today was only half as productive as i really wanted, but it was good.

1) i got my pill cycle reset back to the start of the month, which is great news for me.
2) i finished about half of my grocery shopping.
3) i won the court case, and got $58 in costs. i'm still waiting to see if the landlord will accept it on this month's rent, or make me wait until next month.
4) i paid down half of the loan. the other half is due at the end of june.
5) i had the company remove authorization to debit my account, and provide it in writing - meaning they're the ones breaking the law if it happens, and i can prove it. retaliation will be brutal.

i'm going to nap for the evening. i want to at least pay the rent tonight, even if i have to wait until tomorrow morning to finish shopping. so, i can't fall asleep too long.

i'm only budgeted for $30 spending this month, so getting the other $58 is going to be helpful, to say the least. they're in their rights to make me wait until july due to the wording of the case, but it seems rather obtuse to do so if i'm offering to deal with it up front.

i won the court case.

which means.

1) i get to keep the fan....although, the upstairs tenants are moving out, anyways.
2) i get $58.00 - $50.00 for the application and $8.00 for the coal.

that $58.00 is huge this month.

the idea that trump pulling out of the climate accord is going to make a big difference in emissions is rooted in the false premise that the accord was ever going to reduce emissions in the first place.

and, what the politicians of the world that bought into this - trudeau, perhaps more than any other - are pissed off about is that they (falsely) perceived paris as a way to quiet down the discussion, and trump as opening a can of worms.

activists should actually thank trump for stopping the issue from being sidelined. i keep going back to this point: trump is going to do a lot of really stupid things that are against his own interests, because he's not smart enough to realize it and he doesn't have the staff (which he wouldn't listen to anyways...) to shut him down.

trump's self-interest is to just be quiet and let everybody think the issue is solved. instead, his insistence on fighting the issue is giving activists a new opportunity to push for actually meaningful, binding targets.

but, let's be honest. if paris was the best we could do, we were doomed, anyways. activists should be focusing less on international climate agreements and more on direct action in shutting down specific emissions sources.

we might get some breaks in the courts, but there is not a federal government anywhere that is truly committed to emissions reductions. not canada. not the normally reliable swedens or norways. there's no country on the right side of history, here.

we have to do this ourselves.

the scare-mongering around minimum wage hikes seems intuitive, but it is actually rooted in the irrational premise that increasing the costs of labour will decrease the demand for it. that's the crux of it. if we want to be technical, we should be talking in terms of poor modelling. more specifically, the scare-mongerers are modelling labour as perfectly or strongly elastic, when they should be modelling it as nearly perfectly inelastic! but, you almost lose something in context by getting technical.

think about the argument: increasing the cost of labour will decrease the demand for it. that's ridiculous. why would you think that?

it's the same kind of goofy thinking that wants to conceptualize a government budget the same as a household budget. it's really not intuitive at all, it's ridiculous on it's face.

but, this is the crux of the junk economics on the right. they throw ideas at you that are barely comprehensible enough to even be wrong, then they repeat them so often that you take them as obvious. of course increasing wages will reduce jobs - i've heard that every day of my whole life. why? well, because increasing the cost of labour will decrease demand for it. obviously.

this link explains.

https://jonmalesic.com/2013/03/10/the-minimum-wage-and-elasticity-of-labor-demand/

i wrote this out more technically somewhere or other some time ago, so we'll just do the short version.

suppose you're a walmart. hey, walmart. how's it going? k. so, you're a walmart.

how many people do you choose to hire when the minimum wage is $10/hr? the answer is the least amount that you possibly can. i know, you're thinking "i'm a job creator!"....but you know you're full of shit. i know you're full of shit, too. so, let's drop the bs. you're a walmart, and the minimum wage is $10/hr, and you're already staffed with the smallest number of people that you can possibly staff and still manage to actually run your business.

the gummamint is threatening to increase the minimum wage to $15/hr. wow. holy shit. $15/hr? so, you as a walmart, are threatening to fire people....because you're a job creator, and that's what job creators do: fire people when they get too expensive. obviously.

so, which one of the minimum number of employees required to run your business do you plan on firing?

yeah, that's right - you can't fire them, can you? because you've already hired the absolute minimum number of people that you possibly can - because you're a walmart, and that's how a walmart works.

so, you get grumpy and threaten to shut the whole store down! and release all of the video vaults of employees fucking in the back, too! don't act like you don't know that's a characteristic of every single fucking walmart on the planet, either. but, let's not dwell on this or visualize it too much. right. anyways..

as you're literally rolling a cart of beach balls out of the building, one of your managers runs towards you with a set of print outs, yelling - wait! wait! look!...

you stop. you look at the printouts. sales are up. by a lot.

"i think i understand", says the manager. "our customers are mostly low wage earners. they just got a 30-50% raise. so, they came here to spend a lot of money. stuff like clothes for their kids. that created a big increase in demand, all at the same time. but, come over here i want to show you something..."

the manager then takes you through the store. the line-ups are longer than they should be.

"we may need some extra cashiers."

she then takes you to the back, where you notice that there is a giant backlog.

