listen: i could easily hang out at an afro-beat prog-reggae bar, if it was actually good. barry adamson night would be a riot. it's not "black" that i don't like. my dad may have been part african, remember. i've been listening to jazz and blues and what they used to call r'n' b of all colours for my whole life. it's hip-hop specifically that leaves me cold, because i don't like the politics underlying so much of it, and i have no interest in this kind of toxic masculinity that seems to be the purpose underlying the genre.

i don't like hip-hop for the same reason that i don't like heavy metal, and much of what passes for "punk" these days. it's not about race, really - it's more about gender. and, you know i have gender issues.

but, that's not the conversation going on in detroit, right now. the conversation going on in detroit right now is explicitly about race, and i'm not trying to co-opt it, i'm just pointing out how i intend to navigate it. i've always gone to "black events", periodically. that's not going to change, now. i just have a different concept of "black" than so many people seem to.

back in the early 00s, when i was in ottawa, i dated a girl that had a sister that lived in the apartment complex at elgin & mcleod, across from the museum. she used to take me down to the parking garage there on the weekends to go to this carribbean drum party that would run until four in the morning. and, i would drum with the rastas all night - it was always a good time, and they knew me for my musical training. i could hold a beat as well as they could, i wasn't your average syncopationless white kid, so they were always happy to see me. in fact, they would throw these skinny white bitches off the drums and put me on them - "you, you play, you got it.....wait, you want this, first?".

see, and i would think that detroit ought to identify more with the more developed side of the african musical tradition. being black in detroit should be more about tapping into this deep, rich heritage - because it's such a historically wealthy city, and it actually has a black middle class. if it was me, i'd be more irritated about losing my actual heritage than itchy about bringing in rappers from los angeles.

but, i'm just the polite white kid from canada. all i can do is watch and take notes, and ultimately vote with my feet.

so, how should you listen to my music.

attentively.

and, as always, please use headphones - high quality ones, preferably. do not listen to it on your speaker phone. please. i plead.

you also need to find a nice quiet spot by yourself, and actively focus on it as it is coming at you. so, you could listen to it on the bus, for example. or, in the library. or, on your couch or in your bed.

but, you won't get much out of this if i try and blare it at you when you're drunk, or lost in thinking about how to hit on the person at the other side of the bar. there are components you can trance out into, but not many people dance like i do.

of course i want my music to have a wider exposure. who wouldn't? that's the point: i want more people to listen to it.

but, even if performing it was actually remotely plausible, it would still be the wrong way to market it. i need you to listen to it in a quiet space, through headphones, alone. you won't understand it through the atmosphere of a bar or a concert hall - and it's not designed for that kind of ambience, either. and, it's not even a question of not compromising on it, i'm just adamant that it's just the wrong way to do it.

so, i need to get the recorded music to djs, record stations, record labels, stuff like that - and then try to convince them to listen to it in the right way. i mean, there's a reason the beatles stopped touring when they hit their experimental phase; it just no longer made any sense to try and create it live. i'm not getting anywhere trying to jam over a three hundred part backing track - it's boring, and pretentious, and misses the point. those three hundred parts took a long time to make - i actually want you to hear what they sound like.

i actually got somewhere at some point by trying to market the recordings via youtube trolling, but i wasn't actually moving any units and made the choice to retreat.

is this a harder problem than trying to market a band? i'm not sure it is, anymore, even if it isn't the expected set of problems that a diy musician tends to come up with. i mean, i'm still pressing records by hand, here, i'm just trying to get you to click a link rather than trying to sit you down and listen to a song. harder is questionable, but different is certain - this is a very different challenge, and i'm going to need to use very different approaches.

as it is, i have two choices.

i could put something together, and have it sound nothing like the recording. or, i could show up to the gig and pres play, like a dj set.

my music is not reproducible by live musicians, and is not intended to be.

i'm 38 years old and i've played in a band setting maybe four or five times in my entire life. i have no concept of what chemistry with other musicians is, or what compromising on a sound is. i've always imagined that the process of starting a band would essentially be equivalent to hiring musicians and giving them sheet music to play, but i've never actually done that in real life. it follows that i wouldn't actually know *how* to play in a live setting, and i'd no doubt get stage fright and have to run off and hyperventilate somewhere in a corner.

i would rather watch other people play something i've written than actually perform it myself.

but, i'm ok with this, because i've never identified as a rock star, but always as a composer of abstract music. excluding a small period of time when i was like 15 years old, i've really never had any serious aspirations to start any kind of actual band, but have rather always been seeking experimental musicians for the explicit purposes of studio work to create albums full of recorded compositions. i don't want to set up an amp in front of you and slay you with my technicality and skills, i want you to listen to things i've carefully constructed over many hours with a pair of headphones, and connect to that music by yourself.

and, i've never stated anything differently to anybody. all i've ever told anybody for the last 20+ years is that i'm an experimental studio composer with minimal interests or, frankly, ability in actual performance. i've cited people like frank zappa, billy corgan, michael gira, trent reznor, jimi hendrix and john balance that built careers around their reputations as studio musicians, with minimal abilities to reproduce their experiments in a live setting. i've never cited performing artists.

and, i haven't cut an original vocal track since 1999.

i'm not at fault. don't blame me. you imagined something that wasn't real. i've been honest with myself and everybody else the whole time, you just didn't actually listen to what i was actually saying.

i have presented myself as an artsy rock chick from day one; you misinterpreted me as a metal head guy. i don't even like metal. now, you're finally coming face-to-face with your own delusions, and you don't have anybody to blame but yourself.

i've been quiet.

i'm just stuck waiting for facebook to load. over and over. so, i haven't been wandering around the internet, reading things. but i want to get over this hump this week once and for all so i can get to actually planning these cases.

this week in detroit may be more ridiculous than movement - and that much better because it's that much less packed. i've been talking about the dead techno scene in detroit, but i should bite my tongue: if this weekend becomes the norm, the techno scene in detroit will be doing just fine, even if it's relying on touring djs (which i see no shame in). there's really only two residents in detroit right now, and only one of them seems to have a regular late night. normally, you get one long party on the weekend, if you're lucky, and you have to pick. outside of movement, i haven't seen a weekend like this since i moved here. really.

and, there's a few rock shows to pick from, too. meaning, this is going to be long and ridiculous - and i'm going to actually make it all the way this time, because i'll have those rock shows to push me.

that just means it's that much more important to stay disciplined as i push far ahead into the end of june and start looking at toronto and london dates seriously starting for july.

i'm not a progressive, i'm a leftist. there is a very different history, and we have very different policy aims. i have no patience for capitalism, and see no future for it, and i'm not interested in working with religious groups or even in respecting concepts of religious freedom.

my analysis is consequently from the liberal left, and not from this authoritarian conservative space that progressives exist within.

what focusing on impeachment means is that the democrats will spend the next 15 months focusing on ways to elect the next democratic candidate president, rather than on writing legislation.

and, so, your view on this really depends on why you supported a democratic majority in the house. did you vote democrat because you want the democrats to pass laws? or was it a protest vote against donald trump?

and, if it's the latter, and there are a lot of you, you might want to get the point out: because out here on the actual left, we don't vote democrat out of protest, but rather out of pragmatism. if we're doing protest votes, i'd rather cast mine for the greens or the socialists, thanks.

worse, there's also a lot of voters in the middle of the spectrum that may actually consider voting republican in 15 months if the democrats don't actually accomplish anything, which i'll remind you is what happened the last time they let pelosi run the house: she sat on her hands for how many years and let the republicans run the government, with minimal interference.

we have the same problem with the liberal party in canada, now, although this is more recent. if you're actually serious about building democratic support for this election and the next, you need to address the fact that voters are fed up with them because they don't actually do anything: they get elected on strong mandates to do things and then just sit on power for years. it kills morale; it's deflating.

in order to build a broad base of support, the democrats need to do things like pass anti-war legislation, reform the tax code and focus on serious health care reform. it doesn't matter that it's going to get vetoed - make him veto it. make him do it. the american people elected a democratic majority to the house, and they have every right to expect it to govern as one.

focusing on impeachment is an escape hatch, a distraction, a way out from actually governing. and, it's not going to build support for the next democratic president, but rather fuel cynicism amongst voters, who are going to conclude that the democrats squandered yet another majority, and are not a worthwhile pragmatic option - from either the center or the left.

democrats that are supporting impeachment are doing so because they don't actually give a fuck about any of this - they just want an opportunity to run in 2024, and consequently want to avoid electing a democrat in 2020.

it's the old cliche: those who demand security over freedom always end up with neither.

