i've been to a doctor a few times this week about the degenerative
disease it seems like i have. that's something i'm going to be doing
over the next year or two, as i seek to figure out what the fuck this
is.
i need to be clear: i don't have a clue what it is.
not the slightest. it's a lot of the same symptoms you get after a
stroke, or get when you have ms, or get when you have als, or get when
you have cancer, even...
these are symptoms that have
been bothering me for around ten years, now. in some ways, they are
getting worse. yet, they kind of come and go, too. i just always lived
with it. facial tics are annoying, but not worth the time to see a
doctor. i can deal with a sore back every now and again. & etc. but,
the dysphagia has been really scary at points over the last couple of
years. this isn't new, either, though - i remember it being awful for
short periods as far back as ten years ago. what's new is that it hasn't
receded now in quite a while.
the first thing i wanted to
do was quit smoking habitually. done. since january. i wanted to make
sure i wasn't just dehydrated, too, and i think i've ruled that out. the
next thing that i wanted to do was rule out an ear infection, as a lot
of the symptoms seem to be centered on my left ear. what's the point in
getting mris and talking to neurologists for the next ten months if i
just have an ear infection, right? so, i did that this week. i will get
results on monday and am not certain what they will be. the doctor
eliminated an actual infection as a cause, but the admin seemed to note
something unusual around my ear drum when she was doing aural testing.
i
don't think i had a stroke, although i've had periodic fainting spells
for years (none recently). i got rid of them by not smoking on an empty
stomach, although i think some of it was also heat stroke. i also think
that this has been going on for too long for it to be cancer. the simple
truth is that nobody has untreated cancer for ten years without the
symptoms getting overwhelming. yes: the dysphagia is bad right now. but,
it always previously came and went. if i had a cancer in my ear ten
years ago, i'd almost certainly be dead by now.
so, i've kind of long deduced something like ms (or als, or...) by default. what else could it be?
well,
something i've overlooked this whole time is lyme disease. i was just
reading up on it. the symptoms are pretty accurate - especially the
facial tic. i don't explicitly remember the rash, but would i have been
able to tell it from a mosquito bite? i've had lots of mosquito bites
over the last ten years, and some period of being "eaten alive". the
absence of a rash is not absolute, either. you'd think that untreated
lyme disease for a decade or more would be pretty serious by now, but
that's at least a way out from ms or als.
the only other
way out that i can think of is that my jaw keeps healing wrong and then
fracturing and then healing wrong again, and it's basically just fucked
that side of my face up so badly that everything has stopped working
right. essentially, then, my face would be fucked. i know you appreciate
my technical definition and in depth knowledge. but, i think there is
something to this.
i wanted to do this one thing at a time
to keep the issue straight in my head and i don't want to see a
neurologist until everything else is ruled out. let's say i have ms, in
the end. it's untreatable. i lose nothing by waiting for the diagnosis. i
gain everything by avoiding a misdiagnosis.
so, i will go
in on monday after i get my hearing test results and set referral
appointments to check both for lyme disease and for skeletal issues. i'm
also going to see if i can get my tongue checked for cancer, just in
case.
it's only once i go through that process that i will consent to see a neurologist to check for a degenerative disease.
right now, i'm honestly kind of leaning towards lyme disease. - and i'm irritated with myself for not thinking of it sooner.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
china owns huge amounts of oil in canada, but can't get it out.
kind of like it owns huge amounts of american debt, but can never do anything with it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/northern-gateway-pipeline-federal-court-of-appeal-1.3659561
kind of like it owns huge amounts of american debt, but can never do anything with it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/northern-gateway-pipeline-federal-court-of-appeal-1.3659561
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
j reacts to the analysis of prostitution as an uncoerced choice in a capitalist economy
the idea that prostitution is some kind of valid occupation is the literal victory of neo-liberalism. it is the strongest possible endorsement of capitalism.
i oppose prostitution laws, but i also oppose prostitution. i do not oppose prostitution laws because i think the exchange of sex is a valid market interaction. i oppose prostitution laws because they are ineffective in abolishing prostitution.
effective solutions to prostitution need to get at the root causes, which are largely related to the enforcement of wage slavery. we live in a society where most people have no choice but to sell some abstraction of their labour in order to survive. i would consider it oppressive to restrict an individual's choice in who, exactly, it is that they wish to whore themselves out to.
we often hear this idea that prostitution is the same as every other job and should be respected the same way as any other job. but, the anarchist perspective flips this around: all wage labour is prostitution and should be equally marginalized.
so, is being a prostitute any different than working fast food? no. but, that doesn't make prostitution better. it makes fast food worse.
a truly free society would give everybody the opportunity to make real choices isolated from the social coercion of market forces. the slavery here is in the enforcement of a market economy.
so, how do we get to a truly free society?
1) universal access to education systems.
2) guaranteed annual incomes.
3) liveable social welfare for marginalized groups (like single mothers).
4) a federally mandated living wage.
that will not abolish prostitution outright, but it will restrict it to those that truly choose it out of the enjoyment of sex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuYBow1b5b8
j reacts to the analysis of prostitution as an uncoerced choice in a capitalist economy
edit:
again, i don't know why this post would be flagged other than that perhaps some idiot thinks i'm a prostitute. i think it's fairly clear from my discussion of the matter that i'm not interested in engaging in prostitution.
however, i'm able to glean a little bit of information about the nature of the harassment i'm receiving by looking at the nature of the posts being flagged. again: i would like some help in understanding who is doing this, so i can take my concerns to law enforcement and get this person to be barred from going to my site.
======
i oppose prostitution laws, but i also oppose prostitution. i do not oppose prostitution laws because i think the exchange of sex is a valid market interaction. i oppose prostitution laws because they are ineffective in abolishing prostitution.
effective solutions to prostitution need to get at the root causes, which are largely related to the enforcement of wage slavery. we live in a society where most people have no choice but to sell some abstraction of their labour in order to survive. i would consider it oppressive to restrict an individual's choice in who, exactly, it is that they wish to whore themselves out to.
we often hear this idea that prostitution is the same as every other job and should be respected the same way as any other job. but, the anarchist perspective flips this around: all wage labour is prostitution and should be equally marginalized.
so, is being a prostitute any different than working fast food? no. but, that doesn't make prostitution better. it makes fast food worse.
a truly free society would give everybody the opportunity to make real choices isolated from the social coercion of market forces. the slavery here is in the enforcement of a market economy.
so, how do we get to a truly free society?
1) universal access to education systems.
2) guaranteed annual incomes.
3) liveable social welfare for marginalized groups (like single mothers).
4) a federally mandated living wage.
that will not abolish prostitution outright, but it will restrict it to those that truly choose it out of the enjoyment of sex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuYBow1b5b8
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
when you send a diplomat into a war zone, it might get killed. that's a non-issue.
when are we going to talk about how the removal of ghadaffi was a war crime?
--
wait. that's why you're talking about benghazi in the first place. right.
this isn't some russian bureaucrat. this is really the #2 guy in russia. and, sometimes he's the actual #1 guy.
you can react how you'd like. but, understand that this is what the russians think - and a lot of people think they're right.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160531/1040526924/lavrov-gaddafi-war-crime.html
when are we going to talk about how the removal of ghadaffi was a war crime?
--
wait. that's why you're talking about benghazi in the first place. right.
this isn't some russian bureaucrat. this is really the #2 guy in russia. and, sometimes he's the actual #1 guy.
you can react how you'd like. but, understand that this is what the russians think - and a lot of people think they're right.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160531/1040526924/lavrov-gaddafi-war-crime.html
j reacts to hillary clinton running in the radical centre
hillary needs to make the choice about what side of the spectrum she wants to run on and then run on it aggressively.
if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished, anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain 15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee be in play? kentucky? arkansas? that was her husband's map...
if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be looking to emulate the obama map.
if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them solely on their likelihood of success.
i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to trump that it is not worth worrying about.
if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously rejected and lose.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285110-polls-show-tight-clinton-trump-race-in-2016-battlegrounds
if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished, anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain 15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee be in play? kentucky? arkansas? that was her husband's map...
if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be looking to emulate the obama map.
if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them solely on their likelihood of success.
i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to trump that it is not worth worrying about.
if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously rejected and lose.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285110-polls-show-tight-clinton-trump-race-in-2016-battlegrounds
j reacts to the lewandowski promotion
this is an old trick.
he didn't get fired. he got promoted.
until he formally drops out, sanders is still a threat. or, it may be considered more tactical to wait until after the convention.
but, the way this election is going to work is that the media is going to rip clinton apart over the emails and present trump as the sane, establishment option - presuming he stops running his mouth off. and, i think they can figure that out. if they can get bush elected, they can get trump elected.
the media coverage at this time in 2000 was not dissimilar to what it is today. it's early. the machinations are still at work.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/cnn-taps-corey-lewandowski-but-is-analyst-or-trump-spokesman.html
see, the way i read this is "cnn looking for excuse to get rid of left-leaning staff".
you can do this a few ways.
1) send an agent provocateur out to start a movement for mass resignation. that way, you don't have to fire anybody. good optics. extra bonus: no severance.
2) start a fight, then come down on the side of lewandowski to make the point.
it's not just cnn. msnbc is doing this, too.
sanders has had no effect. but, trump's popularity amongst key english speaking tv demographics is sparking a shake-up in the way the networks are going to be approaching the coverage.
http://gawker.com/are-cnn-staffers-actually-staging-a-revolt-over-corey-1782673854
he didn't get fired. he got promoted.
until he formally drops out, sanders is still a threat. or, it may be considered more tactical to wait until after the convention.
but, the way this election is going to work is that the media is going to rip clinton apart over the emails and present trump as the sane, establishment option - presuming he stops running his mouth off. and, i think they can figure that out. if they can get bush elected, they can get trump elected.
the media coverage at this time in 2000 was not dissimilar to what it is today. it's early. the machinations are still at work.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/cnn-taps-corey-lewandowski-but-is-analyst-or-trump-spokesman.html
see, the way i read this is "cnn looking for excuse to get rid of left-leaning staff".
you can do this a few ways.
1) send an agent provocateur out to start a movement for mass resignation. that way, you don't have to fire anybody. good optics. extra bonus: no severance.
2) start a fight, then come down on the side of lewandowski to make the point.
it's not just cnn. msnbc is doing this, too.
sanders has had no effect. but, trump's popularity amongst key english speaking tv demographics is sparking a shake-up in the way the networks are going to be approaching the coverage.
http://gawker.com/are-cnn-staffers-actually-staging-a-revolt-over-corey-1782673854
Monday, June 27, 2016
j reacts to the idea that brexit is alter-globalization
brexit is not opposition to globalization, and anybody claiming as much is either being disingenuous or is misinformed.
the alter-globalization movement has actually always argued in favour of the types of things that the eu provides and nafta doesn't. for example, full mobility rights. that's one of the things that opponents to nafta have long argued in favour of in order to fix the labour problems in the deal. yet, this was probably the biggest single factor in britain's choice to leave the eu.
brexit was not about fair trade, slave labour or chapter 11 kangaroo courts. it was about immigration.
there's certainly always been a nationalist fringe out there, and the media likes to play into it, but anybody that's been to one of these rallies knows that they get badly marginalized. i've been at free trade protests where people are spending more time yelling at nationalists than they are protesting.
left-wing protesters don't see the issue as a simple disagreement. the nationalists are often associated with crypo-fascist groups like the larouche pac, or outright racist groups. there's a lot of thinking that a lot of them are actually cops, even.
it's a horrible comparison. the right comparison to brexit is to trump, and we need to collectively come to terms with that rather than deny it or try to spin it.
