the logic underlying bernie or bust - that we're better off abstaining, under the hope that trump leads to collapse - appears to be disintegrating.
clinton increasingly looks like the better bet for collapse.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
j reacts to the rug being pulled out from under bernie-or-bust
i've got some good news for hillary.
the logic underlying bernie or bust - that we're better off abstaining, under the hope that trump leads to collapse - appears to be disintegrating.
clinton increasingly looks like the better bet for collapse.
the logic underlying bernie or bust - that we're better off abstaining, under the hope that trump leads to collapse - appears to be disintegrating.
clinton increasingly looks like the better bet for collapse.
i wasn't able to get a straight answer out of anybody at the radiology
department regarding why the second mri was requested, so i've cancelled
it. i was specific: do you think you might see a tumour? do you think
you might see a lesion? all i could get was "the doctor is requesting a
second mri". an appeal to authority is simply not convincing to me.
i have verified at least that the information was sent to the referring doctor, so i will call them on tuesday for further exploration of the issue.
while it is possible that the radiologist was just incompetent with his notes - that he has a good reason that he didn't specify because he's lazy - my reading of the situation is that he's just looking for a way to bill me twice, and that that's actually probably a good sign because it probably at least rules out the tumour.
as mentioned previously, i'm leaning more towards lyme disease at this point. but, i'm going to need to see the scans myself....
i have verified at least that the information was sent to the referring doctor, so i will call them on tuesday for further exploration of the issue.
while it is possible that the radiologist was just incompetent with his notes - that he has a good reason that he didn't specify because he's lazy - my reading of the situation is that he's just looking for a way to bill me twice, and that that's actually probably a good sign because it probably at least rules out the tumour.
as mentioned previously, i'm leaning more towards lyme disease at this point. but, i'm going to need to see the scans myself....
ok, i just woke up. i had checked my inbox, half asleep, during a
mid-morning urination awakening and they want to inject me with some
isotope of something...?
what it does is make the tumor or lesion more visible in the scan. that seems to indicate that there is a tumor or lesion. but, i need to know what it is, first, before i make any decisions. injecting me with some kind of metal seems kind of reckless, unless it's a mitigating factor. harm reduction. i'm not there yet.
are they lesions? if so, i'd rather get a blood test for lyme disease. and, i mean, there's not really any treatment for ms, anyways. i'll just take the diagnosis to my nearest odsp office and otherwise forget about it. no, really. so, i have ms. what does injecting me with a heavy metal for an mri accomplish? but, what if i only have lyme disease? there's safer ways to determine this.
do they think they found a tumour? how aggressive do they think it is? this is the one situation where i may consent to this...
....but i also need to see the existing scans first. apparently, it was the radiologist that requested the second scan. who is what? a technician?
"oh, i'm not a doctor."
two things i'm worried about.
1) all industry exists for the purpose of maximizing profit. even in canada, people get paid. and, what that actually means is that we have a lot of unnecessary procedures done because somebody gets paid. on first glance, too much health care might seem better than not enough. but, this is one of those circumstances where too much may be worse. i'm not ruling the procedure out on principle, i just want to make sure that we've gone through the safer - less expensive - options first.
2) i talk a lot of shit in a lot of places. i keep pointing out that i'm harmless, but i'm not sure i'm winning that argument. would somebody go out of their way to get rid of me? it's not impossible. it *is* outrageous. it *is* ridiculous. but, the world we live in is outrageous and ridiculous. i just need to be a little bit more careful than the average bear, i think.
so, i'm going to go call them back and tentatively cancel the appointment. i need to have them articulate exactly what they're looking for, and confirm that they've actually sent the results to the doctor that referred me. i also want to know when i can see the scans, myself.
what it does is make the tumor or lesion more visible in the scan. that seems to indicate that there is a tumor or lesion. but, i need to know what it is, first, before i make any decisions. injecting me with some kind of metal seems kind of reckless, unless it's a mitigating factor. harm reduction. i'm not there yet.
are they lesions? if so, i'd rather get a blood test for lyme disease. and, i mean, there's not really any treatment for ms, anyways. i'll just take the diagnosis to my nearest odsp office and otherwise forget about it. no, really. so, i have ms. what does injecting me with a heavy metal for an mri accomplish? but, what if i only have lyme disease? there's safer ways to determine this.
do they think they found a tumour? how aggressive do they think it is? this is the one situation where i may consent to this...
....but i also need to see the existing scans first. apparently, it was the radiologist that requested the second scan. who is what? a technician?
"oh, i'm not a doctor."
two things i'm worried about.
1) all industry exists for the purpose of maximizing profit. even in canada, people get paid. and, what that actually means is that we have a lot of unnecessary procedures done because somebody gets paid. on first glance, too much health care might seem better than not enough. but, this is one of those circumstances where too much may be worse. i'm not ruling the procedure out on principle, i just want to make sure that we've gone through the safer - less expensive - options first.
2) i talk a lot of shit in a lot of places. i keep pointing out that i'm harmless, but i'm not sure i'm winning that argument. would somebody go out of their way to get rid of me? it's not impossible. it *is* outrageous. it *is* ridiculous. but, the world we live in is outrageous and ridiculous. i just need to be a little bit more careful than the average bear, i think.
so, i'm going to go call them back and tentatively cancel the appointment. i need to have them articulate exactly what they're looking for, and confirm that they've actually sent the results to the doctor that referred me. i also want to know when i can see the scans, myself.
i initially noticed facial tics around my left ear some time around ten years ago. i had an mri done but i didn't hear anything back and i forgot about it. it was kind of just a mild annoyance. at the time, i was thinking something more along the lines of heavy metal poisoning from living on a busy street with a lot of truck traffic (bronson avenue) than anything else.
the issue of the facial tics would come and go, but never really got out of hand as anything more than an annoyance until a little over a yea ago when i noticed i was having an extended period of difficulty swallowing (dysphagia) that has yet to really resolve itself. i initially brought this up with a nurse at the camh here, who did not take me seriously. i asked several times for an mri, and he kept telling me we'll talk about it later. it never happened.
the first few years i was here, i was struggling to find a doctor willing to prescribe me hormones. i was able to finally find a family doctor last fall that was willing to not just prescribe but also to increase my dosage, and that has had some positive effects. he has also finally taken my concerns about dysphagia seriously. while he suggested i should see a neurologist, i insisted on seeing an ear doctor to start and then graduating to a neurologist as the issue resolved or complicated itself.
the ear doctor initially did not take me seriously, either. however, i pushed for a hearing test - which discovered some loss in the affected ear. she still refused to take the situation seriously, suggested that the test was just error and insisted that i take it again. i instead pushed for an mri - which i had on monday.
i felt the mri would be the best idea because it could determine three things:
1) is my jaw crooked? in 2006, i fell of my bike and landed terribly on my face. the tic and resulting dysphagia could be the result of a skeletal abnormality, which could either be broken back in place or just dealt with. it would be useful to know, one way or the other.
2) do i have brain lesions? if i do, are those lesions more consistent with something like ms or more indicative of something like lyme disease?
3) is there maybe a tumor in there? i'm considering this possibility to be extremely remote due to how long i've had the issue for. one does not have a malignant tumor in their head for over ten years. i'd be dead by now.
i just checked my email and realized that somebody called me on the saturday of the long weekend to book a second mri. while i will not know the reasons for this request until i call back, i'm considering this to be somewhat ominous. it is possible that there was some error and they need to redo it, but i would think that a request for a second mri indicates that they found something that shouldn't be there. is it a lesion or a tumor?
i think they open at 6:00 am.
the issue of the facial tics would come and go, but never really got out of hand as anything more than an annoyance until a little over a yea ago when i noticed i was having an extended period of difficulty swallowing (dysphagia) that has yet to really resolve itself. i initially brought this up with a nurse at the camh here, who did not take me seriously. i asked several times for an mri, and he kept telling me we'll talk about it later. it never happened.
the first few years i was here, i was struggling to find a doctor willing to prescribe me hormones. i was able to finally find a family doctor last fall that was willing to not just prescribe but also to increase my dosage, and that has had some positive effects. he has also finally taken my concerns about dysphagia seriously. while he suggested i should see a neurologist, i insisted on seeing an ear doctor to start and then graduating to a neurologist as the issue resolved or complicated itself.
the ear doctor initially did not take me seriously, either. however, i pushed for a hearing test - which discovered some loss in the affected ear. she still refused to take the situation seriously, suggested that the test was just error and insisted that i take it again. i instead pushed for an mri - which i had on monday.
i felt the mri would be the best idea because it could determine three things:
1) is my jaw crooked? in 2006, i fell of my bike and landed terribly on my face. the tic and resulting dysphagia could be the result of a skeletal abnormality, which could either be broken back in place or just dealt with. it would be useful to know, one way or the other.
2) do i have brain lesions? if i do, are those lesions more consistent with something like ms or more indicative of something like lyme disease?
3) is there maybe a tumor in there? i'm considering this possibility to be extremely remote due to how long i've had the issue for. one does not have a malignant tumor in their head for over ten years. i'd be dead by now.
i just checked my email and realized that somebody called me on the saturday of the long weekend to book a second mri. while i will not know the reasons for this request until i call back, i'm considering this to be somewhat ominous. it is possible that there was some error and they need to redo it, but i would think that a request for a second mri indicates that they found something that shouldn't be there. is it a lesion or a tumor?
i think they open at 6:00 am.
i was very young when i decided not to have children. a child, myself, really. 12. 13. of course, you don't want to rule the idea out entirely. there's always that possibility. but, i'd already made up my mind before i got to high school. there was never really any doubt about it.
i think i made the right choice.
i think i made the right choice.
j reacts to this cycle's electoral map (the key state is...missouri?)
my take on things.
i just want to point out that with ohio, i don't think it's about trade or about abortion, i think it's more about nascar - it's cultural. that's why bush won twice. most of ohio is really a southern state. this is where mccain and romney coming across as out of touch elitists hurt them, and where clinton's status as an elite hurts her.
if anything, the abortion thing is going to make what should be a walk for trump a lot closer as it's going to get the vote out in the northern part of the state. but, trump wins here for the same reasons that bush did.
she has a better chance in florida. but, i think you'll see the same basic dynamic assert itself on a slightly lower level. the north of florida is the south; while anti-trump feeling will likely increase turnout in the south, it's cultural affinities will overpower in ways that romney and mccain couldn't orchestrate. again: bush won florida. twice.
due to recent demographic changes, north carolina is maybe a wildcard. but, i think it's a stretch to argue it's a swing state. one win in the modern era does not a swing state make. indiana is not a swing state, either.
the map technically has her less than 270, but that doesn't really put the election in play. if she wins virginia, she wins. if she wins missouri, she wins. if she wins both iowa and nevada, she wins. what are the chances of none of that happening? of trump carrying 3 of those 4 states? they're not very high.
i just want to point out that with ohio, i don't think it's about trade or about abortion, i think it's more about nascar - it's cultural. that's why bush won twice. most of ohio is really a southern state. this is where mccain and romney coming across as out of touch elitists hurt them, and where clinton's status as an elite hurts her.
if anything, the abortion thing is going to make what should be a walk for trump a lot closer as it's going to get the vote out in the northern part of the state. but, trump wins here for the same reasons that bush did.
she has a better chance in florida. but, i think you'll see the same basic dynamic assert itself on a slightly lower level. the north of florida is the south; while anti-trump feeling will likely increase turnout in the south, it's cultural affinities will overpower in ways that romney and mccain couldn't orchestrate. again: bush won florida. twice.
due to recent demographic changes, north carolina is maybe a wildcard. but, i think it's a stretch to argue it's a swing state. one win in the modern era does not a swing state make. indiana is not a swing state, either.
the map technically has her less than 270, but that doesn't really put the election in play. if she wins virginia, she wins. if she wins missouri, she wins. if she wins both iowa and nevada, she wins. what are the chances of none of that happening? of trump carrying 3 of those 4 states? they're not very high.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
j reacts to the corrosive effects of advertising on human individuality
it's really funny how people define things in terms of advertisements, rather in terms of what they actually are. remember: i haven't had meaningful access to a tv in nearly twenty years, and i use ad blocking software online. so, i don't have to suppress ads for things like soda: i've honestly never seen them.
