no, really. all of these things are fundamentally the same.
1) somebody that gets caught discriminating against trans people or gay people uses "religious freedom" as an excuse, and accuses you of actually discriminating against them. and, they think they're smart.
2) somebody calling out islam on it's treatment of women or homosexuals gets accused of being "islamophobic", meaning they're the one being oppressive for calling out the culture on it's shit. and, the crowd thinks it's very smart for being sophisticated enough to work it through.
3) a black person reacting against a white racist gets accused of "reverse racism", meaning they're the actual racist, not the white person. and, the racist thinks they're very smart.
Friday, July 12, 2019
again: if i could open up the constitution, i would abolish the concept of "religious freedom". but, the uk does not have a constitution, and the idea that you're going to find a precedent in common law for the premise that this is a substantive attack on his "religious freedom" is asinine.
he got fired because he refused to do his job correctly.
https://windsorstar.com/news/world/u-k-doctor-fired-after-refusing-to-refer-to-theoretical-six-foot-tall-bearded-man-as-madam-sues-government/wcm/5392b52e-99f7-494a-8733-307a08cd4460
he got fired because he refused to do his job correctly.
https://windsorstar.com/news/world/u-k-doctor-fired-after-refusing-to-refer-to-theoretical-six-foot-tall-bearded-man-as-madam-sues-government/wcm/5392b52e-99f7-494a-8733-307a08cd4460
i saw through this from day one...
in some sense, he's using the same kind of language we heard from other charlatans like barack obama, when he talks of "bipartisanism" and "ending partisanship". that is code for handing over power to the corporate sector, and has been for quite a while. but, he's added a new layer to it - he also talks of "independent oversight" in the same way, which essentially means removing oversight from government.
it's not that this is new, overall. i mean, that's what nafta is, to an extent. instead of having real courts apply real laws, they set up these kangaroo courts staffed by corporate cronies that rule on whether a policy will affect profits, at the behest of just about anything else. and, what are these kangaroo courts? they're "independent advisory committees - just like those phony nafta panels.
what is new is that i've never heard a politician talk like this, or to try to generalize the process so widely.
so, what we have here is really a whole new level of corruption, in a politician that appears to be actively working with industry to entirely dismantle the entire role of government oversight. it took way too long for people to figure it out, but better late than never...
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/07/11/news/advisors-storm-out-and-accuse-trudeau-government-dithering-corporate-watchdog
in some sense, he's using the same kind of language we heard from other charlatans like barack obama, when he talks of "bipartisanism" and "ending partisanship". that is code for handing over power to the corporate sector, and has been for quite a while. but, he's added a new layer to it - he also talks of "independent oversight" in the same way, which essentially means removing oversight from government.
it's not that this is new, overall. i mean, that's what nafta is, to an extent. instead of having real courts apply real laws, they set up these kangaroo courts staffed by corporate cronies that rule on whether a policy will affect profits, at the behest of just about anything else. and, what are these kangaroo courts? they're "independent advisory committees - just like those phony nafta panels.
what is new is that i've never heard a politician talk like this, or to try to generalize the process so widely.
so, what we have here is really a whole new level of corruption, in a politician that appears to be actively working with industry to entirely dismantle the entire role of government oversight. it took way too long for people to figure it out, but better late than never...
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/07/11/news/advisors-storm-out-and-accuse-trudeau-government-dithering-corporate-watchdog
freedom is not merely a lack of restraint, but is rather a lack of restriction. for, even the most enslaved person can discard restraint, if they are willing to face the consequences, and to be free of consequence from your own actions is merely to enslave those around you to the ramifications of them. so, that is not freedom. freedom is only real when it allows for the actualization of responsible self-interest, in a way that minimizes harm to everybody else.
Thursday, July 11, 2019
in actual fact, i can't imagine anybody suggesting that i was ever a very nice person at all.
that's never been my shtick in any kind of way. really. i've always been kind of distant, brutally honest and not very concerned about offending people or hurting their feelings. i've never been very concerned about what other people think of me.
if you're stuck in the fallacy of biological determinism and need to come up with a tactic, i guess i'd have been better described as the mysterious, distant weirdo that blows by you and ignores you in some kind of reverse psychological ploy. but, it's a big stretch - the fact is that i really wasn't interested, and that not much has really changed.
that's never been my shtick in any kind of way. really. i've always been kind of distant, brutally honest and not very concerned about offending people or hurting their feelings. i've never been very concerned about what other people think of me.
if you're stuck in the fallacy of biological determinism and need to come up with a tactic, i guess i'd have been better described as the mysterious, distant weirdo that blows by you and ignores you in some kind of reverse psychological ploy. but, it's a big stretch - the fact is that i really wasn't interested, and that not much has really changed.
i'm not saying that blowing up the mullahs is necessarily the right answer. i understand that if the united states wants to win in iran, it's going to be a difficult process - and the chances are higher that it will lose. this will harm the united states, certainly.
but, i'm not an american. i don't really care if you win.
so, what i'm saying is that i'm not going to oppose a strike on iran in the same way that i opposed a strike on iraq. i was absolutely opposed to iraq - it was based on false pretexts, and it was not a smart move for anybody, except maybe the saudis. iran is really a different animal, and if a very specific kind of scenario plays out, it could be of a large benefit to real democracy in the region.
i mean, if there's a country in the region that we can build a real democracy in, that country is iran. and, if you really want stability, what you want in the region is actually democracy.
i nailed hitchens on iraq at the time, and i'd nail him again. but, his problem wasn't his logic; his arguments made sense. he just had very, very bad information. it's an open question whether he took all these wrong facts at face value disingenuously or not; you'd think he'd have been smart enough to work it through, so accusations of dishonesty are pretty relevant. but, if his facts weren't wrong, his argument would have been solid. i know; this is circuitous and awkward, but it's true, nonetheless.
the relevant facts to make a right choice will come out in the course of a debate, if we're lucky enough to get one. i may still oppose it, but my mind is not as made up now as it was in 2003.
http://www.socialismtoday.org/215/iran.html
but, i'm not an american. i don't really care if you win.
so, what i'm saying is that i'm not going to oppose a strike on iran in the same way that i opposed a strike on iraq. i was absolutely opposed to iraq - it was based on false pretexts, and it was not a smart move for anybody, except maybe the saudis. iran is really a different animal, and if a very specific kind of scenario plays out, it could be of a large benefit to real democracy in the region.
i mean, if there's a country in the region that we can build a real democracy in, that country is iran. and, if you really want stability, what you want in the region is actually democracy.
i nailed hitchens on iraq at the time, and i'd nail him again. but, his problem wasn't his logic; his arguments made sense. he just had very, very bad information. it's an open question whether he took all these wrong facts at face value disingenuously or not; you'd think he'd have been smart enough to work it through, so accusations of dishonesty are pretty relevant. but, if his facts weren't wrong, his argument would have been solid. i know; this is circuitous and awkward, but it's true, nonetheless.
the relevant facts to make a right choice will come out in the course of a debate, if we're lucky enough to get one. i may still oppose it, but my mind is not as made up now as it was in 2003.
http://www.socialismtoday.org/215/iran.html
by contrast, the baath party in iraq was the consequence of arab socialism being perverted into stalinism, so the socialist forces were already in power, there. saddam hussein obviously wasn't much of a socialist, but his party was historically a socialist party. so, taking down the baath party opened up a space for the islamists.
and, for the ignorant or naive, i'll remind you that this is the nature of politics in the middle east and has been for years: it's socialists v islamists. that's the political spectrum. this shia v sunni thing is a conflict on the right, and was mostly created by the imperial occupation.
in iran, the islamists are in charge, so knocking them out should open up space for the socialists - and that's potentially a good thing.
http://socialistresistance.org/the-iranian-revolution-socialism-and-theocracy/3826
and, for the ignorant or naive, i'll remind you that this is the nature of politics in the middle east and has been for years: it's socialists v islamists. that's the political spectrum. this shia v sunni thing is a conflict on the right, and was mostly created by the imperial occupation.
in iran, the islamists are in charge, so knocking them out should open up space for the socialists - and that's potentially a good thing.
http://socialistresistance.org/the-iranian-revolution-socialism-and-theocracy/3826
now, do i think that if the empire goes in and topples the ayatollah that they'll set up a socialist state in replacement?
obviously not, no.
but, the way i'm approaching the question is not from a pacifist or pro-peace perspective. my interest is not to stop a war in iran. rather, what i'm asking is whether the forces of secularism, socialism and modernism are powerful enough in iran to take advantage of the chaos caused by the vacuum of power, in the way that al qaeada did in iraq. put another way: is the fantasy that the bush administration told you about iraq actually realistic when applied to iran? i think it's clear that it's more realistic; the question is whether it's realistic enough to back action to dismantle the regime, in the hopes that the socialists can seize power in the end.
but, the biggest problem in iran - and i've pointed this out before - is that the russians are already there. it's instantly a proxy war - it's korea, it's vietnam. and, even if the forces of modernism win in the end, you're looking at a thirty year war to get there.
so, i remain unconvinced that war is imminent.
but, i'm not necessarily opposed to it, and am certainly not opposed to it on the basis of being pacifist, if it is.
obviously not, no.
but, the way i'm approaching the question is not from a pacifist or pro-peace perspective. my interest is not to stop a war in iran. rather, what i'm asking is whether the forces of secularism, socialism and modernism are powerful enough in iran to take advantage of the chaos caused by the vacuum of power, in the way that al qaeada did in iraq. put another way: is the fantasy that the bush administration told you about iraq actually realistic when applied to iran? i think it's clear that it's more realistic; the question is whether it's realistic enough to back action to dismantle the regime, in the hopes that the socialists can seize power in the end.
but, the biggest problem in iran - and i've pointed this out before - is that the russians are already there. it's instantly a proxy war - it's korea, it's vietnam. and, even if the forces of modernism win in the end, you're looking at a thirty year war to get there.
so, i remain unconvinced that war is imminent.
but, i'm not necessarily opposed to it, and am certainly not opposed to it on the basis of being pacifist, if it is.
iran may come off as relatively humane when compared to the saudis, but that shouldn't be used to erase or whitewash the iranian government's crimes against it's own people. iran remains a despotic state with a set of brutal, medieval laws that have created a horrendous humanitarian catastrophe, and any free thinking person should be supporting the overthrow of the iranian state by any means possible. this is a government that cannot be left in place, in the long run.
it's easy to pick sides when presented with a conflict of this nature, but this is a situation where nobody should be doing that.
a pox on both their houses.
it's easy to pick sides when presented with a conflict of this nature, but this is a situation where nobody should be doing that.
a pox on both their houses.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
do service workers deserve living wages, benefits, time off, holiday pay and all of the other things you get through unionized labour? of course they do.
and, do they owe us a living? of course they fucking do.
but, does it make sense to seize the mcdonalds and redistribute the hamburgers? it very clearly does not. you want to shut these kinds of things down altogether, actually, tell the customers to make their own fucking sandwich and tell the workers to find something better to do.
so, if you think you can just redefine socialism for a service economy, you've lost the plot. we should be focusing on something else, and that something else is an emancipation of our time.
the old paradox was that you need somebody to run the machines that make our lives easier, but this has largely eroded and flipped over: the existing economy enslaves us rather than emancipates us, and we consequently don't just not need anybody to run it, but would be better off shutting it down altogether. when conservatives yell about dismantling the economy, my reaction is something like "yes, please!".
i've made this point before. if you live in an agrarian society, where almost everybody owns property and produces their own products, then a free market system is the best way to maximize freedom. but, if you live in an industrial economy where class is a much more defined concept, then the socialization of production is a pre-requisite for any meaningful discussion of freedom. the problem with really existing capitalism is that it is applying free markets to an industrial economy, which by definition doesn't make any sense. so, now that we are moving into a post-industrial economy, we need to ask the question: what is the best way to maximize freedom? and, it seems to me that the answer must lie in a system, perhaps as yet unnamed and undefined, that focuses on alleviating the necessity of work. that is what is in front of us, and should be the economy we want to try and build: one where people are truly free to spend their time how they actually want to.
i haven't written this. i doubt i'll be the one that does. but, to do this, you need to start talking about redistributing resources in a way that collectivizes ownership, but not through the worker co-operative. if we end up with restaurant co-ops while the banks keep demanding their rent, we're just spinning in circles.
and, do they owe us a living? of course they fucking do.
but, does it make sense to seize the mcdonalds and redistribute the hamburgers? it very clearly does not. you want to shut these kinds of things down altogether, actually, tell the customers to make their own fucking sandwich and tell the workers to find something better to do.
so, if you think you can just redefine socialism for a service economy, you've lost the plot. we should be focusing on something else, and that something else is an emancipation of our time.
the old paradox was that you need somebody to run the machines that make our lives easier, but this has largely eroded and flipped over: the existing economy enslaves us rather than emancipates us, and we consequently don't just not need anybody to run it, but would be better off shutting it down altogether. when conservatives yell about dismantling the economy, my reaction is something like "yes, please!".
i've made this point before. if you live in an agrarian society, where almost everybody owns property and produces their own products, then a free market system is the best way to maximize freedom. but, if you live in an industrial economy where class is a much more defined concept, then the socialization of production is a pre-requisite for any meaningful discussion of freedom. the problem with really existing capitalism is that it is applying free markets to an industrial economy, which by definition doesn't make any sense. so, now that we are moving into a post-industrial economy, we need to ask the question: what is the best way to maximize freedom? and, it seems to me that the answer must lie in a system, perhaps as yet unnamed and undefined, that focuses on alleviating the necessity of work. that is what is in front of us, and should be the economy we want to try and build: one where people are truly free to spend their time how they actually want to.
i haven't written this. i doubt i'll be the one that does. but, to do this, you need to start talking about redistributing resources in a way that collectivizes ownership, but not through the worker co-operative. if we end up with restaurant co-ops while the banks keep demanding their rent, we're just spinning in circles.
if the left wants to regain control of the ndp, it's going to have to organize and do it. an article like this merely states the obvious.
but, i'd actually advise against it.
the ndp is dead; the economy has changed, and organized labour is not the political force it used to be. let's move on to a post-industrial society, and let's take control of the green party in order to do it.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/07/08/Moderate-NDP-Has-Not-Worked/
but, i'd actually advise against it.
the ndp is dead; the economy has changed, and organized labour is not the political force it used to be. let's move on to a post-industrial society, and let's take control of the green party in order to do it.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/07/08/Moderate-NDP-Has-Not-Worked/
i know the liberals try to present a specific idea about what they call "multiculturalism", and then viciously attack anybody that challenges them on it.
but, if you look at historical data from actual liberal voters, you're going to see a different reality than the party likes to project. these ideas that the party wants to define itself by are only going to get 60-70% from actual liberal voters, meaning there's a big opportunity to poach liberal voters by appealing to their hidden or not so hidden racism.