why is it important that the crown demonstrate a rational basis of fear - not a subjective basis, that is not an opinion, but an objectively determinable, reasonable basis of fear - in order to prove a harassment charge?

because you're talking about a restriction of expression, which is the most fundamental right in the constitution. our legal tradition, both constitutional and pre-constitutional, is very clear: an individual's right to expression can only be infringed upon when it succeeds in or threatens to meaningfully harm somebody else.

a more restrictive concept of harassment would consequently be struck down as unconstitutional on the first possible basis. that is not something that is consistent with canadian law.

the reason we insist on this caveat is that it is a very real possibility that a politician, like a mayor, or perhaps a powerful person like a landlord, may otherwise infringe on somebody's rights of expression, if given any sort of space at all, whatsoever. so, we insist: it is not enough to be offended, it is not enough to be annoyed, it is not enough to be bothered. it is not even enough to be afraid, without good reason. there must be a meaningful expression of realistic harm, and must even be a clear and present danger.

this is what being in a free society is all about: learning to tolerate people that are different than you.

again: i hope the voters in her borough make the right decision at the earliest opportunity.

and, transgendered people don't go to drag shows. ever.

it's a faux pas. bad form.

i'm not a gay male that dresses up in women's clothes to get off, i'm somebody that identifies as entirely female 100% of the time. so, you'll never see me at one, don't expect it.

as it is, i hope that the acquitted individual sues the cbc for defamation.

there's a lot of crazy people out there with chips on their shoulders, and they can't be allowed to ruin people's lives with baseless accusations, without consequence for it.

to begin with, an article like this should not be continuing to accuse somebody of something they were acquitted of. to use language like "harasser" to describe somebody that was acquitted of charges is an example of exceedingly poor journalism, to say the least.

second of all, if this woman feels as though she is under some kind of threat despite the fact that the issue has been analyzed and no evidence has been found to uphold her paranoia, then she should be seeking a psychiatric evaluation, as she likely suffers from some kind of mental illness.

i hope that voters take her mental competency into serious consideration when they cast their votes in the next election.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.5175775/i-live-with-fear-says-montreal-borough-mayor-whose-harasser-was-acquitted-of-criminal-charges-1.5175783

yeah. it's really not that smart a place to grow peaches. they'd be better off growing apples or tomatoes.

people do all kinds of stupid things, though, don't they?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/harsh-winter-destroys-peaches-cherries-in-essex-county-1.2667482

some people just don't know very much about recent history.

but, i guess some people don't know much about much of anything at all.

yes, jfk stole multiple elections with the help of the mob. that's actual history. it really happened. deal with it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/oct/07/michaelellison

with the scenario developing in the persian gulf, it's important not to forget what actually happened in the gulf of tonkin.

trump wants to find a way to steal some oil. it's a central part of his desire to be president: he wants to find some country, blow it up, invade it and steal it's resources. openly. blatantly. as a show of force...

iran is the dumbest option on the table, but he's a dumb guy that is going to do dumb things.

i keep pointing out that the united states is literally unable to win a war in iran, and they know it, and that's why they won't do it. it would be completely insane, and the generals are still in charge, so it's not happening. but, if trump can't find an easier way to steal some oil, he might start to get itchy about it.

so, this is only a serious issue insofar as the president's mental health is a serious concern. and, that remains an open question.

the british have indicated that they have no reason to doubt the americans' claim. that is a careful way to state that they don't believe the reports, and have good reason not to, based on historical precedent.

the iranians would not be concerned about erasing evidence. there is no process to try them, no court of proper jurisdiction. and, the americans are hardly interested in international law. i frankly don't know why they even bother with a pretext anymore, as nobody is going to actually take it seriously.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin

yeah, i'm sick.

i notice that my sinuses were blocked up on monday or tuesday, but i didn't start feeling sick until i got back from groceries on wednesday night, meaning i think that it's actually allergies. i mean, i felt fine when i left, and pretty awful when i got home.

we had a late spring, here. i bet the pollen indicators are off the chart.

there could be one awesome party in detroit tonight.

instead, there's going to be ten completely dead ones.

there's too many dance parties in detroit tonight, and each one is going to be mostly empty, except the one in the venue that nobody can fit into, which is the one people are going to want to go to because it's open late.

the rational thing to do would be to get one of the larger spaces open later, and co-operate in filing out a dense two-room party. but, detroit isn't rational.

i'd no doubt be failing like everybody else, it's just barely warm enough after all, but i picked something up last week and i'm still nursing it in my throat. it's a dry cough and a sore throat. i may have just smoked too much at the painted lady, i don't know. i know i'm sick, i know i haven't slept, i know i haven't eaten, and i know that none of the rock shows are interesting enough to pull me out early.

i will go out solely to dance, sometimes. but, i usually need the early show to get me out of the house, and it's not there, tonight.

so, i'm going to eat and clean myself up a little and see how i feel, but i'm probably actually going to bed early tonight.

we'll see what's going on tomorrow, but i actually think i'm planning something hefty for next week, and it probably makes more sense to stay in this week and get rested up for it.

but, the techno scene in detroit is actually very small. there's three hundred dedicated people, max. if you try and split that across five or six bars, you just get a lot of dead spaces.

it's a prisoner's dilemma, detroit. n-player. figure it out.

my habit, right now, is that i brush after i eat, which is usually once a day. i mean, if i ate more, i'd brush more. but, what's the point of randomly brushing?

for the short term, i'm going to start brushing before i go to sleep. i suppose that the fact that i drink a lot of coffee makes that worthwhile - it means i'll start wiping the coffee off of my teeth before i go to bed.

it turns out that estrogen is thought to be good for your teeth. that's good.

what about smoking? well, it's probably the primary problem, and i've largely reversed it.

and, i need to start actually going to routine cleanings, too.

i'm not young any more, but my teeth are in good shape. it's the gums that i need to be more proactive about.

so, what did the second dentist say?

well, i had the consultation done, first, and then the dentist came in. i think this is key to understanding the different analysis.

she agreed that the issues on my molars were too small to warrant drilling, but she pointed out an area of decay near the gum line that the other one didn't catch and suggested filling it in. in fact, i think it was exposed after the exam, which involved some water spraying (but wasn't what would be called a teeth cleaning).

in the summer of 2005, i fell off my bicycle on the way home from a concert and smashed my face on a metal grate at hog's back bridge. i still have a scar on my chin, and i bashed up a part of my teeth; i actually could have easily fallen in the rapids. this was sealed over in 2013 and i'd actually completely forgotten about it. but, i guess it was softening up and the water opened it back up, because there it is. i didn't realize what she was talking about until i got home and saw it in the mirror.

i decided to give it six months, and the hole is in truth a little but smaller than i remember it. but, i'm well aware that this isn't a choice - if anything, the fact that i chipped the tooth in that spot is just increasing the likelihood of cavity around it. we'll see how that tooth feels.

how about my gums?

i don't floss, because i've been told it's a waste of time. they've done systemic reviews; there is no actual science underlying flossing, it's the perfect example of what is called pseudo-science. ask your dentist to justify what they tell you about flossing by citing peer-reviewed science and become distraught when you realize that they can't because there isn't any. flossing was invented by the toothpaste corporations and is more about advertising than science. however, i might be overbrushing, and that's something i might want to be more cognizant about.

i've got most of my health under very strict control, but i've largely neglected my oral care. i think it's time for that to change, and for me to get my mouth up to code with the rest of my health..

the inability for marginalized groups to access credit in the united states is a part of the hierarchical systemic racism that keeps them impoverished.

the plan to go after institutions that are trying to expand credit to people with poor credit scores is consequently essentially a form of redlining.

it's a racist policy - and they don't get it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/13/your-credit-score-is-racist-heres-why

the focus should not be on making it harder to get access to credit, but making it easier to get access to credit.

...because that's how the world works: you have to borrow money to get ahead.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/new-research-report-geography-credit-invisibility/

i support the expansion of credit to poor and marginalized people, and hope that the system of credit that amazon is designing can be taken advantage of by struggling entrepreneurs, many of them black and brown, that otherwise have no way to borrow money, and as such have no way to actualize their dreams.

the expansion of credit to the marginalized would be a central plank of any serious left-wing political movement.

i'm going to show up there, and she's going to be wearing a shirt that says "you could see russia from my dorm room in shanghai" and chanting drill, baby, drill, as she waves around her dental tools in the air.

that's just how my life is.

so, i made another appointment with a different dentist down the street, in the same mall that i do groceries in. and, i'm just checking up on the differences in education, and it's profound.

the dentist i saw today got his dentistry qualifications from a small jesuit school in detroit. he otherwise has an undergraduate degree in physics. if he went to grad school, he's not advertising it.

the person i'll see tomorrow has a doctorate in dental medicine from boston university, a phd from the wayne state university school of medicine, and masters and bachelors from the shanghai second medical university. she's also licensed in canada.

in the end, i might be wrong; it would be hard for me to disagree with her, if she tells me she wants to drill. we'll see what happens.

i spent a lot of time watching this when i was a kid.

i don't run into giant, meat-eating plants very often, but i'll probably always be a little sketchy with dentists.