the last time i saw an ad for pepsi, the spokesperson was britney spears. i have literally not seen an ad for pepsi since then. i don't know when that was. 1998? 1999? this was a period when ads for soft drinks like dr. pepper and mountain dew were virtually non-existent. i don't think i've ever even seen an ad for either of them.
well, unless you count whatever website i went to (wiki?) to determine which soft drinks had the highest caffeine contents. that's why i settled on those two, specifically.
i've had conversations with people, though, that want to interpret you that way - that think that the soft drink that you choose must reduce to branding. and, i've noticed glances, too, that i understand in those terms. it's kind of sad, really.
http://www.math.utah.edu/~yplee/fun/caffeine.html
i stayed with my parents for about a year in the mid 00s and found myself with their backup tv parked in front of my bed. i actually didn't want it in there, but they claimed there was nowhere else to put it.
i wasn't home often: for the first six months, i was finishing my first degree and spent most of my time at school and for the second six months i was doing the night shift at microsoft and transiting two hours a day by bicycle. further, i had internet access and much preferred it over television.
i mean, you put a tv and a computer in the same room and give me a choice and i'm going to basically always pick the computer.
about the only thing i ever watched was the odd stewart/colbert run and sporadic re-runs of south park.
besides that, i really have not turned on a tv since the 90s.
even in the 90s, the only things i ever really watched were the x-files, seinfeld and the simpsons. well, and the news. i initially picked up my habit of eating & watching some time in the 90s by watching cnn while eating. and, the exact reason was that i was told not to eat in the basement, where my room and computer were - i had to eat upstairs. i would have rather eaten & usenetted.
and, fwiw - i do not recall ever seeing any sort of tv show that featured donald trump in any kind of capacity.
the last time i saw an ad for pepsi, the spokesperson was britney spears. i have literally not seen an ad for pepsi since then. i don't know when that was. 1998? 1999? this was a period when ads for soft drinks like dr. pepper and mountain dew were virtually non-existent. i don't think i've ever even seen an ad for either of them.
well, unless you count whatever website i went to (wiki?) to determine which soft drinks had the highest caffeine contents. that's why i settled on those two, specifically.
i've had conversations with people, though, that want to interpret you that way - that think that the soft drink that you choose must reduce to branding. and, i've noticed glances, too, that i understand in those terms. it's kind of sad, really.
http://www.math.utah.edu/~yplee/fun/caffeine.html
i stayed with my parents for about a year in the mid 00s and found myself with their backup tv parked in front of my bed. i actually didn't want it in there, but they claimed there was nowhere else to put it.
i wasn't home often: for the first six months, i was finishing my first degree and spent most of my time at school and for the second six months i was doing the night shift at microsoft and transiting two hours a day by bicycle. further, i had internet access and much preferred it over television.
i mean, you put a tv and a computer in the same room and give me a choice and i'm going to basically always pick the computer.
about the only thing i ever watched was the odd stewart/colbert run and sporadic re-runs of south park.
besides that, i really have not turned on a tv since the 90s.
even in the 90s, the only things i ever really watched were the x-files, seinfeld and the simpsons. well, and the news. i initially picked up my habit of eating & watching some time in the 90s by watching cnn while eating. and, the exact reason was that i was told not to eat in the basement, where my room and computer were - i had to eat upstairs. i would have rather eaten & usenetted.
and, fwiw - i do not recall ever seeing any sort of tv show that featured donald trump in any kind of capacity.
j reacts to the reality that canada is a colonial state
this isn't surprising; the problem is systemic. it doesn't really matter what the people in government say, and it doesn't really matter what the opposition says either, they'd in the end do the same thing. the logic of colonialism is not overturned with pleasant language or appeals to moral superiority.
i actually support hydro as a means of clean energy generation. they should be investing in solar and building dams. further, the effects to wildlife in the region can, and in fact no doubt will be addressed. just as an example: where i grew up in ottawa, they spent billions rerouting a creek so they could put in a mall. a mall is less important than a generating station, granted. the other side of that argument is that the mall was on the edge of a city, not somewhere deep in the forest. but, the species that they were trying to protect have actually thrived in the enclosures that were built. if you walk around windsor, where i live now, you can see several examples of something similar.
i'm not a primitivist. i won't take the side of de-development or de-industrialization. rather, what i'm describing is the model that we need to embrace: symbiosis. and, who are our biggest influences (as colonizers) in realizing that?
to me, the issue is more about building trust and respecting the rights of local populations to have some say over the things that happen around them. it's not about property rights, or indigenous rights (explicitly) or about ethnic rights of any sort. i don't believe in grouping people together by ethnicity. it's just about democracy at the local level.
i'd rather have seen them slow down and take the time to convince the locals that this can be done sustainably, so they are working with the project rather than against it. now, the locals are going to spend a lot of time fighting something that they won't be able to stop instead of providing positive ideas towards realizing a symbiotic means of modernization. their ideas are important. they understand the land the best. i want them working with us, not against us.
this area is under treaty, which means that the crown has allodial title, eminent domain rights and all of the other powers of control. they really do just need to click a box for consultation. if it was in a different part of bc, or a couple of places out east, it would be different. the law here is not uniform, but broken down into complicated geographical subsets. further, none of the kinds of geopolitical pressures around the pipelines exist for the hydro dams - and for good reasons. worse, there's widespread misunderstanding about "indigenous title" in the activist community. there was a treaty signed, and under the colonial system that treaty is paramount. working within the legal systems of colonialism means understanding their rules. under the state monopoly of force, they own the land - and the "rule of law" upholds their use of force. you can fight that with force, but you're bound to lose.
i'm not blaming the local groups - the state should have waited until it could get enthusiastic consent. that kind of relationship is necessary, more broadly. the more the state ignores it, the longer the process towards integration becomes. yes, it's going to be slow. no, it will probably not happen in the life time of the existing government. but, in the long run, it's all for nought, otherwise.
http://www.desmog.ca/2016/07/29/trudeau-just-broke-his-promise-canada-s-first-nations
i actually support hydro as a means of clean energy generation. they should be investing in solar and building dams. further, the effects to wildlife in the region can, and in fact no doubt will be addressed. just as an example: where i grew up in ottawa, they spent billions rerouting a creek so they could put in a mall. a mall is less important than a generating station, granted. the other side of that argument is that the mall was on the edge of a city, not somewhere deep in the forest. but, the species that they were trying to protect have actually thrived in the enclosures that were built. if you walk around windsor, where i live now, you can see several examples of something similar.
i'm not a primitivist. i won't take the side of de-development or de-industrialization. rather, what i'm describing is the model that we need to embrace: symbiosis. and, who are our biggest influences (as colonizers) in realizing that?
to me, the issue is more about building trust and respecting the rights of local populations to have some say over the things that happen around them. it's not about property rights, or indigenous rights (explicitly) or about ethnic rights of any sort. i don't believe in grouping people together by ethnicity. it's just about democracy at the local level.
i'd rather have seen them slow down and take the time to convince the locals that this can be done sustainably, so they are working with the project rather than against it. now, the locals are going to spend a lot of time fighting something that they won't be able to stop instead of providing positive ideas towards realizing a symbiotic means of modernization. their ideas are important. they understand the land the best. i want them working with us, not against us.
this area is under treaty, which means that the crown has allodial title, eminent domain rights and all of the other powers of control. they really do just need to click a box for consultation. if it was in a different part of bc, or a couple of places out east, it would be different. the law here is not uniform, but broken down into complicated geographical subsets. further, none of the kinds of geopolitical pressures around the pipelines exist for the hydro dams - and for good reasons. worse, there's widespread misunderstanding about "indigenous title" in the activist community. there was a treaty signed, and under the colonial system that treaty is paramount. working within the legal systems of colonialism means understanding their rules. under the state monopoly of force, they own the land - and the "rule of law" upholds their use of force. you can fight that with force, but you're bound to lose.
i'm not blaming the local groups - the state should have waited until it could get enthusiastic consent. that kind of relationship is necessary, more broadly. the more the state ignores it, the longer the process towards integration becomes. yes, it's going to be slow. no, it will probably not happen in the life time of the existing government. but, in the long run, it's all for nought, otherwise.
http://www.desmog.ca/2016/07/29/trudeau-just-broke-his-promise-canada-s-first-nations
j reacts to clinton as a "product of her era"
remember when the clinton campaign accused sanders of hacking their servers, and we later learned it never happened?
fool me once...
like i say, i really think she's following the neo-con playbook, here, and just doesn't realize that all it really does is make her look weak on national security.
remember: clinton's logic around this is likely "this worked in the primary, so let's do it again.". it's pure pragmatism. while people were calling them out on their dirty tricks, the campaign turned around and promoted the people responsible, because the conclusion was that they were successful.
the people that will tell you that she is the embodiment of wall street corruption are not just throwing rhetoric at you. it's maybe unfair to blame the whole thing on one person: the united states is a culture of randian objectivism. it's not just her. she's a "product of her era".
and it's not like the other guy is any better.
i'm just pointing out that:
(1) even on something like this, you can't trust her.
(2) i don't think the strategy of working voters up against russia - a paper threat, at best - is going to be successful.
it's not just that what's in the emails is being ignored. you'd think somebody would get fired. but, the people responsible are getting promoted. it's almost like it was an excuse for dws to resign so she could move to the campaign. and, it seems more like they're bragging about how corrupt they are than that they're doing anything to address it.
so, there's something else going on here.
fool me once...
like i say, i really think she's following the neo-con playbook, here, and just doesn't realize that all it really does is make her look weak on national security.
remember: clinton's logic around this is likely "this worked in the primary, so let's do it again.". it's pure pragmatism. while people were calling them out on their dirty tricks, the campaign turned around and promoted the people responsible, because the conclusion was that they were successful.
the people that will tell you that she is the embodiment of wall street corruption are not just throwing rhetoric at you. it's maybe unfair to blame the whole thing on one person: the united states is a culture of randian objectivism. it's not just her. she's a "product of her era".
and it's not like the other guy is any better.
i'm just pointing out that:
(1) even on something like this, you can't trust her.
(2) i don't think the strategy of working voters up against russia - a paper threat, at best - is going to be successful.
it's not just that what's in the emails is being ignored. you'd think somebody would get fired. but, the people responsible are getting promoted. it's almost like it was an excuse for dws to resign so she could move to the campaign. and, it seems more like they're bragging about how corrupt they are than that they're doing anything to address it.
so, there's something else going on here.