but, what i actually think - and i've pointed this out over and over again - is that race is not an important issue in canadian politics, and certainly not the way that it is in the united states. immigration is an issue, and maintaining a secular identity in the face of so much religious immigration is an issue, but race itself is not very important to most canadians. bernier consequently doesn't really offer anything different to most conservative voters. it would be a different story if he was appealing to things that conservatives actually care about - like lowering taxes - but he actually isn't doing that. however, he is appealing to pro-market liberals, that may want to do things like break up supply management, and that tend to lean towards secularism over religious identity, but may perhaps simply be looking for a protest vote - and unwilling to give it to the greens or ndp because they're too far left for them.
i mean, it's not such a crazy thing. really. to look at bernier as a valid protest, all you have to be is a capitalist, centrist liberal that doesn't like the direction that trudeau is taking the country in, but knows the conservatives are even worse. that's a potentially large demographic, actually.
but, if you look at historical data from actual liberal voters, you're going to see a different reality than the party likes to project. these ideas that the party wants to define itself by are only going to get 60-70% from actual liberal voters, meaning there's a big opportunity to poach liberal voters by appealing to their hidden or not so hidden racism.
but, what i actually think - and i've pointed this out over and over again - is that race is not an important issue in canadian politics, and certainly not the way that it is in the united states. immigration is an issue, and maintaining a secular identity in the face of so much religious immigration is an issue, but race itself is not very important to most canadians. bernier consequently doesn't really offer anything different to most conservative voters. it would be a different story if he was appealing to things that conservatives actually care about - like lowering taxes - but he actually isn't doing that. however, he is appealing to pro-market liberals, that may want to do things like break up supply management, and that tend to lean towards secularism over religious identity, but may perhaps simply be looking for a protest vote - and unwilling to give it to the greens or ndp because they're too far left for them.
i mean, it's not such a crazy thing. really. to look at bernier as a valid protest, all you have to be is a capitalist, centrist liberal that doesn't like the direction that trudeau is taking the country in, but knows the conservatives are even worse. that's a potentially large demographic, actually.
if the trends continue, the libertarians are going to get stampeded and swallowed.
i don't know how likely that is. but, if even the leader of the libertarian party thinks it's time to cooperate and stop competing, there must be some cannibalism happening in the libertarian party - or at least more than usual.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-libertarian-party-merger-1.4827241
i don't know how likely that is. but, if even the leader of the libertarian party thinks it's time to cooperate and stop competing, there must be some cannibalism happening in the libertarian party - or at least more than usual.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-libertarian-party-merger-1.4827241
in canada, we now have, on the left,
1) liberals (in name only.).
2) socialists (in name only).
3) greens.
4) libertarians.
5) quebec nationalists.
the socialists (in name only) are in big trouble for october, and the libertarians could very well exit parliament at that time as well, while the greens and french nationalists are trending upwards.
together, these parties will get upwards of 70% of the vote.
on the right, you have one party: the conservatives, and they're to the left of what americans call centrist democrats. they'll get around 30% of the vote.
1) liberals (in name only.).
2) socialists (in name only).
3) greens.
4) libertarians.
5) quebec nationalists.
the socialists (in name only) are in big trouble for october, and the libertarians could very well exit parliament at that time as well, while the greens and french nationalists are trending upwards.
together, these parties will get upwards of 70% of the vote.
on the right, you have one party: the conservatives, and they're to the left of what americans call centrist democrats. they'll get around 30% of the vote.
this narrative is complete bullshit.
reliable polling has held the parties within the margin of error the whole time, which is an advantage for the liberals because they have a far better shot at the undecideds. support has not flowed from the liberals to the conservatives over the last few years, but rather from the liberals to the greens - and increasingly from the liberals to the people's party.
what the tory media tried to do here was set their party up with a lot of gramscian conditioning around something nobody actually ever cared much about. it's now realizing that the approach has failed, and trying something else.
it's a good demonstration of the limits of media power, and the fact that it can't always shape the voting decisions people make; while it may have succeeded in denting the liberals pretty badly, it has completely failed in propping up the conservatives. and, now it's dealing with the possibility of giving the greens the balance of power, as blowback.
i'll take it.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/suddenly-the-ndps-money-woes-make-sense/
reliable polling has held the parties within the margin of error the whole time, which is an advantage for the liberals because they have a far better shot at the undecideds. support has not flowed from the liberals to the conservatives over the last few years, but rather from the liberals to the greens - and increasingly from the liberals to the people's party.
what the tory media tried to do here was set their party up with a lot of gramscian conditioning around something nobody actually ever cared much about. it's now realizing that the approach has failed, and trying something else.
it's a good demonstration of the limits of media power, and the fact that it can't always shape the voting decisions people make; while it may have succeeded in denting the liberals pretty badly, it has completely failed in propping up the conservatives. and, now it's dealing with the possibility of giving the greens the balance of power, as blowback.
i'll take it.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/suddenly-the-ndps-money-woes-make-sense/
listen: i actually don't think that a person's wealth is relevant in analyzing their politics. if a really rich person came out with politics i support, i wouldn't have a problem supporting them.
but, i don't want to support somebody that is entering politics because they think they're on a mission from god - that's scary, backwards stuff.
but, i don't want to support somebody that is entering politics because they think they're on a mission from god - that's scary, backwards stuff.
haarp.
clearly.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/whats-behind-the-weird-track-of-invest-92l-and-other-july-tropical-storms
ok, not really - but if they were going to test a system, this is what it would look like.
clearly.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/whats-behind-the-weird-track-of-invest-92l-and-other-july-tropical-storms
ok, not really - but if they were going to test a system, this is what it would look like.
In his late 30s, Steyer had "a revelation" and began an involvement in the Episcopal Church, the religion of his mother (his father was a non-practicing Jew). He has stated that during this time he became much more interested in religion and theology. This new interest reportedly galvanized his political advocacy.
nope.
next.
nope.
next.
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
if you're unclear about something that i've said or done, please go ahead and ask me questions about it. understand that i'm an unusually honest person that has been surrounded by incredibly dishonest people for the last several years and the filters that you've been receiving information from are simply not good sources of information. so, please ask me directly before you jump to conclusions, and realize the following point: i would take the position that if you're not going to even bother asking me for my side of the story, then your opinion is not valuable enough to be worth concerning myself with.
Monday, July 8, 2019
this article is illuminating in it's citations - and it's clarity in debunking many of the points used on both sides of the debate.
this could be an empirical question, but we'll likely never have any actual useful data until we try the experiment in real time, and, even so you're looking at shifting conditions. being an empiricist also means understanding the limits of the tactic.
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3839
this could be an empirical question, but we'll likely never have any actual useful data until we try the experiment in real time, and, even so you're looking at shifting conditions. being an empiricist also means understanding the limits of the tactic.
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3839
if you're really ra-ra about prostitution, and absolutely convinced that it's just a job and should be completely legalized, you're really expressing an ancap position and should be looking into a libertarian kind of party.
and, it's actually kind of obvious, even if the lines are pretty blurred. what you're arguing for is more capitalism, not less of it.
and, it's actually kind of obvious, even if the lines are pretty blurred. what you're arguing for is more capitalism, not less of it.
something frequently brought up in these articles is the idea that pushing sex work underground makes it less safe, but nobody ever presents any kind of reference to any kind of study when they say it. it's just assumed. i'm willing to challenge the truth of this claim, and even suggest that it's a bit reactionary, in the sense that it's ignoring basic market forces - something that marx or proudhon would not have done.
i would suppose that the argument, never really stated, would be that women are less safe if they're less policed. why are socialists parroting this claim?
i might rather suggest that when you decrease the supply of something while maintaining the demand relatively stable, the price goes up, and, as such, the bargaining power of the seller increases. a purely market-based argument would be that driving prostitution underground would make people more safe, and not less safe, as it would give the seller more control over the buyer. the counter argument would be that the buyer will react with violence, but i'm not sure this is well thought through; if they're going to react with violence when the price is x amount, why wouldn't they when the price is however much less? why is violence dependent on cost? and, if you're rather arguing that it's the lack of visibility that leads to violence, i might rather make the opposite point - driving the transaction underground makes it harder for violent people to find the sellers, and easier for a community to snub people it wants to avoid. a small industry advertised via word of mouth is no doubt far safer than one advertised to anybody and everybody in magazines or on the internet.
this issue aside, this is another prominent socialist journal explaining a kind of basic socialist position on prostitution: if there would be any prostitution in a truly free society at all, it would be very minimal, and the focus should consequently be on providing women with better choices, rather than normalizing what is probably the shittiest one.
http://isj.org.uk/the-sex-work-debate/
i would suppose that the argument, never really stated, would be that women are less safe if they're less policed. why are socialists parroting this claim?
i might rather suggest that when you decrease the supply of something while maintaining the demand relatively stable, the price goes up, and, as such, the bargaining power of the seller increases. a purely market-based argument would be that driving prostitution underground would make people more safe, and not less safe, as it would give the seller more control over the buyer. the counter argument would be that the buyer will react with violence, but i'm not sure this is well thought through; if they're going to react with violence when the price is x amount, why wouldn't they when the price is however much less? why is violence dependent on cost? and, if you're rather arguing that it's the lack of visibility that leads to violence, i might rather make the opposite point - driving the transaction underground makes it harder for violent people to find the sellers, and easier for a community to snub people it wants to avoid. a small industry advertised via word of mouth is no doubt far safer than one advertised to anybody and everybody in magazines or on the internet.
this issue aside, this is another prominent socialist journal explaining a kind of basic socialist position on prostitution: if there would be any prostitution in a truly free society at all, it would be very minimal, and the focus should consequently be on providing women with better choices, rather than normalizing what is probably the shittiest one.
http://isj.org.uk/the-sex-work-debate/
so, what do i want to hear from socialists - not ancaps and not "progressives" - regarding the issue of prostitution?
- decriminalization, but not legalization. don't send people to jail for this, whether it's consensual or not, but try and keep it underground, to keep the economic power in the hand of the sellers. this would functionally legalize independent sellers, while maintaining a strong and vigorously enforced prohibition on things like brothels, escort agencies and other corporate-driven prostitution models. that is, keep the means of production in the hands of the workers, themselves.
- this is important enough to state again: any attempt to corporatize prostitution should be aggressively opposed by anybody calling themselves a socialist.
- more funding for women in at-risk populations. this would include things like increasing access to healthcare, increasing access to education, increasing access to addictions services, more community housing and also increases in social assistance, like welfare.
- more of a focus on teaching men to treat women like people rather than products, and not to see sex as a meaningless high to buy on a market.
- i would also support aggressive action against sex trafficking, which includes aggressive action against pimps, escort agencies and other services that reduce prostitutes to salaried employees. if you're asking me if there's a difference between sex work and sex trafficking, i'd clearly state that the lines are pretty blurry.
once all of this is in place, if women still want to sell, that's up to them.
- decriminalization, but not legalization. don't send people to jail for this, whether it's consensual or not, but try and keep it underground, to keep the economic power in the hand of the sellers. this would functionally legalize independent sellers, while maintaining a strong and vigorously enforced prohibition on things like brothels, escort agencies and other corporate-driven prostitution models. that is, keep the means of production in the hands of the workers, themselves.
- this is important enough to state again: any attempt to corporatize prostitution should be aggressively opposed by anybody calling themselves a socialist.
- more funding for women in at-risk populations. this would include things like increasing access to healthcare, increasing access to education, increasing access to addictions services, more community housing and also increases in social assistance, like welfare.
- more of a focus on teaching men to treat women like people rather than products, and not to see sex as a meaningless high to buy on a market.
- i would also support aggressive action against sex trafficking, which includes aggressive action against pimps, escort agencies and other services that reduce prostitutes to salaried employees. if you're asking me if there's a difference between sex work and sex trafficking, i'd clearly state that the lines are pretty blurry.
once all of this is in place, if women still want to sell, that's up to them.
a lot of the sympathy in the general population around prostitutes' rights is based on the idea that it's an act of desperation - that you shouldn't punish people for trying to survive in such a harshly competitive, capitalist reality. you gotta do what you gotta do; blame the system, not the girl. ok.
but, this argument is taking a different position - it's not arguing that they can't find another job, or that the landlord isn't going to wait for the interview process to complete or that their kids' diabetes can't wait until the end of the month for the insulin shot. what they're saying is "i don't want to do something else. i want to do this. you're infringing on my rights to do what i want.".
well, that's a different perspective; this is not an argument from desperation, it's an argument from entitlement, and it's consequently very different in scope.
i don't think that there should be criminal charges attached to consensual prostitution; it's a reality i can't fathom, but we shouldn't criminalize consensual sex, if it's really consensual. but, i'm actually closer to bernie's position on this than i am to the pro-market, right-libertarian position that's recently creeped into the "progressive" "left": it's far more important to combat trafficking than it is to facilitate sex work as a profession, and if people that choose prostitution out of their own free will get caught up in laws designed to combat trafficking then that's not something i'm going to concern myself too much about.
if these people have specific amendments that can make their lives easier without reversing the general thrust of the bill, they should bring them forward. but, they shouldn't think they're the most important thing, here - because they're not.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjpqvz/fosta-sesta-sex-work-and-trafficking
but, this argument is taking a different position - it's not arguing that they can't find another job, or that the landlord isn't going to wait for the interview process to complete or that their kids' diabetes can't wait until the end of the month for the insulin shot. what they're saying is "i don't want to do something else. i want to do this. you're infringing on my rights to do what i want.".
well, that's a different perspective; this is not an argument from desperation, it's an argument from entitlement, and it's consequently very different in scope.
i don't think that there should be criminal charges attached to consensual prostitution; it's a reality i can't fathom, but we shouldn't criminalize consensual sex, if it's really consensual. but, i'm actually closer to bernie's position on this than i am to the pro-market, right-libertarian position that's recently creeped into the "progressive" "left": it's far more important to combat trafficking than it is to facilitate sex work as a profession, and if people that choose prostitution out of their own free will get caught up in laws designed to combat trafficking then that's not something i'm going to concern myself too much about.
if these people have specific amendments that can make their lives easier without reversing the general thrust of the bill, they should bring them forward. but, they shouldn't think they're the most important thing, here - because they're not.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjpqvz/fosta-sesta-sex-work-and-trafficking
if your primary focus on the border right now is in increasing funding for the private prison system, what are you actually supporting? and, if your primary concern is reducing the amount of spending, what are you actually doing?
don't misunderstand me - i think a good faith application of the court order to advance the best interests of the child means that you have to feed them, as you're quickly moving to place them into foster care. the whole point of the argument i'm making is to advance the best interests of the child. it's even the actual name of the legal doctrine at work, which nobody seems to want you to know about. but, that doesn't reduce to increasing funding for the prison-industrial complex - it rather necessitates an attack on the foundations of the system, itself.
and, this is the thing about "progressives" - they consistently dress up these right-wing, status quo policies in this humanitarian language, to essentially trick you into advancing a corporatist agenda. and, they are taking incredible advantage of social media, and your naivete, in order to do this, right now.
