitable.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-is-the-only-way-to-reverse-atlantic-canadas-population-decline/article33958301/

this is what people want to hear. that's step one.

chrystia freeland is a brutally intelligent and exceedingly capable person, and i have every expectation that she'll get what she wants, in the end. what i'm worried about is what it is that she wants.

but, at least they're broadcasting that they know what we want to hear. that hasn't always been clear. and, that's progress.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-call-washington-wednesday-1.3972686

no, listen.

it's one thing to be respectful towards your opponents. i'm not sure it's a virtue, so much as it's a tactic. but, i'm not going to argue with you.

but, it's another thing altogether to become your opponents.

let the old tory media die. good.

....and we have a little self-interest, here, for a change. it's nice to see.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/07/liberals-news-bailout-melanie-joly-budget-2017_n_14635626.html

what the results suggest is that canadians are broadly libertarian about immigration: we don't really care. it doesn't drive our voting decisions. it doesn't keep us up at night.

so, i think the reading that there's potential for a backlash is wrong. but, it's equally true that the idea that trudeau can run on a pro-immigration platform and win is delusional: at best it won't hurt him, because the frank truth is that nobody cares.

i've been posting a lot about immigration the last few days, but i can promise you that it won't affect my voting decisions. i'm not going to vote conservative on a refugee ban, if they want to slash corporate taxes. and, i'm not going to vote against the liberals because they want to bring in refugees, if there's other reasons i support them (which right now is looking highly doubtful...).

but, take note: the reason that nobody cares is that the pearsonian system has been successful. the real fear is in the ramifications of tinkering the system so that it creates the kinds of problems that we have not, to this point, had to deal with.

again: the answer is that the liberals need to embrace the legacy of their own party.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-not-so-exceptional-when-it-comes-to-immigration-and-refugee-views-new-study-finds

once again: the easy answer is for trudeau to stop acting like a conservative, and embrace the legacy of his own party.

we didn't elect the son of brian mulroney. but, it seems like that's what we've got...

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-deeply-dislike-trump-but-prefer-him-to-trudeau-on-economy-security-poll

and, i'll confuse you a third time.

it should be hard to get in, and that difficulty should act as a disincentive to come here - and an incentive to stay where they are, and improve those conditions. that's the ultimate ideal, here: to convert refugees into foreign nationals. the incentives should be in convincing refugees to stay and improve their countries, not come to this one.

so, i would rather see money put into improving situations in refugee starting points than in facilitating the flow of refugees out of those starting points. i would like to see a return to the good neighbour policy. i would like to see nato stop generating civil wars and supporting coups, and instead increasing the flow of foreign aid.

a further disincentive to migrate should come in the stricter enforcement of labour laws. there should be a strong crackdown on employers that hire "illegals", especially those that hire them below the minimum wage. if employers are prevented from illegally hiring "illegal" migrants (and note where the quotes are....), the economic incentive for migration will quickly cease. this crackdown, coupled with generous aid and the cessation of imperialism, should largely stop the flow of migrants.

but, no - those that get here should not be expelled.

the actual truth is that i find the narrative of nihilism v conservatism, and the total non-existence of anything resembling a left, to be depressing. these are the basic outlines of a socialist immigration policy. it's unfortunate that this is so strange to people nowadays that they can't even fathom it, and immediately conflate any rejection of conservatism with nihilism.

i promised a talk last night, and it will come up in the review. i'm kind of stuck in between days - tired but not tired...

this is just a little more subtlety to confuse you with.

1) i actually support sanctuary cities, and reject the idea of "illegal immigration". no one is illegal! so, there's almost no scenario where i would argue that you should be sent back, if you manage to get here. i'd sent you back if you have a criminal record or there's a warrant out for you. that's about it. but, understand that there's a big difference between not deporting people that get here on their own and actively picking people and bringing them here. that's only a contradiction if you want to make the issue about race, which is not what i want to make it about. so, i see no contradiction in supporting sanctuary cities and opposing active measures by the state to bring refugees in legally. but, note that it isn't very conservative of me to essentially be in favour of "illegal" refugees and opposed to "legal" refugee resettlement. it's really very anarchist of me...and that's the consistency you're struggling with.

2) i also think that the evidence in front of us suggests very strongly that canada cannot in good faith continue to argue that the united states is a "safe destination" for refugees, and would agree with calls to suspend the existing agreements until the existing president is no longer president any more, pending further review at that time. it's disingenuous to argue that these agreements should continue to stand.

also, i'm pretty sure i had a smoke with the these two guys out back (along with my free beer).

