and, yes: in the long run, anarchists don't believe in borders. but, tearing down borders is something you do between countries with comparable economies.
so, in theory, i would support a schengen-type zone over nafta, and i was hoping the last round of renegotiation would address the point. but, we'd be talking about taking steps to implement it eventually, not doing it right away. mexico's gdp per capita is 15% of that in the united states, which is far too low for this kind of discussion. and, it has absolutely no security at it's border at all...
but, yes, that should be the end point, eventually, once mexico has raised it's living standards. and, that should be the focus of american workers, as difficult as it is: they have to stop seeing mexico as a competitor, while continuing to see individual mexican workers for what they are. a tricky task for the best of us...
a schengen-type agreement, if passed today, would result in an incredible race to the bottom for everybody.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
i just want to point something else out about deportations, though.
something you very frequently hear from the bourgeois left is that people should only be deported when they commit "serious" crimes. they never finish their thought, though - the idea is that their campaign donors (big agriculture, and other industries that rely on migrant labour) don't want criminals in their work force, so it's ok to get rid of them.
but, what are you really doing when you deport a criminal? you're essentially sending that person back to their country of origin to continue committing crimes, which is just a push factor on continuing the flow of people. is it really a good idea to send a rapist back to guatemala where they can rape people with impunity?
rather, it seems to me that the people who ought to have the best arguments against deportation should be the criminals, but that they should also be tried and sentenced for the crimes, as is appropriate, and then rehabilitated as is best possible inside of the country. and, if anybody should be working sub-minimum wage jobs, it's the criminals, not the law-abiding migrants. so, you put the ones that break laws other than immigration law in jail, and you process their immigration papers as is appropriate while they're in there. then, they get their decision when they get out: either they're approved and allowed to work for proper wages and benefits, or they're denied and sent home.
regarding the people that are being rounded up for no reason other than entering the country illegally, i'd present more or less the same argument. there are laws in place, and perhaps they ought to be changed, but they are in place, and they were democratically enacted and the ice is carrying out a legitimate function with them (so long as we have habeas corpus). if you've overstayed your visa, for example, then you've broken the law, and enforcing the rule of law means you need to pay the price for it. but, what that should mean is that your citizenship status should be determined while you're being processed, not that you should be deported offhand. so, maybe somebody that's overstayed their visa has to carry out a thirty-day jail sentence (which is probably appropriate for a crime of that nature), but they should be being processed while they're in there, and should have a clear answer when they get out.
but, protesting something like this doesn't make sense, and would be leaning more towards a concept of ochlocracy - that is, mob rule - than anarchy, which is supposed to maintain a concept of democratic decision making, whatever it is.
something you very frequently hear from the bourgeois left is that people should only be deported when they commit "serious" crimes. they never finish their thought, though - the idea is that their campaign donors (big agriculture, and other industries that rely on migrant labour) don't want criminals in their work force, so it's ok to get rid of them.
but, what are you really doing when you deport a criminal? you're essentially sending that person back to their country of origin to continue committing crimes, which is just a push factor on continuing the flow of people. is it really a good idea to send a rapist back to guatemala where they can rape people with impunity?
rather, it seems to me that the people who ought to have the best arguments against deportation should be the criminals, but that they should also be tried and sentenced for the crimes, as is appropriate, and then rehabilitated as is best possible inside of the country. and, if anybody should be working sub-minimum wage jobs, it's the criminals, not the law-abiding migrants. so, you put the ones that break laws other than immigration law in jail, and you process their immigration papers as is appropriate while they're in there. then, they get their decision when they get out: either they're approved and allowed to work for proper wages and benefits, or they're denied and sent home.
regarding the people that are being rounded up for no reason other than entering the country illegally, i'd present more or less the same argument. there are laws in place, and perhaps they ought to be changed, but they are in place, and they were democratically enacted and the ice is carrying out a legitimate function with them (so long as we have habeas corpus). if you've overstayed your visa, for example, then you've broken the law, and enforcing the rule of law means you need to pay the price for it. but, what that should mean is that your citizenship status should be determined while you're being processed, not that you should be deported offhand. so, maybe somebody that's overstayed their visa has to carry out a thirty-day jail sentence (which is probably appropriate for a crime of that nature), but they should be being processed while they're in there, and should have a clear answer when they get out.
but, protesting something like this doesn't make sense, and would be leaning more towards a concept of ochlocracy - that is, mob rule - than anarchy, which is supposed to maintain a concept of democratic decision making, whatever it is.
it's interesting to see just how debased certain ideas have become on the left.
i would expect an action of this type to be mostly focused on political prisoners, i.e. people that are being imprisoned unjustly, perhaps by being framed, or perhaps by being held without charge. while i don't want to make the same error that i'm about to throw out there, i strongly doubt that much of anybody in attendance has done any meaningful research on anybody they're holding at all. while i am aware that there have been cases of american-born citizens being deported because they have latin-sounding names (which is horrifically egregious, obviously.), i think a better assumption is that at least almost all of them have entered the country illegally, meaning they are not actually political prisoners, or being framed, or being held without charge. further, a good number of them could be being held on much greater charges. so, this is just a situation where these particular protestors happen to dislike the legitimate law that the migrants are being legitimately charged under, and it's consequently difficult to argue with a straight-face that this is a democratic way to approach the situation as there's no breach of constitutionality, no breakdown in the rule of law, no abuse of power...
i mean, that's the point of direct action: when citizens are convinced that the state is breaking the law in a way that harms people, and there is no oversight body to stop it, it becomes our responsibility to step in, even if the best we can do is a symbolic gesture. but, there is no credible argument, here, that the state is breaking any laws, except maybe some hokey concept of "natural law", which is in truth not law at all.
it's really just these peoples' opinion that the law should be changed, and they do have that right to their opinion. but, if they were to act independently of a collective like this, they'd be thrown out of it. it's an undemocratic demand.
and, what is the demand, exactly? to drop the charges? to release them on bail? i suppose that's another question: they certainly have the right to habeas corpus. but, that doesn't seem to be the argument being presented; rather, they just want them to drop the charges and release the prisoners because they say so, despite potentially clear evidence of breaking the law.
....because arresting them and deporting them is a "genocide" against the migrant community. there's another debased term.
i don't like jails, and i don't like deporting people, but these people were arrested legitimately under legitimate laws and need to prepare their legal cases, so this kind of thing is at best disruptive and pointless and at worst has potential to stimulate a backlash. and, if you don't like these laws, there's only one way to change them - and it's not by using the tactic we use when the state is overstepping it's bounds.
further, leftists usually use these tactics with comrades that they expect to welcome back into their communities. it's strange to make the case that they should be used for people that are working sub-minimum wage under the table and thereby undercutting the region's labour force, to the extent that this is actually true (which is quite a bit).
the point i want to a make is just about the debasement of these ideas. i think if you were to run something like this by historical anarchist revolutionaries from proudhon forwards, you'd get a lot of pushback on it. they'd be criticizing the migrants for accepting sub-minimum wage jobs and undermining workers, as well as questioning the appropriateness of working outside of democratic channels
but, i guess you know that capital has won when it's co-opted the voices against it.
https://www.facebook.com/events/374487699875224/
i would expect an action of this type to be mostly focused on political prisoners, i.e. people that are being imprisoned unjustly, perhaps by being framed, or perhaps by being held without charge. while i don't want to make the same error that i'm about to throw out there, i strongly doubt that much of anybody in attendance has done any meaningful research on anybody they're holding at all. while i am aware that there have been cases of american-born citizens being deported because they have latin-sounding names (which is horrifically egregious, obviously.), i think a better assumption is that at least almost all of them have entered the country illegally, meaning they are not actually political prisoners, or being framed, or being held without charge. further, a good number of them could be being held on much greater charges. so, this is just a situation where these particular protestors happen to dislike the legitimate law that the migrants are being legitimately charged under, and it's consequently difficult to argue with a straight-face that this is a democratic way to approach the situation as there's no breach of constitutionality, no breakdown in the rule of law, no abuse of power...
i mean, that's the point of direct action: when citizens are convinced that the state is breaking the law in a way that harms people, and there is no oversight body to stop it, it becomes our responsibility to step in, even if the best we can do is a symbolic gesture. but, there is no credible argument, here, that the state is breaking any laws, except maybe some hokey concept of "natural law", which is in truth not law at all.
it's really just these peoples' opinion that the law should be changed, and they do have that right to their opinion. but, if they were to act independently of a collective like this, they'd be thrown out of it. it's an undemocratic demand.
and, what is the demand, exactly? to drop the charges? to release them on bail? i suppose that's another question: they certainly have the right to habeas corpus. but, that doesn't seem to be the argument being presented; rather, they just want them to drop the charges and release the prisoners because they say so, despite potentially clear evidence of breaking the law.
....because arresting them and deporting them is a "genocide" against the migrant community. there's another debased term.
i don't like jails, and i don't like deporting people, but these people were arrested legitimately under legitimate laws and need to prepare their legal cases, so this kind of thing is at best disruptive and pointless and at worst has potential to stimulate a backlash. and, if you don't like these laws, there's only one way to change them - and it's not by using the tactic we use when the state is overstepping it's bounds.
further, leftists usually use these tactics with comrades that they expect to welcome back into their communities. it's strange to make the case that they should be used for people that are working sub-minimum wage under the table and thereby undercutting the region's labour force, to the extent that this is actually true (which is quite a bit).
the point i want to a make is just about the debasement of these ideas. i think if you were to run something like this by historical anarchist revolutionaries from proudhon forwards, you'd get a lot of pushback on it. they'd be criticizing the migrants for accepting sub-minimum wage jobs and undermining workers, as well as questioning the appropriateness of working outside of democratic channels
but, i guess you know that capital has won when it's co-opted the voices against it.
https://www.facebook.com/events/374487699875224/
ok, so i have cut it down to a small number of shows tonight (wednesday) and thursday that i'm still sorting through and will post thoughts on to the dtk page. the crystal method is here friday, but there's almost no chance i'll actually go. there's nothing scheduled saturday. but, i could see myself out on sunday afternoon to see a jazz band and a prog band and hopefully something in between....
for right now, i'm going to get to finalizing as i listen to what i pulled out as a shortlist for this week.
for right now, i'm going to get to finalizing as i listen to what i pulled out as a shortlist for this week.
if gun control is a waste of time in the united states, it's even more pointless in canada.
contrary to popular opinion, we don't actually have strict gun control laws in canada. what we have is a different culture around guns. for example, i'm 38 years old and i've never even seen (let alone held or shot) a gun before in my life, nor do i expect to see one in the future. i would think that this is rare in the united states, where guns occupy a central part of the culture and national identity.
we have no equivalent to the second amendment, and "gun rights" are a vague and mostly undefined concept.
but, the reality is that around 90% of the guns used in crimes in canada are imported illegally from the united states. that's what the facts are: insofar as we have a problem, it's entirely on the black market. so, any meaningful crackdown has to occur at the border, or in the black market, and not in the market for new weapons.
but, people are stupid and this is an easy way to send him out all foggy-eyed and whatnot. it's a great scam, and if the conservatives play it badly enough, it might work.
contrary to popular opinion, we don't actually have strict gun control laws in canada. what we have is a different culture around guns. for example, i'm 38 years old and i've never even seen (let alone held or shot) a gun before in my life, nor do i expect to see one in the future. i would think that this is rare in the united states, where guns occupy a central part of the culture and national identity.
we have no equivalent to the second amendment, and "gun rights" are a vague and mostly undefined concept.
but, the reality is that around 90% of the guns used in crimes in canada are imported illegally from the united states. that's what the facts are: insofar as we have a problem, it's entirely on the black market. so, any meaningful crackdown has to occur at the border, or in the black market, and not in the market for new weapons.
but, people are stupid and this is an easy way to send him out all foggy-eyed and whatnot. it's a great scam, and if the conservatives play it badly enough, it might work.
so, the liberals are running on gun control and the ndp is running on "corporate accountability" and all of the tiresome & boring old tory talking points around it. it's just empty distraction, all around.
i'm going to need to look at my specific candidate, but i've already decided that i'm either voting green or not voting at all.
i wouldn't expect much from me on the canadian side. the three major parties have identical positions on just about anything that actually matters, leaving the debate up to these fringe issues that nobody actually really cares much about, and that really aren't in the proper scope of government in a liberal democracy.
and, in a sense, if the liberals won't get rid of trudeau on their own, maybe putting the conservatives back in office by voting third party is the only way to do it, and the right tactic to try and wake them the fuck up. they're almost identical in terms of substantive policy, anyways. and, the liberals probably need to clean house pretty seriously if they want to find their way back to where they used to be.
so, i'm not going to get into these petty debates about these petty things that these petty parties want to distract away from substantive concerns like carbon reduction, and don't expect me to. when we wake up in november, nothing much is going to change, either way - unless we can get the greens the balance of power, somehow.
i'm going to need to look at my specific candidate, but i've already decided that i'm either voting green or not voting at all.
i wouldn't expect much from me on the canadian side. the three major parties have identical positions on just about anything that actually matters, leaving the debate up to these fringe issues that nobody actually really cares much about, and that really aren't in the proper scope of government in a liberal democracy.
and, in a sense, if the liberals won't get rid of trudeau on their own, maybe putting the conservatives back in office by voting third party is the only way to do it, and the right tactic to try and wake them the fuck up. they're almost identical in terms of substantive policy, anyways. and, the liberals probably need to clean house pretty seriously if they want to find their way back to where they used to be.
so, i'm not going to get into these petty debates about these petty things that these petty parties want to distract away from substantive concerns like carbon reduction, and don't expect me to. when we wake up in november, nothing much is going to change, either way - unless we can get the greens the balance of power, somehow.
this is something i've pointed out before, though, in a number of circumstances.
first, why do i think the cops are on me? well, have you read much of this? it's less the general thrust of the site - there's lots of people like me out there - and more that there's certain, specific things posted here and there that aren't supposed to be posted. afghanistan, for example - i'm just not supposed to put up a web page that states that there's no intended end date. that's contradicting something that a lot of effort was put into.
the cops have a mandate to keep people safe, and they do carry it out, they just often forget to mention which people that they keep safe. i'm threatening to the power elite on an information level. i get it. and, you only laugh because you don't, and that's ok - it keeps me safer.
so, to an extent, the surveillance doesn't bother me. what bothers me is how poorly it's being done, because if i was somebody else, an actual member of an actual group, then i'd have figured it out a long time ago and left already.
i can often hear the echo on my sound card, indicating that there's something working at a hardware level. and, i can hear them drop out when i cut the service off. it's not subtle, either. if they're going to hack a terrorist's machine or phone with audio firmware to capture the signal, don't you think it's important that they hire capable enough programmers to fix the echo cancellation? is that not budgeted?
likewise, if you're carrying out a stakeout upstairs for a suspect in a small non-smoking duplex, don't you think it's important not to smoke? 'cause it's pretty easy to find you if you're smoking undercover. kind of a dead giveaway.
if the spies were capable, i wouldn't know they're there. and, in a real way, it's realizing how unprofessional the cops are that is what is bothering me more than the surveillance, itself.
...because if i was a pakistani or saudi on the brink of something incomprehensible, i'd have ditched them years ago on my way to blowing up the world. and, if i was a russian operating inside the country, i'd be long gone by now. as it is, i'm just a simple canadian expressing myself in the written medium that is essentially being harassed by officers that should be out there bothering actual criminals, such as drug pushers and addicts and illegal immigrants, and that is still able to rather effortlessly outsmart them.
we need better forms of collective security than this, where they turn a blind eye to the criminals and target the victims.
first, why do i think the cops are on me? well, have you read much of this? it's less the general thrust of the site - there's lots of people like me out there - and more that there's certain, specific things posted here and there that aren't supposed to be posted. afghanistan, for example - i'm just not supposed to put up a web page that states that there's no intended end date. that's contradicting something that a lot of effort was put into.
the cops have a mandate to keep people safe, and they do carry it out, they just often forget to mention which people that they keep safe. i'm threatening to the power elite on an information level. i get it. and, you only laugh because you don't, and that's ok - it keeps me safer.
so, to an extent, the surveillance doesn't bother me. what bothers me is how poorly it's being done, because if i was somebody else, an actual member of an actual group, then i'd have figured it out a long time ago and left already.
i can often hear the echo on my sound card, indicating that there's something working at a hardware level. and, i can hear them drop out when i cut the service off. it's not subtle, either. if they're going to hack a terrorist's machine or phone with audio firmware to capture the signal, don't you think it's important that they hire capable enough programmers to fix the echo cancellation? is that not budgeted?
likewise, if you're carrying out a stakeout upstairs for a suspect in a small non-smoking duplex, don't you think it's important not to smoke? 'cause it's pretty easy to find you if you're smoking undercover. kind of a dead giveaway.
if the spies were capable, i wouldn't know they're there. and, in a real way, it's realizing how unprofessional the cops are that is what is bothering me more than the surveillance, itself.