-
the relationship between alter-globalization forces and the eu is complex.
on the one hand, the eu is an anti-democratic institution that works for the investor class at the expense of everybody else, and alter-globalization forces know that and have loudly articulated it. on the other hand, it's helped to functionally tear down borders throughout europe.
when something is complex, the diversity of opinions reflect it. but, i think a proper survey process would find that most alter-globalization types would view brexit as a step backwards.
the alter-globalization movement has actually always argued in favour of the types of things that the eu provides and nafta doesn't. for example, full mobility rights. that's one of the things that opponents to nafta have long argued in favour of in order to fix the labour problems in the deal. yet, this was probably the biggest single factor in britain's choice to leave the eu.
brexit was not about fair trade, slave labour or chapter 11 kangaroo courts. it was about immigration.
there's certainly always been a nationalist fringe out there, and the media likes to play into it, but anybody that's been to one of these rallies knows that they get badly marginalized. i've been at free trade protests where people are spending more time yelling at nationalists than they are protesting.
left-wing protesters don't see the issue as a simple disagreement. the nationalists are often associated with crypo-fascist groups like the larouche pac, or outright racist groups. there's a lot of thinking that a lot of them are actually cops, even.
it's a horrible comparison. the right comparison to brexit is to trump, and we need to collectively come to terms with that rather than deny it or try to spin it.
-
the relationship between alter-globalization forces and the eu is complex.
on the one hand, the eu is an anti-democratic institution that works for the investor class at the expense of everybody else, and alter-globalization forces know that and have loudly articulated it. on the other hand, it's helped to functionally tear down borders throughout europe.
when something is complex, the diversity of opinions reflect it. but, i think a proper survey process would find that most alter-globalization types would view brexit as a step backwards.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
finalizing inri000
these are the first demos i recorded, written 1994-1996 and recorded in the second half of 1996. this corresponds to the end of my 15th year and the beginning of my grade 10 school year. on the one hand, it's an intriguing document of a socially maladjusted teenage punk. on the other hand, it's a 15 year-old kid learning how to use a recording studio (and how to play the drums). influences are displayed on my sleeve just a little too loudly at times.
i was attempting to create something that could be described by the words disturbing, schizophrenic, unique, bizarre, twisted. looking back, i think i succeeded more than i realized at the time. this is a difficult listen that would be appealing to fans of the obscurantist reaches of 80s punk and 90s grunge. i manage to maintain a strange sense of melody, though. in truth, my current adult self is somewhat impressed with my teenaged self at this current point.
that being said, it should not be forgotten that i was fifteen. i am at times rather crude, and i display a childlike understanding of certain issues. most poetry written at the age of fifteen is not particularly insightful. again, though, i surprise myself at points.
this is the first time i'm publishing these demos in any form. i've remained frighteningly self-conscious of them over the years. over the last seventeen years, the audience has been extremely limited. initial reactions suggested i take some time to perfect my performance skills, particularly my drumming skills. however, this indicated a lack of understanding of my intent in the overall sound. the playing is quite purposefully abstract with the aim of exploring mental illness.
the demos were initially dub-mastered onto a 110 minute tape that would have flipped after the eighth track. that tape was at some point recorded into a soundblaster and compressed very heavily; this is the only source of the material that i still have. so, i had to decompress the files from those 128 (or worse) kbps mp3s and run them through some digital mastering equipment in an attempt to "undo" the compression. what that is is a half-effective trick to recover data that is in actuality forever lost. nonetheless, i should point out that while these files were recorded entirely in 1996, they were substantially digitally modified in late 2013. finalized on june 26, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
i consider this an archival release with little direct listening value. i've pointed out repeatedly that i was 15. however, various segments have been isolated and pulled out for a higher listenability value over here:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inricycled-a
this release also includes a printable j-card insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 2013, 2016).
credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, drums, vocals, keyboards, tapes, sounds, percussion, production.
released december 25, 1996
i was attempting to create something that could be described by the words disturbing, schizophrenic, unique, bizarre, twisted. looking back, i think i succeeded more than i realized at the time. this is a difficult listen that would be appealing to fans of the obscurantist reaches of 80s punk and 90s grunge. i manage to maintain a strange sense of melody, though. in truth, my current adult self is somewhat impressed with my teenaged self at this current point.
that being said, it should not be forgotten that i was fifteen. i am at times rather crude, and i display a childlike understanding of certain issues. most poetry written at the age of fifteen is not particularly insightful. again, though, i surprise myself at points.
this is the first time i'm publishing these demos in any form. i've remained frighteningly self-conscious of them over the years. over the last seventeen years, the audience has been extremely limited. initial reactions suggested i take some time to perfect my performance skills, particularly my drumming skills. however, this indicated a lack of understanding of my intent in the overall sound. the playing is quite purposefully abstract with the aim of exploring mental illness.
the demos were initially dub-mastered onto a 110 minute tape that would have flipped after the eighth track. that tape was at some point recorded into a soundblaster and compressed very heavily; this is the only source of the material that i still have. so, i had to decompress the files from those 128 (or worse) kbps mp3s and run them through some digital mastering equipment in an attempt to "undo" the compression. what that is is a half-effective trick to recover data that is in actuality forever lost. nonetheless, i should point out that while these files were recorded entirely in 1996, they were substantially digitally modified in late 2013. finalized on june 26, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
i consider this an archival release with little direct listening value. i've pointed out repeatedly that i was 15. however, various segments have been isolated and pulled out for a higher listenability value over here:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inricycled-a
this release also includes a printable j-card insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 2013, 2016).
credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, drums, vocals, keyboards, tapes, sounds, percussion, production.
released december 25, 1996
Saturday, June 25, 2016
new post at the alter-reality
june 25, 1996
the quake soundtrack is really, really, really awesome
my marks were pretty good. As in the important courses, Bs in the unimportant ones. i'm excited about not having to take phys ed anymore next year - it always drives my average down, every year. i get As in english and math and science and then this big, stupid ugly B in phys ed that takes me down a grade point. it's really unfair. who cares about phys ed? why should it kill my average like this? the other class i always get Bs in is french. i'd like to squirm out of it, but i know my dad won't let me. they say it's important to speak french in ottawa, but the truth is that i've never met anybody that speaks french here, ever. supposedly, you need to speak french to get a job in the government. well, that's easy: i won't work for the government, then. they made the rules, not me. i just find it really irrational to have to speak two languages and so i can't study for it because it's just a stupid idea. i'd rather be doing anything else at all. why can't we all just speak one language? i don't even care if it's english. i'd be happy to learn chinese starting tomorrow if it meant i only had to deal with one language. i'd even be happy to learn french tomorrow if i could forget about english altogether. what drives me crazy about learning multiple languages is the redundancy. it's inefficient. illogical. irrational...
i don't know what i'm going to do this summer. i usually spend the summer entirely by myself; i've never had any friends. i went to elementary school on an army base but i didn't live on the army base so there was never anybody around that i went to school with. so, i would just stay inside. last summer, i played a lot of guitar and read a lot of books. my stepmother wants me to get a job, but that sounds like a waste of time. what would i spend the money on? i'd rather not have money and have time than have money and not have time. i don't really understand why she's so insistent. dad says i'm still too young to work and i shouldn't worry about it, but he wants me to go get a social insurance number anyways, just in case. she gets really mad when he says that, and says i'll have to do chores, then, instead. she seems to honestly think that i have a responsibility to pay rent through manual labour in order to stay here. she calls it "room and board".
i hope that what happened last year doesn't happen again. i was having a nice summer until my step-mother took her yearly holidays and forced me to spend the day outside pulling weeds. she insisted i didn't tell my father. so, i was working six hours a day in the hot sun for a whole week. i assumed my allowance would go up as a result as i was doing more than my expected weekly chores, but when i inquired she told me that i was just paying the rent. this made perfect sense to her. it did not make any sense to me at all - so, i refused to pull weeds any longer unless she promised to pay up and she locked me out of the house. she said i was getting evicted. when my dad got home, i explained what had happened and a huge fight erupted. he told me that i was right and she was wrong and took me to the music store and let me pick out $100 worth of cassettes. he wanted me to understand that my labour was worth something and i should never work for free. he said she has a "chemical imbalance" and goes crazy sometimes and it's something we'll both have to live with forever. he said she understands that what she did was wrong. but, they fought about it for a long time afterwards. i don't know if i agree that she thought what she did was wrong.
i think at least a part of the summer is going to be spent in the basement building a sound proof room. dad used to play the drums when he was younger, and he wants a place where he can go back to playing them. my stepmother won't let him get a drum kit because it's too loud. so, he wants to get sound paneling and insulation for an isolated room in the basement. he says he'll need me to help him - and that i should bring some friends over to start a band once we're done. he'll even put a bass in there, too.
i listened to the new soundgarden record a lot this month and really like it, but it's been replaced in my walkman by the new nine inch nails record. my computer is too slow to run quake; i don't have enough ram for it. it can run wolfenstein, but i haven't played wolfenstein in a few years. i only play civ 2, now. but, my step uncle is a really big id games fan and he let me dub a copy of it. he thought the soundtrack was effective in the game, but that it was really funny that anybody might listen to it as music. he says he'd rather listen to the who.
i don't think it's as good as fixed, which is my favourite record of all time. it's different. it's kind of scary, almost. but, i've been listening to it nonstop since sunday and i just can't get out of it.
it's getting late, so i should pretend that i'm going to bed. i'm too old to have a bed time, but i know that people have to get up in the morning so i adjust to it in keeping quiet past a certain time. i can't say when my next update will be. maybe the room will be done?
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/1996/06/the-quake-soundtrack-is-really-really.html
this day was one of loose ends and it took longer than i wanted it to, but i'm completely caught up now and awake and alert enough to keep it going.
this is not surprising.
what is interesting is what happens next.
http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-dnc-platform-committee-fight/
i got my tell-it-as-it-is from dr. west, too. can't find it all in one piece yet, though.
what is interesting is what happens next.
http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-dnc-platform-committee-fight/
i got my tell-it-as-it-is from dr. west, too. can't find it all in one piece yet, though.
i seem to be being carefully tugged back to google+ through redirects, the implication being to chill out and just leave my rants here.
the whole point of this is a reaction to separating google+ from youtube, which i'm still pissed off about. what i want is reintegration.
as it is, i don't want to rant over a social media network. if i was going to do that, i wouldn't use google+. nobody uses google+. i'd use facebook. you know - a social network that people actually read.
the whole point of this is that i need to convert my comments into videos for two reasons:
1) there is no longer any feed for youtube comments (that was the sole purpose of google+ - a feed for youtube).