don't misunderstand me - i think a good faith application of the court order to advance the best interests of the child means that you have to feed them, as you're quickly moving to place them into foster care. the whole point of the argument i'm making is to advance the best interests of the child. it's even the actual name of the legal doctrine at work, which nobody seems to want you to know about. but, that doesn't reduce to increasing funding for the prison-industrial complex - it rather necessitates an attack on the foundations of the system, itself.
and, this is the thing about "progressives" - they consistently dress up these right-wing, status quo policies in this humanitarian language, to essentially trick you into advancing a corporatist agenda. and, they are taking incredible advantage of social media, and your naivete, in order to do this, right now.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
it's funny.
one of the things that the doctor i saw on thursday wanted to stress was that any kind of operation is going to result in me spending a lot of time alone, as though i don't already spend a lot of time alone, and as though i wouldn't rather spend most of my time alone. i'm a real deal introvert - not the kind of phony introvert that thinks it's cool to come off as introspective at parties, but the kind of person that legitimately needs very serious alone time, and a lot of it.
and, i understand that she wasn't just trying to scare me. she was trying to level with me - i know this is something that exists in the literature, and i understand that trans people have high suicide rates, partly for this reason. a bad transition is often times a life-ending mistake, both figuratively and literally. i get it.
but, i've been on hormones for years and years, now. i took a long time to make this choice, and i'm pretty confident in it.
regardless, that's actually not my experience. i get pursued by both sexes, at various levels of intensity. that night at the bathtub pub ended with me dragging a guy halfways down woodward, because he had his hands all over my ass and didn't get that i was walking away. he followed me out because i was "the hottest girl in the bar" - which was full of prostitutes. strippers, i think, actually. frankly, it's a good thing i had an inch or two on him (and i don't wear heels) and was able to just plow through him. and, even the people that have given me shit are only telling you half the story. i'm pretty sure that one of the guys that was giving me shit on my works review tried to give me an open mouth kiss on the floor - a bold move that fell totally flat as i walked off, and could easily be the cause of some scorn. and, i think that that guy gary something may have been the person that followed me from the red bull to menjo's in mid-2017, told me stories about jamming with david bowie (does he tell that to all of the girls?) and then got pissy about me not wanting to fuck him. i don't, personally, have any trouble getting the attention of men, and i'm quite certain that i'd be having a lot of sex if i actually had any interest in it. a full transition would help with my sex life, not hinder it.
examples of statements said to me tonight by men:
"god, you're fucking hot. i'm so high. can you stay here and help me with my phone?"
which is maybe the lamest excuse of all time to get somebody to stand by you, but whatever. i accepted the compliment.
"my little brother transitioned, so i've spent a lot of time with transwomen, and you're really hot. it's too bad your voice gives you away, because i'd otherwise be trying to fuck you right now."
and i actually don't mind this kind of thing. i don't like being groped - at all - but i actually like the compliments and awkward sexual innuendo, to an extent.
in fact, i actually have minimal experiences with men grabbing me. it's the women that seem to think they have some kind of entitlement, and i want to draw some attention to it because it's becoming normal.
i'm still trying to figure it out, but i've come to expect that i'm going to get mauled or molested by at least one cis-woman pretty much every time i go dancing. sometimes it's subtle. there's this blonde girl that likes to sneak up behind me and adjust the straps on my tank top, and has actually been doing it now for years. i'm not sure what the point is, but it's harmless, and what do i do besides stay still and let her do it? and she always runs off after. i got lunged at at the xiu xiu show by somebody that had been brought there by her boyfriend, who was standing beside her (overheard a few minutes later: so, what are you doing tonight?). a few weeks ago, i got kind of mom-smothered, complete with a smooch. these are selected stories, it's not comprehensive. and, tonight somebody decided to walk up to me and sweep the hair away from my face, in a manner that was either checking for a wig or extensions (nope. it's my hair. all of it.) or getting ready to dive in on me. i'll never know, because her friend literally grabbed her and pulled her away, in apparent concern at about what was going to happen next. i don't know if she was drunk, or maybe on something a little more touchy-feely. it's a weak excuse, either way.
however you want to gender me, and i'm clear about how i gender myself, a certain subset of ciswomen seem to actually like what i've done with myself quite a bit.
but, it's making me understand that patriarchy is a hierarchy, and i'm at the absolute lowest rung of it. there's a concept of entitlement there, there really is.
as distant and aloof as i am, i don't rule out making out with people a priori. it's just that i'm kind of shy and like to move a little slower. like, maybe i might want to know your name and have a conversation with you, first, to start off with. people nowadays are just incredibly forwards, and being at the bottom of the hierarchy means i get the kind of physical advances from women that women don't like to get from men - and that they don't seem to even realize what they're actually doing.
let it be known: i clearly like to dance, and dancing is a good way to approach me. but, like, don't ask to dance with me, because then i think you want me to hold your hand and spin you around like a princess or something, and i'm not going to do that. don't get me wrong: i'm a stickler for consent. but, it's funny that you think you have to ask to dance, but don't think you have to ask to grope me. if you want to dance with me, just dance with me. and then come talk to me after.
i missed the ferndale show because customs was slow, and i spent the rest of the night in the diner because i couldn't find a late show. but, the fun part of the night was fun, even if i'm still trying to figure this out - even if we're maybe all still trying to figure this out.
one of the things that the doctor i saw on thursday wanted to stress was that any kind of operation is going to result in me spending a lot of time alone, as though i don't already spend a lot of time alone, and as though i wouldn't rather spend most of my time alone. i'm a real deal introvert - not the kind of phony introvert that thinks it's cool to come off as introspective at parties, but the kind of person that legitimately needs very serious alone time, and a lot of it.
and, i understand that she wasn't just trying to scare me. she was trying to level with me - i know this is something that exists in the literature, and i understand that trans people have high suicide rates, partly for this reason. a bad transition is often times a life-ending mistake, both figuratively and literally. i get it.
but, i've been on hormones for years and years, now. i took a long time to make this choice, and i'm pretty confident in it.
regardless, that's actually not my experience. i get pursued by both sexes, at various levels of intensity. that night at the bathtub pub ended with me dragging a guy halfways down woodward, because he had his hands all over my ass and didn't get that i was walking away. he followed me out because i was "the hottest girl in the bar" - which was full of prostitutes. strippers, i think, actually. frankly, it's a good thing i had an inch or two on him (and i don't wear heels) and was able to just plow through him. and, even the people that have given me shit are only telling you half the story. i'm pretty sure that one of the guys that was giving me shit on my works review tried to give me an open mouth kiss on the floor - a bold move that fell totally flat as i walked off, and could easily be the cause of some scorn. and, i think that that guy gary something may have been the person that followed me from the red bull to menjo's in mid-2017, told me stories about jamming with david bowie (does he tell that to all of the girls?) and then got pissy about me not wanting to fuck him. i don't, personally, have any trouble getting the attention of men, and i'm quite certain that i'd be having a lot of sex if i actually had any interest in it. a full transition would help with my sex life, not hinder it.
examples of statements said to me tonight by men:
"god, you're fucking hot. i'm so high. can you stay here and help me with my phone?"
which is maybe the lamest excuse of all time to get somebody to stand by you, but whatever. i accepted the compliment.
"my little brother transitioned, so i've spent a lot of time with transwomen, and you're really hot. it's too bad your voice gives you away, because i'd otherwise be trying to fuck you right now."
and i actually don't mind this kind of thing. i don't like being groped - at all - but i actually like the compliments and awkward sexual innuendo, to an extent.
in fact, i actually have minimal experiences with men grabbing me. it's the women that seem to think they have some kind of entitlement, and i want to draw some attention to it because it's becoming normal.
i'm still trying to figure it out, but i've come to expect that i'm going to get mauled or molested by at least one cis-woman pretty much every time i go dancing. sometimes it's subtle. there's this blonde girl that likes to sneak up behind me and adjust the straps on my tank top, and has actually been doing it now for years. i'm not sure what the point is, but it's harmless, and what do i do besides stay still and let her do it? and she always runs off after. i got lunged at at the xiu xiu show by somebody that had been brought there by her boyfriend, who was standing beside her (overheard a few minutes later: so, what are you doing tonight?). a few weeks ago, i got kind of mom-smothered, complete with a smooch. these are selected stories, it's not comprehensive. and, tonight somebody decided to walk up to me and sweep the hair away from my face, in a manner that was either checking for a wig or extensions (nope. it's my hair. all of it.) or getting ready to dive in on me. i'll never know, because her friend literally grabbed her and pulled her away, in apparent concern at about what was going to happen next. i don't know if she was drunk, or maybe on something a little more touchy-feely. it's a weak excuse, either way.
however you want to gender me, and i'm clear about how i gender myself, a certain subset of ciswomen seem to actually like what i've done with myself quite a bit.
but, it's making me understand that patriarchy is a hierarchy, and i'm at the absolute lowest rung of it. there's a concept of entitlement there, there really is.
as distant and aloof as i am, i don't rule out making out with people a priori. it's just that i'm kind of shy and like to move a little slower. like, maybe i might want to know your name and have a conversation with you, first, to start off with. people nowadays are just incredibly forwards, and being at the bottom of the hierarchy means i get the kind of physical advances from women that women don't like to get from men - and that they don't seem to even realize what they're actually doing.
let it be known: i clearly like to dance, and dancing is a good way to approach me. but, like, don't ask to dance with me, because then i think you want me to hold your hand and spin you around like a princess or something, and i'm not going to do that. don't get me wrong: i'm a stickler for consent. but, it's funny that you think you have to ask to dance, but don't think you have to ask to grope me. if you want to dance with me, just dance with me. and then come talk to me after.
i missed the ferndale show because customs was slow, and i spent the rest of the night in the diner because i couldn't find a late show. but, the fun part of the night was fun, even if i'm still trying to figure this out - even if we're maybe all still trying to figure this out.
Saturday, July 6, 2019
it's looking like the rain's not moving out of here until after 20:00, and i'm going to end up missing the early show.
that means i'm looking at catching the 21:00 or 21:30 bus over, and getting to ferndale for the last band. i might catch the one before it. and, then i'll need to bike back, and potentially in the rain....
this is a local act; in fact, i missed them at pj's last week, too. this night isn't making sense for me, at this point. i guess i'll have to hope i catch them again soon....
i was initially considering a show at villain's in windsor, but on closer perusal, it's not that interesting.
tomorrow's flat out dead.
so, we're writing off this weekend, and i actually saw that coming. it's a shame, because i like the humidity, but i don't like the rain; i feel like i'm wasting the weather, after such an awful winter. and, while next weekend may also be a little slow, the week after looks solid. let's hope it stays nice and hot while the show schedule catches up.
that means i'm looking at catching the 21:00 or 21:30 bus over, and getting to ferndale for the last band. i might catch the one before it. and, then i'll need to bike back, and potentially in the rain....
this is a local act; in fact, i missed them at pj's last week, too. this night isn't making sense for me, at this point. i guess i'll have to hope i catch them again soon....
i was initially considering a show at villain's in windsor, but on closer perusal, it's not that interesting.
tomorrow's flat out dead.
so, we're writing off this weekend, and i actually saw that coming. it's a shame, because i like the humidity, but i don't like the rain; i feel like i'm wasting the weather, after such an awful winter. and, while next weekend may also be a little slow, the week after looks solid. let's hope it stays nice and hot while the show schedule catches up.
and, is the night life safe in detroit or not?
the truth is that it's a dumb question that is essentially built on the premise of slut shaming. if your primary concern is sexual assault, you can't ask the question of whether somewhere is safe or not - it doesn't work like that. it doesn't matter what she's wearing, it doesn't matter what time of day it is, it doesn't matter if she was by herself, and it doesn't matter if the bar had security - and when i say it doesn't matter, what i mean is statistically, in terms of trying to predict patterns of prevention. the fact is that sexual assault is generally an act of control, and it's not usually a stranger at a bar but rather somebody you've known for years and deeply trust.
so, i'm not falling for this. i'm not answering this question. i'm not proposing these kinds of solutions. the science is crystal clear on this topic: there is only one way to prevent assault, and it's to teach men to stop doing it.
so, you're not safer in a bar with high security in a nice neighbourhood. you might feel safer, but it's a mental trick, and really a reflection of your own prejudices.
the correct answer is that detroit is as safe or unsafe as anywhere else.
i've now been here for a few years and been to a lot of venues and i've only ever really been bothered in a substantive way at one place, and that was the bathtub pub right downtown. i didn't realize it at the time, but there was a prostitution ring operating out of the space. that's been closed for a while.
the truth is that it's a dumb question that is essentially built on the premise of slut shaming. if your primary concern is sexual assault, you can't ask the question of whether somewhere is safe or not - it doesn't work like that. it doesn't matter what she's wearing, it doesn't matter what time of day it is, it doesn't matter if she was by herself, and it doesn't matter if the bar had security - and when i say it doesn't matter, what i mean is statistically, in terms of trying to predict patterns of prevention. the fact is that sexual assault is generally an act of control, and it's not usually a stranger at a bar but rather somebody you've known for years and deeply trust.
so, i'm not falling for this. i'm not answering this question. i'm not proposing these kinds of solutions. the science is crystal clear on this topic: there is only one way to prevent assault, and it's to teach men to stop doing it.
so, you're not safer in a bar with high security in a nice neighbourhood. you might feel safer, but it's a mental trick, and really a reflection of your own prejudices.
the correct answer is that detroit is as safe or unsafe as anywhere else.
i've now been here for a few years and been to a lot of venues and i've only ever really been bothered in a substantive way at one place, and that was the bathtub pub right downtown. i didn't realize it at the time, but there was a prostitution ring operating out of the space. that's been closed for a while.
on second thought, tonight seems kind of pointless, too. i really projected on the quality of the potential shows.
i could potentially hobble something together by hitting the sanctuary early and the loving touch late, but that is actually a lot of biking and then i'm back to drinking in the park from like 4:00-8:00 or something, which is a good enough time once or twice for the year, but i kind of want to save it for something else. if there's even anyone there, which is not guaranteed. this is actually probably going to come down to whether i want to go for a bike ride tonight or not....it at least looks like a beautiful night for it....
either the late night shows are especially underground this weekend or nobody wants to do one because there's lots of options for the rest of the summer opening up next week and nothing at all this week, as far as i can tell. there's been big shows at marble until 3:00 every night, though. it just seems like a lull. legit.
but, if i'm going anywhere tonight, it's to the loving touch, meaning i won't get back into the downtown core until at least 1:30. i guess i could try to hit last call at goth club. if i'm lucky. it's a stretch.
we'll see how i feel in a few hours.
i have made massive progress in paring down that list either way and should have the rest of the month planned out in the next few days, regardless.
i could potentially hobble something together by hitting the sanctuary early and the loving touch late, but that is actually a lot of biking and then i'm back to drinking in the park from like 4:00-8:00 or something, which is a good enough time once or twice for the year, but i kind of want to save it for something else. if there's even anyone there, which is not guaranteed. this is actually probably going to come down to whether i want to go for a bike ride tonight or not....it at least looks like a beautiful night for it....
either the late night shows are especially underground this weekend or nobody wants to do one because there's lots of options for the rest of the summer opening up next week and nothing at all this week, as far as i can tell. there's been big shows at marble until 3:00 every night, though. it just seems like a lull. legit.
but, if i'm going anywhere tonight, it's to the loving touch, meaning i won't get back into the downtown core until at least 1:30. i guess i could try to hit last call at goth club. if i'm lucky. it's a stretch.
we'll see how i feel in a few hours.
i have made massive progress in paring down that list either way and should have the rest of the month planned out in the next few days, regardless.