...because if i was a pakistani or saudi on the brink of something incomprehensible, i'd have ditched them years ago on my way to blowing up the world. and, if i was a russian operating inside the country, i'd be long gone by now. as it is, i'm just a simple canadian expressing myself in the written medium that is essentially being harassed by officers that should be out there bothering actual criminals, such as drug pushers and addicts and illegal immigrants, and that is still able to rather effortlessly outsmart them.
we need better forms of collective security than this, where they turn a blind eye to the criminals and target the victims.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
and, as soon as i mention that the smoke clears out, it starts back up again.
do you know what i honestly think? i think that there's a cop up there with a fucking pathetic attitude towards life (not to mention a really fucking shitty job) that is so worthless to the world that they enjoy harassing me.
and, i also think that that worthless, piece of shit cop up there should put a fucking bullet through her own worthless, piece of shit head. the world would be better off.
do you know what i honestly think? i think that there's a cop up there with a fucking pathetic attitude towards life (not to mention a really fucking shitty job) that is so worthless to the world that they enjoy harassing me.
and, i also think that that worthless, piece of shit cop up there should put a fucking bullet through her own worthless, piece of shit head. the world would be better off.
the air's cleared up a bit since this morning.
for the sake of pointing it out somewhere, is $1000/month a gimmick? yes. that's not going to accomplish anything, whatsoever. you'd might as well just pass a tax cut for landlords, which is where the idea, as he's promoting it, really came from.
i've talked a lot about a gai in the past, but i wouldn't want to implement it as a dividend like that. so, no, i'm not in favour of sending everybody the money, that's just going to create inflation. the post-work anarchist position has little patience for these arguments about labour being an escape from poverty (that's hilarious. really.) or this idea that you just need to send people to school to eliminate poverty (i don't want a bourgeois office job, dammit!), but it doesn't see the idea as a dividend. it's more just a way to rebrand welfare as a livable subsidy by having it swallow things like disability payments and artist's grants.
i don't reach much friedman, so i might be getting the idea wrong, but the gai as a negative income tax is more along the lines of the way that post-work anarchists see this implemented. so, you'd do your taxes at the end of the year, and if your income is below a certain level then you get a top up to the minimum.
so, let's set the minimum to $30,000. if your taxable income is $30,001, you'd get nothing. if your taxable income is $15,000 you'd get a $15,000 subsidy, either in a lump sum or via monthly payments. and, if your income is $0 you'd get the full $30,000 in subsidies.
so, the idea is that (1) you make sure that the minimum is livable and (2) you give it to everybody, whether they have a job or not. it's a literal guaranteed minimum amount of income, whoever you are. further, you'd have to tie it to inflation to stop the landlords from cashing in on it.
just sending everybody $1000 is pointless, and the unavoidable conclusion is that the candidate is either using it as a gimmick to win votes the way that many candidates float around tax cuts or legitimately doesn't understand the point of the policy.
for the sake of pointing it out somewhere, is $1000/month a gimmick? yes. that's not going to accomplish anything, whatsoever. you'd might as well just pass a tax cut for landlords, which is where the idea, as he's promoting it, really came from.
i've talked a lot about a gai in the past, but i wouldn't want to implement it as a dividend like that. so, no, i'm not in favour of sending everybody the money, that's just going to create inflation. the post-work anarchist position has little patience for these arguments about labour being an escape from poverty (that's hilarious. really.) or this idea that you just need to send people to school to eliminate poverty (i don't want a bourgeois office job, dammit!), but it doesn't see the idea as a dividend. it's more just a way to rebrand welfare as a livable subsidy by having it swallow things like disability payments and artist's grants.
i don't reach much friedman, so i might be getting the idea wrong, but the gai as a negative income tax is more along the lines of the way that post-work anarchists see this implemented. so, you'd do your taxes at the end of the year, and if your income is below a certain level then you get a top up to the minimum.
so, let's set the minimum to $30,000. if your taxable income is $30,001, you'd get nothing. if your taxable income is $15,000 you'd get a $15,000 subsidy, either in a lump sum or via monthly payments. and, if your income is $0 you'd get the full $30,000 in subsidies.
so, the idea is that (1) you make sure that the minimum is livable and (2) you give it to everybody, whether they have a job or not. it's a literal guaranteed minimum amount of income, whoever you are. further, you'd have to tie it to inflation to stop the landlords from cashing in on it.
just sending everybody $1000 is pointless, and the unavoidable conclusion is that the candidate is either using it as a gimmick to win votes the way that many candidates float around tax cuts or legitimately doesn't understand the point of the policy.
he didn't go to work last week, and it doesn't look like he's going to work this week, either.
he's mentioned that he's "depressed". well, maybe he should stop sitting around smoking pot by himself during weekdays, then? i don't get it...this reinforcing pot habit, it's just flat out stupidity. you're depressed, so you take a drug that science is very clear increases depression. then, you keep complaining. because you're stupid, ok? that's the fact of it - you're just a fucking retard.
what i "get" is that i need to get away from here, because you can never trust an addict, and because i don't have the patience or mental stability to handle being around them.
he's mentioned that he's "depressed". well, maybe he should stop sitting around smoking pot by himself during weekdays, then? i don't get it...this reinforcing pot habit, it's just flat out stupidity. you're depressed, so you take a drug that science is very clear increases depression. then, you keep complaining. because you're stupid, ok? that's the fact of it - you're just a fucking retard.
what i "get" is that i need to get away from here, because you can never trust an addict, and because i don't have the patience or mental stability to handle being around them.
i took a good initial run through, and i don't actually see anything obvious happening for the rest of the month.
so, if i end up staying in for the month, that means i'm not smoking for the month. and, i expect that the lease obligations - obligations - be properly upheld, or i'm going to flip.
my habits outside of the property have absolutely no legal, moral or logical consequence on the lease that was signed, or my legal rights around having those lease obligations properly upheld. i didn't sign a non-smoking lease by accident. it wasn't a coincidental request. it was the only important part of the agreement.
tell yourself i have a split personality if you can't get your head around it, but social smoking is a real thing, and i completely reject arguments of hypocrisy around it. it's not a moral issue. i'm not compromising myself. i've organized the situation this way because it's how i want it, and i'm not going to be shy about enforcing it, when the time is appropriate to do so.
and, i'd better get that fucking oiprd report this week, too, so i can start planning around getting out of this fucking place and getting away from this guy upstairs and whatever he's addicted to.
so, if i end up staying in for the month, that means i'm not smoking for the month. and, i expect that the lease obligations - obligations - be properly upheld, or i'm going to flip.
my habits outside of the property have absolutely no legal, moral or logical consequence on the lease that was signed, or my legal rights around having those lease obligations properly upheld. i didn't sign a non-smoking lease by accident. it wasn't a coincidental request. it was the only important part of the agreement.
tell yourself i have a split personality if you can't get your head around it, but social smoking is a real thing, and i completely reject arguments of hypocrisy around it. it's not a moral issue. i'm not compromising myself. i've organized the situation this way because it's how i want it, and i'm not going to be shy about enforcing it, when the time is appropriate to do so.
and, i'd better get that fucking oiprd report this week, too, so i can start planning around getting out of this fucking place and getting away from this guy upstairs and whatever he's addicted to.
i have never smoked inside of any place that i've ever lived.
ever.
in my whole life.
i have always been an outside smoker.
it's disgusting to smoke inside. period.
so, even if i was smoking, i'd still demand you go the fuck outside.
that's not something that's changed. that's been a constant my whole life: i can't deal with inside smoke, and i've never been able to, and so i've always sent people outside.
i wouldn't even let my girlfriend smoke inside, when we lived together, and we both smoked. i sent her outside in the fucking blizzard. she tried to smoke in the basement, but i wouldn't stand for that, either.
i have no tolerance for this at all, and i never have.
ever.
in my whole life.
i have always been an outside smoker.
it's disgusting to smoke inside. period.
so, even if i was smoking, i'd still demand you go the fuck outside.
that's not something that's changed. that's been a constant my whole life: i can't deal with inside smoke, and i've never been able to, and so i've always sent people outside.
i wouldn't even let my girlfriend smoke inside, when we lived together, and we both smoked. i sent her outside in the fucking blizzard. she tried to smoke in the basement, but i wouldn't stand for that, either.
i have no tolerance for this at all, and i never have.
it's exceedingly frustrating.
i wanted one thing: a non-smoking living space.
there is one important part of the lease: a non-smoking living space.
i am not compromising on the point, and i am not relenting on it. he will be forced to compensate me for the suffering he's causing me, in due time.
in the mean time, he can enjoy the fan running, because i'm not turning it off until the air clears in here.
i wanted one thing: a non-smoking living space.
there is one important part of the lease: a non-smoking living space.
i am not compromising on the point, and i am not relenting on it. he will be forced to compensate me for the suffering he's causing me, in due time.
in the mean time, he can enjoy the fan running, because i'm not turning it off until the air clears in here.
why don't these fucking idiots get the point?
i smoke when i'm out, drinking, at the bar, where it's dirty.
i do not smoke when i'm at home, in my space, where it's clean.
do you understand?
so, no. the fact that i smoked four packs of cigarettes on the weekend - when i was at the bar, drinking - does not give the fucking idiot upstairs a listen to smoke inside when i'm at home, sober, and clean. nor will i be smoking again until i go back out to the bar, where it's dirty.
and, yes, i can smell it.
and, yes, i'm going to sue him for it as soon as i get done with the previous case.
i smoke when i'm out, drinking, at the bar, where it's dirty.
i do not smoke when i'm at home, in my space, where it's clean.
do you understand?
so, no. the fact that i smoked four packs of cigarettes on the weekend - when i was at the bar, drinking - does not give the fucking idiot upstairs a listen to smoke inside when i'm at home, sober, and clean. nor will i be smoking again until i go back out to the bar, where it's dirty.
and, yes, i can smell it.
and, yes, i'm going to sue him for it as soon as i get done with the previous case.
burlesque.
listen - i don't care what you do. really. like, at all. i don't care about you one bit. but, i can't stand being in the same room as it.
i don't find it emancipating at all in any remote way. and, i just don't see where the question of morality even arises, in context; it's just not a relevant analysis. rather, i just find it sleazy and gross, and i'm going to get up and walk out every time.
i can understand it as a reaction, though. if i had grown up in a conservative christian or muslim household, maybe i'd be more attracted to the rebellion of it. but, i wasn't raised in a conservative household, and my reaction on that level is consequently to point to it as an example of why we shouldn't have conservative households. this is how religion warps the minds of your kids, and what they turn into if you raise them in guilt.
so, yes: i don't get it. or, i don't get it on a guttural level, at least. and, the way i'm going to get it on an intellectual level is just to deconstruct it.
which isn't to say i don't think you should do it, just to say that i'd rather not watch.
listen - i don't care what you do. really. like, at all. i don't care about you one bit. but, i can't stand being in the same room as it.
i don't find it emancipating at all in any remote way. and, i just don't see where the question of morality even arises, in context; it's just not a relevant analysis. rather, i just find it sleazy and gross, and i'm going to get up and walk out every time.
i can understand it as a reaction, though. if i had grown up in a conservative christian or muslim household, maybe i'd be more attracted to the rebellion of it. but, i wasn't raised in a conservative household, and my reaction on that level is consequently to point to it as an example of why we shouldn't have conservative households. this is how religion warps the minds of your kids, and what they turn into if you raise them in guilt.
so, yes: i don't get it. or, i don't get it on a guttural level, at least. and, the way i'm going to get it on an intellectual level is just to deconstruct it.
which isn't to say i don't think you should do it, just to say that i'd rather not watch.
i'm starting to think that the problem may be that cory booker's vocabulary is too large for his plotted path.
again: i broadly don't like his policies (i'm ten degrees to his left), but he has an ability and habit to very effectively project himself as the smartest person in the room, and if you're going to reduce the process of this to just picking the best brain because you don't agree with any of them on anything anyways, then he kind of rises to the top of the list, for me. he does stand out in the field. but, i don't think that's what his target audience really wants.
he may want to start carrying a thesaurus, so he can start using smaller words.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/cory-booker-white-supremacy/595684/
again: i broadly don't like his policies (i'm ten degrees to his left), but he has an ability and habit to very effectively project himself as the smartest person in the room, and if you're going to reduce the process of this to just picking the best brain because you don't agree with any of them on anything anyways, then he kind of rises to the top of the list, for me. he does stand out in the field. but, i don't think that's what his target audience really wants.
he may want to start carrying a thesaurus, so he can start using smaller words.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/cory-booker-white-supremacy/595684/
the criticisms of biden's record on women's rights are more substantive and more real, and i'm not sure what the right analysis is on it.
i'm not old enough to remember, and i won't pretend i was, but somebody that this argument comes up around quite a bit is john lennon. it's easy to point to certain pieces of evidence and argue that he was a misogynistic piece of shit, and it's not even like i want to argue with you. but, the fact is that almost all of the men of his generation were misogynistic pieces of shit, because the culture was inherently misogynistic and inherently shitty. and, despite being an asshole himself, lennon was also responsible for helping to reverse the situation. so, do you nail him for what he did in his youth, or do you praise him for what he did in middle age (and wonder what he'd do in old age)?
in a sense, it's kind of like criticizing an abolitionist for inheriting slaves. you wake up in a culture, and things are the way they are; it's not like you decided that they'd be that way, and if you inherit something then it becomes yours, whether you like it or not. but, if you're supporting abolition eventually, even if it takes you until the age of 50 to see it, then you're fighting for the end of the oppression. cusps are complicated, like that.
the truth is that biden lived through a change that most of us take for granted at this point (and really shouldn't) and that he had to adjust to it as it was happening. so, you have to analyze how he adjusted rather than where he started from. and, sure: maybe he's even still adjusting. maybe he'll never really let it go, in the end.
debates don't like subtlety...
i think it's biden's responsibility to do two things to help younger people that have never known the world he grew up in through anything but black and white movies and assigned novels in schools understand what living through the cusp of women's rights was actually like. the first thing he has to do is acknowledge the past, and maybe he does that by actually explaining it. and, then he has to carefully point to things he eventually did right, while acknowledging the things he did wrong.
but, i think that the actual problem for biden in these exchanges may be less when it comes to female voters explicitly (in a primary, you also have rural and southern democrats to appeal to, and the women are not so pro-choice or so pro-labour, something senators from new york and california might not be as cognizant of as they should be but senators from delaware might have a better understanding of) and more about how blockfooted he seemed on the response. he looked like a deer caught in headlights, but it was an expression of a broader mannerism. sanders is old, but he hasn't really aged in 20 years. he's "grumpy", but he's not slow on the response, and he's not adopting the body language of a toddler the way that so many older people do when they get past a certain point. biden has slowed down a lot, and you can really tell, it's visibly obvious in the footage. the exchange made him seem past his prime in more ways than one.
and, i need to really state this pretty assertively: it's not "ageism" to argue that somebody in their late 70s and that is showing crystal clear signs of decline should be at home and preparing for end of life with his loved ones, rather than parading around running for president.
i'm not old enough to remember, and i won't pretend i was, but somebody that this argument comes up around quite a bit is john lennon. it's easy to point to certain pieces of evidence and argue that he was a misogynistic piece of shit, and it's not even like i want to argue with you. but, the fact is that almost all of the men of his generation were misogynistic pieces of shit, because the culture was inherently misogynistic and inherently shitty. and, despite being an asshole himself, lennon was also responsible for helping to reverse the situation. so, do you nail him for what he did in his youth, or do you praise him for what he did in middle age (and wonder what he'd do in old age)?
in a sense, it's kind of like criticizing an abolitionist for inheriting slaves. you wake up in a culture, and things are the way they are; it's not like you decided that they'd be that way, and if you inherit something then it becomes yours, whether you like it or not. but, if you're supporting abolition eventually, even if it takes you until the age of 50 to see it, then you're fighting for the end of the oppression. cusps are complicated, like that.
the truth is that biden lived through a change that most of us take for granted at this point (and really shouldn't) and that he had to adjust to it as it was happening. so, you have to analyze how he adjusted rather than where he started from. and, sure: maybe he's even still adjusting. maybe he'll never really let it go, in the end.
debates don't like subtlety...
i think it's biden's responsibility to do two things to help younger people that have never known the world he grew up in through anything but black and white movies and assigned novels in schools understand what living through the cusp of women's rights was actually like. the first thing he has to do is acknowledge the past, and maybe he does that by actually explaining it. and, then he has to carefully point to things he eventually did right, while acknowledging the things he did wrong.
but, i think that the actual problem for biden in these exchanges may be less when it comes to female voters explicitly (in a primary, you also have rural and southern democrats to appeal to, and the women are not so pro-choice or so pro-labour, something senators from new york and california might not be as cognizant of as they should be but senators from delaware might have a better understanding of) and more about how blockfooted he seemed on the response. he looked like a deer caught in headlights, but it was an expression of a broader mannerism. sanders is old, but he hasn't really aged in 20 years. he's "grumpy", but he's not slow on the response, and he's not adopting the body language of a toddler the way that so many older people do when they get past a certain point. biden has slowed down a lot, and you can really tell, it's visibly obvious in the footage. the exchange made him seem past his prime in more ways than one.
and, i need to really state this pretty assertively: it's not "ageism" to argue that somebody in their late 70s and that is showing crystal clear signs of decline should be at home and preparing for end of life with his loved ones, rather than parading around running for president.
