https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
22-06-2016: loose ends, catch up (narration day)
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
i think that the balance of evidence admits waukesha as a very limited special case. i haven't read the case, but if it limits the situation to the very limited special conditions then this is actually a positive precedent.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/waukesha-water-leamington-mayor-1.3646880
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/waukesha-water-leamington-mayor-1.3646880
j reacts to brexit from the long view of history
i said something snotty about the brexit before, but i'm going to expand a little on it.
there's a broad narrative in british history that is a long struggle against roman colonization and has worked itself out through religion, culture, science, language - it's very broad. the romans won quite a few battles, but have never really managed to win the war. britain has adopted ideas from the romans, but it has largely managed to resist romanization in a way that is unique in europe. sweden, for example, has also resisted romanization - but it was never actively sought after by roman civilization the way that britain has been. the british have singularly succeeded in fighting the romans off.
in the process of it's long struggle against roman colonization, britain eventually emerged as a colonial power unto it's own. this allowed it a level of financial power that allowed it to eclipse roman civilization. but, the romans never fully submitted, either.
the end of the second world war left both the romans and the british under control of a common occupier, who did something remarkably british: they drew arbitrary lines on maps that ignored thousands of years of history, solely for their own interests. nato exists for american strategic purposes. the eu exists to strengthen the nato alliance. but, the boundaries drawn on the map ignore the historical reality that britain is defined by it's opposition to roman colonialism. the alliance is inherently unstable because it ignores the historical facts.
we don't talk of the situation like this, because we're taught to see imperialism through the lens of racial dominance. the europeans are white, so they are our allies and not our subjects. but, the collapse of the eu is fundamentally not different than the collapse of the sykes-picot line. it's drawn out of similar historical forces at play, and out of imperial ignorance.
it may seem as though the world cannot go back to how it existed in 1933. but, a closer analysis should reveal that the british empire does still exist, and that it's capital was moved from london to washington. what the americans call the revolutionary war should be viewed through the long lens of history as a civil war between factions in the anglo-american empire. and, to pry the homeland free from the romans is not to grant it any meaningful kind of independence.
so, what is brexit? in some ways, it's a false choice. britain is a small country, it can hardly go it alone. but, it does have a real choice between being a province of rome and a province of canada.
it should be viewed less as a breaking apart and more as a coming home: like justinian re-entering rome.
have i explained the trotsykists? if you're looking at it from a distance, you might think the trostkyists are better than the other marxists. they really aren't, except in one way - they are very good at analyzing foreign policy. the reason for this is that they have no interest in the propaganda. they are almost unique in this. they don't dissect it, they don't dance around it, they don't counter-act it - they simply ignore it. they just tell it like it is, as though the western narrative doesn't exist at all.
however, one should not forget that the wsws is the propaganda arm of the trotskyist international; i'm citing pravda. but, i'm citing pravda with the understanding that it happens to be really good at doing this one thing.
i'm not claiming that brexit is a conspiracy by american secret agents to react to the rise of an independent germany. i'm just pointing out that the rise of an independent germany is the more important story, here - and that international reactions to brexit will be defined more by how the various actors are interpreting the new reality in germany than by how they are interpreting the new reality in britain.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/21/stei-j21.html
the pound is dead. the dollar wins. the euro loses.
you probably have no legitimate self-interest in this.
there's a broad narrative in british history that is a long struggle against roman colonization and has worked itself out through religion, culture, science, language - it's very broad. the romans won quite a few battles, but have never really managed to win the war. britain has adopted ideas from the romans, but it has largely managed to resist romanization in a way that is unique in europe. sweden, for example, has also resisted romanization - but it was never actively sought after by roman civilization the way that britain has been. the british have singularly succeeded in fighting the romans off.
in the process of it's long struggle against roman colonization, britain eventually emerged as a colonial power unto it's own. this allowed it a level of financial power that allowed it to eclipse roman civilization. but, the romans never fully submitted, either.
the end of the second world war left both the romans and the british under control of a common occupier, who did something remarkably british: they drew arbitrary lines on maps that ignored thousands of years of history, solely for their own interests. nato exists for american strategic purposes. the eu exists to strengthen the nato alliance. but, the boundaries drawn on the map ignore the historical reality that britain is defined by it's opposition to roman colonialism. the alliance is inherently unstable because it ignores the historical facts.
we don't talk of the situation like this, because we're taught to see imperialism through the lens of racial dominance. the europeans are white, so they are our allies and not our subjects. but, the collapse of the eu is fundamentally not different than the collapse of the sykes-picot line. it's drawn out of similar historical forces at play, and out of imperial ignorance.
it may seem as though the world cannot go back to how it existed in 1933. but, a closer analysis should reveal that the british empire does still exist, and that it's capital was moved from london to washington. what the americans call the revolutionary war should be viewed through the long lens of history as a civil war between factions in the anglo-american empire. and, to pry the homeland free from the romans is not to grant it any meaningful kind of independence.
