inri082?
this extended ep will be a comprehensive exploration of all of the versions of this recording.
for now, here is the maximal version, which contains a poem that was
written in mid-2004 but not added to the track until 2011 (and will be
removed for the album version).
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/interplanetary-isomorphism
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
inri081
inri079. seventh record.
audio needs to be replaced, items need to close..
...except that i think i did replace the audio, already. so, i'm just looking at final sequencing decisions; this is just about done.
it's the sample-free, (mostly) instrumental reclamation of my seventh lp.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa
audio needs to be replaced, items need to close..
...except that i think i did replace the audio, already. so, i'm just looking at final sequencing decisions; this is just about done.
it's the sample-free, (mostly) instrumental reclamation of my seventh lp.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa
publishing inri079
an art show demo, uploaded as is. inri079.
it's not a complex story - sarah wanted to have a showing of some of her paintings in her apartment, so she asked me to write some music for it. i just took some of the things i was working on and put them together.
this is the sum total of material worked on in my mother's apartment, where i stayed from about december, 2003 to about may, 2004.
this would eventually become the core of the next symphony.
initially written and recorded over the second half of 2003 and the very beginning of 2004. compiled on january 18, 2004. ripped from cd-r on april 11, 2014. finally uploaded and published without further modification on sept 18, 2019. as always, please use headphones.
released january 18, 2004
j - electric & acoustic & classical guitars, effects, vocals, flute, synthesizers, electric air reed organ, drum programming, piano programming, sound design, noise generators, sequencers, generative synthesis, audiomulch, sounder, digital wave editing, sampling, composition, production
sarah - cover art photo, as taken from the top of the alexandra bridge in ottawa, ontario, during the winter of 2003/2004.
the acoustic guitar played on quantum psychosis belonged to heather.
inri079
an art show demo, uploaded as is. inri078.
it's not a complex story - sarah wanted to have a showing of some of her paintings in her apartment, so she asked me to write some music for it. i just took some of the things i was working on and put them together.this would eventually become the core of the next symphony.
initially written and recorded over the second half of 2003 and the very beginning of 2004. compiled on january 23, 2004. ripped from cd-r on april 11, 2014. finally uploaded and published without further modification on sept 18, 2019. as always, please use headphones.
credits
released January 23, 2004
j - all sound
j - all sound
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/art-show-demo
inri077
inri077.
these are some demos that i recorded on my 4-track in sarah and heather's apartment on dalhousie in ottawa in late 2003. i still have the tape, but i haven't digitized, yet.
the only thing i transferred was a section that became "like divine amoebas", because i was using it, directly. the non-digitized sections were mostly for the lost symphony, iirc.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/bedroom-cassette-demoes
these are some demos that i recorded on my 4-track in sarah and heather's apartment on dalhousie in ottawa in late 2003. i still have the tape, but i haven't digitized, yet.
the only thing i transferred was a section that became "like divine amoebas", because i was using it, directly. the non-digitized sections were mostly for the lost symphony, iirc.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/bedroom-cassette-demoes
first inri078 upload
i will finally complete this symphony, soon.
for now, here's a demo that was recorded in the winter of 2007.
inri076.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-lost-symphony
for now, here's a demo that was recorded in the winter of 2007.
inri076.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-lost-symphony
inri075
inri075.
i wrote this song on a beach in kelowna in mid 2003. it looked a lot like the picture...
there's a lot of space in the track, which is intentional. in the final recording, i filled it out with birds chirping, but the initial intent was something out of a john cage piece - listen to what's around you. relax...
that said, a live version of the track at the time would have featured me playing multiple parts at once, which were separated in the recording for tonal variance. i'm hoping that i find a fuller recording, but here's a background track, for now.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/kelowna
i wrote this song on a beach in kelowna in mid 2003. it looked a lot like the picture...
there's a lot of space in the track, which is intentional. in the final recording, i filled it out with birds chirping, but the initial intent was something out of a john cage piece - listen to what's around you. relax...
that said, a live version of the track at the time would have featured me playing multiple parts at once, which were separated in the recording for tonal variance. i'm hoping that i find a fuller recording, but here's a background track, for now.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/kelowna
it's been too long, so i should remind people what the next stage is, once i get all this journal writing done.
period 3 is next and will start in seriousness when i get back from bc in mid-2003.
this period was unstable, and unfocused, overall, but i got a fair number of demoes down, at least.
i've also made some tracks public that were previously hidden, even though it's going to take forever to do it.
1) inri075 needs to be cleaned up, but is essentially done.
it's some demos recorded over the second half of the summer of 2003 in a psychedelic-prog style that document my immediate feelings after getting back.
this should be an ep.
sept 1, 2003.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/kelowna
2) inri076 is the second of four half hour epics that will make up the trivial group 2xlp.
there are rough demoes dated to much later, but i'd be starting this from scratch, and it will be a major project to finish.
there are no serious demoes because i was living on sarah's floor at the time, due to being thrown out of my parents' basement.
i don't even remember why. i think i called my stepmother psychotic (which was just a statement of fact).
this will likely be a lengthy ep that will at least include instrumental and vocal versions.
this is more of a rock symphony than reflections, but the end project will be quite psychedelic.
i had been listening to a lot of 'soundtracks for the blind', and you can tell.
this would be symphony 9.
nov 1, 2003.
note, however, that i may have to extend the inri numbers if i decide to release some singles dated to october, 2003.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-lost-symphony
3) inri077 is literally a couple of four-track acoustic demoes that i recorded on sarah's floor.
these pop up elsewhere, but they're their own thing, too.
this should come up as is, i'm just waiting for inri #s.
dec 1, 2003
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/bedroom-cassette-demoes
4) inri078 is a recording that sarah asked me to create for an "art show" she put on in her apartment.
it's just some rough versions of some things i was doing, but it's it's own document, too.
this should come up as is.
jan 23, 2004.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/art-show-demo
5) inri079 is the ftaa lp, which is my sixth official record.
i'm dating it to june 1, 2004 because that's when i first constructed it, but the audio needs to be replaced with final versions of each of the tracks.
there is an older version of the record there, already.
this should otherwise be quick.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa
6) the tenth symphony is dated to aug 15, 2004. while it is done, a nice compilation will need to be constructed.
no audio here, yet.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/interplanetary-isomorphism
7) the cycles per second ep came out of a course on wavelet compression that i took in 2004.
this ep is done, it just needs an inri #.
it's also the front-end for a noisy matlab project that will be entirely prgrammed and will be my eight or ninth record.
if i ever get through this, it may be the template for further post-discography composition.
nov 1, 2004.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-spontaneous-combustion-of-leonardo-pisano
8) i briefly played bass, as a favour to the guitarist, for an ottawa pop-punk band called throatmotor.
there was some discussion around doing actual interesting music, but it never materialized.
this is an attempt on my behalf to contribute to the writing which was, as always, simply ignored.
i'm not exactly sure what will be done with this, yet.
may 1, 2005
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/throatmotor-fragment
9) this is the trivial group lp, which i have dated to june, 2005 but will probably move to past the fourth symphony, xenophanes.
the components will be reflections (8th), the lost symphony (9th), interplanetary isomorphism (10th) & xenophanes (11th).
the first and last two are largely done, while i haven't started recording the second.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/e
10) i made an attempt over mid 2005 to start a more conventional rock band by floating some rock songs that i described, at the time, as "impressionist jazz punk".
these tracks were actually written between mid-2003 and mid-2005, but they never got beyond the guitar stage, because i wanted to perform them with an actual band.
the compilation is dated to mid-2005, but we'll have to see what i do about actually completing them.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/impressionist-jazz-punk
11) this is the fourth trivial group symphony and 11th overall, entitled 'xenophanes'.
dated to sept 1, 2005 for now.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/xenophanes
12) when i get there, i'll create an lp of music i created from 1998-2006 for a scholastic reason.
dated to may, 2006.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/scholastic-pieces
13) this is the introduction of a symphony i started at the end of 2006 and had to place on indefinite hold due to life circumstances. this introduction is very noisy, and i'm somewhat impressed by myself listening to it at the moment. but, the second - incomplete and unreleased - section sounds like al di meola jamming with the aphex twin, and that's a better way to describe the overall intent. this might end up as a tetris release and is probably the end of period 3.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-crash
period 4....the bronson years.
14) this is a good way to start period 4.
it will need to compile just the guitar parts for all of the later period symphonies.
dating it to early 2007 makes sense, but we'll see if it's actually right or not when i get there.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/genesis
15) this will need to come up at the end of period 3, and will be a collection of midi percussion renders for tracks composed over 2000-2007.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/percussive-works
16) this is a messy, out of sync demo that represents the beginnings of what was supposed to be the tetris project.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/evil-is-a-human-construction
17) by combining this with the guitar demos, it is possible to get a rough idea of what the first three movements of this lp will sound like. there are five written movements.
dating is unclear.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/proverbs
18) i started writing this concept record weeks before i got evicted from the apartment on bronson, in mid-2011.
it's very much the end point of the discography, at this point.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/orb-symphony
period 3 is next and will start in seriousness when i get back from bc in mid-2003.
this period was unstable, and unfocused, overall, but i got a fair number of demoes down, at least.
i've also made some tracks public that were previously hidden, even though it's going to take forever to do it.
1) inri075 needs to be cleaned up, but is essentially done.
it's some demos recorded over the second half of the summer of 2003 in a psychedelic-prog style that document my immediate feelings after getting back.
this should be an ep.
sept 1, 2003.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/kelowna
2) inri076 is the second of four half hour epics that will make up the trivial group 2xlp.
there are rough demoes dated to much later, but i'd be starting this from scratch, and it will be a major project to finish.
there are no serious demoes because i was living on sarah's floor at the time, due to being thrown out of my parents' basement.
i don't even remember why. i think i called my stepmother psychotic (which was just a statement of fact).
this will likely be a lengthy ep that will at least include instrumental and vocal versions.
this is more of a rock symphony than reflections, but the end project will be quite psychedelic.
i had been listening to a lot of 'soundtracks for the blind', and you can tell.
this would be symphony 9.
nov 1, 2003.
note, however, that i may have to extend the inri numbers if i decide to release some singles dated to october, 2003.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-lost-symphony
3) inri077 is literally a couple of four-track acoustic demoes that i recorded on sarah's floor.
these pop up elsewhere, but they're their own thing, too.
this should come up as is, i'm just waiting for inri #s.
dec 1, 2003
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/bedroom-cassette-demoes
4) inri078 is a recording that sarah asked me to create for an "art show" she put on in her apartment.
it's just some rough versions of some things i was doing, but it's it's own document, too.
this should come up as is.
jan 23, 2004.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/art-show-demo
5) inri079 is the ftaa lp, which is my sixth official record.
i'm dating it to june 1, 2004 because that's when i first constructed it, but the audio needs to be replaced with final versions of each of the tracks.
there is an older version of the record there, already.
this should otherwise be quick.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa
6) the tenth symphony is dated to aug 15, 2004. while it is done, a nice compilation will need to be constructed.
no audio here, yet.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/interplanetary-isomorphism
7) the cycles per second ep came out of a course on wavelet compression that i took in 2004.
this ep is done, it just needs an inri #.
it's also the front-end for a noisy matlab project that will be entirely prgrammed and will be my eight or ninth record.
if i ever get through this, it may be the template for further post-discography composition.
nov 1, 2004.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-spontaneous-combustion-of-leonardo-pisano
8) i briefly played bass, as a favour to the guitarist, for an ottawa pop-punk band called throatmotor.
there was some discussion around doing actual interesting music, but it never materialized.
this is an attempt on my behalf to contribute to the writing which was, as always, simply ignored.
i'm not exactly sure what will be done with this, yet.
may 1, 2005
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/throatmotor-fragment
9) this is the trivial group lp, which i have dated to june, 2005 but will probably move to past the fourth symphony, xenophanes.
the components will be reflections (8th), the lost symphony (9th), interplanetary isomorphism (10th) & xenophanes (11th).
the first and last two are largely done, while i haven't started recording the second.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/e
10) i made an attempt over mid 2005 to start a more conventional rock band by floating some rock songs that i described, at the time, as "impressionist jazz punk".
these tracks were actually written between mid-2003 and mid-2005, but they never got beyond the guitar stage, because i wanted to perform them with an actual band.
the compilation is dated to mid-2005, but we'll have to see what i do about actually completing them.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/impressionist-jazz-punk
11) this is the fourth trivial group symphony and 11th overall, entitled 'xenophanes'.
dated to sept 1, 2005 for now.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/xenophanes
12) when i get there, i'll create an lp of music i created from 1998-2006 for a scholastic reason.
dated to may, 2006.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/scholastic-pieces
13) this is the introduction of a symphony i started at the end of 2006 and had to place on indefinite hold due to life circumstances. this introduction is very noisy, and i'm somewhat impressed by myself listening to it at the moment. but, the second - incomplete and unreleased - section sounds like al di meola jamming with the aphex twin, and that's a better way to describe the overall intent. this might end up as a tetris release and is probably the end of period 3.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-crash
period 4....the bronson years.
14) this is a good way to start period 4.
it will need to compile just the guitar parts for all of the later period symphonies.
dating it to early 2007 makes sense, but we'll see if it's actually right or not when i get there.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/genesis
15) this will need to come up at the end of period 3, and will be a collection of midi percussion renders for tracks composed over 2000-2007.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/percussive-works
16) this is a messy, out of sync demo that represents the beginnings of what was supposed to be the tetris project.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/evil-is-a-human-construction
17) by combining this with the guitar demos, it is possible to get a rough idea of what the first three movements of this lp will sound like. there are five written movements.
dating is unclear.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/proverbs
18) i started writing this concept record weeks before i got evicted from the apartment on bronson, in mid-2011.
it's very much the end point of the discography, at this point.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/orb-symphony
there's the link to all 75 records, inri000-inri074:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3JSjmqp0cbvbF58VKPkic-68bkZZ-4pn
if you flip through the youtube profile, you'll see links to specific projects, as well.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3JSjmqp0cbvbF58VKPkic-68bkZZ-4pn
if you flip through the youtube profile, you'll see links to specific projects, as well.
so, this is what we've come to right now.
1)conservatives. they're not even in contention, they never are.
2)people's party. i don't like their positions on economics or science, and i don't really agree with them on immigration, either. they're not under serious consideration.
3)liberals. under the control of stupid people, they've become the stupid party.
4)ndp. they used to be the stupid party, but now they're just next level. say no to magic beards in office.
5) greens. i don't like her either, but she can't win. is the local candidate worth supporting? that's what i need to figure out.
6)mlm. this is the first election where i've seriously considered it, but, if they win, it might be the last one i'll get the chance to consider it. there's almost no chance.
7) spoiled ballot. that's running a close second, right now.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5) greens. i don't like her either, but she can't win. is the local candidate worth supporting? that's what i need to figure out.