Monday, August 12, 2019
i got my cleaning and groceries done and i'm about halfway through the second debate, which i'm going to run through to get it over with. i should be back to work either tonight or tomorrow.
i don't expect my analysis to this point to be popular, but here it is.
i was expecting the second debate to be a complete disaster, and that's more or less what it is so far. what i'm watching is a lot of people throwing what amounts to a bunch of bullshit at biden, who is carefully trying to assert the actual facts of the matter. now, that's not to say i agree with biden - i don't. i think his policies are awful. - but he's at least trying to get an honest debate in amongst a bunch of people that appear to have no interest in such a thing.
and, i have to hand the entire thing very comfortably to biden at this point, but that means i have to curve everybody up. there's a catch on the curve, though. we'll see if somebody steps up in the second half, but, right now, i'm going to have to give biden a D- and everybody else a well deserved F.
also: it's easy to understand that tulsi gabbard got a lot of hits on this night, but i'm not sure it had much to do with what she said. you know who actually watches these debates, right? yeah. ok, moving on...
i just want to close the thought with an example, though, and it's about what obama did or not do regarding immigration reform.
i watched months - it may have been years - of whitehouse press briefings over 2014 and 2015, and i have a very clear understanding of what actually happened. obama was absolutely deadset on comprehensive immigration reform, but he had absolutely no support from the republican held congress, and this is an almost entirely congressional issue. after trying for years to get a bipartisan bill, what happened is that he finally gave up and passed an executive order regarding the dreamers that is, in truth, of exceedingly grey legality. the actual reality is that the dream act is probably unconstitutional, in the form it became law under (executive order).
so, of what value is there in sitting there and blaming the president for not passing something he had no legal authority to pass? the failure to get anything passed is fully the fault of the republican congress, and that's really simply all there is to it. and, the step that obama made was so drastic and desperate that it would probably be struck down by a proper court. what i watched unfold in front of me was consequently in a parallel reality where facts don't exist. and, biden was the only defender of reality on stage.
i don't think i'd vote for joe biden. but, i'm not going to support a bunch of dishonest politicians that are looking to pull the wool over everybody's eyes, either.
i'll say this again: what's happening at the border is not a failure of oversight, although there is a failure of oversight in motion. nor is it the result of specific cruelty by an insane president, or even just a cynical ploy to win votes. what's happening at the border is systemic, it's by design, and it's not going to be altered by anybody standing on that debate stage. the raids are part of a complicated and very purposeful system of state-managed labour for the transnational corporate sector.
if you don't understand the problem, you can't take steps to fix it, and nobody on stage understands the problem. maybe, for some of them, they're just ignorant. it's possible, it really is. but, for all of the talk about prison-industrial complexes, let me throw this question out there: how much money have each of these candidates taken from big agribusiness?
we'll see what else comes up.
i don't expect my analysis to this point to be popular, but here it is.
i was expecting the second debate to be a complete disaster, and that's more or less what it is so far. what i'm watching is a lot of people throwing what amounts to a bunch of bullshit at biden, who is carefully trying to assert the actual facts of the matter. now, that's not to say i agree with biden - i don't. i think his policies are awful. - but he's at least trying to get an honest debate in amongst a bunch of people that appear to have no interest in such a thing.
and, i have to hand the entire thing very comfortably to biden at this point, but that means i have to curve everybody up. there's a catch on the curve, though. we'll see if somebody steps up in the second half, but, right now, i'm going to have to give biden a D- and everybody else a well deserved F.
also: it's easy to understand that tulsi gabbard got a lot of hits on this night, but i'm not sure it had much to do with what she said. you know who actually watches these debates, right? yeah. ok, moving on...
i just want to close the thought with an example, though, and it's about what obama did or not do regarding immigration reform.
i watched months - it may have been years - of whitehouse press briefings over 2014 and 2015, and i have a very clear understanding of what actually happened. obama was absolutely deadset on comprehensive immigration reform, but he had absolutely no support from the republican held congress, and this is an almost entirely congressional issue. after trying for years to get a bipartisan bill, what happened is that he finally gave up and passed an executive order regarding the dreamers that is, in truth, of exceedingly grey legality. the actual reality is that the dream act is probably unconstitutional, in the form it became law under (executive order).
so, of what value is there in sitting there and blaming the president for not passing something he had no legal authority to pass? the failure to get anything passed is fully the fault of the republican congress, and that's really simply all there is to it. and, the step that obama made was so drastic and desperate that it would probably be struck down by a proper court. what i watched unfold in front of me was consequently in a parallel reality where facts don't exist. and, biden was the only defender of reality on stage.
i don't think i'd vote for joe biden. but, i'm not going to support a bunch of dishonest politicians that are looking to pull the wool over everybody's eyes, either.
i'll say this again: what's happening at the border is not a failure of oversight, although there is a failure of oversight in motion. nor is it the result of specific cruelty by an insane president, or even just a cynical ploy to win votes. what's happening at the border is systemic, it's by design, and it's not going to be altered by anybody standing on that debate stage. the raids are part of a complicated and very purposeful system of state-managed labour for the transnational corporate sector.
if you don't understand the problem, you can't take steps to fix it, and nobody on stage understands the problem. maybe, for some of them, they're just ignorant. it's possible, it really is. but, for all of the talk about prison-industrial complexes, let me throw this question out there: how much money have each of these candidates taken from big agribusiness?
we'll see what else comes up.
so, i got through the two day bender and while i'll say i didn't have any problems, exactly, it was also maybe not the best way to get through certain parts of it. i was a little fadey for saajtak, after 30 or so hours of drinking and smoking leading up to it. i smoked through more than four packs of cigarettes. it's an issue to balance - i seem to be able to do around 25 hours or so, and i'll get a second wind after, but i don't want to put myself in a situation where i'm seeing a headliner in that state.
the highlight of the weekend had to be a completely ridiculous cover of taylor swift's shake it off, by a local band that you've never heard of called the sunburns. i hope somebody caught a good part of that.
briefly, here's the update on what i did and didn't do:
17:00-19:15 - trey priest @ detroit shipping company.
i'm usually late for most things.
20:00-21:15 - my brightest diamond @ dso courtyard.
it's interesting that she's putting such an emphasis on detroit, because she sounds more like late 80s chicago. the new record might have been a strong wax trax! release in the late 80s, and in that sense it's kind of more of a retro thing. but, it's only retro if you know it, right? if jamie stewart & annie lennox did a collaboration...
21:30-02:00 - another dimension @ tangent gallery.
i was hoping for a lot of guitar theatrics, but it didn't really happen. i'm not sure if it was the same guy or not, but there were two guitar + dj type performances, both more in the realm of "guitarist jams over techno song he likes" rather than any kind of meaningful integration of the guitar into the set. it actually came off as a gimmick, mostly for show; it was less about integrating the instrument into the sound and more about the idea that a guitarist standing beside a dj just looks kickass and cool.
so, i spent the night composing, and if anybody saw me lost in my head outside tangent friday night, that's what i was doing. i tend to avoid composing when i'm dancing for a number of reasons, and it's actually been a while, but the guitars just completely triggered me. and, trust me: the imaginary guitar solos, as imagined in the mind of the imaginer, were far more intense than what i saw in front of me. there was also some dubstep (they call it 'bass music' now), and it was tedious and boring like it always is, but the fact that i was spending the night composing in my head kind of took the grind out. it's funny that all they really needed to do was put a picture of a guitar on the wall to save the vibe, and that trick won't work if it gets overdone, but i did enjoy the night well enough.
chirp came on exceedingly late and was more interested in playing it safe on this night. i caught parts of their set, but not all of it. i will say that whatever kind of guitar synth he's using is exceptionally good sounding, which is to say that it seems as though the technology has really come up in the last few years, and i should take a closer look into that. the last i checked, they had tracking systems through computer sound cards, but the latency wasn't there yet. i guess that all they'd need to do is put that technology in a phone and ramp it up, which is easy enough to convert into a pedal. so, i'm less surprised on a technological level than i am...i'd just never heard anything that realistic from something on the floor, before.
02:30-6:30 - late party @ unknown location. i was at a secret party with mostly gay men, and it was very secret, so secret that i'm not really going to talk much about it. even if you could find the place, they won't let you in without a password. or if you look too straight. but i'll say that it was more like a house party, so the cops would really have minimal powers in actually doing much. and i did have some fun there.
i got a little lost after that, but after going around in circles for a bit (which included smoking a large joint and figuring out a way to take cash out of the machine in detroit, something i'd never done before), i ended up back in hamtramck for a little before 8:00. i locked up at ant hall and took a walk down the street to find a coffee, which took me half way up campeau to a diner not far from the cvs. it was almost 8:30 before i got back. sometimes, it's things like this that eat away at your time; sometimes, it's a good way to eat away at it.
9:00-12:00 - dsa meeting @ ant hall.
the head organizers ("leadership") were there an hour early, and you could tell right away that these people were running a political party. indeed, it became clear enough fairly quickly that the actual purpose of the meeting was to present some bourgeois politicians to a crowd that is going to act as campaign volunteers. further, while it's not entirely clear where the platform was written, nobody made any effort in trying to conceal that it was being pushed down from somewhere else. so, this meeting would not be accurately described as an organizing meeting of the political grassroots in the community, but rather as an opportunity for an outside organization to find recruits to carry through with it's cause. it felt less like an organizing meeting (and, it's been a while, but i've been to quite a few.) and more like a ponzi scheme sign-up (which i've been to quite a few of, as well. hey, i was looking for a job. that's the hook.). they passed a collection plate at one point.
i didn't really want to address anybody at the meeting, and i wasn't intending to sign up. i was merely an observer from the temporary autonomous zone; a friendly anarchist that was between parties and really just hanging out for general interest.
but, this group is clearly much more focused and almost career-oriented than anything i'd want to involve myself with. we're talking about strictly vertical organizing with a completely pre-written platform, almost more like it's a franchised extension of a fast food restaurant. so, this is a political party, whether it's calling itself one or not. worse, there is clearly a centralized bureaucracy behind this, and you clearly need to get promoted to a higher position in the hierarchy before you're allowed to meaningfully participate in the process. everything i saw was just textbook bourgeois politics that is directly antithetical to any concept of socialism that is worth discussing. there was even one point where one of the "leaders" stated to the crowd that the candidates didn't have any ideas of their own, to the point that it wasn't even worthwhile to ask them questions because everything they know about the party is in the platform; she really wanted to make it clear that all of their positions are defined perfectly in the platform, and if they win then they owe everything to the party, who would be in complete control.
it was at least well attended for what it was, i'll give them that. the crowd was a mix of people that is hard to define in any specific way, as you usually get at these events. that said, it was noticeably white for an area with a majority muslim population (in fact, many of the people were from ferndale), and they seemed cognizant of how unusually white they were for their region, too. i guess all the brown people were too busy working to show up.
so, i don't know exactly who's "steering" this, but it was clear pretty quickly that it's just some "progressive" democrats that are co-opting socialism as a marketing term rather than any kind of meaningful grassroots movement. a better name for the organization as it exists today should probably be "socialist democrats of america" rather than "democratic socialists of america". and, i'd consequently advise avoiding them.
i was torn between waiting for the bbq and eating early, but by around 12:30 the choice had been made by my stomach. i didn't want to show up at the bbq and eat all the food. so, i grabbed a very thick six-inch at subway (bmt + mozz + bacon) before going to the bbq....
13:00-21:30 - punk rock bbq @ kelly's.
i came in super early to grab a beer and basically just hung out all day. i had one hamburger and one chicken burger, which for me was part of the reason i went there.
the bands were just kind of there and that's sort of what you expect from something like this, which is really just a bunch of people, most of whom knew each other, and most of which were over 40, having a beer on a patio. people were kind of only vaguely paying attention.
there was an opener that i can't find the name of - i think his name was steve - that did an atonal singer/songwriter thing. i don't grasp this style of music or understand what it's appeal actually is, but people keep doing it because people like it. i didn't understand a word he said, but his vocal tone was like bob dylan with a bad cold in the middle of allergy season. if he knew a fourth chord, he didn't show it off.
womb worm were on next and they did a mildly interesting no-wavy or weeny math-y sort of thing. this appears to be trendy right now. but, what i'd actually like to hear is somebody make it more complicated and that much weirder (the problem is that it's a 40 year old schtick, and it's actually a highly predictable style), rather than a little bit catchier, which is what they actually did.
there was then an all-girl ramones cover band called the whoremones. i'd doubt any of them were born before 1990, and they were kind of more josie and the pussycats, to be entirely frank about it. they did some newer songs by acts they actually like (colleen green was one of them, and that made more sense) as well. i'll admit i digged watching somebody play the classics like i wanna be sedated at that particular point, but it was actually kind of contrived and, while i recognize that this gig may be profitable for them, i do hope they're able to start a band of their own some time soon.
pet psychic kind of just floated by. i may have been a little too stoned at the time. but, i think it was pretty stripped down - like, early beatles stripped down.
and, i only vaguely recall bourbon squirrel, which i think was also pretty stripped back and kind of slow moving.
the person that organized this show plays out a lot in detroit under the pseudonym of "lady darkness" and seems to perform in a bunch of different styles. she remembered me from the last two day party, as she did an acoustic set at the dequindre cut midway through it (and i interjected into a conversation she was having about joseph conrad). as i've checked out sound samples previously, i was actually expecting something in the realm of glam rock or even hair metal, as that was what the samples had implied, but this was a different animal - more of an art-rock band (with a violin player), which opened up space for the vocals, which were actually a little reminiscent of a mid-90s jarboe, or maybe a pj harvey. i don't think they got across what they wanted to, and they seemed visibly irritated that people weren't really paying attention, but it was a good proof of concept, at least. what i'll say is this: burgers were maybe not the best way to bribe interested parties to see a band of that sort; she might have got a more interested crowd by bribing them with ramen noodles.
the last band appear to have been a punk band at one point, then grown out of it, then rejoined for the hell of it. that's a guess based on the musicianship, the age of the band and the length of time since their last bandcamp release (7 years). it was skate-y, but full of jazzy fills that were designed simply to show off, kind of thing. so, i enjoyed this. and, near the end of the set they did that cover of shake it off that was just absolutely brilliantly absurd.
so, it's around 20:00 and i'm trying to figure out if i give the next band - jimmy ohio and the ultimate overs - a fair chance or not, knowing i won't be staying for the later acts, which i know well and am not really into. the saajtak show just seems more interesting to me. first, i decided i'd finish my beer and go because the band will be on before i finish my beer. nope. so, i decide i'l have one more smoke, and then they'll be on. nope. they started playing right after i bought another beer, and while i didn't end up missing anything at the other show (in fact, i could have stayed at the barbeque a little longer....), i did spend much of the set outside. it had that angular television vibe to it, but as seems to be normal nowadays, was kind of bombarded with glossy pop. so, i didn't get much out of this. and, i left when they were done....