Friday, July 5, 2019
and, what i'm saying is not merely a leftist diatribe.
it is actually a historical fact, that historians across the spectrum will agree to, if they've actually taken the time to look into it.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17505/police_and_poor_people
it is actually a historical fact, that historians across the spectrum will agree to, if they've actually taken the time to look into it.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17505/police_and_poor_people
i also need to point something else out, as the situation unfolds, and i become more cognizant about it.
you may be hearing people say shit about me. maybe you already have. maybe you will in the future.
treat that as a litmus test: these people are undercover pigs. and, maybe you trust them...but, maybe you shouldn't.
and, i'm starting to figure out who they are.
i will reiterate: i'm harmless. i take heavy testosterone suppressors, and am actually in the process of getting my testicles removed, so any concerns about my motives are absurd and transphobic. i have no history of violence, no criminal record and actually have advanced clearance at the border. it is true that i was recently targeted by the transphobic windsor police, but i have no pending charges, i'm not under investigation, and the lawsuit i've been talking about to hold them accountable for a false arrest should be off the ground by mid august at the latest, and probably sooner. i expect a large settlement for the suffering i went through as a consequence of their open discrimination against me.
but, as it was with occupy, i'm going to stay quiet and just point it out. i don't want to get into a conflict with a pig, so i'm just going to take a mental note and an effort to steer clear.
but, what are some signs that somebody is an undercover pig?
1) in activist circles, the biggest telltale sign that you're dealing with a pig is agitation. if you're ever at an activist meeting of any sort, and somebody starts talking about making bombs or resisting violently, then that person is almost certainly a pig. we call them agents provocateurs and what they're doing is trying to entrap you. and, they're sneaky: when i was organizing with food not bombs in ottawa, i had one pig try to convince me to smash up a bar owner's car, because they were accused of sexual assault.
2) the general purpose of an undercover pig is to sow division. what they're trying to do is identify people like me that are some kind of ideological threat to the system - and when i say i'm harmless, i mean i'm harmless to you. i'm not harmless to them. they have good reason to fear me, because my deconstruction of their system is powerful, and subversive. - and turn the mass of people against them. so, with me, they're activating the crude, transphobic fears that the system pushes down from the top in order to try and scare you away from me. i'm happy to report that it isn't actually working, or at least not in the circles that i actually care about, but that's not going to stop them from continuing to do it. when you meet people that are trying to pit one group against another, or trying to single out a specific individual and attack them, that is a telltale sign that the person is an undercover pig.
if you meet an undercover pig that is trying to incite you to do something, entrap you in some way or turn you against something or someone, don't confront them. that doesn't help. you don't actually want the undercover pig to know that you know, because then you get on their list. you might imagine that it's a process of identifying them and running them out, but it doesn't actually work like that. rather, we all collectively need to be wise to them and who they are (and there's my anarchism, again) and work very subtly to undo what they're doing.
so, when you have an undercover pig trying to sow division and dischord, which is essentially fud, one of the best things to do is assert logic. is there evidence for the claim? no, listen - this is important, because the undercover pigs assume you won't do that. they assume they can just make shit up, and that you're too stupid to ask questions. the best antidote for divide and conquer is the reassertion of logic. even when you're drunk. always.
and, if the undercover pig is trying to incite or entrap you then you should get up and get out as fast as possible.
as mentioned, i actually don't think that anything that is being done is having any substantive effect. but, i'm becoming more and more aware that it's actually being done, and this is my official reaction: to know how to identify a pig when they're standing in front of you, and to be clear that this is what is actually happening.
you may be hearing people say shit about me. maybe you already have. maybe you will in the future.
treat that as a litmus test: these people are undercover pigs. and, maybe you trust them...but, maybe you shouldn't.
and, i'm starting to figure out who they are.
i will reiterate: i'm harmless. i take heavy testosterone suppressors, and am actually in the process of getting my testicles removed, so any concerns about my motives are absurd and transphobic. i have no history of violence, no criminal record and actually have advanced clearance at the border. it is true that i was recently targeted by the transphobic windsor police, but i have no pending charges, i'm not under investigation, and the lawsuit i've been talking about to hold them accountable for a false arrest should be off the ground by mid august at the latest, and probably sooner. i expect a large settlement for the suffering i went through as a consequence of their open discrimination against me.
but, as it was with occupy, i'm going to stay quiet and just point it out. i don't want to get into a conflict with a pig, so i'm just going to take a mental note and an effort to steer clear.
but, what are some signs that somebody is an undercover pig?
1) in activist circles, the biggest telltale sign that you're dealing with a pig is agitation. if you're ever at an activist meeting of any sort, and somebody starts talking about making bombs or resisting violently, then that person is almost certainly a pig. we call them agents provocateurs and what they're doing is trying to entrap you. and, they're sneaky: when i was organizing with food not bombs in ottawa, i had one pig try to convince me to smash up a bar owner's car, because they were accused of sexual assault.
2) the general purpose of an undercover pig is to sow division. what they're trying to do is identify people like me that are some kind of ideological threat to the system - and when i say i'm harmless, i mean i'm harmless to you. i'm not harmless to them. they have good reason to fear me, because my deconstruction of their system is powerful, and subversive. - and turn the mass of people against them. so, with me, they're activating the crude, transphobic fears that the system pushes down from the top in order to try and scare you away from me. i'm happy to report that it isn't actually working, or at least not in the circles that i actually care about, but that's not going to stop them from continuing to do it. when you meet people that are trying to pit one group against another, or trying to single out a specific individual and attack them, that is a telltale sign that the person is an undercover pig.
if you meet an undercover pig that is trying to incite you to do something, entrap you in some way or turn you against something or someone, don't confront them. that doesn't help. you don't actually want the undercover pig to know that you know, because then you get on their list. you might imagine that it's a process of identifying them and running them out, but it doesn't actually work like that. rather, we all collectively need to be wise to them and who they are (and there's my anarchism, again) and work very subtly to undo what they're doing.
so, when you have an undercover pig trying to sow division and dischord, which is essentially fud, one of the best things to do is assert logic. is there evidence for the claim? no, listen - this is important, because the undercover pigs assume you won't do that. they assume they can just make shit up, and that you're too stupid to ask questions. the best antidote for divide and conquer is the reassertion of logic. even when you're drunk. always.
and, if the undercover pig is trying to incite or entrap you then you should get up and get out as fast as possible.
as mentioned, i actually don't think that anything that is being done is having any substantive effect. but, i'm becoming more and more aware that it's actually being done, and this is my official reaction: to know how to identify a pig when they're standing in front of you, and to be clear that this is what is actually happening.
i just want to clarify what i said about mocad earlier, because we're increasingly living in a culture where we think it's ok to attack things for being different than us, and to a large extent that's actually what i'm trying to avoid.
so, i don't really like what's happening at mocad tonight: i think it's crude and greedy and bourgeois and pretty gross. this is apparently a part of a series that is going to feature foreign djs right in downtown detroit with inflated covers, over-policed spaces, over-priced drinks (no doubt) and gentrifying audiences, shut down before midnight. that's something i'd like to avoid, and i'd even use the word boycott. but, if i don't like it, and i don't want to be near it, does that mean i want to shut it down?
actually, i think it probably serves a purpose. and, i mentioned this in a previous post: let them have their own space. that is, if what they want is a place full of cops that caters to a more wealthy crowd that is afraid of poor people and their habits, then let them have it - and tell them to stay out of the dive bars, and to take the cops with them when they leave. because this is the exact opposite of what i want....
what i want is places in out of the way spaces - houses, warehouses, parks, etc - where the crowd mostly polices itself and the drinks are cheap, or brought by the patrons themselves.
because i'm an anarchist. and you're not.
so, if the kind of thing that mocad is doing tonight has the effect of keeping the kind of people that will go to a dive bar in an out of the way neighbourhood and complain that they don't feel safe out of those dive bars in out of the way neighbourhoods and in more wealthy neighbourhoods where they feel safer, then that is good for everybody. let them have their upper class spaces in the gentrifying zones; and let me have my lower class ones outside of them.
deal?
so, i don't really like what's happening at mocad tonight: i think it's crude and greedy and bourgeois and pretty gross. this is apparently a part of a series that is going to feature foreign djs right in downtown detroit with inflated covers, over-policed spaces, over-priced drinks (no doubt) and gentrifying audiences, shut down before midnight. that's something i'd like to avoid, and i'd even use the word boycott. but, if i don't like it, and i don't want to be near it, does that mean i want to shut it down?
actually, i think it probably serves a purpose. and, i mentioned this in a previous post: let them have their own space. that is, if what they want is a place full of cops that caters to a more wealthy crowd that is afraid of poor people and their habits, then let them have it - and tell them to stay out of the dive bars, and to take the cops with them when they leave. because this is the exact opposite of what i want....
what i want is places in out of the way spaces - houses, warehouses, parks, etc - where the crowd mostly polices itself and the drinks are cheap, or brought by the patrons themselves.
because i'm an anarchist. and you're not.
so, if the kind of thing that mocad is doing tonight has the effect of keeping the kind of people that will go to a dive bar in an out of the way neighbourhood and complain that they don't feel safe out of those dive bars in out of the way neighbourhoods and in more wealthy neighbourhoods where they feel safer, then that is good for everybody. let them have their upper class spaces in the gentrifying zones; and let me have my lower class ones outside of them.
deal?
they downgraded the 60% pop to 40% pop, but i usually rely more on the radar. it's more a question of where it's going to rain than if it's going to rain. it seems like the path shifted south, so the rain is coming through windsor rather than hamtramck.
what i'm missing is some potentially interesting noise in a basement, and a lengthy process of drinking while wasting time waiting for the bus, first at a dive bar and then in a park.
the thing is that i enjoy all of these things. but it's not like it's singular or anything. you could make the argument that i'm saving money, but i'd counter that i'm saving it to waste on something else, and it's actually not that much of a concern to me just right now.
i think tomorrow looks like a better night all around, though.
what i'm missing is some potentially interesting noise in a basement, and a lengthy process of drinking while wasting time waiting for the bus, first at a dive bar and then in a park.
the thing is that i enjoy all of these things. but it's not like it's singular or anything. you could make the argument that i'm saving money, but i'd counter that i'm saving it to waste on something else, and it's actually not that much of a concern to me just right now.
i think tomorrow looks like a better night all around, though.
.......annnnd there's actually a flood advisory and major thunderstorm warning in hamtramck overnight. it's directly in the path of the system.
i had to really stretch to squeeze a night out of this, pulling together an experimental basement show, a sparsely attended techno night and an outdoor park party. if the weather's nice, it'll be great. if it's raining, it won't be.
my intuition is to stay in entirely.
i had to really stretch to squeeze a night out of this, pulling together an experimental basement show, a sparsely attended techno night and an outdoor park party. if the weather's nice, it'll be great. if it's raining, it won't be.
my intuition is to stay in entirely.
yeah, i'm not doing bonobo. it's...
it's really overly co-modified. and, i'm not a detroit techno purist; i prefer idm from the uk. but, they're bringing in this kind of middling white instrumental hip-hop artist, setting the show up at 6:00 pm and shutting him down before midnight. for the not so low price of $25.
so, come to detroit and celebrate your independence by listening to a white brit appropriate your own music and sell it back to you for twice the price, in the complete wrong context? and, then you have to deal with the tight-ass security at the mocad, too. it's a bad deal. and, it's in some sense the new detroit: this is gentrification, and a lot of people aren't going to know any better.
if you're around, just go to marble, instead - they're open late, and in a very real way it's literally the exact place that a lot of this stuff actually developed out of.
i may show up there very late, but i'm doing something else entirely, if the weather co-operates. but, it's obscure. in fact, it's somebody's house, so, i'm going to avoid details until after the fact. it's one thing to invite you all to a bar; it's another to invite you to a house show.
it's really overly co-modified. and, i'm not a detroit techno purist; i prefer idm from the uk. but, they're bringing in this kind of middling white instrumental hip-hop artist, setting the show up at 6:00 pm and shutting him down before midnight. for the not so low price of $25.
so, come to detroit and celebrate your independence by listening to a white brit appropriate your own music and sell it back to you for twice the price, in the complete wrong context? and, then you have to deal with the tight-ass security at the mocad, too. it's a bad deal. and, it's in some sense the new detroit: this is gentrification, and a lot of people aren't going to know any better.
if you're around, just go to marble, instead - they're open late, and in a very real way it's literally the exact place that a lot of this stuff actually developed out of.
i may show up there very late, but i'm doing something else entirely, if the weather co-operates. but, it's obscure. in fact, it's somebody's house, so, i'm going to avoid details until after the fact. it's one thing to invite you all to a bar; it's another to invite you to a house show.
it's actually a great night for bad music in detroit.
- snoop dog (lion? bear? dinosaur?) & bones thug 'n' harmony are doing an outdoor set, where all the potheads can enjoy the thunderstorms.
- jennifer lopez is playing the hockey arena
....and vanilla ice is in windsor. seriously. but, i'm not under much pressure to go. not even with both of them looking down on me, now.
this could be a really difficult conundrum for the kind of person of a certain age with absolutely no concept of taste, whatsoever. really.
there's a moderately well known dj, bonobo, spinning tonight, but it's in a weird venue and appears to likely be done before 11:00. it's at least outside, but it seems kind of lame to me to bring somebody in like that and tell them they're done before the bars open - unless there's a late party, and then that makes sense.
goth club is the same problem as always: they close at 4:00, if you're lucky. i need something going until 6:00 or 7:00. although it's friday, actually, so the saturday bus is early...hrmmn...
but, if there's a late party, i may rather go to the noise show at the old miami. i dunno.
or i may just stay in if the weather turns for the worse.i had to scratch a lot of things off to get here, and what's left is by default, and not all that compelling.
- snoop dog (lion? bear? dinosaur?) & bones thug 'n' harmony are doing an outdoor set, where all the potheads can enjoy the thunderstorms.