Friday, July 29, 2016
j reacts to clinton's continued neo-mccarthyism, and why it will backfire
this should be a very easy election to win. her opponent is an imbecile. she doesn't need to pull off all these sophisticated triangulations. she just needs to run on a simple message about the economy.
the average american is not going to read this and think that america needs to unite against the russians. they're going to read this and think that she's so incompetent on national security that she can't even keep the russians out of her campaign communications.
this will backfire. dramatically. it's the only narrative that trump could possibly win on, and they're handing it to him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html?_r=0
ok, let's think carefully.
did the russians steal the information? it's not unlikely. the russians are in and out of american servers all day long. so are the chinese. and, the amercians are in and out of russian and chinese servers all the time, too.
at any given moment, any of the major governments can hack into just about anything. that's the reality.
the fbi knows that....
voters don't know that.
so, blowing up the story like this has to be political in some way or another. it's really not actually a story.
the question is what the political purpose is.
i was talking a while back about the deep state trying to take her down on fears of her being compromised, herself. i guess i can't rule that out.
more likely to me is that this is clinton playing out her neo-con fantasies in building up an enemy to unite against. but, again that's just not what people are going to think.
they're just going to see the russians walking all over her: weak leadership, weak on national security....weak. weak. weak.
stephen cohen's a smart guy, and he's right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4StqO_HulQo
https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyism-and-olympic-politics-as-more-evidence-of-a-new-cold-war/
https://www.thenation.com/article/against-neo-mccarthyism/
the average american is not going to read this and think that america needs to unite against the russians. they're going to read this and think that she's so incompetent on national security that she can't even keep the russians out of her campaign communications.
this will backfire. dramatically. it's the only narrative that trump could possibly win on, and they're handing it to him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html?_r=0
ok, let's think carefully.
did the russians steal the information? it's not unlikely. the russians are in and out of american servers all day long. so are the chinese. and, the amercians are in and out of russian and chinese servers all the time, too.
at any given moment, any of the major governments can hack into just about anything. that's the reality.
the fbi knows that....
voters don't know that.
so, blowing up the story like this has to be political in some way or another. it's really not actually a story.
the question is what the political purpose is.
i was talking a while back about the deep state trying to take her down on fears of her being compromised, herself. i guess i can't rule that out.
more likely to me is that this is clinton playing out her neo-con fantasies in building up an enemy to unite against. but, again that's just not what people are going to think.
they're just going to see the russians walking all over her: weak leadership, weak on national security....weak. weak. weak.
stephen cohen's a smart guy, and he's right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4StqO_HulQo
https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyism-and-olympic-politics-as-more-evidence-of-a-new-cold-war/
https://www.thenation.com/article/against-neo-mccarthyism/
i don't know why this came up in the search results.
http://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/v1492720777/galleries/2013/09/05/17-photos-of-putin-schmoozing-with-animals-photos/130904-putin-chick_agza8z.jpg
http://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/v1492720777/galleries/2013/09/05/17-photos-of-putin-schmoozing-with-animals-photos/130904-putin-chick_agza8z.jpg
not bad. needs more 'murica, though.
https://pics.me.me/just-saw-donald-trump-driving-down-the-road-campaigning-1832529.png
https://pics.me.me/just-saw-donald-trump-driving-down-the-road-campaigning-1832529.png
POPEMOBILE
i'm sorry...
it's just that it's a real thing.
the premise just cracks me up every time.
nananananananananananananana......
https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/GTY_popemobile_2_kab_150611_4x3_992.jpg
https://d1nz104zbf64va.cloudfront.net/dt/a/o/history-of-the-popemobile-from-a-horse-drawn-carriage-to-jeep-wrangler.jpg
i'm sorry...
it's just that it's a real thing.
the premise just cracks me up every time.
nananananananananananananana......
https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/GTY_popemobile_2_kab_150611_4x3_992.jpg
https://d1nz104zbf64va.cloudfront.net/dt/a/o/history-of-the-popemobile-from-a-horse-drawn-carriage-to-jeep-wrangler.jpg
j reacts to "online polling" a second time
that ipsos "poll" may seem like things are back to normal, but it is also an "online poll" and consequently just as worthless as the one out of california the other day that had trump up by 7. ipsos has done a lot of polling in canada and is consistently nowhere near the outcome. they're literally worthless as prognosticators. i wouldn't even aggregate them. i wouldn't even report on them. i may even say i'd blacklist them from coverage.
i know that people will point to cell phones as a problem with polling, and a lot of the concerns they point to were at one point valid, but online "polling" is simply not a way forward. the best polling firms have actually found ways to poll cell phones and don't really see it as a serious barrier anymore.
the problem with the online polling is that there's no concept of randomness. the math underlying polling needs a random sample to make any sense. you can basically take anything with a "credibility interval" and toss it in the trash - the correct credibility interval for an online poll is not credible. ever. if it's close, it's by chance.
the rcp average is consequently just a polluted mess that should be avoided. i don't know if they've addressed this or written about it. but, they shouldn't be aggregating credible polling with this online propaganda-generation bullshit.
what that means is that the number of polls you should take seriously is a lot smaller than the media is going to throw at you. when the media throws a poll at you, immediately check to see if it's telephone polling or an "online panel" and respond accordingly.
the reason they report "credibility intervals" is that they can't measure error because the sample isn't random. it's just a pr tactic to make "online polling" look more scientific than it is.
it is not the same thing as a margin of error. don't be confused by this.
i know that people will point to cell phones as a problem with polling, and a lot of the concerns they point to were at one point valid, but online "polling" is simply not a way forward. the best polling firms have actually found ways to poll cell phones and don't really see it as a serious barrier anymore.
the problem with the online polling is that there's no concept of randomness. the math underlying polling needs a random sample to make any sense. you can basically take anything with a "credibility interval" and toss it in the trash - the correct credibility interval for an online poll is not credible. ever. if it's close, it's by chance.
the rcp average is consequently just a polluted mess that should be avoided. i don't know if they've addressed this or written about it. but, they shouldn't be aggregating credible polling with this online propaganda-generation bullshit.
what that means is that the number of polls you should take seriously is a lot smaller than the media is going to throw at you. when the media throws a poll at you, immediately check to see if it's telephone polling or an "online panel" and respond accordingly.
the reason they report "credibility intervals" is that they can't measure error because the sample isn't random. it's just a pr tactic to make "online polling" look more scientific than it is.
it is not the same thing as a margin of error. don't be confused by this.
these people should write an open letter to the people of wisconsin, apologizing for their bad judgement.
i mean the hats, specifically.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/147DF/production/_90553938_mediaitem90553937.jpg
i mean the hats, specifically.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/147DF/production/_90553938_mediaitem90553937.jpg
Anarcho-Communist Cookbook
It's not a dodge if you genuinely dislike both of them.
jessica
that's right. if i tell you that they're both the same and it doesn't matter, you can disagree with me and tell me i'm wrong. but, don't tell me i'm dodging the question. it's just disingenuous. i really, honestly don't think that hillary is preferable to trump. i'm sorry. we can disagree. but that's how it is.
Dribrom Sunrock
I honestly do not think there will be a next election year if Trump get elected. I'm quite sure he will declare marshal law and say that there will be no more elections until "we have figured things out". I'm not taking any chances. At least I trust Hillary not to burn down the world as we know it during the next 4 years. Voting for a 3rd party is just a too big of a risk IMO. But we should not kid yourself here the house of Representatives will not vote for a 3rd party.
jessica
you can't even spell martial law.
as an aside, a marshall plan for the united states would probably be a good idea.
the way the single-party state has people brainwashed is really astounding. do you realize that the republican party has it's own voters worked up in exactly the same way? that they think hillary will declare an executive order on day one to seize everybody's guns and officially usher in the New World Order(tm)?
this is not even within the realm of constitutional possibility. we will have continuing creeping fascism one way or the other: they're both fascists, after all. but, trump would not actually be legally able to do any of the things you're fantasizing about.
it's far more likely that trump will spend 350 days a year on the golf course.
"fuck this. i'm outta here."
i want to be clear, because i suspect that this is democratic party propaganda: it's not believable. it's laughable. trump couldn't tell his dog to sit. you're running against charlie chaplin, and you're trying to paint him as hitler. it is so unbelievable - so ridiculous - that it may backfire to the point that it is the reason you lose.
the way you beat a guy like trump is that you expose his poor leadership qualities. you don't broadcast him as a strong leader.
"don't vote for my opponent, guys. he's a strong leader. vote for me. i'm less of a leader."
trump is the corrupt, absent ceo. he's the guy that takes credit for the work other people do. he's the lazy, do-nothing, loafer that inherited his dad's job. he doesn't care about anything except his golf game. he'll fiddle while the empire burns. he's corrupt. he's inept. he's incompetent.
if your propaganda comes off as b grade horror film trash, that's the reaction you're going to get to it: that the campaign is unprofessional. amateur. you want the campaign to be like army of darkness? then expect to lose.
just run on the economy. look at his tax policies. they're idiotic. even most republicans can figure that out.
Dribrom Sunrock
It would not be the first time it have happened in USA. During the Civil War, Lincoln continually violated the Constitution, in some cases suspending the entire Constitution that he swore to uphold.
On September 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122). The law expanded the President’s authority to declare Martial Law under revisions to the Insurrection Act and actually allowed the President to take charge of National Guard troops without state governor authorization.
While certain aspects of the bill were rolled back in 2008, President Obama used the 2012 NDAA to further strengthen the Executive offices ability to declare Martial Law and added provisions that would allow military troops to detain U.S. citizens without a trial.
jessica
lincoln didn't "suspend the entire constitution". but, he had a war in front of him, which allowed him the constitutional prerequisite to suspend the rule of law - whether you like that or not. his declaration of martial law was, in fact, constitutional - and it was limited by congress.
you can't just declare martial law because you feel like it. nor can you suspend the constitution via executive order. the ndaa is a troubling piece of legislation, but it does not remove the basic necessity of war before martial law can be declared. nor does it remove congressional oversight.
i don't believe that my time is well spent in arguing the specifics of constitutional law with paid propagandists. you can choose to listen to me or to ignore me.
SneaksterMK
Kyle literally said it in the video though just because you don't wanna answer the question doesn't mean it doesn't exist since it's reality that Clinton or trump WILL (sadly) become POTUS
jessica
"i don't care which one wins - and neither should you!" is a valid answer. you might not like it. but it's not dodging anything.
i honestly think trump will be less interventionist, and i think that's a good thing. i'm not afraid of the word "isolationist". but, hillary will probably be a little bit more likely to push for deficit spending, which is also a good thing considering we're still on the brink of recession because of a continued deficit of government spending. so, they both have very weak upsides.
neither of the weak upsides overpower the awful downsides. they're equally terrible with all kinds of shit across the spectrum.
you could look at like this:
1) if you want to stop hillary from starting world war three, vote for trump.
2) if you want to stop trump from initiating an american perestroika, vote for hillary.
you're supposed to think one is better than the other?
no. not every set is well-ordered...
SneaksterMK
kyles gonna upload a video tomorrow about Jill stein and the lesser of two evils where he's gonna bring up even more great points
jessica
any reasonable approach to this would have to break it down issue-by-issue and concede that, if she is a lesser evil at all, it's pretty close to a 50/50 split.
on a hundred random issues, it's going to work out something like 53-47 in her favour.
again: it's by no means obvious. if you want to win this argument, you have to make it first.
SneaksterMK
except one believes in climate change and the other thinks it's a hoax. Although Hillary sold fracking all across the globe she at least won't rip up the fucking Paris agreement like trump said he would. Also I don't think anybody wants another antonin Scalia in the surpreme court
jessica
i don't see any evidence based argument that would suggest that we have any reason to think that hillary would pick a less conservative judge. whether you rip the agreement up or completely ignore it is simply a matter of theatre - it's the same end result, which is absolutely no action whatsoever. empty and entirely meaningless rhetoric aside, the reality is that trump has shown more awareness of climate change through his property investments than clinton did in four years as secretary of state. neither will do anything except drill more and ship more.
at least it doesn't look like trump is taking money from oil sheiks.
SneaksterMK
yes I know they're both extremely hawkish and such a risk. But we all want Bernie sanders policies to be implemented and I think we know that with a trump presidency it would ALL go backwards and we'd have no chance but with a Clinton administration we can at least hold her accountable and we'd have a much better chance of implementing progressive policies. And I feel like climate change is such a dealbreaker to me.... Bernie said it best, we should treat it as a world war 2 style threat and trump saying its a hoax is literally going completely backwards. And I know Hillary has a CLEAR track record of going to war but Mike pence voted for the war in Iraq and trump said he was in favor of invading Iraq. Trump also says as blatant as possible that he's willing to commit war crimes without using ANY coated language... That's dangerous man I'm not comparing him to hitler but even when hitler rose to power he didn't advocate the killing of many civilians... It's scary....
jessica
but, again: trump only claims he'd like to be a war criminal. hillary clinton is the legit thing, and ought to be sent to the hague, not the white house.
puttytat007
Jill Stein is our only hope thinking she can't win is not a valid point.
jessica
well, she won't win. but you can send a message...
It's not a dodge if you genuinely dislike both of them.
jessica
that's right. if i tell you that they're both the same and it doesn't matter, you can disagree with me and tell me i'm wrong. but, don't tell me i'm dodging the question. it's just disingenuous. i really, honestly don't think that hillary is preferable to trump. i'm sorry. we can disagree. but that's how it is.
Dribrom Sunrock
I honestly do not think there will be a next election year if Trump get elected. I'm quite sure he will declare marshal law and say that there will be no more elections until "we have figured things out". I'm not taking any chances. At least I trust Hillary not to burn down the world as we know it during the next 4 years. Voting for a 3rd party is just a too big of a risk IMO. But we should not kid yourself here the house of Representatives will not vote for a 3rd party.
jessica
you can't even spell martial law.
as an aside, a marshall plan for the united states would probably be a good idea.
the way the single-party state has people brainwashed is really astounding. do you realize that the republican party has it's own voters worked up in exactly the same way? that they think hillary will declare an executive order on day one to seize everybody's guns and officially usher in the New World Order(tm)?
this is not even within the realm of constitutional possibility. we will have continuing creeping fascism one way or the other: they're both fascists, after all. but, trump would not actually be legally able to do any of the things you're fantasizing about.
it's far more likely that trump will spend 350 days a year on the golf course.