21:45-02:00 - saajtak record release @ ghost light.
there was a burlesque show and a comedy club event in the same venue, so the place was busier than it ought to have been and the first act didn't come on until like 22:30. i think i impressed some of the improv people in the smoking section with a good run on human sacrifice being theoretically permissible. see, if there was any actual empirical evidence of it's efficacy, it would be hard to argue against it under certain scenarios like drought or climate change. however, because i am aware of no evidence that causally links human sacrifice to any sort of measurable outcome, i can't, in good conscience, stand in favour of it. i actually don't really know why i've never done any stand-up, other than it just never really coming up. i know i'd be good at it because i seem to be able to make people laugh more or less effortlessly. the problem i'd come up with is the crowd being too stupid to get half of the jokes. i guess it's an inversion of how people see it, which is a function of market theory: capitalism insists that it's the clown that needs to adjust to the market in terms of being properly entertaining, but i'd insist that it's rather that the educated clown, at least, shouldn't have it's jokes corrupted by the interference of the audience, that the educated clown must persevere until a sufficiently educated audience that can understand the jokes can be found. so, a really talented comedian should spend at least five years playing to empty clubs, because people are invariably going to be too stupid to get the joke the first time through. and, then i'm just running into the same problems i have with my other art projects. one day, though, somebody will get me drunk enough at ghost light to drag me to the comedy club in the back, and i will slay the one person in the room that took courses on the intersectionality of byzantine history and quantum physics. that is how they got the greek fire.
i think i do enough stand-up sitting down here at home, thanks. these posts are 95% stream of consciousness; the difference is solely in the latency problems that exist between my brain and my (one) typing hand. it's less like a bobbing parrot, and more like an anthropomorphized arthropod at the end of my arm that is connected to my brain via a 14.4 baud modem, even though i'm well aware that the wiring in my body is operating at speeds and on levels that we don't truly understand. for example, did you know that your brain can register an impulse for suicide before you are exposed to fall out boy for the first time?
i think we got the point across.
the first band had a guitarist that i've seen pop up in a number of other projects around town that are a little more....sophisticated than the one i saw on saturday night. if somebody were to notate the parts and print them on to a piece of music, the result may be challenging to perform, i'd have to grant the point. but, the presentation, which sounded like a very young kim gordon fronting some kind of john zorn project, was just simply not very compelling. the impression that i got was that they seemed to sort of be playing down to the audience. now, i'm a fan of certain kinds of noise rock that have more structured components to them, but this just wasn't that. if you've seen something like vampire belt, you get the general point, but the truth is that they were really just literally fucking around for a little while and it just came off like they were wasting their talent. let's hope that it doesn't take them too long to grow out of this particular phase because these musicians should be doing something better than this.
i didn't have a lot of interest in the second or third acts.
when saajtak finally came on - and i don't remember what time it was - i was literally having a hard time standing up. i was less drunk and just more tired; i wasn't in danger of blacking out so much as i was just in danger of falling asleep. and, i may have nodded off for a few seconds, while standing in the audience. but, what i remember of the show is that (1) the sound problems they had at mocad were gone. they sounded good, here. (2) they're actually moving in a more abstract direction that is perhaps making lesser use of the singer's ridiculously high level of technical talent. saajtak has always reminded me a lot of a band from the 70s called yes (that i don't actually like that much), but taken to a modern level of technological wizardry. so, the keys/drums duo often has a very wakeman/bruford feel in it's dichotomy between diddly arpeggiation and weird atonality, but the technology in the synthesizer work is updated to feel a lot more contemporary. legitimate advances in prog rock are rare, nowadays, and they're getting close to their maximum shelf date. so, i think you want to get this while you still can.
2:30-07:00 - late party II @ other unknown location. the second show was not as secret, and it may be unnecessary to hide it's location. there were also less people than there were at the secret show, which is curious, but it was more of a mixed crowd. so, there was some dancing and some smoking (and some drinking) and then i left and went home...
even if i could have stayed awake past that point, i was out of cash and didn't want to spend more. and, the eight hour wait for the book club was simply too daunting.
15:00-17:00 - socialist book club meeting @ 2283 holbrook. $0 + coffee.
19:00-00:00 - cherubs + child bite @ small's. $13 + beer costs.
i'm not a substantive cherubs fan, but would have liked to see them. tell them to come back. and, i still haven't seen child bite because it just hasn't yet made sense.
i was back at the tunnel a little before 8:00, hit the renaissance for a large bowel movement, caught the 8:25 bus, picked up some fruit when i got back over and made it home to some spaghetti at about 9:30, and a shower and some good sleep after that.
i need to finish the cleaning that i put on hold last week, do some groceries and get back to finishing up the last journal compilation.
the highlight of the weekend had to be a completely ridiculous cover of taylor swift's shake it off, by a local band that you've never heard of called the sunburns. i hope somebody caught a good part of that.
briefly, here's the update on what i did and didn't do:
i'm usually late for most things.
20:00-21:15 - my brightest diamond @ dso courtyard.
it's interesting that she's putting such an emphasis on detroit, because she sounds more like late 80s chicago. the new record might have been a strong wax trax! release in the late 80s, and in that sense it's kind of more of a retro thing. but, it's only retro if you know it, right? if jamie stewart & annie lennox did a collaboration...
21:30-02:00 - another dimension @ tangent gallery.
i was hoping for a lot of guitar theatrics, but it didn't really happen. i'm not sure if it was the same guy or not, but there were two guitar + dj type performances, both more in the realm of "guitarist jams over techno song he likes" rather than any kind of meaningful integration of the guitar into the set. it actually came off as a gimmick, mostly for show; it was less about integrating the instrument into the sound and more about the idea that a guitarist standing beside a dj just looks kickass and cool.
so, i spent the night composing, and if anybody saw me lost in my head outside tangent friday night, that's what i was doing. i tend to avoid composing when i'm dancing for a number of reasons, and it's actually been a while, but the guitars just completely triggered me. and, trust me: the imaginary guitar solos, as imagined in the mind of the imaginer, were far more intense than what i saw in front of me. there was also some dubstep (they call it 'bass music' now), and it was tedious and boring like it always is, but the fact that i was spending the night composing in my head kind of took the grind out. it's funny that all they really needed to do was put a picture of a guitar on the wall to save the vibe, and that trick won't work if it gets overdone, but i did enjoy the night well enough.
chirp came on exceedingly late and was more interested in playing it safe on this night. i caught parts of their set, but not all of it. i will say that whatever kind of guitar synth he's using is exceptionally good sounding, which is to say that it seems as though the technology has really come up in the last few years, and i should take a closer look into that. the last i checked, they had tracking systems through computer sound cards, but the latency wasn't there yet. i guess that all they'd need to do is put that technology in a phone and ramp it up, which is easy enough to convert into a pedal. so, i'm less surprised on a technological level than i am...i'd just never heard anything that realistic from something on the floor, before.
02:30-6:30 - late party @ unknown location. i was at a secret party with mostly gay men, and it was very secret, so secret that i'm not really going to talk much about it. even if you could find the place, they won't let you in without a password. or if you look too straight. but i'll say that it was more like a house party, so the cops would really have minimal powers in actually doing much. and i did have some fun there.
i got a little lost after that, but after going around in circles for a bit (which included smoking a large joint and figuring out a way to take cash out of the machine in detroit, something i'd never done before), i ended up back in hamtramck for a little before 8:00. i locked up at ant hall and took a walk down the street to find a coffee, which took me half way up campeau to a diner not far from the cvs. it was almost 8:30 before i got back. sometimes, it's things like this that eat away at your time; sometimes, it's a good way to eat away at it.
9:00-12:00 - dsa meeting @ ant hall.
the head organizers ("leadership") were there an hour early, and you could tell right away that these people were running a political party. indeed, it became clear enough fairly quickly that the actual purpose of the meeting was to present some bourgeois politicians to a crowd that is going to act as campaign volunteers. further, while it's not entirely clear where the platform was written, nobody made any effort in trying to conceal that it was being pushed down from somewhere else. so, this meeting would not be accurately described as an organizing meeting of the political grassroots in the community, but rather as an opportunity for an outside organization to find recruits to carry through with it's cause. it felt less like an organizing meeting (and, it's been a while, but i've been to quite a few.) and more like a ponzi scheme sign-up (which i've been to quite a few of, as well. hey, i was looking for a job. that's the hook.). they passed a collection plate at one point.
i didn't really want to address anybody at the meeting, and i wasn't intending to sign up. i was merely an observer from the temporary autonomous zone; a friendly anarchist that was between parties and really just hanging out for general interest.
but, this group is clearly much more focused and almost career-oriented than anything i'd want to involve myself with. we're talking about strictly vertical organizing with a completely pre-written platform, almost more like it's a franchised extension of a fast food restaurant. so, this is a political party, whether it's calling itself one or not. worse, there is clearly a centralized bureaucracy behind this, and you clearly need to get promoted to a higher position in the hierarchy before you're allowed to meaningfully participate in the process. everything i saw was just textbook bourgeois politics that is directly antithetical to any concept of socialism that is worth discussing. there was even one point where one of the "leaders" stated to the crowd that the candidates didn't have any ideas of their own, to the point that it wasn't even worthwhile to ask them questions because everything they know about the party is in the platform; she really wanted to make it clear that all of their positions are defined perfectly in the platform, and if they win then they owe everything to the party, who would be in complete control.
it was at least well attended for what it was, i'll give them that. the crowd was a mix of people that is hard to define in any specific way, as you usually get at these events. that said, it was noticeably white for an area with a majority muslim population (in fact, many of the people were from ferndale), and they seemed cognizant of how unusually white they were for their region, too. i guess all the brown people were too busy working to show up.
so, i don't know exactly who's "steering" this, but it was clear pretty quickly that it's just some "progressive" democrats that are co-opting socialism as a marketing term rather than any kind of meaningful grassroots movement. a better name for the organization as it exists today should probably be "socialist democrats of america" rather than "democratic socialists of america". and, i'd consequently advise avoiding them.
i was torn between waiting for the bbq and eating early, but by around 12:30 the choice had been made by my stomach. i didn't want to show up at the bbq and eat all the food. so, i grabbed a very thick six-inch at subway (bmt + mozz + bacon) before going to the bbq....
13:00-21:30 - punk rock bbq @ kelly's.
i came in super early to grab a beer and basically just hung out all day. i had one hamburger and one chicken burger, which for me was part of the reason i went there.
the bands were just kind of there and that's sort of what you expect from something like this, which is really just a bunch of people, most of whom knew each other, and most of which were over 40, having a beer on a patio. people were kind of only vaguely paying attention.
there was an opener that i can't find the name of - i think his name was steve - that did an atonal singer/songwriter thing. i don't grasp this style of music or understand what it's appeal actually is, but people keep doing it because people like it. i didn't understand a word he said, but his vocal tone was like bob dylan with a bad cold in the middle of allergy season. if he knew a fourth chord, he didn't show it off.
womb worm were on next and they did a mildly interesting no-wavy or weeny math-y sort of thing. this appears to be trendy right now. but, what i'd actually like to hear is somebody make it more complicated and that much weirder (the problem is that it's a 40 year old schtick, and it's actually a highly predictable style), rather than a little bit catchier, which is what they actually did.
there was then an all-girl ramones cover band called the whoremones. i'd doubt any of them were born before 1990, and they were kind of more josie and the pussycats, to be entirely frank about it. they did some newer songs by acts they actually like (colleen green was one of them, and that made more sense) as well. i'll admit i digged watching somebody play the classics like i wanna be sedated at that particular point, but it was actually kind of contrived and, while i recognize that this gig may be profitable for them, i do hope they're able to start a band of their own some time soon.
pet psychic kind of just floated by. i may have been a little too stoned at the time. but, i think it was pretty stripped down - like, early beatles stripped down.
and, i only vaguely recall bourbon squirrel, which i think was also pretty stripped back and kind of slow moving.
the person that organized this show plays out a lot in detroit under the pseudonym of "lady darkness" and seems to perform in a bunch of different styles. she remembered me from the last two day party, as she did an acoustic set at the dequindre cut midway through it (and i interjected into a conversation she was having about joseph conrad). as i've checked out sound samples previously, i was actually expecting something in the realm of glam rock or even hair metal, as that was what the samples had implied, but this was a different animal - more of an art-rock band (with a violin player), which opened up space for the vocals, which were actually a little reminiscent of a mid-90s jarboe, or maybe a pj harvey. i don't think they got across what they wanted to, and they seemed visibly irritated that people weren't really paying attention, but it was a good proof of concept, at least. what i'll say is this: burgers were maybe not the best way to bribe interested parties to see a band of that sort; she might have got a more interested crowd by bribing them with ramen noodles.
the last band appear to have been a punk band at one point, then grown out of it, then rejoined for the hell of it. that's a guess based on the musicianship, the age of the band and the length of time since their last bandcamp release (7 years). it was skate-y, but full of jazzy fills that were designed simply to show off, kind of thing. so, i enjoyed this. and, near the end of the set they did that cover of shake it off that was just absolutely brilliantly absurd.
so, it's around 20:00 and i'm trying to figure out if i give the next band - jimmy ohio and the ultimate overs - a fair chance or not, knowing i won't be staying for the later acts, which i know well and am not really into. the saajtak show just seems more interesting to me. first, i decided i'd finish my beer and go because the band will be on before i finish my beer. nope. so, i decide i'l have one more smoke, and then they'll be on. nope. they started playing right after i bought another beer, and while i didn't end up missing anything at the other show (in fact, i could have stayed at the barbeque a little longer....), i did spend much of the set outside. it had that angular television vibe to it, but as seems to be normal nowadays, was kind of bombarded with glossy pop. so, i didn't get much out of this. and, i left when they were done....
21:45-02:00 - saajtak record release @ ghost light.
there was a burlesque show and a comedy club event in the same venue, so the place was busier than it ought to have been and the first act didn't come on until like 22:30. i think i impressed some of the improv people in the smoking section with a good run on human sacrifice being theoretically permissible. see, if there was any actual empirical evidence of it's efficacy, it would be hard to argue against it under certain scenarios like drought or climate change. however, because i am aware of no evidence that causally links human sacrifice to any sort of measurable outcome, i can't, in good conscience, stand in favour of it. i actually don't really know why i've never done any stand-up, other than it just never really coming up. i know i'd be good at it because i seem to be able to make people laugh more or less effortlessly. the problem i'd come up with is the crowd being too stupid to get half of the jokes. i guess it's an inversion of how people see it, which is a function of market theory: capitalism insists that it's the clown that needs to adjust to the market in terms of being properly entertaining, but i'd insist that it's rather that the educated clown, at least, shouldn't have it's jokes corrupted by the interference of the audience, that the educated clown must persevere until a sufficiently educated audience that can understand the jokes can be found. so, a really talented comedian should spend at least five years playing to empty clubs, because people are invariably going to be too stupid to get the joke the first time through. and, then i'm just running into the same problems i have with my other art projects. one day, though, somebody will get me drunk enough at ghost light to drag me to the comedy club in the back, and i will slay the one person in the room that took courses on the intersectionality of byzantine history and quantum physics. that is how they got the greek fire.
i think i do enough stand-up sitting down here at home, thanks. these posts are 95% stream of consciousness; the difference is solely in the latency problems that exist between my brain and my (one) typing hand. it's less like a bobbing parrot, and more like an anthropomorphized arthropod at the end of my arm that is connected to my brain via a 14.4 baud modem, even though i'm well aware that the wiring in my body is operating at speeds and on levels that we don't truly understand. for example, did you know that your brain can register an impulse for suicide before you are exposed to fall out boy for the first time?
i think we got the point across.
the first band had a guitarist that i've seen pop up in a number of other projects around town that are a little more....sophisticated than the one i saw on saturday night. if somebody were to notate the parts and print them on to a piece of music, the result may be challenging to perform, i'd have to grant the point. but, the presentation, which sounded like a very young kim gordon fronting some kind of john zorn project, was just simply not very compelling. the impression that i got was that they seemed to sort of be playing down to the audience. now, i'm a fan of certain kinds of noise rock that have more structured components to them, but this just wasn't that. if you've seen something like vampire belt, you get the general point, but the truth is that they were really just literally fucking around for a little while and it just came off like they were wasting their talent. let's hope that it doesn't take them too long to grow out of this particular phase because these musicians should be doing something better than this.
i didn't have a lot of interest in the second or third acts.
when saajtak finally came on - and i don't remember what time it was - i was literally having a hard time standing up. i was less drunk and just more tired; i wasn't in danger of blacking out so much as i was just in danger of falling asleep. and, i may have nodded off for a few seconds, while standing in the audience. but, what i remember of the show is that (1) the sound problems they had at mocad were gone. they sounded good, here. (2) they're actually moving in a more abstract direction that is perhaps making lesser use of the singer's ridiculously high level of technical talent. saajtak has always reminded me a lot of a band from the 70s called yes (that i don't actually like that much), but taken to a modern level of technological wizardry. so, the keys/drums duo often has a very wakeman/bruford feel in it's dichotomy between diddly arpeggiation and weird atonality, but the technology in the synthesizer work is updated to feel a lot more contemporary. legitimate advances in prog rock are rare, nowadays, and they're getting close to their maximum shelf date. so, i think you want to get this while you still can.