"don't you believe in the division of labour? i mean, what are you, some kind of anarchist or something?"

it's the one at the back he wants to drill into.

i think it just needs a cleaning.

so, that's settled: my teeth are dirty, but they're healthy.

let me get on the phone and make some calls.

this is useful:

https://www.animated-teeth.com/tooth_decay/t1_tooth_decay_cavities.htm

i am, at worst, in frame A. but, not even.

he should have told me to floss more regularly, at most.

so, i'm calling a different dentist. clearly.

so, that's the second molar on my bottom right side that i'm looking for.

i don't see anything worth drilling for, yet.

do we have any dentists out there?

i can't tell which side is which, but they were concerned about the very back molars on my right (that is, *my* right) side. specifically, the very furthest one in the back.

i know i'm supposed to be looking for discolouration, but i also know it's supposed to be subtle. i need a better online tutorial...

how to make a dentist appointment that much more intense.

well, she said she's emailing them to me.

no talk of charges.

guess she liked my smile :).

i should have asked for the x-rays.

i'm going to call and see what i have to do to get them.

within reason. obviously.

"you want your x-rays? well, you know, there's a guy out on sardinia street that's been bugging me. we'd like him gone. you do the deed, you get your reflections."

i'm kind of hoping it's something more like.

"x-rays? five dollars."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2000/apr/16/futureofthenhs.health

so, i stopped by a dentist's office on the way home from a compost run yesterday, and they penciled me in for an assessment this morning.

i know it had been a long time since i had a cleaning, so a little bit of build-up was expected. however, i've never had a cavity before, and i'm not experiencing any pain in my mouth, so i was really just expecting a cleaning - something i certainly am overdue for, granted, but i felt no reason to expect more than that.

in hindsight, i should have realized that the entire concept of the assessment was a red flag. i'll admit that i haven't gone to a lot of dentists, but the premise of being "assessed" implies that they're looking for a way to bill you. i mean, you don't get an assessment at a doctor's office - you get a checkup. you get an assessment at an auto shop, or a plastic surgery clinic.

you might argue that if it's been six years since my last appointment then i should expect some cavities, but it had been at least ten years since my last appointment before that, and i walked out without any cavities. so, if i went ten years without a cavity, why can't i go six? nor did the other dentist ask for an "assessment", but merely cleaned my teeth the first time, and then asked me to come in for something he called "painting", which consisted of topping up the enamel around the gums. he claimed i was brushing too hard, which is something they told me when i was a kid, too.

the second red flag was the suggestion that i should come in for cleanings every three months. that's a little excessive, and just seems like a way to squeeze money out of me. they'd be lucky if i agreed to yearly cleanings.

so, when they showed me some pictures of some "discolouration" on my back molars and claimed they needed to drill, i told them i'd like a second opinion. i'm not a dentist, but it didn't look like a cavity, to me. it didn't hurt when they pressed down on it.

i may have been more likely to agree to a drilling if i felt the analysis was more thorough. i mean, you'd think you'd try to clean it first, right, and then figure out if you need a filling after you've cleaned it, especially when it's been a long time since the last cleaning. as it is, it took him mere seconds to determine he needed to drill into my mouth - as though he'd already made up his mind before he walked in.

i'm evidence-based and everything, and in the end i may agree to the drilling, but the only thing that this place convinced me of is that they wanted to squeeze as much money out of me as they could. so, i'll need to make some calls this afternoon....

i need a cleaning. clearly. but, i don't think i need any fillings and i do expect the next dentist to agree.

in the mean time, i need to do a little research so that i'm able to make my own diagnosis of the evidence.

"taxpayers" made a roughly $2 000 000 000 profit on the loans made to the morgan-rockefeller bank during the crisis.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/282-jpmorgan-chase

i want to be clear.

bernie is a lesser evil.

he's not an ideal candidate. but, he's the only viable, acceptable candidate we've seen in decades.

if this (the bailouts) is going to become a political issue again, i'm going to pick back up where i left off ten years ago and fight against the demagoguery and ignorance on social media and amongst the political class in ensuring that people actually know what the facts are, and are not misled by populists inside and outside of the media.

1) the so-called bailouts were actually loans and they have been paid back. if your concern is about "taxpayer's dollars" (an ill-defined concept, at best), you should realize that the state turned a profit on the process - the bailouts were profitable for taxpayers.
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

2) the one exception is the auto-industry, which did not pay back the loans. that is where your fiscally conservative arguments should be directed at, although i would have argued for full nationalization; for the auto industry, i don't think the bailouts went far enough.

3) the consequences of pushing for a social darwinist approach to market failure need to be understood. i don't support free markets. at all. we need to support industry with government, and we need to use government as a tool to decide which industry we should be supporting.

4) the consequences of letting banks fail for the account holders needs to be understood. we're talking about defaults, bankruptcies, foreclosures...

again: i would support structural measures to make the situation less likely to occur again. but, i do not support further dismantling the safety net, which exists for good reason.

we mostly got away with this in canada. we had bank solvency issues, we had bad mortgages, etc - but it didn't take the system down. and, the reason is that we didn't dismantle the system of socialism that we built up after the depression, and we were consequently able to absorb it.

this is an issue where bernie has often sounded like an ignorant moron, and i would offer him the opportunity to correct some of his past positions on the topic, which were beyond being wrong and into the realm of demonstrating a poor understanding of the actual issues. on that level, i'd like to hear him extrapolate - and give him the opportunity to take his foot out of his mouth.

it's like...

....have you ever noticed that crop circles look like ancient, neolithic stone paintings?

makes you wonder.

well, there was something going on up on that knoll.

one of my favourite twists on the jfk story is this: what if somebody from the future actually came back in time and did it?

i mean, you've heard that question. would you go back in time to kill hitler to stop world war two, if you could?

maybe somebody actually did come back to stop world war three.

jfk was a dangerous idiot.

i don't know who killed him, buit whomever it was did the world a gigantic favour; we very plausibly might not be here today, had he won a second term.

jackie o, huh?

and, are we supposed to conclude that trudeau is secretly a philandering, drug addicted mafia stooge that needs to be removed from office before he blows up the world?

castro is rolling in his grave.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-appoints-jacqueline-oneill-as-canadas-first-ambassador-for/

i mean, surely he could pick a better role model than the person that single-handedly came closer to blowing up the world than anybody else. ever. in history.

as an aside, i don't know what to make of an ambassador for "women and peace". seems like kind of an anachronism. i guess if we're going to have an anachronism, we should give it to jackie o.

i like democracy.

but, i think plato was right about getting rid of the family. it's an outdated institution that society should be trying to move away from.

the idea behind separating kids from their parents at the border - which i support, when ordered by the judicial system, which is the initial context we had before us - was to put them in foster care and/or get them medical treatment when they needed it.

i don't think that bringing a sick or abused or neglected kid to the border should be a way for an adult to get a visa into the country, and especially not if the parent's neglect or abuse is responsible for the child being sick. but, i don't think you turn away the sick kid, either. so, you separate them - and, despite the howls of progressives and conservatives, i don't think this is or should be a controversial policy. at all.

but, if you're going to take the kids away, as i think you should, then you need to make sure they're actually getting the help you're taking them away to receive, and not put in a holding cell for future reference.

the reality is that the demagogic response pushed by actors in the democratic party establishment, including over social media, is partly to blame for the situation that exists today. and, the trump administration has actually attempted to use this confusion to their advantage.

we need to stop thinking that we're all immigration judges, or are all able to make worthwhile legal decisions about very complicated cases based on our kneejerk gut reactions, or broadly unsophisticated moral prerogatives. this is not a situation for zealots or activists to step up and get involved in, but a situation where the judiciary needs to be able to do it's work free from political interference, which is only going to make things worse.

so, i fully support the judicial precedent that orders the separation of children from their parents when they are in need of medical care, or are determined to be better off in foster care, and i am not on the side of the socially conservative and/or religiously progressive groups that want to put an end to that practice in order to foster "family togetherness". the judiciary made this decision with the best interests of the child in mind, and it should be advanced in good faith.

i don't believe a word that justin trudeau says about pharmacare.

sorry.

you know, maybe i'm being paranoid, but sometimes i can't help but think i'm being followed around by the paparazzi or something when i'm grocery shopping, and they're looking to take a choice shot of me when i'm dressed down.