 

http://detroit.eater.com/2017/2/6/14522528/free-beer-comedy-central-detroiters-premiere

 

 

 

 

so, this is why i had to walk to macdonald's to get a coffee.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/knifepoint-windsor-carjacking-police-1.3970247

...and i'm going to post a little about this when i finish my my munchies.

no, i'm not a populist, and my arguments are not meant to be interpreted that way. there are sound economic arguments against increasing unskilled labour in a flat, if not structurally recessionary, economy that is moving towards increasing automation. we are going to have increasing problems with unemployment as it is. we don't need more unskilled labour to add to the problem.

it is basic social science to understand that influxes of unskilled immigrants increase crime rates in a stagnant economy. and, it is not controversial to point out that muslims do not assimilate in the same percentages, or that policing will be required to prevent them from breaking the law under arguments of "religious freedom". nor is it controversial to point out that islamic society is intrinsically heteropatriarchal, and that bringing in unskilled refugees is importing and strengthening the heteropatriarchy.

i do not think that refugees are a national security problem. and, i support increasing immigration for skilled applicants. but, i oppose further refugee resettlement at this time - and my arguments are good arguments that should be listened to, and should be persuasive to all but the most fundamentalist conservatives.

and, the last set of releases that i focused on before i cycled back was a collection of compilations to be placed at the end of period 2.

1) the thru compilation of midi-generated synthesizer music:


2) the eventual ambient works vol 1-2:


3) the orchestral works:


4) the chamber works (deleted, but coming back)

5) the eventual ambient works vol 0:

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/05/social-critics-are-unpopular-by.html

the last single that i spent time working on before i cycled back was for the track 'reflections'. but, that was already the title track to the symphonic ep of the same name, and that was longstanding. so, i retitled the remix ep to 'refractions'.

i think the difference in hr costs between sending boomers home at 65 and letting young people in the workforce vs. keeping young people out of the workforce by keeping boomers an extra two years is probably not measurable by a proper accounting, and anybody telling you otherwise is operating on ideology and sending you bad accounting.

i'm not even sure it's politically costly with young people.

but, it's political suicide with older voters, who are still going to hold the balance of power for quite a while - not just because of what it is, but because it's another example of the ruling party looking voters in the eye and lying to their faces.

if the government decides that that kind of loss of credibility is worth saving a tenth of a percent of gdp, then all i can say is that the finance minister is in the wrong line of business: he should go back to the private sector.

it's a great example of why you shouldn't treat a government like a business, and the kinds of absurd policies that develop when you do. the purpose of government is not to maximize profit, and no politician will ever be successful if they approach the job as though it is. making these kinds of cutthroat decisions that come from the business mentality of profit maximization at all costs tend to leave politicians unemployed...

the first trivial group symphony was uploaded without modification on may 3, 2015. this is the most recent piece to be reposted, as of yet. so, it's an inflection point.

as i was finishing the lalalala single, i completed my absurdly epic sixth record:


....and posted the first trivial group single:

the transition out of the guitar concerto had me spending some time working on this track, which exists on the cusp of the rabit is wolf and trivial group eras.

actually, i made the choice a very long time ago: i have no interest in organizing with foucauldians. i'm just waiting for them to go away, so we can get back to a broad, class-based struggle. and, in the end, the way this will probably work is that they'll just get ignored. movements will generate past them, and they just won't get listened to.

i don't want to argue with them. i don't want to try and push them out. i just choose to avoid them until they go away.

movements need people like fire needs oxygen. boycotting the foucauldians will be effective, if we hold to it.

and, how does that work, in practice?

when a foucauldian speaks, just get up and walk out. don't bother arguing with them. don't try to enforce yourself on them. just get up and walk away...

eventually, organizers will get the hint and stop inviting them. and, eventually, they will get the hint that nobody's listening and change their approach.

#notmyrevolution.

i've had short days for weeks...

i finally get a long day, and the stomach wrench hits along with the warm front.

so, i'm wide awake but have to stop and curl.

i was much more productive, today, getting two and a half months in. or, perhaps, the volume went down. either way, let's hope i can stay this productive when i get back to it on wednesday.

i'll tell you what....

i'd be more willing to support funds for refugee resettlement if they were matched, dollar-for-dollar, by funds to address the staggering problem of homelessness amongst young queer people on this continent.

and, how about this: for every refugee that you resettle, you resettle a canadian homeless person, too.

and, i'd also like to see the people that want to bring refugees in put funds aside to deal with the inevitable conflict that is going to arise between secularists and religionists. this is going to include funds for court battles to prevent the religionists from discriminating against queer people, atheists and women and funds for policing to ensure that certain aspects of their religion are repressed. if you want an example, fgm is an example: that cannot be tolerated. period.

once we've addressed these issues, the next thing we're going to need to do is commit to a dialogue about opening the religion up to allow for greater participation by women, by queer people and by other groups that it currently discriminates against.

if all of these conditions are met, i'll be less apprehensive about bringing in refugees.

but, the honest truth is that this is a headache that i'd rather not deal with. we have enough fundamentalists to deal with already, as it is....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c_Yg8azAi0

the relativism in the situation is not pointing out that the russians are no worse, and in fact far less brutal in terms of total body counts, but in pretending that american crimes are justified due to some absurd notion of exceptionalism.

see, the media is making it easy for trump when they pretend that there's something controversial with pointing out that virtually every american president since world war two would be sentenced and hung at nuremberg.

and, that's not a "relativist" position. it's most prominent spokesperson is noam chomsky, who might be the least relativist intellectual on the planet. obama, bush, clinton, reagan.....it's a statement of fact: they're all war criminals.

i look at the situation and interpret it as a farce. how can the media honestly treat this as controversial, and then expect to be taken seriously?