6)
7) spoiled ballot. that's running a close second, right now.
i've been stating for years that i'm not comfortable with elizabeth may's religious beliefs, either. this is a big part of the reason that i'm hesitating - i don't really want to vote for her, either. but, she's a known entity, and it's a difference of scale.
she's not helping herself by running her mouth off.
she's not helping herself by running her mouth off.
i would support jagmeet singh's right to practice his silly religion, or express his cultural homogeneity, or however he sees it, at a private law practice, as he sees fit. i'm not going to bother him at work, even if i might support policies to get to his kids.
and, a savvy lawyer could charge a magic fee for access to his magic beard.
but, there's not a fucking chance in hell i'd ever vote for him - and i know i'm right, so don't bother calling me names about it.
and, a savvy lawyer could charge a magic fee for access to his magic beard.
but, there's not a fucking chance in hell i'd ever vote for him - and i know i'm right, so don't bother calling me names about it.
what a "progressive" (and i'm just co-opting the term, here, with a dictionary definition) politics should be based around is helping people out of these cults - which means providing them with support to break free from them. that holds for sikhism, islam, christianity, judaism and all the rest.
the last thing that a "progressive" politics should be doing is giving these religious groups a platform, or helping to put them into power.
electing a guy with a turban would be a step backwards, and let's hope we're never "ready" for it.
the last thing that a "progressive" politics should be doing is giving these religious groups a platform, or helping to put them into power.
electing a guy with a turban would be a step backwards, and let's hope we're never "ready" for it.
stated differently: progress does not look like a "multicultural" society, where we accept any and all manners of lousy thinking as equally valid. and, "diversity of thought" is not about a diversity of mindlessness. religion is the opposite of free-thinking.
rather, diversity of thought requires the abolition of organized religion as a pre-condition - we can't be independent thinkers and tolerant of the conformity of religious sameness at the same time, it's an impossible contradiction. fighting for diversity means fighting against these cults.
further, progress is a secular society where we don't see the world through these backwards prisms of childishness and make-believe any more; progress happens when religion ceases to exist.
and, this isn't alt anything. it's standard, basic leftism. what you want is a traditional, conservative society defined by people like edmund burke.
rather, diversity of thought requires the abolition of organized religion as a pre-condition - we can't be independent thinkers and tolerant of the conformity of religious sameness at the same time, it's an impossible contradiction. fighting for diversity means fighting against these cults.
further, progress is a secular society where we don't see the world through these backwards prisms of childishness and make-believe any more; progress happens when religion ceases to exist.
and, this isn't alt anything. it's standard, basic leftism. what you want is a traditional, conservative society defined by people like edmund burke.
if the result of legalization is that we all have to suffer these old people smoking drugs by themselves on their porches and stinking up the neighbourhood, maybe we should go back to making it so they can't find it.
it's a social drug.
you do it outside.
with people...
and, not all the time.
ugh.
have a beer, grandpa. the pot stinks, and your neghbours have the right to complain about it.
it's a social drug.
you do it outside.
with people...
and, not all the time.
ugh.
have a beer, grandpa. the pot stinks, and your neghbours have the right to complain about it.
i was woken up by a brutal skunk smell this morning, and it was strong and concentrated enough that i'm going to conclude it was actually a skunk. i've seen them around; they're native to the area.
or, maybe i'm being more patient than i'm legally required to be.
after showering and eating, and redoing the laundry that had just finished, i think i can get back to sleep.
or, maybe i'm being more patient than i'm legally required to be.
after showering and eating, and redoing the laundry that had just finished, i think i can get back to sleep.
so, socialists broadly argue that the progressive insistence that you can regulate capitalism is based on the flawed idea that there are just bad people in bad places, and once you put an eye on them then everything will be ok. we argue that this is wrong because the problem isn't the individual people in the equation, but rather the system that created them and put them there. so, we don't argue for regulation, we argue for revolution; you can't fix the system, you need to tear it down.
so, it's not that power corrupts people. that's what warren would say, and is maybe how she's rationalizing this. rather, it's that people are only minor players in a system that functions around corruption as it's operating procedure. it's not that good people are corruptible, it's that it's impossible to uncorrupt the system.
but, i've noticed a few people point this out before - warren likes to write rules. she doesn't like to follow them, though. she might think that's pragmatic - because she thinks she's special - but smart people should realize that that's dangerous.
we have a rule of law for a reason, and everybody needs to follow it, even the self-appointed vanguard.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/working-families-party-elizabeth-warren-endorsement
so, it's not that power corrupts people. that's what warren would say, and is maybe how she's rationalizing this. rather, it's that people are only minor players in a system that functions around corruption as it's operating procedure. it's not that good people are corruptible, it's that it's impossible to uncorrupt the system.
but, i've noticed a few people point this out before - warren likes to write rules. she doesn't like to follow them, though. she might think that's pragmatic - because she thinks she's special - but smart people should realize that that's dangerous.
we have a rule of law for a reason, and everybody needs to follow it, even the self-appointed vanguard.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/working-families-party-elizabeth-warren-endorsement
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
listen: i don't care much for bernier's broader economic positions. i'm a strong supporter of supply management, and my primary vote driver is climate policy.
but, conservative voters are true believers. they don't swing.
the parties that bernier are going to potentially hurt are the liberals and the ndp, but particularly the liberals, as ndp voters tend to be far more economically socialist.
the type of voter that bernier is going to appeal to is a libertarian liberal, and there are in fact quite a few of them up here. you saw that in the recent by-elections in bc. that 2-3% that he's running at is coming directly at trudeau's expense.
the liberals don't seem to understand that.
...because they're stupid people. it's just more evidence.
but, conservative voters are true believers. they don't swing.
the parties that bernier are going to potentially hurt are the liberals and the ndp, but particularly the liberals, as ndp voters tend to be far more economically socialist.
the type of voter that bernier is going to appeal to is a libertarian liberal, and there are in fact quite a few of them up here. you saw that in the recent by-elections in bc. that 2-3% that he's running at is coming directly at trudeau's expense.
the liberals don't seem to understand that.
...because they're stupid people. it's just more evidence.
i understand that gantz is not much better than netanyahu, but i'd openly support satan if i thought he could get the guy out of office, at this point.
and, i'm not a satanist, i'm an atheist.
the israeli spectrum is complicated, and i don't know the ins and outs. i know the generalities. so, i understand that it may be hard for gantz to form a coalition - and that he may even need to rely on the arabs.
but, that would be a big step forward, i think. remember: i support a one-state solution, with equal rights.
this could all collapse into a grand coalition, which would probably be a caretaker government. but, let's hope it works out.
and, i'm not a satanist, i'm an atheist.
the israeli spectrum is complicated, and i don't know the ins and outs. i know the generalities. so, i understand that it may be hard for gantz to form a coalition - and that he may even need to rely on the arabs.
but, that would be a big step forward, i think. remember: i support a one-state solution, with equal rights.
this could all collapse into a grand coalition, which would probably be a caretaker government. but, let's hope it works out.
maybe another way to look at the differences between bill 21 and the ban on face coverings at citizenship ceremonies is to ask yourself what kind of voter is likely to be attracted to the different policies, and realize that there's a standard right-left divide at play, even in a basic liberal v conservative concept of the separation of church and state.
so, i called the citizenship ceremony "trivial", which would be more of a standard leftist position. conservatives may not think such a thing is trivial, because they're all into pledges and oaths and shit. they care about flags and they stand for anthems and the whole thing; symbolic gestures are important to them. i don't give a fuck about any of that - imagine there's no countries. and, no religion, too. so, conservatives may see a valid role for the state to play here, while leftists mostly wouldn't think this is very important, even if they don't like the actual garments very much.
when you introduce the question of power, you change the scenario. and, i hate foucault, actually. but, when you bring in the power dynamic, you're now entering an arena where liberals and leftists tend to want to enforce a firewall of separation and conservatives want to uphold state institutions. so, leftists don't want the ten commandments at the courthouse or in the schools, and we wouldn't want other religious symbols, like niqabs, on display, either; conservatives may argue that such things are foundational and cultural and should be preserved.
by reducing the issue to identity, or "racism", you're just cutting the actual substance out of the debate. it's both a strawman and a red herring and a pejorative. but, it's the level of discourse we should really expect.
is it a ballot issue? i don't want it to be this cycle - i want to vote for climate action, and the sitting government's lack of meaningful movement on it. the political configuration to make it a ballot issue isn't in front of me. in another scenario, i could see it as a wedge issue, and i could see it as a swing ballot issue, absolutely.
if faced with a choice between two parties with similar climate change platforms, i would vote for the party that supports bill 21, not the one that opposes it.
so, i called the citizenship ceremony "trivial", which would be more of a standard leftist position. conservatives may not think such a thing is trivial, because they're all into pledges and oaths and shit. they care about flags and they stand for anthems and the whole thing; symbolic gestures are important to them. i don't give a fuck about any of that - imagine there's no countries. and, no religion, too. so, conservatives may see a valid role for the state to play here, while leftists mostly wouldn't think this is very important, even if they don't like the actual garments very much.
when you introduce the question of power, you change the scenario. and, i hate foucault, actually. but, when you bring in the power dynamic, you're now entering an arena where liberals and leftists tend to want to enforce a firewall of separation and conservatives want to uphold state institutions. so, leftists don't want the ten commandments at the courthouse or in the schools, and we wouldn't want other religious symbols, like niqabs, on display, either; conservatives may argue that such things are foundational and cultural and should be preserved.
by reducing the issue to identity, or "racism", you're just cutting the actual substance out of the debate. it's both a strawman and a red herring and a pejorative. but, it's the level of discourse we should really expect.
is it a ballot issue? i don't want it to be this cycle - i want to vote for climate action, and the sitting government's lack of meaningful movement on it. the political configuration to make it a ballot issue isn't in front of me. in another scenario, i could see it as a wedge issue, and i could see it as a swing ballot issue, absolutely.
if faced with a choice between two parties with similar climate change platforms, i would vote for the party that supports bill 21, not the one that opposes it.
so, that was another unexpected crash. i guess i didn't sleep well this weekend, as i was fighting the coughs and headaches.
somebody at the bus station suggested i was going to catch a cold because i was wearing a tank top. we didn't have a discussion about the germ theory of disease, or the subtleties involved in immune system response during periods of wet weather, but i knew i'd have to actually catch a virus to actually get sick, and i suppose, in the end, that i did. fluky guess.
i do feel better.
but, i'm going to wait until tonight to get started on this.
i know. but, i want to get these files up, first.
somebody at the bus station suggested i was going to catch a cold because i was wearing a tank top. we didn't have a discussion about the germ theory of disease, or the subtleties involved in immune system response during periods of wet weather, but i knew i'd have to actually catch a virus to actually get sick, and i suppose, in the end, that i did. fluky guess.
i do feel better.
but, i'm going to wait until tonight to get started on this.
i know. but, i want to get these files up, first.
but, expect this: these tory media commentators are just going to write off support for the bill as <affleck> they're racist! </affleck>. it's a dumb position, taken by dumb people that don't want to actually grapple with the actual issue.
then, when the contradictions add up, they'll say that people don't understand what they're voting for - when the truth is that they don't understand the issue.
bill 21 is not about attacking people that look different, and it's not about race. it's about preventing our children from being exposed to the evils of organized religion, and otherwise keeping religious people out of positions of power.
then, when the contradictions add up, they'll say that people don't understand what they're voting for - when the truth is that they don't understand the issue.
bill 21 is not about attacking people that look different, and it's not about race. it's about preventing our children from being exposed to the evils of organized religion, and otherwise keeping religious people out of positions of power.
also, conflating the niqab ban with bill 21 is a false equivalency, and you'd only make it if you didn't really understand what bill 21 is actually about - if you think it's just state-sponsored discrimination, and the whole argument is just some kind of an excuse, or something. you'd have to swallow the bullshit, ignorant line from jagmeet singh about it being about "looking different".
that's not what it's about at all.
i opposed the niqab ban, because who cares? but, you'll note that, in opposing the niqab ban, i also supported the right to dress as spiderman or wear garbage bags over your head to the citizenship ceremony. i wasn't standing with muslims on the grounds of upholding a religious right, i was pointing out the stupidity of legislating the fashion police at a ceremony of trivial significance. and, i would still oppose the niqab ban, because who cares?
but, i support bill 21 because it's an entirely different concern. this is something we should care about, because we're talking about exposing our children to cults, here. when we leave our kids in state care, we should be confident that they won't be exposed to anybody's religious beliefs. we can't do that when the teachers are so brainwashed by some superstitious nonsense that they can't even take off their scarves.
so, don't conflate this. don't think there's overlap. don't think the motives are the same.
that's not what it's about at all.
i opposed the niqab ban, because who cares? but, you'll note that, in opposing the niqab ban, i also supported the right to dress as spiderman or wear garbage bags over your head to the citizenship ceremony. i wasn't standing with muslims on the grounds of upholding a religious right, i was pointing out the stupidity of legislating the fashion police at a ceremony of trivial significance. and, i would still oppose the niqab ban, because who cares?
but, i support bill 21 because it's an entirely different concern. this is something we should care about, because we're talking about exposing our children to cults, here. when we leave our kids in state care, we should be confident that they won't be exposed to anybody's religious beliefs. we can't do that when the teachers are so brainwashed by some superstitious nonsense that they can't even take off their scarves.
so, don't conflate this. don't think there's overlap. don't think the motives are the same.
see, it's not just an issue in quebec, either. i'm not on the fence this election - i've already decided that i will not be voting for the liberals. but, if i was, a commitment by trudeau to fight the issue in court, or even a refusal to commit to not doing it, would lead me towards refraining from voting for him.
there's two reasons for this.
the first is that i support quebec's sovereignty rights, in this case. people forget that national unity isn't just an issue in quebec, it's one that resonates throughout the country. i'm not a quebcois identity voter or something, but, whether it was because of the way i was raised by a french canadian father or just because they're by far the most left-leaning place in north america, i tend to be on quebec's side more often than not. there's a lot of ontarians (and manitobans. and easterners.) like me that will essentially stand in solidarity with quebeckers from a distance. on the other hand, in alberta, you can win an election by attacking quebec.
one of the reasons i refrained from voting ndp in 2015 was their stance on quebec sovereignty. the liberals are usually the better national unity option here. but, as has generally been the case with trudeau, he's flipping that issue on it's head, and taking the side of the party's historical opponents.
the second is that i'm one of the 40+% of ontarians that would actually vote in favour of such a ban in this province should it be put up for a referendum. i'm just actually in support of the law.
so, don't think it's just quebeckers that trudeau needs to worry about in coming out shooting against this law. it could cost him the election.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/09/16/bill-21-pushed-to-forefront-of-federal-election-talk-in-quebec.html
there's two reasons for this.
the first is that i support quebec's sovereignty rights, in this case. people forget that national unity isn't just an issue in quebec, it's one that resonates throughout the country. i'm not a quebcois identity voter or something, but, whether it was because of the way i was raised by a french canadian father or just because they're by far the most left-leaning place in north america, i tend to be on quebec's side more often than not. there's a lot of ontarians (and manitobans. and easterners.) like me that will essentially stand in solidarity with quebeckers from a distance. on the other hand, in alberta, you can win an election by attacking quebec.
one of the reasons i refrained from voting ndp in 2015 was their stance on quebec sovereignty. the liberals are usually the better national unity option here. but, as has generally been the case with trudeau, he's flipping that issue on it's head, and taking the side of the party's historical opponents.
the second is that i'm one of the 40+% of ontarians that would actually vote in favour of such a ban in this province should it be put up for a referendum. i'm just actually in support of the law.