listen.

i shop on a bicycle, which is strenuous exercise - so i wear gym clothes, more or less literally. my wardrobe decision generally consists of taking pyjamas out of the dirty laundry and throwing them on, because i expect to come home sopping wet and sweaty (do you like that thought?), and then hop in the shower almost right away.

i know i'm not making any best-dressed lists. and, in context, i really don't give a fuck.

so, it's not even like you're catching jennifer aniston without doing her hair, or britney without her makeup or whatever else. you're literally catching a nobody on disability wearing dirty rags as they carry out the basic necessity of purchasing various arrangements of complex sugar molecules, in order to fuel their body's metabolic combustion processes.

and, if you really are following me around and judging me on what i am or am not wearing while i do this, you're worse than paparazzi. you're pathetic.

the basic truth is that most women don't do their hair to buy tomatoes, and the ones that do have extreme self-esteem problems.

and, i wonder: what would it feel like to be sexually undercut? and, that is an economic term, not a statement of violence, as violent as it may feel.

how would it feel to know you have to lower your price in order to compete with the corporate products?

and, you know that these companies are going to use tactics to undercut each other, too, as they establish market share and try to outcompete each other. every fifth handjob gets a free one. or, two for the price of one coupons.

and, when it's all said and done and you finally realize you can't compete, what does it feel like to give up and join the factory? to know you've been priced out? to know it's over and done?

to become an item on a menu?

"welcome to mcfucks. can i take your order please?"

yeah, i'll have, umm...wait, i missed early mornings, didn't i?

"yeah. we're doing the afternoon menu."

shit. i really wanted a before-morning-piss fuck.

"i think threesome queen does mornings until 2:00."

no. the drive thru line is always long, there. umm, can i just get a quickie, then?

"red or blonde?"

do you have brown?

"skin or hair."

both.

"yup. and, would you like anal with that?"

nah.

"that'll be $8.09. if you could drive to the next window to pick up the condom, and she'll meet you in row number three."

$8? fuck. it used to be $5.50.

"$5.47, actually. they just increased the minimum wage, so prices went up."

you're going to price me out.

"next window, please, sir."

this is maybe an open question that ought to be asked.

will the new new deal, be it green or otherwise, have a lender of last resort?

because it might just be a lot like the old deal of laissez-faire capitalism, if it doesn't.

so, did i support the bailouts?

yeah.

i mean, you know they were actually loans, right?

we talk about the new deal a lot. a very important part of the new deal was the construction of what is called a lender of last resort. because, you know what happens to all of your money if the bank it's in defaults, don't you? i guess you don't like that part of the new deal.

funny. a lot of farmers liked it.

i don't think that savings banks should be gambling other people's money. but, a lender of last resort was a very important new deal reform, and i would advise keeping it in tact in case you need it again in the future.

no, really.

make your next move to unveil your policies to promote competition on the market. go for it.

i guess we're waiting for your endorsement from the chamber of commerce, right?

or maybe your head's just stuck in your ass.

they have a name for people that support government social services for the poor (generally administered by religious groups) and insist on free markets in the private sector.

these people are called conservatives.

if you actually believe in socialism, that means you support socialism for everybody - including multinational corporations.

a socialist system is a holistic whole. it doesn't make sense to fund social security and medicare, then tell companies they need to compete over who can make the best car, and all you're going to do is threaten your social services if you insist on maintaining competitive business practices.

so, yes, i support socialism for corporations. i support socialism for everybody.

i guess you don't - because you're not really a socialist, are you?

would i ever?

i'd beat the shit out of you if you proposed it.

my honest assessment?

if you want a reward, you need to take a risk.

so, when you say "prostitution is just like any other job", the fact is that you're right.

but, you may want to be careful what you wish for.

the economic system that we live in will not provide for this in the way you're imagining.

it will reduce you to a wage slave.

that is reality.

i'm sorry.

maybe, one day, when we have communism, it might make sense to talk about this.

but, legalizing prostitution in a late capitalist society will lead to the virtual and literal enslavement of thousands upon thousands of people.

it would be a human catastrophe on a scale unknown in the modern era.

it's not that i'm going to argue with a "sex worker" that they don't own their body or they shouldn't have control over it, it's that i'm going to point out very strenuously that if they think that legalizing prostitution will give them more control over their labour rather than less control over it then they simply don't understand the reality of commodity capitalism very well.

i have said this over and over again, and i'll say it again: the legalization of prostitution will result in the reduction of prostitution to salaried wage work, at a minimum wage. being a prostitute will become just like getting a job at mcdonald's. you'll need an interview with a boss, and potentially a uniform picked out by the company. you'll report for a shift work in your room, and if you're lucky you'll get paid overtime. and, then, you'll probably want a job at mcdonald's, instead.

if you want to maintain control over your body and your labour, you want to find ways to inflate the price of your service, which means keeping it scarce, and on a black market.

the people that actually benefit from legalization are not the prostitutes, but the johns - and the pimps. and, the ancap fantasy reality that suggests otherwise is not any kind of meaningful feminism, but just another utopian application of market theory that anybody with any basic sense should be able to see through pretty clearly. when you increase the supply of something, while keeping the demand steady, you collapse the price. and, when you open the industry up to corporatization, the result is that independent contractors have little option but to become salaried employees of a capitalist class that then takes control. you don't get the choice, either; the market forces you into accepting a wage.

that is capitalism. your ancap free market fantasy reality is not.

so, my argument is that you don't understand economics very well, and need to rethink what you're proposing in order to get what you want. what i'm not doing is arguing with you about what you want, or questioning your agency in how to get there.

if you want more freedom over your body and what you claim to be your work, legalization is the last thing in the world that you want; it will give you the exact opposite of that, and play directly into the hands of the people you're trying to protect yourself from.

so, i want to see more punk shows and dj sets in basements, houses, abandoned factories, record stores, garages, gyms, schools, churches - anywhere you can set up and play, and people can bring their own drugs and be willing to have a good time in an autonomously run, non-policed space until 6:00 or 9:00 in the morning.

there really seems to be a general aversion to "loud music" opening up in detroit, and it's actually kind of hilarious. in fact, it might work out for the better, if this movement away from "loud music" takes out some of the more conservative elements of the scene that i'd rather not interact with, anyways.

i'm sick of there being fucking pigs everywhere, and everybody acting and thinking like a cop. the underground has turned into a fucking preschool parking lot. it's bizarre - and, of course, i'm the person that gets targeted because i'm queer. you give anybody any kind of authority at all, and the queer people get attacked first. never fails.

i'm also sick of this aversion to drunkeness, like the bars are being taken over by this coalition of christians and muslims that want to clean the space up and send people to work. i'm not interested.....

so, if the aversion to "loud music" amongst the bourgeois or hipster crowd leads to a separation of venues, that's probably a good thing. not every venue has to be a safe space for grown up children to feel secure from the scary, outside world in; i want to hang out in the dangerous bars, where these hipsters don't want to go to. so, let's let the "loud music" move to the dangerous bars that don't have pigs at the door and these scared, sheltered children inside, then - and let the hipsters define their safe spaces. let's partition the city, i love lucy style - and i'll hang with the anarchists and rebels and drunks and other scary, unsafe folk on the side of the line that says no cops allowed.

on that note, let's list the things that i would be interested in, would definitely not be interested in and might maybe be interested in.