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/02/id-much-rather-be-hated-and-despised.html

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/02/im-essentially-certain-at-this-point.html

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/02/grargh.html

it seems like the weather met me halfway: it's not as bad as they said, but it would not have been a pleasant walk with that nasty north wind. i'm glad i stayed in.

back to the rebuild...

i'm at the start of february. i'm alert. the air is clear, tonight. hopefully, i'm productive.

articulate announcements...

they did the research that i just abstracted. good article.

basic point is that he can't talk it down forever.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/usd/6155-anti-dollar-rhetoric-is-responsible-for-the-greenback-s-current-plight-say-goldman-sacs

only talk...

this works through the contradiction properly.

trump claims he wants to lower the dollar. and, this would be in the benefit of us workers, at the expense of investors. of course, i am aligned with workers and not with investors. the fact that i'm a canadian complicates things, but only mildly - a lower dollar is in my self-interest and i would support policies to weaken the greenback.

great, right?

...but the problem is that his policies are starkly inflationary.

he says one thing and he does another. and, the thing we know about trump is that it's what he does that is substantive, not what he says.

now, he might think he can push through inflationary policies and then talk the dollar down. but, this is probably a rationalization.

the smart analysis is that the rate of increase may slow slightly, but the trendline will remain in place.

http://business.financialpost.com/investing/investing-pro/all-donald-trump-talk-aside-the-u-s-dollar-rally-will-continue

...and, fwiw, i still support ranked ballots and will continue to advocate for them in future election cycles.

it's going to be awkward when the election comes up in 2019 and nobody is promoting what is clearly the superior system, leaving advocates to point out that the governing party had the best idea, and won, but wouldn't implement it.

the media is still trying to confuse you.

the reality is that the ranked ballot system had been in the party platform since stephane dion put it in there. it was party policy the whole time.

you just didn't know it.

...because you never read the document, did you?

could california defend itself, though?

well, it has natural defenses in the rockies that would actually be pretty hard to penetrate. it would be a defensive game, no doubt. but, with a couple of strategic moves (like air defenses...and i don't know what exists....), it would be almost impossible for washington to assert control.

if i was a modern nihilist republican, i'd probably jump at the opportunity to kick california out of the country.

i've made this argument before: canadians lean overwhelmingly democrat, although you have to realize that it's entirely cynical. we're not actually democrats, we just can't stand the republicans. but, that's exactly why we're so much safer under a republican administration. canadians are in the end kind of fatalist about our eventual annexation by the united states; we value our sovereignty, but we can see the reality in front of us. let me be clear: it will not be a republican that annexes canada. they'd be annexing away the presidency for at least a generation, and probably sentencing themselves to single payer health care.

for the same reason, the republicans have to look at a map and conclude that they'd love to expel california. and, what other outcome could the president have in mind when he threatens to withhold federal funds from the single largest contributor to the treasury?

that lincoln fetish might be more accurate than anybody realized.

....although, realize that that comes from somebody that thinks that lincoln was actually a bumbling nincompoop that launched an unnecessary war that needlessly killed millions (and knows that he never intended to abolish slavery, and that it wasn't actually an outcome of the war - that this is all myth).

it's a scary thought. but the american mythology is just that. and, the country is due for a civil war.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/05/trump-threatens-to-defund-california-in-fight-against-sanctuary-cities.html

i was legitimately planning on heading to the show tonight. the vocals did start to get a little grating, as expected, but i haven't been out in a while and it was supposed to be nice out tonight, so it was kind of just meant as an excuse to get out of the house...

when i double checked the forecast last night, i learned that the cold front was coming in a few hours early. that meant that what i was expecting to be a mild walk a few degrees above freezing was instead going to be a walk through a punishing north wind, and i pretty much decided against it at that moment. i'd be dealing with a -15 windchill for the final leg. yuck. my blankie is far more inviting than that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpNn1nht0_8

i could have decided otherwise if they shifted the weather a third time at the last minute, and these late winter blizzards can end up that way more often than not. see, you've got these warm pacific air masses clashing with these outbursts of arctic air, and when they really clash it becomes hard to predict which one is going to overpower. the weather forecast could, in the end, just simply be wrong: we might end up with a nice night, after all.

but, then i slept in.

worse, i was really only interested in the second band, and would have probably left a few minutes into the headliner. in situations like that, i will give the headliner a chance, but it just never works out. even if i wanted to brave the weather (and i don't....), it's too late to get going.

this is what i'm missing:



as mentioned, it was more experiential: a night out. i'm not really a fan, and this is quite a ways out of my normal sphere of interest. i'll survive.

the cloud nothings show on tuesday is closer to my normal area of musical interest.

i was supposed to clean some time this weekend and haven't yet. i guess that will need to happen soon. but i need to eat. and i guess i'll just get back to the rebuild for the rest of the night.

this was the dominant influence on the guitar concerto i finished in early 2015.