so, don't think it's just quebeckers that trudeau needs to worry about in coming out shooting against this law. it could cost him the election.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/09/16/bill-21-pushed-to-forefront-of-federal-election-talk-in-quebec.html
i had an unexpected crash this morning, and now i am getting distracted.
i've spent the last few days uploading everything to youtube as 128 kbps mp3s. why am i doing this? well, why did i do it in the first place?
i took everything down because i wasn't getting any traffic to the bandcamp site, but i was operating under a different mindset. i know that people think they're going to make money via ad revenue, but there's two problems with this: (1) i'm never going to do that because i'm an independent artist going for a niche market (i.e. i don't write pop music, and don't want to) and (2) even if i could potentially generate that kind of traffic, i wouldn't want to ruin the art with ads.
i mean, think through what we're talking about. i'm putting up music on the internet, and expecting to get paid by letting people sprinkle ads into the recording. that's disgusting as a business model in general, and impossible when you consider that i write lengthy, conceptual records. i routinely write 30-50 minute tracks, or track suites. i don't want any fucking ads in there!
so, the intent was to subvert the thing - they've got this all backwards. i don't want to make money by letting people ruin my art with their ads. fuck them. rather, i want to use youtube as an advertising platform, in itself. there were two ways i did this, initially: (1) via trying to commandeer the comments section and (2) via posting samples to the youtube site, with the intent to direct traffic to bandcamp.
then, they shadow-banned me, so nobody could see my comments. and, traffic from the samples demonstrated itself as a waste of time. so, i shut the site down.
since then, i've been struggling to organize all of this data (while fighting legal battles and trying to find smoke-free housing), but i've finally got a handle on it, so it's time to switch over.
there's still almost 300 subscribers at the deathtokoalas/koala central command site. that's down from around 340 at it's maximum point. but, those 340 people were useless to me because they weren't buying records. part of the time out was to let them drift off. yet, there's still 300 of them there....
i've been planning on this for a while; it was the completion of inri000 in the journal that triggered me to do it, and they're coming up in the order they were finished (over 2013-20118).
am i going to go back to posting? maybe. not in the same way, i don't think - it drew attention to myself, but it didn't work in building a fan base. i think i want to be a little more sincere, moving forwards. regardless, it's time to rebuild that advertising archive at youtube.
but, let's be clear: the videos are ads. they're not a product. the product is at bandcamp. so, they're up at 128 kbps, as teasers, and you can stream them all you want - but they don't sound great, and they can't. buy the record...
and, yes, i'd like to give this stuff away for free. i mean, i do work for free - let's not pretend that i don't. but, i don't want to get a job. i don't want this to be a hobby. this is labour, this is work, this is full-time employment. i need a paywall...
i've spent the last few days uploading everything to youtube as 128 kbps mp3s. why am i doing this? well, why did i do it in the first place?
i took everything down because i wasn't getting any traffic to the bandcamp site, but i was operating under a different mindset. i know that people think they're going to make money via ad revenue, but there's two problems with this: (1) i'm never going to do that because i'm an independent artist going for a niche market (i.e. i don't write pop music, and don't want to) and (2) even if i could potentially generate that kind of traffic, i wouldn't want to ruin the art with ads.
i mean, think through what we're talking about. i'm putting up music on the internet, and expecting to get paid by letting people sprinkle ads into the recording. that's disgusting as a business model in general, and impossible when you consider that i write lengthy, conceptual records. i routinely write 30-50 minute tracks, or track suites. i don't want any fucking ads in there!
so, the intent was to subvert the thing - they've got this all backwards. i don't want to make money by letting people ruin my art with their ads. fuck them. rather, i want to use youtube as an advertising platform, in itself. there were two ways i did this, initially: (1) via trying to commandeer the comments section and (2) via posting samples to the youtube site, with the intent to direct traffic to bandcamp.
then, they shadow-banned me, so nobody could see my comments. and, traffic from the samples demonstrated itself as a waste of time. so, i shut the site down.
since then, i've been struggling to organize all of this data (while fighting legal battles and trying to find smoke-free housing), but i've finally got a handle on it, so it's time to switch over.
there's still almost 300 subscribers at the deathtokoalas/koala central command site. that's down from around 340 at it's maximum point. but, those 340 people were useless to me because they weren't buying records. part of the time out was to let them drift off. yet, there's still 300 of them there....
i've been planning on this for a while; it was the completion of inri000 in the journal that triggered me to do it, and they're coming up in the order they were finished (over 2013-20118).
am i going to go back to posting? maybe. not in the same way, i don't think - it drew attention to myself, but it didn't work in building a fan base. i think i want to be a little more sincere, moving forwards. regardless, it's time to rebuild that advertising archive at youtube.
but, let's be clear: the videos are ads. they're not a product. the product is at bandcamp. so, they're up at 128 kbps, as teasers, and you can stream them all you want - but they don't sound great, and they can't. buy the record...
and, yes, i'd like to give this stuff away for free. i mean, i do work for free - let's not pretend that i don't. but, i don't want to get a job. i don't want this to be a hobby. this is labour, this is work, this is full-time employment. i need a paywall...
Monday, September 16, 2019
we're getting closer to the weekend, and that warm pacific air is still being forecast to dominate, hurricane or not.
looks like it'll be nice. better enjoy it....
i'm agreeing with this forecast, except that i'm still expecting the jet stream to defeat the ocean, in the end. so, i think we're going to get cold very fast, again, like last year. and, i'm holding out hope for an early spring. if not this year, then next year. soon...
i just want to clarify the point again: we've got two things, here. the warm ocean is mostly the result of climate change - not always, but usually. the blob would be an example of an ocean anomaly that may be solar in origin. on the other hand, the wobbly jet stream is mostly the sun. so, where i am, you get these things fighting with each other, and the weathers end up moving in extremes.
but, the sun is coming back, soon - which means they won't be fighting with each other any more, and it'll just be flat hot. the jet stream will retreat to the north, and we'll be dominated by pacific air for years, like we were in the mid 00s. and, they'll blame it on el nino, and be partly right, if it is.
so, the solar cycle is currently masking the warming effects at the latitude i'm at.
i have to keep pointing this out because people get confused.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/2019-canada-fall-forecast-winter-outlook-temperature-precipitation
looks like it'll be nice. better enjoy it....
i'm agreeing with this forecast, except that i'm still expecting the jet stream to defeat the ocean, in the end. so, i think we're going to get cold very fast, again, like last year. and, i'm holding out hope for an early spring. if not this year, then next year. soon...
i just want to clarify the point again: we've got two things, here. the warm ocean is mostly the result of climate change - not always, but usually. the blob would be an example of an ocean anomaly that may be solar in origin. on the other hand, the wobbly jet stream is mostly the sun. so, where i am, you get these things fighting with each other, and the weathers end up moving in extremes.
but, the sun is coming back, soon - which means they won't be fighting with each other any more, and it'll just be flat hot. the jet stream will retreat to the north, and we'll be dominated by pacific air for years, like we were in the mid 00s. and, they'll blame it on el nino, and be partly right, if it is.
so, the solar cycle is currently masking the warming effects at the latitude i'm at.
i have to keep pointing this out because people get confused.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/2019-canada-fall-forecast-winter-outlook-temperature-precipitation
i need to reiterate the point: what states do you expect warren to win?
she's not doing well in the south. biden's set to sweep, and sanders is doing much better with black voters.
i haven't actually seen any polls in the west, which is a bit of a problem - california isn't the last state any more. where's the polling?
she's doing better in the midwest and northeast, but the only polls i've seen have her tied for second, at best - and usually in the third.
it was a while ago, but the only polling i'd seen in massachusetts had her in third.
"well, biden's going to drop", you say. well, i don't agree - maybe he should drop but that doesn't mean he will. and, i agree that this is necessary for her, but it hardly seems sufficient.
if biden drops, sanders should pick up most of his support in the south, so that doesn't help her. it opens up a space in the west, but you've still got to deal with harris, even if sanders can't get traction, and if her base is educated woman, she's a potential block. there's at the least no clear path, and no evidence she'd do well. and, given that this viagra vote seems to be a real thing, biden dropping could very well help sanders more than warren, in the midwest and northeast. i think a fair assumption at this point is that it's a split, and then she's still not actually winning.
so, where's her base?
what states can she actually win?
and, if she can't win any, what's her plan? to limp into the convention with 35% of the votes, and hope they pick her without winning any actual states?
(and, bizarrely, there's a decent chance that they might.)
so, what happens if bernie drops out, then? well, there's your wild card - but what are the chances? regardless, is that her plan?
because, if it's not her plan, it doesn't seem that she actually has one.
logic tells me that she's going to look at the data and realize that she needs to drop out before iowa. but, i have this sneaking suspicion that the whole point of what she's doing is to try and muddy the field up - that she's running for vice president, and essentially just blocking sanders.
if this three way race lingers on, the only person that can win is biden, and it's going to be a messy process, as he does it.
she's not doing well in the south. biden's set to sweep, and sanders is doing much better with black voters.
i haven't actually seen any polls in the west, which is a bit of a problem - california isn't the last state any more. where's the polling?
she's doing better in the midwest and northeast, but the only polls i've seen have her tied for second, at best - and usually in the third.
it was a while ago, but the only polling i'd seen in massachusetts had her in third.
"well, biden's going to drop", you say. well, i don't agree - maybe he should drop but that doesn't mean he will. and, i agree that this is necessary for her, but it hardly seems sufficient.
if biden drops, sanders should pick up most of his support in the south, so that doesn't help her. it opens up a space in the west, but you've still got to deal with harris, even if sanders can't get traction, and if her base is educated woman, she's a potential block. there's at the least no clear path, and no evidence she'd do well. and, given that this viagra vote seems to be a real thing, biden dropping could very well help sanders more than warren, in the midwest and northeast. i think a fair assumption at this point is that it's a split, and then she's still not actually winning.
so, where's her base?
what states can she actually win?
and, if she can't win any, what's her plan? to limp into the convention with 35% of the votes, and hope they pick her without winning any actual states?
(and, bizarrely, there's a decent chance that they might.)
so, what happens if bernie drops out, then? well, there's your wild card - but what are the chances? regardless, is that her plan?
because, if it's not her plan, it doesn't seem that she actually has one.
logic tells me that she's going to look at the data and realize that she needs to drop out before iowa. but, i have this sneaking suspicion that the whole point of what she's doing is to try and muddy the field up - that she's running for vice president, and essentially just blocking sanders.
if this three way race lingers on, the only person that can win is biden, and it's going to be a messy process, as he does it.
meanwhile, all the ndp seems to care about is saving union jobs in the automotive sector.
https://blackburnnews.com/windsor/windsor-news/2019/09/16/ndp-announces-auto-strategy/
https://blackburnnews.com/windsor/windsor-news/2019/09/16/ndp-announces-auto-strategy/
the next section, on "good governance", is mostly about ethics and stuff, and seems intended mostly to appeal to conservatives. good luck, guys: they don't swing. but, i don't really care one way or the other about most of this stuff....
i would support forcing cops to get warrants before they can eavesdrop, or get data from isps. i'm otherwise largely apathetic about privacy laws, and tend to preach individual responsibility when it comes to online behaviour. people need to stop giving the data out.
they don't mention proportional representation in the section on electoral reform. interesting. are they open to discussion about preferential ballots?
on criminal justice reform, i would support the elimination of mandatory minimums, which have largely been struck down by the courts. i would oppose solitary confinement, although i'd also support the opposite - i don't think prisoners should be forced out of their cells and into the general population if they don't want to be, either. i'm in favour of rehabilitation, where it's mentally possible. i appreciate the recognition that the gun problem mostly exists at the border.
so, i actually don't agree with any of that, either.
---------
that is a strong platform, in my opinion. there are some omissions, but the only point of real disagreement that i would have with them would be on immigration policy, which i don't consider to be a ballot issue.
it's a very fact-based document, and that's refreshing in a spectrum that is often driven by bad data, demagoguery and emotional manipulation.
they get almost everything right.
so, who's my local candidate, anyways?
i would support forcing cops to get warrants before they can eavesdrop, or get data from isps. i'm otherwise largely apathetic about privacy laws, and tend to preach individual responsibility when it comes to online behaviour. people need to stop giving the data out.
they don't mention proportional representation in the section on electoral reform. interesting. are they open to discussion about preferential ballots?
on criminal justice reform, i would support the elimination of mandatory minimums, which have largely been struck down by the courts. i would oppose solitary confinement, although i'd also support the opposite - i don't think prisoners should be forced out of their cells and into the general population if they don't want to be, either. i'm in favour of rehabilitation, where it's mentally possible. i appreciate the recognition that the gun problem mostly exists at the border.
so, i actually don't agree with any of that, either.
---------
that is a strong platform, in my opinion. there are some omissions, but the only point of real disagreement that i would have with them would be on immigration policy, which i don't consider to be a ballot issue.
it's a very fact-based document, and that's refreshing in a spectrum that is often driven by bad data, demagoguery and emotional manipulation.
they get almost everything right.
so, who's my local candidate, anyways?
the next section is called "advancing the just society", and...
the "just society" was a historical policy by the elder trudeau, which was sort of ripped from lbj's "great society". so, it's kind of a part of the canadian lexicon, and it's not odd to see it pop up here and there. this platform is going to town with it, though, in a rather clear attempt to undermine both the liberal party and it's current leader. the messaging is clear - the green party and elizabeth may, not the liberal party and justin trudeau, are the true protectors of the legacy of pierre trudeau - for better or for worse, i suppose.
it's ballsy. pierre was ballsy. is it true? they'd have to govern; we'd have to watch them do it. but, there's a good case for it, at least.
i enthusiastically support all of these kinds of things, i always do.
but, the thing i want to point out is that the section on sex work gets it right, and maybe it's because it was written by a woman - they want to liberalize the sex work laws, but they point to the gai (as well as the free tuition.) as a way out, indicating that they get the point that sex work may be a choice for some people, but should never be the only choice available for anybody.
it's otherwise a statement of solidarity and support for women, queer people and minority language rights, the latter being a quintessentially canadian thing. no criticisms, here.
the "just society" was a historical policy by the elder trudeau, which was sort of ripped from lbj's "great society". so, it's kind of a part of the canadian lexicon, and it's not odd to see it pop up here and there. this platform is going to town with it, though, in a rather clear attempt to undermine both the liberal party and it's current leader. the messaging is clear - the green party and elizabeth may, not the liberal party and justin trudeau, are the true protectors of the legacy of pierre trudeau - for better or for worse, i suppose.
it's ballsy. pierre was ballsy. is it true? they'd have to govern; we'd have to watch them do it. but, there's a good case for it, at least.
i enthusiastically support all of these kinds of things, i always do.
but, the thing i want to point out is that the section on sex work gets it right, and maybe it's because it was written by a woman - they want to liberalize the sex work laws, but they point to the gai (as well as the free tuition.) as a way out, indicating that they get the point that sex work may be a choice for some people, but should never be the only choice available for anybody.
it's otherwise a statement of solidarity and support for women, queer people and minority language rights, the latter being a quintessentially canadian thing. no criticisms, here.
the next section is called 'renewing the social contract' and is a series of commitments to the social safety net in a social democracy. canada's system is largely functioning, so these commitments are largely just upholding the status quo, if suggesting ways to improve it, and ultimately promising to maintain it.
while we need more investments in housing, the big novel proposal is the gai, and the details are scant. it's mentioned that the intention is to be livable, and that's what you want to see, but some more details would be nice. and, if the answer is "we'll work out the details in committee", you should interpret it for what it is - aspirational.
these are otherwise the nuts and bolts of governing in canada, kind of thing, and i have nothing but support across the board for all this stuff.
while we need more investments in housing, the big novel proposal is the gai, and the details are scant. it's mentioned that the intention is to be livable, and that's what you want to see, but some more details would be nice. and, if the answer is "we'll work out the details in committee", you should interpret it for what it is - aspirational.
these are otherwise the nuts and bolts of governing in canada, kind of thing, and i have nothing but support across the board for all this stuff.
there's a section on "invoking ecological wisdom", whatever that means.
i don't think a ban on single-use plastics is a smart approach, as it won't actually solve the problem. this is maybe an example of what is now an aging party adopting a fashionable position that isn't well thought through.
but, i recognize that there aren't good solutions with bio-plastics right now, either.
this isn't the same kind of pressing concern that emissions reduction is - we're not in a race against time, and we could potentially find ways to clean the oceans up. we've found plastic eating microbes; if there is magic in nature, it's called evolution. we know we can't ban energy, we need to transition from dirty to clean. and, likewise, we're going to have to shift from oil-based plastics to biologically derived ones, and we're going to have to be smart in pushing it through.
beside that, the section was about things like species conservation, and i don't have much criticism to drop regarding it.
i don't think a ban on single-use plastics is a smart approach, as it won't actually solve the problem. this is maybe an example of what is now an aging party adopting a fashionable position that isn't well thought through.
but, i recognize that there aren't good solutions with bio-plastics right now, either.
this isn't the same kind of pressing concern that emissions reduction is - we're not in a race against time, and we could potentially find ways to clean the oceans up. we've found plastic eating microbes; if there is magic in nature, it's called evolution. we know we can't ban energy, we need to transition from dirty to clean. and, likewise, we're going to have to shift from oil-based plastics to biologically derived ones, and we're going to have to be smart in pushing it through.
beside that, the section was about things like species conservation, and i don't have much criticism to drop regarding it.
