they couldn't find him a big kid's chair, or what?
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
actually, i have far more fun with the paid stooges after their party is in power, when they're trying to build the cult of personality. that's when they get really comical. it's then the election afterwards, when they try to apply all of the nonsense, that we can really have some fun.
see, in tearing down the cult of personality, i get to be an anarchist and demonstrate that conservatives are basically stalinists in disguise: the cult of personality is a statist phenomenon. conservatives do it. liberals do it. but, whereas conservatives kind of yearn for it deep down, it's the liberals (wherever they are on the spectrum) that can't stand it.
so, i'm actually being trans-partisan. not post. i'd like to keep parties, actually. and even have more of them. and not bi. as though we're in kahoots, right? no. trans-partisan. and, the language is entirely coincidental.
this is when i'm most entertaining. and, attempts to semi-deify trump are an easy target - because he is himself an easy target. so, keep an eye out for it.
see, in tearing down the cult of personality, i get to be an anarchist and demonstrate that conservatives are basically stalinists in disguise: the cult of personality is a statist phenomenon. conservatives do it. liberals do it. but, whereas conservatives kind of yearn for it deep down, it's the liberals (wherever they are on the spectrum) that can't stand it.
so, i'm actually being trans-partisan. not post. i'd like to keep parties, actually. and even have more of them. and not bi. as though we're in kahoots, right? no. trans-partisan. and, the language is entirely coincidental.
this is when i'm most entertaining. and, attempts to semi-deify trump are an easy target - because he is himself an easy target. so, keep an eye out for it.
also, if you're curious - the alter-reality has not stopped, it's just been paused. i will catch up when i am finished inri021. i've done this before. it's not ideal, but it's where my head needs to be. it also seems like i'll need to stop to read the grapes of wrath pretty much all of the way through. barring further delays, that should be the first week of december.
i'm going to do a recitation for the first time in two weeks and plan to time them, in the future, when my sd card fills up.
that's going to be about twice a month. roughly.
i'm going to do a recitation for the first time in two weeks and plan to time them, in the future, when my sd card fills up.
that's going to be about twice a month. roughly.
“There will be a multiyear transition into the replacement,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.). “This is a failed piece of legislation and it is coming apart at the seams, but it is going to take us awhile to make that transition from the repeal to actually replacing it.”
mmhmm.
when he said on day one, he meant in terms of a biblical analogy. because the lord is working through him, and he is carrying out god's plans. so, day one really means his first term.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/30/getting-rid-of-obamacare-may-take-longer-than-trump-plans/?tid=ss_twm&utm_term=.de660945dc22
mmhmm.
when he said on day one, he meant in terms of a biblical analogy. because the lord is working through him, and he is carrying out god's plans. so, day one really means his first term.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/30/getting-rid-of-obamacare-may-take-longer-than-trump-plans/?tid=ss_twm&utm_term=.de660945dc22
you don't have to care about my stupid music.
...but realize that i don't care about your stupid economy, either.
reciprocity? well, your stupid economy puts me at a disadvantage. the ideal is if we put property in common. then i'm not forced into slavery.
but, i don't ask for you to change your goals, i ask for you to back off and let me accomplish mine. i am lucky. i have this option. and, i may be best off to just be quiet and enjoy it, as i know that workers are brainwashed by religion to be subservient and reject "laziness". i'm targeting myself. but, i feel everybody should have this option - and that the world around me would be more vibrant if everybody did.
i feel that giving people more time to spend making art by freeing them from the constraints of labour is in my self-interest.
but, this isn't even slacktivism. this is an online journal. it's just an idea, man. like, my opinion, and stuff. and, yes - i know i have hundreds of daily readers. but i have not cultivated them. and i don't know who they are or what they want.
...but realize that i don't care about your stupid economy, either.
reciprocity? well, your stupid economy puts me at a disadvantage. the ideal is if we put property in common. then i'm not forced into slavery.
but, i don't ask for you to change your goals, i ask for you to back off and let me accomplish mine. i am lucky. i have this option. and, i may be best off to just be quiet and enjoy it, as i know that workers are brainwashed by religion to be subservient and reject "laziness". i'm targeting myself. but, i feel everybody should have this option - and that the world around me would be more vibrant if everybody did.
i feel that giving people more time to spend making art by freeing them from the constraints of labour is in my self-interest.
but, this isn't even slacktivism. this is an online journal. it's just an idea, man. like, my opinion, and stuff. and, yes - i know i have hundreds of daily readers. but i have not cultivated them. and i don't know who they are or what they want.
walkom is one of the few writers in canada that isn't an old tory.
he's right about pierre. and, he's right about canadians. canada's admiration for castro is less about who castro was or what he did and more about the symbolism of being a pain in the side of the empire. and, our solidarity with the trudeaus is symbolic on that level. it's some good old-fashioned anti-americanism.
you could say something about justin living in a different era, about him not sharing these anti-american instincts. or, at least not yet. i mean, a great society must be a just one, right? lbj may have famously roughed up pearson a little. but, it took a nixon for pierre to really look the other way.
but, insofar as the different era is concerned, i think we're all missing the obvious: justin trudeau had no relationship with fidel castro. and, he snubbed him on the only chance he had to meet him.
i'm not sure correlation implies causality, here, regarding the media smackdown. why would he have gone in the first place?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/11/30/justin-trudeau-loses-his-nerve-skips-fidel-castros-funeral-walkom.html
"i've been called worse things by better people." - pierre trudeau reacting to reports that richard nixon called him an asshole.
i'm not sure that nixon was ever seen as diplomatic. but, this is likely a fairly quaint precursor to trump, who is certainly not.
nixon and pet were pretty far apart on the spectrum. trump and justin are pretty much the same dynamic, but with the elastic pulled right out of shape...
it was exasperation with nixon that had trudeau flirting with the non-aligned movement.
he's right about pierre. and, he's right about canadians. canada's admiration for castro is less about who castro was or what he did and more about the symbolism of being a pain in the side of the empire. and, our solidarity with the trudeaus is symbolic on that level. it's some good old-fashioned anti-americanism.
you could say something about justin living in a different era, about him not sharing these anti-american instincts. or, at least not yet. i mean, a great society must be a just one, right? lbj may have famously roughed up pearson a little. but, it took a nixon for pierre to really look the other way.
but, insofar as the different era is concerned, i think we're all missing the obvious: justin trudeau had no relationship with fidel castro. and, he snubbed him on the only chance he had to meet him.
i'm not sure correlation implies causality, here, regarding the media smackdown. why would he have gone in the first place?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/11/30/justin-trudeau-loses-his-nerve-skips-fidel-castros-funeral-walkom.html
"i've been called worse things by better people." - pierre trudeau reacting to reports that richard nixon called him an asshole.
i'm not sure that nixon was ever seen as diplomatic. but, this is likely a fairly quaint precursor to trump, who is certainly not.
nixon and pet were pretty far apart on the spectrum. trump and justin are pretty much the same dynamic, but with the elastic pulled right out of shape...
it was exasperation with nixon that had trudeau flirting with the non-aligned movement.
why isn't there an html5-blocker for firefox?
it's the autoplay. whatever you want it to do, it doesn't work. it's just annoying.
i mean, do you want a slew of two second "watches" distorting your stats? no? then, ditch autoplay.
this gets flashblock working again:
media.audio_data.enabled;false
media.autoplay.enabled;false
media.ogg.enabled;false
media.webaudio.enabled;false
media.webm.enabled;false
it's the autoplay. whatever you want it to do, it doesn't work. it's just annoying.
i mean, do you want a slew of two second "watches" distorting your stats? no? then, ditch autoplay.
this gets flashblock working again:
media.audio_data.enabled;false
media.autoplay.enabled;false
media.ogg.enabled;false
media.webaudio.enabled;false
media.webm.enabled;false
in the midst of continuing stories about foreign hacking and computer faud, i just want to clarify what i'm thinking regarding how this whole election fraud thing works. no, i can't prove it. nobody else will ever prove it, either. but, how do they do that? there's lots of ways, of course. but, let's tell a little story that i think gets the main idea across...
this is jonah. jonah willis. he had his picture taken for a uk site, but he lives in north carolina, and he's going to vote for clinton.
"i'mma vote for clinton."
but, then bae comes in.
bae: but, cornel says she's a racist.
jonah: i know she's a racist, but they're both racists, and i think that other guy's a jackass, so i'mma vote for clinton. you coming?
bae: naw. i think they're all the same.
jonah: fine. i'm leaving. i'mma vote for clinton.
now, jonah knows he's black, so he knows he has to take special precautions if he wants his vote to count. that's why he has a suitcase of identification over there, which he always brings whenever he needs to vote:
the suitcase has 23 different types of identification, so there's no way they're not letting him vote.
when he shows up to the voting place, he's moved into the "black line". nobody calls it the black line. but everybody knows it's the black line. it features extra delays & extra checking and pretty much everybody ends up with a "provisional ballot" in the end.
after going through the suitcase item by item, the lady at the booth eventually rejects all of them as "insufficient" and gives jonah a "provisional ballot". she ensures jonah that all of the photocopies will be checked, and so long as at least one of them checks out then his vote will count.
jonah did actually vote for clinton. what else can he do but go home?
but, the lady at the booth put an asterisk beside jonah's name when he was in the booth. this was something she was instructed to do by the party.
at the end of the day, when everybody is gone, and while the ballots are being counted, a second operation is underway - the list that had jonah's name on it is being replaced by a list without his name on it. the new list does not have the name of any black people on it. the number of scrubbed black voters is then added up, and that number is removed from the pile of provisional ballots. these ballots are then destroyed.
in the end, there is no evidence that jonah ever showed up to vote at all.
if questioned on this procedure, the lady at the booth would no doubt be matter-of-fact:
it's tradition. we've been doing this here for generations. we let them come in and vote, but we don't actually count them. we never have. otherwise, they'd take over.
the only evidence that exists is the following strange truth: despite opinion polls implying the contrary, trump almost held his base. but, clinton was millions of votes short of all projections, specifically in the black and latino communities.
it seems like votes disappeared. and, if they did they will never be found...
this is jonah. jonah willis. he had his picture taken for a uk site, but he lives in north carolina, and he's going to vote for clinton.
"i'mma vote for clinton."
but, then bae comes in.
bae: but, cornel says she's a racist.
jonah: i know she's a racist, but they're both racists, and i think that other guy's a jackass, so i'mma vote for clinton. you coming?
bae: naw. i think they're all the same.
jonah: fine. i'm leaving. i'mma vote for clinton.
now, jonah knows he's black, so he knows he has to take special precautions if he wants his vote to count. that's why he has a suitcase of identification over there, which he always brings whenever he needs to vote:
the suitcase has 23 different types of identification, so there's no way they're not letting him vote.
when he shows up to the voting place, he's moved into the "black line". nobody calls it the black line. but everybody knows it's the black line. it features extra delays & extra checking and pretty much everybody ends up with a "provisional ballot" in the end.
after going through the suitcase item by item, the lady at the booth eventually rejects all of them as "insufficient" and gives jonah a "provisional ballot". she ensures jonah that all of the photocopies will be checked, and so long as at least one of them checks out then his vote will count.
jonah did actually vote for clinton. what else can he do but go home?
but, the lady at the booth put an asterisk beside jonah's name when he was in the booth. this was something she was instructed to do by the party.
at the end of the day, when everybody is gone, and while the ballots are being counted, a second operation is underway - the list that had jonah's name on it is being replaced by a list without his name on it. the new list does not have the name of any black people on it. the number of scrubbed black voters is then added up, and that number is removed from the pile of provisional ballots. these ballots are then destroyed.
in the end, there is no evidence that jonah ever showed up to vote at all.
if questioned on this procedure, the lady at the booth would no doubt be matter-of-fact:
it's tradition. we've been doing this here for generations. we let them come in and vote, but we don't actually count them. we never have. otherwise, they'd take over.
the only evidence that exists is the following strange truth: despite opinion polls implying the contrary, trump almost held his base. but, clinton was millions of votes short of all projections, specifically in the black and latino communities.
it seems like votes disappeared. and, if they did they will never be found...
and, for you people that think the democrats need to "get rid of identity politics"...
...that means what, exactly? running a candidate that says black children are super-predators, wants to deport latino children to south america and refuses to back gay equality until the last minute?
i mean, you lose because minority support is less than expected, and you want less minority voters? what?
i think what that actually means is that the democrats need to attract more white voters, and it's a kind of coded way to suggest that they should be more racist. but, i guess you weren't paying attention. because, hillary blew that dog whistle fairly often. and, unlike trump, she has a policy record to back it up.
i think there's a valid idea hidden in there, though, and that idea begins with the understanding that what the republicans have been doing with white voters is, in fact, just identity politics. the democrats have spent a lot of resources creating these minority-based identity politics. the republicans went for the mother of all demographics, and created an identity politics of the white christian. voter suppression or not, it clearly worked.
now, we're left face to face with the problem that the left has known all along: we have to change the nature of "white identity" in america. that's basically the mission of the left anyways.
it's not impossible, either. we've largely won this fight in canada. and, back in the 90s, it sure looked like the white liberal was winning the culture war in america, too.
and, that may the ultimate conclusion, here: the culture war that so many of us thought was over actually isn't. in the end, it may be a last gasp of a dying generation. but, it's not wise to make that assumption. rather, it seems like there's still a lot of battles to be fought and won.