2) youtube comments are now too volatile to be useful.
if your solution is "use google plus", that's basically equivalent to telling me to talk to the wall. i want to use youtube, for the precise reason that it is not a social network, meaning there are not privacy settings.
i'm trying to create a character for public consumption to sell music, not talk over the internet with friends in a way that the government can archive.
i don't see google+ as comparable to facebook, or in any way in competition to it. a better way to compute the way i'd interpret google+ is as comparable to disqus - it was a way that people can find the comments i've left in various spaces, and interact with the author of those comments.
that's actually a decent solution that will let the google+ douchebags maintain their snowflake status, while opening up youtube: just integrate with disqus. that's really what i'm looking for. not a social front end, exactly, just a home base.
i mean, don't misunderstand me too deeply. i've been transparent for years and years: this is marketing. that's my goal. i'm marketing my music, first and foremost. does that mean i'm being disingenuous? well, not at all. but, if you're actually listening to what i'm saying, you might guess that i'm a little bit less than optimistic about the possibilities for serious revolutionary change in my lifetime.
if there's any ambiguity, let me be clear: north america has precisely zero revolutionary potential. none. nada. zilch. and, i've stated this a few times, already: being an anarchist is a fucking lonely reality in a staunchly neo-liberal society. the social revolution comes first, sure, but we're not even at the point where we can talk about a social revolution. we're at the point where we have to teach people how to spell revolution, and then carefully explain what that means.
when we have social movements here - and elsewhere in the world - the way those social movements manifest themselves is as sitting in the public square and loudly chanting for government to solve our problems. we don't have a clue. and, it's not some accident, either. we're absolutely reliant on the state. even those who want to push back think that what revolution means is "force the government to fix things that are broken".
nobody is talking about seizing means of production or redistributing surplus value. the narrative is just foreign, and when you try and have the discussion all you get is confused stares. what people want is equal opportunity to compete over a free market, and welfare for those that fall through the cracks. go talk to them. have you? because i have. there's no imagination, no forward thinking. you'll walk away thinking that it really is the end of history.
even the ones that call themselves "anarchists" sound like calvinist fundamentalists when you push them on it. the kids drawing circled as think anarchism means social darwinism and the abolition of redistributive mechanisms, rather than the abolition of private property. they get their concept of anarchism out of the dictionary; they think council democracy is statist.
so, sure: i'd like to be a threat to the status quo. i'd love it. i can't do it by myself. and, i'm aware that there's not even the most basic beginnings of a social revolution anywhere at all. i don't know if there ever was, but i don't think we're anywhere close to it.
i think the best hope the left has is for mechanization to take over and force us into communes by necessity. i'm basically waiting for this. i give it thirty years, max. but i'll probably be dead by then.
so, what i have left to care about while i'm waiting for the economic determinism to determine itself is art. that's it.
if you think i'm some kind of threat to the status quo, you should pull your head out of your ass.
and, i'm just not keen on banging my head against the wall until i die of brain damage. fuck that. give me a guitar.
so, you know - take me seriously in the sense of believing that i believe what i'm saying. i do. usually. it's hard to tell when i'm trolling sometimes, sure, but not that hard. but, realize that i know my ideas have no possibility of traction.
maybe i'm ahead of my time. maybe i'm just fucked. who knows....
the whole point of this is a reaction to separating google+ from youtube, which i'm still pissed off about. what i want is reintegration.
as it is, i don't want to rant over a social media network. if i was going to do that, i wouldn't use google+. nobody uses google+. i'd use facebook. you know - a social network that people actually read.
the whole point of this is that i need to convert my comments into videos for two reasons:
1) there is no longer any feed for youtube comments (that was the sole purpose of google+ - a feed for youtube).
2) youtube comments are now too volatile to be useful.
if your solution is "use google plus", that's basically equivalent to telling me to talk to the wall. i want to use youtube, for the precise reason that it is not a social network, meaning there are not privacy settings.
i'm trying to create a character for public consumption to sell music, not talk over the internet with friends in a way that the government can archive.
i don't see google+ as comparable to facebook, or in any way in competition to it. a better way to compute the way i'd interpret google+ is as comparable to disqus - it was a way that people can find the comments i've left in various spaces, and interact with the author of those comments.
that's actually a decent solution that will let the google+ douchebags maintain their snowflake status, while opening up youtube: just integrate with disqus. that's really what i'm looking for. not a social front end, exactly, just a home base.
i mean, don't misunderstand me too deeply. i've been transparent for years and years: this is marketing. that's my goal. i'm marketing my music, first and foremost. does that mean i'm being disingenuous? well, not at all. but, if you're actually listening to what i'm saying, you might guess that i'm a little bit less than optimistic about the possibilities for serious revolutionary change in my lifetime.
if there's any ambiguity, let me be clear: north america has precisely zero revolutionary potential. none. nada. zilch. and, i've stated this a few times, already: being an anarchist is a fucking lonely reality in a staunchly neo-liberal society. the social revolution comes first, sure, but we're not even at the point where we can talk about a social revolution. we're at the point where we have to teach people how to spell revolution, and then carefully explain what that means.
when we have social movements here - and elsewhere in the world - the way those social movements manifest themselves is as sitting in the public square and loudly chanting for government to solve our problems. we don't have a clue. and, it's not some accident, either. we're absolutely reliant on the state. even those who want to push back think that what revolution means is "force the government to fix things that are broken".
nobody is talking about seizing means of production or redistributing surplus value. the narrative is just foreign, and when you try and have the discussion all you get is confused stares. what people want is equal opportunity to compete over a free market, and welfare for those that fall through the cracks. go talk to them. have you? because i have. there's no imagination, no forward thinking. you'll walk away thinking that it really is the end of history.
even the ones that call themselves "anarchists" sound like calvinist fundamentalists when you push them on it. the kids drawing circled as think anarchism means social darwinism and the abolition of redistributive mechanisms, rather than the abolition of private property. they get their concept of anarchism out of the dictionary; they think council democracy is statist.
so, sure: i'd like to be a threat to the status quo. i'd love it. i can't do it by myself. and, i'm aware that there's not even the most basic beginnings of a social revolution anywhere at all. i don't know if there ever was, but i don't think we're anywhere close to it.
i think the best hope the left has is for mechanization to take over and force us into communes by necessity. i'm basically waiting for this. i give it thirty years, max. but i'll probably be dead by then.
so, what i have left to care about while i'm waiting for the economic determinism to determine itself is art. that's it.
if you think i'm some kind of threat to the status quo, you should pull your head out of your ass.
and, i'm just not keen on banging my head against the wall until i die of brain damage. fuck that. give me a guitar.
so, you know - take me seriously in the sense of believing that i believe what i'm saying. i do. usually. it's hard to tell when i'm trolling sometimes, sure, but not that hard. but, realize that i know my ideas have no possibility of traction.
maybe i'm ahead of my time. maybe i'm just fucked. who knows....
i'm finally caught up (which means a week behind), and this is indeed quieting down like i claimed. somehow, i've lost the last several days, although it was more scheduling related than anything else. i guess the 22nd was narrating, before i moved on. then the 23rd was about the appointment, so why turn the machine on? yesterday was just wasted. i've got one more quick round of narration, and then i should be back to a more normal schedule for the rest of the month. i see every reason to think i should have the machine back on after i eat, so some time around noon.
i will hit some shows in july, but it will be more like june than may. i still plan to get through 1.1 by the end of june, and think i can maybe push back to the point of rebuild.
i think i'll probably move relatively quickly once i get the machine back on today.
i know i've claimed i'm shutting this down, but i've been backlogged here for quite a bit. i don't want this to continue, i want to get back to the music production.
i will hit some shows in july, but it will be more like june than may. i still plan to get through 1.1 by the end of june, and think i can maybe push back to the point of rebuild.
i think i'll probably move relatively quickly once i get the machine back on today.
i know i've claimed i'm shutting this down, but i've been backlogged here for quite a bit. i don't want this to continue, i want to get back to the music production.
j reacts to the (specious) claim that trump can't be stupid because he's rich
"he can't be that stupid. he's rich."
rebuttal 1:
"but trump inherited his money!"
rebuttal 2:
"well, he's not really rich, though."
it's actually the wrong argument, in the long run. nowhere have you rejected the premise: that intelligence is somehow correlated with income.
see, that's the lie you need to undermine. it really doesn't matter who wins this election. but, pulling the rug out from under the calvinist mythology does matter....
this is a scatter plot of income and intelligence, from a respected academic publication. this is not a blog post. you need a jstor account to get this.
what it indicates is that there is some correlation between stupidity and poverty, but no correlation at all between intelligence and wealth.
and, look at the society. look at a football player's salary and compare it to a professor's salary. the market rewards criminality, but it does not reward intelligence.
rebuttal 1:
"but trump inherited his money!"
rebuttal 2:
"well, he's not really rich, though."
it's actually the wrong argument, in the long run. nowhere have you rejected the premise: that intelligence is somehow correlated with income.
see, that's the lie you need to undermine. it really doesn't matter who wins this election. but, pulling the rug out from under the calvinist mythology does matter....
this is a scatter plot of income and intelligence, from a respected academic publication. this is not a blog post. you need a jstor account to get this.
what it indicates is that there is some correlation between stupidity and poverty, but no correlation at all between intelligence and wealth.
and, look at the society. look at a football player's salary and compare it to a professor's salary. the market rewards criminality, but it does not reward intelligence.
Friday, June 24, 2016
j reacts to youtube removing carriage returns from comments
in youtube's latest demonstration of illiteracy, it seems to have removed the ability to break over paragraphs in comments.
would you like to know my response? i will gratuitously utilize the reply feature by posting one paragraph per comment.
the problem here is the twitter mentality. if i could go back in time and kill the fucking idiot that came up with a character limit...
would you like to know my response? i will gratuitously utilize the reply feature by posting one paragraph per comment.
the problem here is the twitter mentality. if i could go back in time and kill the fucking idiot that came up with a character limit...
j reacts to bernie sanders' confounding insolence
"Bernie Sanders said Friday he will likely vote for Hillary Clinton for president in November, the strongest expression of support yet from the Vermont senator, but he left the door open that he could change his mind."
this is becoming farce. they just can't deal with the lack of expectation.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/bernie-sanders-will-vote-for-hillary-clinton/index.html
this just in.
bernie sanders has confirmed that he would, in fact, brake if he saw clinton crossing the street.
that's something, anyways. back to you, bob.
this is becoming farce. they just can't deal with the lack of expectation.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/bernie-sanders-will-vote-for-hillary-clinton/index.html
this just in.
bernie sanders has confirmed that he would, in fact, brake if he saw clinton crossing the street.
that's something, anyways. back to you, bob.
j reacts to affirmative action (with a canadian legal analysis)
i don't like affirmative action, either, frankly. it has an absolutely valid critique from the left. but, i think it's a kind of a short term necessity. i've made both arguments about whether this necessity has run it's course, and don't really have a strict opinion on it. i would love to wake up one day and say "we don't need affirmative action anymore". what is clear is that this day is not upon us. what is less clear is if we've made progress or not, and whether this is really the right approach. if we cannot expect progress to come from it, i think the approach should be abandoned and we should try something else.
as a social libertarian, i simply can't agree that this is ideal or an acceptable structural concession to the way society ought to operate. i think that it's best to break this down into three options.
1) the status quo, into perpetuity. that is: society is permanently racist, and we need permanent structural means to balance it out. that would mean we should have affirmative action forever. i absolutely reject this in the most forceful terms possible.
2) society is temporarily racist, and affirmative action is helping us make things better. we're not at the point where we can get rid of it yet, but we're seeing some progress and we should stick with it a little longer - so long as we keep in mind the the end goal of eventually abolishing it. i can live with this, if the evidence upholds it.