- i don't have any direct criticism on the transitioning workers section, but i'll point out that this isn't really my concern. i mean, it's a problem that kind of solves itself, if you actually do this right. i am in support of retraining programs.
- i don't really care about the tax code, one way or the other. you're neither going to attract me with a good tax policy nor repel me with a bad one. it's just irrelevant to me.
- with the retreat of the ndp from the left and towards the neo-liberal consensus, the greens have recently become the last alter-globalization party. if you're still opposed to nafta, regardless of the changes to it, the greens are the only party that still opposes it, and other deals like it. they are the only party opposed to the isds provisions. since 2015, this has become another reason to actively support them.
=================
immigration is something where i may have less agreement with them, although they don't seem to be terrible on this, either. they're not explicitly arguing for increases in immigration. they want more money for integration, including for english and french instruction, which is good. they want to ban the "temporary foreign workers program", which is good. they want to focus on professional accreditation, which is good. i would also support policies designed to strengthen civil rights at the border, and ensure that the rule of law is being upheld for non-citizens.
i don't know if being a climate refugee ought to be grounds for opening the doors, though. my positions on this are subtle: i don't support deportation in much of any context, even for criminals (i don't think that foreign countries appreciate us deporting criminals. put them in jail, and try to rehabilitate them.), but i think you have to have a good reason to get in, because we don't have infinite resources. i mean, there's a contradiction here: the greens know we don't have infinite economic growth, so they should conclude that we can't have infinite refugee inflows. i think the primary policy ought to be to help potential climate refugees adapt by working with their local governments - and that this should be seen as a primary foreign aid goal.
i don't think that we should abolish the safe third country agreement with the united states, either. that's a knee-jerk reaction to a president you don't like, it's not a carefully thought-through long term policy. we will come to regret that.
i do not think that family reunification should be given priority status in evaluating immigration or refugee claims.
and, i would oppose giving "cultural institutions" charitable status, as well. rather, if there's a tax policy i'd be likely to actively support, it would be in taxing churches, mosques and other religious groups.
but, these are minor concerns to me, overall, and my disagreement with this part of the platform is unlikely to prevent me from voting for the party. immigration is not a ballot issue for me. i would rather work to shift the party's positions on this through internal debate than attack it from the outside, as this is not where my core political allegiances exist, one way or the other. but, i'm not going to silence or censor myself, either - i'm going to insist on the debate, and insist it's up for debate.
======================
- while i would support converting the relevant vehicles to electric cars, i'm not a particularly strong advocate for postal workers. we should keep a state-run system of easily accessible post offices, but i don't mind picking up my own mail. again: that's not a ballot issue.
================
the section on sustainable farming is refreshing to see in the sense that it avoids most of the nonsense you see floating around on the internet today (although, i wonder how some people would react to that, if they're legitimately concerned and don't know better.).i just have a few minor points.
while i agree with the need to cut down on pesticide use as well as the need to cut down on transportation costs, i am far more concerned about the safety of urban farming than i am concerned about, say, gmos. i'd be more likely to eat a gmo tomato grown in a field than i would be to eat an organic tomato grown in a rooftop in toronto, and the reason is that the air and soil quality is likely to be terrible, in the latter. in a lot of ways, this is a question of regulation. but, due to toxicity concerns, i'd argue for labeling of urban products, so people know what they're getting. i like the controlled conditions for urban greenhouses (perhaps in conjunction with things like hydroponics) better than rooftops or backyards....
i would also like to see some kind of explicit federal support for the idea of insect farming, as it's a more healthy, sustainable and humane way than veganism to generate protein for human consumption.
lastly, while it's mostly a provincial issue, doing something with compost would help with that 2.5% from landfills.
=============================
the fisheries thing is complicated, and while i support management, i'll leave that one to the experts, other than to point something out - being where we are in canada, so long as we're not overfishing, there's almost no way we can lose on this. swordfishing in nova scotia? we have salmon in bc, how about tuna in newfoundland? quotas are key...and relevant quotas that understand changing migration patterns are paramount.
===================
- as a low income artist, the best way to support me is via a livable gai and through actualizing real, affordable housing. i'm never going to sell my product; it will be left to fiuture generations to evaluate it.
- what are the serious opportunities for industrial cannabis waste to aid in the shift to bio-plastics? but, that's an r&d question, something that needs funding.
- i don't really care about the tax code, one way or the other. you're neither going to attract me with a good tax policy nor repel me with a bad one. it's just irrelevant to me.
- with the retreat of the ndp from the left and towards the neo-liberal consensus, the greens have recently become the last alter-globalization party. if you're still opposed to nafta, regardless of the changes to it, the greens are the only party that still opposes it, and other deals like it. they are the only party opposed to the isds provisions. since 2015, this has become another reason to actively support them.
=================
immigration is something where i may have less agreement with them, although they don't seem to be terrible on this, either. they're not explicitly arguing for increases in immigration. they want more money for integration, including for english and french instruction, which is good. they want to ban the "temporary foreign workers program", which is good. they want to focus on professional accreditation, which is good. i would also support policies designed to strengthen civil rights at the border, and ensure that the rule of law is being upheld for non-citizens.
i don't know if being a climate refugee ought to be grounds for opening the doors, though. my positions on this are subtle: i don't support deportation in much of any context, even for criminals (i don't think that foreign countries appreciate us deporting criminals. put them in jail, and try to rehabilitate them.), but i think you have to have a good reason to get in, because we don't have infinite resources. i mean, there's a contradiction here: the greens know we don't have infinite economic growth, so they should conclude that we can't have infinite refugee inflows. i think the primary policy ought to be to help potential climate refugees adapt by working with their local governments - and that this should be seen as a primary foreign aid goal.
i don't think that we should abolish the safe third country agreement with the united states, either. that's a knee-jerk reaction to a president you don't like, it's not a carefully thought-through long term policy. we will come to regret that.
i do not think that family reunification should be given priority status in evaluating immigration or refugee claims.
and, i would oppose giving "cultural institutions" charitable status, as well. rather, if there's a tax policy i'd be likely to actively support, it would be in taxing churches, mosques and other religious groups.
but, these are minor concerns to me, overall, and my disagreement with this part of the platform is unlikely to prevent me from voting for the party. immigration is not a ballot issue for me. i would rather work to shift the party's positions on this through internal debate than attack it from the outside, as this is not where my core political allegiances exist, one way or the other. but, i'm not going to silence or censor myself, either - i'm going to insist on the debate, and insist it's up for debate.
======================
- while i would support converting the relevant vehicles to electric cars, i'm not a particularly strong advocate for postal workers. we should keep a state-run system of easily accessible post offices, but i don't mind picking up my own mail. again: that's not a ballot issue.
================
the section on sustainable farming is refreshing to see in the sense that it avoids most of the nonsense you see floating around on the internet today (although, i wonder how some people would react to that, if they're legitimately concerned and don't know better.).i just have a few minor points.
while i agree with the need to cut down on pesticide use as well as the need to cut down on transportation costs, i am far more concerned about the safety of urban farming than i am concerned about, say, gmos. i'd be more likely to eat a gmo tomato grown in a field than i would be to eat an organic tomato grown in a rooftop in toronto, and the reason is that the air and soil quality is likely to be terrible, in the latter. in a lot of ways, this is a question of regulation. but, due to toxicity concerns, i'd argue for labeling of urban products, so people know what they're getting. i like the controlled conditions for urban greenhouses (perhaps in conjunction with things like hydroponics) better than rooftops or backyards....
i would also like to see some kind of explicit federal support for the idea of insect farming, as it's a more healthy, sustainable and humane way than veganism to generate protein for human consumption.
lastly, while it's mostly a provincial issue, doing something with compost would help with that 2.5% from landfills.
=============================
the fisheries thing is complicated, and while i support management, i'll leave that one to the experts, other than to point something out - being where we are in canada, so long as we're not overfishing, there's almost no way we can lose on this. swordfishing in nova scotia? we have salmon in bc, how about tuna in newfoundland? quotas are key...and relevant quotas that understand changing migration patterns are paramount.
===================
- as a low income artist, the best way to support me is via a livable gai and through actualizing real, affordable housing. i'm never going to sell my product; it will be left to fiuture generations to evaluate it.
- what are the serious opportunities for industrial cannabis waste to aid in the shift to bio-plastics? but, that's an r&d question, something that needs funding.
"but, you'd be replacing the climate debt with a financial debt."
no. that's why you use the bank of canada. and, i actually agree that you need to have limits on printing money, but this is an emergency - we don't have any more time to waste on market theory, we need to do it now. that's what interest-free printing is for.
but, like....we can always cancel the debt, anyways. people forget that. if it was up to me, i'd just wipe out the national debt by legislation.
no. that's why you use the bank of canada. and, i actually agree that you need to have limits on printing money, but this is an emergency - we don't have any more time to waste on market theory, we need to do it now. that's what interest-free printing is for.
but, like....we can always cancel the debt, anyways. people forget that. if it was up to me, i'd just wipe out the national debt by legislation.
the section on identifying what the crisis is and how to solve it is central to any support i may give to the green party - and, remember, i haven't decided to actually vote for them yet, i've just ruled out the other options and reduced the decision to green or spoil.
in canada, the liberals have historically supported infrastructure spending by printing interest-free money through the bank of canada, although it was only ever a minor part of the funding, and it was mostly phased out by the elder trudeau (this was a part of canada's reaction to the nixon shock). but, from roughly 1940-1970, we printed a lot of money, and we used that money to built much of the infrastructure that is today causing much of the problems - bridges and roads but also power plants, which were at the time mostly publicly owned. it is frustrating that the liberals argued that we didn't have to pay the bankers when we were causing the problem, but are now insisting that the bankers get their cut when it's time to solve it. like most decent people, i really hate the vampires in the insurance industry. and, yet, despite all my rage...
let's avoid that.
so, it was easy to believe the liberals when they said they were going to do this, and deflating to see what they've actually done.
the plank in the green party platform specifies no P3s, and that's a good thing, it's what i want to hear. this is the way we solve this - not through tax incentives or faith in the markets but by printing the money and fucking doing it.
so, i would float this document to the various democratic leadership campaigns as a funding policy and general strategy that i can actually support.
so, that's the good stuff.
in canada, the liberals have historically supported infrastructure spending by printing interest-free money through the bank of canada, although it was only ever a minor part of the funding, and it was mostly phased out by the elder trudeau (this was a part of canada's reaction to the nixon shock). but, from roughly 1940-1970, we printed a lot of money, and we used that money to built much of the infrastructure that is today causing much of the problems - bridges and roads but also power plants, which were at the time mostly publicly owned. it is frustrating that the liberals argued that we didn't have to pay the bankers when we were causing the problem, but are now insisting that the bankers get their cut when it's time to solve it. like most decent people, i really hate the vampires in the insurance industry. and, yet, despite all my rage...
let's avoid that.
so, it was easy to believe the liberals when they said they were going to do this, and deflating to see what they've actually done.
the plank in the green party platform specifies no P3s, and that's a good thing, it's what i want to hear. this is the way we solve this - not through tax incentives or faith in the markets but by printing the money and fucking doing it.
so, i would float this document to the various democratic leadership campaigns as a funding policy and general strategy that i can actually support.
so, that's the good stuff.
i could nitpick the language in the indigenous section, which is a good chunk of the document, but i'm not going to. what's more important to me is that the government eventually adopts the general idea that the colonial state needs to take a step away from overseeing indigenous communities as protectorates, and finds ways to allow them to define what sovereignty actually means. it's easy enough to come into this with a collection of preconceived notions, and the undrip is just another set of them, but if you look into this what you'll see is that what these people actually want is a complicated, messy thing with a lot of tribe-by-tribe specifics and very few universalized approaches. you could never write a policy paper on this, not in 2000 pages, let alone 20.
so, what we need is a commitment to the democratic process, which sounds almost trivial, but is deeply lacking in our present and in our history. unfortunately, this is going to be exceedingly difficult because what we are is a colonial state. asking canada to stop being a colonial state is like asking a lion not to hunt. it's a fundamental transformation that is going to require not just a deep reanalysis of the indian act - and a commitment to democracy means understanding the subtlety around the abolition v replacement debate within indigenous communities - but probably a reanalysis of confederation, and an overhaul of the constitution. we took a first attempt at this under the elder trudeau, but he really just laid the groundwork for future reforms, something that was deeply understood but that we couldn't get through (see meech lake), as the discussion turned to globalization in the late 80s.
so, they get the general idea right. and, that's all you can ask for in a document like this.
but, i also want to make a foundational point: the future of the green party and the indigenous sovereignty movement are almost certainly intrinsically interwoven. it is long overdue for the greens to make a serious outreach attempt for indigenous voters, and i hope their efforts work out. this should be their base.