-
it's just, like...
i'm white. yeah. i know it. i know it affects cultural decisions. who i spend time with. etc.
but, i'm secular. that probably has a lot do with the rest of my views.
i'm not economically well-off, either - although i have no interest in competing and am happy to live in poverty in exchange for freedom from labour.
so, i'm a lower class white voter. i'm an atheist. and i'm educated. but, i'm still white and lower class.
and i simply don't have a desire to live in a culture full of other people like me. that strikes me as very boring. this insularism is foreign to me. it can't be inherent.
i don't feel attracted to other white people. it could partly be because i know that so many other white people are conservative and christian and capitalist. sure. but, that solidarity is not there.
rather, i feel that solidarity over class. i feel it over ideology. i feel it over musical taste, as silly as that may be. and, those are categories that transcend skin colour.
i don't think i'm an anomaly. i just think i'm a product of a different culture. and, i can only look to america and say "this cannot be inherent. this cannot be permanent. this cannot be static. because the rest of the world is not like this."
...that means what, exactly? running a candidate that says black children are super-predators, wants to deport latino children to south america and refuses to back gay equality until the last minute?
i mean, you lose because minority support is less than expected, and you want less minority voters? what?
i think what that actually means is that the democrats need to attract more white voters, and it's a kind of coded way to suggest that they should be more racist. but, i guess you weren't paying attention. because, hillary blew that dog whistle fairly often. and, unlike trump, she has a policy record to back it up.
i think there's a valid idea hidden in there, though, and that idea begins with the understanding that what the republicans have been doing with white voters is, in fact, just identity politics. the democrats have spent a lot of resources creating these minority-based identity politics. the republicans went for the mother of all demographics, and created an identity politics of the white christian. voter suppression or not, it clearly worked.
now, we're left face to face with the problem that the left has known all along: we have to change the nature of "white identity" in america. that's basically the mission of the left anyways.
it's not impossible, either. we've largely won this fight in canada. and, back in the 90s, it sure looked like the white liberal was winning the culture war in america, too.
and, that may the ultimate conclusion, here: the culture war that so many of us thought was over actually isn't. in the end, it may be a last gasp of a dying generation. but, it's not wise to make that assumption. rather, it seems like there's still a lot of battles to be fought and won.
-
it's just, like...
i'm white. yeah. i know it. i know it affects cultural decisions. who i spend time with. etc.
but, i'm secular. that probably has a lot do with the rest of my views.
i'm not economically well-off, either - although i have no interest in competing and am happy to live in poverty in exchange for freedom from labour.
so, i'm a lower class white voter. i'm an atheist. and i'm educated. but, i'm still white and lower class.
and i simply don't have a desire to live in a culture full of other people like me. that strikes me as very boring. this insularism is foreign to me. it can't be inherent.
i don't feel attracted to other white people. it could partly be because i know that so many other white people are conservative and christian and capitalist. sure. but, that solidarity is not there.
rather, i feel that solidarity over class. i feel it over ideology. i feel it over musical taste, as silly as that may be. and, those are categories that transcend skin colour.
i don't think i'm an anomaly. i just think i'm a product of a different culture. and, i can only look to america and say "this cannot be inherent. this cannot be permanent. this cannot be static. because the rest of the world is not like this."
because cutting corporate taxes create jobs. right.
they don't believe that. don't think they do. they just think you're stupid enough to believe it. and, if the you is universal, they're right.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-treasury-secretary-our-first-priority-is-tax-cuts-2016-11
obviously, that they would invest more if they only had more money on hand? can't you see that?
http://www.businessinsider.com/record-us-corporate-cash-holdings-182-trillion-2015-6
they don't believe that. don't think they do. they just think you're stupid enough to believe it. and, if the you is universal, they're right.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-treasury-secretary-our-first-priority-is-tax-cuts-2016-11
obviously, that they would invest more if they only had more money on hand? can't you see that?
http://www.businessinsider.com/record-us-corporate-cash-holdings-182-trillion-2015-6
hey donald.
hows 'bout you pass a law limiting the number of times somebody can declare bankruptcy?
if i was him, i'd like to leave my business interests behind, too. will his creditors agree, though?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests
i guarantee you he declares bankruptcy.
^ a rhetorical device. obviously, i can't guarantee anything.
hows 'bout you pass a law limiting the number of times somebody can declare bankruptcy?
if i was him, i'd like to leave my business interests behind, too. will his creditors agree, though?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests
i guarantee you he declares bankruptcy.
^ a rhetorical device. obviously, i can't guarantee anything.
so, will this wave of kneejerk "anti-liberalism" in favour of magical thinking that conservatives will act like liberals if we all think hard enough that they will take justin trudeau down?
the truth is that it already did. and, he reacted. and he won a landslide on top of it.
rewind to a year, or even a few months, before the election. trudeau was ahead in the polls. then, he started talking about balanced budgets. he screwed up badly on c-51. and, canadians turned to our systemic bernie sanders - the ndp. history may forget to record that they nearly won. and they really nearly did.
then, harper started playing the anti-islam card. you can say what you will about this, but what it comes down to is that trudeau had the brand recognition necessary to fight back against it. kellie leitch? no, we just had that election, and that tactic lost.
trudeau had the political smarts that clinton didn't have. he saw it coming and he reacted. he beat the ndp at their own game, and they're still figuring out what to do.
it was paul krugman that pointed out that canada is always ahead of the curve, that we should look to canada for a taste of the future. yet, we're constantly told to expect the effects of american elections to be felt, here. i think that certain voices in the canadian commentariat may want to adjust their analysis.
it already happened, here. and, he co-opted it. we may even get a renegotiation of nafta out of it. hey - a girl can dream.
trudeau is the anti-elite backlash.
-
but, really. you gotta wonder if you should be dusting off the pavlov in your post-mortem, here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition
the truth is that it already did. and, he reacted. and he won a landslide on top of it.
rewind to a year, or even a few months, before the election. trudeau was ahead in the polls. then, he started talking about balanced budgets. he screwed up badly on c-51. and, canadians turned to our systemic bernie sanders - the ndp. history may forget to record that they nearly won. and they really nearly did.
then, harper started playing the anti-islam card. you can say what you will about this, but what it comes down to is that trudeau had the brand recognition necessary to fight back against it. kellie leitch? no, we just had that election, and that tactic lost.
trudeau had the political smarts that clinton didn't have. he saw it coming and he reacted. he beat the ndp at their own game, and they're still figuring out what to do.
it was paul krugman that pointed out that canada is always ahead of the curve, that we should look to canada for a taste of the future. yet, we're constantly told to expect the effects of american elections to be felt, here. i think that certain voices in the canadian commentariat may want to adjust their analysis.
it already happened, here. and, he co-opted it. we may even get a renegotiation of nafta out of it. hey - a girl can dream.
trudeau is the anti-elite backlash.
-
but, really. you gotta wonder if you should be dusting off the pavlov in your post-mortem, here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition
thomas mulcair is attacking justin trudeau for his willingness to open up nafta.
“How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before he says anything to Canadians about what he is looking for?”
really. really...
it's a sad day in canada when the leader of the ndp champions nafta. a sad day, indeed.
after refusing to step down after voters clearly rejected his rightward shifting of the party's positions, which were in clear contempt of the party's platform, mr. mulcair was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. we are now months past his own party's rejection of his political positions, and he refuses to stand down.
mr. mulcair, the voters have spoken. the party members have spoken. your mps have spoken. it is time for you to sit down and be quiet. it is time for you to go away. it is time for you to let go of the position that you would not let go of, that has been stripped from you and that nobody has faith in you to hold.
trudeau's comments will not hurt him, politically. but, mulcair is continuing to remind us why he lost his own base.
the party of douglas has become the party of mindless obstructionism. and, if this is what it has to offer, then it is time that it merge not with the liberals but with the tories.
my sadness is only eclipsed by my disgust.
-
yeah. they took it down.
they took their platform down.
and, then they wonder why they lost their base?
this is what the ndp's donors and voters and grassroots had in their platform, before mulcair took it down.
“Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security.”
and, mulcair has been taken down, himself. he's just stuck in cache; he just refuses to go away.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-partys-website-because-it-is-not-the-platform-ndp-advisor
F5. F5. F5. fuck. work...
“How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before he says anything to Canadians about what he is looking for?”
really. really...
it's a sad day in canada when the leader of the ndp champions nafta. a sad day, indeed.
after refusing to step down after voters clearly rejected his rightward shifting of the party's positions, which were in clear contempt of the party's platform, mr. mulcair was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. we are now months past his own party's rejection of his political positions, and he refuses to stand down.
mr. mulcair, the voters have spoken. the party members have spoken. your mps have spoken. it is time for you to sit down and be quiet. it is time for you to go away. it is time for you to let go of the position that you would not let go of, that has been stripped from you and that nobody has faith in you to hold.
trudeau's comments will not hurt him, politically. but, mulcair is continuing to remind us why he lost his own base.
the party of douglas has become the party of mindless obstructionism. and, if this is what it has to offer, then it is time that it merge not with the liberals but with the tories.
my sadness is only eclipsed by my disgust.
-
yeah. they took it down.
they took their platform down.
and, then they wonder why they lost their base?
this is what the ndp's donors and voters and grassroots had in their platform, before mulcair took it down.
“Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security.”
and, mulcair has been taken down, himself. he's just stuck in cache; he just refuses to go away.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-partys-website-because-it-is-not-the-platform-ndp-advisor
F5. F5. F5. fuck. work...
j reacts to the pipeline approvals in canada
this is no surprise. i fully expected that this battle would need to be fought on the ground. let's just not lose focus on the importance of fighting for positive steps towards transition, as we continue to fight this regressive feet-dragging.
putting all your focus on stopping the pipelines, and winning, doesn't leave us with much at the end of the day if the grid is in the same shape as it is now. we have to focus on transition and adaptation, too. with the election of the denier-in-chief, that's just all the more apparent. so, this is going to require a lot of hard work to stop. but, the liberals are still the lesser evil and it was still the right choice to put them in power.
we just have to make sure those infrastructure funds get released and put to use in transitioning, even as we fight the pipelines.
the ndp supported the pipelines, too. but, they had no plan for transition. indeed, their plan was to rely on taxing dirty oil to pay for social services.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/29/liberals-approve-trans-mountain-line-3-pipeline-projects.html
putting all your focus on stopping the pipelines, and winning, doesn't leave us with much at the end of the day if the grid is in the same shape as it is now. we have to focus on transition and adaptation, too. with the election of the denier-in-chief, that's just all the more apparent. so, this is going to require a lot of hard work to stop. but, the liberals are still the lesser evil and it was still the right choice to put them in power.
we just have to make sure those infrastructure funds get released and put to use in transitioning, even as we fight the pipelines.
the ndp supported the pipelines, too. but, they had no plan for transition. indeed, their plan was to rely on taxing dirty oil to pay for social services.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/29/liberals-approve-trans-mountain-line-3-pipeline-projects.html
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
j reacts to the republican plan to convert medicare into obamacare (and keep obamacare)
i don't think they're going to get rid of obamacare, because it was actually what they wanted. before it was obamacare, it was romneycare. and, before that it was gingrichcare. it came right out of the heritage institute.....what more could they want?
well, ok, there's a few things in implementation. so, they may change a few minor parts of it. i could see them breaking down the state monopoly part of it, which was designed to prevent companies from sheltering in states with bad laws (they'll claim competition will reduce prices, which is always an absurd lie and should be a red flag when you hear it). then, they'll rebrand it as 'something better'. and people will largely swallow it. but they'll keep the basic idea, because it's what they always wanted.
but, could they convert medicare into obamacare? that sounds like something they'd want to do, yeah.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/11/paul-ryan-trump-privatize-medicare-000241
well, ok, there's a few things in implementation. so, they may change a few minor parts of it. i could see them breaking down the state monopoly part of it, which was designed to prevent companies from sheltering in states with bad laws (they'll claim competition will reduce prices, which is always an absurd lie and should be a red flag when you hear it). then, they'll rebrand it as 'something better'. and people will largely swallow it. but they'll keep the basic idea, because it's what they always wanted.
but, could they convert medicare into obamacare? that sounds like something they'd want to do, yeah.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/11/paul-ryan-trump-privatize-medicare-000241
i remain without vlog. what's the deal with that?
well, i'm not done the record. that's all there is to it. but, i'm also kind of digging the freedom.
i am vlogging. i just dumped a 32 gb sd card to hard drive. so, lots of data.
but i've been clear over and over - i'm not vlogging for profit. i'm vlogging partly for marketing (i do many things, but i identify as a composer) and partly for documentation.
i mean, imagine if beethoven had a vlog. he would have smashed the camera, and there would have been no more vlog. i've digressed.
what that means is that there really isn't any reason why i need to upload my vlogs in any specific frequency. so long as the data exists, it exists. it doesn't matter if it gets uploaded or edited or not. right?
well, i like the idea of a stable vlog, even if it's staggered. clearly, a week was not enough time. and, i'm not going to catch the two week target. three weeks is just weird. so, i'm moving to a month. well, four weeks. so, a little less than a month...
the vlog for nov 15th will be published at 00:30 on dec 14th, and we'll keep going from there.
hopefully, what that means is that i can restrict editing to two or three days a month.
well, i'm not done the record. that's all there is to it. but, i'm also kind of digging the freedom.
i am vlogging. i just dumped a 32 gb sd card to hard drive. so, lots of data.
but i've been clear over and over - i'm not vlogging for profit. i'm vlogging partly for marketing (i do many things, but i identify as a composer) and partly for documentation.
i mean, imagine if beethoven had a vlog. he would have smashed the camera, and there would have been no more vlog. i've digressed.
what that means is that there really isn't any reason why i need to upload my vlogs in any specific frequency. so long as the data exists, it exists. it doesn't matter if it gets uploaded or edited or not. right?
well, i like the idea of a stable vlog, even if it's staggered. clearly, a week was not enough time. and, i'm not going to catch the two week target. three weeks is just weird. so, i'm moving to a month. well, four weeks. so, a little less than a month...
the vlog for nov 15th will be published at 00:30 on dec 14th, and we'll keep going from there.
hopefully, what that means is that i can restrict editing to two or three days a month.