so, what is brexit? in some ways, it's a false choice. britain is a small country, it can hardly go it alone. but, it does have a real choice between being a province of rome and a province of canada.
it should be viewed less as a breaking apart and more as a coming home: like justinian re-entering rome.
have i explained the trotsykists? if you're looking at it from a distance, you might think the trostkyists are better than the other marxists. they really aren't, except in one way - they are very good at analyzing foreign policy. the reason for this is that they have no interest in the propaganda. they are almost unique in this. they don't dissect it, they don't dance around it, they don't counter-act it - they simply ignore it. they just tell it like it is, as though the western narrative doesn't exist at all.
however, one should not forget that the wsws is the propaganda arm of the trotskyist international; i'm citing pravda. but, i'm citing pravda with the understanding that it happens to be really good at doing this one thing.
i'm not claiming that brexit is a conspiracy by american secret agents to react to the rise of an independent germany. i'm just pointing out that the rise of an independent germany is the more important story, here - and that international reactions to brexit will be defined more by how the various actors are interpreting the new reality in germany than by how they are interpreting the new reality in britain.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/21/stei-j21.html
the pound is dead. the dollar wins. the euro loses.
you probably have no legitimate self-interest in this.
this has been solved, from my understanding - it's a combination of the industry on the island with the salt mines under windsor. what's happening is that the vibrations are sending sound waves through the old mines, which is literally shaking the whole ground.
i'm on the other side of oullette, and i've never heard anything over here. but if i was living around lasalle, i might be more concerned about sink holes swallowing my house....
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-hum-discussion-goes-to-washington-1.3645376
i'm on the other side of oullette, and i've never heard anything over here. but if i was living around lasalle, i might be more concerned about sink holes swallowing my house....
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-hum-discussion-goes-to-washington-1.3645376
yeah, i got some hip for you, hillary. how 'bout some hip surgery.
damn.
somebody find me footage of a young hillary rockin' to some huey lewis. i'm counting on you, internet.
where's her climate policy, anyways?
"you can't dress like me"
https://vimeo.com/154519080
i'd be loathe to call myself a hipster. i'm actually willing to go all in on gen x and just stick with being an open-minded punk.
me? meh. i'll close this line of thinking with some frank, who more accurately represents what i think about hipsters: i'm sympathetic, really, but the actual honest truth is that they really are fucking dipshits.
in the end, the hipsters will love hillary as she beats the shit out of them. she doesn't need to try that hard. she'll carry hipsters. it's the educated young folk that she'll have problems with.
damn.
somebody find me footage of a young hillary rockin' to some huey lewis. i'm counting on you, internet.
where's her climate policy, anyways?
"you can't dress like me"
https://vimeo.com/154519080
i'd be loathe to call myself a hipster. i'm actually willing to go all in on gen x and just stick with being an open-minded punk.
me? meh. i'll close this line of thinking with some frank, who more accurately represents what i think about hipsters: i'm sympathetic, really, but the actual honest truth is that they really are fucking dipshits.
in the end, the hipsters will love hillary as she beats the shit out of them. she doesn't need to try that hard. she'll carry hipsters. it's the educated young folk that she'll have problems with.
seems like he had his registration switched.
you know, there's a serious branch of constitutional scholarship that argues the constitution is a practical joke.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/bernie-sanders-senate-lunch-wrong-room/
you know, there's a serious branch of constitutional scholarship that argues the constitution is a practical joke.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/bernie-sanders-senate-lunch-wrong-room/
balderdashery G
I had no idea it was that flagrantly bad. I wonder if it's that bad here in Canada.
jessica
canada doesn't have anything comparable to a primary system, or a president for that matter, so it's a meaningless comparison. our prime minister is the leader of the largest party and could in theory be removed by a confidence vote in parliament; party leaders are chosen entirely by party members, so the idea of disenfranchising independents is incoherent on it's face.
in fact, we don't even vote for parties at all. we vote for independent members of the house of commons, who then choose to align themselves in parties afterwards. or, that's the technical way it's supposed to be. you're supposed to vote for john smith as an individual. when john smith gets to ottawa he decides what party he wants to sit in after he's been elected. further, he can then switch parties on his discretion - because you voted for him, not his party. that's a little disconnected from reality, but it's the way things are supposed to be.
regarding nomination battles, half of the time there aren't even elections for nomination at all. so, one doesn't run to represent the party. the party appoints it's nominee. that might seem undemocratic, but you have to go back to the system being about the individual, not the party. the flip side is that it's very easy to get on a ballot in canada. so, we don't have nomination battles to represent the party - instead we let just about anybody run and then let the party choose which independent it wishes to back. it's hard to make a decision about which is a more democratic process. note that we don't have a two-party system, and we routinely elect at least a few independents.
in terms of voting in the actual election, all that is required is a health card - and if you don't have a health card, you truly shouldn't be voting.
so, you could argue we don't have to suppress voting because the system is closed. but, we compensate for that with a less partisan system.
you could think of it like this. in the united states, the system restricts the number of parties you can vote for but lets you pick who represents the limited number of party options. so, it restricts your options, but then gives you more control in shaping those restricted options.
in canada, the system lets you vote any which way you could want to, but then lets the parties endorse specific candidates. so, it gives you more options, and then lets the parties decide which options they want to back; in canada you may have less control in shaping the parties, but you also have more (viable) options to choose from.
it's pros and cons, and a lot of subjectivity. direct comparisons are perilous.