"fuck this. i'm outta here."
i want to be clear, because i suspect that this is democratic party propaganda: it's not believable. it's laughable. trump couldn't tell his dog to sit. you're running against charlie chaplin, and you're trying to paint him as hitler. it is so unbelievable - so ridiculous - that it may backfire to the point that it is the reason you lose.
the way you beat a guy like trump is that you expose his poor leadership qualities. you don't broadcast him as a strong leader.
"don't vote for my opponent, guys. he's a strong leader. vote for me. i'm less of a leader."
trump is the corrupt, absent ceo. he's the guy that takes credit for the work other people do. he's the lazy, do-nothing, loafer that inherited his dad's job. he doesn't care about anything except his golf game. he'll fiddle while the empire burns. he's corrupt. he's inept. he's incompetent.
if your propaganda comes off as b grade horror film trash, that's the reaction you're going to get to it: that the campaign is unprofessional. amateur. you want the campaign to be like army of darkness? then expect to lose.
just run on the economy. look at his tax policies. they're idiotic. even most republicans can figure that out.
Dribrom Sunrock
It would not be the first time it have happened in USA. During the Civil War, Lincoln continually violated the Constitution, in some cases suspending the entire Constitution that he swore to uphold.
On September 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122). The law expanded the President’s authority to declare Martial Law under revisions to the Insurrection Act and actually allowed the President to take charge of National Guard troops without state governor authorization.
While certain aspects of the bill were rolled back in 2008, President Obama used the 2012 NDAA to further strengthen the Executive offices ability to declare Martial Law and added provisions that would allow military troops to detain U.S. citizens without a trial.
jessica
lincoln didn't "suspend the entire constitution". but, he had a war in front of him, which allowed him the constitutional prerequisite to suspend the rule of law - whether you like that or not. his declaration of martial law was, in fact, constitutional - and it was limited by congress.
you can't just declare martial law because you feel like it. nor can you suspend the constitution via executive order. the ndaa is a troubling piece of legislation, but it does not remove the basic necessity of war before martial law can be declared. nor does it remove congressional oversight.
i don't believe that my time is well spent in arguing the specifics of constitutional law with paid propagandists. you can choose to listen to me or to ignore me.
SneaksterMK
Kyle literally said it in the video though just because you don't wanna answer the question doesn't mean it doesn't exist since it's reality that Clinton or trump WILL (sadly) become POTUS
jessica
"i don't care which one wins - and neither should you!" is a valid answer. you might not like it. but it's not dodging anything.
i honestly think trump will be less interventionist, and i think that's a good thing. i'm not afraid of the word "isolationist". but, hillary will probably be a little bit more likely to push for deficit spending, which is also a good thing considering we're still on the brink of recession because of a continued deficit of government spending. so, they both have very weak upsides.
neither of the weak upsides overpower the awful downsides. they're equally terrible with all kinds of shit across the spectrum.
you could look at like this:
1) if you want to stop hillary from starting world war three, vote for trump.
2) if you want to stop trump from initiating an american perestroika, vote for hillary.
you're supposed to think one is better than the other?
no. not every set is well-ordered...
SneaksterMK
kyles gonna upload a video tomorrow about Jill stein and the lesser of two evils where he's gonna bring up even more great points
jessica
any reasonable approach to this would have to break it down issue-by-issue and concede that, if she is a lesser evil at all, it's pretty close to a 50/50 split.
on a hundred random issues, it's going to work out something like 53-47 in her favour.
again: it's by no means obvious. if you want to win this argument, you have to make it first.
SneaksterMK
except one believes in climate change and the other thinks it's a hoax. Although Hillary sold fracking all across the globe she at least won't rip up the fucking Paris agreement like trump said he would. Also I don't think anybody wants another antonin Scalia in the surpreme court
jessica
i don't see any evidence based argument that would suggest that we have any reason to think that hillary would pick a less conservative judge. whether you rip the agreement up or completely ignore it is simply a matter of theatre - it's the same end result, which is absolutely no action whatsoever. empty and entirely meaningless rhetoric aside, the reality is that trump has shown more awareness of climate change through his property investments than clinton did in four years as secretary of state. neither will do anything except drill more and ship more.
at least it doesn't look like trump is taking money from oil sheiks.
SneaksterMK
yes I know they're both extremely hawkish and such a risk. But we all want Bernie sanders policies to be implemented and I think we know that with a trump presidency it would ALL go backwards and we'd have no chance but with a Clinton administration we can at least hold her accountable and we'd have a much better chance of implementing progressive policies. And I feel like climate change is such a dealbreaker to me.... Bernie said it best, we should treat it as a world war 2 style threat and trump saying its a hoax is literally going completely backwards. And I know Hillary has a CLEAR track record of going to war but Mike pence voted for the war in Iraq and trump said he was in favor of invading Iraq. Trump also says as blatant as possible that he's willing to commit war crimes without using ANY coated language... That's dangerous man I'm not comparing him to hitler but even when hitler rose to power he didn't advocate the killing of many civilians... It's scary....
jessica
but, again: trump only claims he'd like to be a war criminal. hillary clinton is the legit thing, and ought to be sent to the hague, not the white house.
puttytat007
Jill Stein is our only hope thinking she can't win is not a valid point.
jessica
well, she won't win. but you can send a message...
j reacts to predictive election modelling as pseudo-science
he can explain this away and pull stuff out of his ass all day, the bottom line is that the idea doesn't make any sense. elections are not natural phenomena that can be understood through predictive modelling, they're random and unpredictable events that can at best be guessed at a few days before hand.
an educated political analysis is far more useful than anything this guy will ever come up with. and, that's coming from somebody with advanced degrees in mathematics.
listen to the political pundits, not the statisticians. politics is not physics, and it's just stupid to pretend that it is. this is just not a math problem.
you want to look at snap polls very close to the election, not models months away from it. the role of a model in an election needs to be to properly distribute data from snap polling, not to smooth it out. so, we need to find some way to take polling a few days before the election and apply it properly to the swing states. that's what a good model can do.
trump's numbers seem to rely more on reactions to terrorist attacks than anything else. if the next few months are relatively calm, he has absolutely no chance - and that is a rhetorical term, not a mathematical one. but, you want rhetoric here, not math. don't be fooled by scientific sounding quacks. but, if we see a spate of attacks, he could win on a wave of anti-muslim xenophobia. the clinton campaign has likely calculated the opposite.
put another way: he has to find a way to trick people into making a rash and poorly thought out decision. the data is pretty clear that he doesn't have a chance, otherwise.
but, please do keep in mind that the whole basis of our economy is to trick people into making irrational decisions.
i'm not going to make numbers up out of thin air and then cite arbitrary procedures that you don't understand in order to justify them.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-bullish-on-trump-for-now/
i think he got a bump from orlando, and then another bump from munich. munich just happened to coincide with the convention.
we haven't yet seen a factor that would give clinton a bump. but, i think that's reflective of her failure to frame the narrative. for better or worse, trump appears to be in control of the narrative. that is, the fact that it's august and we're not sure what issues might give her a bump is pretty pathetic.
there's still time for clinton to take control of the narrative, but it seems to me that this election is going to be measured in terms of reactions to global terrorism - and he owns her on that issue, whether her campaign likes it or not.
that doesn't mean he's going to win, mind you. the conservatives controlled the narrative in canada in the last election, but that didn't help them win because they were so unpopular.
she should be running on the economy.
an educated political analysis is far more useful than anything this guy will ever come up with. and, that's coming from somebody with advanced degrees in mathematics.
listen to the political pundits, not the statisticians. politics is not physics, and it's just stupid to pretend that it is. this is just not a math problem.
you want to look at snap polls very close to the election, not models months away from it. the role of a model in an election needs to be to properly distribute data from snap polling, not to smooth it out. so, we need to find some way to take polling a few days before the election and apply it properly to the swing states. that's what a good model can do.
trump's numbers seem to rely more on reactions to terrorist attacks than anything else. if the next few months are relatively calm, he has absolutely no chance - and that is a rhetorical term, not a mathematical one. but, you want rhetoric here, not math. don't be fooled by scientific sounding quacks. but, if we see a spate of attacks, he could win on a wave of anti-muslim xenophobia. the clinton campaign has likely calculated the opposite.
put another way: he has to find a way to trick people into making a rash and poorly thought out decision. the data is pretty clear that he doesn't have a chance, otherwise.
but, please do keep in mind that the whole basis of our economy is to trick people into making irrational decisions.
i'm not going to make numbers up out of thin air and then cite arbitrary procedures that you don't understand in order to justify them.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-bullish-on-trump-for-now/
i think he got a bump from orlando, and then another bump from munich. munich just happened to coincide with the convention.
we haven't yet seen a factor that would give clinton a bump. but, i think that's reflective of her failure to frame the narrative. for better or worse, trump appears to be in control of the narrative. that is, the fact that it's august and we're not sure what issues might give her a bump is pretty pathetic.
there's still time for clinton to take control of the narrative, but it seems to me that this election is going to be measured in terms of reactions to global terrorism - and he owns her on that issue, whether her campaign likes it or not.
that doesn't mean he's going to win, mind you. the conservatives controlled the narrative in canada in the last election, but that didn't help them win because they were so unpopular.
she should be running on the economy.
finalizing on sexual confusion in adolescence (inri013)
audio permanently closed for inri013.
==
this was not initially constructed as a standalone work, but it became one almost the moment that it was constructed. there was always an intent to combine the sexuality themed tracks together at the front of my first record, but the initial idea was something more like frontloading the disc than building a cohesive work. it just happened to build itself up that way, and was truly apparent as such on the very first listen. even the phantom of the opera cover in the middle of the track became topical in a sort of subversive way.
i first broke the piece off into a standalone file in the spring of 2014 as a mirror image to the sequence that ends my second record, which actually *was* consciously written as a single work all the way back in 1996 (and appears that way at the end of the very first demo tape). i thought that if the second record was going to have an epic then the first should as well. as the first six tracks had long been a subset in my mind, this was a natural thing to do. the title of the track was first published as an upload to youtube in mar, 2014 on the deathtokoalas channel, which is now deleted.
i did not initially number these tracks as symphonies due to their incorporation of childish vocals, although i had planned to include them on any symphonic compilation discs, nonetheless. i saw them more as proto-symphonies - or just as beginner epics, where i was finding my feet but ultimately still working out ideas.
it wasn't until i finished reclaiming my 1998 demos from tape at the end of 2015 that i realized that i could resequence my first two records from scratch and republish them as instrumental works. the ability to reclaim these two epics as instrumental works, and consequently as full symphonies, followed as a corollary of this. it was consequently not until january, 2016 that i finally elevated the instrumental reconstruction of this recording to the level of my first official symphony, which is where it will now exist into perpetuity: eternally, finally.
the focus in reconstruction was to erect a final version rather than conform to the original mix, so later versions were prioritized over earlier ones. the first through fourth sections are very similar to the original album mix, whereas the fifth and sixth sections have been replaced with expanded mixes.
once the instrumental version had been constructed for the record, i felt i had lost something by removing the vocals - or at least some of them. in the context of the improved master, i felt an edited vocal take could actually elevate the symphony to a different and surreal level, if presented in the right context. this context could not be on the record, though, which had to be fully instrumental. instead, i decided to place the vocal reconstruction as a standalone single, with the instrumental as a flip side to it.
this is an incredibly dense piece of music that i'm proud to finally place in the serious part of my discography.
written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan 6-7, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2014 & 2015. released jan 7, 2016. finalized on july 29, 2016. this is my first symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one: initially written & recorded in 1997. re-recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016.
section two: initially written in 1994. first full recording in 1996. recreated in mar, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 18, 2015. sequenced jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section three: initially written by andrew lloyd webber. recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016.
section four: originally created in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 5, 2015. expanded & sequenced on jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section five: written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. rearranged again at the end of may, 2015. remastered from the 2014 & 2015 sources on jan 6, 2016.
section six: initially written in 1997. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 5, 2015. remixed july 12, 2015. vocals and electronics added on july 16, 2015. sequenced on jan 6, 2016.