Monday, November 28, 2016
j reacts to the ubiquity of junk economics in the mainstream press
"Trump's stated plans to cut taxes and ramp up infrastructure spending is expected to boost the U.S. economy, and the Federal Reserve is expected to boost U.S. interest rates, which could draw investors toward the U.S. greenback."
no.
rather, i'd expect that a congressional push for austerity and entitlement clawbacks is going to lead to a punishing recession, which will lead to a strong sell-off. republicans are generally terrible for the american economy, and usually create recessions. the combination of congressional austerity with a protectionist white house is likely going to be disastrous.
i agree with the rate hike, but i do not believe that rate hikes or cuts affect the value of the currency much.
the canadian dollar is traded on a market. rates are not meaningful because traders sell the currency quickly. it does not react to macroeconomic factors, either. it's value is determined by the perception of investors, not by causal economic laws. these predictions are consequently always worthless - when they are right, it is by sheer chance.
that said, i'd also expect that the sum effect of trump's policies is going to push oil lower (unless he manages to piss off opec, or something). and, because canada's dollar is perceived as a petro-currency, that remains the dominant psychological factor on the value that the canadian currency is traded at.
so, what we're going to be looking at with the loonie is finding a middle point between a worse-than-usual republican recession (which helps the loonie) and low oil prices (which doesn't). i'm not going to guess where it balances out, and don't think you should either. but, i'd bet more on stability than instability.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loonie-us-dollar-forecasts-1.3863851
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/20/trumps-turn-republican-presidents-rule-recessions/93976832/
"While we see substantial support in Congress for proposals to cut taxes and reform the tax code, our current impression is that market expectations of quick fiscal expansion may be running ahead of political and legislative realities," Goldman said.
yup.
tax cut? check.
infrastructure spending? nope.
the report also makes the "error" of assigning gdp growth to tax cuts. i say "error" because i do not believe that goldman sachs actually believes in reaganomics, so much as it is holding to the lie because it wants the tax cut.
expect a recession. and pretty quickly.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/us-recession-odds-relatively-low-but-curb-your-enthusiasm-on-trumponomics-goldman.html
don't be surprised if the recession turns into a depression, either.
no.
rather, i'd expect that a congressional push for austerity and entitlement clawbacks is going to lead to a punishing recession, which will lead to a strong sell-off. republicans are generally terrible for the american economy, and usually create recessions. the combination of congressional austerity with a protectionist white house is likely going to be disastrous.
i agree with the rate hike, but i do not believe that rate hikes or cuts affect the value of the currency much.
the canadian dollar is traded on a market. rates are not meaningful because traders sell the currency quickly. it does not react to macroeconomic factors, either. it's value is determined by the perception of investors, not by causal economic laws. these predictions are consequently always worthless - when they are right, it is by sheer chance.
that said, i'd also expect that the sum effect of trump's policies is going to push oil lower (unless he manages to piss off opec, or something). and, because canada's dollar is perceived as a petro-currency, that remains the dominant psychological factor on the value that the canadian currency is traded at.
so, what we're going to be looking at with the loonie is finding a middle point between a worse-than-usual republican recession (which helps the loonie) and low oil prices (which doesn't). i'm not going to guess where it balances out, and don't think you should either. but, i'd bet more on stability than instability.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loonie-us-dollar-forecasts-1.3863851
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/20/trumps-turn-republican-presidents-rule-recessions/93976832/
"While we see substantial support in Congress for proposals to cut taxes and reform the tax code, our current impression is that market expectations of quick fiscal expansion may be running ahead of political and legislative realities," Goldman said.
yup.
tax cut? check.
infrastructure spending? nope.
the report also makes the "error" of assigning gdp growth to tax cuts. i say "error" because i do not believe that goldman sachs actually believes in reaganomics, so much as it is holding to the lie because it wants the tax cut.
expect a recession. and pretty quickly.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/us-recession-odds-relatively-low-but-curb-your-enthusiasm-on-trumponomics-goldman.html
don't be surprised if the recession turns into a depression, either.
didn't they actually buy a drone company for delivery?
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
liberals need to avoid taking the alt-right bait on a racist narrative. this can't be about white liberals standing up for brown people. that just plays into their identity politics narrative, and perpetuates further conflict, even if we win most of the battles. it has to be a teachable moment used to banish race from the discourse altogether.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed
news flash: voter suppression or not, it was the republicans that were most successful in using identity politics, this election.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed
news flash: voter suppression or not, it was the republicans that were most successful in using identity politics, this election.
the right-wing press is nailing trudeau for refraining from demonizing castro.
they don't represent popular opinion in the country. trudeau should stick by his comments, which were reflective of the broad understanding in this country that castro was not perfect but that he did far more good than he did harm.
that's the historical narrative that will stick. the tory media is, as usual, completely wrong.
trudeau did not win the election by caving to the media. and, he should not cave to the media, now.
a lot of the people in the tory press that are criticizing trudeau today for his comments on castro were no doubt supporting apartheid south africa while castro was fighting it. they were on the wrong side of history then, and they are on the wrong side of history, now.
these are the same people that declared mandela a terrorist and stuck to it.
their opinions are wrong. they have always been wrong. and, if their media parent companies had any concept of social responsibility, their microphones and pens and keyboards would have been taken away from them years ago.
you don't have to be an advocate of historical materialism to realize that you can't expect a primitive society to respect queer rights. my understanding is that the reality was less that castro was an opponent of queer rights and more that he chose not to prevent their persecution. the ultimate problem stemmed from centuries of colonial rule by the catholic church. it was something that he couldn't overturn quickly, and fighting against it too strenuously may have put the whole thing in jeopardy.
the same thing is true today in russia. putin does not care about gay people one way or another. but, he knows that standing up to the church, which is what is actually leading the persecution, would put his own position in jeopardy.
i'm not trying to whitewash putin or castro. you can call putin weak, and be right. and, you can question castro's judgement. but, let us attribute the problem, correctly - in both cases, the problem is religion. and, on the left, we know how careful we have to be about religion and striking the right balance in letting it die out slowly.
it's not that queer rights are not important. of course, they are. but, they are a second-generation concern.
there is consequently something deeply bourgeois and distressingly haughty in these upper class tories and liberals looking down on these developing societies and criticizing them for not overturning their colonial brainwashing fast enough.
queer rights are a deduction, and not a premise. a certain framework must come first.
and, in time, castro's society did become more free for queer people - once it had time to undo the effects of catholicism.
they don't represent popular opinion in the country. trudeau should stick by his comments, which were reflective of the broad understanding in this country that castro was not perfect but that he did far more good than he did harm.
that's the historical narrative that will stick. the tory media is, as usual, completely wrong.
trudeau did not win the election by caving to the media. and, he should not cave to the media, now.
a lot of the people in the tory press that are criticizing trudeau today for his comments on castro were no doubt supporting apartheid south africa while castro was fighting it. they were on the wrong side of history then, and they are on the wrong side of history, now.
these are the same people that declared mandela a terrorist and stuck to it.
their opinions are wrong. they have always been wrong. and, if their media parent companies had any concept of social responsibility, their microphones and pens and keyboards would have been taken away from them years ago.
you don't have to be an advocate of historical materialism to realize that you can't expect a primitive society to respect queer rights. my understanding is that the reality was less that castro was an opponent of queer rights and more that he chose not to prevent their persecution. the ultimate problem stemmed from centuries of colonial rule by the catholic church. it was something that he couldn't overturn quickly, and fighting against it too strenuously may have put the whole thing in jeopardy.
the same thing is true today in russia. putin does not care about gay people one way or another. but, he knows that standing up to the church, which is what is actually leading the persecution, would put his own position in jeopardy.
i'm not trying to whitewash putin or castro. you can call putin weak, and be right. and, you can question castro's judgement. but, let us attribute the problem, correctly - in both cases, the problem is religion. and, on the left, we know how careful we have to be about religion and striking the right balance in letting it die out slowly.
it's not that queer rights are not important. of course, they are. but, they are a second-generation concern.
there is consequently something deeply bourgeois and distressingly haughty in these upper class tories and liberals looking down on these developing societies and criticizing them for not overturning their colonial brainwashing fast enough.
queer rights are a deduction, and not a premise. a certain framework must come first.
and, in time, castro's society did become more free for queer people - once it had time to undo the effects of catholicism.
more projection. classic trump. he knows the election was rigged in his favour - that millions more votes for clinton disappeared. this is what he does to control his herd of idiots and deplorables (it was a stupid thing to say, but it was always true, and i'm going to stick with it). at some point, the sheep will react. but, they're sheep. it could be a while.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-calls-it-sad-that-clinton-joining-recount-effort/article33058826/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-calls-it-sad-that-clinton-joining-recount-effort/article33058826/
j reacts to the idea that pipelines can be a compromise in fighting climate change
"Mr. Trudeau has appeared willing to take that risk because it could lead to a political triumph. If he can balance a pipeline with a climate deal with premiers at a meeting Dec. 8 – and it appears a deal with all provincial premiers except Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall is likely – then he can claim the broad political middle by asserting he delivered both a pipeline to tidewater and a deal on emissions."
this is stupidity. he will do neither. he will alienate both constituencies.
there is no "political middle". it's a fantasy created by conservatives to co-opt the left.
the liberals played this game in the 90s and lost. the lesson they should have learned is that they can't balance the left and right, and that they're only deluding themselves in pretending that they can.
the reason is that nobody actually wants this compromise. there's no victory in getting pipelines built, while you address climate change. that's not something i want, or something i'll celebrate. it's just feet-dragging and weak tea.
i know it's coming. i never pretended it wasn't. i knew he was going to approve pipelines, and i knew they would need to be fought in court and on the ground. but, i'm not looking forward to it, and nobody else is, either.
that's delusional. simply. plainly.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-about-to-see-just-how-ruthless-trudeau-can-be/article33065655/
this is stupidity. he will do neither. he will alienate both constituencies.
there is no "political middle". it's a fantasy created by conservatives to co-opt the left.
the liberals played this game in the 90s and lost. the lesson they should have learned is that they can't balance the left and right, and that they're only deluding themselves in pretending that they can.
the reason is that nobody actually wants this compromise. there's no victory in getting pipelines built, while you address climate change. that's not something i want, or something i'll celebrate. it's just feet-dragging and weak tea.
i know it's coming. i never pretended it wasn't. i knew he was going to approve pipelines, and i knew they would need to be fought in court and on the ground. but, i'm not looking forward to it, and nobody else is, either.
that's delusional. simply. plainly.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-about-to-see-just-how-ruthless-trudeau-can-be/article33065655/
Sunday, November 27, 2016
i actually really don't like the idea of posting pictures with your partner in your profile pic, whatever the site is. it broadcasts a lack of individuality. and, i'll never see the upside to that, no matter how you try and explain it. your profile is yours, it's never your partner's. and, no, you can't share it.
it's kind of like going to the bathroom with the door open. you're going to do it. and, everybody knows you're going to do it. but, it's never ok.
it's kind of like going to the bathroom with the door open. you're going to do it. and, everybody knows you're going to do it. but, it's never ok.
publishing inri019
this is the final section of the last proper inri demo, which was written as somewhat of a suite, but only in a fleeting moment, and then forgotten. it's a sort of sardonic take on the jesus story, in that it follows a persecuted person through a suicide and a resurrection, with tongue in cheek commentary.
initially, it was a song suite about being young and not listened to, culminating in a rather dramatic overreaction - that i ridiculed as counter-productive, partly by reference to kurt cobain, whose suicide is an event that hangs over the childhood of my generation. people that were adults at the time might want to think of it in the same way that they interpreted watching kennedy get his brains blown out on live tv. as i grew up (stated loosely - i was still 17/18, here), i realized this is a general condition of society that is not limited to young people. so, i generalized it to reflect the illusion of what we call "democracy", and gave it an exaggerated persecution complex. the cynicism was targeted at the clinton administration, but in a broader sense i'm sort of ridiculing the rather cartoonish perception of generation x as this kind of raelian mass of fatalist children....
my final vocal edit for viewless focused on a small part of the verse and cut the chorus out altogether. i then distributed that small part into the rest of the song by cutting into parts and pasting it in where i wanted. this drops the more general commentary, which seems like an anachronism, in favour of refocusing the listener on the direct storyline of individual persecution. for suicide, i left the vocal track largely in tact, except to remove the suicide note, which in hindsight also seems like a giant distraction from the satirical storyline. what's left is more direct.
i also want to note that there was a conscious decision to move to a more recited vocal style on the 1999 rerecording (and subsequent 2016 reconstruction), rather than the screamy style that dominates the initial 1996 demo. at the time, i considered screaming to be sort of contrived and passe. the recitation is actually a very considered reaction to something i interpreted as largely cartoonish. i was certainly still heavily influenced by the screamy stuff i grew up with, but it wasn't a characteristic of much of anything i was attracted to after about '97 or so and actually something that i really wanted to distance myself from.
i've pulled back from insisting on recited vocals in order to minimize that contrivedness, but the truth is that the vast majority of music released after about '97 that has screamed vocals very much *is* contrived. time has only cemented my rejection of falsely emotionalized vocals in punk-derived genres.
written and demoed from 1996-1999. initially constructed in this form in january, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. sequenced on nov 22-24, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. audio permanently closed on nov 24, 2016. release finalized on nov 27, 2016. this is my second symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one ("epilag"): initially created in early 1999. remastered on nov 23, 2016.
section two ("viewless"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 19, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 29, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016. corrected to remove an errand click on nov 24, 2016.
section three ("anticipation"): background noise built in 1996. rebuilt in late 1998. edited in late 2013. remastered on nov 24, 2016.
section four ("suicide"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016.
section five ("resurrection"): initially written and recorded on january 4, 1999.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).