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

reality check: the united states is now a net exporter of oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfqYaxc_dT8

again: i don't oppose the premise of using violence to shut down hate speech.

i'm just not convinced that milo yanananawhateverthefuck is threatening enough to justify that kind of response. i'd rather advocate just ignoring his stupid, ignorant ass.

but i don't oppose the tactic, in theory, for the reason. and, it is disingenuous to suggest that leftists would oppose the tactic, or are literalists about free speech.

rather, faux liberals should stop pretending they speak for anybody but themselves and take their reactionary appeals to maintain the status quo back to the republican party, where they belong.

actually, i think it's a neat trick for malcolm turnbull to deny access to these migrants and then blame it on donald trump. why aren't these refugees going to australia in the first place? and, what obligation does the united states have to accept refugees captured trying to enter australia?

i can only think of two things.

1) the australian position may be to blame the displacement on american military action, which is both myopic (as though australia was not a willing accomplice...) and clearly past it's due date.

2) it's actually the pr that trump wants.

you know who trudeau is starting to remind of, though?

nick clegg.

based on the debates, i would have said i'd pick clinton by about a 53-47 margin - which is no endorsement of trump, but a biting indictment of clinton. that is to say, i think clinton was right about 53% of the time and trump was right about 47% of the time. again: read that as massive disagreement with clinton.

i endorsed clinton solely on the hopes that she'd get a democratic congress and push through infrastructure spending. i'd actually have preferred trump on foreign policy.

based on what we've seen so far, i can support about 10% of what trump has done. that's not very impressive. but, i do legitimately think it's a higher level of support than what i'd have for clinton at this stage.

i'm sorry. but that's reality. trump is at least tossing liberals a bone. clinton would be no less friendly to investors, doubling down on the existing global order and readying us for world war three in the middle east. and, if all other things were the same (a republican congress....), she would be no more successful at pushing through an infrastructure package - in fact, probably less so.

we'll see at the end of the day how the trade talk works out. but, i may end up pleasantly surprised: and i will be very surprised, because it still doesn't make any sense for him to pull out of the tpp or rewrite nafta.

the medium term future might very well pit liberals against nihilists and leave conservatives disenfranchised.

no. let's get this right.

the 2016 presidential election pit a conservative (clinton) against a nihilist (trump). and, it turns out that when you disenfranchise liberals in this way, they will not automatically choose conservatism over nihilism because they are not uniformly of the view that conservatism is preferable to nihilism.

i'm on the fence, myself.

today, we have a conservative party (the democrats) and a nihilist party (the republicans). liberals remain disenfranchised. and, they will not automatically choose the conservative party over the nihilist party in the future, either - because they may not see that as a preferable option.

it is still not clear that clinton was the lesser evil. if anything, it's less clear now than it was five months ago. even if the tpp does in the end come back and nafta ends up unscathed,  there's no way that clinton would have dropped the tpp, or even pretended to renegotiate nafta. so, that's at least something positive...

the way forwards is that liberals need to re-enfranchise themselves, not scratch their heads over why they can't build momentum around conservative policies and conservative politicians.

i forgot that i appended to the psilocybin symphony in the first week of january, 2015.

in fact, california has more people than canada and a bigger gdp, too. californians may be exaggerating the importance of canada by it's relative size and desirable social systems; the truth is that a merging of california and canada would be one in which canada would be the junior partner - we would more accurately be talking about canada joining the united states of the pacific coast, and that's not something canadians are going to go for.

if california were to separate from the union, it would be better off going it alone - and it would probably take at least nevada with it, too, along with oregon and washington.

i just finally finished the entire rebuild for 2014.

i need to do the entirety of 2015, too, but the posting was far more sporadic. i lost almost all of january to show reviews. februrary, march and april were all spent on the guitar concerto. may put together a lot of loose ends. and, then the interference hit in june and july and i got sucked into the canadian election cycle over the fall and then the american one over the winter and the spring (which was spent archiving...)

the vlogs also start in october, 2015.

i'm going to stop to clean tomorrow. i don't know how much more i'll get tonight. and there's still a lot to do. but, i feel like i just got over a huge hump, too.