==
this was not initially constructed as a standalone work, but it became one almost the moment that it was constructed. there was always an intent to combine the sexuality themed tracks together at the front of my first record, but the initial idea was something more like frontloading the disc than building a cohesive work. it just happened to build itself up that way, and was truly apparent as such on the very first listen. even the phantom of the opera cover in the middle of the track became topical in a sort of subversive way.
i first broke the piece off into a standalone file in the spring of 2014 as a mirror image to the sequence that ends my second record, which actually *was* consciously written as a single work all the way back in 1996 (and appears that way at the end of the very first demo tape). i thought that if the second record was going to have an epic then the first should as well. as the first six tracks had long been a subset in my mind, this was a natural thing to do. the title of the track was first published as an upload to youtube in mar, 2014 on the deathtokoalas channel, which is now deleted.
i did not initially number these tracks as symphonies due to their incorporation of childish vocals, although i had planned to include them on any symphonic compilation discs, nonetheless. i saw them more as proto-symphonies - or just as beginner epics, where i was finding my feet but ultimately still working out ideas.
it wasn't until i finished reclaiming my 1998 demos from tape at the end of 2015 that i realized that i could resequence my first two records from scratch and republish them as instrumental works. the ability to reclaim these two epics as instrumental works, and consequently as full symphonies, followed as a corollary of this. it was consequently not until january, 2016 that i finally elevated the instrumental reconstruction of this recording to the level of my first official symphony, which is where it will now exist into perpetuity: eternally, finally.
the focus in reconstruction was to erect a final version rather than conform to the original mix, so later versions were prioritized over earlier ones. the first through fourth sections are very similar to the original album mix, whereas the fifth and sixth sections have been replaced with expanded mixes.
once the instrumental version had been constructed for the record, i felt i had lost something by removing the vocals - or at least some of them. in the context of the improved master, i felt an edited vocal take could actually elevate the symphony to a different and surreal level, if presented in the right context. this context could not be on the record, though, which had to be fully instrumental. instead, i decided to place the vocal reconstruction as a standalone single, with the instrumental as a flip side to it.
this is an incredibly dense piece of music that i'm proud to finally place in the serious part of my discography.
written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan 6-7, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2014 & 2015. released jan 7, 2016. finalized on july 29, 2016. this is my first symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one: initially written & recorded in 1997. re-recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016.
section two: initially written in 1994. first full recording in 1996. recreated in mar, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 18, 2015. sequenced jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section three: initially written by andrew lloyd webber. recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016.
section four: originally created in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 5, 2015. expanded & sequenced on jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section five: written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. rearranged again at the end of may, 2015. remastered from the 2014 & 2015 sources on jan 6, 2016.
section six: initially written in 1997. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 5, 2015. remixed july 12, 2015. vocals and electronics added on july 16, 2015. sequenced on jan 6, 2016.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
"Ronald Reagan is dead, and the world is no worse off for it. At the best of times, he was an ineffectual dunce. At the worst, he was a dangerous madman who threatened humanity's very survival. He destroyed any residual respect for the presidency left over from Nixon, his moral predecessor. He created unprecedented deficits while simultaneously gutting the principles of the New Deal and the Great Society. He presided over a White House famously unable to govern properly because of his abysmal ignorance and tolerance of a Byzantine mess of corrupt internal fiefdoms. His endless rotation of advisers was a contemptible assortment of thieves, quacks, hypocrites and imbeciles who regularly broke the law of the land, lied shamelessly to Congress and the American people, and hopelessly ensnared themselves in ugly webs of shady and illicit dealings. Reagan claimed to be leading a conservative revolution, but he left the presidency with America mired in debt, more authoritarian, militarized and centralized than ever before, and with a foreign policy that was the laughing-stock of the civilized world."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/8/32553/-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/8/32553/-
you're going to hear a lot of scare mongering over the next several months.
"remember when nader handed bush the election?"
i don't even care if it's true or not. the reality was that gore was just as bad as bush, which is why he couldn't sway left-wing voters.
some of you have short memories. some of you are just young. all of you should read this, to jog your memory.
reality check: al gore was 100% in support of the invasion of iraq, and was even partially responsible for it.
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore on the iraq war, 2002
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
"remember when nader handed bush the election?"
i don't even care if it's true or not. the reality was that gore was just as bad as bush, which is why he couldn't sway left-wing voters.
some of you have short memories. some of you are just young. all of you should read this, to jog your memory.
reality check: al gore was 100% in support of the invasion of iraq, and was even partially responsible for it.
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore on the iraq war, 2002
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
jessica
has she published the changes she claims she wants? thinking back to nafta, the side agreements turned out to be toothless. i don't doubt she'll do some cosmetic changes, it's just...what are they?
levithedbag1
NO SHE HASN'T. I would say if she said one thing and did another we could hold her accountable. BUT then I realized how stupid that statement is. Somehow she has gotten away with murder and deception for more than 25 years. There has to be someone out there that can stop this Clinton Obama mafia. I just can't believe people want her for the US leader. She sold herself like a whore to other countries, countries that want us dead, and big money corps.
jessica
well, i think the media ought to ensure that she does publish these changes some time before the election.
levithedbag1
She wont tip her hand like that. Clinton's don't do accountability and truth. This whole election ha gotten so far out of hand. So comical. How in the heck has all this been allowed to happen. It's embarrassing.
jessica
if she decides not to publish her proposed changes, she should not be surprised when nobody believes her.
i do actually agree, though, that the premise of a presidential candidate claiming she has a policy that she won't tell us is blatantly absurd.
----
they got to joe. oh no! joe! say it ain't so, joe.
bluntly: i think they lied to him and he fell for it.
has she published the changes she claims she wants? thinking back to nafta, the side agreements turned out to be toothless. i don't doubt she'll do some cosmetic changes, it's just...what are they?
levithedbag1
NO SHE HASN'T. I would say if she said one thing and did another we could hold her accountable. BUT then I realized how stupid that statement is. Somehow she has gotten away with murder and deception for more than 25 years. There has to be someone out there that can stop this Clinton Obama mafia. I just can't believe people want her for the US leader. She sold herself like a whore to other countries, countries that want us dead, and big money corps.
jessica
well, i think the media ought to ensure that she does publish these changes some time before the election.
levithedbag1
She wont tip her hand like that. Clinton's don't do accountability and truth. This whole election ha gotten so far out of hand. So comical. How in the heck has all this been allowed to happen. It's embarrassing.
jessica
if she decides not to publish her proposed changes, she should not be surprised when nobody believes her.
i do actually agree, though, that the premise of a presidential candidate claiming she has a policy that she won't tell us is blatantly absurd.
----
they got to joe. oh no! joe! say it ain't so, joe.
bluntly: i think they lied to him and he fell for it.
this is a really bad argument for clinton surrogates. we don't all have the memories of fruit flies...
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore arguing in favour of the iraq war, 2002
here's another historical fact: as a senator in the 90s, al gore voted for the invasion of the first iraq war. unlike in 2002, this put him in the minority. and, he was arguing for regime change during the first bush presidency.
al gore was not just following the status quo on iraq. he was unusually hawkish. he didn't just support the sanctions, he argued for them.
here's an interesting question: how much influence did gore have, directly or indirectly, into clinton's vote for the war?
would gore have invaded iraq? yeah. you betcha he would have.
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore arguing in favour of the iraq war, 2002
here's another historical fact: as a senator in the 90s, al gore voted for the invasion of the first iraq war. unlike in 2002, this put him in the minority. and, he was arguing for regime change during the first bush presidency.
al gore was not just following the status quo on iraq. he was unusually hawkish. he didn't just support the sanctions, he argued for them.
here's an interesting question: how much influence did gore have, directly or indirectly, into clinton's vote for the war?
would gore have invaded iraq? yeah. you betcha he would have.
for those that are curious, i'm going to post the two dominant sources that i'm likely to get actual news from. i tend to watch a lot of boring, wonky stuff as well. but, what are some video news sites that i'd recommend? that i actually have clicked 'subscribe' for?
1) democracy now is really the standard news site on the soft left. but, their biases are well known and it is consequently sometimes a little bit of a problem trying to digest them as a news site rather than as a propaganda outlet. i actually didn't even really consult them at all on the primary, because i knew what i was going to get. there's a few links here and there. but, their contempt for the democratic party is legendary. what i wanted was reporting from a pro-sanders slant, and i knew better than to think i was going to get it from there. the little bit that i saw was critical of sanders for selling out - which just didn't strike me as relevant. i didn't disagree. i just didn't see the use in hearing it. sell out or not, he was far and away the most exciting thing the left had seen in decades. i didn't need a sober analysis from amy & juan.
democracy now:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw
2) the other site that i normally pay a lot of attention to regarding day-to-day news is the real news network, which is kind of a canadian thing. paul jay used to be employed by our state run media, but got fired for being a communist - or something like that. trnn is not as reliable as democracy now, but it's often more direct. that is, if you want to know what's happening quickly, trnn is often the best primer to hit.
trnn:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrmm_7RDZJeQzq2-wvmjueg
those are the sites i would normally hit for daily news regarding things like geopolitics, not the sites i've been frequenting recently due to the primary.
1) democracy now is really the standard news site on the soft left. but, their biases are well known and it is consequently sometimes a little bit of a problem trying to digest them as a news site rather than as a propaganda outlet. i actually didn't even really consult them at all on the primary, because i knew what i was going to get. there's a few links here and there. but, their contempt for the democratic party is legendary. what i wanted was reporting from a pro-sanders slant, and i knew better than to think i was going to get it from there. the little bit that i saw was critical of sanders for selling out - which just didn't strike me as relevant. i didn't disagree. i just didn't see the use in hearing it. sell out or not, he was far and away the most exciting thing the left had seen in decades. i didn't need a sober analysis from amy & juan.
democracy now:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw
2) the other site that i normally pay a lot of attention to regarding day-to-day news is the real news network, which is kind of a canadian thing. paul jay used to be employed by our state run media, but got fired for being a communist - or something like that. trnn is not as reliable as democracy now, but it's often more direct. that is, if you want to know what's happening quickly, trnn is often the best primer to hit.
trnn:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrmm_7RDZJeQzq2-wvmjueg
those are the sites i would normally hit for daily news regarding things like geopolitics, not the sites i've been frequenting recently due to the primary.
i've pointed out a few times that kerry was the only modern democratic party candidate that i've supported as an acceptable lesser evil (i didn't even see gore as a lesser evil...), and i actually think he's done a truly super-human job in cleaning up the absolute disaster that clinton left the state department in. he remains probably the only person in the democratic party upper echelon that i would really seriously consider voting for. and, i've enjoyed a lot of his speeches as secretary - although i should point out that just as many of them are pretty orwellian. he's not as bad as biden on the orwellian front (at this very summit, biden had the temerity to present columbia as an example of american leadership in fighting corruption.), but he can get a little staggering sometimes. still, i find his speeches a lot more inspiring than anybody else in the club. i know that's the exact opposite of the media narrative, but that's pretty expected for me.
i watch this stuff when i eat. i don't put aside time for it. but, i think this overlaps with what i was saying about fat shaming and why it's so important that we all fat shame our kids into consuming what they need and not what they want.
to be clear.
gore: not a lesser evil.
kerry: a lesser evil.
obama: not a lesser evil.
clinton: not a lesser evil.
don't expect me to ease up on her. i keep saying it. i never eased up on obama. i never eased up on gore, either.
well, i gave obama a bit of a break for a few months after he got elected. i gave him a chance, you could say.
i watch this stuff when i eat. i don't put aside time for it. but, i think this overlaps with what i was saying about fat shaming and why it's so important that we all fat shame our kids into consuming what they need and not what they want.
to be clear.
gore: not a lesser evil.
kerry: a lesser evil.
obama: not a lesser evil.
clinton: not a lesser evil.
don't expect me to ease up on her. i keep saying it. i never eased up on obama. i never eased up on gore, either.