*download only
initially, it was a song suite about being young and not listened to, culminating in a rather dramatic overreaction - that i ridiculed as counter-productive, partly by reference to kurt cobain, whose suicide is an event that hangs over the childhood of my generation. people that were adults at the time might want to think of it in the same way that they interpreted watching kennedy get his brains blown out on live tv. as i grew up (stated loosely - i was still 17/18, here), i realized this is a general condition of society that is not limited to young people. so, i generalized it to reflect the illusion of what we call "democracy", and gave it an exaggerated persecution complex. the cynicism was targeted at the clinton administration, but in a broader sense i'm sort of ridiculing the rather cartoonish perception of generation x as this kind of raelian mass of fatalist children....
my final vocal edit for viewless focused on a small part of the verse and cut the chorus out altogether. i then distributed that small part into the rest of the song by cutting into parts and pasting it in where i wanted. this drops the more general commentary, which seems like an anachronism, in favour of refocusing the listener on the direct storyline of individual persecution. for suicide, i left the vocal track largely in tact, except to remove the suicide note, which in hindsight also seems like a giant distraction from the satirical storyline. what's left is more direct.
i also want to note that there was a conscious decision to move to a more recited vocal style on the 1999 rerecording (and subsequent 2016 reconstruction), rather than the screamy style that dominates the initial 1996 demo. at the time, i considered screaming to be sort of contrived and passe. the recitation is actually a very considered reaction to something i interpreted as largely cartoonish. i was certainly still heavily influenced by the screamy stuff i grew up with, but it wasn't a characteristic of much of anything i was attracted to after about '97 or so and actually something that i really wanted to distance myself from.
i've pulled back from insisting on recited vocals in order to minimize that contrivedness, but the truth is that the vast majority of music released after about '97 that has screamed vocals very much *is* contrived. time has only cemented my rejection of falsely emotionalized vocals in punk-derived genres.
written and demoed from 1996-1999. initially constructed in this form in january, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. sequenced on nov 22-24, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. audio permanently closed on nov 24, 2016. release finalized on nov 27, 2016. this is my second symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one ("epilag"): initially created in early 1999. remastered on nov 23, 2016.
section two ("viewless"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 19, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 29, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016. corrected to remove an errand click on nov 24, 2016.
section three ("anticipation"): background noise built in 1996. rebuilt in late 1998. edited in late 2013. remastered on nov 24, 2016.
section four ("suicide"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016.
section five ("resurrection"): initially written and recorded on january 4, 1999.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).
*download only
credits
released January 13, 1999
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, electric piano, vocals, drum kit, drum programming, sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, light-wave synthesis, noise generators, sound design, loops, tapes, digital wave editing, production
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, electric piano, vocals, drum kit, drum programming, sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, light-wave synthesis, noise generators, sound design, loops, tapes, digital wave editing, production
pot, kettle.
but, is he worried? see, i don't think he should be. i think his handlers cleaned up.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38121264
but, is he worried? see, i don't think he should be. i think his handlers cleaned up.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38121264
guys, listen - zizek is a troll. i mean, he calls himself a stalinist. isn't that the first clue that you shouldn't take him seriously? but, he's not actually a stalinist. he's just a smart capitalist. he knows what sells, and he says ridiculous things for profit.
this is not new, either. it's good that this is chomsky, because he's the go-to guy to expose that entire school of sophistry. but, there have always been sophists. and there have always been fools willing to give those sophists their money.
you should have listened to chomsky.
and, in the end that might be the chapter in the history book on the era of the american empire. you can imagine it in the table of contents...
the british empire.............................10063
the american empire........................26575
the new chinese empire...................26576
shouldda listened to chomsky.
-
i remember an old friend showing up at my place with a zizek video sometime in the mid 00s, thinking i'd enjoy it. my reaction was the standard reaction one gets from actual smart and actual educated people that are not easily hypnotized by his psycho-babble: he just rambled for an hour without actually saying anything.
rather than take my far more educated opinion on the topic seriously, he gave me the standard kneejerk, which i suspect is a part of the orientation material (no doubt sold separately, or perhaps free with orders of a certain magnitude):
"you just didn't understand it."
sure. right. went right over my head, man.
he's not a stalinist, but he does flirt with the worst tendencies on the right. and, he should not be taken seriously by anybody that is remotely left of center.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html
no, honestly, though. you might think a zizek "concert" is full of philosophy students. but, ask around. my experience is that your average zizek "fan" is actually somebody that thought they were too smart for school and may or may not have bothered to finish grade 12.
that's the ruse: he sells nonsense to idiots that spend their whole lives failing, who then get to feel superior because they understand things that the smart kids don't. and, the more that actual academics smack this nonsense down, the more elite the failures get to feel.
there's maybe something to all the reverse psychology. but, what that something is is a tactic to sell shit to the people that are buying it. nor is this particularly novel. as mentioned: there have always been sophists, and there have always been people willing to give them money.
it's just as simple as giving losers a way out of feeling inferior. that's always a good business model. they're not stupid, after all. they get the secret knowledge. they're the special ones. it's the kids that went to school that are stupid, and don't get it.
and, political movements have always had to find a way to inoculate themselves against this kind of anti-intellectualism, under threat of collapse into absurdity.
this is not new, either. it's good that this is chomsky, because he's the go-to guy to expose that entire school of sophistry. but, there have always been sophists. and there have always been fools willing to give those sophists their money.
you should have listened to chomsky.
and, in the end that might be the chapter in the history book on the era of the american empire. you can imagine it in the table of contents...
the british empire.............................10063
the american empire........................26575
the new chinese empire...................26576
26575
The American Empire
shouldda listened to chomsky.
-
i remember an old friend showing up at my place with a zizek video sometime in the mid 00s, thinking i'd enjoy it. my reaction was the standard reaction one gets from actual smart and actual educated people that are not easily hypnotized by his psycho-babble: he just rambled for an hour without actually saying anything.
rather than take my far more educated opinion on the topic seriously, he gave me the standard kneejerk, which i suspect is a part of the orientation material (no doubt sold separately, or perhaps free with orders of a certain magnitude):
"you just didn't understand it."
sure. right. went right over my head, man.
he's not a stalinist, but he does flirt with the worst tendencies on the right. and, he should not be taken seriously by anybody that is remotely left of center.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html
no, honestly, though. you might think a zizek "concert" is full of philosophy students. but, ask around. my experience is that your average zizek "fan" is actually somebody that thought they were too smart for school and may or may not have bothered to finish grade 12.
that's the ruse: he sells nonsense to idiots that spend their whole lives failing, who then get to feel superior because they understand things that the smart kids don't. and, the more that actual academics smack this nonsense down, the more elite the failures get to feel.
there's maybe something to all the reverse psychology. but, what that something is is a tactic to sell shit to the people that are buying it. nor is this particularly novel. as mentioned: there have always been sophists, and there have always been people willing to give them money.
it's just as simple as giving losers a way out of feeling inferior. that's always a good business model. they're not stupid, after all. they get the secret knowledge. they're the special ones. it's the kids that went to school that are stupid, and don't get it.
and, political movements have always had to find a way to inoculate themselves against this kind of anti-intellectualism, under threat of collapse into absurdity.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
re: the fake news. not the norm macdonald fake news, the facebook stuff.
it was late 2013 that i just got fed up and unplugged.
so, i wasn't paying attention to facebook over the election. i haven't had a feed to check in around three years.
feb 25, 2015
this somewhat ironically explains why i discarded social media and went back to traditional media.
the cat pictures were admittedly bad. the memes were worse. but what really permanently turned me off was the lack of filters, combined with a disturbing level of mass ignorance.
i was hooked up to a number of "libertarian" type political movements, most leaning towards the socialist brand of libertarianism (anarchism). occupy, idle no more, groups against tar sands development and other protest groups with similar purposes that organized large protests and generated substantial interest.
i'd guess that roughly 75% of the articles that i'd read that had gone "viral" within that political spectrum were absolute nonsense. the stuff on gmos was particularly illiterate. and, it would just get shared by dumb hippie after dumb hippie after dumb hippie. it's the perfect example of how lies can become truth if they're repeated often enough - which in this case means if they're shared over enough feeds.
i reacted, of course. you send out crap in your feed, i'm going to correct you. but, what it lead to was a lot of interpersonal tension, accusations that i wasn't on "their side" and just general close-mindedness to criticism. the meme was authoritarian truth; how dare i challenge it with my puny citations!
what i learned was that social media isn't a replacement for anything - it's merely an evolution of the mob mentality. it reminded me of how important good journalism really is, and why it can't be tossed aside as a relic of the past.
i think that free-thinking people ought to be very cautious of how social media might shape social movements in the future, mostly for the worst. it really pushes a conformist mob mentality, with little interest in fact checking.
i think we can probably blame the anti-vaccine campaign on social media.
i fear it's just the beginning.
it was late 2013 that i just got fed up and unplugged.
so, i wasn't paying attention to facebook over the election. i haven't had a feed to check in around three years.
feb 25, 2015
this somewhat ironically explains why i discarded social media and went back to traditional media.
the cat pictures were admittedly bad. the memes were worse. but what really permanently turned me off was the lack of filters, combined with a disturbing level of mass ignorance.
i was hooked up to a number of "libertarian" type political movements, most leaning towards the socialist brand of libertarianism (anarchism). occupy, idle no more, groups against tar sands development and other protest groups with similar purposes that organized large protests and generated substantial interest.
i'd guess that roughly 75% of the articles that i'd read that had gone "viral" within that political spectrum were absolute nonsense. the stuff on gmos was particularly illiterate. and, it would just get shared by dumb hippie after dumb hippie after dumb hippie. it's the perfect example of how lies can become truth if they're repeated often enough - which in this case means if they're shared over enough feeds.
i reacted, of course. you send out crap in your feed, i'm going to correct you. but, what it lead to was a lot of interpersonal tension, accusations that i wasn't on "their side" and just general close-mindedness to criticism. the meme was authoritarian truth; how dare i challenge it with my puny citations!
what i learned was that social media isn't a replacement for anything - it's merely an evolution of the mob mentality. it reminded me of how important good journalism really is, and why it can't be tossed aside as a relic of the past.
i think that free-thinking people ought to be very cautious of how social media might shape social movements in the future, mostly for the worst. it really pushes a conformist mob mentality, with little interest in fact checking.
i think we can probably blame the anti-vaccine campaign on social media.
i fear it's just the beginning.
j reacts to the possibility of toll booths in canada
you might expect me to be opposed to toll booths, and i am. but not really.
"isn't that why we pay taxes?"
well, maybe that's what you'd like your tax money to be spent on. but you're being a little presumptuous. not everybody that uses the roads pays taxes, and not everybody that pays taxes uses the roads.
reality check: while i'm not currently paying taxes (i get way more back in rebates than i pay), i have paid taxes in the past. i don't even have a driver's license. and, i think this is becoming a lot more common with younger people, especially younger people in the cities.
if i were to stand up and say "i pay taxes. shouldn't i get on the bus and the subway and the light rail for free? i mean, that's why i pay taxes, isn't it?", i'd likely get eye rolls. but, it is fundamentally the same argument. i use public transportation and am expected to pay for it. i'm also expected to subsidize highways that i don't use. where's the reciprocity in this?
i think a just solution can happen in one of two ways:
1) we neither have toll booths on highways nor do we have toll booths on subways or buses or light rail.
2) we have toll booths on highways, just like we have toll booths on subways and buses and light rail.
i prefer the first option. but, my opposition to the second is not going to be so high - not so long as i have to pay to get on the bus.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/road-tolls-will-they-actually-reduce-congestion/article32974843/
if, in the end, we end up using toll booth revenue to fund public transit? that's some wealth redistribution in the right direction...