so, what we need is a commitment to the democratic process, which sounds almost trivial, but is deeply lacking in our present and in our history. unfortunately, this is going to be exceedingly difficult because what we are is a colonial state. asking canada to stop being a colonial state is like asking a lion not to hunt. it's a fundamental transformation that is going to require not just a deep reanalysis of the indian act - and a commitment to democracy means understanding the subtlety around the abolition v replacement debate within indigenous communities - but probably a reanalysis of confederation, and an overhaul of the constitution. we took a first attempt at this under the elder trudeau, but he really just laid the groundwork for future reforms, something that was deeply understood but that we couldn't get through (see meech lake), as the discussion turned to globalization in the late 80s.
so, they get the general idea right. and, that's all you can ask for in a document like this.
but, i also want to make a foundational point: the future of the green party and the indigenous sovereignty movement are almost certainly intrinsically interwoven. it is long overdue for the greens to make a serious outreach attempt for indigenous voters, and i hope their efforts work out. this should be their base.
so, i flipped through this, and it's pretty much the same document they've been kicking around since the 90s. it's never been perfect, and i've always had some serious disagreements, which is a part of the reason i've largely avoided voting for them, but i know where they stand; they're a lot like bernie sanders, in that respect - they've been saying the same thing for as long as they've existed.
https://www.greenparty.ca/sites/default/files/platform_2019_en_web_update_09-16.pdf
there's questions around timeframes closing, including around elizabeth may's lifespan. and, while they deny being utopian, a lot of this stuff can't be done fast enough to make the difference it needs to make anymore. if there's a broader criticism of this document, it's that it represents an optimism to actually substantively reverse the damage that probably can't be accomplished any more. so, it needs a greater focus on mitigation and adaptation, and i would suspect that will be the theme for the party in the next few cycles.
but, i'd rather start by telling you what i want.
i'm a low-income, highly urban artist nearing the age of 40 that doesn't even have a driver's license and will probably never get one. i prefer to bicycle; when i can't bike anymore, i'll have to resort to walking or relying on public transit. this isn't some kind of exercise in zen buddhism or stoicism or something, or an unwanted consequence of poverty, but a conscious lifestyle decision that reflects the kind of world i want to actually live in. it's leadership by example, even if you might not want to follow - although i hope you do.
so, i want to live in an urban green space that is largely self-sustainable, which includes being free of both car exhaust and tobacco and marijuana smoke, and i want to live amongst educated people that have sophisticated self-interests that are not necessarily market-driven. i think that the best way to get to this endpoint is to socialize the means of production, but i recognize that my existence is finite, and i've long accepted the idea of a minimum income as a way to allow people like me to live the lifestyles they actually want to live.
but, i think that proportional representation is a bad idea - i would rather see a preferential ballot. further, there is almost no room for religion in my environmental-technological utopia, except as a veneration of the earth. i can almost tolerate a type of mystical gaia theory, so long as it is empirical, in the end. i have essentially no patience for the abrahamic faiths, and see no place for them in the future.
so, what are some specific points of contention, then? let me put these in separate posts.
https://www.greenparty.ca/sites/default/files/platform_2019_en_web_update_09-16.pdf
there's questions around timeframes closing, including around elizabeth may's lifespan. and, while they deny being utopian, a lot of this stuff can't be done fast enough to make the difference it needs to make anymore. if there's a broader criticism of this document, it's that it represents an optimism to actually substantively reverse the damage that probably can't be accomplished any more. so, it needs a greater focus on mitigation and adaptation, and i would suspect that will be the theme for the party in the next few cycles.
but, i'd rather start by telling you what i want.
i'm a low-income, highly urban artist nearing the age of 40 that doesn't even have a driver's license and will probably never get one. i prefer to bicycle; when i can't bike anymore, i'll have to resort to walking or relying on public transit. this isn't some kind of exercise in zen buddhism or stoicism or something, or an unwanted consequence of poverty, but a conscious lifestyle decision that reflects the kind of world i want to actually live in. it's leadership by example, even if you might not want to follow - although i hope you do.
so, i want to live in an urban green space that is largely self-sustainable, which includes being free of both car exhaust and tobacco and marijuana smoke, and i want to live amongst educated people that have sophisticated self-interests that are not necessarily market-driven. i think that the best way to get to this endpoint is to socialize the means of production, but i recognize that my existence is finite, and i've long accepted the idea of a minimum income as a way to allow people like me to live the lifestyles they actually want to live.
but, i think that proportional representation is a bad idea - i would rather see a preferential ballot. further, there is almost no room for religion in my environmental-technological utopia, except as a veneration of the earth. i can almost tolerate a type of mystical gaia theory, so long as it is empirical, in the end. i have essentially no patience for the abrahamic faiths, and see no place for them in the future.
so, what are some specific points of contention, then? let me put these in separate posts.
mr. trump,
as you know, the saudis were voluntarily keeping production low on request of the united states. this has artificially kept the price high. while iran may have their own interests in the region, as is their right, it makes little sense for them to attack an oil field in saudi arabia, so long as production is being voluntarily curtailed.
the obvious conclusion, sir, is that you're being played. the question is who, and there are only two reasonable answers: israel and russia.
my immediate hypothesis is that this is the walrus' attempt to manipulate you into doing what you wouldn't. and, rather than bomb iran, what you need to do is get tough on netanyahu - he just tried to play you like a fool.
some advice, that's all, from
the infamous koala hating canadian
as you know, the saudis were voluntarily keeping production low on request of the united states. this has artificially kept the price high. while iran may have their own interests in the region, as is their right, it makes little sense for them to attack an oil field in saudi arabia, so long as production is being voluntarily curtailed.
the obvious conclusion, sir, is that you're being played. the question is who, and there are only two reasonable answers: israel and russia.
my immediate hypothesis is that this is the walrus' attempt to manipulate you into doing what you wouldn't. and, rather than bomb iran, what you need to do is get tough on netanyahu - he just tried to play you like a fool.
some advice, that's all, from
the infamous koala hating canadian
this is the debate i'm talking about:
https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/federal-election-debate-from-a-catholic-perspective-tickets-64374772678
i'm merely going to boycott it, but feel free to get some rowdy protesters out there to shut it down, too, if you want.
https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/federal-election-debate-from-a-catholic-perspective-tickets-64374772678
i'm merely going to boycott it, but feel free to get some rowdy protesters out there to shut it down, too, if you want.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
so, that's my father's mother's parents that were killed in a mob hit when she was very small. her given last name is....zito. yeah. i just know stories, i've never done the research.
my father's father's parents were a white woman from quebec and a dark-skinned man of unknown ancestry that nobody has pictures of and nobody remembers - but appears to have been indigenous, african and jewish.
welcome to canada.
my father's father's parents were a white woman from quebec and a dark-skinned man of unknown ancestry that nobody has pictures of and nobody remembers - but appears to have been indigenous, african and jewish.
welcome to canada.
what i've stated repeatedly is that my father would have identified as french or italian. but, he knew he had a more complex background. he's told me stories about kids asking him what tribe he was from when he was playing shinny and, clueless, he would say "italian".
i was just told i was french on his side, and i never really thought about it until i got out of high school - although other people certainly felt the need to think about it for me, and i did get a fair amount of stares and comments that it took me a long time to really figure out.
i know that my paternal grandmother was adopted, and the story is that her parents were killed in a mob hit. there may have been a mixed jewish-italian romance at the heart of it. these are just stories. but, the kind of unstated, understood fact about my grandfather's father is that he wasn't around, and nobody really knows.
i was just told i was french on his side, and i never really thought about it until i got out of high school - although other people certainly felt the need to think about it for me, and i did get a fair amount of stares and comments that it took me a long time to really figure out.
i know that my paternal grandmother was adopted, and the story is that her parents were killed in a mob hit. there may have been a mixed jewish-italian romance at the heart of it. these are just stories. but, the kind of unstated, understood fact about my grandfather's father is that he wasn't around, and nobody really knows.
and, listen - i'm not a damn jew.
or, at least, i'm not a member of the jewish faith. and, i know. i wrote the damn post.
i don't know my father's ethnicity with certainty, and i have reasons to suspect some near eastern heritage, but he wasn't a damn jew, either.
and, his father wasn't, either. nor was his mother. catholics, the lot of them.
i don't know, when you go back further than that, and i suspect that my paternal great-grandfather may have been the identity politics unicorn of a hebrew-african-indigenous mix. further, if he did have some african in him, it was probably from, like madagascar, because he has a rare, austronesian blood type. the only other way to make sense of the blood type is through some kind of inuit background.
i should probably take the damn test.
but, the fact is that i've never been in a synagogue in my life, and i doubt that my father ever had been, and i doubt that his father ever had been, either.
or, at least, i'm not a member of the jewish faith. and, i know. i wrote the damn post.
i don't know my father's ethnicity with certainty, and i have reasons to suspect some near eastern heritage, but he wasn't a damn jew, either.
and, his father wasn't, either. nor was his mother. catholics, the lot of them.
i don't know, when you go back further than that, and i suspect that my paternal great-grandfather may have been the identity politics unicorn of a hebrew-african-indigenous mix. further, if he did have some african in him, it was probably from, like madagascar, because he has a rare, austronesian blood type. the only other way to make sense of the blood type is through some kind of inuit background.
i should probably take the damn test.
but, the fact is that i've never been in a synagogue in my life, and i doubt that my father ever had been, and i doubt that his father ever had been, either.
do i think that similar legislation could ever pass in other provinces?
i'm not aware of any movement for it.
i'm going to guess that the calculation at the federal level amongst all of the parties is that, while it may gain passive support with passive voters, it's not worth whipping up the opposition. it's one of those things where you might get 51% of passive voters to passively support it, but that 15% that is going to strongly oppose it is going to cause a havoc, when they do. it's a loud, vocal opposition - and it's not worth the headache, especially given that i don't think that any of the sitting leaders have any particular conviction for it. trudeau is an empty vessel, and to an extent it doesn't really matter what he thinks, as a person.
quebec has a weird spectrum that is at the root of this as a political issue. in provinces like ontario and manitoba that maintain the traditional 3 + 1 or 3 + 2 canadian spectrum (that is liberal, conservative, ndp and a usual fourth, sometimes fifth, party), the same calculation as exists at the federal level is probably dominant, but in the provinces that have less stable spectrums, one could see it coming up as a potential issue.
the province with the highest incidence of non-belief in canada is not ontario or quebec but british columbia. could the bc liberals support something like this? alberta is perhaps too conservative to talk about something like this, but saskatchewan is a more interesting test case. these are places where a secular left could use it as a wedge issue against a pseudo-left party that is embracing tory multiculturalism as a core identity. how many atheist asians in bc would support this?
i think you'd have to see it in a second or third province before the liberals in ontario took it seriously - and i would expect both the ndp and the conservatives to strenuously oppose it, here. it would have to be the liberals, if it were to happen at all.
i couldn't really imagine it gaining traction anywhere in the united states, but america is a much more religious country. canada is more european, in that sense.
i'm not making predictions, i'm just thinking out loud. but, i do have a feeling that it's a policy that we're going to see more of, not less of.
i'm not aware of any movement for it.
i'm going to guess that the calculation at the federal level amongst all of the parties is that, while it may gain passive support with passive voters, it's not worth whipping up the opposition. it's one of those things where you might get 51% of passive voters to passively support it, but that 15% that is going to strongly oppose it is going to cause a havoc, when they do. it's a loud, vocal opposition - and it's not worth the headache, especially given that i don't think that any of the sitting leaders have any particular conviction for it. trudeau is an empty vessel, and to an extent it doesn't really matter what he thinks, as a person.
quebec has a weird spectrum that is at the root of this as a political issue. in provinces like ontario and manitoba that maintain the traditional 3 + 1 or 3 + 2 canadian spectrum (that is liberal, conservative, ndp and a usual fourth, sometimes fifth, party), the same calculation as exists at the federal level is probably dominant, but in the provinces that have less stable spectrums, one could see it coming up as a potential issue.
the province with the highest incidence of non-belief in canada is not ontario or quebec but british columbia. could the bc liberals support something like this? alberta is perhaps too conservative to talk about something like this, but saskatchewan is a more interesting test case. these are places where a secular left could use it as a wedge issue against a pseudo-left party that is embracing tory multiculturalism as a core identity. how many atheist asians in bc would support this?
i think you'd have to see it in a second or third province before the liberals in ontario took it seriously - and i would expect both the ndp and the conservatives to strenuously oppose it, here. it would have to be the liberals, if it were to happen at all.
i couldn't really imagine it gaining traction anywhere in the united states, but america is a much more religious country. canada is more european, in that sense.
i'm not making predictions, i'm just thinking out loud. but, i do have a feeling that it's a policy that we're going to see more of, not less of.
and, i always have to say this, because people get easily confused: it is very important for the secular left to realize (if perhaps not necessary to actually state.) that, as we are shifting our primary opponents from christianity to islam as a result of existing and projected shifts in demographic, that we do not make the mistake of assuming that people from specific backgrounds hold specific beliefs.
not all arabs are sunnis. there are plenty of arab atheists, and they should be embraced as any other atheist would be.
not all persians are shias. there are plenty of godless iranians, and they should be embraced as any other heathen would be.
and, further it's important to be proportionate, too. crescent earrings are not niqabs, and not everybody that you meet that calls themselves a muslim wants to round up the apostates and burn them. you have to be sure to properly interpolate what you see in front of you.
but, as atheists, we need to get used to the fact that we're going to be struggling less and less against christians and more and more against muslims, as the proportion and power of them wanes and shifts - until, in the end, they just merge.
not all arabs are sunnis. there are plenty of arab atheists, and they should be embraced as any other atheist would be.
not all persians are shias. there are plenty of godless iranians, and they should be embraced as any other heathen would be.
and, further it's important to be proportionate, too. crescent earrings are not niqabs, and not everybody that you meet that calls themselves a muslim wants to round up the apostates and burn them. you have to be sure to properly interpolate what you see in front of you.
but, as atheists, we need to get used to the fact that we're going to be struggling less and less against christians and more and more against muslims, as the proportion and power of them wanes and shifts - until, in the end, they just merge.
i mean, that is the future of canada - an overwhelmingly secular society, where muslims are the most populous religious minority and christianity has been largely discarded.
that means that, as atheists, we need to start changing the goal posts. we need to re-evaluate who our opponents are.
but, it doesn't mean that we're under imminent threat of sharia law - or, at least, it doesn't, if we remain vigilant against it.
that means that, as atheists, we need to start changing the goal posts. we need to re-evaluate who our opponents are.
but, it doesn't mean that we're under imminent threat of sharia law - or, at least, it doesn't, if we remain vigilant against it.
the facts are pretty clear that we're on the path towards a majority atheist electorate, now, within a couple of cycles.
there is admittedly a threat to this that comes from overwhelmingly high levels of right-leaning recent immigrants, and it's something that atheists need to take seriously, but so long as we're vigilant about it and conscious enough about pushing for real integration - which the bill in quebec is an example of - it's something we should be able to handily overcome and convincingly defeat.
i try very hard to avoid being alarmist about immigration, while sticking to the facts the best i can. the facts are that high levels of low-income immigration into the urban cores where i live hurts low income people by straining the social system, and you can choose to blame that on underfunding or on immigration, but the basic fact of the matter holds itself steady - it creates a higher level of competition amongst people that are already having a hard time competing, and you'd only deny that if you're ignorant or stupid. people in the suburbs or in rural areas are more likely to be wealthy and consequently less likely to be affected by the increasing competition, even if they're more like likely to be christians. in the long run, we should expect christians and muslims to form an alliance with each other, because they're basically the same.