well, i gave obama a bit of a break for a few months after he got elected. i gave him a chance, you could say.
j reacts to the extreme social coercion that exists around fossil fuel culture
actually, the fact is that i don't have a driver's license.
the truth is that i've never wanted one. the reasons were always largely environmental. i always said that i may revisit the point if the infrastructure allows for electric vehicles, but i've learned since then that this was somewhat naive: the manufacturing process is awful enough that merely switching to electric is not enough of a solution. or, not for me, anyways. i wouldn't buy an electric car unless it was made from 100% recycled material.
right now, i mostly walk everywhere out of a combination of necessity and circumstance. my bicycle is out of order. i haven't prioritized fixing it because i wouldn't really use it right now if i could. that will change once they get the new bridge to detroit built.
so, fuck your cars. i don't want them. and, you shouldn't, either.
the truth is that i've never wanted one. the reasons were always largely environmental. i always said that i may revisit the point if the infrastructure allows for electric vehicles, but i've learned since then that this was somewhat naive: the manufacturing process is awful enough that merely switching to electric is not enough of a solution. or, not for me, anyways. i wouldn't buy an electric car unless it was made from 100% recycled material.
right now, i mostly walk everywhere out of a combination of necessity and circumstance. my bicycle is out of order. i haven't prioritized fixing it because i wouldn't really use it right now if i could. that will change once they get the new bridge to detroit built.
so, fuck your cars. i don't want them. and, you shouldn't, either.
j reacts to clinton's reactionary politics
i've got a great idea for clinton to try and reach young voters in a way that naturally reflects her campaign movements: reduce her campaign to a series of reacts videos on youtube. that's what the campaign is going to feel like. so, she'd might as well go full retard...
feel free to remove this. i was really just looking for decent coverage of the primary, and this was the closest thing i could find to it. i was never really looking for a debate. i don't even live in your country. it's more that i have a tendency for procrastination and you kept throwing shit down that i felt i could make some kind of point in reacting to. so, it's more like i saw an opportunity to co-opt something - i saw a stage to rush, a platform to yell over. i was never under the illusion that i'm anywhere close on the spectrum to this channel, which i'd run into previously on multiple occasions and had largely written off as a mouth piece for the right side of the democratic party (it was all about fiscal issues...). frankly, you surprised me with your primary coverage. the recent coverage is actually more in line with what i might expect. i guess i was never here in the first place - i didn't ever even go through the symbolic act of clicking subscribe - but i'll go ahead and leave you alone, now.
Commented on The Young Turks's Discussion tab
Commented on The Young Turks's Discussion tab
jessica
the argument that slave conditions in the south were preferable to market labour working conditions in the north has been made by essentially every american socialist since 1850, including chomsky, zinn and dewey. it's not generally presented as an argument in favour of slavery, though - it's usually presented as an argument against labour markets.
a variation on this argument is the observation that slave owners rarely killed their property, as they were invested in it, but were more open to killing "free workers" as they could just hire another one.
----
Xavier Mahan
With Ana's definition of slavery most of us are slaves.
jessica
yeah, she kind of screwed that up. in fact, o'reilly is perverting a leftist intellectual tradition that rejects the difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery. she didn't mean it, but she's accidentally absolutely right.
the argument that slave conditions in the south were preferable to market labour working conditions in the north has been made by essentially every american socialist since 1850, including chomsky, zinn and dewey. it's not generally presented as an argument in favour of slavery, though - it's usually presented as an argument against labour markets.
a variation on this argument is the observation that slave owners rarely killed their property, as they were invested in it, but were more open to killing "free workers" as they could just hire another one.
----
Xavier Mahan
With Ana's definition of slavery most of us are slaves.
jessica
yeah, she kind of screwed that up. in fact, o'reilly is perverting a leftist intellectual tradition that rejects the difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery. she didn't mean it, but she's accidentally absolutely right.
My Cat's Life
Petulant millennial bernie bros would rather sink the country because they were told no once in their lives. in the real world not everyone gets a participation award.
I'm sorry but in the real word not everyone wins. You politically naive Bernie bros have found this out and now you will be responsible for the destruction of our country.
jessica
you can cry about it and call them names, or you can do something constructive to win their votes. but, you're just another dipshit whining baby boomer that's had everything handed to you on a silver platter your whole life. you can't fathom actually working for anything.
My Cat's Life
For millennial bernie bros who are politically naive who have never been told no it's a hard pill to swallow but the in the real world not ever gets a participation award.
jessica
it's really amazing to hear boomers tell younger people that not everybody gets a participation award, when they grew up in a world where everybody got a fucking house as a reward for graduating high school - and then destroyed that world to pay for cocaine. i guess all the drugs fucked their memory up, huh?
we could live in a world where everybody wins, but the boomers' parents were right - they fucked the whole thing up.
i've got a great idea: why don't we fund student loan forgiveness with social security money?
My Cat's Life
you Bernie bros are deluded. gleefully cheering the destruction of America and the rise of new fascism just because you didn't get your way once in life. wakey wakey millennials not everyone gets a gold star
jessica
trump is not smart enough to be a fascist. but, if you're educated on hillary's track record, it's a pretty apt description.
we don't really have a choice: we've been dealing with creeping fascism since the hippies elected nixon, and this election is going to carry it forward one way or another.
i mean, you can't really blame it on the clintons. the first clinton presidency is going to actually be largely forgotten, sandwiched between reagan and bush. the reagan era will be said to extend some time past 1980, hopefully ending in 2020. clinton and his legacy will be folded entirely within it.
if he's lucky he might get something like clinton-reagan. but, that will probably actually end up as reagan-bush.
Kelli Barnhouse
Bush/Chaney Bankrupted this country After They spent The Surplus President Clinton Left Them!!! President Clinton was the best President this Country Ever Had!!! Didn't You learn anything In High School History Class!!!
jessica
there's some truth to this, but nobody cares about surpluses, or whether they're based on funny math or not - nor does having a surplus imply anything positive about the state of the economy or anything positive about the state of the country.
clinton was a caretaker president that carried on the policies that were set in motion by his predecessor. this is also largely true of obama. we're due for some kind of transformative change, but it's been resisted up to this point - and will not happen in the next four years, unless it comes from trump (but i doubt this).
Petulant millennial bernie bros would rather sink the country because they were told no once in their lives. in the real world not everyone gets a participation award.
I'm sorry but in the real word not everyone wins. You politically naive Bernie bros have found this out and now you will be responsible for the destruction of our country.
jessica
you can cry about it and call them names, or you can do something constructive to win their votes. but, you're just another dipshit whining baby boomer that's had everything handed to you on a silver platter your whole life. you can't fathom actually working for anything.
My Cat's Life
For millennial bernie bros who are politically naive who have never been told no it's a hard pill to swallow but the in the real world not ever gets a participation award.
jessica
it's really amazing to hear boomers tell younger people that not everybody gets a participation award, when they grew up in a world where everybody got a fucking house as a reward for graduating high school - and then destroyed that world to pay for cocaine. i guess all the drugs fucked their memory up, huh?
we could live in a world where everybody wins, but the boomers' parents were right - they fucked the whole thing up.
i've got a great idea: why don't we fund student loan forgiveness with social security money?
My Cat's Life
you Bernie bros are deluded. gleefully cheering the destruction of America and the rise of new fascism just because you didn't get your way once in life. wakey wakey millennials not everyone gets a gold star
jessica
trump is not smart enough to be a fascist. but, if you're educated on hillary's track record, it's a pretty apt description.
we don't really have a choice: we've been dealing with creeping fascism since the hippies elected nixon, and this election is going to carry it forward one way or another.
i mean, you can't really blame it on the clintons. the first clinton presidency is going to actually be largely forgotten, sandwiched between reagan and bush. the reagan era will be said to extend some time past 1980, hopefully ending in 2020. clinton and his legacy will be folded entirely within it.
if he's lucky he might get something like clinton-reagan. but, that will probably actually end up as reagan-bush.
Kelli Barnhouse
Bush/Chaney Bankrupted this country After They spent The Surplus President Clinton Left Them!!! President Clinton was the best President this Country Ever Had!!! Didn't You learn anything In High School History Class!!!
jessica
there's some truth to this, but nobody cares about surpluses, or whether they're based on funny math or not - nor does having a surplus imply anything positive about the state of the economy or anything positive about the state of the country.
clinton was a caretaker president that carried on the policies that were set in motion by his predecessor. this is also largely true of obama. we're due for some kind of transformative change, but it's been resisted up to this point - and will not happen in the next four years, unless it comes from trump (but i doubt this).
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
j reacts to fat shaming as an anarchist social control mechanism
fwiw, i have no problem with fat shaming. in fact, i encourage it. again: i'm an anarchist, i'm not a christian progressive. fat shaming is an example of what anarchists refer to as informal social control mechanisms. it's what we promote as replacements for state institutions. and, there's a giant level of inherent statism in erecting all these things that require policing, but are really just a lot of bourgeois fantasies and nonsense upon stilts.
--
n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-o....
i think this whole idea of comparing categories is absurd to begin with, because i don't like putting people in categories. but, being gay and being black are similar in at least one way - it doesn't harm anybody. i think we can all agree that we can't really change our skin colour (without an extreme expense). can we change our orientation? i don't particularly care if we can or not. it's the question of harm that's important.
that's standard liberalism. but, the harm principle is also very important to anarchists. there's a big point of agreement there. if you're getting bogged down in the question of choice, you're exiting liberalism and aligning with....see, there's those christian progressives again. with homosexuality, though, the harm issue is at the center of academic liberalism. it's in some ways the actual defining issue - because it's so prominent in mill.
so, what about being fat? is that a choice? probably, but who cares. the important issue to me - both as an anarchist and as a liberal - is whether it produces harm. this is a complex point, but there are a few things to think about. food scarcity. is that really an issue? well, the issue has more to do with distribution - or at least it does here. my bigger concern is health care, which is in fact scarce. when you take poor care of yourself, you do consequently harm others by wasting resources that are being inefficiently distributed. it follows that society has a valid mandate to fat shame you.
the people that call themselves liberals nowadays want to talk about individual rights theory, while ignoring the more important questions of social harm. i don't pretend i'm a liberal to start with. i'm a socialist. it's obvious how this makes sense to me. but, "liberals" have lost the plot if they think we all have the right to waste resources for no good reason.
this kind of thinking isn't actually really christian, either. it's only christian on the most base, surface level. christianity was constructed in an economy where food scarcity was a real issue - that's why gluttony is a sin.
it's more along the lines of what might be referred to as nihilism, this idea that we should just live in excess and tell everybody else to fuck off. it's utilitarianism, certainly - but basely so. satanism, perhaps, in the sense that it appeals to base, animal instincts. objectivism, in the sense of it upholding selfishness as a virtue.
but it's not a coherent liberal view (it causes social harm), a coherent socialist or anarchist view (it rejects distributive justice, if not in food then in health care) or even a coherent christian view (gluttony is sinful).
==
body temperature is 36-38 degrees celsius.
you're sweating at 25 degrees because you're unhealthy. i don't sweat at 25 degrees. i barely sweat at 30 degrees.
hypothermia sets in when your body goes below 35 degrees celsius. that's about 95 degrees farenheit.
we evolved in eastern africa, not siberia. we like it hot. if we're healthy...