"isn't that why we pay taxes?"
well, maybe that's what you'd like your tax money to be spent on. but you're being a little presumptuous. not everybody that uses the roads pays taxes, and not everybody that pays taxes uses the roads.
reality check: while i'm not currently paying taxes (i get way more back in rebates than i pay), i have paid taxes in the past. i don't even have a driver's license. and, i think this is becoming a lot more common with younger people, especially younger people in the cities.
if i were to stand up and say "i pay taxes. shouldn't i get on the bus and the subway and the light rail for free? i mean, that's why i pay taxes, isn't it?", i'd likely get eye rolls. but, it is fundamentally the same argument. i use public transportation and am expected to pay for it. i'm also expected to subsidize highways that i don't use. where's the reciprocity in this?
i think a just solution can happen in one of two ways:
1) we neither have toll booths on highways nor do we have toll booths on subways or buses or light rail.
2) we have toll booths on highways, just like we have toll booths on subways and buses and light rail.
i prefer the first option. but, my opposition to the second is not going to be so high - not so long as i have to pay to get on the bus.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/road-tolls-will-they-actually-reduce-congestion/article32974843/
if, in the end, we end up using toll booth revenue to fund public transit? that's some wealth redistribution in the right direction...
j reacts to the reports of the demise of nafta being greatly exaggerated (from canada)
i think that what trudeau is trying to say, here, is that he doesn't expect that trump will actually ask to renegotiate nafta, so he's not going to comment on a theoretical that he doesn't expect to actually happen. it's a pretty standard public relations tactic when faced with a lack of clarity in events happening around you.
it's consistent with what he said earlier, too: that he'd love to sit down with the president and talk about renegotiating nafta. sure. pull up a seat, don. because the liberal party always loved nafta, right? it wasn't something that mulroney fucked up hard and that chretien had no realistic means of escape from and had to eat whether he liked it or not. what trudeau was doing was calling his bluff.
sure. let's renegotiate nafta! there's this list of stuff, here, that we've been waiting for 25 years to squirm out of...
trudeau is not going to get along with trump. and, it may be the best thing he can hope for, too: because nothing unites canadians behind the liberal party like an asshole republican in the white house.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3072173/justin-trudeau-canada-will-only-respond-to-concrete-proposals-from-donald-trump/
to be clear: i'd love to renegotiate nafta, and i couldn't ask for a more clueless idiot than trump to renegotiate it with. how's that for playing a hand?
free trade with the united states - reciprocity - has always been in the canadian interest. the liberals have always supported it. but, the agreement was negotiated and signed by the worst prime minister that the country has ever had. he sold the country off. he threw away our sovereignty. he caved on everything imaginable. so, of course the liberals opposed it - and they were right to oppose it.
but, then they win the election in 1993 and they can't escape it. if they sign it, we're fucked. but clinton knows he can't get a renegotiation through congress, and he's not interested in opening it up. so, if they don't sign it, we're even more fucked because we're poking the eyes of our biggest export market. it's a brutal cost-benefit analysis. but, they were right to sign it, even after they were right to oppose it.
so, they signed a deal they opposed because they didn't have a choice. and, they've been waiting for the opportunity to renegotiate ever since.
so, yeah - let's sit down and talk. you've twisted our arm.
if the liberals had the opportunity in 1993, they would have scrapped nafta and started from scratch. that wasn't an option, then. we got sucked into an agreement that was primarily between the us and mexico. the fta was bad, but it was better because it was actually about us. so, i would strongly support this, still, today. remember: if we trash nafta, the fta still exists. that would be a good start. but don't count on it....
"NAFTA was built upon CUSFTA. The text of CUSFTA was used during negotiations with Mexico and there were some new provisions. For example, trading automobiles had to be adjusted because Mexico’s investment rules were also somehow adjusted and one of the big changes connected with NAFTA and Canada-US free trade agreement is the Investment Chapter. NAFTA has also chapter 11 which deals with dispute settlement connected with the protection of investment. The CUSFTA did not have this chapter. There was no particular investment dispute settlement, there was only some general dispute settlement between government, but in the case of NAFTA, US Government was very concern of protection of US Investments. Mexican court system was adequate for the US and Canadian investments so the part be of Chapter 11 was added and NAFTA became the first RTA which contains an investment arbitration."
so, if trump were to come in and trash nafta, reverting back to the fta, i'd be about 95% of the way there, in terms of supporting a free trade agreement with the united states, specifically.
chances of that happening? i'd say close to zero.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/introduction-north-american-free-trade-agreement-isds-khachatryan
it's consistent with what he said earlier, too: that he'd love to sit down with the president and talk about renegotiating nafta. sure. pull up a seat, don. because the liberal party always loved nafta, right? it wasn't something that mulroney fucked up hard and that chretien had no realistic means of escape from and had to eat whether he liked it or not. what trudeau was doing was calling his bluff.
sure. let's renegotiate nafta! there's this list of stuff, here, that we've been waiting for 25 years to squirm out of...
trudeau is not going to get along with trump. and, it may be the best thing he can hope for, too: because nothing unites canadians behind the liberal party like an asshole republican in the white house.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3072173/justin-trudeau-canada-will-only-respond-to-concrete-proposals-from-donald-trump/
to be clear: i'd love to renegotiate nafta, and i couldn't ask for a more clueless idiot than trump to renegotiate it with. how's that for playing a hand?
free trade with the united states - reciprocity - has always been in the canadian interest. the liberals have always supported it. but, the agreement was negotiated and signed by the worst prime minister that the country has ever had. he sold the country off. he threw away our sovereignty. he caved on everything imaginable. so, of course the liberals opposed it - and they were right to oppose it.
but, then they win the election in 1993 and they can't escape it. if they sign it, we're fucked. but clinton knows he can't get a renegotiation through congress, and he's not interested in opening it up. so, if they don't sign it, we're even more fucked because we're poking the eyes of our biggest export market. it's a brutal cost-benefit analysis. but, they were right to sign it, even after they were right to oppose it.
so, they signed a deal they opposed because they didn't have a choice. and, they've been waiting for the opportunity to renegotiate ever since.
so, yeah - let's sit down and talk. you've twisted our arm.
if the liberals had the opportunity in 1993, they would have scrapped nafta and started from scratch. that wasn't an option, then. we got sucked into an agreement that was primarily between the us and mexico. the fta was bad, but it was better because it was actually about us. so, i would strongly support this, still, today. remember: if we trash nafta, the fta still exists. that would be a good start. but don't count on it....
"NAFTA was built upon CUSFTA. The text of CUSFTA was used during negotiations with Mexico and there were some new provisions. For example, trading automobiles had to be adjusted because Mexico’s investment rules were also somehow adjusted and one of the big changes connected with NAFTA and Canada-US free trade agreement is the Investment Chapter. NAFTA has also chapter 11 which deals with dispute settlement connected with the protection of investment. The CUSFTA did not have this chapter. There was no particular investment dispute settlement, there was only some general dispute settlement between government, but in the case of NAFTA, US Government was very concern of protection of US Investments. Mexican court system was adequate for the US and Canadian investments so the part be of Chapter 11 was added and NAFTA became the first RTA which contains an investment arbitration."
so, if trump were to come in and trash nafta, reverting back to the fta, i'd be about 95% of the way there, in terms of supporting a free trade agreement with the united states, specifically.
chances of that happening? i'd say close to zero.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/introduction-north-american-free-trade-agreement-isds-khachatryan
j reacts to the death of fidel castro
ah, fidel. things could have been so much different. but it was largely not your fault, and history will acknowledge that. the modern mithridates. may you rest in the peace you never had.
j reacts to the recounts in wisconsin & pennsylvania (and michigan)
i don't expect that the recounts in wisconsin or michigan will change the tallies much. you'll note that i never argued that the elections were being rigged by a foreign power, or that the voting machines were suspect or that data was being altered (with the possible exception of early voters calling in to change their votes, which i think should be investigated). what i argued was that the polls were obviously being manipulated to exaggerate white voter turnout and minimize turnout from non-white voters, and this indicated that there was an understanding in the background (and the sources suggested deep state intelligence collusion) that voter suppression tactics were going to swing the outcome of the election. the media used terms like "likely voters" as code words and jargon; what they meant was that they expected that the minority vote was going to be suppressed.
i didn't argue that the tactics weren't used in north carolina or florida or arizona, either. what i argued is that the margins in these states make the manipulation less obvious, and that it would consequently be a lot harder to prove. resources should be focused on the places where the fraud is most obvious, and that would be in wisconsin & pennsylvania & michigan.
(put another way, the polls predicted that the results in north carolina & arizona & florida were going to be close enough that a systemic bias could be explained solely in the margin of error. basically, they could cheat in these states and get away with it because polling is not perfect. that was not true in pennsylvania or wisconsin or michigan, where clinton was ahead by margins that exceeded any reasonable error. you have to rely on not just a systemic bias but also on an unreasonably large shy trump voter effect in these states that was consistent through all polling and even the exit polling. either people were lying to the polling firms consistently for months and the data reflected it or they weren't and votes were destroyed.)
i initially just thought they were using bad modelling. it took me time to realize that what should have been bad modelling was actually at the least predictive due to the understanding that the election was going to be stolen through voter intimidation and discarded ballots. they were modelling voter suppression, and that voter suppression that they modelled actually happened.
what that means is that the paper trail is probably in provisional ballots if it exists, but that there's no guarantee that it's there at all. a proper accounting would no doubt yield a correct result, but it would take a long time and probably break privacy laws. and, those ballots may have very well just been discarded.
i don't expect that there's going to be any way to prove that it was stolen, other than to point at the polling discrepancies and argue that this is fishy (and to point out that the media seems to have seen it coming). this was an inside job and these guys are pros. they know what they're doing. they didn't leave a smoking gun at the polling booth.
it's not that trump's vote totals are higher. they're not. he underperformed romney.
it's that millions and millions of votes for clinton seem to have just disappeared. and, if they disappeared then they disappeared. you're not going to find them hiding somewhere in a school gym in scranton.
i don't think this was trump's cronies showing up with baseball bats and giving people offers they can't refuse. i think this was highly co-ordinated. and i think they cleaned up - i think they destroyed the evidence.
if you're lucky, you might be able to find data that indicates that ballots were destroyed and that might be useful in passing reforms. but, i say that like it's some kind of accident, right?
-
yes, i'm saying that the united states is in truth a military dictatorship with a fraudulent veneer of fake elections designed to trick people into thinking they live in a democracy in order to prevent a real revolution. i've been saying that for years.
look at american foreign policy. it destroys democracy everywhere it finds it. but, you think it wants it at home?
-
but, i want to be clear: what makes this election different is not that it was stolen. the 2000 election was stolen. the 1980 election was stolen. the 1968 election was stolen. and the 1960 election was stolen, too. what makes this election different is that they stole states that were obviously not even in play. the difference is how brazen they were, and how much contempt they showed for voters in the process.
i didn't argue that the tactics weren't used in north carolina or florida or arizona, either. what i argued is that the margins in these states make the manipulation less obvious, and that it would consequently be a lot harder to prove. resources should be focused on the places where the fraud is most obvious, and that would be in wisconsin & pennsylvania & michigan.
(put another way, the polls predicted that the results in north carolina & arizona & florida were going to be close enough that a systemic bias could be explained solely in the margin of error. basically, they could cheat in these states and get away with it because polling is not perfect. that was not true in pennsylvania or wisconsin or michigan, where clinton was ahead by margins that exceeded any reasonable error. you have to rely on not just a systemic bias but also on an unreasonably large shy trump voter effect in these states that was consistent through all polling and even the exit polling. either people were lying to the polling firms consistently for months and the data reflected it or they weren't and votes were destroyed.)
i initially just thought they were using bad modelling. it took me time to realize that what should have been bad modelling was actually at the least predictive due to the understanding that the election was going to be stolen through voter intimidation and discarded ballots. they were modelling voter suppression, and that voter suppression that they modelled actually happened.
what that means is that the paper trail is probably in provisional ballots if it exists, but that there's no guarantee that it's there at all. a proper accounting would no doubt yield a correct result, but it would take a long time and probably break privacy laws. and, those ballots may have very well just been discarded.
i don't expect that there's going to be any way to prove that it was stolen, other than to point at the polling discrepancies and argue that this is fishy (and to point out that the media seems to have seen it coming). this was an inside job and these guys are pros. they know what they're doing. they didn't leave a smoking gun at the polling booth.
it's not that trump's vote totals are higher. they're not. he underperformed romney.
it's that millions and millions of votes for clinton seem to have just disappeared. and, if they disappeared then they disappeared. you're not going to find them hiding somewhere in a school gym in scranton.
i don't think this was trump's cronies showing up with baseball bats and giving people offers they can't refuse. i think this was highly co-ordinated. and i think they cleaned up - i think they destroyed the evidence.
if you're lucky, you might be able to find data that indicates that ballots were destroyed and that might be useful in passing reforms. but, i say that like it's some kind of accident, right?
-
yes, i'm saying that the united states is in truth a military dictatorship with a fraudulent veneer of fake elections designed to trick people into thinking they live in a democracy in order to prevent a real revolution. i've been saying that for years.
look at american foreign policy. it destroys democracy everywhere it finds it. but, you think it wants it at home?