3) society is temporarily racist, but affirmative action is not helping us make things better. there has been no appreciable change in social attitudes or hiring practices. employers simply see it as a burden, try to circumvent the law as much as possible and ultimately want to go back to openly racist hiring policies. well, then why are we holding to it if it doesn't work? seems like we need to try something else.
the first option is wrong - that's just ideological. i refuse to accept that racism is normal or inevitable, so i refuse to accept the perpetual necessity of a policy that is only even worth discussing because it is ameliorative. i'm a social libertarian. i'm sorry. if it's working, it's a necessary evil - but i won't stop stressing it as evil.
it's two and three that i'm torn between. the court made a choice. i'm not convinced the evidence upholds it. but, i don't see anybody talking about any better ideas, either.
normally, when you put a policy in place, it comes with an assessment period at the end of it. what have the effects been? has this policy been effective? if so, what have we learned that can improve it? if not, what other ideas exist that might work better?
this issue is just stuck at the political phase. opponents never really accepted it, so advocates have never really stopped fighting for it. but, we're decades into it, now. it's time to stop and evaluate.
as a social libertarian, i simply can't agree that this is ideal or an acceptable structural concession to the way society ought to operate. i think that it's best to break this down into three options.
1) the status quo, into perpetuity. that is: society is permanently racist, and we need permanent structural means to balance it out. that would mean we should have affirmative action forever. i absolutely reject this in the most forceful terms possible.
2) society is temporarily racist, and affirmative action is helping us make things better. we're not at the point where we can get rid of it yet, but we're seeing some progress and we should stick with it a little longer - so long as we keep in mind the the end goal of eventually abolishing it. i can live with this, if the evidence upholds it.
3) society is temporarily racist, but affirmative action is not helping us make things better. there has been no appreciable change in social attitudes or hiring practices. employers simply see it as a burden, try to circumvent the law as much as possible and ultimately want to go back to openly racist hiring policies. well, then why are we holding to it if it doesn't work? seems like we need to try something else.
the first option is wrong - that's just ideological. i refuse to accept that racism is normal or inevitable, so i refuse to accept the perpetual necessity of a policy that is only even worth discussing because it is ameliorative. i'm a social libertarian. i'm sorry. if it's working, it's a necessary evil - but i won't stop stressing it as evil.
it's two and three that i'm torn between. the court made a choice. i'm not convinced the evidence upholds it. but, i don't see anybody talking about any better ideas, either.
normally, when you put a policy in place, it comes with an assessment period at the end of it. what have the effects been? has this policy been effective? if so, what have we learned that can improve it? if not, what other ideas exist that might work better?
this issue is just stuck at the political phase. opponents never really accepted it, so advocates have never really stopped fighting for it. but, we're decades into it, now. it's time to stop and evaluate.
phoenixkhost
News Flash left-wingers...calling people fascist, racist, and bigots does not work.
jessica
so, what if i call hitler a fascist? is that just an empty ad hominem?
let me guess. godwin's law, right?
i think the more important lesson for the left is that you can't argue with fundamentalists. rather, you have to make sure they just don't happen.
what's the cause of this? thatcher destroyed the education system in britain, and nobody did anything to rebuild it.
---
jagheterjonteh
Free movement was not possible before, UK has never been a part of Schengen... I live in Europe and have visited the UK several times. Trade benefits will be worked out in Britain's favor, they are one of the strongest economies in the world. The UK has already benefitted from leaving, the pound has decreased in value and as an export country that is great news. Any other arguments I can demolish for you?
jessica
do you really think the uk is still an export economy?
i guess that's what happens when you use fifty year old textbooks in high schools.
jagheterjonteh
First of all, the UK is not a country. It consists of four nations, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Second, the UK export of 2015 was $503 billion, which is the 9th largest in the world. So definitely still an export country. You're not that Sharp are you?
jessica
it's a 3 trillion dollar economy that's entirely reliant on imports. there were conscious government policies to deindustrialize. the capacity to return to an export economy does not exist. this guy thinks he still lives in the empire. but, it's exactly what the problem is: mass ignorance about the reality of the uk economy in the current century, as a consequence of a horribly broken education system.
(deleted)
jessica
while that claim is not going to actually come out in the numbers (rather, we will learn that conservative voters rejected the pleas of david cameron, which is why he has resigned), i think a moment of pause is required to point out that a big part of what has allowed for the rise of the ukip is the political vacuum created by new labour's swing to the hard right. euro-skeptic parties throughout europe have taken certain economic positions that are usually associated with the left and have been able to gain traction as a consequence of there not really being an actual left.
the mainstream parties are starting to adjust by reorienting themselves, but the damage may already be done. and, yes - trump is somewhat of the same phenomenon.
if you fear trump, you should take brexit as an ominous signal. the root causes are the same: thatcherism in britain, reaganism in the united states. you claim americans could not be so stupid? note that the british just proved they are that stupid, whether by accident or by design.
---
jessica
see, what's happening here is that toza doesn't like being called a racist because it hurts his feelings. he'd prefer a more politically correct term, like "integrationally challenged".
:)
Broke Ass Dollar Store Ellen
calling racist people racists? how dare we!
all this political correctness making it hard for racists to be bigots without consequences, boo-hoo-hoo.
jessica
you need to be a lot more sensitive about their feelings. a difficulty accepting others is something that can be disabling on a day-to-day basis, which just exacerbates their existing problems. they need hugs.
News Flash left-wingers...calling people fascist, racist, and bigots does not work.
jessica
so, what if i call hitler a fascist? is that just an empty ad hominem?
let me guess. godwin's law, right?
i think the more important lesson for the left is that you can't argue with fundamentalists. rather, you have to make sure they just don't happen.
what's the cause of this? thatcher destroyed the education system in britain, and nobody did anything to rebuild it.
---
jagheterjonteh
Free movement was not possible before, UK has never been a part of Schengen... I live in Europe and have visited the UK several times. Trade benefits will be worked out in Britain's favor, they are one of the strongest economies in the world. The UK has already benefitted from leaving, the pound has decreased in value and as an export country that is great news. Any other arguments I can demolish for you?
jessica
do you really think the uk is still an export economy?
i guess that's what happens when you use fifty year old textbooks in high schools.
jagheterjonteh
First of all, the UK is not a country. It consists of four nations, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Second, the UK export of 2015 was $503 billion, which is the 9th largest in the world. So definitely still an export country. You're not that Sharp are you?
jessica
it's a 3 trillion dollar economy that's entirely reliant on imports. there were conscious government policies to deindustrialize. the capacity to return to an export economy does not exist. this guy thinks he still lives in the empire. but, it's exactly what the problem is: mass ignorance about the reality of the uk economy in the current century, as a consequence of a horribly broken education system.
(deleted)
jessica
while that claim is not going to actually come out in the numbers (rather, we will learn that conservative voters rejected the pleas of david cameron, which is why he has resigned), i think a moment of pause is required to point out that a big part of what has allowed for the rise of the ukip is the political vacuum created by new labour's swing to the hard right. euro-skeptic parties throughout europe have taken certain economic positions that are usually associated with the left and have been able to gain traction as a consequence of there not really being an actual left.
the mainstream parties are starting to adjust by reorienting themselves, but the damage may already be done. and, yes - trump is somewhat of the same phenomenon.
if you fear trump, you should take brexit as an ominous signal. the root causes are the same: thatcherism in britain, reaganism in the united states. you claim americans could not be so stupid? note that the british just proved they are that stupid, whether by accident or by design.
---
jessica
see, what's happening here is that toza doesn't like being called a racist because it hurts his feelings. he'd prefer a more politically correct term, like "integrationally challenged".
:)
Broke Ass Dollar Store Ellen
calling racist people racists? how dare we!
all this political correctness making it hard for racists to be bigots without consequences, boo-hoo-hoo.
jessica
you need to be a lot more sensitive about their feelings. a difficulty accepting others is something that can be disabling on a day-to-day basis, which just exacerbates their existing problems. they need hugs.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
j reacts to the pseudo-left dropping the secular facade around the orlando shooting
so, apparently homosexuality is such a debilitating mental illness that it can create such a level of conflict in people of faith that it can drive them to shoot up nightclubs they frequent.
thanks, "left" media.
the specious nature of the argument aside (and the fact that it requires the rejection of direct statements by the attacker to take it seriously), this is actually useful because it drops the secular facade: much of what we call the "progressive left" in north america is really the scattered remnants of american religious fundamentalism. sometimes, they remind us of what they really think.
for those that legitimately mean well, please take a step back. this narrative only harms the queer community. and, because it so obviously wrong we don't have to have discussions about hard truths. the discussion ought to be about convenient lies.
but, as mentioned, i'm not naive. nobody wants to talk about ending the war in afghanistan. that would be seen as some kind of concession. instead, the media will continue to propagate nonsense, then pretend it's confused when the attacks continue.
thanks, "left" media.
the specious nature of the argument aside (and the fact that it requires the rejection of direct statements by the attacker to take it seriously), this is actually useful because it drops the secular facade: much of what we call the "progressive left" in north america is really the scattered remnants of american religious fundamentalism. sometimes, they remind us of what they really think.
for those that legitimately mean well, please take a step back. this narrative only harms the queer community. and, because it so obviously wrong we don't have to have discussions about hard truths. the discussion ought to be about convenient lies.
but, as mentioned, i'm not naive. nobody wants to talk about ending the war in afghanistan. that would be seen as some kind of concession. instead, the media will continue to propagate nonsense, then pretend it's confused when the attacks continue.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
i think that the balance of evidence admits waukesha as a very limited special case. i haven't read the case, but if it limits the situation to the very limited special conditions then this is actually a positive precedent.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/waukesha-water-leamington-mayor-1.3646880
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/waukesha-water-leamington-mayor-1.3646880
j reacts to brexit from the long view of history
i said something snotty about the brexit before, but i'm going to expand a little on it.
there's a broad narrative in british history that is a long struggle against roman colonization and has worked itself out through religion, culture, science, language - it's very broad. the romans won quite a few battles, but have never really managed to win the war. britain has adopted ideas from the romans, but it has largely managed to resist romanization in a way that is unique in europe. sweden, for example, has also resisted romanization - but it was never actively sought after by roman civilization the way that britain has been. the british have singularly succeeded in fighting the romans off.
in the process of it's long struggle against roman colonization, britain eventually emerged as a colonial power unto it's own. this allowed it a level of financial power that allowed it to eclipse roman civilization. but, the romans never fully submitted, either.
the end of the second world war left both the romans and the british under control of a common occupier, who did something remarkably british: they drew arbitrary lines on maps that ignored thousands of years of history, solely for their own interests. nato exists for american strategic purposes. the eu exists to strengthen the nato alliance. but, the boundaries drawn on the map ignore the historical reality that britain is defined by it's opposition to roman colonialism. the alliance is inherently unstable because it ignores the historical facts.
we don't talk of the situation like this, because we're taught to see imperialism through the lens of racial dominance. the europeans are white, so they are our allies and not our subjects. but, the collapse of the eu is fundamentally not different than the collapse of the sykes-picot line. it's drawn out of similar historical forces at play, and out of imperial ignorance.
it may seem as though the world cannot go back to how it existed in 1933. but, a closer analysis should reveal that the british empire does still exist, and that it's capital was moved from london to washington. what the americans call the revolutionary war should be viewed through the long lens of history as a civil war between factions in the anglo-american empire. and, to pry the homeland free from the romans is not to grant it any meaningful kind of independence.