but, the facts are also that the power of atheism in the very near future should absolutely dwarf that of muslims. we might live in a country with 20% muslims within a generation or two - and that's a big change. but, such a society would also have 60% atheists.
so, i know who my biggest threats are, and i know what i need to be wary of. the sitting government is certainly moving in the wrong direction, on this, without question. but, i'm far more excited about the coming atheist supermajority than i am worried about the eclipse of christianity by islam.
we're going to win, it's going to be ok.
there is admittedly a threat to this that comes from overwhelmingly high levels of right-leaning recent immigrants, and it's something that atheists need to take seriously, but so long as we're vigilant about it and conscious enough about pushing for real integration - which the bill in quebec is an example of - it's something we should be able to handily overcome and convincingly defeat.
i try very hard to avoid being alarmist about immigration, while sticking to the facts the best i can. the facts are that high levels of low-income immigration into the urban cores where i live hurts low income people by straining the social system, and you can choose to blame that on underfunding or on immigration, but the basic fact of the matter holds itself steady - it creates a higher level of competition amongst people that are already having a hard time competing, and you'd only deny that if you're ignorant or stupid. people in the suburbs or in rural areas are more likely to be wealthy and consequently less likely to be affected by the increasing competition, even if they're more like likely to be christians. in the long run, we should expect christians and muslims to form an alliance with each other, because they're basically the same.
but, the facts are also that the power of atheism in the very near future should absolutely dwarf that of muslims. we might live in a country with 20% muslims within a generation or two - and that's a big change. but, such a society would also have 60% atheists.
so, i know who my biggest threats are, and i know what i need to be wary of. the sitting government is certainly moving in the wrong direction, on this, without question. but, i'm far more excited about the coming atheist supermajority than i am worried about the eclipse of christianity by islam.
we're going to win, it's going to be ok.
i mean, it's a trick right out of orwell to suggest that rejecting a regression to medievalism is "conservatism" because it's pushing back against change, while supporting a societal regression is liberal because it's promoting "change".
and, i don't think that orwell invented the term reactionaryism.
and, i don't think that orwell invented the term reactionaryism.
no, it isn't, and tory media talking heads like john ibbitson can fuck right off for trying to make it one.
the party leaders need to be clear that this is a local issue that is intrinsically tied to quebecois self-determination, and the federal government has no role to play in interfering, before or after the election.
but, as a non-quebecker, the blunt, basic truth is that the election is too important to waste on a triviality that only exists inside of quebec. i don't fucking care, one way or the other.
the rest of the country has more important things to concern itself with.
worse, i'm flat out sick of muslims being at the centre of the political discourse. they're a small, privileged minority in this country and should not receive such a disproportionately high amount of space in the discussion. they're over-represented just about everywhere. we're a secular society that upholds liberal concepts of law, and we're going to get more secular and more liberal, if we can find a way to grapple with the demographic bulge and convert them all to heathenism. the discourse should better reflect it.
atheists intend to win this fight, you know.
again: i think they should have let the court clean it up. but, i don't think the basic purpose of the law is unconstitutional, and the reality is that you have to take an exceedingly conservative view of the constitution to think that it is, a view that may be popular in the institutions but has minimal support in actual case law.
i'd rather talk about the recent ruling on assisted suicide.
and, i insist this election be about anything else.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-quebecs-religious-symbols-ban-a-major-issue-in-federal-election/
the party leaders need to be clear that this is a local issue that is intrinsically tied to quebecois self-determination, and the federal government has no role to play in interfering, before or after the election.
but, as a non-quebecker, the blunt, basic truth is that the election is too important to waste on a triviality that only exists inside of quebec. i don't fucking care, one way or the other.
the rest of the country has more important things to concern itself with.
worse, i'm flat out sick of muslims being at the centre of the political discourse. they're a small, privileged minority in this country and should not receive such a disproportionately high amount of space in the discussion. they're over-represented just about everywhere. we're a secular society that upholds liberal concepts of law, and we're going to get more secular and more liberal, if we can find a way to grapple with the demographic bulge and convert them all to heathenism. the discourse should better reflect it.
atheists intend to win this fight, you know.
again: i think they should have let the court clean it up. but, i don't think the basic purpose of the law is unconstitutional, and the reality is that you have to take an exceedingly conservative view of the constitution to think that it is, a view that may be popular in the institutions but has minimal support in actual case law.
i'd rather talk about the recent ruling on assisted suicide.
and, i insist this election be about anything else.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-quebecs-religious-symbols-ban-a-major-issue-in-federal-election/
so, there's an election in canada, and this is an issue: what's the correct take on the new nafta? is this better or worse?
it's not obvious...
i followed the discussions relatively closely up to a point, and then i more or less tuned out entirely, and there's a series of reasons for it. one of the more embarrassing things to have to deal with during the process was realizing that canada was taking an explicitly pro-investor position on the deal, while trump was legitimately pushing for workers' rights. trudeau is several degrees to the right of trump on this issue; trudeau isn't even a corporatist democrat like obama, he's more of a market conservative like elizabeth warren or paul ryan. like, you couldn't even get one of those trademark platitudes out of trudeau on the issue - he was strictly, 100% concerned about the rights of canadian investors. that's the actual reason he tried to build a common front with mexico - his dominant interest was insuring that the investor class didn't take a hit.
on the issue of environmental and labour standards, trump did come through on this, even if he had to cut trudeau out of the discussion and make the deal directly with mexico. enforcement is always another question, but at least the text of the deal is better for workers, on it's face.
i would have liked to completely abolish chapter 19, as it has done nothing but harm for workers on both sides of the border. unfortunately, our government - interested solely in the rights of investors - refused to sign on unless it was included. that this position was insisted upon by a liberal government is to our great shame and national embarrassment.
so, i'm standing over here on the far left and that's twice that i agree with trump on free trade and disagree with trudeau.
yes, it's going to give the pharmaceuticals more patent rights for a specific class of new drugs, but if we can bring in pharmacare then we can socialize the cost of it. so, it's a different discussion up here. i may oppose it in principle, but i'm more in support of pharmacare than i am in opposition to intellectual property rights, so it's the former i'd rather focus on (and the best way to do that is to reduce the liberals to a minority and then let them take credit for it as a vote-buying scheme, not to elect an ndp government that is going to see it die in committee). might a spike in costs actually help piss people off?
there's some opening up of the dairy market that was probably unnecessary, but that's not sustainable in the long run. quebec will start a civil war before it gives up supply management. and, what consultation was there with quebec, who has not signed our constitution? they may even just ignore the agreement.
trade experts claim it'll probably be a wash, in terms of gdp, with the united states benefiting slightly at the expense of canada and mexico. i can't blame them for that. i have to blame my own government for that.
so, i almost want to suggest separating apathy over the deal from opposition to my own government around it. i neither see a reason to oppose the deal any more strenuously than i already opposed it, nor a reason to ease up on my existing strenuous opposition. so, i'm still of the opinion that we need to renegotiate nafta, and i'm still likely to vote for people arguing for a renegotiation of nafta. in that sense, the whole thing was really just a stupid waste of time. but, the process badly exposed both the deep incompetence of justin trudeau and the deep incompetence of his team, particularly the incompetence of chrystia freeland, who i would really like to see lose her seat in this election.
so, given that abolition is not an option and the choice is between the old nafta and the new nafta, do you support this or not?
i don't think there's a clear answer. you need to look at it closely and figure out what your self-interests are.
it's not obvious...
i followed the discussions relatively closely up to a point, and then i more or less tuned out entirely, and there's a series of reasons for it. one of the more embarrassing things to have to deal with during the process was realizing that canada was taking an explicitly pro-investor position on the deal, while trump was legitimately pushing for workers' rights. trudeau is several degrees to the right of trump on this issue; trudeau isn't even a corporatist democrat like obama, he's more of a market conservative like elizabeth warren or paul ryan. like, you couldn't even get one of those trademark platitudes out of trudeau on the issue - he was strictly, 100% concerned about the rights of canadian investors. that's the actual reason he tried to build a common front with mexico - his dominant interest was insuring that the investor class didn't take a hit.
on the issue of environmental and labour standards, trump did come through on this, even if he had to cut trudeau out of the discussion and make the deal directly with mexico. enforcement is always another question, but at least the text of the deal is better for workers, on it's face.
i would have liked to completely abolish chapter 19, as it has done nothing but harm for workers on both sides of the border. unfortunately, our government - interested solely in the rights of investors - refused to sign on unless it was included. that this position was insisted upon by a liberal government is to our great shame and national embarrassment.
so, i'm standing over here on the far left and that's twice that i agree with trump on free trade and disagree with trudeau.
yes, it's going to give the pharmaceuticals more patent rights for a specific class of new drugs, but if we can bring in pharmacare then we can socialize the cost of it. so, it's a different discussion up here. i may oppose it in principle, but i'm more in support of pharmacare than i am in opposition to intellectual property rights, so it's the former i'd rather focus on (and the best way to do that is to reduce the liberals to a minority and then let them take credit for it as a vote-buying scheme, not to elect an ndp government that is going to see it die in committee). might a spike in costs actually help piss people off?
there's some opening up of the dairy market that was probably unnecessary, but that's not sustainable in the long run. quebec will start a civil war before it gives up supply management. and, what consultation was there with quebec, who has not signed our constitution? they may even just ignore the agreement.
trade experts claim it'll probably be a wash, in terms of gdp, with the united states benefiting slightly at the expense of canada and mexico. i can't blame them for that. i have to blame my own government for that.
so, i almost want to suggest separating apathy over the deal from opposition to my own government around it. i neither see a reason to oppose the deal any more strenuously than i already opposed it, nor a reason to ease up on my existing strenuous opposition. so, i'm still of the opinion that we need to renegotiate nafta, and i'm still likely to vote for people arguing for a renegotiation of nafta. in that sense, the whole thing was really just a stupid waste of time. but, the process badly exposed both the deep incompetence of justin trudeau and the deep incompetence of his team, particularly the incompetence of chrystia freeland, who i would really like to see lose her seat in this election.
so, given that abolition is not an option and the choice is between the old nafta and the new nafta, do you support this or not?
i don't think there's a clear answer. you need to look at it closely and figure out what your self-interests are.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
back at the end of july or the beginning of august, i suggested that we might have the last serious weekend of the summer as early as the first or second weekend of august. that's a crazy suggestion, right? was i right?
well, let's first understand that i'm talking about overnights. in mid-summer, i'm often going to leave the house at 20:00 or 21:00 and come back at 9:00 or 10:00 the next morning. to me, that's a good summer night. so, i want warm temperatures overnight! i know some people may even hate me for it, but the mid-afternoon heat is kind of irrelevant to me, if i'm sleeping through it.
further, warm temperatures overnight should mean that the low is not much lower than 20 degrees - so, like, 17, minimum. when it came to weekends, we didn't get many more after the 4th. one, in fact - the 16th-18th, due to the hurricane. next weekend may be a nice surprise, but we'll see what happens...
so, there may have been some hot days this august, and that's not surprising. it's august. where were the hot nights? again: some of you may even be happy about it. but, i like the heat...
blue checks are the days i was outside partying in some way or another. highlighted dates are the warm overnights. underlined reds are the cold-ish ones. black xes are the weekends i stayed in.
well, let's first understand that i'm talking about overnights. in mid-summer, i'm often going to leave the house at 20:00 or 21:00 and come back at 9:00 or 10:00 the next morning. to me, that's a good summer night. so, i want warm temperatures overnight! i know some people may even hate me for it, but the mid-afternoon heat is kind of irrelevant to me, if i'm sleeping through it.
further, warm temperatures overnight should mean that the low is not much lower than 20 degrees - so, like, 17, minimum. when it came to weekends, we didn't get many more after the 4th. one, in fact - the 16th-18th, due to the hurricane. next weekend may be a nice surprise, but we'll see what happens...
so, there may have been some hot days this august, and that's not surprising. it's august. where were the hot nights? again: some of you may even be happy about it. but, i like the heat...
blue checks are the days i was outside partying in some way or another. highlighted dates are the warm overnights. underlined reds are the cold-ish ones. black xes are the weekends i stayed in.
...but, here in the north, we're also about to embark on our yearly retreat from the sun.
i wasn't planning on going anywhere this week anyways, but they've cut the temperature down a little. it's not cold this weekend, exactly, but the overnights are dipping to below 15 degrees celsius, and it's not going to be fun to be out in at 5:00 or 6:00.
the forecast for next weekend looks a tad better, but i somehow doubt that's going to actually happen. we'll see, i guess.
i wasn't planning on going anywhere this week anyways, but they've cut the temperature down a little. it's not cold this weekend, exactly, but the overnights are dipping to below 15 degrees celsius, and it's not going to be fun to be out in at 5:00 or 6:00.
the forecast for next weekend looks a tad better, but i somehow doubt that's going to actually happen. we'll see, i guess.
and what causes those high pressure systems? atmospheric cooling.
there may be potential for something like this to push the jetstream in the east, where i am, down even further. the way that would work would be that the warm temperatures in the north pacific would keep the jetstream high up over alaska, thereby plunging it south through the middle of the continent. this would result in a warmer than usual fall in the west, and deep freezes in the east - along with serious late fall tornado activity in the plain states. so, it could be the kind of year here you get frost days in florida.
it would go away when the high pressure system lifts, and the imminent return of the sun would have to help.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/the-2019-blob-pacific-ocean-weather-patterns-autumn-fall
there may be potential for something like this to push the jetstream in the east, where i am, down even further. the way that would work would be that the warm temperatures in the north pacific would keep the jetstream high up over alaska, thereby plunging it south through the middle of the continent. this would result in a warmer than usual fall in the west, and deep freezes in the east - along with serious late fall tornado activity in the plain states. so, it could be the kind of year here you get frost days in florida.
it would go away when the high pressure system lifts, and the imminent return of the sun would have to help.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/the-2019-blob-pacific-ocean-weather-patterns-autumn-fall
this is a simple, easy-to-understand summary of what i was saying that cites a recently released report for relevance:
https://theconversation.com/ipccs-land-report-shows-the-problem-with-farming-based-around-oil-not-soil-121643
https://theconversation.com/ipccs-land-report-shows-the-problem-with-farming-based-around-oil-not-soil-121643
Friday, September 13, 2019
there are some python films that i saw over and over again through my teenage years, and there are some that i saw once or twice in elementary school, and there are some that i haven't seen at all.
i do know that i saw the life of bryan when i was very very small, but i don't remember seeing it twice, and i remember thinking it was kind of slow-moving and not very funny. granted, i may have missed some context, given that i was about ten years old or something. but, it hasn't really come up much, since.
i don't really feel that missing a reference, however disingenuously cited, is particularly damaging to my credibility, and i apologize if you disagree and feel that it's absolutely pertinent, but i have to think you've somehow lost the plot if that's your takeaway from the process.
my father would have no doubt been quickly on it, but it's because he actually lived through it. my own knowledge of the troupe is mostly second-hand, given that i was born in 1981, which was after their most well known work had already been completed.
i do know that i saw the life of bryan when i was very very small, but i don't remember seeing it twice, and i remember thinking it was kind of slow-moving and not very funny. granted, i may have missed some context, given that i was about ten years old or something. but, it hasn't really come up much, since.
i don't really feel that missing a reference, however disingenuously cited, is particularly damaging to my credibility, and i apologize if you disagree and feel that it's absolutely pertinent, but i have to think you've somehow lost the plot if that's your takeaway from the process.
my father would have no doubt been quickly on it, but it's because he actually lived through it. my own knowledge of the troupe is mostly second-hand, given that i was born in 1981, which was after their most well known work had already been completed.
every legal scholar in the country knew this was going to happen, immediately after the bill was paassed.
and, i've actually cited it as evidence of wilson-raybould's less than stellar performance as justice minister. the drunk driving law is going to get struck down, too.
so, what does trudeau do?
well, first off, i guess it's now an election issue, isn't it? so, i would, first of all, recommend upholding the ruling.
then, if the liberals win, he needs to admit that his first ag was a dud, and let the one he's got now work it out. and, he may even be advised to recall some of her other bills prematurely, to prevent the court from wasting it's time with it.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/09/13/trudeau-facing-tough-choices-as-quebec-judge-strikes-down-federal-limits-on-assisted-dying.html
and, i've actually cited it as evidence of wilson-raybould's less than stellar performance as justice minister. the drunk driving law is going to get struck down, too.
so, what does trudeau do?
well, first off, i guess it's now an election issue, isn't it? so, i would, first of all, recommend upholding the ruling.
then, if the liberals win, he needs to admit that his first ag was a dud, and let the one he's got now work it out. and, he may even be advised to recall some of her other bills prematurely, to prevent the court from wasting it's time with it.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/09/13/trudeau-facing-tough-choices-as-quebec-judge-strikes-down-federal-limits-on-assisted-dying.html
so, i did watch the debate, and i essentially think i wasted time doing it.