-
but, i want to be clear: what makes this election different is not that it was stolen. the 2000 election was stolen. the 1980 election was stolen. the 1968 election was stolen. and the 1960 election was stolen, too. what makes this election different is that they stole states that were obviously not even in play. the difference is how brazen they were, and how much contempt they showed for voters in the process.
Friday, November 25, 2016
see, actually, the thing is that most of the time a gender transition isn't shocking to the people around the transitioner. and, that's kind of the point. in situations where it is a surprise, it should maybe be questioned extra rigorously.
my sister's response, verbatim: "obviously. what took you so long?". not only was there not an expression of shock, but there was actually an expectation that it was coming.
my dad was initially confused, but he admitted afterwards that he just didn't know a thing about it and that he would have probably seen it coming if he did. he did admit to being aware that i was queer in some way.....but he didn't want to make assumptions, either. he had some expectation, but he didn't really know how to frame it.
i had guy friends admit that they basically always saw me as a female friend. it was stuff like "well, you were basically always a chick and we did realize it, we just never really thought about whether you were going to like actually be a chick. you were just being j." . this idea that "j is different because j is j and j is different" was cemented across a network of people, and just not questioned. again: the concept was blurry, but the realization was apparent. and, it wasn't a shock so much as it was an explanation.
that's the point, right. one does not become somebody that never existed on the other side of it, like it's a metamorphosis. rather, one aligns with what they always were in the first place.
my sister's response, verbatim: "obviously. what took you so long?". not only was there not an expression of shock, but there was actually an expectation that it was coming.
my dad was initially confused, but he admitted afterwards that he just didn't know a thing about it and that he would have probably seen it coming if he did. he did admit to being aware that i was queer in some way.....but he didn't want to make assumptions, either. he had some expectation, but he didn't really know how to frame it.
i had guy friends admit that they basically always saw me as a female friend. it was stuff like "well, you were basically always a chick and we did realize it, we just never really thought about whether you were going to like actually be a chick. you were just being j." . this idea that "j is different because j is j and j is different" was cemented across a network of people, and just not questioned. again: the concept was blurry, but the realization was apparent. and, it wasn't a shock so much as it was an explanation.
that's the point, right. one does not become somebody that never existed on the other side of it, like it's a metamorphosis. rather, one aligns with what they always were in the first place.
whenever i hear somebody call somebody a "cuck", i think of al bundy going after marcy. and, isn't that show strangely prophetic? isn't the alt-right really just no ma'am?
don't al and trump actually even look kind of similar, really?
today's moment of surreal truth: america just basically elected al bundy president.
this was basically the debates.
see, she would have beat him if she used this tactic instead of the one she used.
reverend al will make america great again!
don't al and trump actually even look kind of similar, really?
today's moment of surreal truth: america just basically elected al bundy president.
this was basically the debates.
see, she would have beat him if she used this tactic instead of the one she used.
reverend al will make america great again!
i was with you up until the very end. there is a reason - this is a backdoor to slavery, like the jim crow laws were before them. that is the correct, longterm historical view of the drug war: the drug war is the current way that we capture blacks and convert them back into slaves.
the drug war needs to end and everything. but, the actual issue here is related to the 13th amendment. and, until the country is able to pass a real abolition amendment that abolishes all slavery, you will continue to see these kinds of laws assert themselves.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
that's why jim crow laws were possible. it's why the drug war exists. and, you're a fool to think it was an accident of language.
that amendment needs to be amended, or the horrors will continue.
it's an easy fix, in principle: .
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
i've never even heard anybody else even suggest it.
i suppose that such is the power of the myth of lincoln.
the drug war needs to end and everything. but, the actual issue here is related to the 13th amendment. and, until the country is able to pass a real abolition amendment that abolishes all slavery, you will continue to see these kinds of laws assert themselves.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
that's why jim crow laws were possible. it's why the drug war exists. and, you're a fool to think it was an accident of language.
that amendment needs to be amended, or the horrors will continue.
it's an easy fix, in principle: .
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
i've never even heard anybody else even suggest it.
i suppose that such is the power of the myth of lincoln.
this is a subtle psychological tactic - deep state propaganda. cnn is an arm of the intelligence establishment. what you're supposed to do is empathize with her, take the black trump supporter's side and conclude that the guy that was calling out trump's racism is the actual racist.
because you're supposed to be a mindless automaton with no critical thinking skills.
this is how fascism works.
fascism is only partly about corporate dominance over the state. what fascism is really about is media. what fascism is really about is control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfhMDt92F8Q
if you understand your history properly, you should understand that the accusation that the media is run by jews is always a deflection tactic, and always perpetuated by those with real media control. the purpose is to ensure that those that can at least see through the immediate charade and can intuit the existence of a background organizing force are not allowed to become aware of it's true nature.
"you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
the media is controlled by the people that tell you that the media is controlled by the jews.
the conspiracy is the conspiracy theory, itself.
-
nazism and white supremacism and racism and chauvinism are not errant viruses, or subversive thought patterns. they are tools of control by the state. and, they are very carefully fostered by the state through intelligence contacts.
the person at the protest that is most likely to be a cop is the one that self-identifies as a nazi.
-
so, when you see the media claiming that trump is nailing the media, that's the trick: you need to be distracted from the truth that the media has been pushing trump as it's preferred candidate the whole time.
the lie: the jews are giving trump bad media.
the truth: the media is controlled by the military-industrial-intelligence complex deep state and has been pushing trump from the start.
i should be listening. i'm just wasting my time.
because you're supposed to be a mindless automaton with no critical thinking skills.
this is how fascism works.
fascism is only partly about corporate dominance over the state. what fascism is really about is media. what fascism is really about is control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfhMDt92F8Q
if you understand your history properly, you should understand that the accusation that the media is run by jews is always a deflection tactic, and always perpetuated by those with real media control. the purpose is to ensure that those that can at least see through the immediate charade and can intuit the existence of a background organizing force are not allowed to become aware of it's true nature.
"you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
the media is controlled by the people that tell you that the media is controlled by the jews.
the conspiracy is the conspiracy theory, itself.
-
nazism and white supremacism and racism and chauvinism are not errant viruses, or subversive thought patterns. they are tools of control by the state. and, they are very carefully fostered by the state through intelligence contacts.
the person at the protest that is most likely to be a cop is the one that self-identifies as a nazi.
-
so, when you see the media claiming that trump is nailing the media, that's the trick: you need to be distracted from the truth that the media has been pushing trump as it's preferred candidate the whole time.
the lie: the jews are giving trump bad media.
the truth: the media is controlled by the military-industrial-intelligence complex deep state and has been pushing trump from the start.
i should be listening. i'm just wasting my time.
j reacts tactically to the need to save data & research from trump
i don't think you can reverse science. you can forget it. you can put it on hold. you can't destroy it. some other power will fill the vacuum.
but, you need to get sneaky with trump. he's the ceo, now. he's the boss. and government is just like a business.
so, wouldn't it be more profitable to sell the technology to europe or china than shut it down? and, that's fine. they can have their decline if that's what they really want. let's just try to salvage what we can.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
i bet the donald would go for this. it's a great deal. he can sell the weather monitors to china and use the money to pay down the debt. everybody wins, right?
he likes to make deals. he's great at making deals. he makes the best deals. nobody makes better deals than him.
so, let's all take advantage of the situation and make some wonderful deals.
just remember: paying the debt is the most important thing. so, there's probably all kinds of things for sale, if you inquire.
and, if you have an ear somewhere, let's get him nudging in that direction, k? why shut it down when you can make a deal for a profit?
america is going to have a wonderful, beautiful decline. it will be such a great decline, you won't even believe it. believe me. you should really be looking forward for this decline.
but, you need to get sneaky with trump. he's the ceo, now. he's the boss. and government is just like a business.
so, wouldn't it be more profitable to sell the technology to europe or china than shut it down? and, that's fine. they can have their decline if that's what they really want. let's just try to salvage what we can.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
i bet the donald would go for this. it's a great deal. he can sell the weather monitors to china and use the money to pay down the debt. everybody wins, right?
he likes to make deals. he's great at making deals. he makes the best deals. nobody makes better deals than him.
so, let's all take advantage of the situation and make some wonderful deals.
just remember: paying the debt is the most important thing. so, there's probably all kinds of things for sale, if you inquire.
and, if you have an ear somewhere, let's get him nudging in that direction, k? why shut it down when you can make a deal for a profit?
america is going to have a wonderful, beautiful decline. it will be such a great decline, you won't even believe it. believe me. you should really be looking forward for this decline.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
i'm going to spend a little time listening to inri019 this afternoon, and hopefully get the cover art mostly done. it's probably going to be the extent of labour completed for the day.
i've got running around to do for tomorrow. but, inri20 and the remaining three tracks for inri021 are what is up, next.
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/it-turns-out-that-i-had-click-in-track.html
i've got running around to do for tomorrow. but, inri20 and the remaining three tracks for inri021 are what is up, next.
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/it-turns-out-that-i-had-click-in-track.html
i'd actually like to see them omnibus everything harper ever did into a giant "undo" button and then set it on fire in a public ceremony.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
due to our universal health care system, obtaining voter id in canada is not the same kind of problem that is for some low income people in the united states. but, anything that makes it easier to vote is a step forwards and should be applauded.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
meh.
if you walk into an intersection chasing a pokemon, you shouldn't get a fine - unless it's a standard negligence tort. you should get a darwin award.
"distracted walking" is kind of like "drunk in public". it happens. it's part of living in a free society.
but, dui is inexcusable. so, likewise, go after the people texting and driving.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/majority-of-canadians-support-legislation-to-ban-distracted-walking-poll-suggests-1.3822086
if you walk into an intersection chasing a pokemon, you shouldn't get a fine - unless it's a standard negligence tort. you should get a darwin award.
"distracted walking" is kind of like "drunk in public". it happens. it's part of living in a free society.
but, dui is inexcusable. so, likewise, go after the people texting and driving.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/majority-of-canadians-support-legislation-to-ban-distracted-walking-poll-suggests-1.3822086
it was an inside job, though.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3083800/hillary-clinton-urged-to-demand-vote-recounts-over-claims-polls-were-rigged/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
if you were paying close enough attention, you saw this coming from a good ways away. the fbi leak. wikileaks. kellyanne conway was on tv 24/7. it was rigged, alright - but not by russia. this was an inside job. cia, and the whole network subterranean to it. and, clinton is being ordered to stand down.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3083800/hillary-clinton-urged-to-demand-vote-recounts-over-claims-polls-were-rigged/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
if you were paying close enough attention, you saw this coming from a good ways away. the fbi leak. wikileaks. kellyanne conway was on tv 24/7. it was rigged, alright - but not by russia. this was an inside job. cia, and the whole network subterranean to it. and, clinton is being ordered to stand down.
your brother is trying to pressure me into signing a document with false information on it
i don't know what he's up to.
but, it obviously doesn't matter if i sign it if it has false information on it. false information is false information. signing it doesn't make it true. and, a court isn't going to uphold it if it's false.
as we both know, and as can be easily demonstrated, i signed an all-inclusive lease in the summer of 2013. i did not sign a utility-dependent lease in 2010.
(pause)
seems like a misunderstanding. nevermind.
although i should also point out that he threatened to initial for me if i didn't sign it.
it was explained to me incorrectly the first time and i didn't sign it because it said six years instead of three. when i read the full thing, i was not opposed to it; she told me it said i paid my utilities, but when i read it it said that the utilities were included. so, i initialled it.
but, he should be aware that signing for a tenant is not only legally invalid but can get him in a lot of trouble.
i would highly suggest you call him.
j
but, it obviously doesn't matter if i sign it if it has false information on it. false information is false information. signing it doesn't make it true. and, a court isn't going to uphold it if it's false.
as we both know, and as can be easily demonstrated, i signed an all-inclusive lease in the summer of 2013. i did not sign a utility-dependent lease in 2010.
(pause)
seems like a misunderstanding. nevermind.
although i should also point out that he threatened to initial for me if i didn't sign it.
it was explained to me incorrectly the first time and i didn't sign it because it said six years instead of three. when i read the full thing, i was not opposed to it; she told me it said i paid my utilities, but when i read it it said that the utilities were included. so, i initialled it.
but, he should be aware that signing for a tenant is not only legally invalid but can get him in a lot of trouble.
i would highly suggest you call him.
j
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
tues at 4:30pm
sister
santa
http://www.cpr.ca/holiday-train/schedule-canada
jessica
i'm sorry, but i don't understand this email.
sister
you live in windsor? the train is coming through on tues at 4:30.
jessica
ok. but, like...so...?
sister
lol, are you so bah humbug? thought it might be fun to see so sent it to you.
nothing deep or profound to understand otherwise.
jessica
are you going to be on the train, or are you just informing me of the existence of said train?
(pause)
ok. so the train exists. thank you for the information.
i haven't celebrated christmas in something like 20 years. and even then it wasn't really a thing.
sister
would you like us to visit?
jessica
frankly, not really.
listen: you asked that question.