so, what is brexit? in some ways, it's a false choice. britain is a small country, it can hardly go it alone. but, it does have a real choice between being a province of rome and a province of canada.
it should be viewed less as a breaking apart and more as a coming home: like justinian re-entering rome.
have i explained the trotsykists? if you're looking at it from a distance, you might think the trostkyists are better than the other marxists. they really aren't, except in one way - they are very good at analyzing foreign policy. the reason for this is that they have no interest in the propaganda. they are almost unique in this. they don't dissect it, they don't dance around it, they don't counter-act it - they simply ignore it. they just tell it like it is, as though the western narrative doesn't exist at all.
however, one should not forget that the wsws is the propaganda arm of the trotskyist international; i'm citing pravda. but, i'm citing pravda with the understanding that it happens to be really good at doing this one thing.
i'm not claiming that brexit is a conspiracy by american secret agents to react to the rise of an independent germany. i'm just pointing out that the rise of an independent germany is the more important story, here - and that international reactions to brexit will be defined more by how the various actors are interpreting the new reality in germany than by how they are interpreting the new reality in britain.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/21/stei-j21.html
the pound is dead. the dollar wins. the euro loses.
you probably have no legitimate self-interest in this.
there's a broad narrative in british history that is a long struggle against roman colonization and has worked itself out through religion, culture, science, language - it's very broad. the romans won quite a few battles, but have never really managed to win the war. britain has adopted ideas from the romans, but it has largely managed to resist romanization in a way that is unique in europe. sweden, for example, has also resisted romanization - but it was never actively sought after by roman civilization the way that britain has been. the british have singularly succeeded in fighting the romans off.
in the process of it's long struggle against roman colonization, britain eventually emerged as a colonial power unto it's own. this allowed it a level of financial power that allowed it to eclipse roman civilization. but, the romans never fully submitted, either.
the end of the second world war left both the romans and the british under control of a common occupier, who did something remarkably british: they drew arbitrary lines on maps that ignored thousands of years of history, solely for their own interests. nato exists for american strategic purposes. the eu exists to strengthen the nato alliance. but, the boundaries drawn on the map ignore the historical reality that britain is defined by it's opposition to roman colonialism. the alliance is inherently unstable because it ignores the historical facts.
we don't talk of the situation like this, because we're taught to see imperialism through the lens of racial dominance. the europeans are white, so they are our allies and not our subjects. but, the collapse of the eu is fundamentally not different than the collapse of the sykes-picot line. it's drawn out of similar historical forces at play, and out of imperial ignorance.
it may seem as though the world cannot go back to how it existed in 1933. but, a closer analysis should reveal that the british empire does still exist, and that it's capital was moved from london to washington. what the americans call the revolutionary war should be viewed through the long lens of history as a civil war between factions in the anglo-american empire. and, to pry the homeland free from the romans is not to grant it any meaningful kind of independence.
so, what is brexit? in some ways, it's a false choice. britain is a small country, it can hardly go it alone. but, it does have a real choice between being a province of rome and a province of canada.
it should be viewed less as a breaking apart and more as a coming home: like justinian re-entering rome.
have i explained the trotsykists? if you're looking at it from a distance, you might think the trostkyists are better than the other marxists. they really aren't, except in one way - they are very good at analyzing foreign policy. the reason for this is that they have no interest in the propaganda. they are almost unique in this. they don't dissect it, they don't dance around it, they don't counter-act it - they simply ignore it. they just tell it like it is, as though the western narrative doesn't exist at all.
however, one should not forget that the wsws is the propaganda arm of the trotskyist international; i'm citing pravda. but, i'm citing pravda with the understanding that it happens to be really good at doing this one thing.
i'm not claiming that brexit is a conspiracy by american secret agents to react to the rise of an independent germany. i'm just pointing out that the rise of an independent germany is the more important story, here - and that international reactions to brexit will be defined more by how the various actors are interpreting the new reality in germany than by how they are interpreting the new reality in britain.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/21/stei-j21.html
the pound is dead. the dollar wins. the euro loses.
you probably have no legitimate self-interest in this.
this has been solved, from my understanding - it's a combination of the industry on the island with the salt mines under windsor. what's happening is that the vibrations are sending sound waves through the old mines, which is literally shaking the whole ground.
i'm on the other side of oullette, and i've never heard anything over here. but if i was living around lasalle, i might be more concerned about sink holes swallowing my house....
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-hum-discussion-goes-to-washington-1.3645376
i'm on the other side of oullette, and i've never heard anything over here. but if i was living around lasalle, i might be more concerned about sink holes swallowing my house....
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-hum-discussion-goes-to-washington-1.3645376
yeah, i got some hip for you, hillary. how 'bout some hip surgery.
damn.
somebody find me footage of a young hillary rockin' to some huey lewis. i'm counting on you, internet.
where's her climate policy, anyways?
"you can't dress like me"
https://vimeo.com/154519080
i'd be loathe to call myself a hipster. i'm actually willing to go all in on gen x and just stick with being an open-minded punk.
me? meh. i'll close this line of thinking with some frank, who more accurately represents what i think about hipsters: i'm sympathetic, really, but the actual honest truth is that they really are fucking dipshits.
in the end, the hipsters will love hillary as she beats the shit out of them. she doesn't need to try that hard. she'll carry hipsters. it's the educated young folk that she'll have problems with.
damn.
somebody find me footage of a young hillary rockin' to some huey lewis. i'm counting on you, internet.
where's her climate policy, anyways?
"you can't dress like me"
https://vimeo.com/154519080
i'd be loathe to call myself a hipster. i'm actually willing to go all in on gen x and just stick with being an open-minded punk.
me? meh. i'll close this line of thinking with some frank, who more accurately represents what i think about hipsters: i'm sympathetic, really, but the actual honest truth is that they really are fucking dipshits.
in the end, the hipsters will love hillary as she beats the shit out of them. she doesn't need to try that hard. she'll carry hipsters. it's the educated young folk that she'll have problems with.
seems like he had his registration switched.
you know, there's a serious branch of constitutional scholarship that argues the constitution is a practical joke.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/bernie-sanders-senate-lunch-wrong-room/
you know, there's a serious branch of constitutional scholarship that argues the constitution is a practical joke.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/bernie-sanders-senate-lunch-wrong-room/
balderdashery G
I had no idea it was that flagrantly bad. I wonder if it's that bad here in Canada.
jessica
canada doesn't have anything comparable to a primary system, or a president for that matter, so it's a meaningless comparison. our prime minister is the leader of the largest party and could in theory be removed by a confidence vote in parliament; party leaders are chosen entirely by party members, so the idea of disenfranchising independents is incoherent on it's face.
in fact, we don't even vote for parties at all. we vote for independent members of the house of commons, who then choose to align themselves in parties afterwards. or, that's the technical way it's supposed to be. you're supposed to vote for john smith as an individual. when john smith gets to ottawa he decides what party he wants to sit in after he's been elected. further, he can then switch parties on his discretion - because you voted for him, not his party. that's a little disconnected from reality, but it's the way things are supposed to be.
regarding nomination battles, half of the time there aren't even elections for nomination at all. so, one doesn't run to represent the party. the party appoints it's nominee. that might seem undemocratic, but you have to go back to the system being about the individual, not the party. the flip side is that it's very easy to get on a ballot in canada. so, we don't have nomination battles to represent the party - instead we let just about anybody run and then let the party choose which independent it wishes to back. it's hard to make a decision about which is a more democratic process. note that we don't have a two-party system, and we routinely elect at least a few independents.
in terms of voting in the actual election, all that is required is a health card - and if you don't have a health card, you truly shouldn't be voting.
so, you could argue we don't have to suppress voting because the system is closed. but, we compensate for that with a less partisan system.
you could think of it like this. in the united states, the system restricts the number of parties you can vote for but lets you pick who represents the limited number of party options. so, it restricts your options, but then gives you more control in shaping those restricted options.
in canada, the system lets you vote any which way you could want to, but then lets the parties endorse specific candidates. so, it gives you more options, and then lets the parties decide which options they want to back; in canada you may have less control in shaping the parties, but you also have more (viable) options to choose from.
it's pros and cons, and a lot of subjectivity. direct comparisons are perilous.
I had no idea it was that flagrantly bad. I wonder if it's that bad here in Canada.
jessica
canada doesn't have anything comparable to a primary system, or a president for that matter, so it's a meaningless comparison. our prime minister is the leader of the largest party and could in theory be removed by a confidence vote in parliament; party leaders are chosen entirely by party members, so the idea of disenfranchising independents is incoherent on it's face.
in fact, we don't even vote for parties at all. we vote for independent members of the house of commons, who then choose to align themselves in parties afterwards. or, that's the technical way it's supposed to be. you're supposed to vote for john smith as an individual. when john smith gets to ottawa he decides what party he wants to sit in after he's been elected. further, he can then switch parties on his discretion - because you voted for him, not his party. that's a little disconnected from reality, but it's the way things are supposed to be.
regarding nomination battles, half of the time there aren't even elections for nomination at all. so, one doesn't run to represent the party. the party appoints it's nominee. that might seem undemocratic, but you have to go back to the system being about the individual, not the party. the flip side is that it's very easy to get on a ballot in canada. so, we don't have nomination battles to represent the party - instead we let just about anybody run and then let the party choose which independent it wishes to back. it's hard to make a decision about which is a more democratic process. note that we don't have a two-party system, and we routinely elect at least a few independents.
in terms of voting in the actual election, all that is required is a health card - and if you don't have a health card, you truly shouldn't be voting.
so, you could argue we don't have to suppress voting because the system is closed. but, we compensate for that with a less partisan system.
you could think of it like this. in the united states, the system restricts the number of parties you can vote for but lets you pick who represents the limited number of party options. so, it restricts your options, but then gives you more control in shaping those restricted options.
in canada, the system lets you vote any which way you could want to, but then lets the parties endorse specific candidates. so, it gives you more options, and then lets the parties decide which options they want to back; in canada you may have less control in shaping the parties, but you also have more (viable) options to choose from.
it's pros and cons, and a lot of subjectivity. direct comparisons are perilous.
well, i think i found a bed bug
i'm not an entomologist, but it looks like one to me.
i have it in a ziploc bag in the freezer.
a few things.
1) i have no physical signs of bites, and no reason to think the bugs have been downstairs for a long period.
2) i have no proposed source.
3) so, they would have to have migrated from upstairs to downstairs - and i think the totality of evidence makes that obvious.
there's a non-trivial possibility that it's some other kind of bug. again: i'm no entomologist. but, it does certainly look like one to me.
i have no requests for action in the basement. again: i have not been bit. but, if you required evidence for action upstairs then i may have it for you.
(pause)
the only other thing i can think of is that it might be booklice.
fwiw, i found it walking on the hallway floor - nowhere near the bed.
anyways - i don't have bites. i can't complain if i don't have bites! but if you need evidence for upstairs, i may have some.
or, if the problem from upstairs has become more obvious over the last little while, it may be spreading.
(pause)
on second thought, i saw a second bug this morning and i think it's not a bed bug but a roach nymph. i'll hang on to the body for a few days.
that would be more consistent with what i've noticed down here.
i've checked my body carefully - still no signs of bites.
j
i have it in a ziploc bag in the freezer.
a few things.
1) i have no physical signs of bites, and no reason to think the bugs have been downstairs for a long period.
2) i have no proposed source.