- biden looked older, yet again. but, the base is old....
- i already know that warren is a neo-liberal pretending to be something she isn't
- harris was a clown
- sanders was disappointing
- booker seemed too smart for his audience.
- everybody else wasted some time
meh.
- biden looked older, yet again. but, the base is old....
- i already know that warren is a neo-liberal pretending to be something she isn't
- harris was a clown
- sanders was disappointing
- booker seemed too smart for his audience.
- everybody else wasted some time
meh.
and, booker.
same analysis as previous: cory booker is actually smart. he's not just pretending to be that way, not just projecting it, not just playing a smart guy on tv.
and, it's interesting to hear him talk. i'd like to drag him out to a few more of these things, because he's making positive contributions to the discussion.
but, his policies are questionable.
and, his appeal is perhaps marginal.
in the end, he may do better with white voters than black voters.
same analysis as previous: cory booker is actually smart. he's not just pretending to be that way, not just projecting it, not just playing a smart guy on tv.
and, it's interesting to hear him talk. i'd like to drag him out to a few more of these things, because he's making positive contributions to the discussion.
but, his policies are questionable.
and, his appeal is perhaps marginal.
in the end, he may do better with white voters than black voters.
beto's answer there to the sunrise/cowspiracy question was sneaky.
the idea that the tariffs are behind this is pretty specious. this is a decades old debate in brazil that broke open with the recent election of the far right, which was perhaps helped along by us interests, but was largely an internal process.
he's at least right to tie it to soy beans, though.
listen: there's no question that deforestation in brazil is a problem, and that it's tied to unsustainable land use decisions. but, what are the actual facts, here?
1) Five percent of all beef — chilled, frozen and cooked — imported to the USA is from Brazil, according to Cassandra Fish, a cattle and beef market expert.
2) This year’s import contribution is projected to fall below 9% - just slightly under the overall average of 9.3% dating back to 2000.
let's be generous - let's say a full 10% of beef is imported.
5% of 10% is 0.5%.
3) The top exports of Brazil are Soybeans ($25.9B), Iron Ore ($20.1B), Crude Petroleum ($17.4B), Raw Sugar ($11.4B) and Cars ($6.78B).
the idea that the tariffs are behind this is pretty specious. this is a decades old debate in brazil that broke open with the recent election of the far right, which was perhaps helped along by us interests, but was largely an internal process.
he's at least right to tie it to soy beans, though.
listen: there's no question that deforestation in brazil is a problem, and that it's tied to unsustainable land use decisions. but, what are the actual facts, here?
1) Five percent of all beef — chilled, frozen and cooked — imported to the USA is from Brazil, according to Cassandra Fish, a cattle and beef market expert.
2) This year’s import contribution is projected to fall below 9% - just slightly under the overall average of 9.3% dating back to 2000.
let's be generous - let's say a full 10% of beef is imported.
5% of 10% is 0.5%.
3) The top exports of Brazil are Soybeans ($25.9B), Iron Ore ($20.1B), Crude Petroleum ($17.4B), Raw Sugar ($11.4B) and Cars ($6.78B).
and, again: livestock consumption is not a significant driver of climate change in the united states. it is only about 3-5% of total emissions, and only about 33% of agricultural emissions. that means that two thirds of emissions from agriculture come from plants.
buttigieg was right on this point: that's a republican talking point. more importantly, it's an industry talking point.
it's a distraction.
and, it lets us know who is paying for the event.
buttigieg was right on this point: that's a republican talking point. more importantly, it's an industry talking point.
it's a distraction.
and, it lets us know who is paying for the event.
so, i've noticed this with buttigieg before, and i'm not going to go into details because i can't be bothered.
...but he states a lot of things that aren't true. he often does so with great confidence, as he attempts to project himself as an educated elite, and maybe that works in nowheresville, indiana, but the pretentious presentation of his mistruths don't actually make them more true.
now, i'm not exactly calling him a liar. i actually think the truth is that he's badly misinformed, and probably because he gets his information from poor sources.
there are two types of stupid people on this planet: those that know they're stupid, and those that don't. it's the ones that don't know it that scare me.
i've seen enough of him, and hope he stops wasting his time, soon.
...but he states a lot of things that aren't true. he often does so with great confidence, as he attempts to project himself as an educated elite, and maybe that works in nowheresville, indiana, but the pretentious presentation of his mistruths don't actually make them more true.
now, i'm not exactly calling him a liar. i actually think the truth is that he's badly misinformed, and probably because he gets his information from poor sources.
there are two types of stupid people on this planet: those that know they're stupid, and those that don't. it's the ones that don't know it that scare me.
i've seen enough of him, and hope he stops wasting his time, soon.
so, i'm not feeling like going out anywhere tonight, which means i've cleared my schedule out until next friday. that gives me a full seven days to get these lawsuits in order, and i'm setting a goal for myself to have the crux of it worked out by monday, when i'm going to need to start making a number of calls.
so, that's this week...
so, that's this week...
there's something afoot in canada right now.
we're collectively fed up. this is a "throw the bums out" election, but we just can't find a better bum.
these scenarios are unpredictable. but, what's going to happen is predictably unpredictable, and that means you can take some rough guesses.
when the smoke clears, expect a lot of dead bodies, and a few unexpected winners.
we're collectively fed up. this is a "throw the bums out" election, but we just can't find a better bum.
these scenarios are unpredictable. but, what's going to happen is predictably unpredictable, and that means you can take some rough guesses.
when the smoke clears, expect a lot of dead bodies, and a few unexpected winners.
when i am agreeing with jonathan kay's defense of elizabeth may, we've already descended into the rabbit hole.
it's a legal issue, it's not a political one. abortion rights are under no threat in this country. and, sane people should be pushing back against the demagoguery around the idea that they are.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jonathan-kay-why-progressives-desperately-stifle-any-dissent-on-abortion-even-from-elizabeth-may
it's a legal issue, it's not a political one. abortion rights are under no threat in this country. and, sane people should be pushing back against the demagoguery around the idea that they are.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jonathan-kay-why-progressives-desperately-stifle-any-dissent-on-abortion-even-from-elizabeth-may
listen, i want to be clear on the point: i have, in the past, loudly argued for the ouster of elizabeth may, and the reasoning behind it was largely to do with her religious beliefs (i don't think that ordained ministers should even be allowed to run for city council, let alone prime minister, however nominally). the evidence is in this mass of posts.
so, do not mistake me for an elizabeth may fan, and do not mistake my endorsement as genuine. if i thought she had any chance at governing, i would be endorsing a spoiled ballot, at this point.
but, she is the least worst option, by far, in a group of absolutely terrible options.
i could grade them like this:
scheer - F
trudeau - F
singh - F
may - C-
maybe the point is a little clearer, when i put it like that.
my support for the greens is as a protest vote. i'm not voting with my heart, i'm voting with my colon. if it leads to a broken parliament, that's the desire - it's intended to fuck things up, to cause chaos, to generate instability.
the ultimate aim needs to be the resignation of justin trudeau. reducing him to a minority is a step on that path. the greens are in the right place at the right time to use for that purpose.
and, it won't be very far into the future until i'm back to arguing that may needs to resign for the greens to get to the next level.
so, do not mistake me for an elizabeth may fan, and do not mistake my endorsement as genuine. if i thought she had any chance at governing, i would be endorsing a spoiled ballot, at this point.
but, she is the least worst option, by far, in a group of absolutely terrible options.
i could grade them like this:
scheer - F
trudeau - F
singh - F
may - C-
maybe the point is a little clearer, when i put it like that.
my support for the greens is as a protest vote. i'm not voting with my heart, i'm voting with my colon. if it leads to a broken parliament, that's the desire - it's intended to fuck things up, to cause chaos, to generate instability.
the ultimate aim needs to be the resignation of justin trudeau. reducing him to a minority is a step on that path. the greens are in the right place at the right time to use for that purpose.
and, it won't be very far into the future until i'm back to arguing that may needs to resign for the greens to get to the next level.
i have to say this, though.
it's really tiring - annoying, actually - to hear singh consistently relate every question to a baseless anecdote. it's all this "i met with..." or "i talked to...", as though that means anything.
i don't care who you met with, or who you talked to.
i met with the abominable snowman, and he told me about the existential threats to his habitat that come with climate change. he told me about the sorrow he felt, after losing the last yeti. when will it end?
stop this bullshit. give me policies. give me facts. give me data. this is supposed to be an adult conversation. keep your stories for your children.....
it's really tiring - annoying, actually - to hear singh consistently relate every question to a baseless anecdote. it's all this "i met with..." or "i talked to...", as though that means anything.
i don't care who you met with, or who you talked to.
i met with the abominable snowman, and he told me about the existential threats to his habitat that come with climate change. he told me about the sorrow he felt, after losing the last yeti. when will it end?
stop this bullshit. give me policies. give me facts. give me data. this is supposed to be an adult conversation. keep your stories for your children.....
i've watched a bunch of the canadian debate tonight, which is linked to below, and i'm convinced that trudeau made a dramatic error in skipping it.
a few things.
1) singh comes off as an empty suit. tepid. flat. uninspiring.
2) scheer is running on an issue - balanced budgets - that canadians don't care about. to an extent, he's speaking solely to his base, as they have almost no room for growth, but, in doing so, he's misunderstanding it. if this is his campaign, it's going to have turnout issues.
3) may exists. therefore, she wins.
canada is a deeply polarized country, politically, but the polarization is not symmetrical. the perpetual truth is that the motive of the vast majority of canadians is to vote against the conservative party, in some way. the empty podium on stage could just as well belong to stephen harper. by ceding the attack against scheer to his opponents, trudeau is diminishing his own relevance.
but, i keep saying this: they're stupid.
may killed it. over and over. she was the only serious candidate on stage. and, we'll see if it moves the numbers or not.
what i saw tonight is just more evidence for the tipping point.
a few things.
1) singh comes off as an empty suit. tepid. flat. uninspiring.
2) scheer is running on an issue - balanced budgets - that canadians don't care about. to an extent, he's speaking solely to his base, as they have almost no room for growth, but, in doing so, he's misunderstanding it. if this is his campaign, it's going to have turnout issues.
3) may exists. therefore, she wins.
canada is a deeply polarized country, politically, but the polarization is not symmetrical. the perpetual truth is that the motive of the vast majority of canadians is to vote against the conservative party, in some way. the empty podium on stage could just as well belong to stephen harper. by ceding the attack against scheer to his opponents, trudeau is diminishing his own relevance.
but, i keep saying this: they're stupid.
may killed it. over and over. she was the only serious candidate on stage. and, we'll see if it moves the numbers or not.
what i saw tonight is just more evidence for the tipping point.
this picture made me laugh in fits for twenty minutes.
he's been prime minister for, what, five minutes? first thing he does is lie to the queen.
i'm just imagining 65 million shocked brits.
did you lie to the queen, boris?
(boris can now be seen lowering his gaze, and fidgeting his foot)
boris. how could you?
he's been prime minister for, what, five minutes? first thing he does is lie to the queen.
i'm just imagining 65 million shocked brits.
did you lie to the queen, boris?
(boris can now be seen lowering his gaze, and fidgeting his foot)
boris. how could you?
Thursday, September 12, 2019
warren had the right answer for the cowspiracy people, anyways. that could very well turn out to be the most substantive part of this long, surreal charade.
she seems to think that the answer to the problem is to legislate emissions targets and let the market figure it out, a mentality that i would argue is actually a part of the problem. we're not going to solve the problems that markets have created in our society by insisting on the implementation of more markets, that's the definition of insanity. solving the climate crisis means turning market theory on it's head, which has been the entire crux of the movement on the left, from the start. what warren is saying sounds more in line with a greenwashing campaign, or the imposition of "green capitalism".
she seems wary of carbon taxes, and i share that lack of enthusiasm, but if you think a carbon tax will have minimal effect, why would you expect a regulatory process to have an effect? doesn't recognizing that people are willing to pay more for gas (at the expense of consumption spending in other sectors) imply realizing that businesses are willing to pay the fines as a cost of business and consumers are willing to eat cost increases as just another type of inflation? and, where do you think that banning behaviours or products is going to get you, if the reason you're resorting to it is that you can't find an incentive system that actually works?
i would not be likely to support these kinds of proposals. as more and more details of them emerge, you can expect me to be increasingly critical of them. and, i will debunk them using their own language, that is the language of market theory.
this should be seen as a defining difference between warren and sanders. the world needs america to pony up and spend on transition, not some more twentieth-century platitudes about incentivizing actors in free markets; that's been the status quo for thirty years.
she seems to think that the answer to the problem is to legislate emissions targets and let the market figure it out, a mentality that i would argue is actually a part of the problem. we're not going to solve the problems that markets have created in our society by insisting on the implementation of more markets, that's the definition of insanity. solving the climate crisis means turning market theory on it's head, which has been the entire crux of the movement on the left, from the start. what warren is saying sounds more in line with a greenwashing campaign, or the imposition of "green capitalism".
she seems wary of carbon taxes, and i share that lack of enthusiasm, but if you think a carbon tax will have minimal effect, why would you expect a regulatory process to have an effect? doesn't recognizing that people are willing to pay more for gas (at the expense of consumption spending in other sectors) imply realizing that businesses are willing to pay the fines as a cost of business and consumers are willing to eat cost increases as just another type of inflation? and, where do you think that banning behaviours or products is going to get you, if the reason you're resorting to it is that you can't find an incentive system that actually works?
i would not be likely to support these kinds of proposals. as more and more details of them emerge, you can expect me to be increasingly critical of them. and, i will debunk them using their own language, that is the language of market theory.