- films. never. not a chance. ever. boring.
- poetry, spoken word or reading events. nope. never. pretentious & horribly lame.
- book clubs. maybe. if i really like the text.
- democratic party, liberal party or ndp sponsored political events. never. ever. ever. i'd feel dirty, after.
- anarchist or environmentally themed political events. i haven't lately, partly because i haven't seen anything i'm actually interested in. it's a remote possibility. my politics are completely off the spectrum nowadays, and i'm just not likely to find like-minded people much of anywhere. i need to be operating in a completely post-capitalist abstract space as a starting point, or i'm really not interested; i'm not into reformism, or incrementalism, and i've become so radical that it's hard to even express myself in english. i would actually love to find the right kind of anti-capitalist collective, but i don't think one exists, really anywhere. i'm more likely to stay aloof until i stumble upon the right messaging, and it might never happen.
- religious or charity events. (laugh track).
- comedy events. not a chance. fucking boring...
- hip-hop shows. nope. i wouldn't like the people.
- acoustic or folk shows. nope. i wouldn't like the people.
- dance parties. i would rather be at a techno club than an acoustic show, or even most rock concerts, but i would like to see more experimental types of techno in detroit.
- soul, reggae, funk or motown. i would need to be more drunk than you're used to seeing me in order to dance to this; there's no possibility i'd go to a place like that on purpose.
- jazz. yeah. i like jazz, but i like it to be complicated.
- classical performances. sure. the weirder the better.

these are just some of the things i'm seeing pushed into spaces that used to hold live music, and i'm disappointed, but it's perhaps for the best, if it leads to a proper segregation between the gentrifying areas (they can have their safe spaces and their cops at the door) and the more underground areas (which should be kept free of authority, and open to maximizing fun and expression).

i'm not going to list the venues that are changing, but you can figure out where they are by the neighbourhood they're in.

and, that's fine.

let us go our own ways, rather than pretending we're in the same space, ideologically.

how can i just smoke like that and then not smoke at all after?

i've broken the habit.

it helps that i tend to sleep so much when i come in, as it breaks whatever physical addiction builds up. but, i'm not feeling it because i'm used to not smoking, again. i haven't had after meal or early morning or late night smokes in 3.5 years. so, that part of my routine is cut out, and i'm making sure i don't bring it back.

my new routine is that i come in, get something to eat, take a shower and then go to bed. and, i make sure to stay out of the bedroom until i get out of the shower.

i do suspect that he caught wind of something or other and took it as permission, and it is true that it is going to take 36-48 hours for me to be able to smell anything when i come in, but there's no permission, here. nothing's changed.

if i'm here over the winter, and it comes in early, i could go from oct-mar smoke free - that's 4,5,6 months, easy. and, i'm going to get mighty pissy if i'm coughing all winter.

so, the grace period is ending, here. i just got out of the shower, and i'm going to start getting angry if the smell doesn't lift pretty much immediately.

so, no - i have not started smoking again.

i quit smoking habitually in january of 2016.

since then, i have been a purely social smoker - i only smoke when i am drinking.

and, i am no less insistent that it be kept away from the house.

for the sake of clarity, i have not had a cigarette since i came in on sunday afternoon and do not expect to have another one until i go back to detroit. if that takes two or three weeks, then i will not be smoking in that period. so, i expect my living space to be kept smoke free.

my habits when i leave this space do not negate the lease i signed, and i will not consider it hypocritical to smoke when i'm out and continue to demand the lease be adhered to when i'm in. i am still keeping an eye on the owner upstairs, and still intend to sue if i can prove that he's smoking.

i signed this lease because these are the conditions i want to live under, and i expect them to be upheld.

and, i frankly don't understand why this is so difficult. smoking is not binary; it is not the case that you smoke all the time, or don't smoke at all. i have in fact lived most of my life as a social smoker. and, even when i smoked habitually, i still never smoked inside the house.

so, if you are interpreting my smoking in detroit as a license to smoke at home, you are wrong - i have not been and will not be smoking in or near the house. at all. ever.

i remain asthmatic, and deeply affected by indoor second-hand smoke.

and, i expect all parties to uphold the lease agreement, under continued threat of consequence.

there is no contradiction here. deal with it.

what i want is a place to see good, live rock bands in detroit, and i'm a little frustrated that there's a good venue that is falling into disuse because people decided to be stupid about it.

so, i want the venue to be used to it's full extent.

it's actually kind of a socialist thing, about use-value. i'm not an advocate of property rights, remember - i want a facility like that to be used by the people most able to use it, and have less concern about what the neighbours think than i do about maximizing the use-value of the facility. fuck the neighbours, even.

but, we know this - i'm a leftist and you're a conservative (or a progressive. same thing.).

and, i don't have to actually care about you. really. i have no obligations, here - it's enough to care about myself, in context.

i'm not a politician.

i'm not a celebrity.

i don't have any wealth.

i'm not even an american.

who cares what i think?

i mean, i guess i don't care about them any less.

but i certainly don't think they're special or something.

but, i mean, i'm just some white woman from canada. why would you care if i care about you or not?

but, i don't actually have any obligation to care about black people, though.

this is something from the early 00s that i actually did listen to.

more.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2015/07/its-typical-rock-star-baddassery-kind.html

fwiw.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2015/07/excellent-production.html

that wasn't an argument i felt like having, at the time.

there is simply not and never has been any substantive art produced in the genre of hip-hop. that's how it is.

ok, i need to get up and eat.

but, what am i doing, now?

i'm back to where i was, but i need to catch up more quickly.

this stupid argument, again.

listen. i'm not an american; i can't vote in the american elections. there are good privileges attached to being a canadian, but being able to vote for the most powerful person in the world is not one of them.

i endorsed her under the argument that you're better with the devil you know, and i'm actually not convinced that that was actually the right choice, but there was no serious possibility that i was ever really going to actually vote for hillary clinton, and there's likewise not any real serious possibility that i'm going to vote for biden, warren, harris or any of the others.

so, there's this false understanding that i'd be basing my choice on sanders or one of the other democratic candidates, and that is simply not true. and, i want you to look at the history of this.

- in 2016, i endorsed clinton, but i wouldn't have actually voted for her, myself. i would have voted for stein.
- in 2012, i endorsed the green party. i did not feel that obama was a lesser evil when compared to mitt romney; they were completely identical candidates, in almost every way.
- in 2008, i endorsed the green party. i did not buy into obama. at all.
- in 2004, i endorsed john kerry. i felt that he was a lesser evil. but, i may have endorsed an intelligent capuchin monkey. bush was a total disaster.
- in 2000, i endorsed the green party. i did not feel that al gore was a substantially better choice than george w. bush, and do not think i was wrong, either. nader was the best option, and i would make that endorsement again, even knowing the outcome.

in 2020, i will either endorse bernie sanders or endorse the green party; there is no possibility that i will endorse one of the other candidates, and there was never going to be a possibility that i would have.

so, don't blame my disinterest in the field on bernie sanders. my disinterest is longstanding, and a consequence of the fact that they have shitty policies; blame them, it's their fault.

bernie is in truth opening up new voters such as myself that would have never otherwise considered voting democratic at all.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-spoilers-bernie-sanders-better-not-throw-2020-to-trump

we now have a completely unelected body that is both dominated by industry money and has no official ties to the government acting as a despotic oversight committee.

we now have to get our legislation rubber stamped by the oil industry. what's next? the pharmaceutical industry?

so, welcome to the petro-state. it's here.

i mean, i pointed out from the get-go that the purpose of trudeau's senate reforms was to turn it into a lobbying institution, and here we have it - legislation written by the petroleum industry, and introduced via the unelected senate over a fake bill.

these people have no oversight, by design.

my analysis is naive; i know this is being done intentionally, and i expect the government to accept the amendments. this is the whole point.

but, we can't accept this. it's essentially a bloodless coup, done under the cover of corporate language like "independence" and "bipartisanship". the fact that it was obvious and transparent, and i saw it coming, doesn't make it acceptable.

all of the work that the chretien government did to try and take money out of politics, something that harper, to his credit, did not unravel, has now been obliterated by the creation of these "independent bodies", both inside and outside of the senate. this is total industry capture, and it happened without so much as a debate.

it seems to me like the liberals ought to be rejecting all amendments to the bill on principle and sending it back as it was initially written. this will spark a standoff, which is necessary to assert the absolute supremacy of the house of commons.

legislation in this country is written by the lower house, not by the upper house.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/theyre-trying-to-take-the-whole-enchilada-environmentalists-cry-foul-over-industry-inspired-changes-to-bill-c-69

just to be clear on the tanker ban bill.

i actually don't think that the outcome of the situation resolves the constitutional crisis that was created by trudeau's monkeying around with the senate. we still have a bill that's been cut up and watered down by an unelected body, and i haven't had a chance to look into it to see if it's acceptable or not.

i expect that, in the end, i'm going to call on the government to reject the senate's changes and send the bill back. the senate still has no democratic mandate to do what they did, and accepting undemocratically watered down legislation is still probably not going to be good enough. and, if the government accepts the watered down bill, i'm not going to stand up for them but am rather going to attack them for it, as they set this stupid situation up themselves.

but, i'm getting ahead of myself; i haven't read it yet.

yeah. this needs judicial oversight.

you expect the deep state to try to overreach, which is why we need the courts to step in and put them back in place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5370873/canadian-military-spies-information/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015

should there be a nuremberg-style international tribunal?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5346883/crimes-against-humanity-charges-canadians-syria/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=EditorsPick&utm_campaign=2015

this will be immediately thrown out of court, and the cop should be fired for wasting everybody's time.

we really are on a one-way path to a third world country in canada. the people that live here now don't care about our laws, our traditions or our rules - they just want to live in a fascist dictatorship where everybody is kept in proper order and the trains run on time.

we are dying, up here. it's a matter of time...