- jennifer lopez is playing the hockey arena
....and vanilla ice is in windsor. seriously. but, i'm not under much pressure to go. not even with both of them looking down on me, now.
this could be a really difficult conundrum for the kind of person of a certain age with absolutely no concept of taste, whatsoever. really.
there's a moderately well known dj, bonobo, spinning tonight, but it's in a weird venue and appears to likely be done before 11:00. it's at least outside, but it seems kind of lame to me to bring somebody in like that and tell them they're done before the bars open - unless there's a late party, and then that makes sense.
goth club is the same problem as always: they close at 4:00, if you're lucky. i need something going until 6:00 or 7:00. although it's friday, actually, so the saturday bus is early...hrmmn...
but, if there's a late party, i may rather go to the noise show at the old miami. i dunno.
or i may just stay in if the weather turns for the worse.i had to scratch a lot of things off to get here, and what's left is by default, and not all that compelling.
Thursday, July 4, 2019
yeah. i noticed that.
i assumed he really thought we had uteruses (uteri?) sown in or something, and just kind of let it pass. i do hope somebody explained it to him, though.
the other option is more sinister, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt, a priori.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/02/2020-debates-trans-issues-227257
i assumed he really thought we had uteruses (uteri?) sown in or something, and just kind of let it pass. i do hope somebody explained it to him, though.
the other option is more sinister, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt, a priori.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/02/2020-debates-trans-issues-227257
i need to be clear, though.
the only reason i was interested in the primaries last time is that you had a transformational candidate running. i didn't pay that kind of attention to 2012, or any previous democratic primary, or any previous american election.
the obituaries in the papers are ahead of themselves, but sanders is not doing this right and if he keeps along this path, he's going to lose. and, i'm simply not going to have the interest in analyzing a primary between elizabeth warren and joe biden; i have no horse in that race.
i'm not officially signing off, but i'm quickly losing interest.
the only reason i was interested in the primaries last time is that you had a transformational candidate running. i didn't pay that kind of attention to 2012, or any previous democratic primary, or any previous american election.
the obituaries in the papers are ahead of themselves, but sanders is not doing this right and if he keeps along this path, he's going to lose. and, i'm simply not going to have the interest in analyzing a primary between elizabeth warren and joe biden; i have no horse in that race.
i'm not officially signing off, but i'm quickly losing interest.
but, it's going to rain tomorrow.
ugh.
they're all really, really bad, though. at least what's left. they all sound like they couldn't figure out what speed their older brother's cool records were supposed to play at, or something. or maybe grew up listening to their parents trying to jam on fentanyl.
and they're done at like 3:00. then, what?
no, i'm holding out for tomorrow. let's hope it clears up.
ugh.
they're all really, really bad, though. at least what's left. they all sound like they couldn't figure out what speed their older brother's cool records were supposed to play at, or something. or maybe grew up listening to their parents trying to jam on fentanyl.
and they're done at like 3:00. then, what?
no, i'm holding out for tomorrow. let's hope it clears up.
so, i had my follow-up today on the testicle removal procedure (orchidectomy) and they claim they're following through with it. i'll need to wait for a phone call. but, you know that feeling you get when somebody says they'll call and you know they don't actually intend to? i dunno. these are doctors, you'd think they'd be forthright; i could be being paranoid. but, i'm going to have to stay on their ass about it.
i think what i'm waiting for is a call back to schedule an appointment for the surgery in toronto.
speaking of which, i finished my monthly cleaning routine on wednesday morning and, after a sleep, have spent the last roughly 24 hours clearing my event list of toronto concerts for july, as i am more than tentatively planning to go at the end of the month and to make a weekend out of it: i'll go down on a friday, serve in toronto and then file on the monday morning in london. i will check each of these discarded listings out as i'm working through the court documents, but i need to pare the list down to make it actually usable. so, i've been working backwards, and i think i'll be done soon.
i am thoroughly convinced that the oiprd review has been shelved, and that's fine, we'll let the judge deal with that. she won't be happy about it, trust me.
if there was a band playing somewhere tonight, i'd probably want to check it out. but, all i'm seeing are independence day drinking parties, and that's something i'd actually rather avoid. i mean, even if i was actually an american, i'd still want to avoid that. not my scene. sorry.
so, i'll be in tonight and potentially for the weekend - i'm not sure yet. but, the next task will be to get the event list into more of a normal looking shape for the rest of july.
and, what is my takeaway on this? i'm supposed to be trying to figure out where the fun went in this town. my conclusion is that there are still rock shows happening, but that "art rock" as a concept is mostly dead here. i like punk as a political vehicle, but i've never wanted to listen to the kind of barebones rock music that seems to dominate the detroit scene; i'd mostly argue it's pretty boring. the rock music that is organic to this place is midwestern and lower class both in identity and in attitude; it treats sophistication with suspicion and contempt, which was always the worst instincts in the punk scene. but, detroit remains a sprawling metropolis, and it's just a question of finding where the more meaningful outlet of expression lies. i think i'm better off looking in the noise, electronic and experimental scenes for a bit. and, i'm not sure the kind of rock music that i like is going to make much of a comeback, in the long run, although i'll have to keep looking for it. if it does, it won't happen here, and it might even skip here on tour.
so, i hit a "botanical fortress" show last weekend, which was a mix of post-rock, experimental, idm and noise acts. this show lasted late, so i got to the techno party late; it was also kind of lacklustre. there were some moderately interesting early rock shows, and an early trip-hop show, but i missed all of them. i was just late....but i'm usually late....so it wasn't the best night, but i insist it was the best path. i even sort of lost track of time, a little, as i had another trans person talking my head off all night.
the weekend before that, i found myself checking out a keyboard prog act on friday, an ambient show in the park on saturday afternoon, a not-so-doomy rock band called earth, a cyberpunk night and a couple of overnight techno parties.
i saw a noise show the weekend before that. and, if i head out this weekend, it's likely to be to shows of this sort; this is what is happening here right now that is of some actual interest to me, and where you're likely to find me in the short run.
that said, you'll also see me continue to check out touring bands, and these will mostly be more in the 90s rock tradition that i'm most comfortable in.
so, yes, we're in a down point, but it may be structural, and the creative music scene may be permanently shifting away from rock music and towards electronic music. and, how many times have you heard that? so, we'll see how that works out, but it's what i see in front of me just right now.
and, yes, i would be happy to see a more substantive creative/electronic/noise scene open up here. it's what i actually do, remember.
i think what i'm waiting for is a call back to schedule an appointment for the surgery in toronto.
speaking of which, i finished my monthly cleaning routine on wednesday morning and, after a sleep, have spent the last roughly 24 hours clearing my event list of toronto concerts for july, as i am more than tentatively planning to go at the end of the month and to make a weekend out of it: i'll go down on a friday, serve in toronto and then file on the monday morning in london. i will check each of these discarded listings out as i'm working through the court documents, but i need to pare the list down to make it actually usable. so, i've been working backwards, and i think i'll be done soon.
i am thoroughly convinced that the oiprd review has been shelved, and that's fine, we'll let the judge deal with that. she won't be happy about it, trust me.
if there was a band playing somewhere tonight, i'd probably want to check it out. but, all i'm seeing are independence day drinking parties, and that's something i'd actually rather avoid. i mean, even if i was actually an american, i'd still want to avoid that. not my scene. sorry.
so, i'll be in tonight and potentially for the weekend - i'm not sure yet. but, the next task will be to get the event list into more of a normal looking shape for the rest of july.
and, what is my takeaway on this? i'm supposed to be trying to figure out where the fun went in this town. my conclusion is that there are still rock shows happening, but that "art rock" as a concept is mostly dead here. i like punk as a political vehicle, but i've never wanted to listen to the kind of barebones rock music that seems to dominate the detroit scene; i'd mostly argue it's pretty boring. the rock music that is organic to this place is midwestern and lower class both in identity and in attitude; it treats sophistication with suspicion and contempt, which was always the worst instincts in the punk scene. but, detroit remains a sprawling metropolis, and it's just a question of finding where the more meaningful outlet of expression lies. i think i'm better off looking in the noise, electronic and experimental scenes for a bit. and, i'm not sure the kind of rock music that i like is going to make much of a comeback, in the long run, although i'll have to keep looking for it. if it does, it won't happen here, and it might even skip here on tour.
so, i hit a "botanical fortress" show last weekend, which was a mix of post-rock, experimental, idm and noise acts. this show lasted late, so i got to the techno party late; it was also kind of lacklustre. there were some moderately interesting early rock shows, and an early trip-hop show, but i missed all of them. i was just late....but i'm usually late....so it wasn't the best night, but i insist it was the best path. i even sort of lost track of time, a little, as i had another trans person talking my head off all night.
the weekend before that, i found myself checking out a keyboard prog act on friday, an ambient show in the park on saturday afternoon, a not-so-doomy rock band called earth, a cyberpunk night and a couple of overnight techno parties.
i saw a noise show the weekend before that. and, if i head out this weekend, it's likely to be to shows of this sort; this is what is happening here right now that is of some actual interest to me, and where you're likely to find me in the short run.
that said, you'll also see me continue to check out touring bands, and these will mostly be more in the 90s rock tradition that i'm most comfortable in.
so, yes, we're in a down point, but it may be structural, and the creative music scene may be permanently shifting away from rock music and towards electronic music. and, how many times have you heard that? so, we'll see how that works out, but it's what i see in front of me just right now.
and, yes, i would be happy to see a more substantive creative/electronic/noise scene open up here. it's what i actually do, remember.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
i would like to post a periodic reminder that there is a fake deathtokoalas out there. he appears to be a teenager, or young 20-something perhaps by this point, who lives in the city of new york.
the fake deathtokoalas is a gamer and owns, amongst other things, a twitch profile. i played games like civ 2 and command and conquer a little bit when i was his age, or a little younger, but have not touched video games of any sort in well over 20 years. the most advanced game console that i ever owned was a sega genesis that my dad bought me around '93 or so. and, i'm actually pretty ignorant about the topic; it's really not something that i ever had the slightest interest in.
all of my sites are on the right hand side of this blog. i don't have any interest in creating secret sites: i want you to be able to find my writing, which is why i've spent so much time centralizing it like this. so, if it's not in the list, it's not me. promise.
the fake deathtokoalas is a gamer and owns, amongst other things, a twitch profile. i played games like civ 2 and command and conquer a little bit when i was his age, or a little younger, but have not touched video games of any sort in well over 20 years. the most advanced game console that i ever owned was a sega genesis that my dad bought me around '93 or so. and, i'm actually pretty ignorant about the topic; it's really not something that i ever had the slightest interest in.
all of my sites are on the right hand side of this blog. i don't have any interest in creating secret sites: i want you to be able to find my writing, which is why i've spent so much time centralizing it like this. so, if it's not in the list, it's not me. promise.
let's wait this out a little. i still think you have to see a sanders v. everybody dynamic emerge eventually, once the differences in policy are unblurred by a media that is dishonestly blurring them. the question is how big the sanders wing is and how big the everybody else wing is, in the end.
but, i mean, i don't know why you insist on two parties down there, anyways.
but, i mean, i don't know why you insist on two parties down there, anyways.
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
identity politics is a different thing, really - it's the idea that you are not an individual, but a representative of an intersection of physical traits that define your experiences and ideas and feelings. as such, you are best represented by those that have the same intersection of physical traits. the history in critical race theory notwithstanding, i've argued previously that this largely comes out of the statistical reality of trying to analyze variables, and pull patterns out of the data, but it's an inversion of the process into pseudoscience: instead of looking at the data and trying to pull meaningful variables out of it, you start with a set of predetermined variables and then try to force reality into it. so, you're essentially breaking statistics by making it deductive instead of empirical. as you're operating on circular logic, your deductions follow trivially from your assumptions (they were picked for that reason). but, it's easy to see why the marketing people like this.
that's not actually what we're seeing in front of us, though, or at least not in the sense that it actually works.
i'll invite you to do your own research into how elections worked at the beginnings of the modern era, when the vote was extended past the landholding classes and first to white men without property, and then to white women without property (white women with property could always vote.), and then to a wide assortment of other groups that were initially excluded from the process. how did that work?
well, to begin with, you have to understand that the vast majority of these people, these white men without property, were unable to read. they had little understanding of who or what they were voting for, or why it would or would not be in their best interests. so, you had ridiculous things like candidates giving out free beer in exchange for votes, and you had to find ways to direct these people that you were giving free beer to to vote for you, because they couldn't read the names in the list. so, you'd give them detailed instructions: it's the third option from the top and looks like this symbol: (insert name). or, you'd tell them what colour to vote for.
so, while these people did not understand what they were voting for, they were able to participate in the process via a little bit of direction, a little bit of help.
i think what you're seeing in the media's forceful adoption of what people are calling "identity politics" has more to do with low information voters, and is essentially a continuation of this process that you saw in the nineteenth century. instead of instructions and colour codes, the media is trying to operate via identity, but it's not actually about identity so much as it's about training them to do what they're told.
the major flaw in the left's approach for years has been it's insistence on trying to use laws to restrict the power of money in politics, rather than to try and teach critical thinking so people can work it out on their own. and, we've essentially reverted to a more primitive era as a result of it. now, we're stuck scratching our heads wondering why people are so fucking stupid - but we should have seen it coming and tried to reverse it.
that's not actually what we're seeing in front of us, though, or at least not in the sense that it actually works.
i'll invite you to do your own research into how elections worked at the beginnings of the modern era, when the vote was extended past the landholding classes and first to white men without property, and then to white women without property (white women with property could always vote.), and then to a wide assortment of other groups that were initially excluded from the process. how did that work?
well, to begin with, you have to understand that the vast majority of these people, these white men without property, were unable to read. they had little understanding of who or what they were voting for, or why it would or would not be in their best interests. so, you had ridiculous things like candidates giving out free beer in exchange for votes, and you had to find ways to direct these people that you were giving free beer to to vote for you, because they couldn't read the names in the list. so, you'd give them detailed instructions: it's the third option from the top and looks like this symbol: (insert name). or, you'd tell them what colour to vote for.
so, while these people did not understand what they were voting for, they were able to participate in the process via a little bit of direction, a little bit of help.
i think what you're seeing in the media's forceful adoption of what people are calling "identity politics" has more to do with low information voters, and is essentially a continuation of this process that you saw in the nineteenth century. instead of instructions and colour codes, the media is trying to operate via identity, but it's not actually about identity so much as it's about training them to do what they're told.
the major flaw in the left's approach for years has been it's insistence on trying to use laws to restrict the power of money in politics, rather than to try and teach critical thinking so people can work it out on their own. and, we've essentially reverted to a more primitive era as a result of it. now, we're stuck scratching our heads wondering why people are so fucking stupid - but we should have seen it coming and tried to reverse it.
ok, i went through this in 2016 and i'm adamant about actually learning from the process rather than making the same mistakes.
you don't want to pay attention to media polls as a measure of public interest, not even if they have good methodology; there is a conflict of interest at play, and they've been clear enough about what they want. you need to take a gramscian analysis to this: the media is not an unbiased arbiter that has an interest in accurately measuring public opinion, but rather an active participant in the process that goes out of it's way to create public opinion for the purposes of maximizing profit.