--
n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-o....
i think this whole idea of comparing categories is absurd to begin with, because i don't like putting people in categories. but, being gay and being black are similar in at least one way - it doesn't harm anybody. i think we can all agree that we can't really change our skin colour (without an extreme expense). can we change our orientation? i don't particularly care if we can or not. it's the question of harm that's important.
that's standard liberalism. but, the harm principle is also very important to anarchists. there's a big point of agreement there. if you're getting bogged down in the question of choice, you're exiting liberalism and aligning with....see, there's those christian progressives again. with homosexuality, though, the harm issue is at the center of academic liberalism. it's in some ways the actual defining issue - because it's so prominent in mill.
so, what about being fat? is that a choice? probably, but who cares. the important issue to me - both as an anarchist and as a liberal - is whether it produces harm. this is a complex point, but there are a few things to think about. food scarcity. is that really an issue? well, the issue has more to do with distribution - or at least it does here. my bigger concern is health care, which is in fact scarce. when you take poor care of yourself, you do consequently harm others by wasting resources that are being inefficiently distributed. it follows that society has a valid mandate to fat shame you.
the people that call themselves liberals nowadays want to talk about individual rights theory, while ignoring the more important questions of social harm. i don't pretend i'm a liberal to start with. i'm a socialist. it's obvious how this makes sense to me. but, "liberals" have lost the plot if they think we all have the right to waste resources for no good reason.
this kind of thinking isn't actually really christian, either. it's only christian on the most base, surface level. christianity was constructed in an economy where food scarcity was a real issue - that's why gluttony is a sin.
it's more along the lines of what might be referred to as nihilism, this idea that we should just live in excess and tell everybody else to fuck off. it's utilitarianism, certainly - but basely so. satanism, perhaps, in the sense that it appeals to base, animal instincts. objectivism, in the sense of it upholding selfishness as a virtue.
but it's not a coherent liberal view (it causes social harm), a coherent socialist or anarchist view (it rejects distributive justice, if not in food then in health care) or even a coherent christian view (gluttony is sinful).
==
body temperature is 36-38 degrees celsius.
you're sweating at 25 degrees because you're unhealthy. i don't sweat at 25 degrees. i barely sweat at 30 degrees.
hypothermia sets in when your body goes below 35 degrees celsius. that's about 95 degrees farenheit.
we evolved in eastern africa, not siberia. we like it hot. if we're healthy...
ok, so i should have probably expected that i would have been a little distracted by the primaries, but this is the end of day three of aimlessness and i didn't want this at all.
i've moved my laptop back into my bedroom to re-establish a separation between play and labour. the dangerously obese, parasitic piece of shit upstairs will not relent on the air conditioner (which i'm paying for), so the heat is currently set to 31 degrees celsius - and i'm willing to increase it further. this has an effect on alertness, but it's better than living in a fucking fridge.
i still haven't heard back from the mri and it's still eating at me. but i'm at least a little more focused. i think.
i need to be a little bit more strict with myself because i want to finish what is in front of me by the end of the week so i can get all the between-things things done at the end of the month.
i've moved my laptop back into my bedroom to re-establish a separation between play and labour. the dangerously obese, parasitic piece of shit upstairs will not relent on the air conditioner (which i'm paying for), so the heat is currently set to 31 degrees celsius - and i'm willing to increase it further. this has an effect on alertness, but it's better than living in a fucking fridge.
i still haven't heard back from the mri and it's still eating at me. but i'm at least a little more focused. i think.
i need to be a little bit more strict with myself because i want to finish what is in front of me by the end of the week so i can get all the between-things things done at the end of the month.
j reacts to the impossibility of feminine men within hierarchical heteropatriarchy
"so why don't you just be a girly dude."
i just got that one. again. the reason is that you can't actually live that way.
i'll just show up to work in a skirt, right? ok, maybe that's not as out there as it was even a few years ago. here's another example that cuts a lot deeper: women just don't ask guys out.
so, why don't i show initiative? why don't i take control? why don't i be a man about it?.
whatever the answers to those questions, i think it gets the point across: you can't just be a girly dude. i think it's a lot easier to be a masculine female. you may even get a little privilege out of it. but, the premise you're throwing at me just really isn't actually feasible, and i don't think that you need to be queer to be cognizant of it.
do you know what would have actually happened had i shown up to work at microsoft in a skirt?
they'd have sent me to hr, and off to a psychiatric assessment - where i would have been given hormones, and probably the option to go on leave for a few months. i may have even been transferred.
...because it was fucking microsoft.
in canada.
it would have been a little different at a mcdonalds in dallas.
but, you get the point. it's not a real option.
i just got that one. again. the reason is that you can't actually live that way.
i'll just show up to work in a skirt, right? ok, maybe that's not as out there as it was even a few years ago. here's another example that cuts a lot deeper: women just don't ask guys out.
so, why don't i show initiative? why don't i take control? why don't i be a man about it?.
whatever the answers to those questions, i think it gets the point across: you can't just be a girly dude. i think it's a lot easier to be a masculine female. you may even get a little privilege out of it. but, the premise you're throwing at me just really isn't actually feasible, and i don't think that you need to be queer to be cognizant of it.
do you know what would have actually happened had i shown up to work at microsoft in a skirt?
they'd have sent me to hr, and off to a psychiatric assessment - where i would have been given hormones, and probably the option to go on leave for a few months. i may have even been transferred.
...because it was fucking microsoft.
in canada.
it would have been a little different at a mcdonalds in dallas.
but, you get the point. it's not a real option.
j reacts to the predictability of hillary clinton's campaign strategy
if you were to play a game of chess with hillary, she would mimic your every move until the clock runs out. absolutely predictable. so, beating her is easy: you predict that and adjust.
she may be surprisingly easy to trick into shooting herself in the foot.
she may be surprisingly easy to trick into shooting herself in the foot.
i don't think they should ban this kid, i just think they should send his revenue to the creators of south park.
the only thing i find offensive about him is his lack of individuality & deficit of critical thinking skills.
what would be better is if he did all his videos dressed up like a sheep.
this kid doesn't smoke, either. that's bullshit. "sheepy" fits a lot better.
it's just a lot of ideas that have been put in his head with cartoons, memes and viral social media.
the sad part is that people look to him for some kind of wisdom. dude. he's a fifteen year-old kid repeating the media he was brainwashed with...
when he grows up and becomes his own person, he's going to look back at this and cringe.
the only thing i find offensive about him is his lack of individuality & deficit of critical thinking skills.
what would be better is if he did all his videos dressed up like a sheep.
this kid doesn't smoke, either. that's bullshit. "sheepy" fits a lot better.
it's just a lot of ideas that have been put in his head with cartoons, memes and viral social media.
the sad part is that people look to him for some kind of wisdom. dude. he's a fifteen year-old kid repeating the media he was brainwashed with...
when he grows up and becomes his own person, he's going to look back at this and cringe.
j reacts to the surreal truth that trump comes off as a dove when compared to clinton
“I’m not going to tell Putin what to do,” Mr. Trump said. “Why should I tell Putin what to do?”
i'm sorry. but, i like this a lot better than clinton's belligerence.
it wouldn't convince me to back trump, or vote for him or whatever else. but, the more this narrative unfolds, the less urgent stopping him seems and the more appealing the green party becomes.
i'm not giving him any credit, either. i'm blaming the clinton campaign. why is she running on such a violent foreign policy?
i'm sorry. but, i like this a lot better than clinton's belligerence.
it wouldn't convince me to back trump, or vote for him or whatever else. but, the more this narrative unfolds, the less urgent stopping him seems and the more appealing the green party becomes.
i'm not giving him any credit, either. i'm blaming the clinton campaign. why is she running on such a violent foreign policy?
j reacts to "online polling".
online polling, panel polling and all other types of polling that are not random are simply propaganda. polls of this type are designed to influence popular opinion, not to measure it, and should neither be reported on nor aggregated.
put another way, this is not actually polling at all.
that said, we may have just experienced the media's expected to shift to trump.
put another way, this is not actually polling at all.
that said, we may have just experienced the media's expected to shift to trump.
it's just disingenuous to expect sanders supporters to concede that the difference between trump and clinton is that great. all the language thrown around treats it as an assumption - or something so obvious that it doesn't need to be demonstrated. the basis of the push back is just simply that the case has not been made. hillary supporters are going to have to actually make that case: they are going to have to convince these people that hilllary is measurably better than trump.
it's not obvious. and you do have to make that argument.
it's not obvious. and you do have to make that argument.
j reacts to continuing democratic party frustration with the left
it's just disingenuous to expect sanders supporters to concede that the difference between trump and clinton is that great. all the language thrown around treats it as an assumption - or something so obvious that it doesn't need to be demonstrated. the basis of the push back is just simply that the case has not been made. hillary supporters are going to have to actually make that case: they are going to have to convince these people that hilllary is measurably better than trump.
it's not obvious. and you do have to make that argument.
see, here's the twist: i don't think it's actually true. trump is absolutely terrible. hillary is in some ways even worse, because she's more calculated.
i have no problem spinning the language around: how can you look your grandkids in the eye and tell them you voted for hillary clinton? i couldn't.
the facts are not on bernie’s side. i don't want to pretend that i don't understand his perspective, but he's just not correct.
like, what is it. you want to vote for clinton on climate change? on immigration policy? on foreign policy? how is she better at any point along the way? i'm not even sure she supports stimulus spending, which is the one place she might be a little bit better. and, she wants to run on everything except the economy.
you have to actually have this debate, if you want to convince people. and, good luck to you.
the current approach - "have faith in the party" - is going to get the reaction it deserves.
it's not obvious. and you do have to make that argument.
see, here's the twist: i don't think it's actually true. trump is absolutely terrible. hillary is in some ways even worse, because she's more calculated.
i have no problem spinning the language around: how can you look your grandkids in the eye and tell them you voted for hillary clinton? i couldn't.
the facts are not on bernie’s side. i don't want to pretend that i don't understand his perspective, but he's just not correct.
like, what is it. you want to vote for clinton on climate change? on immigration policy? on foreign policy? how is she better at any point along the way? i'm not even sure she supports stimulus spending, which is the one place she might be a little bit better. and, she wants to run on everything except the economy.
you have to actually have this debate, if you want to convince people. and, good luck to you.
the current approach - "have faith in the party" - is going to get the reaction it deserves.
i think that a big part of the reason that i'm floaty is the mri. it's some kind of repressed anxiety. even when i'm not explicitly thinking about it....
we'll have to see what it says. but, i guess the next thing to check is my jaw, if my ear comes back clean. but, i'm kind of still convinced there's something in there. it sure feels like it...
the other big thing i'm concerned about is if it comes back with lesions. i'm actually becoming more and more convinced that it's lyme disease. i had said i would get that checked last month, but i decided i should wait for the mri, first. short of finding a giant tumour in my eustachian tube, that's almost certainly going to be the next thing i check.
you can imagine it's a little distracting. so, cut me some slack for a few days, here.
we'll have to see what it says. but, i guess the next thing to check is my jaw, if my ear comes back clean. but, i'm kind of still convinced there's something in there. it sure feels like it...
the other big thing i'm concerned about is if it comes back with lesions. i'm actually becoming more and more convinced that it's lyme disease. i had said i would get that checked last month, but i decided i should wait for the mri, first. short of finding a giant tumour in my eustachian tube, that's almost certainly going to be the next thing i check.
you can imagine it's a little distracting. so, cut me some slack for a few days, here.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
there was an episode of the simpsons in the 90s, where they did a parody of the x-files....
but, this is what they're running, i think. they want to play down the political differences between the candidates and turn it into a popularity contest. remember: hillary is apparently unaware of the fact that she's not widely loved.
the thinking, though, is that if you can take the issues off of the table - or minimize them - then it gets reduced to a no-brainer decision: trump is batshit crazy and she's just a little bit crazy.
two reasons why i think they're doing this. first: she always does this. it doesn't matter who her opponent is. bernie opposes the tpp? she opposes the tpp. weasel language, but nonetheless. abortion drives the gop base? they bring a pro-life vp in. it's the tactic she always uses. second: it's actually kind of true. they are basically the same candidate, except she's a little less crazy. or at least seems that way. for the first three seconds...
i'm not convinced it's a sure loss. i mean, she doesn't have a lot of better options. she can't be alienating the moderate right. that is a sure tactic to lose, because she is going to certainly bleed on the left.
she needs some kind of sugar, there. i don't know the best way to do it...
but, this is what they're running, i think. they want to play down the political differences between the candidates and turn it into a popularity contest. remember: hillary is apparently unaware of the fact that she's not widely loved.
the thinking, though, is that if you can take the issues off of the table - or minimize them - then it gets reduced to a no-brainer decision: trump is batshit crazy and she's just a little bit crazy.
two reasons why i think they're doing this. first: she always does this. it doesn't matter who her opponent is. bernie opposes the tpp? she opposes the tpp. weasel language, but nonetheless. abortion drives the gop base? they bring a pro-life vp in. it's the tactic she always uses. second: it's actually kind of true. they are basically the same candidate, except she's a little less crazy. or at least seems that way. for the first three seconds...