but, for now, this is still preposterous, and i hope the person charged prosecutes the officer to the full extent of the law.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5360729/ayesha-curry-vulgar-comment-charged-toronto-police/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015

let it be known on this 10th day of june, 2019, that the island of britain will immediately and permanently forfeit all claims to being sophisticated, posh or superior should they sink to the abject level of stupidity that would be installing boris johnson as prime minister.

they will also be expected to immediately forfeit their idiosyncratic accents in favour of midwestern american ones.

you have been warned, britain.

fwiw, i don't actually think that a plastic bag ought to fall in the definition of "single use plastic". you can actually recycle them at walmart. i only take small numbers of them for items that need to be protected from leakage in my school bag (like strawberries, which otherwise get messy), but what i do is hang on to them and use them as garbage bags, after i've used them repeatedly for other reasons, in some cases.

it would be useful if they were biodegradable in the end, so that they decompose in the landfill. but, it's not the same thing as straws or forks; these are not meant to be used once, and, for most people, are probably used repeatedly. there is a future for plastic bags, even when so much of this other stuff is converted or done away with.

a bigger problem than any of this is lids, and that goes for a large number of items. plastic lids are not usually recyclable. to be clear: they are in theory recyclable, but almost nobody recycles them. for years, i ignored this and sent them through the blue bin as a means of protest, hoping that if i overloaded the system then they would increase their ability. nowadays, i separate them out and hand them over to whole foods, instead. this is something that both my city and your city and all of the other cities should be dealing with, and that some agitation is required around - we should be pushing mass protests to increase our local capacities to deal with plastic, as a big part of the problem is that the recycling facilities are inadequate. they can't process things they should be able to process, so they throw it away, instead.

if only we could be more like rwanda.

one day.

if we put our minds to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/28/world/africa/rwanda-plastic-bags-banned.html

and, what do you do with all of this contraband plastic when you confiscate it at the border, or elsewhere?

you throw it in the trash.

without using it.

so, single use becomes zero use. brilliant.

this seems like an answer, right here.

...although, as a canadian, i'd like to figure out something worthwhile to do with the rest of the marijuana plant. it's really quite a wasteful industry, if left to it's own.

you should be able to do basically exactly the same thing with marijuana or hemp stalks.

https://www.businessinsider.com/loliware-plastic-straws-seaweed-edible-2019-3

"contraband spork."

and, i don't use straws myself.

at all.

about the only time i could imagine using one is buying a fountain drink at a fast food restaurant, and i essentially never do that - not even on the rare occasions when i actually go to one. if i get anything to drink at all, it's usually either a coffee or a pop or juice in a bottle.

i really can't remember the last time i drank anything out of a straw.

a part of the historical liberal party strategy would be to fund r&d with government money, but with single use plastics it's actually not that complicated, we just need to change our mindset. and, i think you might get the wrong idea about this by reading the corporate press.

research into plastics is very focused on the question of longevity. i mean, that's the point - it's supposed to last forever, because it was engineered that way. so, when we talk about plastics, we have this assumption that the material should be stable at room temperature for more or less ever. chemists would broadly consider the idea of a plastic that is biodegradable at room temperature to be a kind of contradiction in terms; it's not plastic then, right?

well, maybe not.

but, that's just the point: plastic wasn't intended to be used the way we use it. it wasn't intended to get thrown out after one use, it was intended to sit in the cupboard forever; that was indeed the point, and we've lost it somewhere.

so, you'll hear people argue that plastic can't degrade at room temperature, and that's largely true, but that's not a fundamental rule of nature so much as it's a purposeful engineering choice; it doesn't decompose because we designed it not to, and companies that produce plastic are going to need an extra push to modify their thoughts about that.

so, at the end of the day, if we want sustainable single use items, you might need to learn to put your straws in the fridge, and they might have a best before date, and they might turn into mush on the counter. and, that's fine. because we should have never engineered immortal straws in the first place; that's what we should have had from the start...

for a big company like mcdonalds, it shouldn't be much of a shift. so, you ship your straws and forks frozen; they move enough units that there shouldn't be an issue with thawing them out in the morning. and, hey - would you like your utensils heated? is kind of a cool question, when you're ordering your poutine.

it's a lot easier than the oil industry wants you to think it is - the technology is here, if we choose to use it.

but i want to be clear about what i'm saying.

a ban on plastic will fail. horribly. it's a waste of time because it's a stupid approach that has no end point besides not managing to accomplish anything at all. if you ban straws and forks, people will just smuggle them back in; people aren't going to keep metal forks or metal straws in their cars, they'll just buy plastic shit in the states and bring it back.

and, what are you going to do when you catch people with plastic they smuggled in from the states? put them in jail? tie up the court systems?

do you think the cops will enforce this?

it's not enforceable; it's moronic, it won't work and we need better ideas than this.

btw, if you're near detroit and you need to recycle some things that the blue bin won't take - like styrofoam or polystyrene - then this is the place to take it.

it's been a while; i'm in need of a big run. i've got piles of number 5 plastic to drop off.

most big cities will have alternative recycling plants that can more comprehensively accept waste than the city will.

i'm honestly as good as i can be. really. i mean, if you have suggestions, i'd like to hear them, but i'm doing as well as i can. the only things i haven't been able to deal with are cheese wrappers, pasta wrappers and doritos bags. if legislation can force these into biodegradable packages, then i'm down to near zero waste.

http://www.recyclehere.net/

so, where are the liberal party apparatchiks? why is this party so devoid of policy, after having been the "party of policy" for most of the previous century? what the fuck happened?

it's tempting to compare trudeau to trump. truly.

but, the better comparison is - ironically - to what happened to the russians under stalin, although this process actually began with what we call the "martin purges" in canada. trudeau very much picked up where martin left off, in this regard.

the sad truth is that there's nobody around to write policy because they fired everybody and, like in stalinist russia, that mass purge of the party intelligentsia has led to a generation of decline and regression.

we are at least in a better state of affairs than communist russia, though - in canada, at least they're not dead. which means you could, potentially, bring them back.

trudeau had an opportunity to rebuild a dying party, and he started off the right way, but in the end just revealed himself as completely full of shit as he carried on the same mistakes that were made by his immediate predecessors. he blew it...

...and the party is on the brink of being back where it was in 2011.

to be clear: for single use replacement products, the focus should be on biodegradable plastic, rather than compostable plastic. you want people to be able to just throw it out with the trash, because that's what they're actually going to do.

i'm going to state this another way.

you would expect the ndp to support a single-use plastic ban. that's their realm, and it's what their voters would be yelling for.

but, people that are actually intelligent have historically voted for the liberals in the expectation that they'll come up with policies that are better than that.

and, we can do better than a plastic ban, we can write policies that will actually work, if we want to.

so, no - i don't support banning single-use plastic.

rather, i support policies that provide businesses with incentives to purchase plant-based plastics as often as possible.

and, yes, we have plant-based plastic, it's readily available, and it's not even that expensive.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/are-bioplastics-made-from-plants-better-for-environment-ocean-plastic/

it baffles my mind that it's 2019 and "progressives" are still talking about banning things, as though they think that is going to work.

i use very little plastic, and almost none of it purposefully or consciously. for example, i bought some eggs sunday morning and they gave me a plastic fork, but i didn't ask for it - and i actually brought it home and plan to reuse it. i have a number of them in my utensil drawer, actually. the reality is that we can't get through life without throwing away some plastic, but i'm about as good about it as a person can be, and the little pile with my name on it is comparable to people living in the third world.

that's really not relevant, though. if people were going to change their habits, they would have done so by now. all that banning things is going to do is create a black market; people will cross the border to buy plastic and bring it back. don't laugh, they will. prohibiting the sale and purchase of things is just not how you actually solve actual problems in the real world, you have to actually find a way to change how people think and behave and act. laws don't change anybody's behaviour - they never have, and they never will.

the root cause of the problem is really actually not in people's consumption habits. i'm not a luddite; i don't have a problem with the use of commodities. humans have always used things and then thrown them away, as evidenced by the mountains of up to ten thousand year old garbage we can unearth in archaeological digs. that is normal human behaviour, and attempting to modify it is a foolish waste of time, not to mention not particularly desirable. i mean, i don't see any broader philosophical value in trying to get people to be less wasteful, for the sake of it. there's nothing wrong with consumption, in itself.

the root cause of the problem is the material that we make plastic out of, namely oil, which is important because what the government is doing is trying to distract from it's failed carbon reduction policies with a litter policy; it's a bait and switch, and actually exactly what doug ford just did. there's no longer a lot of substantive differences between the conservatives and the liberals in canada, unfortunately - this is a recent change, but it's the new reality that we need to get used to. so, they're trying to change the topic, and switch the discussion to waste policy instead of carbon reduction. i guess they don't realize that plastic is made out of oil.