3) so, they would have to have migrated from upstairs to downstairs - and i think the totality of evidence makes that obvious.
there's a non-trivial possibility that it's some other kind of bug. again: i'm no entomologist. but, it does certainly look like one to me.
i have no requests for action in the basement. again: i have not been bit. but, if you required evidence for action upstairs then i may have it for you.
(pause)
the only other thing i can think of is that it might be booklice.
fwiw, i found it walking on the hallway floor - nowhere near the bed.
anyways - i don't have bites. i can't complain if i don't have bites! but if you need evidence for upstairs, i may have some.
or, if the problem from upstairs has become more obvious over the last little while, it may be spreading.
(pause)
on second thought, i saw a second bug this morning and i think it's not a bed bug but a roach nymph. i'll hang on to the body for a few days.
that would be more consistent with what i've noticed down here.
i've checked my body carefully - still no signs of bites.
j
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
a new way forward for the koala central command is coming
the koala central command would like to announce that it is partnering with the free market to bring our fugitive, deathtokoalas, to justice. we are frustrated that she remains at large, still. we believe that the "market forces" that the free market offers is the ideal set of tools that we require and have been lacking. our collaboration will begin once a trained economist from the free market arrives and teaches us how to summon the invisible hand to control our enemies through targeted incentives. all hail koalas!
so, what are the polls *actually* at in the us election right now?
we all know it's a two-party system, so that's how the pollsters work. but, this is what they're *actually* picking up.
1) clinton - 40%
2) neither - 30%
3) trump - 30%
trump is actually running in third right now, behind "they're both unelectable".
if you needle them a little further, and even the staunchest big tenter *must* with those numbers, you get:
1) democrats (clinton) - 40%
2) republicans (trump) - 30%
3) none of the above - 15%
4) libertarians (johnson) - 10%
5) greens (stein) - 5%
so, this election is very live and currently very much defined by voter dissatisfaction. obviously, the smart money right now is on clinton. but, the actual public mood right now is that people are looking for a way out of that inevitability.
the numbers are volatile. anything could happen. the libertarians will probably not catch the republicans - the religious right is too powerful, and they're more likely to stay home than swing to the libertarians. but, they might, if trump can't keep his leg out of his mouth. i think the greens have a better chance of splitting on the left, as sanders supporters get collectively less and less interested in clinton as she moves further and further to the right.
by the end of it, the spectrum could shift in such a way that pulls the republicans right off of it and allows the democrats to emerge victorious as the new moderate right; that would be the creation of a new "party system", which is something that happens in american politics.
but, the headlines are warped. they're telling you clinton is headed for an easy win, by ignoring the full spectrum. in the end, it might work out. don't count on it.
the truth is that they're both running in the 30s, and trump is running on the low end of that - very close to 30.
we all know it's a two-party system, so that's how the pollsters work. but, this is what they're *actually* picking up.
1) clinton - 40%
2) neither - 30%
3) trump - 30%
trump is actually running in third right now, behind "they're both unelectable".
if you needle them a little further, and even the staunchest big tenter *must* with those numbers, you get:
1) democrats (clinton) - 40%
2) republicans (trump) - 30%
3) none of the above - 15%
4) libertarians (johnson) - 10%
5) greens (stein) - 5%
so, this election is very live and currently very much defined by voter dissatisfaction. obviously, the smart money right now is on clinton. but, the actual public mood right now is that people are looking for a way out of that inevitability.
the numbers are volatile. anything could happen. the libertarians will probably not catch the republicans - the religious right is too powerful, and they're more likely to stay home than swing to the libertarians. but, they might, if trump can't keep his leg out of his mouth. i think the greens have a better chance of splitting on the left, as sanders supporters get collectively less and less interested in clinton as she moves further and further to the right.
by the end of it, the spectrum could shift in such a way that pulls the republicans right off of it and allows the democrats to emerge victorious as the new moderate right; that would be the creation of a new "party system", which is something that happens in american politics.
but, the headlines are warped. they're telling you clinton is headed for an easy win, by ignoring the full spectrum. in the end, it might work out. don't count on it.
the truth is that they're both running in the 30s, and trump is running on the low end of that - very close to 30.
j reacts to polling for the greens and the possibility of positive feedback cycles
greens at 7? libertarians at 9? da fuck?
well, it's probably an underestimate, actually - "fuck the two party system" is actually running close to thirty percent right now - and arguably ahead of trump.
i've pointed out previously that i don't think the libertarians can hold that - presuming trump aligns with his party. on the other hand, the more that clinton aligns with her party, the more she alienates green supporters. that's a very different dynamic: trump gets stronger as he moderates for the general, whereas clinton gets weaker.
if jill stein can hold those numbers, they could very well double overnight once the word gets out. if that happens, she's going to hit a bit of a brick wall around 15%, in the short run. but, if she can get there, that support may be permanent.
like i say: tipping points. half of 50 is 25. that's too much. 15-20 isn't. then, we've got a three-way race and the debates over what people actually want can begin.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/06/21/rel7b.-.2016.general.pdf
^lots of ifs, there, of course. hypotheticals on hypotheticals.
just, don't be shocked. it's plausible.
well, it's probably an underestimate, actually - "fuck the two party system" is actually running close to thirty percent right now - and arguably ahead of trump.
i've pointed out previously that i don't think the libertarians can hold that - presuming trump aligns with his party. on the other hand, the more that clinton aligns with her party, the more she alienates green supporters. that's a very different dynamic: trump gets stronger as he moderates for the general, whereas clinton gets weaker.
if jill stein can hold those numbers, they could very well double overnight once the word gets out. if that happens, she's going to hit a bit of a brick wall around 15%, in the short run. but, if she can get there, that support may be permanent.
like i say: tipping points. half of 50 is 25. that's too much. 15-20 isn't. then, we've got a three-way race and the debates over what people actually want can begin.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/06/21/rel7b.-.2016.general.pdf
^lots of ifs, there, of course. hypotheticals on hypotheticals.
just, don't be shocked. it's plausible.
Monday, June 20, 2016
the reason we have a cbs is that the red cross screwed up the blood supply. we nationalized it in response to market failure. if something happens, and it's tied to a shift in policy...
i expect the government will eventually lift the ban, but it's going to need to protect *itself* first. this is more about the history of blood services in canada than it is about homophobia. you have to understand *that* history to realize why there's push back against anything that modifies a system that has worked well up to this point.
when the changes happen, they're going to be broader than this, too - because, as mentioned, this is symptomatic of broader, underlying systemic issues.
they should be applauded for not kneejerking, really, and holding to the script rather than being affected by political pressure.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gay-men-blood-donations-1.3643761
i expect the government will eventually lift the ban, but it's going to need to protect *itself* first. this is more about the history of blood services in canada than it is about homophobia. you have to understand *that* history to realize why there's push back against anything that modifies a system that has worked well up to this point.
when the changes happen, they're going to be broader than this, too - because, as mentioned, this is symptomatic of broader, underlying systemic issues.
they should be applauded for not kneejerking, really, and holding to the script rather than being affected by political pressure.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gay-men-blood-donations-1.3643761
j reacts to the smoke and mirrors around warren as "anti-establishment" pick for vp
see, like it or not, this is what i would expect hillary's logic to be something like: she wants an insider to help her get an agenda through, and warren is consequently not just useless but a potential liability.
i think the article is playing up the liability aspect, but that's probably to send a message.
i've been pushing back against the idea that warren is in any way left-wing: i think she's a republican from a past era, and kind of a fish out of water. there's a pretty big swath of space to the left of ted cruz before you get to be called left wing. she's a good way to the right of center, still. rumour has it that she is even the author of clinton's bizarrely calvinist "debt-free tuition" plan that would convert students into slave labour for corporate interests - but would keep them out of debt. and, truthfully, probably out of graduation, too - it's hard to study when you're making shoes for nike. it's the next logical step of the school-to-prison pipeline system, really.
but, that's not why she won't get the pick; if anything, it's a reason she would. the reason she won't is that she just doesn't have those backroom channels.
i haven't seen bill's name thrown around. but, he might honestly be her ideal choice. that's what she really wants:
1) somebody who can make backroom deals of questionable legality.
2) somebody who is a foreign policy hawk.
i still think franken is the only pick i've seen that i'd actually support. but, i've been clear that i don't expect her to pick somebody i'd support.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489
i think the article is playing up the liability aspect, but that's probably to send a message.
i've been pushing back against the idea that warren is in any way left-wing: i think she's a republican from a past era, and kind of a fish out of water. there's a pretty big swath of space to the left of ted cruz before you get to be called left wing. she's a good way to the right of center, still. rumour has it that she is even the author of clinton's bizarrely calvinist "debt-free tuition" plan that would convert students into slave labour for corporate interests - but would keep them out of debt. and, truthfully, probably out of graduation, too - it's hard to study when you're making shoes for nike. it's the next logical step of the school-to-prison pipeline system, really.
but, that's not why she won't get the pick; if anything, it's a reason she would. the reason she won't is that she just doesn't have those backroom channels.
i haven't seen bill's name thrown around. but, he might honestly be her ideal choice. that's what she really wants:
1) somebody who can make backroom deals of questionable legality.
2) somebody who is a foreign policy hawk.
i still think franken is the only pick i've seen that i'd actually support. but, i've been clear that i don't expect her to pick somebody i'd support.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489
i was eating when i started thinking of something and a quite natural thought entered into my head: why would i care what people half my age think?
i think that this is something very different than what most of us have grown up around, but i don't think it's a fleeting thought. rather, i think that the boomer obsession with youth may turn out to be the anomaly.
i've never been in a world where there are more young people than old people; there have always been more old people, they have always had the power, they have always had the money and they have always made the decisions. i have not been conditioned to look to young people to make decisions - and that is progress. the premise is absurd. we're lucky we survived that bottleneck.
i didn't sing my generation.
i think that gen x is going to actually look forward to being old. that's a big change. no anti-aging creams, no fountains of youth - we're too cynical. or do we know better? we're going to be cranky. we're going to look down on the millenials until the day that we die. and we're going to enjoy it.
i don't care what people half my age think, i don't feel bad about it and i don't expect it to ever change.
i think that this is something very different than what most of us have grown up around, but i don't think it's a fleeting thought. rather, i think that the boomer obsession with youth may turn out to be the anomaly.
i've never been in a world where there are more young people than old people; there have always been more old people, they have always had the power, they have always had the money and they have always made the decisions. i have not been conditioned to look to young people to make decisions - and that is progress. the premise is absurd. we're lucky we survived that bottleneck.
i didn't sing my generation.
i think that gen x is going to actually look forward to being old. that's a big change. no anti-aging creams, no fountains of youth - we're too cynical. or do we know better? we're going to be cranky. we're going to look down on the millenials until the day that we die. and we're going to enjoy it.
i don't care what people half my age think, i don't feel bad about it and i don't expect it to ever change.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
19-06-2016: j reacts to silence about taxation as a distributive tool during gentrification debates
if chinese investors want to come in and drive up property taxes, the truth is that that benefits everybody in the long run. you just need to get those property taxes spent on transit options and real estate developers looking towards more modest developments. i've never understood the arguments against gentrification; the focus should be on pushing governments to help people adapt to gentrification by ensuring that the money gets (re)distributed fairly.
that said, there's no excuse for idle property and i would support laws against idling property.