(pause)
i'm finishing a major discography update that's taken me far too long.
i completed two synth-pop records in the late 90s. unfortunately, they had awful vocals that make listening to them difficult. i've spent the last two years stripping the vocals out of them and reconstructing them as best as i can. that, and fighting with environmental noise.
first (1998/2016 - inri015):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
second(1999/2016 - inri021):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
there's an elaborate sequence of singles to accompany these releases.
santa
http://www.cpr.ca/holiday-train/schedule-canada
jessica
i'm sorry, but i don't understand this email.
sister
you live in windsor? the train is coming through on tues at 4:30.
jessica
ok. but, like...so...?
sister
lol, are you so bah humbug? thought it might be fun to see so sent it to you.
nothing deep or profound to understand otherwise.
jessica
are you going to be on the train, or are you just informing me of the existence of said train?
(pause)
ok. so the train exists. thank you for the information.
i haven't celebrated christmas in something like 20 years. and even then it wasn't really a thing.
sister
would you like us to visit?
jessica
frankly, not really.
listen: you asked that question.
(pause)
i'm finishing a major discography update that's taken me far too long.
i completed two synth-pop records in the late 90s. unfortunately, they had awful vocals that make listening to them difficult. i've spent the last two years stripping the vocals out of them and reconstructing them as best as i can. that, and fighting with environmental noise.
first (1998/2016 - inri015):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
second(1999/2016 - inri021):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
there's an elaborate sequence of singles to accompany these releases.
j reacts to the supreme congressional authority on trade deals (not trump's choice...)
you need to understand that the president doesn't decide whether a trade deal goes through or not. this is a congressional responsibility. and, they can override him. and, he can't veto it.
as mentioned: he may be setting up a make believe fight, where he feigns opposition, only to be defeated by a supermajority - or decides in the end not to fight it. that's how clinton did his make believe fight against the repeal of glass-steagall. they had a supermajority; he couldn't have stopped it. so, he didn't bother fighting it. and, now everybody blames him for it...
i still think he's going to come around to it.
but, you have to understand that it doesn't mean anything for the president to declare he's going to pull out of the tpp on day one - and that itself should be instructive that this is a pr stunt. he can't do that. he's not the dictator, yet.
likewise, when he says he's not going to pursue charges against clinton, that is completely meaningless because he couldn't have pursued charges against clinton, anyways. there's an independent judicial system in the united states.
almost everything he said was nonsense. just about the only thing he said that isn't nonsense is that he wants to start a war with china. and, that's what the tpp is about.
-
it is not donald trump that will determine the fate of the tpp. a senate supermajority is already all but certain. the major player is actually paul ryan.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/paul-ryan-standing-ovation-koch-donors-retreat/
it's not unheard of for the president to disagree with congress on international agreements, either. clinton couldn't get kyoto through congress. or the rome statute, either. there may be a broader precedent to look for there, in understanding what trump's relationship with his congress is going to be like.
somebody else that had huge problems with his congress on international agreements was woodrow wilson.
but, like i say: i expect him to come around on this.
as mentioned: he may be setting up a make believe fight, where he feigns opposition, only to be defeated by a supermajority - or decides in the end not to fight it. that's how clinton did his make believe fight against the repeal of glass-steagall. they had a supermajority; he couldn't have stopped it. so, he didn't bother fighting it. and, now everybody blames him for it...
i still think he's going to come around to it.
but, you have to understand that it doesn't mean anything for the president to declare he's going to pull out of the tpp on day one - and that itself should be instructive that this is a pr stunt. he can't do that. he's not the dictator, yet.
likewise, when he says he's not going to pursue charges against clinton, that is completely meaningless because he couldn't have pursued charges against clinton, anyways. there's an independent judicial system in the united states.
almost everything he said was nonsense. just about the only thing he said that isn't nonsense is that he wants to start a war with china. and, that's what the tpp is about.
-
it is not donald trump that will determine the fate of the tpp. a senate supermajority is already all but certain. the major player is actually paul ryan.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/paul-ryan-standing-ovation-koch-donors-retreat/
it's not unheard of for the president to disagree with congress on international agreements, either. clinton couldn't get kyoto through congress. or the rome statute, either. there may be a broader precedent to look for there, in understanding what trump's relationship with his congress is going to be like.
somebody else that had huge problems with his congress on international agreements was woodrow wilson.
but, like i say: i expect him to come around on this.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
j reacts to trump's obvious eventual support for the tpp as a metric for his sanity
i actually still don't think that trump is going to pull out of the tpp. he may be setting up some kind of optical charade with congress...
...but what i actually think is that he fundamentally does not understand what the tpp actually is. i think he probably thinks that it's a trade deal with china. when his advisers sit him down and explain that it's a containment strategy of china - that is, that it is completely consistent with the anti-chinese strain in his foreign policy - i believe he'll prove obama right and come around to it.
i just can't comprehend how they're going to let him abandon east asia to china after seventy years. and, that's the truth of it: pulling out of the tpp is handing over the entire region to china. including japan and australia.
so, i remain convinced that he's still totally clueless - and, that the situation may be severe enough that his life may depend on cluing in.
if they're going to do it, they'll do it fast.
i mean, the guy campaigns on getting tough on china and then hands over trillions of dollars of gdp to them on day one?
you need to believe him on getting tougher on china. it just needs to be explained to him that the tpp is all about getting tougher on china...
-
see, this is what's driving him.
"The TPP is a horrible deal, a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door, and totally take advantage of everyone." - donald trump
he believes that. somehow. still.
the truth is the exact opposite: it's a containment policy. which is exactly what he wants.
somebody will eventually set him straight. it will get signed.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/10/donald_trump_says_tpp_is_a_nefarious_plot_by_china.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top
i mean, don't get me wrong. i'm no fan of the agreement. i'd like to see it stopped. but, you don't hear trump talking about the isds mechanisms, and you don't see him talking about labour or environmental standards. he honestly thinks it's a trade deal with china. he just truly doesn't understand it. he's going to have to eventually understand it. and, when he does, he'll realize he supports it.
we've reached a level of total absurdity here, by the way. this is beyond the pale.
but, peeling away all the layers of obstruction and ignorance leaves us with a simple truth: donald trump wants less trade with china and more conflict with them. signing the tpp is the rational way to get less trade and more conflict with china. therefore, donald trump will sign the tpp. qed.
-
this is exactly what trump has been broadcasting.
if he doesn't bend on this, he'll prove that he's being driven entirely by ego: that he cannot accept the premise that he might be mistaken and is willing to do any and every absurd thing imaginable to avoid admitting error.
one of his core messages was getting tough on china. and, that's a message that no doubt resonated with the establishment that put him in power.
he will either understand the agreement and sign it, or he will refuse to understand the agreement and tear it up out of spite. and, while i oppose the agreement, i think that such a reaction of narcissism over reason will send a message that should be taken with the utmost seriousness - that would be a broadcast to the world that he is unreachable.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/
...but what i actually think is that he fundamentally does not understand what the tpp actually is. i think he probably thinks that it's a trade deal with china. when his advisers sit him down and explain that it's a containment strategy of china - that is, that it is completely consistent with the anti-chinese strain in his foreign policy - i believe he'll prove obama right and come around to it.
i just can't comprehend how they're going to let him abandon east asia to china after seventy years. and, that's the truth of it: pulling out of the tpp is handing over the entire region to china. including japan and australia.
so, i remain convinced that he's still totally clueless - and, that the situation may be severe enough that his life may depend on cluing in.
if they're going to do it, they'll do it fast.
i mean, the guy campaigns on getting tough on china and then hands over trillions of dollars of gdp to them on day one?
you need to believe him on getting tougher on china. it just needs to be explained to him that the tpp is all about getting tougher on china...
-
see, this is what's driving him.
"The TPP is a horrible deal, a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door, and totally take advantage of everyone." - donald trump
he believes that. somehow. still.
the truth is the exact opposite: it's a containment policy. which is exactly what he wants.
somebody will eventually set him straight. it will get signed.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/10/donald_trump_says_tpp_is_a_nefarious_plot_by_china.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top
i mean, don't get me wrong. i'm no fan of the agreement. i'd like to see it stopped. but, you don't hear trump talking about the isds mechanisms, and you don't see him talking about labour or environmental standards. he honestly thinks it's a trade deal with china. he just truly doesn't understand it. he's going to have to eventually understand it. and, when he does, he'll realize he supports it.
we've reached a level of total absurdity here, by the way. this is beyond the pale.
but, peeling away all the layers of obstruction and ignorance leaves us with a simple truth: donald trump wants less trade with china and more conflict with them. signing the tpp is the rational way to get less trade and more conflict with china. therefore, donald trump will sign the tpp. qed.
-
this is exactly what trump has been broadcasting.
if he doesn't bend on this, he'll prove that he's being driven entirely by ego: that he cannot accept the premise that he might be mistaken and is willing to do any and every absurd thing imaginable to avoid admitting error.
one of his core messages was getting tough on china. and, that's a message that no doubt resonated with the establishment that put him in power.
he will either understand the agreement and sign it, or he will refuse to understand the agreement and tear it up out of spite. and, while i oppose the agreement, i think that such a reaction of narcissism over reason will send a message that should be taken with the utmost seriousness - that would be a broadcast to the world that he is unreachable.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/
Monday, November 21, 2016
j reacts to the request to suspend critical thinking around trudeau's senate reform
this is nice rhetoric and everything, but there's going to be hell to pay if they ever interfere with the democratic authority of the house - and it's simply irresponsible to them to suggest that they have any kind of meaningful mandate.
the way i see this unfolding is one of two ways. either this fizzles out, and things go back to the way they were or it doesn't and it generates a movement to abolish the senate.
i may even go so far as arguing that, if a time ever comes that the senate overrules the house, then canadians should ignore the senate's ruling and behave as though the legislation is law.
this is a potential break in the social contract. it's a potential justification for revolt.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/appointing-independent-senators-leave-the-skepticism-behind/article32658198/
i don't want a fucking guardian council.
this body is inherently illegitimate as a governing structure. and, there is no desirable way to convert it into one.
senators should be seen and not heard.
the way i see this unfolding is one of two ways. either this fizzles out, and things go back to the way they were or it doesn't and it generates a movement to abolish the senate.
i may even go so far as arguing that, if a time ever comes that the senate overrules the house, then canadians should ignore the senate's ruling and behave as though the legislation is law.
this is a potential break in the social contract. it's a potential justification for revolt.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/appointing-independent-senators-leave-the-skepticism-behind/article32658198/
i don't want a fucking guardian council.
this body is inherently illegitimate as a governing structure. and, there is no desirable way to convert it into one.
senators should be seen and not heard.
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/im-back-online-because-my-tongue-is.html
hrmmn. yeast infection, huh? i just ate, but i haven't been eating any of that lately.
you have to wonder if that's the kind of thing that can get passed around via food workers or something...?
but, it started when i woke up on sunday night. and i haven't left the house since i got the monitor last monday. like, at all. literally. so, how does that happen.....
actually, you know what? i had the window open for a good part of the weekend, and i live close enough to the walkerville brewery that i can often smell the yeast.
it's a distinct possibility.
better than a seizure.
i'd have to think my immune system can handle some candida, though. c'mon, you phagocytes. stop sleeping on the job, get to work...
some time ago, i dated a girl that was epileptic when she was a teenager. she never had any seizures when we were dating. she believed that marijuana was a cure, and smoked quite a bit as a result - but i think this was probably a rationalization for the pot habit. apparently, it's fairly normal to just "grow out of" epilepsy. that's probably what actually happened.
but, the way she described it was that her tongue would go numb. every once in a while, she'd have a scare - "my tongue is numb". and, sometimes she'd have a hard time talking for a few minutes.
that's just all i could think about when my tongue started tingling, so i sat down. well, just in case, right? but, i think it's passed now without any effects at all.
hrmmn. yeast infection, huh? i just ate, but i haven't been eating any of that lately.
you have to wonder if that's the kind of thing that can get passed around via food workers or something...?
but, it started when i woke up on sunday night. and i haven't left the house since i got the monitor last monday. like, at all. literally. so, how does that happen.....
actually, you know what? i had the window open for a good part of the weekend, and i live close enough to the walkerville brewery that i can often smell the yeast.
it's a distinct possibility.
better than a seizure.
i'd have to think my immune system can handle some candida, though. c'mon, you phagocytes. stop sleeping on the job, get to work...
some time ago, i dated a girl that was epileptic when she was a teenager. she never had any seizures when we were dating. she believed that marijuana was a cure, and smoked quite a bit as a result - but i think this was probably a rationalization for the pot habit. apparently, it's fairly normal to just "grow out of" epilepsy. that's probably what actually happened.
but, the way she described it was that her tongue would go numb. every once in a while, she'd have a scare - "my tongue is numb". and, sometimes she'd have a hard time talking for a few minutes.
that's just all i could think about when my tongue started tingling, so i sat down. well, just in case, right? but, i think it's passed now without any effects at all.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
j reacts to krugman's take on the supposed infrastructure plan
i think krugman is actually giving him too much credit.
my bet is that the infrastructure plan reduces to a tweet to ask investors to invest more in infrastructure, maybe followed by another tweet calling paul ryan some mean names for supposedly blocking it.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/infrastructure-build-or-privatization-scam/
there's actually precedence for this: whenever obama was faced with doing anything complicated, he wrote a speech explaining that congress should do it.