what we need are policies that convince companies to purchase more sustainable types of plastic. so, i ask the following question: if they pass a single-use plastic ban, would the restaurant be able to give me a fork made out of hemp plastic? or would they tell me i have the choice between dirtying a fork in their restaurant or waiting until i got home to eat?

and, what are the ways that you convince the market to move to plant-based plastic? well, you can provide subsidies to specific companies, you can create a targeted small-business tax break, you can create an attitude-changing marketing strategy, etc.

but, just banning things is stupid.

and, you're stupid if you support it.

again: we have a serious problem in search of serious policies, and you're not going to get them from this government.

i am broadly in support of this, and while i would not consider it to be a ballot issue, i would warn opposition groups against making yourself come off as being in favour of puritanism, temperance or islamism by trying to make it an issue. conservatives won't vote for you, but leftists are likely to react with cynicism and disdain. conservatives are supposed to be the ones making it harder to get alcohol, not leftists. if this issue realigns, so that liberals or new democrats are seen as supporting increased restrictions to access alcohol, it will result in drastic harm to the left in the long run.

the only serious problem i've ever had with access to alcohol in ontario was that things are closed on sundays, and the previous government mostly fixed that. it's a solution without a problem.

so, while it's not a ballot issue, a reaction against it might become one, in the sense that i could see myself voting green if the liberals and ndp decide to be "progressive" about it.

half of me expects the ndp to take the puritanical road of christian temperance. that is the ndp's history, after all.  if they do, this could potentially be a strong wedge issue for the liberals. but, they have to take the right position on it, first.

https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-beer-sales-convenience-stores-official/

this kind of interference is an abuse of power, and threatens to devolve our system of government into the kind of gridlock that exists in the disastrous american system.

if the province is going to do this kind of bullshit, we need to look at opening up the constitution to remove the province's oversight and give municipalities more independence.

the city of toronto rejected doug ford as mayor. he has no mandate for this.

https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-government-wants-change-hundreds-future-plans-toronto/

so, i made a choice around 9:00 this morning that it seemed like it was going to rain pretty hard - the wind was picking up, and the temperature dropped very suddenly - and i'd better get me and my bike home before it did.

that turned out to be a bad choice, as it cleared up early in the afternoon. what seemed like it was going to be a cold and wet day turned into a humid, overcast one - and i like humid, overcast days. it would have been a good afternoon for a beer outside, if there was indeed a good place to find one, which was less clear. that food truck was penciled in as a kind of a joke.

so, i didn't make it to the end of the day symphony, but i'm going to figure this out, eventually. in some sense, it's still early in the year. but, where's the place that is open not just until 6:00 but until 12:00? even accepting that it's a good idea to put an hour or two aside to eat, if i want to get to these sunday afternoon or evening shows i need something better to do on sunday morning.

hey, maybe i'll start going to church.

(laugh track)

i missed everything in the afternoon, but i got some nice biking in. the early show ran late, meaning i only caught around 10 minutes of the last show, which was also early. the early show was mildly entertaining, but i was more interested in the second show, and i should have left early, but i actually didn't realize it was that late (although, again, the second show was also early). i'm not really fans of either act, so it's not that catastrophic, really, but i would have ideally been able to have caught most of oozing wound. alas. the first dance club was empty a little before midnight and the music wasn't interesting enough to shrug it off, so i did leave early, and ended up at menjo's a little before midnight. the bartender at r&r seemed to think i was drunk, but the bartender at menjo's served me. i guess the best way to answer the question is that i was certainly under the influence of alcohol, but i don't think i was too drunk to serve; r&r was wrong, here, and menjo's was right. and, they waived me cover again (that's three times in the last month). i guess i had three drinks at menjo's before going back to r&r, and i did eventually convince them to serve me, just further demonstrating that the initial decision not to serve me was wrong - if i was too drunk to serve when i came in, how could i be less drunk three drinks later? the event listing said 7:00, but i didn't expect them to be open later than 5:00, and they had the place cleared by 5:30.

see, i wasn't sure what the right logic would be about the gay complex on pride weekend. i want to be clear here: there were a lot of disappointed people walking out of that place at 5:30, many of whom clearly thought they'd be there a lot later than that. there was a general consensus that the other place would be closed right at 6:00. a lot of bars will stay open all morning on movement, so why not stay open all day on pride? you can start serving again at 7:00! and, there were 300 people there that didn't want to leave. so, i was hoping, with little supporting evidence, that they'd be open very late - but i just ended up as one of a large number of people that was pushed out earlier than they wanted.

there's another complex opening up in the west end and i need to make a point that should be obvious: if you hire a dj to spin at 7:00 am until noon or three or four in the afternoon on the sunday of pride weekend, you will attract hundreds of people that want to be there. my search for a more general early sunday morning dance party may be a little obscure, but i was hooked into the gay zeitgeist this week, anyways.

i want to make a general statement about alcohol: i don't think there's anything wrong with being drunk. i don't drink when i'm at home, but when i'm out partying, i enjoy being drunk, and drink because i like it. i have no shame in these truths, and would behoove you to change your attitude, if you do. so, i have no response to people pushing temperance other than to tell them to proselytize to somebody else - i have no interest in your politics or your morals or your worldview in general, so fuck off.

regarding my alcohol intake, we all screw up once in a while, but i can actually generally handle my alcohol quite well. i mean, you're looking at a 95% success rate in terms of making it home without blacking out. so, you play the odds, and tell me what the right answer is. further, i am absolutely certain that i was drugged on at least two of those nights (one of them because he told me as much). the only times i've ever run into actual confirmed alcohol problems are when i'm taking shots or otherwise drinking strong drinks; so long as i'm drinking beer, i'm able to essentially drink all night, and i will if you let me.

the thing that tends to knock me on my ass is actually not alcohol but marijuana. alcohol is a cns depressant, but it is also a racing buzz - it makes you want to get up and dance. good pot will amplify the effects of alcohol, but if you take a pass on somebody's sativa, or eat a brownie somebody made in their kitchen, you could find yourself in need of a couch. please be clear on this point: if you find me sitting down somewhere, it's probably (like, 95 out of a 100 times) not because i'm drunk but because i'm stoned and i'll probably be fine once it wears off a little. and, so long as i smoked it rather than ate it, you're probably looking at ten minutes before i'm up and ready to go.

storefront marijuana stores in michigan are coming soon, and, when they are, i should be able to minimize this problem by ensuring that i'm only smoking high-thc indica. in the meantime, it's an environmental hazard i have to deal with: people are going to pass me shit that is going to make me need to sit down, and i'm going to need to do it, when they do.

it's starting to maybe become a bit more clear that a part of the problem in detroit - not the whole problem, but a part of it - is that it's lost in a state of social development that marx (or engels) called utopian socialism. they're essentially lost in ignorance and for that reason lack the ability to govern themselves, but i guess that's what happens when you stop funding the school systems.

throughout history, socialism has usually been "utopian" in this way, in the sense that it is small-minded, insular and focused solely on what is directly in front of it. and, because it comes out of desperation and poverty, it centers itself around religious institutions, or whatever functions as a religious institution in the relevant culture.

i am not a politician, i'm just an astute analyst. i observe, i take notes - but i watch from the sidelines, i don't participate. i'm neither a leader nor a follower but an observer; i'm outside the crowd, aloof, and unable to exist on a social level that can lead.

but, my very marxist analyst is that detroit is ripe for strong, focused and scientifically leftist leadership. you'll have to fight with the religious bureaucracy when you get here, but the people here seem to know that socialism is what they want - they just don't know how to do it.

i'll repeat that.

community gardening = latte liberal hipster bullshit.

broadly speaking, the united states does not have a problem with food production, but rather has a problem with food distribution. in fact, the united states has a problem with over-production - you produce too much food, and you waste tonnes if it every day. we waste a lot of food in canada, too, but at least we maintain some concept of supply management (although this is under constant threat).

in that sense, community gardening is kind of a solution without a problem, and i would consider it to belong to a list of upper class bourgeois liberal do-gooder policies that are more about feeling good about yourself than doing anything substantive.

it would be more worthwhile to fight for common ownership of the actual grain basket.

and, i would argue that you're doing a better service to the planet and the community by planting a tree in your yard then you are by planting food in it.

it's a judgement call, but, broadly speaking, i would probably refuse to eat urban produce, if i knew it was urban produce when presented to me.

the thing with farming in the city - and especially a city with such an industrial history as detroit - is that the soil and air you're growing in is very likely to be contaminated and polluted. if you grow in dirty air and/or dirty soil, all the pollution will get stored in the plant; if you then eat that plant, you'll get sick from the pollution that it sucked out of the air. so, if you want to set up a carrot garden in your front yard, you need to understand that your carrots are probably going to be pulling in automotive emissions from the atmosphere and sucking up centuries of industrial waste from the ground. if your city has ever had acid rain, you want to think twice before planting in your yard.

it's not that the farm out of town doesn't have the same problems, on a lower scale, it's that they understand that it's a problem and do regular testing for it. you probably just don't have the resources or know-how to make sure you're doing this safely, but if you do then power to you. but, please understand what you're doing, and the risks you pose to the people that you're feeding if you don't. if you just start growing randomly downtown, those vegetables could very well end up as concentrated carcinogenic poison, in addition to being carbon sinks.

my suggestion - and i've made this over and over again in public spaces - is that you should leave outdoor growing explicitly for carbon sinks, meaning trees and non-edible plants, and that if you want to do urban farming then you should keep it to a controlled, indoor environment with fresh soil and minimal access to outside air. greenhouses are a bit more of an investment and require a bit more upkeep, but if you're doing this for the quality of the food then you should try not to be stupid or hypocritical about it.

in fact,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachmaninoff_(vodka)

and, before you ask the question, yes - the best way to see rachmaninov is shit-faced drunk.