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouvers-housing-affordability-crisis-making-neighbourhoods-inhospitable-for-middle-class-trudeau
i've run into some anti-gentrification activists in detroit, and they just end up spinning themselves around in circles.
you realize that the source of the problem in detroit is that the city has no tax base, right?
"yes"
so, you must realize that the city should be doing everything it possibly can to bring back it's tax base, then?
"it's destroying the character of the city."
well, the "character of the city" is literal urban decay. the city is falling apart.
"we need to spend more on infrastructure, and our schools are falling apart and .... "
but, you're bankrupt because you don't have a tax base.
"absolutely true."
so, shouldn't you be trying to attract wealthier people to the city?
"no, because it will change the city."
but, the city is falling apart. shouldn't it change?
"absolutely. we should be spending millions on ..."
but you're bankrupt.
"yup."
so, shouldn't you be trying to attract wealthier property owners?
"no. because ..."
eventually, i provide an answer.
ok. i understand that gentrification destroys neighbourhoods. but, then why don't we take that tax money and build new social housing?
"that's....that's...that's communism!"
i thought you were an anarchist?
"sure. but, you'll never get city council to agree."
so, you've deduced that you're better off barricading out the wealthy and trying to be happy in poverty, then.
"we need to spend more money on schools. that will help us out of poverty."
i see.
see, in canada we actually do this: we tax the rich to build low income housing projects. we build neighbourhoods with both types of housing. it's not weird to us. you'll hear the odd grumble about communism, but most of us don't mind. so, we don't really have the debate about gentrification. it does seep it's way up here, but it's usually badly applied by the clueless and generally doesn't actually make any sense because you're usually actually talking about city owned property. and, in the rare circumstance when you actually are talking about market rents, the real issue is that the city has a really long wait to get into subsidized housing - and that what the city needs is not a stop on development but a boost in it.
that said, there's no excuse for idle property and i would support laws against idling property.
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouvers-housing-affordability-crisis-making-neighbourhoods-inhospitable-for-middle-class-trudeau
i've run into some anti-gentrification activists in detroit, and they just end up spinning themselves around in circles.
you realize that the source of the problem in detroit is that the city has no tax base, right?
"yes"
so, you must realize that the city should be doing everything it possibly can to bring back it's tax base, then?
"it's destroying the character of the city."
well, the "character of the city" is literal urban decay. the city is falling apart.
"we need to spend more on infrastructure, and our schools are falling apart and .... "
but, you're bankrupt because you don't have a tax base.
"absolutely true."
so, shouldn't you be trying to attract wealthier people to the city?
"no, because it will change the city."
but, the city is falling apart. shouldn't it change?
"absolutely. we should be spending millions on ..."
but you're bankrupt.
"yup."
so, shouldn't you be trying to attract wealthier property owners?
"no. because ..."
eventually, i provide an answer.
ok. i understand that gentrification destroys neighbourhoods. but, then why don't we take that tax money and build new social housing?
"that's....that's...that's communism!"
i thought you were an anarchist?
"sure. but, you'll never get city council to agree."
so, you've deduced that you're better off barricading out the wealthy and trying to be happy in poverty, then.
"we need to spend more money on schools. that will help us out of poverty."
i see.
see, in canada we actually do this: we tax the rich to build low income housing projects. we build neighbourhoods with both types of housing. it's not weird to us. you'll hear the odd grumble about communism, but most of us don't mind. so, we don't really have the debate about gentrification. it does seep it's way up here, but it's usually badly applied by the clueless and generally doesn't actually make any sense because you're usually actually talking about city owned property. and, in the rare circumstance when you actually are talking about market rents, the real issue is that the city has a really long wait to get into subsidized housing - and that what the city needs is not a stop on development but a boost in it.
19-06-2016: j reacts to the clinton machine's strategic objective to destroy bernie sanders
he shouldn't back down from this.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502
if the black caucus wants to uphold an undemocratic process for their own benefit, let them do that.
i think the focus should be making them articulate that, not buckling to "minority rights".
the reality is that the black caucus is pretty much the most conservative wing of the whole party. they're not allies of anybody but the establishment and the status quo. not only should he not shy away from articulating this, but he should accentuate his articulation of this - with the end goal of black caucus replacement.
what has the black caucus done for blacks recently? not a whole lot. get that out there. get some turnover.
so, if they want to go after him for the purposes of media optics, he should take them on. first, he doesn't really have a choice. second, it's a noble goal, anyways.
and if the party splits? so be it. i'm sick of right-wing democrats, and i realize that the black vote is a big part of the reason that we have such a hard time getting a liberal nominee. that split might be required to get a serious liberal nominee, and if it is i'll take the split over the big tent. the big tent is a dead end...
i think he can get some turnover - or at least be a serious enough of a threat for turnover to get them to back down.
i need to be clear: if he can get some turnover in the black caucus and force it to the left, it could be the single most important thing he accomplishes.
go after them.
https://newrepublic.com/article/130930/congressional-black-caucus-lost-conscience
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502
if the black caucus wants to uphold an undemocratic process for their own benefit, let them do that.
i think the focus should be making them articulate that, not buckling to "minority rights".
the reality is that the black caucus is pretty much the most conservative wing of the whole party. they're not allies of anybody but the establishment and the status quo. not only should he not shy away from articulating this, but he should accentuate his articulation of this - with the end goal of black caucus replacement.
what has the black caucus done for blacks recently? not a whole lot. get that out there. get some turnover.
so, if they want to go after him for the purposes of media optics, he should take them on. first, he doesn't really have a choice. second, it's a noble goal, anyways.
and if the party splits? so be it. i'm sick of right-wing democrats, and i realize that the black vote is a big part of the reason that we have such a hard time getting a liberal nominee. that split might be required to get a serious liberal nominee, and if it is i'll take the split over the big tent. the big tent is a dead end...
i think he can get some turnover - or at least be a serious enough of a threat for turnover to get them to back down.
i need to be clear: if he can get some turnover in the black caucus and force it to the left, it could be the single most important thing he accomplishes.
go after them.
https://newrepublic.com/article/130930/congressional-black-caucus-lost-conscience
"We don't argue this to be controversial or because we are on the side of the criminal. We argue this because our sole focus as a charity is to reduce crime and reduce the number of victims of crime. If prison were the answer to high reoffending rates, particularly for acquisitive crime, we would argue for more prisons. But the evidence clearly points us in the opposite direction."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/longer-prison-sentences-civitas
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/longer-prison-sentences-civitas
j reacts to al franken as vice president
this is the first name that i've seen thrown around that i think is better than a terrible choice.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/16/sen-al-franken-as-hillary-vp-would-drive-trump-crazy-ex-bill-clinton-aide.html
sometimes, i think what hillary really needs is a good pep talk.
yeah. i like this.
this is the exact way that you beat donald trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84Q6yf7mo8
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/16/sen-al-franken-as-hillary-vp-would-drive-trump-crazy-ex-bill-clinton-aide.html
sometimes, i think what hillary really needs is a good pep talk.
yeah. i like this.
this is the exact way that you beat donald trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84Q6yf7mo8
Saturday, June 18, 2016
j reacts to the media blackout on the orlando shooter's motives not being accidental
i think i should realize and articulate that the media's misconstruing of the orlando massacre as being a hate crime about sexual orientation (rather than an act of political protest about the continuing war in afghanistan) is not mere incompetence or some kind of accident. they don't want people to hear the message or have that discussion.
it's just another example of media collusion with the state.
it's just another example of media collusion with the state.
this is my third try to render the vlog from the 7th. it's coming. it's just...
unfortunately, i forgot to wear pants, and i seem to have forgotten that i forgot to wear pants. i've uploaded accidental crotch shots before, but this is a good solid ten minutes. it's just unworkable.
i honestly am not quite sure how i've found myself in this predicament. but, a complex series of crotch-shot removing procedures are currently carefully underway, for your eventual viewing pleasure.
unfortunately, i forgot to wear pants, and i seem to have forgotten that i forgot to wear pants. i've uploaded accidental crotch shots before, but this is a good solid ten minutes. it's just unworkable.
i honestly am not quite sure how i've found myself in this predicament. but, a complex series of crotch-shot removing procedures are currently carefully underway, for your eventual viewing pleasure.
j reacts to a contrived take down threat from google (and why i don't have a phone...)
well, this is comical.
Dear j,
We've determined that your posts may be in violation of our User Content and Conduct Policy.
Content that transmits viruses or contains malware or other malicious code is not permitted.
Continued violation of our policies can lead to the loss of your ability to use some or all features of Google+.
Yours sincerely,
The Google+ team
--
of course, there's no viruses or malware on this page. it's just an excuse to shut me down.
-
on the obviously contrived take down threat...
it might actually be more than a triviality. i have reason to think that there are organizations that believe i'm attached to some kind of foreign agency, and i think a lot of that has to do with the reality that i don't have a mobile signal. this is consistent with a big collection of coincidences. and, i "get" that i'm not remotely brainwashed. the assumption, from what i can gather, is that i don't have a mobile signal because i'm using some kind of foreign blocking software, through some kind of foreign network. there's a signal underneath, it's just being blocked.
except, it's not actually true. i've actually been really transparent about this. i actually honestly just simply don't have any mobile internet devices. i have an mp3 player without an internet connection that i believe has been hacked through the radio. i have an entry level panasonic camera without one, either. i have a very old flip phone that is technically internet capable, but i've never actually connected with it (and i haven't had service on it in over ten years).
i don't have a phone due to a combination of economics and utility. i was in school from 2008-2011, and didn't have money to spend on mobile phones. i then went through a mental breakdown in mid 2011 and didn't really come out of it until late 2012. i suppose i could have got a phone around then. but, by then, i'd lived so long without a phone (and so long with small incomes) that i didn't really want one. i still just don't want one. i'd consider it a waste of money that i could spend on things i have more interest in, like concerts.
if my monthly income doubled or something, i might think about getting one - but i'd be unlikely to get a provider. i'd probably just use a combination of voip and public wifi, and make sure i'm not doing anything private in public. it's not because i'm afraid of data collection or don't want to be followed. i actually believe it's better to avoid encryption in case of misunderstanding; i believe in open data transmission. i think i've upheld that ideal. it's just because i would consider paying for voice or data to be a waste of money when there's perfectly good free options. i'd hate to call myself a fiscal conservative, but you learn how to maximize resources when you don't have a lot of them.
but, my monthly income is not going to double. i will probably end up buying a used android for public wifi one day, but i couldn't see myself paying more than $30 for it - it's simply not worth more than $30 to me. i'll likely pick up a late 00s model some time around 2020 over kijij or something, and sit on it for most of the rest of my life.
now, you could point out that i don't have any friends, and i don't have a job, so this is a function of that. it's more like a reinforcing truth. part of the reason i lost touch with people is that i didn't see the use in buying a phone, and kind of wrote the whole mobile device thing off as a fad. in the end, i still think the mobile phone is an unstable platform with no real future - it's just hung around a lot longer than i thought it would.
so, there's not some ingenious trickery hanging around. i'm a half credit short of a programming degree, sure - but the right way to look at that is that i dropped out of a programming degree. why? because i really wasn't interested in the topic. if you were to show me the code i'm supposed to be writing, the truth is that i probably wouldn't even actually understand it.
i'm just a poor trans person in my mid 30s from canada that likes to type and happens to be relatively good at articulating myself. i'm entirely wysiwyg. there's nothing under the hood. truly.