I had no idea it was that flagrantly bad. I wonder if it's that bad here in Canada.
jessica
canada doesn't have anything comparable to a primary system, or a president for that matter, so it's a meaningless comparison. our prime minister is the leader of the largest party and could in theory be removed by a confidence vote in parliament; party leaders are chosen entirely by party members, so the idea of disenfranchising independents is incoherent on it's face.
in fact, we don't even vote for parties at all. we vote for independent members of the house of commons, who then choose to align themselves in parties afterwards. or, that's the technical way it's supposed to be. you're supposed to vote for john smith as an individual. when john smith gets to ottawa he decides what party he wants to sit in after he's been elected. further, he can then switch parties on his discretion - because you voted for him, not his party. that's a little disconnected from reality, but it's the way things are supposed to be.
regarding nomination battles, half of the time there aren't even elections for nomination at all. so, one doesn't run to represent the party. the party appoints it's nominee. that might seem undemocratic, but you have to go back to the system being about the individual, not the party. the flip side is that it's very easy to get on a ballot in canada. so, we don't have nomination battles to represent the party - instead we let just about anybody run and then let the party choose which independent it wishes to back. it's hard to make a decision about which is a more democratic process. note that we don't have a two-party system, and we routinely elect at least a few independents.
in terms of voting in the actual election, all that is required is a health card - and if you don't have a health card, you truly shouldn't be voting.
so, you could argue we don't have to suppress voting because the system is closed. but, we compensate for that with a less partisan system.
you could think of it like this. in the united states, the system restricts the number of parties you can vote for but lets you pick who represents the limited number of party options. so, it restricts your options, but then gives you more control in shaping those restricted options.
in canada, the system lets you vote any which way you could want to, but then lets the parties endorse specific candidates. so, it gives you more options, and then lets the parties decide which options they want to back; in canada you may have less control in shaping the parties, but you also have more (viable) options to choose from.
it's pros and cons, and a lot of subjectivity. direct comparisons are perilous.
well, i think i found a bed bug
i'm not an entomologist, but it looks like one to me.
i have it in a ziploc bag in the freezer.
a few things.
1) i have no physical signs of bites, and no reason to think the bugs have been downstairs for a long period.
2) i have no proposed source.
3) so, they would have to have migrated from upstairs to downstairs - and i think the totality of evidence makes that obvious.
there's a non-trivial possibility that it's some other kind of bug. again: i'm no entomologist. but, it does certainly look like one to me.
i have no requests for action in the basement. again: i have not been bit. but, if you required evidence for action upstairs then i may have it for you.
(pause)
the only other thing i can think of is that it might be booklice.
fwiw, i found it walking on the hallway floor - nowhere near the bed.
anyways - i don't have bites. i can't complain if i don't have bites! but if you need evidence for upstairs, i may have some.
or, if the problem from upstairs has become more obvious over the last little while, it may be spreading.
(pause)
on second thought, i saw a second bug this morning and i think it's not a bed bug but a roach nymph. i'll hang on to the body for a few days.
that would be more consistent with what i've noticed down here.
i've checked my body carefully - still no signs of bites.
j
i have it in a ziploc bag in the freezer.
a few things.
1) i have no physical signs of bites, and no reason to think the bugs have been downstairs for a long period.
2) i have no proposed source.
3) so, they would have to have migrated from upstairs to downstairs - and i think the totality of evidence makes that obvious.
there's a non-trivial possibility that it's some other kind of bug. again: i'm no entomologist. but, it does certainly look like one to me.
i have no requests for action in the basement. again: i have not been bit. but, if you required evidence for action upstairs then i may have it for you.
(pause)
the only other thing i can think of is that it might be booklice.
fwiw, i found it walking on the hallway floor - nowhere near the bed.
anyways - i don't have bites. i can't complain if i don't have bites! but if you need evidence for upstairs, i may have some.
or, if the problem from upstairs has become more obvious over the last little while, it may be spreading.
(pause)
on second thought, i saw a second bug this morning and i think it's not a bed bug but a roach nymph. i'll hang on to the body for a few days.
that would be more consistent with what i've noticed down here.
i've checked my body carefully - still no signs of bites.
j
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)