2:30-07:00 - late party II @ other unknown location. the second show was not as secret, and it may be unnecessary to hide it's location. there were also less people than there were at the secret show, which is curious, but it was more of a mixed crowd. so, there was some dancing and some smoking (and some drinking) and then i left and went home...
even if i could have stayed awake past that point, i was out of cash and didn't want to spend more. and, the eight hour wait for the book club was simply too daunting.
i'm not a substantive cherubs fan, but would have liked to see them. tell them to come back. and, i still haven't seen child bite because it just hasn't yet made sense.
i was back at the tunnel a little before 8:00, hit the renaissance for a large bowel movement, caught the 8:25 bus, picked up some fruit when i got back over and made it home to some spaghetti at about 9:30, and a shower and some good sleep after that.
i need to finish the cleaning that i put on hold last week, do some groceries and get back to finishing up the last journal compilation.
listen: i'll take new age woo over jihad & sharia any day. marianne willamson is not as scary as keith ellison is. it's just a difference of scale.
but, it's at best a step sideways and at worst a massive step backwards to start bringing the kind of language she uses into the discussion.
if she could learn how to rephrase her terms, and what the appropriate socialist concept is for each of the concepts she tries to present, then she might be the ideal candidate. and, in that sense, i can hope that she's the future of the american left.
but, the future of america cannot be in what marx called utopian socialism. thoreau was not a prophet, but a fool. utopian socialism will just lead us back to fundamentalism. and, i'm not getting on a one-way trip to gilead via iran.
she's still scary, and i might have even said that first. but, if she's not interested in learning how to convert her language away from the discourse of spiritualism and into the language of marxism, somebody else should be studying how she's doing this, and step in front of her and do it instead.
but, it's at best a step sideways and at worst a massive step backwards to start bringing the kind of language she uses into the discussion.
if she could learn how to rephrase her terms, and what the appropriate socialist concept is for each of the concepts she tries to present, then she might be the ideal candidate. and, in that sense, i can hope that she's the future of the american left.
but, the future of america cannot be in what marx called utopian socialism. thoreau was not a prophet, but a fool. utopian socialism will just lead us back to fundamentalism. and, i'm not getting on a one-way trip to gilead via iran.
she's still scary, and i might have even said that first. but, if she's not interested in learning how to convert her language away from the discourse of spiritualism and into the language of marxism, somebody else should be studying how she's doing this, and step in front of her and do it instead.
and, do i think that kerry would have had a less violent presidency than gore?
yes. and for good reasons.
i know that the revisionists keep going on this, but the fact is that the reason that gore lost to bush is that he couldn't generate enough support on the left of the party because his record was about three degrees too far to the right. al gore was always a conservative in office, from the start. that he would have bombed iraq anyways (and he would have.) is actually secondary to the loss. he lost because he was a moderate conservative, and his opponent was far more radical than he was.
i still don't think that gore would have been that different from bush at all, actually.
kerry wasn't an ideal candidate, of course. but, he at least came from a genuine anti-war background, and there was some evidence that he might have continued on with it.
his tenure as secretary of state, at least, should go down as a rare bright point in history over the last several decades.
yes. and for good reasons.
i know that the revisionists keep going on this, but the fact is that the reason that gore lost to bush is that he couldn't generate enough support on the left of the party because his record was about three degrees too far to the right. al gore was always a conservative in office, from the start. that he would have bombed iraq anyways (and he would have.) is actually secondary to the loss. he lost because he was a moderate conservative, and his opponent was far more radical than he was.
i still don't think that gore would have been that different from bush at all, actually.
kerry wasn't an ideal candidate, of course. but, he at least came from a genuine anti-war background, and there was some evidence that he might have continued on with it.
his tenure as secretary of state, at least, should go down as a rare bright point in history over the last several decades.
and, i'll point this out again.
- in 2000, i would not have voted for al gore. i would have supported nader. until the end. and, i'll remind you that gore was a very loud voice in favour of bombing iraq, going all the way back to the 80s.
- i did support kerry as a lesser evil in 2004. kerry was a better choice than gore in many ways, but most importantly, in context, as the least pro-war candidate.
- i had no interest in barack obama in 2008. my answer to "clinton or obama?" was kucinich. i would have voted for the greens.
- what is the point in having an election between mick romney and barack obama? how are they different, at all? i would voted for the greens in 2012.
- i very, very weakly endorsed clinton in 2016, under concerns about trump's uncertainty. if the argument is "they're both the same, it doesn't matter who wins anyways, so vote green", then it broke down somewhat under the lack of clarity about what trump was actually going to do. so, for example, he said he was an isolationist, but we didn't know that he really was. on the other hand, we know clinton is an interventionist and an imperialist and has been for a very long time. if that's your issue, it's tempting to vote for trump, as the undefined unknown is better than the defined known, if you are staunchly opposed to it. but, if trump is just blatantly lying - if he's a hyper-interventionalist nazi - then you've been had. i strongly suspected he was lying, so i endorsed clinton.
- i will not support any of these candidates besides bernie in 2020, and i may not even support bernie. the changes he's made in an attempt to appeal to a larger audience have been discouraging. let's see who the greens actually run, first.
that means i would have supported democrats in two of the elections this century (2004,2016) and greens in three of them (2000,2008,2012).
and, i think i've posted here quite a bit that i would not define myself as a democrat, at all.
- in 2000, i would not have voted for al gore. i would have supported nader. until the end. and, i'll remind you that gore was a very loud voice in favour of bombing iraq, going all the way back to the 80s.
- i did support kerry as a lesser evil in 2004. kerry was a better choice than gore in many ways, but most importantly, in context, as the least pro-war candidate.
- i had no interest in barack obama in 2008. my answer to "clinton or obama?" was kucinich. i would have voted for the greens.
- what is the point in having an election between mick romney and barack obama? how are they different, at all? i would voted for the greens in 2012.
- i very, very weakly endorsed clinton in 2016, under concerns about trump's uncertainty. if the argument is "they're both the same, it doesn't matter who wins anyways, so vote green", then it broke down somewhat under the lack of clarity about what trump was actually going to do. so, for example, he said he was an isolationist, but we didn't know that he really was. on the other hand, we know clinton is an interventionist and an imperialist and has been for a very long time. if that's your issue, it's tempting to vote for trump, as the undefined unknown is better than the defined known, if you are staunchly opposed to it. but, if trump is just blatantly lying - if he's a hyper-interventionalist nazi - then you've been had. i strongly suspected he was lying, so i endorsed clinton.
- i will not support any of these candidates besides bernie in 2020, and i may not even support bernie. the changes he's made in an attempt to appeal to a larger audience have been discouraging. let's see who the greens actually run, first.
that means i would have supported democrats in two of the elections this century (2004,2016) and greens in three of them (2000,2008,2012).
and, i think i've posted here quite a bit that i would not define myself as a democrat, at all.
and, what's the deal with williamson?
she'd be a good speechwriter, if she isn't one already. in terms of memorable statements, she blew everybody else away, and she stated a lot of correct-sounding things (mostly about root causes) while everybody else was focusing on the banality of modern retail politics. she doesn't have the numbers for the moderators to take her seriously, and they didn't. but, in a sense i think she represents the future of the left better than anybody else on stage....both in good ways and bad ways.
she said a couple of things that will likely end any further ambitions she has in politics. you can't use terms like "dark, psychic energy" in a serious audience of any sort and expect not to get laughed out of the room. but, as is usually the case with hippies and other people that exist in the apolitical side of the libertarian left, if somebody could sit her down and work out an actual analysis with her, then she'd probably be quick to get her head around it, so long as she doesn't try too hard to hold on to her charms and spells and idols, as the imperialists pull them out of her hands. in that sense, she both represents hope for the party's future and a cautionary tale of how it may end up, if it's not rescued from the mystics and gurus.
we'll avoid quoting seminal dead kennedy's tunes, for the moment.
she'd be a good speechwriter, if she isn't one already. in terms of memorable statements, she blew everybody else away, and she stated a lot of correct-sounding things (mostly about root causes) while everybody else was focusing on the banality of modern retail politics. she doesn't have the numbers for the moderators to take her seriously, and they didn't. but, in a sense i think she represents the future of the left better than anybody else on stage....both in good ways and bad ways.
she said a couple of things that will likely end any further ambitions she has in politics. you can't use terms like "dark, psychic energy" in a serious audience of any sort and expect not to get laughed out of the room. but, as is usually the case with hippies and other people that exist in the apolitical side of the libertarian left, if somebody could sit her down and work out an actual analysis with her, then she'd probably be quick to get her head around it, so long as she doesn't try too hard to hold on to her charms and spells and idols, as the imperialists pull them out of her hands. in that sense, she both represents hope for the party's future and a cautionary tale of how it may end up, if it's not rescued from the mystics and gurus.
we'll avoid quoting seminal dead kennedy's tunes, for the moment.
Responding to constituents at her regularly scheduled “office hours”
last week, Massachusetts senator and celebrated left-wing icon Elizabeth
Warren defended her vote to send $225 million of American taxpayer
money to Israel for its Iron Dome missile defense system...
ok. that's the closest thing i can get, but if you support the iron dome system, you can't be too opposed to missile defense, as that is what israel is doing with it - testing systems for the empire's eventual use.
and, if you're not opposed to missile defense then you don't oppose building first strike capability, because that's what it's actually about.
but, i'd like to see a clearer statement.
ok. that's the closest thing i can get, but if you support the iron dome system, you can't be too opposed to missile defense, as that is what israel is doing with it - testing systems for the empire's eventual use.
and, if you're not opposed to missile defense then you don't oppose building first strike capability, because that's what it's actually about.
but, i'd like to see a clearer statement.
Sunday, August 11, 2019
and, also, let me be clear on this point.
the invasion of afghanistan was intended to be a long term occupation of a strategically vital region in the centre of asia. there is no goal to be completed in afghanistan, no end point, no exit strategy. but, that is not a reason to send troops home, but the very reason they are in the first place. so, there will be no withdrawal from afghanistan. ever. you'd might as well be talking about withdrawing from japan or korea, things that will not happen until the empire starts to permanently crumble. as the withdrawal of legions from the frontier in britain marked the end of roman control in the northwest, symbolically if not functionally, an american withdrawal from afghanistan would actually signal that the empire is beyond permanent decline and at the point of imminent collapse.
when candidates start talking about sending troops back from afghanistan at this stage in the process, there's one of two reasons:
1) they have not yet been briefed, and they essentially have little understanding of the actual goals and purposes of american foreign policy. when candidates like this win (and while obama was a candidate of this type, let's recall that he actually ran on bombing afghanistan, not withdrawing from it. his argument against iraq was that it redirected resources away from afghanistan (which is probably wrong, too)), they usually change their tune very quickly.
2) they're deep state and are playing right into the propaganda. and, they're lying through their teeth about it.
the invasion of afghanistan was intended to be a long term occupation of a strategically vital region in the centre of asia. there is no goal to be completed in afghanistan, no end point, no exit strategy. but, that is not a reason to send troops home, but the very reason they are in the first place. so, there will be no withdrawal from afghanistan. ever. you'd might as well be talking about withdrawing from japan or korea, things that will not happen until the empire starts to permanently crumble. as the withdrawal of legions from the frontier in britain marked the end of roman control in the northwest, symbolically if not functionally, an american withdrawal from afghanistan would actually signal that the empire is beyond permanent decline and at the point of imminent collapse.
when candidates start talking about sending troops back from afghanistan at this stage in the process, there's one of two reasons:
1) they have not yet been briefed, and they essentially have little understanding of the actual goals and purposes of american foreign policy. when candidates like this win (and while obama was a candidate of this type, let's recall that he actually ran on bombing afghanistan, not withdrawing from it. his argument against iraq was that it redirected resources away from afghanistan (which is probably wrong, too)), they usually change their tune very quickly.
2) they're deep state and are playing right into the propaganda. and, they're lying through their teeth about it.
a nuclear first-strike is obviously bad news, and you want to be more concerned about electing leadership that keeps you (and the world) out of that scenario than about what happens when you're faced with it. so, i could argue i'm in favour of a ban on killing wildlife, but i'm more concerned about changing a culture that has some kind of drive to kill. i don't kill things, but it's not because there's a law against it, it's because i actually, really, honestly don't want to.
it opens up the question, though: what happens if, despite your best efforts, you find yourself face-to-face with an angry bear?
the thing about rules is that there's always exceptions, and this is why i don't actually take elizabeth warren particularly seriously when she offers a no first-strike policy. the senator from massachusetts likes to talk about rules, but her debate performances suggest that she's aware that exceptions to the rules always exist, and that she seems to see herself as the exception to most rules. it's not unique, really. i don't doubt that she'd use them, in the situation that the exception applies, as she understands the specific exception.
my intent is not be insolent or sarcastic, but to suggest that the right policy is to legislate the exceptions, because everybody knows that they're there, and that they have to be there. it's magical thinking to wave them away. so, i'd support developing an updated, detailed, complicated first-strike policy that explicitly denotes when first-strike is permitted as an option and when it doesn't. warren's policy, as presented, is overly simplistic, intended solely for simple-minded voters and very poorly suited for real-world applications.
the other side of the argument is that if you broadcast your first-strike policies then you're opening yourself up to exploitation, but i think that's a misreading of any serious opponent. one of the exceptions in the no first strike policy legislation should be that if the country finds itself up against an opponent with such nefarious motives, then a first strike should be on the table - that would be a foe that needs to be instantly neutralized. you can't debate with an entity that's deadset on destroying you. but, insofar as the opponents are nation-states, at least, this is not realistic. a clear first-strike policy insofar as it relates to them is preferable, so long as the status quo of relatively stable global leadership persists. "so long as"...clauses, conditions. it's complicated, really - it's not a simple thing with an easy plan to fix, although that's good marketing in late capitalism, isn't it?
bernie: it's not me, it's you. we need hard work and lengthy organizing to come together and solve the world's problems. it's going to take generations. but, we can do it if we put enough into it.
warren: don't worry about it, i'll take care of it. i have a simple plan that everybody can understand. just sign here.
but, to an extent, this is the reason america has a commander-in-chief. there has to be somebody there, on the ground, in real-time, who is going to analyze the evidence and make a choice, and that process cannot be clouded by religion or ideology or any other kind of idealism. it must be strictly evidence-based. so, all a policy can do is offer rules of thumb around how to analyze the evidence.
as i understand it, these policies already exist. they could use an update, i'm sure.
it opens up the question, though: what happens if, despite your best efforts, you find yourself face-to-face with an angry bear?
the thing about rules is that there's always exceptions, and this is why i don't actually take elizabeth warren particularly seriously when she offers a no first-strike policy. the senator from massachusetts likes to talk about rules, but her debate performances suggest that she's aware that exceptions to the rules always exist, and that she seems to see herself as the exception to most rules. it's not unique, really. i don't doubt that she'd use them, in the situation that the exception applies, as she understands the specific exception.
my intent is not be insolent or sarcastic, but to suggest that the right policy is to legislate the exceptions, because everybody knows that they're there, and that they have to be there. it's magical thinking to wave them away. so, i'd support developing an updated, detailed, complicated first-strike policy that explicitly denotes when first-strike is permitted as an option and when it doesn't. warren's policy, as presented, is overly simplistic, intended solely for simple-minded voters and very poorly suited for real-world applications.
the other side of the argument is that if you broadcast your first-strike policies then you're opening yourself up to exploitation, but i think that's a misreading of any serious opponent. one of the exceptions in the no first strike policy legislation should be that if the country finds itself up against an opponent with such nefarious motives, then a first strike should be on the table - that would be a foe that needs to be instantly neutralized. you can't debate with an entity that's deadset on destroying you. but, insofar as the opponents are nation-states, at least, this is not realistic. a clear first-strike policy insofar as it relates to them is preferable, so long as the status quo of relatively stable global leadership persists. "so long as"...clauses, conditions. it's complicated, really - it's not a simple thing with an easy plan to fix, although that's good marketing in late capitalism, isn't it?
bernie: it's not me, it's you. we need hard work and lengthy organizing to come together and solve the world's problems. it's going to take generations. but, we can do it if we put enough into it.
warren: don't worry about it, i'll take care of it. i have a simple plan that everybody can understand. just sign here.
but, to an extent, this is the reason america has a commander-in-chief. there has to be somebody there, on the ground, in real-time, who is going to analyze the evidence and make a choice, and that process cannot be clouded by religion or ideology or any other kind of idealism. it must be strictly evidence-based. so, all a policy can do is offer rules of thumb around how to analyze the evidence.
as i understand it, these policies already exist. they could use an update, i'm sure.