Dear j,
We've determined that your posts may be in violation of our User Content and Conduct Policy.
Content that transmits viruses or contains malware or other malicious code is not permitted.
Continued violation of our policies can lead to the loss of your ability to use some or all features of Google+.
Yours sincerely,
The Google+ team
--
of course, there's no viruses or malware on this page. it's just an excuse to shut me down.
-
on the obviously contrived take down threat...
it might actually be more than a triviality. i have reason to think that there are organizations that believe i'm attached to some kind of foreign agency, and i think a lot of that has to do with the reality that i don't have a mobile signal. this is consistent with a big collection of coincidences. and, i "get" that i'm not remotely brainwashed. the assumption, from what i can gather, is that i don't have a mobile signal because i'm using some kind of foreign blocking software, through some kind of foreign network. there's a signal underneath, it's just being blocked.
except, it's not actually true. i've actually been really transparent about this. i actually honestly just simply don't have any mobile internet devices. i have an mp3 player without an internet connection that i believe has been hacked through the radio. i have an entry level panasonic camera without one, either. i have a very old flip phone that is technically internet capable, but i've never actually connected with it (and i haven't had service on it in over ten years).
i don't have a phone due to a combination of economics and utility. i was in school from 2008-2011, and didn't have money to spend on mobile phones. i then went through a mental breakdown in mid 2011 and didn't really come out of it until late 2012. i suppose i could have got a phone around then. but, by then, i'd lived so long without a phone (and so long with small incomes) that i didn't really want one. i still just don't want one. i'd consider it a waste of money that i could spend on things i have more interest in, like concerts.
if my monthly income doubled or something, i might think about getting one - but i'd be unlikely to get a provider. i'd probably just use a combination of voip and public wifi, and make sure i'm not doing anything private in public. it's not because i'm afraid of data collection or don't want to be followed. i actually believe it's better to avoid encryption in case of misunderstanding; i believe in open data transmission. i think i've upheld that ideal. it's just because i would consider paying for voice or data to be a waste of money when there's perfectly good free options. i'd hate to call myself a fiscal conservative, but you learn how to maximize resources when you don't have a lot of them.
but, my monthly income is not going to double. i will probably end up buying a used android for public wifi one day, but i couldn't see myself paying more than $30 for it - it's simply not worth more than $30 to me. i'll likely pick up a late 00s model some time around 2020 over kijij or something, and sit on it for most of the rest of my life.
now, you could point out that i don't have any friends, and i don't have a job, so this is a function of that. it's more like a reinforcing truth. part of the reason i lost touch with people is that i didn't see the use in buying a phone, and kind of wrote the whole mobile device thing off as a fad. in the end, i still think the mobile phone is an unstable platform with no real future - it's just hung around a lot longer than i thought it would.
so, there's not some ingenious trickery hanging around. i'm a half credit short of a programming degree, sure - but the right way to look at that is that i dropped out of a programming degree. why? because i really wasn't interested in the topic. if you were to show me the code i'm supposed to be writing, the truth is that i probably wouldn't even actually understand it.
i'm just a poor trans person in my mid 30s from canada that likes to type and happens to be relatively good at articulating myself. i'm entirely wysiwyg. there's nothing under the hood. truly.
(posted to google+)
it took me until just now to finish narrating off all this ranting, and it's left me with a rather large amount of video to edit. i think it's clear that it's going to take me quite a while before i'm able to catch up. but, i'm not going to just sit here and wait - i'm going to get to the bandcamp site and start combining. i should get a chunk into 1.1 before the end of the weekend.
as of now, this page is dead. it will slowly thin out to a bare skeleton as the posts are converted into videos. i suppose it's purpose will have been the primaries. right now, i'm focused on just getting everything together, and really don't plan on ranting about anything at all for the foreseeable future. but, when i get back to that, it will happen at a blogspot page. i've totally lost faith in social media...
i'll post the link when it comes up.
-
i suppose you can expect edits to happen when i'm awake, uploads to run when i'm asleep and videos to publish when i wake up.
it took me until just now to finish narrating off all this ranting, and it's left me with a rather large amount of video to edit. i think it's clear that it's going to take me quite a while before i'm able to catch up. but, i'm not going to just sit here and wait - i'm going to get to the bandcamp site and start combining. i should get a chunk into 1.1 before the end of the weekend.
as of now, this page is dead. it will slowly thin out to a bare skeleton as the posts are converted into videos. i suppose it's purpose will have been the primaries. right now, i'm focused on just getting everything together, and really don't plan on ranting about anything at all for the foreseeable future. but, when i get back to that, it will happen at a blogspot page. i've totally lost faith in social media...
i'll post the link when it comes up.
-
i suppose you can expect edits to happen when i'm awake, uploads to run when i'm asleep and videos to publish when i wake up.
Friday, June 17, 2016
j reacts to the quiet end of the festering constitutional crisis in canada
ok, ok - the hurricane in my coffee mug seems to have hit the shore without any casualties.
let's just hope that the real sober, second thought here is the government's senate reform proposals.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-senate-approval-1.3640195
let's just hope that the real sober, second thought here is the government's senate reform proposals.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-senate-approval-1.3640195
the conservatives need some acting lessons; their attempts to hyper-politicize everything are far too transparent.
it's obviously not up to the parliament of canada to determine where or when a genocide has occurred, outside the boundaries of it's jurisdiction. nobody's falling for this. it just makes them look petty.
but, it's also an obvious distraction, borne out by the reality that they have nothing of importance to say, at the moment. the opposition does not exist to obstruct the business of the house. if they have nothing constructive to add to the house, they should resign their seats and go home.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/16/un-isis-genocide_n_10509594.html
it's obviously not up to the parliament of canada to determine where or when a genocide has occurred, outside the boundaries of it's jurisdiction. nobody's falling for this. it just makes them look petty.
but, it's also an obvious distraction, borne out by the reality that they have nothing of importance to say, at the moment. the opposition does not exist to obstruct the business of the house. if they have nothing constructive to add to the house, they should resign their seats and go home.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/16/un-isis-genocide_n_10509594.html
j reacts to the error of defining another's oppression
i'm going to file this discussion under distraction. i don't care if she's native, i don't care if she filled out a form and i don't care if trump cares or what stupid thing trump said about it. but, i want to say something about trivializing her heritage.
now, i don't know anything about her heritage or how close she is to it. but, i can kind of relate to the idea of knowing you're indigenous but not really knowing exactly what that means, because you end up with a good deal of the social consequences of racial exclusion, but without any of the benefits of cultural inclusion. for myself, i know that my father's father was a visibly identifiable member of the cree nation, but i don't know a thing at all about cree culture because it just wasn't passed down. my grandfather died when i was too young to really understand, so i never had those discussions or was even really cognizant of the fact that he was different. i barely remember him, really. but, i've seen pictures and....he looked like the fucking chicago blackhawks logo, you know? you couldn't miss it if you wanted to. but i had no concept, at the time, for the few years i knew him.
my paternal grandmother is jewish/italian, and that's the identity that my father grew up with - mostly italian. when he was young, he looked like pacino; as he aged, he started to look like leonard cohen and he eventually aged into looking like an elder chomsky, with a bit of weight. those glasses. so, i grew up eating pasta and being smothered by exorbitant levels of unnecessary oregano. and basil. you could smell me down the street. no joke. i regress.
oddly, all my dad was ever able to give me is really the same story - that he had no idea, really, until he hit his late teens and, even then, he was never really cognizant of it, or took the time to learn about it. he grew up in a kind of urban reserve outside of ottawa called the ritchie street project. it's become one of those areas that successive waves of immigrants move through, and was largely populated by somalis last time i checked - although that may become syrians over the next few years. rough area. gang violence. in his day, it was all natives. so, when he played hockey out on the streets, they'd combine by tribe. the kids knew he was indigenous, so they'd ask him what tribe he was - and the only answer he ever had was 'italian'.
looking back to when i was a kid, i can point to events that occurred that had to do with other people perceiving me as indigenous, without having the slightest understanding of what was happening at the time - because i had no self-awareness of it. so, i was just left confused. i just didn't understand - so i became an anti-social misanthrope, convinced the world is full of assholes. i perhaps was not wrong, but a little bit of understanding of my own heritage and the perceptions of others regarding it may have assisted me in reacting to what was going on around me.
is this really unusual? i don't know. how many jewish kids go through that? how many finns? how many italians? as far as i could tell, i looked like everybody else - but the people around me didn't seem to see it that way. again, i was just confused by it.
so, i do have a history of racialized exclusion. but, i can't tell you anything about the basis of that exclusion, which is frustrating. i'm not 1/64th cree - it's, i believe, a full eighth, but perhaps a sixteenth.
would i fill out the form? i would now, and i'd feel ok with it. i wouldn't have for most of my life, because i just didn't know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRbxvu0SEOQ
now, i don't know anything about her heritage or how close she is to it. but, i can kind of relate to the idea of knowing you're indigenous but not really knowing exactly what that means, because you end up with a good deal of the social consequences of racial exclusion, but without any of the benefits of cultural inclusion. for myself, i know that my father's father was a visibly identifiable member of the cree nation, but i don't know a thing at all about cree culture because it just wasn't passed down. my grandfather died when i was too young to really understand, so i never had those discussions or was even really cognizant of the fact that he was different. i barely remember him, really. but, i've seen pictures and....he looked like the fucking chicago blackhawks logo, you know? you couldn't miss it if you wanted to. but i had no concept, at the time, for the few years i knew him.
my paternal grandmother is jewish/italian, and that's the identity that my father grew up with - mostly italian. when he was young, he looked like pacino; as he aged, he started to look like leonard cohen and he eventually aged into looking like an elder chomsky, with a bit of weight. those glasses. so, i grew up eating pasta and being smothered by exorbitant levels of unnecessary oregano. and basil. you could smell me down the street. no joke. i regress.
oddly, all my dad was ever able to give me is really the same story - that he had no idea, really, until he hit his late teens and, even then, he was never really cognizant of it, or took the time to learn about it. he grew up in a kind of urban reserve outside of ottawa called the ritchie street project. it's become one of those areas that successive waves of immigrants move through, and was largely populated by somalis last time i checked - although that may become syrians over the next few years. rough area. gang violence. in his day, it was all natives. so, when he played hockey out on the streets, they'd combine by tribe. the kids knew he was indigenous, so they'd ask him what tribe he was - and the only answer he ever had was 'italian'.
looking back to when i was a kid, i can point to events that occurred that had to do with other people perceiving me as indigenous, without having the slightest understanding of what was happening at the time - because i had no self-awareness of it. so, i was just left confused. i just didn't understand - so i became an anti-social misanthrope, convinced the world is full of assholes. i perhaps was not wrong, but a little bit of understanding of my own heritage and the perceptions of others regarding it may have assisted me in reacting to what was going on around me.
is this really unusual? i don't know. how many jewish kids go through that? how many finns? how many italians? as far as i could tell, i looked like everybody else - but the people around me didn't seem to see it that way. again, i was just confused by it.
so, i do have a history of racialized exclusion. but, i can't tell you anything about the basis of that exclusion, which is frustrating. i'm not 1/64th cree - it's, i believe, a full eighth, but perhaps a sixteenth.
would i fill out the form? i would now, and i'd feel ok with it. i wouldn't have for most of my life, because i just didn't know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRbxvu0SEOQ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)