and, the media has been clear that it thinks a candidate driven by what it is being called "identity politics" (but is too crude to even be that) will drive ratings. so, it wants a female candidate because it knows that gender rivalry is good for ratings, or it wants a black candidate because it knows that race conflict is good television. it doesn't care about actual policy.
so, i'm standing here saying "you know, a corporatist democrat like harris isn't really that different than trump on most things, may be a little better on some things, and may be a lot worse in a lot of important ways.", whereas the media is saying "sanders and trump are the same candidate because they're both white men, and that's bad for ratings. we need somebody that looks different than trump to maximize ratings."
so, they'll flat out publish fake polls to try and create what they want.
but, there's a caveat: what they do is actually effective on a large number of voters. that is, if the media decides that x candidate won the debate, and broadcasts it for days or weeks, you'll start to see that coverage reflected in real polling.
wait for polls done by non-media sources.
but, the media is being crystal clear on the type of candidate it wants to support, namely somebody that looks different than trump, and it's just another hurdle for the left to overcome - albeit a very substantive one.
you don't want to pay attention to media polls as a measure of public interest, not even if they have good methodology; there is a conflict of interest at play, and they've been clear enough about what they want. you need to take a gramscian analysis to this: the media is not an unbiased arbiter that has an interest in accurately measuring public opinion, but rather an active participant in the process that goes out of it's way to create public opinion for the purposes of maximizing profit.
and, the media has been clear that it thinks a candidate driven by what it is being called "identity politics" (but is too crude to even be that) will drive ratings. so, it wants a female candidate because it knows that gender rivalry is good for ratings, or it wants a black candidate because it knows that race conflict is good television. it doesn't care about actual policy.
so, i'm standing here saying "you know, a corporatist democrat like harris isn't really that different than trump on most things, may be a little better on some things, and may be a lot worse in a lot of important ways.", whereas the media is saying "sanders and trump are the same candidate because they're both white men, and that's bad for ratings. we need somebody that looks different than trump to maximize ratings."
so, they'll flat out publish fake polls to try and create what they want.
but, there's a caveat: what they do is actually effective on a large number of voters. that is, if the media decides that x candidate won the debate, and broadcasts it for days or weeks, you'll start to see that coverage reflected in real polling.
wait for polls done by non-media sources.
but, the media is being crystal clear on the type of candidate it wants to support, namely somebody that looks different than trump, and it's just another hurdle for the left to overcome - albeit a very substantive one.
i mean, i think people are perhaps overstating the role and purpose of the g20.
i spent years arguing and protesting in favour of abolishing the forum as a waste of time, so i'm not going to pivot towards getting upset that the president's daughter is overstepping on a security clearance. you don't really think they talked about anything substantive there, do you?
the g20 is a series of pointless photo-ops, meaningless declarations and distractions and financial giveaways to causes that bourgeois charities consider in vogue. it's more like a celebrity gala than a serious policy meeting. and, in that sense, ivanka is perhaps better suited to attend than most of the heads of states.
so, my position has not changed: the g20 is a waste of time and money and should be abolished outright. i don't care if the president brought his daughter to this waste of time and money or not, or why she was there.
i spent years arguing and protesting in favour of abolishing the forum as a waste of time, so i'm not going to pivot towards getting upset that the president's daughter is overstepping on a security clearance. you don't really think they talked about anything substantive there, do you?
the g20 is a series of pointless photo-ops, meaningless declarations and distractions and financial giveaways to causes that bourgeois charities consider in vogue. it's more like a celebrity gala than a serious policy meeting. and, in that sense, ivanka is perhaps better suited to attend than most of the heads of states.
so, my position has not changed: the g20 is a waste of time and money and should be abolished outright. i don't care if the president brought his daughter to this waste of time and money or not, or why she was there.
Monday, July 1, 2019
and, what do i think about canada day?
i think it's a jingoistic, chauvinistic display of mindless nationalism towards a country that is middling at best. we are not remembering an uprising, or a declaration of independence from a colonial overlord; confederation was in fact thrust upon us by the nation's elites in order to advance their own interests (and end the gridlock in what was then the canadian parliament of ontario & quebec), without so much as a plebiscite. there is no organic movement attached to this day, no expression of the popular will. if anything, it was designed to limit democracy, and there was mass opposition to it.
so, i would support a day to celebrate canadians, a kind of workers holiday, before i supported a day to celebrate canada as a geopolitical entity.
and, i don't need an excuse to get drunk.
i was going to go to detroit, but it seems like i'll be inside catching up on some cleaning instead.
i think it's a jingoistic, chauvinistic display of mindless nationalism towards a country that is middling at best. we are not remembering an uprising, or a declaration of independence from a colonial overlord; confederation was in fact thrust upon us by the nation's elites in order to advance their own interests (and end the gridlock in what was then the canadian parliament of ontario & quebec), without so much as a plebiscite. there is no organic movement attached to this day, no expression of the popular will. if anything, it was designed to limit democracy, and there was mass opposition to it.
so, i would support a day to celebrate canadians, a kind of workers holiday, before i supported a day to celebrate canada as a geopolitical entity.
and, i don't need an excuse to get drunk.
i was going to go to detroit, but it seems like i'll be inside catching up on some cleaning instead.
for the record, i would have actually liked to see the show at ufo tonight, but i was planning on catching what i thought was the last bus, at 9:00.
i double checked before i meant to get in the shower at 7:30; the last bus was at 8:00. impossible.
i'm always late for everything, so the idea that i'm going to actually catch the 20:00 bus on time, like, ever, is pretty remote. and, considering that the show won't start until 22:00 or 22:30, why do i want to go over at 19:30 or 20:00? but, i'm at least clear on the scheduling, now. and, they say they'll be done on the 19th.
i double checked before i meant to get in the shower at 7:30; the last bus was at 8:00. impossible.
i'm always late for everything, so the idea that i'm going to actually catch the 20:00 bus on time, like, ever, is pretty remote. and, considering that the show won't start until 22:00 or 22:30, why do i want to go over at 19:30 or 20:00? but, i'm at least clear on the scheduling, now. and, they say they'll be done on the 19th.
so, is biden fading after all?
well, harris appears to have a bump at his expense - tentatively. there's a signal, but it's not yet robust. that is, the bump could very well fade. or, to put it another way: now it's her turn to say something stupid. and, i'm going to ask another question: what is harris' reach with white voters?
i'm going to point to a fact that i will come back to over and over again as this plays out: for all of the talk of generational renewal, and the reality that the general voting population is undergoing a generational shift, there remains very little evidence that this is happening in the party itself. i'm not that impressed by the younger candidates in front of me, but if they want a generational renewal then they're going to have to get out and register more young people, because, as it is right now, the key demographic in the primary is in fact still older white voters, and in fact affluent ones at that. you're not going to win this primary by dominating black voters, and you're not going to win it by sweeping millennials, either. the person that wins this primary is going to do so by dominating the baby boomer vote, which is also, in fact, the reason that clinton won the last one.
i've never claimed that biden is ideal from the party base perspective (which is not mine), but he's the last of his kind. he's a dinosaur; it's true. but, that's an asset in this particular race, and not a liability - even if it kills him in the general. it's not a bug, it's a feature.
i still believe that the primary is fundamentally between biden and sanders. the media is trying very hard to insert warren as a replacement for sanders, and is waving around numbers to prove it's working, but the signal remains pretty weak. i would actually expect most warren voters to move to biden. but, she is the wild card. and, she could actually help bernie win in the end, if she takes enough delegates away from biden.
despite polling saying otherwise, which may have somewhat of a bradley effect to it, i would think that harris' ceiling is fairly low, due to the nature of the primary she's fighting. and, see, this is the point that i think a lot of the middle aged candidates aren't grasping: this is still their parents' party. it's not their kids' party. not yet.
if somebody is successful in a massive voter registration drive, that could change. otherwise, we're going to see what we saw in new york in 2016, where sanders was filling stadiums full of people that weren't able to vote for him and then got badly beaten amongst actual, registered voters. it may, in the end, still be sanders v. the universe, but they're all going to run up against the same brick wall that he did.
so, biden has a tremendous demographic advantage in the party, even if his numbers with black voters soften up a little. if he gets 50% of the black vote instead of 70% of the black vote, it doesn't change the outcome. and, nobody seems to want to come to terms with the only strategy that there actually is to counter that: they all need to get out and start registering new voters, because a dominant proportion of the existing ones are out of the reach of essentially all of them.
well, harris appears to have a bump at his expense - tentatively. there's a signal, but it's not yet robust. that is, the bump could very well fade. or, to put it another way: now it's her turn to say something stupid. and, i'm going to ask another question: what is harris' reach with white voters?
i'm going to point to a fact that i will come back to over and over again as this plays out: for all of the talk of generational renewal, and the reality that the general voting population is undergoing a generational shift, there remains very little evidence that this is happening in the party itself. i'm not that impressed by the younger candidates in front of me, but if they want a generational renewal then they're going to have to get out and register more young people, because, as it is right now, the key demographic in the primary is in fact still older white voters, and in fact affluent ones at that. you're not going to win this primary by dominating black voters, and you're not going to win it by sweeping millennials, either. the person that wins this primary is going to do so by dominating the baby boomer vote, which is also, in fact, the reason that clinton won the last one.
i've never claimed that biden is ideal from the party base perspective (which is not mine), but he's the last of his kind. he's a dinosaur; it's true. but, that's an asset in this particular race, and not a liability - even if it kills him in the general. it's not a bug, it's a feature.
i still believe that the primary is fundamentally between biden and sanders. the media is trying very hard to insert warren as a replacement for sanders, and is waving around numbers to prove it's working, but the signal remains pretty weak. i would actually expect most warren voters to move to biden. but, she is the wild card. and, she could actually help bernie win in the end, if she takes enough delegates away from biden.
despite polling saying otherwise, which may have somewhat of a bradley effect to it, i would think that harris' ceiling is fairly low, due to the nature of the primary she's fighting. and, see, this is the point that i think a lot of the middle aged candidates aren't grasping: this is still their parents' party. it's not their kids' party. not yet.
if somebody is successful in a massive voter registration drive, that could change. otherwise, we're going to see what we saw in new york in 2016, where sanders was filling stadiums full of people that weren't able to vote for him and then got badly beaten amongst actual, registered voters. it may, in the end, still be sanders v. the universe, but they're all going to run up against the same brick wall that he did.
so, biden has a tremendous demographic advantage in the party, even if his numbers with black voters soften up a little. if he gets 50% of the black vote instead of 70% of the black vote, it doesn't change the outcome. and, nobody seems to want to come to terms with the only strategy that there actually is to counter that: they all need to get out and start registering new voters, because a dominant proportion of the existing ones are out of the reach of essentially all of them.
is trump a racist?
it would seem that way, yes.
but, guess what?
hillary clinton is a racist.
george w. bush is a racist.
bill clinton is a racist.
george bush was a racist.
ronald reagan was a racist.
jimmy carter may have been too smart to actually be a racist, but he didn't transform the office in any meaningful way.
but, gerald ford was a racist.
and richard nixon was certainly a racist. massively.
and, lbj was a racist,
and, jfk was a racist.
and, eisenhower was a racist - although maybe less so than some of these other guys.
and truman was a racist.
and fdr was a racist....
i only skipped one of them. and, while i'm not going to argue that barack obama was a racist, i will point out that a number of his policies were, in actuality, actually also kind of racist. he certainly didn't undo anything, anyways.
so, the thing that's weird about this is that the situation is being presented as though it's novel: that donald trump is a racist president, and that's something that's unusual, or out of the ordinary, rather than being the status quo for the last two hundred odd years.
how about this: the office of the president of the united states is actually a racist institution, and what we learned recently is that it's going to take a lot more than electing a half-black person to change or fix that.
so, i'm going to make a not so bold prediction: the next president of the united states will either be a racist, or will carry forward a set of explicitly racist policies.
it would seem that way, yes.
but, guess what?
hillary clinton is a racist.
george w. bush is a racist.
bill clinton is a racist.
george bush was a racist.
ronald reagan was a racist.
jimmy carter may have been too smart to actually be a racist, but he didn't transform the office in any meaningful way.
but, gerald ford was a racist.
and richard nixon was certainly a racist. massively.
and, lbj was a racist,
and, jfk was a racist.
and, eisenhower was a racist - although maybe less so than some of these other guys.
and truman was a racist.
and fdr was a racist....
i only skipped one of them. and, while i'm not going to argue that barack obama was a racist, i will point out that a number of his policies were, in actuality, actually also kind of racist. he certainly didn't undo anything, anyways.
so, the thing that's weird about this is that the situation is being presented as though it's novel: that donald trump is a racist president, and that's something that's unusual, or out of the ordinary, rather than being the status quo for the last two hundred odd years.
how about this: the office of the president of the united states is actually a racist institution, and what we learned recently is that it's going to take a lot more than electing a half-black person to change or fix that.
so, i'm going to make a not so bold prediction: the next president of the united states will either be a racist, or will carry forward a set of explicitly racist policies.
to be clear: my position on this is that a good faith application of the court order means that the state should be doing much more to move these kids into foster care, much more quickly.
what about the issue of corporate detention facilities?
corporate run jails - whatever their flavour - are something that you really can't have in a free society, for a couple of reasons that reduces to the profit motive interfering with the public good. that is, a corporate run jail is erected on a conflict of interest. the public good is to focus as much on rehabilitation, and keep people out of jails as much as possible; the public good is to reserve these institutions for the worst offenders, and try to get everybody else out back into society as quickly as possible. but, the profit motive of a corporate jail is to keep people in as long as possible, for as trivial a thing as can be imagined.
so, you can't have a for-profit model around these things; i'll accept accusations of minarchism in my argument that prisons should be converted to hospitals rather than shut down completely, but you need to leave the state in charge of it. you can't have people profiting from this.
now, i'm not imagining that these kids are being asked to do labour while they're locked up, although i wouldn't put it past them. but, this is where the situation gets particularly problematic in the united states when it comes to private prisons. our court system has ruled (forced) prison labour unconstitutional in canada, even in the context of sending inmates out to pick up trash. but, the reason you have jim crow in the united states - and this has more to do with that than you may realize - is that you allow for slavery for the incarcerated. that is the other position i would take on this: i would support a constitutional amendment to abolish all slavery in the united states.
so,
1) more resources to more quickly move kids into foster care, even if i understand that there is a bottleneck at the end in terms of how many placements are available.
2) you need to take out the profit motive, which may reduce the number of kids being processed.