i'm not convinced it's a sure loss. i mean, she doesn't have a lot of better options. she can't be alienating the moderate right. that is a sure tactic to lose, because she is going to certainly bleed on the left.
she needs some kind of sugar, there. i don't know the best way to do it...
the grievance, rachel, is that they don't believe anything she says. is hillary even her real name?
remember when the other clinton was against nafta?
and, it's not like it's some kind of error in pr management, either. you can't blame this on the primary. she's spent her whole career lying to people. now, nobody believes her. how does that saying go, when we're on to "fool me for the thirty-ninth time"?
remember when the other clinton was against nafta?
and, it's not like it's some kind of error in pr management, either. you can't blame this on the primary. she's spent her whole career lying to people. now, nobody believes her. how does that saying go, when we're on to "fool me for the thirty-ninth time"?
actually, i think that this is why she has to swing right. she has a better chance of convincing conservatives than she does of convincing leftists. it's perhaps a crisis point for the democrats - in two years. right now, the goal has to be to win the election. she's not going to do that by telling lies to people that don't and never will believe her. her better chance is to lay the truth on the table and go after the right. not happy about it, of course. but, is it not obvious that she'll never convince them?
j reacts to hillary clinton's perception of the value of democracy
i know i do a lot of long rants, but i'm just going to leave you with a statement and ask you to keep it in mind as you see the coverage unfold. i just saw an interview at rcp with cory booker wearing a purple tie and talking about the left and right coming together. first of all, who does that remind you of? what does "bipartisanship" mean to you? but, forget about that for a minute. just remember this statement over the next several months:
hillary clinton thinks that government policy should exist independent of the election cycle - that party differences in policy creates instability that makes the country less safe and less productive. it follows that she believes that elections should not affect policy decisions.
if you're having trouble understanding things, just come back to that statement of explanation.
hillary clinton thinks that government policy should exist independent of the election cycle - that party differences in policy creates instability that makes the country less safe and less productive. it follows that she believes that elections should not affect policy decisions.
if you're having trouble understanding things, just come back to that statement of explanation.
j reacts to the absurd naivete on the "left" around dws
that's right. she did a great job, so she got promoted.
i've said my bit about the kaine thing, already.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T_v_jcyaRTc
i've said my bit about the kaine thing, already.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/T_v_jcyaRTc
j reacts to the expansion of broadband as social engineering tactic
this is actually a great idea, and something that left-leaning governments everywhere should look into. they're arguing it will be good for the economy, and they might even be right.
i support the idea more on social engineering grounds.
if you look at a map of most of the world right now, you notice something pretty dramatic: urban areas lean towards inclusive/liberal parties and rural areas lean inwards and towards the right. ontario is no different. modernizing the rural areas could consequently be interpreted as a type of enlightened gerrymandering.
except that we need to eat, too.
i hypothesize that one of the biggest reasons that we have these divides is the insularity of rural communities. if you live on a farm that's an hour drive from any real civilization, you just don't come into contact with any kind of diversity. so, you're naturally suspicious of it - because you don't know it.
increasing internet access in rural areas is consequently a sort of window into the present for a lot of these communities, who otherwise have little access to modernity.
little access. it's not zero access. but one of the major windows into the world from these communities right now is the print media, which is dominated by the right-wing. in canada, we have the sun chain along with the national post. replacing the bottleneck on information in the print media with open internet access will broaden people's opinions.
it won't lead to seat changes overnight. it may even take a generation to have any meaningful effect. but, it may be the single most powerful thing that the left can do to break the lock that the right has on rural communities.
i've been pushing this for a while, and i'm happy to see the government pick it up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/governments-spend-180m-on-high-speed-internet-in-ontario-1.3695222
something else that i'm in strong support of is the idea that internet lines should be interpreted as public infrastructure, like roads. so, i hope that the government hangs on to the lines, this time. we had publicly owned phone and cable lines in canada for a long time, but sold them off during the neo-liberal period. that was a big error.
i support the idea more on social engineering grounds.
if you look at a map of most of the world right now, you notice something pretty dramatic: urban areas lean towards inclusive/liberal parties and rural areas lean inwards and towards the right. ontario is no different. modernizing the rural areas could consequently be interpreted as a type of enlightened gerrymandering.
except that we need to eat, too.
i hypothesize that one of the biggest reasons that we have these divides is the insularity of rural communities. if you live on a farm that's an hour drive from any real civilization, you just don't come into contact with any kind of diversity. so, you're naturally suspicious of it - because you don't know it.
increasing internet access in rural areas is consequently a sort of window into the present for a lot of these communities, who otherwise have little access to modernity.
little access. it's not zero access. but one of the major windows into the world from these communities right now is the print media, which is dominated by the right-wing. in canada, we have the sun chain along with the national post. replacing the bottleneck on information in the print media with open internet access will broaden people's opinions.
it won't lead to seat changes overnight. it may even take a generation to have any meaningful effect. but, it may be the single most powerful thing that the left can do to break the lock that the right has on rural communities.
i've been pushing this for a while, and i'm happy to see the government pick it up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/governments-spend-180m-on-high-speed-internet-in-ontario-1.3695222
something else that i'm in strong support of is the idea that internet lines should be interpreted as public infrastructure, like roads. so, i hope that the government hangs on to the lines, this time. we had publicly owned phone and cable lines in canada for a long time, but sold them off during the neo-liberal period. that was a big error.
yeah. he's got some 'splainin' to do, alright.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-clinton-speech-hillary-clinton-democrats-1.3695087
www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-clinton-speech-hillary-clinton-democrats-1.3695087
Monday, July 25, 2016
a correlation is developing: trump's numbers consistently go up when terrorist attacks happen, and then fade when it's quiet. he consistently beats her on national security in polls. that might be the wild card that decides the election. and, if they figure it out, it might be the october surprise.
that part is actually clear to me. the convention was a mess. he didn't get a bump from that.....
he got a bump from the munich attack.
what's a little less clear to me is whether this is emotional or intellectual. the fact that he fades when things get quiet seems to suggest that people are kneejerking. they see an attack, they get mad, they say they want to vote for the guy that wants a muslim ban. but, then once their fruit fly length memory wipes it out, they come to their sense and realize it's a bad idea.
are they actually going to do it? what factors will work them up enough to actually pull the trigger on it? and, what's the antidote?
it's a dangerous situation, certainly.
that part is actually clear to me. the convention was a mess. he didn't get a bump from that.....
he got a bump from the munich attack.
what's a little less clear to me is whether this is emotional or intellectual. the fact that he fades when things get quiet seems to suggest that people are kneejerking. they see an attack, they get mad, they say they want to vote for the guy that wants a muslim ban. but, then once their fruit fly length memory wipes it out, they come to their sense and realize it's a bad idea.
are they actually going to do it? what factors will work them up enough to actually pull the trigger on it? and, what's the antidote?
it's a dangerous situation, certainly.
j reacts to the phantom trump bump, and presents an alternate explanation for it
if trump just got a bounce, i might suspect it has more to do with the recent spate of terrorist attacks than the convention.
the last few weeks - and the last week especially - has been horrific. i don't think that trump has the answers, of course. but it's hard not to conclude that some kind of drastic action is required.
he consistently beats her on national security....
....which is why she wants to run the election on foreign policy...?
the last few weeks - and the last week especially - has been horrific. i don't think that trump has the answers, of course. but it's hard not to conclude that some kind of drastic action is required.
he consistently beats her on national security....
....which is why she wants to run the election on foreign policy...?
j reacts to the absurdity of stealing low quality audio streams
i've been noticing that the bandcamp site is getting many times more visitors than plays. so far in july, i have just over 1100 visits and just under 400 plays. one would expect the opposite. even if everybody shows up and just skips through three songs, that's still three times as many plays as visits. how can i have a third as many plays as visits? what are people doing on my bandcamp site - which has little besides a play button - if not listening?
my best guess is that this is a metric regarding just how bad the problem of bandcamp downloading is. i'd just like to make a few comments.
first: please recognize that i don't prostitute myself to capitalism by selling my labour for a wage, and i'm never going to ever again. this is a basic political position of mine. i consider it more noble to live on welfare than to sell my labour for a wage. for the same reason, i don't have a record label, and i don't want one. i don't make money through advertising, and i don't want to. i'm pushing the point out of principle: do you not think you have an obligation to pay for something if you're enjoying it? i just don't understand the thought process that would take somebody to an audio site to download a low quality file out of the stream that only exists for promo purposes, then tell me i should force people to listen to an ad for condoms if i want to eat. that's not the world i want to live in. that's the world i want to abolish.
second: there's no way around this. if you can stream something, you can pirate it. but, again: i can't understand why this is the arrangement that you actually want.
third: the pirated version that you're getting is absolutely shit. my music is very sonically complex. the 128 kbps mp3 that you're streaming is really worth what you're paying for. i have to clarify that you're not actually getting a proper representation of the sound, that way. i'm not exaggerating, either. there's a reason that i am constantly requesting that you listen to the music though headphones. if you're going to listen through a shitty mp3 (no doubt on your phone speakers or on laptop speakers), you're barely even getting an approximation of it. again, i don't understand what you're getting out of this. this isn't vocally driven music. if you're not listening to the arrangements, what are you listening to? as an example, the most recent track that i uploaded is mixed in such a way that i literally cannot hear the bass part on my laptop speakers. it's not the first time i've noticed this, either. you really need to be listening to it in flac, and through a decent setup. the stream can only give you a taste. to steal the stream is to completely miss the point.
fourth: broadly speaking, i think you're missing the point. the message that sends to me is that you don't understand the art. so, why are you listening to it? you can barely hear it, and you don't understand it.
so, it's hard for me to get angry. it's less that i feel like i'm a victim of theft, and more that i feel like i'm not getting my ideas across very well. or, maybe i am. after all, one of my main messages is the ubiquity of human stupidity. perhaps you're just demonstrating the point.
if you're going to listen to this at all, please do yourself the favour of downloading it in high quality - and listening to it through headphones. that's not a hollow request. you cannot possibly understand what i'm creating, otherwise.
my best guess is that this is a metric regarding just how bad the problem of bandcamp downloading is. i'd just like to make a few comments.
first: please recognize that i don't prostitute myself to capitalism by selling my labour for a wage, and i'm never going to ever again. this is a basic political position of mine. i consider it more noble to live on welfare than to sell my labour for a wage. for the same reason, i don't have a record label, and i don't want one. i don't make money through advertising, and i don't want to. i'm pushing the point out of principle: do you not think you have an obligation to pay for something if you're enjoying it? i just don't understand the thought process that would take somebody to an audio site to download a low quality file out of the stream that only exists for promo purposes, then tell me i should force people to listen to an ad for condoms if i want to eat. that's not the world i want to live in. that's the world i want to abolish.
second: there's no way around this. if you can stream something, you can pirate it. but, again: i can't understand why this is the arrangement that you actually want.
third: the pirated version that you're getting is absolutely shit. my music is very sonically complex. the 128 kbps mp3 that you're streaming is really worth what you're paying for. i have to clarify that you're not actually getting a proper representation of the sound, that way. i'm not exaggerating, either. there's a reason that i am constantly requesting that you listen to the music though headphones. if you're going to listen through a shitty mp3 (no doubt on your phone speakers or on laptop speakers), you're barely even getting an approximation of it. again, i don't understand what you're getting out of this. this isn't vocally driven music. if you're not listening to the arrangements, what are you listening to? as an example, the most recent track that i uploaded is mixed in such a way that i literally cannot hear the bass part on my laptop speakers. it's not the first time i've noticed this, either. you really need to be listening to it in flac, and through a decent setup. the stream can only give you a taste. to steal the stream is to completely miss the point.
fourth: broadly speaking, i think you're missing the point. the message that sends to me is that you don't understand the art. so, why are you listening to it? you can barely hear it, and you don't understand it.
so, it's hard for me to get angry. it's less that i feel like i'm a victim of theft, and more that i feel like i'm not getting my ideas across very well. or, maybe i am. after all, one of my main messages is the ubiquity of human stupidity. perhaps you're just demonstrating the point.
if you're going to listen to this at all, please do yourself the favour of downloading it in high quality - and listening to it through headphones. that's not a hollow request. you cannot possibly understand what i'm creating, otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)