Friday, August 9, 2019
did bernie lose in 2016 because he lost the black vote?
it's an accounting problem - you can do the math that way, but it's disingenuous.
he lost the south by huge margins, regardless - white southerners seemed to prefer clinton, as well, and i don't know why everybody forgot that she was first lady of arkansas for eight years. i did a post on this. he just flat out lost the south, through and through. he did terribly with older voters. he did badly with democrats. and, large percentages of his voting base were unable to vote for him, due to the rules around the process.
so, the single biggest thing he needed to do was register, register, register...but that doesn't seem to be happening. the focus seems to be on trying to convince the most conservative block in the country to vote for the most liberal candidate in years. it makes no sense, as a strategy.
he should have doubled down on his strengths, instead of trying to address his weaknesses.
and, i'll tell you what the numbers say right now: while bernie may not have lost in 2016 due to black voters, if things don't change soon, he's going to lose 2020 because he has minimal support levels amongst white voters. and, that was the whole argument for bernie in the first place....
it's an accounting problem - you can do the math that way, but it's disingenuous.
he lost the south by huge margins, regardless - white southerners seemed to prefer clinton, as well, and i don't know why everybody forgot that she was first lady of arkansas for eight years. i did a post on this. he just flat out lost the south, through and through. he did terribly with older voters. he did badly with democrats. and, large percentages of his voting base were unable to vote for him, due to the rules around the process.
so, the single biggest thing he needed to do was register, register, register...but that doesn't seem to be happening. the focus seems to be on trying to convince the most conservative block in the country to vote for the most liberal candidate in years. it makes no sense, as a strategy.
he should have doubled down on his strengths, instead of trying to address his weaknesses.
and, i'll tell you what the numbers say right now: while bernie may not have lost in 2016 due to black voters, if things don't change soon, he's going to lose 2020 because he has minimal support levels amongst white voters. and, that was the whole argument for bernie in the first place....
sanders is not finished yet. but the numbers are getting worse and worse, and he's not being beaten by better candidates.
it's true that the media is out to hurt him, but that was true in 2016, too. if he beat the media then, why can't he beat it now?
i'm going to tell you what the narrative is going to be if he ends up losing badly in the first few primary states, and i'm laying this down now because i think the campaign needs to get their head around it in order to turn things around.
after 2016, bernie was (rightfully or wrongfully) criticized for running a campaign that had too many white people in it. now, i think everybody that knows his policies knows he wants to legislate in favour of everybody, and that the conclusion that he was tilted towards white voters due to the composition of his campaign was unfair. but, he reacted by replacing a lot of people that were hired due to their qualifications with a lot of people that were hired due to their skin colour, or what religion they have, or where they were born. and, frankly, it shouldn't be surprising that replacing merit with background has sunk his campaign.
bernie is losing because his team sucks. and, he has time to figure that out.
now, that doesn't mean he should fire everybody and replace them with people that are white, as that would just be repeating the same problem. but, the campaign is going to need to do a comprehensive survey - who was hired because they deserved it and who was hired to increase diversity? and, they're going to need to correct it, and make sure they don't keep doing it.
i promise you that this will be the narrative, if he loses. and, it's probably the right one, too.
it's true that the media is out to hurt him, but that was true in 2016, too. if he beat the media then, why can't he beat it now?
i'm going to tell you what the narrative is going to be if he ends up losing badly in the first few primary states, and i'm laying this down now because i think the campaign needs to get their head around it in order to turn things around.
after 2016, bernie was (rightfully or wrongfully) criticized for running a campaign that had too many white people in it. now, i think everybody that knows his policies knows he wants to legislate in favour of everybody, and that the conclusion that he was tilted towards white voters due to the composition of his campaign was unfair. but, he reacted by replacing a lot of people that were hired due to their qualifications with a lot of people that were hired due to their skin colour, or what religion they have, or where they were born. and, frankly, it shouldn't be surprising that replacing merit with background has sunk his campaign.
bernie is losing because his team sucks. and, he has time to figure that out.
now, that doesn't mean he should fire everybody and replace them with people that are white, as that would just be repeating the same problem. but, the campaign is going to need to do a comprehensive survey - who was hired because they deserved it and who was hired to increase diversity? and, they're going to need to correct it, and make sure they don't keep doing it.
i promise you that this will be the narrative, if he loses. and, it's probably the right one, too.
i just want to clarify a point.
it's easy to look at what i've written here and say "she's calling for solidarity with trans activism, but she won't, herself, stand in solidarity with muslims or gamers. hypocrite!".
and, as always, what that means is that you're a conservative, and i'm not. allow me to explain.
what you're doing is creating a false equivalency by throwing all of these different minorities into a box and standing up for "minority rights". so, to you, these are all the same thing, and i'm clearly contradicting myself. but, that is a textbook classical conservative position that is usually attributed to de tocqueville. it's a right-wing approach to the scenario.
i reject this - i don't want to put everybody into this big box, and i don't think that standing up for "minority rights" is the fundamental issue, at all. rather, i'm going to pick and choose which minorities i'm going to stand with, based on whether they reflect the values i have or not. and, while trans activists reflect my values, muslims and gamers (with caveats in both scenarios) most certainly do not.
rather, if i were to stand up for muslims just because they're minorities, then i'd be being a hypocrite, as well as dishonest and inconsistent, because i have absolutely no common cause with them whatsoever.
it essentially goes back to the basic difference between the left and the right, once again. the right believes in a world of harmony, where everybody gets along in shared diversity because they know their place and they keep to themselves. the left, on the other hand, believes in a world that is defined by perpetual conflict between interests and classes, where people need to align against each other in order to advance their own causes.
the simple answer is that i'm on the side of people arguing for equal access to services, and i'm not on the side of people using religion as an excuse to deny it. and, this is actually a good example of the growing contradiction evolving in front of us between real leftist equality and this kind of phony neo-liberalism that thinks "diversity" is a worthwhile excuse to deny it.
it's easy to look at what i've written here and say "she's calling for solidarity with trans activism, but she won't, herself, stand in solidarity with muslims or gamers. hypocrite!".
and, as always, what that means is that you're a conservative, and i'm not. allow me to explain.
what you're doing is creating a false equivalency by throwing all of these different minorities into a box and standing up for "minority rights". so, to you, these are all the same thing, and i'm clearly contradicting myself. but, that is a textbook classical conservative position that is usually attributed to de tocqueville. it's a right-wing approach to the scenario.
i reject this - i don't want to put everybody into this big box, and i don't think that standing up for "minority rights" is the fundamental issue, at all. rather, i'm going to pick and choose which minorities i'm going to stand with, based on whether they reflect the values i have or not. and, while trans activists reflect my values, muslims and gamers (with caveats in both scenarios) most certainly do not.
rather, if i were to stand up for muslims just because they're minorities, then i'd be being a hypocrite, as well as dishonest and inconsistent, because i have absolutely no common cause with them whatsoever.
it essentially goes back to the basic difference between the left and the right, once again. the right believes in a world of harmony, where everybody gets along in shared diversity because they know their place and they keep to themselves. the left, on the other hand, believes in a world that is defined by perpetual conflict between interests and classes, where people need to align against each other in order to advance their own causes.
the simple answer is that i'm on the side of people arguing for equal access to services, and i'm not on the side of people using religion as an excuse to deny it. and, this is actually a good example of the growing contradiction evolving in front of us between real leftist equality and this kind of phony neo-liberalism that thinks "diversity" is a worthwhile excuse to deny it.
no, seriously.
if democrats are smart, then they'll actually build a bridge to nowhere. make work projects for all. dig ditches, and fill them back in. that way, when the republicans get elected, they can fight like to hell to keep funding for the bridge to nowhere (it's the jobs), while things like healthcare spending and social security are left off the radar.
like i say: they're going to govern, and when they govern they're going to cut. so, you set up a decoy for them to attack...
if democrats are smart, then they'll actually build a bridge to nowhere. make work projects for all. dig ditches, and fill them back in. that way, when the republicans get elected, they can fight like to hell to keep funding for the bridge to nowhere (it's the jobs), while things like healthcare spending and social security are left off the radar.
like i say: they're going to govern, and when they govern they're going to cut. so, you set up a decoy for them to attack...
i also watched a bit more of the debate, and i want to make a general comment about financing and universality.
in the long run, somebody like klobuchar is probably right: if you're going to have private universities, and wealthy people are going to spend a lot of money to go to them, then it doesn't actually make sense to bail them out when they get into huge amounts of debt. that's trickle-up economics, it's a backwards transfer of wealth.
but, this is a very long war, and sensible issues around financing should be left to the republicans, not the democrats. and, i'll tell you why...
supposing that the democrats win and bring in universal health care and wipe out student debt, they will eventually lose office, and almost certainly be replaced by the republicans when they do. if the republicans come into office and inherit a sound fiscal situation, they're still going to have to push through cuts to satiate the blood lust in their base. remember: republicans don't really care about deficits, what they care about is demonizing groups of people and then attacking them when they get into office. so, they have to carry out the public execution - they have to feed the captives to the lions. so, all that democrats are really going to accomplish by being fiscally responsible is forcing the republicans to make deeper cuts. the base needs it's blood.
if, on the other hand, the democrats pile up their legislation with excessive spending, then they're giving the republicans something to cut out when they win the office back, whatever office it is.
and, of course they will win the office back. and, no, you can't convince "moderates" to vote against them. nor will democratic voters punish their own for overspending. this is all relative, so it's just a question of where you place the scales.
so, democrats should really, seriously be pushing for and trying to legislate the most expensive, bloated plans they can come up with. that is, they should earmark areas that can be cut by future republican administrations by overspending in their own bills. as the party of spending, the democrats are in control, here: they determine what gets cut in the future, by what they legislate in the present.
liberals in canada can learn a similar lesson by observing the ford government. they're literally eliminating disability. well, the previous government was too fiscally responsible - there wasn't an easy target to attack. if the wynne-mcguinty government had focused less on deficits and spent more recklessly on frivolous projects, ford would have been able to make easier cuts.
and, if obama had pushed through more extensive spending when he had control of both houses, trump wouldn't be cutting food stamps. he'd be cutting programs for pet insurance, or something.
in the long run, somebody like klobuchar is probably right: if you're going to have private universities, and wealthy people are going to spend a lot of money to go to them, then it doesn't actually make sense to bail them out when they get into huge amounts of debt. that's trickle-up economics, it's a backwards transfer of wealth.
but, this is a very long war, and sensible issues around financing should be left to the republicans, not the democrats. and, i'll tell you why...
supposing that the democrats win and bring in universal health care and wipe out student debt, they will eventually lose office, and almost certainly be replaced by the republicans when they do. if the republicans come into office and inherit a sound fiscal situation, they're still going to have to push through cuts to satiate the blood lust in their base. remember: republicans don't really care about deficits, what they care about is demonizing groups of people and then attacking them when they get into office. so, they have to carry out the public execution - they have to feed the captives to the lions. so, all that democrats are really going to accomplish by being fiscally responsible is forcing the republicans to make deeper cuts. the base needs it's blood.
if, on the other hand, the democrats pile up their legislation with excessive spending, then they're giving the republicans something to cut out when they win the office back, whatever office it is.
and, of course they will win the office back. and, no, you can't convince "moderates" to vote against them. nor will democratic voters punish their own for overspending. this is all relative, so it's just a question of where you place the scales.
so, democrats should really, seriously be pushing for and trying to legislate the most expensive, bloated plans they can come up with. that is, they should earmark areas that can be cut by future republican administrations by overspending in their own bills. as the party of spending, the democrats are in control, here: they determine what gets cut in the future, by what they legislate in the present.
liberals in canada can learn a similar lesson by observing the ford government. they're literally eliminating disability. well, the previous government was too fiscally responsible - there wasn't an easy target to attack. if the wynne-mcguinty government had focused less on deficits and spent more recklessly on frivolous projects, ford would have been able to make easier cuts.
and, if obama had pushed through more extensive spending when he had control of both houses, trump wouldn't be cutting food stamps. he'd be cutting programs for pet insurance, or something.
and, i just want to have it recorded somewhere that it is obvious that a gun buy back program is a way better idea, if you are concerned about results, than gun control legislation. bernie's ideas on guns seem to lack the overwrought kneejerkism that has become fashionable in the democratic centre.
there are more guns than people. so, if you institute a serious crackdown on sales, you're just opening up a black market where supply greatly outstrips demand. removing the regulatory/oversight process might even have the result of depressing the prices.
there are sane and reasonable things to do around sales, but you have to accept that their effects will be minimal on actually preventing real crime. a policy to actually get the existing guns off the streets is a way better idea, and something nobody else is talking about (to my knowledge) in their collective rush to get to the podium first to blame the nra.
there are more guns than people. so, if you institute a serious crackdown on sales, you're just opening up a black market where supply greatly outstrips demand. removing the regulatory/oversight process might even have the result of depressing the prices.
there are sane and reasonable things to do around sales, but you have to accept that their effects will be minimal on actually preventing real crime. a policy to actually get the existing guns off the streets is a way better idea, and something nobody else is talking about (to my knowledge) in their collective rush to get to the podium first to blame the nra.
so, i watched the rogan interview, and bernie was actually pretty snappy with him when he asked stupid questions.
listen, at the end of the day you need to be able to face your critics. it's even a fundamental principle of justice that you be able to face your accusers. so, there's some value in bernie showing up and saying "hey. you say that shit to my face.". i think rogan gets that, maybe even better than most.
and, bernie is not a cloistered member of congress, either. he will reach out and work with people he broadly disagrees with in order to get things done. that's his record, it's more pragmatic than idealistic, and it's a a mindframe that will help the country in the end. if you want good trade policies and you want lower prescription costs, at least, it's probably going to be necessary to work with some subset of republicans. they may even be more willing to sign on then some democrats.
and, it's a good opportunity to catch him in a slip, too, right. i mean, that's probably the actual reason warren won't do a fox town hall - there's a fear they might catch her agreeing with them on economic policy, on the record.
so, i don't even want to throw the argument out that you have to do it to reach categories of voters. that's true enough, but it's not really addressing the concern. what i'd rather suggest is that, if you're afraid of your candidate having a tete-a-tete with joe rogan, you may want to look deeper into yourself and ask why that really is.
listen, at the end of the day you need to be able to face your critics. it's even a fundamental principle of justice that you be able to face your accusers. so, there's some value in bernie showing up and saying "hey. you say that shit to my face.". i think rogan gets that, maybe even better than most.
and, bernie is not a cloistered member of congress, either. he will reach out and work with people he broadly disagrees with in order to get things done. that's his record, it's more pragmatic than idealistic, and it's a a mindframe that will help the country in the end. if you want good trade policies and you want lower prescription costs, at least, it's probably going to be necessary to work with some subset of republicans. they may even be more willing to sign on then some democrats.
and, it's a good opportunity to catch him in a slip, too, right. i mean, that's probably the actual reason warren won't do a fox town hall - there's a fear they might catch her agreeing with them on economic policy, on the record.
so, i don't even want to throw the argument out that you have to do it to reach categories of voters. that's true enough, but it's not really addressing the concern. what i'd rather suggest is that, if you're afraid of your candidate having a tete-a-tete with joe rogan, you may want to look deeper into yourself and ask why that really is.
and, if i'm going to have a long weekend, i need to force myself to sleep in until the late morning, at least. my schedule is cycled around the other way, right now.
i'm past my cut-off, so i should be able to eat a nice meal when i wake up. and, with that, i've successfully removed a week's worth of calories. am i feeling ok?
well, i was trying to lose about 5-10 pounds, but i'm not measuring myself. i don't have a scale. i look like i've lost that extra bit of belly fat, which was the difference between flat (i.e. normal) and almost bulged (i.e. a scary change). and, lying flat on my back, i'm back to concave, which is normal. if i went from in the 140s to in the 130s, that gets my bmi back down to 20ish, as well, which is closer to where i want it.
yes, i'll be drinking this weekend, but i'll try to keep it (mostly) to beer. and, i'll be biking. and dancing. this was a blip, i expect.
but, i mean, if i wake up on monday and there's an issue, i'll just do it again.
i'm past my cut-off, so i should be able to eat a nice meal when i wake up. and, with that, i've successfully removed a week's worth of calories. am i feeling ok?
well, i was trying to lose about 5-10 pounds, but i'm not measuring myself. i don't have a scale. i look like i've lost that extra bit of belly fat, which was the difference between flat (i.e. normal) and almost bulged (i.e. a scary change). and, lying flat on my back, i'm back to concave, which is normal. if i went from in the 140s to in the 130s, that gets my bmi back down to 20ish, as well, which is closer to where i want it.
yes, i'll be drinking this weekend, but i'll try to keep it (mostly) to beer. and, i'll be biking. and dancing. this was a blip, i expect.
but, i mean, if i wake up on monday and there's an issue, i'll just do it again.
so, this is the response i got from the oiprd on july 17th:
I am sending this email to let you know, the investigator has completed your review and it will be sent to our legal counsel next week for the finalization.
that would suggest to me that a report is on the way, and i did indicate at the time that it seemed strange that it didn't go to a panel.
this is the response i got on august 8th:
Last I can see in our file, this went to our panel just yesterday. So now we wait for the drafted decision.
so, which is it?
i know that it sounds paranoid to suggest that i'm being fucked around by the police oversight committee, but i'm just looking at the evidence in front of me and coming to clear deductions around it. they've been entirely inconsistent and totally dishonest from the very start.
i don't know when to expect the report at this point, but there's not much that i can do so long as they keep stringing me along, except sit tight and wait it out. the only thing with a meaningful statute on it was the human rights complaint, and it's been filed; there are no statutory time restraints on filing a charter challenge, and if the delay is due to the oiprd then the judge should accept that without much push back.
if i'm right, and they're just dragging their feet, then it will just help my cause, in the end.