3) a constitutional amendment to ban prison labour.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/30/20074048/democratic-2020-candidates-homestead-child-detention-facility-florida
what about the issue of corporate detention facilities?
corporate run jails - whatever their flavour - are something that you really can't have in a free society, for a couple of reasons that reduces to the profit motive interfering with the public good. that is, a corporate run jail is erected on a conflict of interest. the public good is to focus as much on rehabilitation, and keep people out of jails as much as possible; the public good is to reserve these institutions for the worst offenders, and try to get everybody else out back into society as quickly as possible. but, the profit motive of a corporate jail is to keep people in as long as possible, for as trivial a thing as can be imagined.
so, you can't have a for-profit model around these things; i'll accept accusations of minarchism in my argument that prisons should be converted to hospitals rather than shut down completely, but you need to leave the state in charge of it. you can't have people profiting from this.
now, i'm not imagining that these kids are being asked to do labour while they're locked up, although i wouldn't put it past them. but, this is where the situation gets particularly problematic in the united states when it comes to private prisons. our court system has ruled (forced) prison labour unconstitutional in canada, even in the context of sending inmates out to pick up trash. but, the reason you have jim crow in the united states - and this has more to do with that than you may realize - is that you allow for slavery for the incarcerated. that is the other position i would take on this: i would support a constitutional amendment to abolish all slavery in the united states.
so,
1) more resources to more quickly move kids into foster care, even if i understand that there is a bottleneck at the end in terms of how many placements are available.
2) you need to take out the profit motive, which may reduce the number of kids being processed.
3) a constitutional amendment to ban prison labour.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/30/20074048/democratic-2020-candidates-homestead-child-detention-facility-florida
Friday, June 28, 2019
in canada, what you call an "undocumented immigrant" would not receive any kind of healthcare benefits. like, at all. i believe you need to present citizenship to get a health card, but don't quote me on it.
this is one of those issues that a room full of politicians is going to instantly jump to pandering around in the worst possible way, but has anybody really thought this through?
suppose that somebody is in the united states legally but temporarily, either for the night (as i often am) or for a job or for a vacation. does that person get health benefits while they're there? if so, what are the criteria for gaining access to the system?
you could argue it's a human right, but, see, this is where that argument gets messy, because when you've established a right you have to be consistent about it. if your argument is that health care is a human right and therefore everybody should have it, you'll need to get used to people entering the country for the health care system. and, this is something that we do deal with here in canada.
you could argue that it should be a residency requirement, then: so long as you have an address in the united states, you can get access to the system. but, what do you think happens, then? and, how do you treat people without a fixed address?
so, do you want to incentivize entering the country illegally? do you think it's a good idea that illegal entry gets you better health care than legal entry?
again: i'm a socialist and not a progressive/conservative, so i'm more interested in the labour side of the equation than i am in faith through works or something of the sort. i actually would put stronger labour regulations - including a stronger enforcement of minimum wage laws - ahead of migrant rights, in terms of precedence and importance. if you actually start enforcing the labour laws, you'll find the demand for migrant labour start to dry up, which is what the socialist side of the equation wants to see as the end goal. but, jumping to giving health care to non-citizens out of political expediency seems to be hastily thrown together pandering and ultimately rather poorly thought through, doesn't it?
the focus should be on getting citizenship rights to the people that ought to have it, and getting the people that ought not to have it out of the labour market. good luck with that.
this is one of those issues that a room full of politicians is going to instantly jump to pandering around in the worst possible way, but has anybody really thought this through?
suppose that somebody is in the united states legally but temporarily, either for the night (as i often am) or for a job or for a vacation. does that person get health benefits while they're there? if so, what are the criteria for gaining access to the system?
you could argue it's a human right, but, see, this is where that argument gets messy, because when you've established a right you have to be consistent about it. if your argument is that health care is a human right and therefore everybody should have it, you'll need to get used to people entering the country for the health care system. and, this is something that we do deal with here in canada.
you could argue that it should be a residency requirement, then: so long as you have an address in the united states, you can get access to the system. but, what do you think happens, then? and, how do you treat people without a fixed address?
so, do you want to incentivize entering the country illegally? do you think it's a good idea that illegal entry gets you better health care than legal entry?
again: i'm a socialist and not a progressive/conservative, so i'm more interested in the labour side of the equation than i am in faith through works or something of the sort. i actually would put stronger labour regulations - including a stronger enforcement of minimum wage laws - ahead of migrant rights, in terms of precedence and importance. if you actually start enforcing the labour laws, you'll find the demand for migrant labour start to dry up, which is what the socialist side of the equation wants to see as the end goal. but, jumping to giving health care to non-citizens out of political expediency seems to be hastily thrown together pandering and ultimately rather poorly thought through, doesn't it?
the focus should be on getting citizenship rights to the people that ought to have it, and getting the people that ought not to have it out of the labour market. good luck with that.
there's nothing happening tonight that's of much interest to me, either in windsor or detroit. i can't find an interesting early show. and, my backup plan is often the leland, but there's an instrumental hip-hop night there tonight and it's just sooooooo sloooooooow.....i'd be bored to tears....
there's a spectrum of music like this, from slow hip-hop to dubstep. and, i just don't understand what the point of going to a dance club and listening to slow music is. there's lots and lots of people that seem to like it, though. when i end up in spaces like that, i just end up hanging outside smoking and talking, because i can't get any adrenaline to move from the beats. i guess you'd have to be on a lot of weird drugs or something to get into it.
i need to catch up on end of the month stuff, anyways. cleaning. laundry. rent.
i think i'll be out tomorrow, though.
there's a spectrum of music like this, from slow hip-hop to dubstep. and, i just don't understand what the point of going to a dance club and listening to slow music is. there's lots and lots of people that seem to like it, though. when i end up in spaces like that, i just end up hanging outside smoking and talking, because i can't get any adrenaline to move from the beats. i guess you'd have to be on a lot of weird drugs or something to get into it.
i need to catch up on end of the month stuff, anyways. cleaning. laundry. rent.
i think i'll be out tomorrow, though.
if you're curious...
i've spent a lot of time in the sun this month, and it's left me with a very deep tan. my father's heritage was never made fully clear to me, but he identified at various times as french, "indian" (by which he meant native american) and italian. my mother has suggested there was some jewish in there, but he never mentioned it himself. and, i have pictures of myself in my paternal grandfather's lap; he had the type of short, curly hair that you really only see in africans and jews, although i know his mother was french canadian and very white.
so, i have some kind of mix of tanned ancestors. and, while you may find me pasty white in early march at the end of the winter, i tend to get very dark in the summer, if left out in the sun, so dark that i've been asked if i'm african more than once (and, again, i might actually be).
none of my pictures or videos are altered in any way, with the exception of increasing the exposure, which would actually have the (unintended) effect of lightening my skin. there are no filters applied to anything. i don't have any reason or really any desire to make myself look darker than i am.
the reality is that i change colours based on exposure to the sun, which draws out a more important point - namely that race is not a biological concept.
i've spent a lot of time in the sun this month, and it's left me with a very deep tan. my father's heritage was never made fully clear to me, but he identified at various times as french, "indian" (by which he meant native american) and italian. my mother has suggested there was some jewish in there, but he never mentioned it himself. and, i have pictures of myself in my paternal grandfather's lap; he had the type of short, curly hair that you really only see in africans and jews, although i know his mother was french canadian and very white.
so, i have some kind of mix of tanned ancestors. and, while you may find me pasty white in early march at the end of the winter, i tend to get very dark in the summer, if left out in the sun, so dark that i've been asked if i'm african more than once (and, again, i might actually be).
none of my pictures or videos are altered in any way, with the exception of increasing the exposure, which would actually have the (unintended) effect of lightening my skin. there are no filters applied to anything. i don't have any reason or really any desire to make myself look darker than i am.
the reality is that i change colours based on exposure to the sun, which draws out a more important point - namely that race is not a biological concept.
what do i think about busing?
i was born in canada in 1981. this is neither something i've dealt with in my lifetime, nor in my geographic area. it has no relevance to me at all, and i've never had to form an opinion about it or take a stance on it.
but, what is the legal issue, here? well, on the one side you have the rights of parents - something i tend to minimize - to send their kids to the school of their choice, and on the other side you have a social engineering policy designed to better integrate kids. the media coverage doesn't seem to be framing this as an issue of competing rights, but that's exactly what it was in the 70s. i mean, if i had kids, i'd want some kind of say or another on what school they're attending....that's not a trivial concern....
in canada, we try to address segregation (insofar as it exists; our black population is much smaller, so we have more asians, and they tend to be relatively advantaged when they come in) through city planning rather than busing. that is, we try to ensure that we don't have these sprawling wealthy gated communities on one side of the city and these low income slums on the other, but rather create mixed neighbourhoods by city ordinance. so, developers are required to create a certain amount of low income housing in proximity to their bedroom communities. yes, we've been slacking on that recently, but it still defines the way our cities are created.
so, when i was a kid, my mom's welfare-subsidized townhouse was literally across the field and down the path from my father's four bedroom mansion. you can look them up on google maps. my mom was on farriers way, and my dad was on mozart court. the schools didn't have to bus people around because the neighbourhoods were mixed up.
i understand that i'm side-stepping the question, but maybe that's the point. i don't want to be snide in pointing to the unnecessary carbon footprint that busing creates, but i think there's a valid desire to have kids go to school in the communities they live in, across the board.
and, let's not forget that kamala harris was not a poor kid, either. i think the framing is a little skewed, in that sense.
so, i think i might argue that if you want to increase integration then there are probably better ideas than busing, and that there are valid reasons to push back on it, even if i would broadly defer to the community over the individual in terms of "parenting rights". and, i'd have to see the specifics of what biden actually argued - which i have not taken the time to look into in detail - before i could form an opinion on it.
but, that's not a thirty second soundbite of a black woman hitting an old white man with a bad tan on being racist. again: i'm not sure how substantive what she said really was, but i acknowledge that she sounded good saying it.
i was born in canada in 1981. this is neither something i've dealt with in my lifetime, nor in my geographic area. it has no relevance to me at all, and i've never had to form an opinion about it or take a stance on it.
but, what is the legal issue, here? well, on the one side you have the rights of parents - something i tend to minimize - to send their kids to the school of their choice, and on the other side you have a social engineering policy designed to better integrate kids. the media coverage doesn't seem to be framing this as an issue of competing rights, but that's exactly what it was in the 70s. i mean, if i had kids, i'd want some kind of say or another on what school they're attending....that's not a trivial concern....
in canada, we try to address segregation (insofar as it exists; our black population is much smaller, so we have more asians, and they tend to be relatively advantaged when they come in) through city planning rather than busing. that is, we try to ensure that we don't have these sprawling wealthy gated communities on one side of the city and these low income slums on the other, but rather create mixed neighbourhoods by city ordinance. so, developers are required to create a certain amount of low income housing in proximity to their bedroom communities. yes, we've been slacking on that recently, but it still defines the way our cities are created.
so, when i was a kid, my mom's welfare-subsidized townhouse was literally across the field and down the path from my father's four bedroom mansion. you can look them up on google maps. my mom was on farriers way, and my dad was on mozart court. the schools didn't have to bus people around because the neighbourhoods were mixed up.
i understand that i'm side-stepping the question, but maybe that's the point. i don't want to be snide in pointing to the unnecessary carbon footprint that busing creates, but i think there's a valid desire to have kids go to school in the communities they live in, across the board.
and, let's not forget that kamala harris was not a poor kid, either. i think the framing is a little skewed, in that sense.
so, i think i might argue that if you want to increase integration then there are probably better ideas than busing, and that there are valid reasons to push back on it, even if i would broadly defer to the community over the individual in terms of "parenting rights". and, i'd have to see the specifics of what biden actually argued - which i have not taken the time to look into in detail - before i could form an opinion on it.
but, that's not a thirty second soundbite of a black woman hitting an old white man with a bad tan on being racist. again: i'm not sure how substantive what she said really was, but i acknowledge that she sounded good saying it.
so, i watched the debates, and these candidates were every bit as awful as the previous bunch, broadly. there was precious little substantive debate, but what we heard was mostly a lot of terrible ideas that will do little to solve a lot of serious problems that are desperately in need of real solutions, along with a lot of misleading rhetoric that bordered on demagoguery (especially on the family separation file; that discussion existed in a fantasy reality that is defined wholly by fake news on social media. the court has ordered separation to advance the best interests of the child, and liberals should be supporting that by demanding a good faith application, not blathering on about family values like a bunch of republicans.). they spent more time talking about what they wouldn't do, or what they would undo, then about what they wanted to push forwards. bernie's fading appeal notwithstanding, this is a reactionary and conservative party. and i honestly, legitimately wouldn't want to vote for any of these people.
is the most important task to defeat donald trump? adamantly not. the most important thing is to prevent a return to the previous status quo. trump has broken a number of things, which opens up an opportunity for the left. the most important thing needs to be to prevent electing somebody who is just going to turn the clock back and pick up where obama left off. the most important thing needs to be fighting to take advantage of the crisis (read: opportunity) that trump has left us with, to use his policies like a shock doctrine, to embrace disaster capitalism to push forth serious, revolutionary ideas. a visionary needs to assert itself, or they're going to lose. unfortunately, bernie remains the closest thing to one.
somebody else needs to step up.
a return to the previous status quo needs to be the thing that is fought against the hardest. if the left loses the primary, the general will be unimportant, as it was in 2016.
so, who just wants to turn the clock back? who do you scratch off the list as unacceptable, immediately?
biden got hit, but i actually think he defended himself well enough. there's no question that he's the "back to the future" candidate, and that, to me, is the biggest non-starter. but, putting biden and sanders beside each other exposed how badly biden has aged, recently. if sanders is 70-something going on 90, biden looks and sounds like a centenarian. i'd almost argue that you want biden out there to make sanders look younger, at this point. he really came off as a doddering old man, and functionally disqualified himself in the process. sadly, i don't expect the democratic base to have the same reaction, as it is itself much older than the general voting population. so, how old is too old? there may be no clear answer, but biden is quite clearly too old.
the worst candidate on the stage, in my view, was marianne williamson, who is an example of the kind of candidate that i would actively campaign against. love always loses in the end; if you want to win, you have to fight. you don't want a pushover as commander in chief. prayer circles and yoga mats don't win wars - not for armies and not for working people. she would be a clear disaster and needs to be opposed as strenuously as possible.
harris was articulate and forceful, certainly, but if you actually listened to what she said rather than the way that she said it, it exposed her as lacking meaningful, substantive ideas. she often rambled or trailed off in ways that....she didn't come back to a core message. politicians will often sidestep questions, but they do so to reinforce themes. she was all over the place, and kind of came off as incoherent. so, i didn't really like what i heard from her, even if i concede that she sounded good saying it. and, i'd say something similar about gillibrandt.
i would otherwise actually argue that nobody really distinguished themselves on this night. nobody really said what i wanted to hear. and, i actually wouldn't expect to see much poll movement from it.
there are too many candidates, right now, and it really just muddied up the process. let's hope the field is a lot smaller for the next round, so we can have some more detailed discussions and more pointed analysis.
we got little out of this, and probably shouldn't have expected much different.