my bet is that the infrastructure plan reduces to a tweet to ask investors to invest more in infrastructure, maybe followed by another tweet calling paul ryan some mean names for supposedly blocking it.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/infrastructure-build-or-privatization-scam/
there's actually precedence for this: whenever obama was faced with doing anything complicated, he wrote a speech explaining that congress should do it.
j reacts to the impossibility of keynesianism in the neo-liberal era (by design)
the primary reason that i endorsed justin trudeau was also for stimulus spending, and specifically an idea he floated in his platform around a "green infrastructure bank". that's a far better idea than a carbon tax...
the economy in the country is such that we can't reasonably expect that anybody is going to shut down the oil industry on a dime, especially not after the previous government, which operated loosely like a petro-state. we spent nine years of increasing integration with the oil economy. and, that just made it harder to disengage.
so, trudeau is going to support pipelines. he has to. and, we're going to have to stop them using direct action and court orders.
but, what trudeau can do is set the ball in motion around a larger systemic change by setting up a financial industry around the green sector. and, yes you have to do it like this. i'm not an advocate of historical materialism, but the ideas floated by naomi klein and others are getting the causality backwards - you need capital investment first, and then a worker's movement. marx understood that.
and, so trudeau can play a very important facilitative role, here. given that we exist in the existing neo-liberal order, what he's floating is really a pre-requisite for a serious economic shift to renewables. that's why i endorsed him. well, that and the pot...
he's been taking some steps in this direction, and the media is trying to change the topic by pointing out that he's floating the bank as a public-private investment. you can make the argument that this is exactly the same error that his father made in shifting to more private borrowing, which some people pinpoint as the source of our debt problems in the 80s. and, you'd be right to argue this was an error - but you'd be wrong to argue this was trudeau's error. the error came out of an international agreement around the dismantlement of bretton woods. canada would have faced penalties had it ignored it. rather than point to trudeau's implementation as an error, one should look at his incomplete implementation as a partial victory. the reasons we didn't get nailed on the housing collapse ultimately stem back to trudeau pushing back, however carefully, on this international consensus, as it developed in the early 70s. and he had to be careful, too. extremely careful. he had both the brits and the americans lined up against him.
the idea that the private-public partnership is being compared against, that is a new infrastructure bank set up as a subsidiary of the bank of canada, is certainly a superior one in the eyes of this commentator. that would allow the country to arbitrarily print money for infrastructure. there is some misinformation floating around on this point that seems to ultimately stem from paul hellyer; canada never printed all of it's money debt-free. but, it certainly had a higher percentage of it printed debt-free, in the past. and, this did keep our debt down. but, while superior, this idea is also illegal under our international trade agreements. justin has little choice but to compromise, as his father did in the 70s.
we need a thought experiment, here. but, this experiment is also very real - it happened recently in ontario, and many of trudeau's closest advisers lived it first hand. let's say that trudeau sets up the green bank and uses it to subsidize local technology companies. what that does is open up the government to legal action under the wto, under nafta, under the tpp (should it come into force....) and under the ceta, too, for "anti-competitive investment practices". we would never win such a case. rather, these agreements were designed partially to prevent public investment strategies. we would have to shut the bank down and pay out exorbitant sums to the entities launching legal action. it can happen here - it already did.
the irony is that many of the people pushing the alarm on the involvement of private investment are also in support of the agreements that necessitate it. this is not nefarious, it is ignorance - which has been the problem the whole time. activists tried to warn people that these agreements would tie the hands of government, years down the road. this reality is upon us, and the media still refuses to see it.
i would rather see a subsidiary of the bank of canada, as was promised. but, i knew at the time that such a subsidiary would require leaving the wto, first. i held out hope for the latter, but expected that private money would be involved in the long run - either immediately or through eventual privatization. but if you want public funding of infrastructure, as i do, then let's get the steps in order: we'll have to get out of the wto, first. oops? no. we told you...
if we want major infrastructure projects right now, this is the only way to do it. it's not ideal. but, i support it.
the effects of the stimulus are not different, if the money is private. and, that's what we need.
debt is ultimately just an abstraction, it's not real. we can deal with that later.
infrastructure is real. and, we needed dramatic spending boosts years ago.
in the long run, if the investors become an annoyance then we can just nationalize. simple.
for right now? take their money. and put it to good use.
it's a path of least resistance. it's smart. and it's why this party works, and this country works - despite being surrounded by a world that is often irrational.
http://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2016/docs/themes/infrastructure-en.html
the economy in the country is such that we can't reasonably expect that anybody is going to shut down the oil industry on a dime, especially not after the previous government, which operated loosely like a petro-state. we spent nine years of increasing integration with the oil economy. and, that just made it harder to disengage.
so, trudeau is going to support pipelines. he has to. and, we're going to have to stop them using direct action and court orders.
but, what trudeau can do is set the ball in motion around a larger systemic change by setting up a financial industry around the green sector. and, yes you have to do it like this. i'm not an advocate of historical materialism, but the ideas floated by naomi klein and others are getting the causality backwards - you need capital investment first, and then a worker's movement. marx understood that.
and, so trudeau can play a very important facilitative role, here. given that we exist in the existing neo-liberal order, what he's floating is really a pre-requisite for a serious economic shift to renewables. that's why i endorsed him. well, that and the pot...
he's been taking some steps in this direction, and the media is trying to change the topic by pointing out that he's floating the bank as a public-private investment. you can make the argument that this is exactly the same error that his father made in shifting to more private borrowing, which some people pinpoint as the source of our debt problems in the 80s. and, you'd be right to argue this was an error - but you'd be wrong to argue this was trudeau's error. the error came out of an international agreement around the dismantlement of bretton woods. canada would have faced penalties had it ignored it. rather than point to trudeau's implementation as an error, one should look at his incomplete implementation as a partial victory. the reasons we didn't get nailed on the housing collapse ultimately stem back to trudeau pushing back, however carefully, on this international consensus, as it developed in the early 70s. and he had to be careful, too. extremely careful. he had both the brits and the americans lined up against him.
the idea that the private-public partnership is being compared against, that is a new infrastructure bank set up as a subsidiary of the bank of canada, is certainly a superior one in the eyes of this commentator. that would allow the country to arbitrarily print money for infrastructure. there is some misinformation floating around on this point that seems to ultimately stem from paul hellyer; canada never printed all of it's money debt-free. but, it certainly had a higher percentage of it printed debt-free, in the past. and, this did keep our debt down. but, while superior, this idea is also illegal under our international trade agreements. justin has little choice but to compromise, as his father did in the 70s.
we need a thought experiment, here. but, this experiment is also very real - it happened recently in ontario, and many of trudeau's closest advisers lived it first hand. let's say that trudeau sets up the green bank and uses it to subsidize local technology companies. what that does is open up the government to legal action under the wto, under nafta, under the tpp (should it come into force....) and under the ceta, too, for "anti-competitive investment practices". we would never win such a case. rather, these agreements were designed partially to prevent public investment strategies. we would have to shut the bank down and pay out exorbitant sums to the entities launching legal action. it can happen here - it already did.
the irony is that many of the people pushing the alarm on the involvement of private investment are also in support of the agreements that necessitate it. this is not nefarious, it is ignorance - which has been the problem the whole time. activists tried to warn people that these agreements would tie the hands of government, years down the road. this reality is upon us, and the media still refuses to see it.
i would rather see a subsidiary of the bank of canada, as was promised. but, i knew at the time that such a subsidiary would require leaving the wto, first. i held out hope for the latter, but expected that private money would be involved in the long run - either immediately or through eventual privatization. but if you want public funding of infrastructure, as i do, then let's get the steps in order: we'll have to get out of the wto, first. oops? no. we told you...
if we want major infrastructure projects right now, this is the only way to do it. it's not ideal. but, i support it.
the effects of the stimulus are not different, if the money is private. and, that's what we need.
debt is ultimately just an abstraction, it's not real. we can deal with that later.
infrastructure is real. and, we needed dramatic spending boosts years ago.
in the long run, if the investors become an annoyance then we can just nationalize. simple.
for right now? take their money. and put it to good use.
it's a path of least resistance. it's smart. and it's why this party works, and this country works - despite being surrounded by a world that is often irrational.
http://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2016/docs/themes/infrastructure-en.html
Saturday, November 19, 2016
publishing inri018
this track represents my first serious attempt to break out of the synth-pop sound i'd been developing over the first half of 1998 and into the more epic electro-noise-rock that defines the next period. while i'd been careening in this direction the whole time, and the track is ultimately a failed experiment, this is really the portal i go through that ultimately opens the way for what follows.
conceptually, the track was initially meant to mock the news cycle; the circus riff was tongue-in-cheek. you can imagine wolf blitzer and judy woodruff getting out of their clown cars and reading their teleprompter, type of thing. while i've eliminated the vocals from the official release, and there were never any produced for the re-recording, the bonus tracks are both early vocal mixes. it's admittedly hard to ignore the conceptual history of the track in explaining why i have a punk song built around the circus theme, but by the time i got to re-recording the track in late 1998 i'd truly moved past the concept.
yet, i wanted to retain the musical ideas in the track and even take it to a different level. the way the track is sequenced here retains a memory of how i wanted the track to unfold into a lengthy, multi-part epic separated by long sections of guitar-effects generated and digitally shaped ambience. this is not just an idea that would resurface in my next piece, my second symphony, but also something that would follow me for my entire musical career. these collages are crude, but this is where the idea first developed.
conceptual issues aside, i also had a lot of difficulty getting the guitar tone i wanted for the track - a problem i really hadn't previously had on this kind of scale. in hindsight, i think i'd just become a little more aware of the tonal options in front of me. up to this point, when i ran into the problem of the evasive tone, putting it down for a few days and approaching it fresh solved it, but that wasn't working. this track was dragging on for months. i was lost in production...
then, out of the blue, there was a power outage that knocked my computer out as i was running a part of the track through an ambient transform. the track - and all the digital additions i had added to it - were largely destroyed. what was left was this completely corrupted wave file of disjointed guitar fragments. i've never been a religious person (obviously), and i don't want to say i took at as a sign or something. yet, i let chance assert itself; the corrupted wave file became the final version of the track, and i moved on to the next thing.
the actual, proper track was then forgotten about for years. i'm only finally dusting it off now, in 2016, and releasing it here as a single, along with a collection of experimental collages that approximate what the track was meant to sound like. this ep should really be thought of as consisting of two versions of the song, separated by the two minutes of silence after the fifth track. the track was abandoned for good reason; the motif is silly. so, my frustrations with the composition shall have to be recorded in the annals of time.
initially written in 1997. recreated and reconceptualized in late 1998. salvaged somewhat at the end of 1999. remastered in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. finalized on nov 19, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 1998, 2013, 2016).
*download only
conceptually, the track was initially meant to mock the news cycle; the circus riff was tongue-in-cheek. you can imagine wolf blitzer and judy woodruff getting out of their clown cars and reading their teleprompter, type of thing. while i've eliminated the vocals from the official release, and there were never any produced for the re-recording, the bonus tracks are both early vocal mixes. it's admittedly hard to ignore the conceptual history of the track in explaining why i have a punk song built around the circus theme, but by the time i got to re-recording the track in late 1998 i'd truly moved past the concept.
yet, i wanted to retain the musical ideas in the track and even take it to a different level. the way the track is sequenced here retains a memory of how i wanted the track to unfold into a lengthy, multi-part epic separated by long sections of guitar-effects generated and digitally shaped ambience. this is not just an idea that would resurface in my next piece, my second symphony, but also something that would follow me for my entire musical career. these collages are crude, but this is where the idea first developed.
conceptual issues aside, i also had a lot of difficulty getting the guitar tone i wanted for the track - a problem i really hadn't previously had on this kind of scale. in hindsight, i think i'd just become a little more aware of the tonal options in front of me. up to this point, when i ran into the problem of the evasive tone, putting it down for a few days and approaching it fresh solved it, but that wasn't working. this track was dragging on for months. i was lost in production...
then, out of the blue, there was a power outage that knocked my computer out as i was running a part of the track through an ambient transform. the track - and all the digital additions i had added to it - were largely destroyed. what was left was this completely corrupted wave file of disjointed guitar fragments. i've never been a religious person (obviously), and i don't want to say i took at as a sign or something. yet, i let chance assert itself; the corrupted wave file became the final version of the track, and i moved on to the next thing.
the actual, proper track was then forgotten about for years. i'm only finally dusting it off now, in 2016, and releasing it here as a single, along with a collection of experimental collages that approximate what the track was meant to sound like. this ep should really be thought of as consisting of two versions of the song, separated by the two minutes of silence after the fifth track. the track was abandoned for good reason; the motif is silly. so, my frustrations with the composition shall have to be recorded in the annals of time.
initially written in 1997. recreated and reconceptualized in late 1998. salvaged somewhat at the end of 1999. remastered in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. finalized on nov 19, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 1998, 2013, 2016).
*download only
credits
released December 1, 1998
j - guitars, effects, bass, drum kit, synthesizers, sequencers, drum programming, noise generators, sound design, sampling, found sounds, tapes, digital wave editing, cool edit synthesis, loops, vocals, chance, production
j - guitars, effects, bass, drum kit, synthesizers, sequencers, drum programming, noise generators, sound design, sampling, found sounds, tapes, digital wave editing, cool edit synthesis, loops, vocals, chance, production
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)