...because he was one himself.

that said, i am fully aware that americans tend to ruin rachmaninov by converting his angry, drunken russian romps into posh bourgeois slop, but we'll see how well they do soon enough.

ideally, you want to listen to rachmaninov in a bar full of rowdy people, and not in a concert hall full of snobs. but, i can behave for a few hours. promise.

i've pointed this out before - americans have a big problem with walking. they seem to think it's medieval, or something.

 

where are all my virile, fit gay boys at? c'mon. it's literally around the corner. what's the point? you bros don't even lift, do you?

we should be marching to ferndale and back, dammit.

so, i'm not marching across the street. it's symbolic, sure, but rather silly, in truth.

i actually took an unexpect nap this afternoon and ended up staying in tonight. that means i get to take the long option for tomorrow. and it is long...

the actual event at the plaza is just over-priced drinks and bad music. so, i'm going to be a good queer and get some actual culture in and do this instead, tentatively:

11:00-12:00 - windsor poutine festival. cost of food. riverside marina, windsor.
13:00-15:00 - akropolis pop-up. experimental classical music. free. dequindre cut.
15:30 - 16:30 - belle isle dance performance. ambient music. belle isle nature centre.
16:30 - 17:00 - exploring belle isle for the first time on a bicycle.
18:00 - 19:30 - having a beer or two somewhere in hamtramck.
19:30-22:00 - facs. no wave art rock. free. painted lady.
22:15-00:00 - oozing wound. thrash pronk. $10. sanctuary.
00:15-02:00 -  ufos on the floor. experimental techno. free. high dive.
03:00-07:00++ - "after thots" queer dance party. free. eagle of detroit.
++07:00-11:00--  ?
--11:00-14:00 - hangover brunch. free (+ the cost of food, presumably). detroit shipping co. 
15:00-18:00 - rachmaninov/bartok/paganini. legit high art. $15. dso.

catch me if you can.

to be clear...

i still have absolutely no idea who caroline chevalier is. i could bump into her tonight or some other night and not know it. i don't know what she looks like, i don't know how old she is, and i don't even really know what country she lives in. it's really just a name on a screen.

but, i will state this clearly: what she did is wrong, and anybody that is unclear about the point should understand that. she essentially filed a false police report, that led to a comprehensive trampling over all of my relevant rights. justice won out in the end, but you can't do what she did without consequences. and, she will need to defend herself in court in due time.

she will have her day in court, and her ability to make her argument. but, i am filing a very serious lawsuit, here. and, if you think this was some kind of prank, you should be aware that it's going to cost her tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs, whether she wins in the end or not.

and, if i win the case, you're looking at a $50,000+ settlement. a discrimination lawsuit is a big deal in canada, and my case against her is very, very strong. if i lose the case, it's going to cost her that in legal fees, and she'll never recover them.

so, i mean, laugh it up. but, i'll be laughing in the end. i just need to wait for the cops to finish the investigation into the officer, first - or not. this will be filed by early september at the very latest.

and the solution is that you shouldn't discriminate against people, or file false police reports to try and cover your ass for it.

it should be easy.

just be empirical.

but, how many times has that been said to how many people?

fuck...

and, yes, i have the opposite problem with women - i interpret women as friends, and they interpret me sexually or romantically; i interpret men sexually or romantically, whereas they interpret me as friends. it creates an impossible dynamic, all around, so i have to shove my tits in your face for you to get the point.

so, i know it seems weird to show up to this room full of straight guys in a tanktop and makeup.

but, i'm there to see the band just like they are, and i need the people around me to interpret me properly when i'm there. we don't get anywhere in pretending that i'm somebody that i'm not in order to fit in.

it's the only rational approach, if you think it through.

the right way to interpret me is as an unusually independent "rock chick".

we do exist.

in fact, the places i hang out at are mostly full of straight white men in their 30s-50s.

...because that's what i'm actually attracted to.

duh?

about the last thing in the world that i'd want to do is hang out in a space full of cis-women, as they have nothing to offer me. i've learned that; i may have thought differently when i was younger, but i know better, now. nowadays, i purposefully avoid places that are full of women.

so, why not just be a gay male then? because i'm not attracted to gay men, i'm attracted to straight men. it's a big difference. and, if i were to show up presenting myself as a dude, i'd be being dishonest.

so, for example, i'm probably going to some rock shows this weekend, to take advantage of the weather, while i can. i've pointed out several times that i'm expecting a shitty summer; it's at least going to be nice this weekend. almost all women at these spaces are going to be somebody's girlfriend, and there in that capacity - that's the reality of the types of rock bands i'll be checking out. it just is. really.

so, i'm going to check out some guitar music with a nearly exclusively straight white male audience.

if i were to show up to these spaces in a male-presenting way and try and interact with the people there, they would assume that i'm like them - a straight white male. but, in fact, the truth is that i'm checking them out. they may even think i'm a "cool guy" because i'm at a lot of the same shows as them, and try and build a friendship with me on that basis - but i'm going to be consistently interpreting them sexually and/or romantically, and not reciprocating in their desire for basic friendship. and, i know this because i've been through it when i was younger. they will eventually figure this out, and the end result is a lot of wasted time for everybody involved, if not something more dangerous or uncomfortable than that.

the most honest thing for me to do is present myself as what i am, which is a female-identifying person that is attracted to straight men. it's then up to them to decide how they want to react to that. but, i'd rather get a negative reaction up front then string people along on a charade of friendship, only for them to realize in the end that i want to sleep with them.

i'm very keen on honesty, and this is just consistent with that.

i have the intuition that there's a larger and/or different audience here than there used to be, and much of it may be confused by the events i actually go to. you might be expecting me to go places where there are lots of younger women, for one reason or another. but, you're wrong - check the event history. i've usually gone to shows full of straight men for years, and that isn't going to change, now.

but, i need the people there to interpret me properly from the start. i've had enough problems with making friends with straight men, who misinterpret me via first impression and then get turned off when they realize the truth of what i'm actually like.

how is it with the a/c in here, so far? i don't think it's been warm enough to turn the a/c on yet this year, at all, but it's not comparable to the previous basement. i've been less frustrated with the a/c and more frustrated with the fact that it's just cold out; it's been cooling down to around ten degrees at night, and barely making it to twenty degrees during the day. so, even if you think room temperature is 21 - and i'd like it closer to 25 - it's been barely even making it to 21 most days.

there was an a/c in here when i moved in, but i uninstalled it and i don't plan on reinstalling it ever. but, i wouldn't even think to turn an a/c on until it got to at least 30 degrees. if i had central air, i'd set it to around 27 or 28. it's just a last resort.

the guy upstairs from the previous basement had the temperature set to something like 17 degrees. it was just uninhabitable; i would wake up shivering with the windows open in mid-august. i had to resort to cranking the heater all summer. i'm sure he likes the cold summer we're having, but he probably still has the a/c cranked. and, it's not because he's male, it's because he's obese - or was. the guy had months left to live when i moved out, because that much extra weight is a death sentence.

it doesn't seem like the guy upstairs is anything like this. he's a little bit fat, but it's roughly normal for his age; he's not obese, he's just in poor shape. it's not yet an issue, but you'll definitely hear me complain about it if it becomes one.....

i think i'm more likely to get annoyed by his dehumidifier than by his a/c, but we'll see what happens. i don't know why people can't just relax and enjoy the fucking summer....it's so short, here.....