this should be seen as a defining difference between warren and sanders. the world needs america to pony up and spend on transition, not some more twentieth-century platitudes about incentivizing actors in free markets; that's been the status quo for thirty years.
so, it just decided not to bother warming up today - the temperature has been roughly steady since 2:00 this morning. i'm feeling like the better choice is to stay in for the night.
i took a gamble on the rain last night, deducing that the jet stream's retreat to just north of here would keep the humidity high and the storm path just far enough away to not bother me. i got that part right, but convection storms from the heat were stronger than i thought they would be and lingered into the early morning. it did clear up, but not before it rained pretty hard, and not until the bars were closed, and i didn't get my park party out of it. i had fun anyways, and have a few stories.
i left around 18:30 to try and catch a break in the rain - i knew it was going to rain again, but expected it to clear out around midnight. so, i expected the ride to hamtramck to need to be done in stints, kind of thing. it had been spitting off and on all day downtown (there were more serious storms elsewhere), but the convection finally broke moments after i got to the bus shelter. i checked today to see how much rain actually fell (it was a lot) and was reminded of the locality of it - i guess it wasn't raining at the airport, because the official record says it wasn't raining at all. but, a news report suggested there was 40 mm of rain in some parts of the city yesterday, which is a daily rainfall record.
those numbers can't be for downtown, where it was mostly dry before the skies opened, and the downpour only lasted twenty minutes. but, for those twenty minutes, it rained about as hard as it can rain. i wasn't in it; i actually found myself enjoying the after-rain air. detroit continues to have some serious air quality issues due to industrialization, so a good rainstorm is that much more refreshing when it hits. it's actually one of the better times to enjoy playing outside.
the ride to hamtramck was through thick humidity and sweaty as fuck, but the rain restrained itself until i got there - when it promptly started back up again. it mostly cleared out before the show was over, but the ride to the second bar was a little drizzly.
the first band, not ok, was actually pretty much ok. ok? ok. they did a style of generic emo-core. i'm going to leave it at that.
the savage seven seemed to downplay their silliness a little in the live setting, partly because the singer was a little less confident than i expected him to be. there's a swagger on the recording that is central to the presentation and was perhaps missing in the show. i'd encourage him to try and capture that better when he's performing. they're a kind of novelty act style rock band with a bit of a very early detroit rock feel, and they pulled it off at points in the set.
wizard rifle, a two piece guitar & drum duo, were on point, even if i was hoping for a longer set in a bar that cleared out before midnight. the mix was dominated by their powerful drummer, who, name-dropped influences aside, actually sounded most like dave grohl going to town. the guitar work is mostly riff-based, but it has an angularity to it that gives it a dose of manic energy, and he makes liberal use of an effects chain to scuzz up the sound. they wear their influences prominently, often jumping into sections that sound like they were taken directly from king crimson or lightning bolt tracks, but that's alright, because they mix it up and rip it apart. they appear to be from portland, and have relocated to detroit; this was the first night of a us tour, so they had some sound issues with the mix. basically, they need to turn the guitars and vocals up in order to compete with the muscular drumming.
as mentioned, the ride to the next bar was a little bit drizzly, but not too bad. i missed the actual event, some kind of industry mixer, while lost in a bit of my own drama: somewhere, somehow i lost a $20, which was also my last $20 for the night.
i strictly carry cash when i'm in detroit, because the banking system is a messy situation. i took money out of a machine in detroit for the first time a few weeks ago, but my debit card won't work. nor do i carry a credit card. so, if i run out of cash, i'll at least need to find a machine, and that machine will need to be on the right network. i'm also looking at around $10 in service charges because it's an international transaction. so, i'm generally fairly paranoid about this, because i know that if i run out of cash in detroit that i'm more or less shit out of luck until i get home.
it was around 1:00 or so when i went to the washroom and checked my pockets to see how much i had left; i had a vague idea that it was around $20, but i don't usually do my accounting until later. so, what's in my pocket?
- keys? check.
- lighter? check.
- three cards: nexus card (border), debit card, health card (ohip.)? check.
- ziploc bags (to protect things in the rain)? check.
- bus fare in cdn dollars? check.
- american money? nope.
wait.
- american money? nope.
that can't be right. let's try this again...
- american money? nope.
fuck.
now, i admit i was a little bit drunk - i was fully conscious and coherent and capable of walking in straight lines and stuff, but even a simple amount of accounting would have benefited from some kind of ledger, and wasn't likely to happen strictly mentally at that point, or at least not correctly. i was also a little flustered. if i had sat down and centered myself and worked out each transaction that had occurred over the night, it would have been immediately clear that i dropped it somewhere. all that i was able to process entirely right there was that i knew i came to detroit with three 20s, and i knew i'd only broken two of them. so, i knew i was missing a $20.
well, it didn't evaporate. it didn't develop locomotion and run away. i guess it might have been pick-pocketed, but what are the chances, really? so, when you lose something you retrace your steps, right?
i had made two transactions at the bar, to that point. i thought i had given the door a $5 bill for cover, and i thought i had given the bartender three one dollar bills for a beer. i'm usually a pretty good bean counter; if i'm going to screw up, it's because i'm going to drop something out of my pocket when i'm rummaging through, but everybody fucks up sometimes. so, maybe i gave one of them a twenty by accident. i can ask, right?
the bartender was pretty certain - he'd have remembered it, because he'd have been surprised by it. and, i had to make the point - i'm not being confrontational, i'm not making accusations, i've just lost some cash and am trying to figure out if i can find it.
the door person was a little less certain - she claimed she couldn't remember, but insisted that if she did then she'd have given me change. her honesty opened a window for me, because if she'd just had said "no. you gave me a $5.", i would have shrugged and walked off. the fact that she was like "i dunno. maybe you did give me a $20.", left me prodding her to remember, to be certain, to be sure; but, as that was happening, i remembered that i gave her a $5, so i had to apologize and walk off.
well, what's next? i might have dropped it near my bike...
nope.
by that point, i'd gotten over the initial shock and sobered up a little due to necessity (it's funny how that happens), so i was able to think it through a little better. i had $61. i spent $9 at the 7/11, $12 + $12 = $24 at the rock show, $5 on cover and $3 dollars on one beer at marble. so i should have.....$20. i should have had a $20, a $5 and three $1s on my way into the bar. if i had accidentally given the door person a $20, i'd still have the $5. if i had accidentally given the bartender a $20, i'd still have the $1. so, i lost the $20; this is my fault.
i made sure that the relevant people were aware of this fact, that i was taking responsibility for losing the cash and not blaming or accusing anybody, when i got back into the bar, went out for a smoke and started cruising for pot, instead.
but, then, something kind of cool happened: somebody tapped me on the shoulder and gave me the $20. it was found by bar staff on the ground.
(and, no, gay people are not recruited. but, i think you'd be being daft in taking that skit too seriously)
by that time, the bar was nearly closed, and the music had shut down, so i only got one more in before it was time to go - no dancing, not much talking, even.
nobody at the park...
i stopped at the gas station at trumbull & warren to get smokes, and lit one up before i got back on my bike. a car full of dudes screeches to a halt an inch from me, and a couple of them get out.
"how much?"
what?
"i said, how much?"
*pause*
no.
"but you're standing right there."
in front of my bike?
"i'm a go into the store, you stay right there."
i was gone before he came back out, and finished my smoke up at the benches on cass, just south of warren.
i had had 10 drinks and been gifted some pot at that point, so i was inebriated, but i was in control and the night was crystal clear until i got to the diner; i just got a coffee, but i seem to have dozed off, and it gets a little blurry for a bit around 4:00. i vaguely recall getting yelled at by a homeless person, but i don't recall the context.
i dozed off a second time at the bus stop, and had to be honked at by the driver to wake me up. but, i'm ok, clearly.
i got me some pasta.
i took me a shower.
and i slept most of the day.
i took a gamble on the rain last night, deducing that the jet stream's retreat to just north of here would keep the humidity high and the storm path just far enough away to not bother me. i got that part right, but convection storms from the heat were stronger than i thought they would be and lingered into the early morning. it did clear up, but not before it rained pretty hard, and not until the bars were closed, and i didn't get my park party out of it. i had fun anyways, and have a few stories.
i left around 18:30 to try and catch a break in the rain - i knew it was going to rain again, but expected it to clear out around midnight. so, i expected the ride to hamtramck to need to be done in stints, kind of thing. it had been spitting off and on all day downtown (there were more serious storms elsewhere), but the convection finally broke moments after i got to the bus shelter. i checked today to see how much rain actually fell (it was a lot) and was reminded of the locality of it - i guess it wasn't raining at the airport, because the official record says it wasn't raining at all. but, a news report suggested there was 40 mm of rain in some parts of the city yesterday, which is a daily rainfall record.
those numbers can't be for downtown, where it was mostly dry before the skies opened, and the downpour only lasted twenty minutes. but, for those twenty minutes, it rained about as hard as it can rain. i wasn't in it; i actually found myself enjoying the after-rain air. detroit continues to have some serious air quality issues due to industrialization, so a good rainstorm is that much more refreshing when it hits. it's actually one of the better times to enjoy playing outside.
the ride to hamtramck was through thick humidity and sweaty as fuck, but the rain restrained itself until i got there - when it promptly started back up again. it mostly cleared out before the show was over, but the ride to the second bar was a little drizzly.
the first band, not ok, was actually pretty much ok. ok? ok. they did a style of generic emo-core. i'm going to leave it at that.
the savage seven seemed to downplay their silliness a little in the live setting, partly because the singer was a little less confident than i expected him to be. there's a swagger on the recording that is central to the presentation and was perhaps missing in the show. i'd encourage him to try and capture that better when he's performing. they're a kind of novelty act style rock band with a bit of a very early detroit rock feel, and they pulled it off at points in the set.
wizard rifle, a two piece guitar & drum duo, were on point, even if i was hoping for a longer set in a bar that cleared out before midnight. the mix was dominated by their powerful drummer, who, name-dropped influences aside, actually sounded most like dave grohl going to town. the guitar work is mostly riff-based, but it has an angularity to it that gives it a dose of manic energy, and he makes liberal use of an effects chain to scuzz up the sound. they wear their influences prominently, often jumping into sections that sound like they were taken directly from king crimson or lightning bolt tracks, but that's alright, because they mix it up and rip it apart. they appear to be from portland, and have relocated to detroit; this was the first night of a us tour, so they had some sound issues with the mix. basically, they need to turn the guitars and vocals up in order to compete with the muscular drumming.
as mentioned, the ride to the next bar was a little bit drizzly, but not too bad. i missed the actual event, some kind of industry mixer, while lost in a bit of my own drama: somewhere, somehow i lost a $20, which was also my last $20 for the night.
i strictly carry cash when i'm in detroit, because the banking system is a messy situation. i took money out of a machine in detroit for the first time a few weeks ago, but my debit card won't work. nor do i carry a credit card. so, if i run out of cash, i'll at least need to find a machine, and that machine will need to be on the right network. i'm also looking at around $10 in service charges because it's an international transaction. so, i'm generally fairly paranoid about this, because i know that if i run out of cash in detroit that i'm more or less shit out of luck until i get home.
it was around 1:00 or so when i went to the washroom and checked my pockets to see how much i had left; i had a vague idea that it was around $20, but i don't usually do my accounting until later. so, what's in my pocket?
- keys? check.
- lighter? check.
- three cards: nexus card (border), debit card, health card (ohip.)? check.
- ziploc bags (to protect things in the rain)? check.
- bus fare in cdn dollars? check.
- american money? nope.
wait.
- american money? nope.
that can't be right. let's try this again...
- american money? nope.
fuck.
now, i admit i was a little bit drunk - i was fully conscious and coherent and capable of walking in straight lines and stuff, but even a simple amount of accounting would have benefited from some kind of ledger, and wasn't likely to happen strictly mentally at that point, or at least not correctly. i was also a little flustered. if i had sat down and centered myself and worked out each transaction that had occurred over the night, it would have been immediately clear that i dropped it somewhere. all that i was able to process entirely right there was that i knew i came to detroit with three 20s, and i knew i'd only broken two of them. so, i knew i was missing a $20.
well, it didn't evaporate. it didn't develop locomotion and run away. i guess it might have been pick-pocketed, but what are the chances, really? so, when you lose something you retrace your steps, right?
i had made two transactions at the bar, to that point. i thought i had given the door a $5 bill for cover, and i thought i had given the bartender three one dollar bills for a beer. i'm usually a pretty good bean counter; if i'm going to screw up, it's because i'm going to drop something out of my pocket when i'm rummaging through, but everybody fucks up sometimes. so, maybe i gave one of them a twenty by accident. i can ask, right?
the bartender was pretty certain - he'd have remembered it, because he'd have been surprised by it. and, i had to make the point - i'm not being confrontational, i'm not making accusations, i've just lost some cash and am trying to figure out if i can find it.
the door person was a little less certain - she claimed she couldn't remember, but insisted that if she did then she'd have given me change. her honesty opened a window for me, because if she'd just had said "no. you gave me a $5.", i would have shrugged and walked off. the fact that she was like "i dunno. maybe you did give me a $20.", left me prodding her to remember, to be certain, to be sure; but, as that was happening, i remembered that i gave her a $5, so i had to apologize and walk off.
well, what's next? i might have dropped it near my bike...
nope.
by that point, i'd gotten over the initial shock and sobered up a little due to necessity (it's funny how that happens), so i was able to think it through a little better. i had $61. i spent $9 at the 7/11, $12 + $12 = $24 at the rock show, $5 on cover and $3 dollars on one beer at marble. so i should have.....$20. i should have had a $20, a $5 and three $1s on my way into the bar. if i had accidentally given the door person a $20, i'd still have the $5. if i had accidentally given the bartender a $20, i'd still have the $1. so, i lost the $20; this is my fault.
i made sure that the relevant people were aware of this fact, that i was taking responsibility for losing the cash and not blaming or accusing anybody, when i got back into the bar, went out for a smoke and started cruising for pot, instead.
but, then, something kind of cool happened: somebody tapped me on the shoulder and gave me the $20. it was found by bar staff on the ground.
(and, no, gay people are not recruited. but, i think you'd be being daft in taking that skit too seriously)
by that time, the bar was nearly closed, and the music had shut down, so i only got one more in before it was time to go - no dancing, not much talking, even.
nobody at the park...
i stopped at the gas station at trumbull & warren to get smokes, and lit one up before i got back on my bike. a car full of dudes screeches to a halt an inch from me, and a couple of them get out.
"how much?"
what?
"i said, how much?"
*pause*
no.
"but you're standing right there."
in front of my bike?
"i'm a go into the store, you stay right there."
i was gone before he came back out, and finished my smoke up at the benches on cass, just south of warren.
i had had 10 drinks and been gifted some pot at that point, so i was inebriated, but i was in control and the night was crystal clear until i got to the diner; i just got a coffee, but i seem to have dozed off, and it gets a little blurry for a bit around 4:00. i vaguely recall getting yelled at by a homeless person, but i don't recall the context.
i dozed off a second time at the bus stop, and had to be honked at by the driver to wake me up. but, i'm ok, clearly.
i got me some pasta.
i took me a shower.
and i slept most of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)