I am sending this email to let you know, the investigator has completed your review and it will be sent to our legal counsel next week for the finalization.
that would suggest to me that a report is on the way, and i did indicate at the time that it seemed strange that it didn't go to a panel.
this is the response i got on august 8th:
Last I can see in our file, this went to our panel just yesterday. So now we wait for the drafted decision.
so, which is it?
i know that it sounds paranoid to suggest that i'm being fucked around by the police oversight committee, but i'm just looking at the evidence in front of me and coming to clear deductions around it. they've been entirely inconsistent and totally dishonest from the very start.
i don't know when to expect the report at this point, but there's not much that i can do so long as they keep stringing me along, except sit tight and wait it out. the only thing with a meaningful statute on it was the human rights complaint, and it's been filed; there are no statutory time restraints on filing a charter challenge, and if the delay is due to the oiprd then the judge should accept that without much push back.
if i'm right, and they're just dragging their feet, then it will just help my cause, in the end.
so, i've been trying to avoid commenting on the jessica yaniv case, but i think the situation has gotten out of hand.
in ontario, which is not bc, the human rights code prohibits discrimination in five specific areas: employment, housing, services, unions and vocational associations and contracts. her claim is that, by being denied a brazilian wax (which i am only foggy on the actual details of) due to the existence of her male genitals, she is being discriminated against by a number of businesses on the grounds of her gender identity. further, she seems to believe that the root cause of the discrimination is religious observation, and she's probably absolutely right about it.
i think she has a strong case in principle, but it's less clear what the proper remedy is. the defense is trying to argue that she's trying to force specific employees into waxing her balls, but this is a disingenuous position. rather, what the law says in context is that the business has a duty to accommodate, which probably means that they'd have to hire employees willing to perform the service. that said, it's not particularly clear to me why a business doesn't exist to cater to the queer market, as you'd think waxing services for testicles isn't such a particularly obscure request within a particular community.
you have to pull back the layers of complexity and specificity, here, to get to the meaningful point. so, one of the things the court is going to ask is whether she had other options or not. the issue with the cake in detroit comes up, where maybe the owner was technically discriminating against the queer couple but the correct answer was to just go to another store, because there are lots of places that make cakes and you'll find one eventually. there's lots of pro-queer spaces in detroit, trust me. then, you can go on the internet and attack the business for being transphobic and hope it hurts their business. that's what i did with the works in detroit, and i won the argument at the end of the day - they've since disappeared, and i haven't had any problems since. it was a terrible place that the city got into a rut around, and the city is better off now that it's gone.
so, you should expect the court to rule that a violation occurred, but that's not the same thing as expecting them to come up with a clear solution. if she's asking for monetary compensation, it would have to be in the form of emotional damages, and it's not clear how that is defined. and, the only way they're going to order a company to hire somebody to perform the service is if there isn't another company on the market that already performs the service, which i think is doubtful. so, she might be right in principle, but her legal action is nonetheless probably ill-advised and winning the case may not come with any concrete benefits.
but, these are legal questions and the court will figure them out.
what is more concerning to me right now is that jessica appears to be being targeted by the religious right in her community, which is what she said was the root cause in the first place, and who are predictably using the police to carry out their oppression. whether you agree with her lawsuit or not, she needs solidarity and support from the broader community, right now.
in ontario, which is not bc, the human rights code prohibits discrimination in five specific areas: employment, housing, services, unions and vocational associations and contracts. her claim is that, by being denied a brazilian wax (which i am only foggy on the actual details of) due to the existence of her male genitals, she is being discriminated against by a number of businesses on the grounds of her gender identity. further, she seems to believe that the root cause of the discrimination is religious observation, and she's probably absolutely right about it.
i think she has a strong case in principle, but it's less clear what the proper remedy is. the defense is trying to argue that she's trying to force specific employees into waxing her balls, but this is a disingenuous position. rather, what the law says in context is that the business has a duty to accommodate, which probably means that they'd have to hire employees willing to perform the service. that said, it's not particularly clear to me why a business doesn't exist to cater to the queer market, as you'd think waxing services for testicles isn't such a particularly obscure request within a particular community.
you have to pull back the layers of complexity and specificity, here, to get to the meaningful point. so, one of the things the court is going to ask is whether she had other options or not. the issue with the cake in detroit comes up, where maybe the owner was technically discriminating against the queer couple but the correct answer was to just go to another store, because there are lots of places that make cakes and you'll find one eventually. there's lots of pro-queer spaces in detroit, trust me. then, you can go on the internet and attack the business for being transphobic and hope it hurts their business. that's what i did with the works in detroit, and i won the argument at the end of the day - they've since disappeared, and i haven't had any problems since. it was a terrible place that the city got into a rut around, and the city is better off now that it's gone.
so, you should expect the court to rule that a violation occurred, but that's not the same thing as expecting them to come up with a clear solution. if she's asking for monetary compensation, it would have to be in the form of emotional damages, and it's not clear how that is defined. and, the only way they're going to order a company to hire somebody to perform the service is if there isn't another company on the market that already performs the service, which i think is doubtful. so, she might be right in principle, but her legal action is nonetheless probably ill-advised and winning the case may not come with any concrete benefits.
but, these are legal questions and the court will figure them out.
what is more concerning to me right now is that jessica appears to be being targeted by the religious right in her community, which is what she said was the root cause in the first place, and who are predictably using the police to carry out their oppression. whether you agree with her lawsuit or not, she needs solidarity and support from the broader community, right now.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
i remember reading an article back in 2000 that claimed to have evidence that there were enough seniors that cluelessly voted for george hw bush (and i mean out of genuine confusion) to swing the state and therefore the election.
i agree with kinsella: this is absurd. it's more like we never got rid of harper, really. but, how many voters (of a certain age) are there that aren't entirely sure which trudeau they're actually voting for?
canada's senile population is growing at a pretty fast rate. you have to wonder.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/warren-trudeau-ad-actually-a-load-of-hooey
i agree with kinsella: this is absurd. it's more like we never got rid of harper, really. but, how many voters (of a certain age) are there that aren't entirely sure which trudeau they're actually voting for?
canada's senile population is growing at a pretty fast rate. you have to wonder.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/warren-trudeau-ad-actually-a-load-of-hooey
windsor, which is just south of detroit, is the southernmost city in canada, and has the second warmest average temperatures (behind victoria, bc). this weekend appears to be a concrete example of how those averages work out.
according to the forecast, i'm like 20 km south of where the jet stream is dipping to. so, i'm just south of the returning cold front and will just barely miss it. it's going to be much cooler this weekend in other major canadian cities, like toronto and ottawa and montreal. sudbury, which is about as far north as minneapolis, may even dip below ten degrees.
the nice graphic in the forecast doesn't measure the uncertainty, which i suspect is high. if that jet dips a little lower, we could be in for a nasty surprise; if it stays a little higher, those overnights could be better than forecast.
who programmed nice overnights on sunday and monday, though, instead of friday and saturday? da fuck? i guess if i get stuck on sunday...
there's not a drop of rain in the forecast, so i'm very tempted to have a very long weekend.
according to the forecast, i'm like 20 km south of where the jet stream is dipping to. so, i'm just south of the returning cold front and will just barely miss it. it's going to be much cooler this weekend in other major canadian cities, like toronto and ottawa and montreal. sudbury, which is about as far north as minneapolis, may even dip below ten degrees.
the nice graphic in the forecast doesn't measure the uncertainty, which i suspect is high. if that jet dips a little lower, we could be in for a nasty surprise; if it stays a little higher, those overnights could be better than forecast.
who programmed nice overnights on sunday and monday, though, instead of friday and saturday? da fuck? i guess if i get stuck on sunday...
there's not a drop of rain in the forecast, so i'm very tempted to have a very long weekend.
i am familiar with sam & leo and am not surprised to see them offer a more diplomatic, if essentially identical, analysis of the text.
no, really. it's the same reaction, almost point-by-point, just using far less flamboyant language. and, i swear i didn't read this, first.
https://socialistproject.ca/2017/01/b1353/
no, really. it's the same reaction, almost point-by-point, just using far less flamboyant language. and, i swear i didn't read this, first.
https://socialistproject.ca/2017/01/b1353/
so, an ideological leftist would actually argue in favour of automating the service sector as much as possible, insofar as we should have one at all, in order to emancipate the workers from that kind of dehumanizing and pointless labour.
nobody should spend their life behind a cash register, or locked away in a kitchen.
nobody should spend their life behind a cash register, or locked away in a kitchen.
i'm going to bring you back to the plot for a minute, though.
why, exactly, don't we have service sector unions?
well, to begin with, we actually do. in fact, they're some of the biggest unions still standing, it's just that they're a function of the employment environment. so, for example, the janitors and food workers at carleton university are absolutely unionized, and i watched them strike more than once at my lengthy stay there. but, you have to understand that this is somewhere where the higher paid workers - the profs - build relationships with the serving staff, and that's probably key to the whole thing.
why, though, don't we have more unionization in the service sector? why don't we have a fast food workers union the way we have an electrical workers union?
well, stop for a minute and ask yourself what socialism actually is. is it just a tactic to raise wages and living conditions? or is it a way to place property in common, under the argument that you can't provide for a proper accounting of labor?
i've made this point before: it doesn't make sense to collectivize the mcdonalds and redistribute the hamburgers. rather, it makes sense to smash the fast food industry altogether. and, that is your actual answer: socialists will broadly argue that we won't have fast food after the revolution, and there's consequently nothing of any tactical value in seizing worker control of the restaurants. now, the farms on the other hand...
so, don't misinterpret me. i'm not calling for a movement to organize the service sector; what i'm calling for is a movement to abolish the service sector.
one of the best things we can do at this point is provide alternate living arrangements. i've never been so desperate as to work a full time fast food job; i've always been lucky enough and resourceful enough to find a way out. but, if given the choice, i'd certainly rather live on a kibbutz. i would imagine that i'd be more interested in a way out than in a way up.
a real revolutionary movement should be able to see these kinds of industries as what they are, which is complete capitalist excess, and try to help people out of them. then, we can build an army with the people we emancipate.
but, i have a lot of art to do make, first.
and, i suspect i'll spend sunday morning quietly enjoying a coffee, if i show up there at all.
why, exactly, don't we have service sector unions?
well, to begin with, we actually do. in fact, they're some of the biggest unions still standing, it's just that they're a function of the employment environment. so, for example, the janitors and food workers at carleton university are absolutely unionized, and i watched them strike more than once at my lengthy stay there. but, you have to understand that this is somewhere where the higher paid workers - the profs - build relationships with the serving staff, and that's probably key to the whole thing.
why, though, don't we have more unionization in the service sector? why don't we have a fast food workers union the way we have an electrical workers union?
well, stop for a minute and ask yourself what socialism actually is. is it just a tactic to raise wages and living conditions? or is it a way to place property in common, under the argument that you can't provide for a proper accounting of labor?
i've made this point before: it doesn't make sense to collectivize the mcdonalds and redistribute the hamburgers. rather, it makes sense to smash the fast food industry altogether. and, that is your actual answer: socialists will broadly argue that we won't have fast food after the revolution, and there's consequently nothing of any tactical value in seizing worker control of the restaurants. now, the farms on the other hand...
so, don't misinterpret me. i'm not calling for a movement to organize the service sector; what i'm calling for is a movement to abolish the service sector.
one of the best things we can do at this point is provide alternate living arrangements. i've never been so desperate as to work a full time fast food job; i've always been lucky enough and resourceful enough to find a way out. but, if given the choice, i'd certainly rather live on a kibbutz. i would imagine that i'd be more interested in a way out than in a way up.
a real revolutionary movement should be able to see these kinds of industries as what they are, which is complete capitalist excess, and try to help people out of them. then, we can build an army with the people we emancipate.
but, i have a lot of art to do make, first.
and, i suspect i'll spend sunday morning quietly enjoying a coffee, if i show up there at all.
yeah, so i'm really not going to get into the specific examples about specific unions fighting for specific things; it's all very reactionary, politically, and none of the case studies provide for much of anything useful when it comes to building a real, revolutionary movement outside of the constraints of the workforce. it's just all about workers fighting for benefits within the context of existing capitalism. if anything, her interest appears to be in trying to take ideas from revolutionary politics and apply them to labour organizing, which is pretty much the definition of being a reactionary.
she basically just sets up this false dichotomy between mobilizing and organizing, then runs through a series of what are really rather frivolous discussions about it. it consequently has this kind of academic aesthetic to it, but it's too silly on it's face to be serious scholarship. i could spend a lot of time trying to disentangle the nonsense and word salads and working out and correcting the underlying logic, but it would essentially be a waste of time; at the end of the day, nobody is really going to disagree with observations such as that a successful revolutionary movement has to be run by workers itself (that is, in fact, a tautological statement.), or that the social revolution has to come first or much of anything else that she has to say. but, a lot of her analysis is ridiculous, in the sense that she assigns causes to personalities rather than systemic pressures. in one baffling section, she talks about how smashing the communists in the ctu was a great accomplishment, then fails to tie doing so to the loss of militancy in the union.
her discussion of power in the introduction was not meaningfully extrapolated upon, so my hypothesis was not borne out. there is not any kind of interesting theory of power explored within the text, at all.
rather, the text is a reformist analysis by what appears to be a textbook progressive/conservative. there's no meaningful socialist analysis in the text at all. there's almost no discussion of class. and, i think i'm mostly interested in observing how these people that organize under the socialist label can explain away wasting their time with such an obviously anti-revolutionary text.
but, i've been through this before, and i've learned my lesson: just because the group calls itself socialist doesn't mean that it actually is. but, i can wait and talk to people and judge them as individuals, like they should be judged.
it seems obvious that they picked this text to try and expand their movement. i can imagine that i'm going to walk into a group of people that have been organizing together for a long time and can't figure out how to attract new recruits to the cause, so they picked this up thinking it might help. are they doing too much mobilizing and not enough organizing? well, drop the attempt to redefine the terms for a second and just read that in english and tell me if you think it's coherent or not. in the end, a group like this needs to ask the question: why aren't any actual union members showing up at their meetings? why is it just a bunch of students and unemployed people? where are the rank and file?
and, the answer is as obvious as is possible: the decline of the revolutionary left is a function of the success of the union movement. somebody making $60,000+/yr with good benefits doesn't need to be helped out of their oppression by a benevolent arts student.
these groups need to focus on what is in front of them. america has a major housing problem, and i see it every time i go over there. social benefits are far too low. people don't have access to health care or education, and they're stuck working dead-end jobs that don't pay the rent. these are your foot soldiers for the revolution - not the union rank and file, who are too busy watching tv to organize or mobilize or, really, do anything else at all.
i might not even make it there. we're looking at a long weekend.
she basically just sets up this false dichotomy between mobilizing and organizing, then runs through a series of what are really rather frivolous discussions about it. it consequently has this kind of academic aesthetic to it, but it's too silly on it's face to be serious scholarship. i could spend a lot of time trying to disentangle the nonsense and word salads and working out and correcting the underlying logic, but it would essentially be a waste of time; at the end of the day, nobody is really going to disagree with observations such as that a successful revolutionary movement has to be run by workers itself (that is, in fact, a tautological statement.), or that the social revolution has to come first or much of anything else that she has to say. but, a lot of her analysis is ridiculous, in the sense that she assigns causes to personalities rather than systemic pressures. in one baffling section, she talks about how smashing the communists in the ctu was a great accomplishment, then fails to tie doing so to the loss of militancy in the union.
her discussion of power in the introduction was not meaningfully extrapolated upon, so my hypothesis was not borne out. there is not any kind of interesting theory of power explored within the text, at all.
rather, the text is a reformist analysis by what appears to be a textbook progressive/conservative. there's no meaningful socialist analysis in the text at all. there's almost no discussion of class. and, i think i'm mostly interested in observing how these people that organize under the socialist label can explain away wasting their time with such an obviously anti-revolutionary text.
but, i've been through this before, and i've learned my lesson: just because the group calls itself socialist doesn't mean that it actually is. but, i can wait and talk to people and judge them as individuals, like they should be judged.
it seems obvious that they picked this text to try and expand their movement. i can imagine that i'm going to walk into a group of people that have been organizing together for a long time and can't figure out how to attract new recruits to the cause, so they picked this up thinking it might help. are they doing too much mobilizing and not enough organizing? well, drop the attempt to redefine the terms for a second and just read that in english and tell me if you think it's coherent or not. in the end, a group like this needs to ask the question: why aren't any actual union members showing up at their meetings? why is it just a bunch of students and unemployed people? where are the rank and file?
and, the answer is as obvious as is possible: the decline of the revolutionary left is a function of the success of the union movement. somebody making $60,000+/yr with good benefits doesn't need to be helped out of their oppression by a benevolent arts student.
these groups need to focus on what is in front of them. america has a major housing problem, and i see it every time i go over there. social benefits are far too low. people don't have access to health care or education, and they're stuck working dead-end jobs that don't pay the rent. these are your foot soldiers for the revolution - not the union rank and file, who are too busy watching tv to organize or mobilize or, really, do anything else at all.
i might not even make it there. we're looking at a long weekend.
she seems keen on going after this "saul alinsky" character, instead of foucault. but, as far as i can tell, she's tearing down a strawman.