is the most important task to defeat donald trump? adamantly not. the most important thing is to prevent a return to the previous status quo. trump has broken a number of things, which opens up an opportunity for the left. the most important thing needs to be to prevent electing somebody who is just going to turn the clock back and pick up where obama left off. the most important thing needs to be fighting to take advantage of the crisis (read: opportunity) that trump has left us with, to use his policies like a shock doctrine, to embrace disaster capitalism to push forth serious, revolutionary ideas. a visionary needs to assert itself, or they're going to lose. unfortunately, bernie remains the closest thing to one.
somebody else needs to step up.
a return to the previous status quo needs to be the thing that is fought against the hardest. if the left loses the primary, the general will be unimportant, as it was in 2016.
so, who just wants to turn the clock back? who do you scratch off the list as unacceptable, immediately?
biden got hit, but i actually think he defended himself well enough. there's no question that he's the "back to the future" candidate, and that, to me, is the biggest non-starter. but, putting biden and sanders beside each other exposed how badly biden has aged, recently. if sanders is 70-something going on 90, biden looks and sounds like a centenarian. i'd almost argue that you want biden out there to make sanders look younger, at this point. he really came off as a doddering old man, and functionally disqualified himself in the process. sadly, i don't expect the democratic base to have the same reaction, as it is itself much older than the general voting population. so, how old is too old? there may be no clear answer, but biden is quite clearly too old.
the worst candidate on the stage, in my view, was marianne williamson, who is an example of the kind of candidate that i would actively campaign against. love always loses in the end; if you want to win, you have to fight. you don't want a pushover as commander in chief. prayer circles and yoga mats don't win wars - not for armies and not for working people. she would be a clear disaster and needs to be opposed as strenuously as possible.
harris was articulate and forceful, certainly, but if you actually listened to what she said rather than the way that she said it, it exposed her as lacking meaningful, substantive ideas. she often rambled or trailed off in ways that....she didn't come back to a core message. politicians will often sidestep questions, but they do so to reinforce themes. she was all over the place, and kind of came off as incoherent. so, i didn't really like what i heard from her, even if i concede that she sounded good saying it. and, i'd say something similar about gillibrandt.
i would otherwise actually argue that nobody really distinguished themselves on this night. nobody really said what i wanted to hear. and, i actually wouldn't expect to see much poll movement from it.
there are too many candidates, right now, and it really just muddied up the process. let's hope the field is a lot smaller for the next round, so we can have some more detailed discussions and more pointed analysis.
we got little out of this, and probably shouldn't have expected much different.
see, africans - and in canada, almost all africans are recent immigrants from africa - think i'm cute and want to take me home.
and, i don't mind getting hit on, either, even if i'm invariably going home by myself. that's confidence building, actually. go ahead and hit on me, i'm cool with that.
but, it's a big difference. and, the fact is that the laws are worse in africa, if anything. so why the dramatic difference?
and, south asians are variable, but it runs the gamut from open acceptance to quiet negation. and, i'm not going to get in between somebody's thoughts - those are scared to the individual. work it through, if you need to. that's fine. i'll be here once you have, and walk away if you decide against it.
again: i know better than to get racist about this. racism is stupid, and i'm not a stupid person. but it has something to do with the upbringing, and i have to stress the importance of trying to get in between it, because i want to feel comfortable with everybody, and not have this nagging weirdness with this specific group, which is just drawn out by experience.
i've met cool arabs in windsor. don't think i'm saying i haven't. but, it's singular. it really is.
i hit a few shows in the university district tonight and then ended up downtown for last call. i got hit on at the end of the night, which is fine; there was no event to take note of. and, i left feeling safe enough.
i need to get a pynchon reference to one of the bands, and then check out the debates over a plate of spaghetti.
and, i don't mind getting hit on, either, even if i'm invariably going home by myself. that's confidence building, actually. go ahead and hit on me, i'm cool with that.
but, it's a big difference. and, the fact is that the laws are worse in africa, if anything. so why the dramatic difference?
and, south asians are variable, but it runs the gamut from open acceptance to quiet negation. and, i'm not going to get in between somebody's thoughts - those are scared to the individual. work it through, if you need to. that's fine. i'll be here once you have, and walk away if you decide against it.
again: i know better than to get racist about this. racism is stupid, and i'm not a stupid person. but it has something to do with the upbringing, and i have to stress the importance of trying to get in between it, because i want to feel comfortable with everybody, and not have this nagging weirdness with this specific group, which is just drawn out by experience.
i've met cool arabs in windsor. don't think i'm saying i haven't. but, it's singular. it really is.
i hit a few shows in the university district tonight and then ended up downtown for last call. i got hit on at the end of the night, which is fine; there was no event to take note of. and, i left feeling safe enough.
i need to get a pynchon reference to one of the bands, and then check out the debates over a plate of spaghetti.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
what's the right answer on this taliban vs al qaeda thing in afghanistan, though? the perception seemed to be that tulsi won the point, but that only holds if you're one of these right-wing isolationists. i think the congressman actually made the right point.
let's look at some statements and determine their truth values.
1) al qaeda attacked the united states on 9/11.
evaluation: unclear. while the united states has never convincingly argued the point, released any evidence or tried anybody in a court of law, this is what we are told, and is the assumption underlying the military action. it is technically an unproven assumption rather than a true statement, but we need to work with this unproven assumption in order to have this discussion at all. so, let us treat this as true, even if it really is unproven.
2) the taliban directed the 9/11 attacks.
evaluation: probably false. that is, i have never seen this claim made by anybody, but i've never seen it disproven, either.
3) the taliban were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
evaluation: unclear. well, let us look at both sides of the debate, here. the united states claims that the taliban refused to hand over bin laden, which would make them guilty of aiding and abetting a terrorist group, should the accusations be proven true in a court of law. but, what do the taliban say about this? crucially, the taliban claim that they were protecting the group from a false accusation. that is, the taliban refused to hand over bin laden until the united states could provide any evidence that they were actually behind the attacks. so, we're left with a conditional statement: if al qaeda were actually responsible, then the taliban were culpable; if al qaeda were not responsible, the taliban were protecting innocent people and not culpable for anything, but actually sort of heroic.
so, if al qaeda was responsible - which she clearly believes - then the taliban are guilty of aiding and abetting them and need to be dismantled for that reason, lest they continue to aid and abet other violent extremists (which they have in fact been doing for decades, as was pointed out, often as a front for the cia-linked pakistani isi). whatever way you parse it, gabbard's statements were incoherent, unless you reject the premise of aiding a terrorist group as creating yourself a worthwhile terrorist target, which is a far-right isolationist position that you'd expect to hear from a taft or something; her position is that america should not be interfering with groups that are aiding and abetting extremists because it doesn't reach the bar of a direct threat to the united states or it's interests, which is a very, very conservative approach to the war on terrorism.
again: i'm a socialist. that means i support struggle, including armed struggle. it means i support revolutionary overthrow of tyrannical governments. it means i support the fight against fascism, including the fight against islamic fascism, in whatever form it takes. and, it means i'm not a pacifist. bringing the empire in makes things very complicated, and sometimes it may make sense to oppose imperial behaviour in scenarios where you otherwise would support struggle, but to reject violence on some kind of moral level would be to reject my own politics. that is a conservative position, not a socialist position.
afghanistan at this point is a mess. but, i feel that the debate that exists is broadly disingenuous. regardless of who was responsible for the attacks, did america go to afghanistan to fight the taliban? i think it's clear enough that they actually didn't. so, is the continued existence of the taliban really a reason to withdraw? in truth, it isn't, as it's not the reason they were actually there. the actual reasons the united states are in afghanistan have to do with controlling a strategic mountain pass, and creating an unorganized state for poppy production. i mean, it's not a coincidence that bush put anthony harriman, whose family has a long history of importing heroin into the united states, in charge of the afghan security council. there's a pretty strong argument that america doesn't actually want to win this war, but just wants to continue to cause instability in the region. so, when do they leave, then? well, they don't. or, at least, not until the troops are needed elsewhere, anyways.
so, these debates are kind of pointless, as they're happening in a contrived reality. i may support a withdrawal, but we have to understand the actual situation before we start proposing it.
let's look at some statements and determine their truth values.
1) al qaeda attacked the united states on 9/11.
evaluation: unclear. while the united states has never convincingly argued the point, released any evidence or tried anybody in a court of law, this is what we are told, and is the assumption underlying the military action. it is technically an unproven assumption rather than a true statement, but we need to work with this unproven assumption in order to have this discussion at all. so, let us treat this as true, even if it really is unproven.
2) the taliban directed the 9/11 attacks.
evaluation: probably false. that is, i have never seen this claim made by anybody, but i've never seen it disproven, either.
3) the taliban were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
evaluation: unclear. well, let us look at both sides of the debate, here. the united states claims that the taliban refused to hand over bin laden, which would make them guilty of aiding and abetting a terrorist group, should the accusations be proven true in a court of law. but, what do the taliban say about this? crucially, the taliban claim that they were protecting the group from a false accusation. that is, the taliban refused to hand over bin laden until the united states could provide any evidence that they were actually behind the attacks. so, we're left with a conditional statement: if al qaeda were actually responsible, then the taliban were culpable; if al qaeda were not responsible, the taliban were protecting innocent people and not culpable for anything, but actually sort of heroic.
so, if al qaeda was responsible - which she clearly believes - then the taliban are guilty of aiding and abetting them and need to be dismantled for that reason, lest they continue to aid and abet other violent extremists (which they have in fact been doing for decades, as was pointed out, often as a front for the cia-linked pakistani isi). whatever way you parse it, gabbard's statements were incoherent, unless you reject the premise of aiding a terrorist group as creating yourself a worthwhile terrorist target, which is a far-right isolationist position that you'd expect to hear from a taft or something; her position is that america should not be interfering with groups that are aiding and abetting extremists because it doesn't reach the bar of a direct threat to the united states or it's interests, which is a very, very conservative approach to the war on terrorism.
again: i'm a socialist. that means i support struggle, including armed struggle. it means i support revolutionary overthrow of tyrannical governments. it means i support the fight against fascism, including the fight against islamic fascism, in whatever form it takes. and, it means i'm not a pacifist. bringing the empire in makes things very complicated, and sometimes it may make sense to oppose imperial behaviour in scenarios where you otherwise would support struggle, but to reject violence on some kind of moral level would be to reject my own politics. that is a conservative position, not a socialist position.
afghanistan at this point is a mess. but, i feel that the debate that exists is broadly disingenuous. regardless of who was responsible for the attacks, did america go to afghanistan to fight the taliban? i think it's clear enough that they actually didn't. so, is the continued existence of the taliban really a reason to withdraw? in truth, it isn't, as it's not the reason they were actually there. the actual reasons the united states are in afghanistan have to do with controlling a strategic mountain pass, and creating an unorganized state for poppy production. i mean, it's not a coincidence that bush put anthony harriman, whose family has a long history of importing heroin into the united states, in charge of the afghan security council. there's a pretty strong argument that america doesn't actually want to win this war, but just wants to continue to cause instability in the region. so, when do they leave, then? well, they don't. or, at least, not until the troops are needed elsewhere, anyways.
so, these debates are kind of pointless, as they're happening in a contrived reality. i may support a withdrawal, but we have to understand the actual situation before we start proposing it.
so, i watched the first half 90% of the debate and actually fell asleep during it.
why does the media push warren? because it thinks a warren-trump matchup will bring the highest ratings. that would not be a valid option if warren's plans were not status quo (what is the consumer protection bureau up to nowadays?), but that is the only reason why, and don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise; they have an existing feud over twitter, and it looks to make for good theatre. and, he might beat her because of it, but they don't care about that.
so, she's going to continue to get preferential treatment over all of these charades because she's the candidate that can best maximize profit for the media. expect it. what i'm a little surprised about is that she avoided any direct attack last night.
broadly speaking, i found myself largely in disagreement with pretty much everything all of them said. i may share certain principles with the soft left on display here, but i'd argue that essentially all of these actual proposals would be total disasters. so, i'm not going to suggest that i found myself connecting to any of them; i was turned off by all of them. rather, i want to point out who sounded halfways intelligent and who didn't.
booker was the clear winner in terms of brain power, followed by de blasio and warren. but, booker had a contemplative nature in his responses, whereas de blasio and warren were more cocky about it. beta fell into a middle point, in the sense that what he was saying sounded good, but it was just a string of memorized talking points, with little projected thought behind it. if the criticism of beta was that his policies were vague, he was probably the most detailed on this night.
the rest of the candidates mostly came off as of below average intelligence for various reasons. klobuchar's accent, for example, is a non-starter. and, i think tulsi gabbard is running for the wrong party with the whole veteran shtick. castro's demand that everybody agree that illegally crossing the border be decriminalized fell absolutely flat, and both isolated him and made him look like a clown. and, while i thought inslee might be the sleeper pick, he didn't articulate himself well on this night. at all.
i'm not a democrat - neither literally nor figuratively. so, i'm not a good case study for a primary voter; i'm a better case study for a left-leaning independent voter in the general, that is going to waver between the democrats and a third party (or not vote at all). but, i wouldn't say anybody won the debate or convinced me they'd be a good candidate, even if booker seemed the least scary of the bunch.
why does the media push warren? because it thinks a warren-trump matchup will bring the highest ratings. that would not be a valid option if warren's plans were not status quo (what is the consumer protection bureau up to nowadays?), but that is the only reason why, and don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise; they have an existing feud over twitter, and it looks to make for good theatre. and, he might beat her because of it, but they don't care about that.
so, she's going to continue to get preferential treatment over all of these charades because she's the candidate that can best maximize profit for the media. expect it. what i'm a little surprised about is that she avoided any direct attack last night.
broadly speaking, i found myself largely in disagreement with pretty much everything all of them said. i may share certain principles with the soft left on display here, but i'd argue that essentially all of these actual proposals would be total disasters. so, i'm not going to suggest that i found myself connecting to any of them; i was turned off by all of them. rather, i want to point out who sounded halfways intelligent and who didn't.
booker was the clear winner in terms of brain power, followed by de blasio and warren. but, booker had a contemplative nature in his responses, whereas de blasio and warren were more cocky about it. beta fell into a middle point, in the sense that what he was saying sounded good, but it was just a string of memorized talking points, with little projected thought behind it. if the criticism of beta was that his policies were vague, he was probably the most detailed on this night.
the rest of the candidates mostly came off as of below average intelligence for various reasons. klobuchar's accent, for example, is a non-starter. and, i think tulsi gabbard is running for the wrong party with the whole veteran shtick. castro's demand that everybody agree that illegally crossing the border be decriminalized fell absolutely flat, and both isolated him and made him look like a clown. and, while i thought inslee might be the sleeper pick, he didn't articulate himself well on this night. at all.
i'm not a democrat - neither literally nor figuratively. so, i'm not a good case study for a primary voter; i'm a better case study for a left-leaning independent voter in the general, that is going to waver between the democrats and a third party (or not vote at all). but, i wouldn't say anybody won the debate or convinced me they'd be a good candidate, even if booker seemed the least scary of the bunch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)