....because in all of my years of organizing and agitating out here on the radical left, i've actually never heard anybody talk about saul alinsky. we talk about foucault, we talk about chomsky, we talk about davis, we talk about the black panthers, etc, but alinsky is just not an influence, anywhere, at all. i've never read anything he's written, and i've never seen him cited by anybody except the news papers trying to smear obama with him.
maybe it's a problem of distance, a problem of degrees to the left; maybe saul alinsky is the opponent to the right of my opponents on the right and so i'm firewalled from him in a realistic sense, but, whatever it is, this is a discussion that isn't real to me.
i'm also beginning to realize that the text is being written almost solely from a reformist perspective, and that "progressive reformist" would not be considered an insult by the author, but rather an acceptable identity. see, i guess we'll have to see what the democratic socialists of america think about this, but maybe i'm operating on a misunderstanding: i would assume that people walking into a dsa meeting would consider themselves a good distance to the left of anybody calling themselves a progressive, and that they would consequently consider somebody identifying as a "progressive reformist" to be more of an opponent than an, at best, temporary ally. i could be wrong on that point. i guess we'll see the reaction.
....because in all of my years of organizing and agitating out here on the radical left, i've actually never heard anybody talk about saul alinsky. we talk about foucault, we talk about chomsky, we talk about davis, we talk about the black panthers, etc, but alinsky is just not an influence, anywhere, at all. i've never read anything he's written, and i've never seen him cited by anybody except the news papers trying to smear obama with him.
maybe it's a problem of distance, a problem of degrees to the left; maybe saul alinsky is the opponent to the right of my opponents on the right and so i'm firewalled from him in a realistic sense, but, whatever it is, this is a discussion that isn't real to me.
i'm also beginning to realize that the text is being written almost solely from a reformist perspective, and that "progressive reformist" would not be considered an insult by the author, but rather an acceptable identity. see, i guess we'll have to see what the democratic socialists of america think about this, but maybe i'm operating on a misunderstanding: i would assume that people walking into a dsa meeting would consider themselves a good distance to the left of anybody calling themselves a progressive, and that they would consequently consider somebody identifying as a "progressive reformist" to be more of an opponent than an, at best, temporary ally. i could be wrong on that point. i guess we'll see the reaction.
"When the structure is the workplace, the official leader of that structure, the company’s chief executive, declares war on the employees at the first hint of a unionization effort"
no.
the class war always exists. management declares war on labour the moment that they're hired, and organization is required to protect them from these perpetual attacks by management.
the management class exists and survives solely by stealing labour from it's employees, in the terms of underpaying them. that is the definition of capitalism. it will always seek, by any means that are allowed to it, to increase the quantity of this theft, and to further enforce as much inequality as is possible. it is not reacting to employees, it is constantly acting aggressively against them, and there is nothing that employees can do to stop this aggression besides organizing into unions so that they can defend themselves.
a minor point in context? no. it lets out a capitalist bias, and a naivete about power.
you can imagine the meme, right?
no.
the class war always exists. management declares war on labour the moment that they're hired, and organization is required to protect them from these perpetual attacks by management.
the management class exists and survives solely by stealing labour from it's employees, in the terms of underpaying them. that is the definition of capitalism. it will always seek, by any means that are allowed to it, to increase the quantity of this theft, and to further enforce as much inequality as is possible. it is not reacting to employees, it is constantly acting aggressively against them, and there is nothing that employees can do to stop this aggression besides organizing into unions so that they can defend themselves.
a minor point in context? no. it lets out a capitalist bias, and a naivete about power.
you can imagine the meme, right?
writes book about how activists don't understand power.
doesn't understand power.
i want to wheel myself back, though, and point out that there's a difference between trying to mobilize in the context of bourgeois politics (where you have to pay attention to things like demographic majorities in geographic riding boundaries) and trying to mobilize in the context of revolutionary politics (where these borders don't meaningfully exist). and, that is itself a difference between how a union operates and how a social movement works.
so, the march to birmingham, for example, attracted people from everywhere - it didn't matter where you were from, it mattered only that you were there. then, when everybody went home, they elected some more racists in these districts. so, where the movement was able to make a difference at a higher level of government, it utterly failed to enact meaningful change at a local level.
so, you have to ask yourself what you're doing, too. if you're trying to take control of the house of representatives, you're going to need union support, and you're going to need to adjust to their privilege, kind of whether you like it or not. but, if you're trying to act independently of the existing system and enact actual revolutionary change outside of it, you have to come face to face with the realities of how class exists inside of labour politics in the twenty-first century.
so, the march to birmingham, for example, attracted people from everywhere - it didn't matter where you were from, it mattered only that you were there. then, when everybody went home, they elected some more racists in these districts. so, where the movement was able to make a difference at a higher level of government, it utterly failed to enact meaningful change at a local level.
so, you have to ask yourself what you're doing, too. if you're trying to take control of the house of representatives, you're going to need union support, and you're going to need to adjust to their privilege, kind of whether you like it or not. but, if you're trying to act independently of the existing system and enact actual revolutionary change outside of it, you have to come face to face with the realities of how class exists inside of labour politics in the twenty-first century.
the next thing she does is try to define mobilizing differently from organizing, as though we can snap our fingers and an organized movement will appear.
i take the point that she's making: often times left-wing agitators end up as this group of people that are essentially walled off from society. the movement really only exists in their own minds. i know this well because i've been there. the occupy kids were the same thing as the iww kids were the same thing as the idle no more kids were the same thing as the student strike kids, with minimal differences. these weren't different groups, but rather a way for a single group to organize it's own thoughts. but, it's not like we didn't know that, and it's not like that was something that we decided upon or even wanted.
what is more real is to point out that what we wanted to do was what she calls "organize", but what we had no other choice to do was what she called "mobilize", and the reason that we had no choice was that we didn't have enough support. we didn't have the people and we didn't have the resources because we didn't have the interest.
so, it doesn't make sense to argue that mobilizing is a failed strategy. when mobilizing is effective, it becomes organizing merely by expanding the number of people involved. and, that's really what the difference between mobilizing and organizing is, as she defines it - the question of how many people you can actually rally to the cause, which is the question of how effectively you're actually mobilizing.
a more productive thing to do here consequently wouldn't be to define organizing and mobilizing as different ideas, and then say that mobilizing is the wrong thing to do and organizing is the right thing to do. rather, the crux of the problem is in realizing that we're just not actually getting through to people and/or that the people we're getting through to don't have the time or ability to agitate. in order to substantively organize, we have to more effectively mobilize.
so, that is the meaningful question in front of us: how do we more effectively mobilize?
and, i know people are going to look at me blankly and state "social media", but i'm not sure that that's really the right answer. what we need to do is look at this idea of power, and ask whether mobilizing well paid union workers even actually even makes any sense or not. if the question is "how do we mobilize a worker that already owns a house due to victories won through previous generations of struggle?", maybe we're not asking the right question.
maybe we're not even mobilizing the right people, and maybe that's why our organizing isn't getting us anywhere.
i take the point that she's making: often times left-wing agitators end up as this group of people that are essentially walled off from society. the movement really only exists in their own minds. i know this well because i've been there. the occupy kids were the same thing as the iww kids were the same thing as the idle no more kids were the same thing as the student strike kids, with minimal differences. these weren't different groups, but rather a way for a single group to organize it's own thoughts. but, it's not like we didn't know that, and it's not like that was something that we decided upon or even wanted.
what is more real is to point out that what we wanted to do was what she calls "organize", but what we had no other choice to do was what she called "mobilize", and the reason that we had no choice was that we didn't have enough support. we didn't have the people and we didn't have the resources because we didn't have the interest.
so, it doesn't make sense to argue that mobilizing is a failed strategy. when mobilizing is effective, it becomes organizing merely by expanding the number of people involved. and, that's really what the difference between mobilizing and organizing is, as she defines it - the question of how many people you can actually rally to the cause, which is the question of how effectively you're actually mobilizing.
a more productive thing to do here consequently wouldn't be to define organizing and mobilizing as different ideas, and then say that mobilizing is the wrong thing to do and organizing is the right thing to do. rather, the crux of the problem is in realizing that we're just not actually getting through to people and/or that the people we're getting through to don't have the time or ability to agitate. in order to substantively organize, we have to more effectively mobilize.
so, that is the meaningful question in front of us: how do we more effectively mobilize?
and, i know people are going to look at me blankly and state "social media", but i'm not sure that that's really the right answer. what we need to do is look at this idea of power, and ask whether mobilizing well paid union workers even actually even makes any sense or not. if the question is "how do we mobilize a worker that already owns a house due to victories won through previous generations of struggle?", maybe we're not asking the right question.
maybe we're not even mobilizing the right people, and maybe that's why our organizing isn't getting us anywhere.
i do want to point out that she starts the book by talking about how liberals don't understand power, which i think is a kind of a red herring, but, more importantly, that she then neither cites foucault nor angela davis even once.
how do you write a book about activists not understanding power in 2016 and manage to not even cite foucault once? i mean, you'd think you'd at least tear him down, which is what i would do. how can you completely ignore him? he's the source for understanding power on the left.
unless i've answered my own question, right?
i should read it first, but i suspect that this is going to essentially be a regurgitation of foucault, and that's why you start your book off like that. "you've never read foucault. let me sell his ideas to you.".
that's a hypothesis, not an accusation. let's see how accurate it is.
how do you write a book about activists not understanding power in 2016 and manage to not even cite foucault once? i mean, you'd think you'd at least tear him down, which is what i would do. how can you completely ignore him? he's the source for understanding power on the left.
unless i've answered my own question, right?
i should read it first, but i suspect that this is going to essentially be a regurgitation of foucault, and that's why you start your book off like that. "you've never read foucault. let me sell his ideas to you.".
that's a hypothesis, not an accusation. let's see how accurate it is.
so, the reading at the socialist book club - which i've never been to - is Jane McAlevey's "No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age".
it's not even 200 pages, so i should be able to give it a good read this morning. and, this is actually kind of what this blog is actually for, so i'll post some comments about it as they come up....
i haven't read this or heard about it previously, but a quick google search indicates that it's not presenting any new ideas, and i'll have to see how it's summarizing old ones. to begin with, i'm reminded of the famous response to the pharoah that there is "no royal road to geometry", something that the internet currently wants to apocryphally attribute to euclid, but that i remember being attributed to heron. there's a subtle point, here, that i should explain more fully: the point that the mathematician, be it heron or euclid, was trying to get across to the greco-egyptian pharoah, ptolemy, was that his privilege and status and wealth and power was not going to help him understand better, he has to work it out like everybody else. this is a sentiment, fwiw, that was not extended to napoleon, who was granted a theorem by the academy to demonstrate his superior abilities in the field of reason. you really can't underestimate the importance that these values of equality played in greek's indigenous democratic culture, can you?
the point that the geometer, be it euclid or heron, was getting across to the pharoah should perhaps not be lost on middle or upper class organizers that i know from experience think they are intellectually and at times even morally superior to these rank and file workers. and, it's a point that is perhaps at the center of the catastrophe that is the contemporary democratic party in the united states - everybody needs to work together, and everybody needs to work hard, if we want to get something substantive done.
but, somebody with an anarchist background isn't going to find much insight in these arguments that vertical organizing practices are at the centre of the problems the labour movement has been having, or that there seems to be a discerning lack of revolutionary potential in the union rank and file. i've been making these arguments in this space for almost a decade now, even if much of it is yet to be reposted, and i'm really just taking notes on malatesta, and to a lesser extent on gramsci. a contemporary socialist thinker that will be remembered in the future and that has been making these arguments forever is richard wolff. so, is this going to be worth reading, or is it just a summary of existing points?
we'll find out, i guess.
but, i'm more interested in the discussion, obviously. i'm a little bit apprehensive in involving myself in american party politics - i cannot vote in the united states, and do not even live there - but something like the dsa should have an internationalist character to it that transcends that kind of thing. i'm happy to be the anarchist in the room, if it comes to it.
but, let's see what the book actually says.
it's not even 200 pages, so i should be able to give it a good read this morning. and, this is actually kind of what this blog is actually for, so i'll post some comments about it as they come up....
i haven't read this or heard about it previously, but a quick google search indicates that it's not presenting any new ideas, and i'll have to see how it's summarizing old ones. to begin with, i'm reminded of the famous response to the pharoah that there is "no royal road to geometry", something that the internet currently wants to apocryphally attribute to euclid, but that i remember being attributed to heron. there's a subtle point, here, that i should explain more fully: the point that the mathematician, be it heron or euclid, was trying to get across to the greco-egyptian pharoah, ptolemy, was that his privilege and status and wealth and power was not going to help him understand better, he has to work it out like everybody else. this is a sentiment, fwiw, that was not extended to napoleon, who was granted a theorem by the academy to demonstrate his superior abilities in the field of reason. you really can't underestimate the importance that these values of equality played in greek's indigenous democratic culture, can you?
the point that the geometer, be it euclid or heron, was getting across to the pharoah should perhaps not be lost on middle or upper class organizers that i know from experience think they are intellectually and at times even morally superior to these rank and file workers. and, it's a point that is perhaps at the center of the catastrophe that is the contemporary democratic party in the united states - everybody needs to work together, and everybody needs to work hard, if we want to get something substantive done.
but, somebody with an anarchist background isn't going to find much insight in these arguments that vertical organizing practices are at the centre of the problems the labour movement has been having, or that there seems to be a discerning lack of revolutionary potential in the union rank and file. i've been making these arguments in this space for almost a decade now, even if much of it is yet to be reposted, and i'm really just taking notes on malatesta, and to a lesser extent on gramsci. a contemporary socialist thinker that will be remembered in the future and that has been making these arguments forever is richard wolff. so, is this going to be worth reading, or is it just a summary of existing points?
we'll find out, i guess.
but, i'm more interested in the discussion, obviously. i'm a little bit apprehensive in involving myself in american party politics - i cannot vote in the united states, and do not even live there - but something like the dsa should have an internationalist character to it that transcends that kind of thing. i'm happy to be the anarchist in the room, if it comes to it.
but, let's see what the book actually says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)