"we need more stockers, too."

you realize that the minimum amount of staff you require to stay in business has now increased.

after a walk, you decide to roll your cart of beach balls back into the store. things will be fine, after all.

i'm going to tell you a little secret about the minimum wage hike in ontario, which is on it's way to $15/hr by the beginning of 2018.

*psstt*

lean in now, as the papers won't tell you this, and you don't need to know what they don't tell you, right?

the minimum wage in ontario is tied to inflation.

so, you can imagine that the press is yelling and screaming that the hike is meaningless because it will just raise prices, and in the end balance out.

not in this particular jurisdiction, it won't. right here, in this place, business owners can't get out of the increase that easily, because if they raise prices to compensate they'll just get hit with an equally sized increase in wages the next year. 

they're going to be forced to actually pay out.

that's the trick - the secret. it's how you win this game. 

and, what are the outcomes? will businesses close? will the economy collapse?

a few businesses may close, but that will be because they were barely profitable to begin with. and, it's funny to hear the so-called market advocates complain that unprofitable businesses will be forced to close, isn't it?

as workers will now have more disposable income, because capital cannot take it back via inflation, we should see an increase in gdp and a stronger economy, over all. when you fix increases to inflation, you can get a true shift in wealth.

i've stated this repeatedly: i actually like this government. i hope that they can turn things around before the next election.

i want to be clear to the ndp: removing mulcair is not enough. he basically tossed you into the abyss. and, you're really starting again from scratch.

eye-twitching is meth. common side-effect.

when you go through a meth overdose, your body starts attacking itself. your blood pressure gets so high that you're literally under risk of your cardio-vascular system exploding. in the end, you usually die of mass organ failure.

if you survive, you can expect recurring hallucinations for up to a year.

i'm in full support of legalizing marijuana and everything, but legalizing mdma would certainly save a lot more people's lives - and prevent a lot of people from the side effects of meth abuse.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/angel-loyer-lawrence-teen-overdose-new-westminster-alberta-edmonton-mdma-drugs-1.4138235

i actually think that christy clark is doing the right thing in playing out the motions, in order to help voters understand what's happening. i'm not old enough to remember the peterson/rae coalition in ontario, but the failed dion/layton coalition clearly exposed severe deficits in the public's understanding of how the legislature functions. by going through the motions in real-time - losing a confidence vote and allowing the opposition an ability to form government - she's forcing the right-wing press to cover the process. hopefully, voters will walk away from the transfer of power with a better understanding of how the system works.

the worst thing that she can do is emulate what harper did - which was to basically go on tv and lie to people and confuse them into thinking he was being ousted.

to make the situation clear: a green-ndp coalition is about to remove the liberals from power.

...and i'll be keeping an eye on the way that the ndp-green coalition unfolds. these left/centre coalitions are a kind of a special aspect of canadian politics, and the crux of the reason why canada is what it is. the ndp are going to be tempted to moderate, but they will not be able to do so without forcing an election and probably handing over power. the ndp's position is, in fact, exceedingly weak. the greens are going to have tremendous influence. what we'll have to see is how hard the ndp push back, and what they agree to.

the ndp need a litmus test, right now. this might be it. and, because the ndp is a national party, the positions that the greens can get the ndp to hold to may have national implications, too.

british columbians should be ecstatic about this outcome and optimistic for it to be extremely productive in passing legislation to protect both the coast and the interior, as well as to block carbon exports to china.

this is kind of a backdoor, isn't it?

i don't think the college should be making decisions of this sort in the first place. this college needs to be put under democratic control, with it's rules determined by the broader society, and not merely by the doctors.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/quebec-abortion-guidelines-under-review-after-woman-denied-procedure-at-30-weeks-1.3211209

“In case you haven’t noticed, Brad’s not entirely comfortable with the whole gay thing.” - brad trost's campaign manager.

we have different justifications today than they did then, but this is still the right system to use and we should be bringing ourselves back to it's principles, not opening the borders further.

http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/white-paper-on-immigration-1966

this line about the "perversion of islam". it's been recycled. it's corbyn that's using it now.

maybe corbyn would like to explain to me which school he studied islam in, if he's so convinced that isis is such a perversion of it?

listen: i get the point. most muslims aren't intent on world domination, or at least not for most of the week. it's just buried in their psyche, as code, waiting to be turned on, manchurian-like. it's a substantive difference, i don't disagree.

but, when you say that isis is a perversion of islam, you mean a perversion of what, exactly? the absurdly revisionist brands of islam that most muslims follow nowadays? because to use an analogy that most people can understand, that's like arguing that the evangelists in the united states are a perversion of anglicanism - which isn't even a coherently formed thought.

the brand of islam that isis promotes may be very different than the kind that most muslims prefer. but, it is in truth much closer to the source of the religion, as a brainwashing tool of a warrior cult.

....and the reality is therefore that it is actually more accurate to argue that the moderate forms are the perversion on the fundamental ideas that the religion initially expressed.

i would prefer the term fundamentalist muslim, fully aware of the difficulties with it.

to suggest they're not muslims makes him sound like he's pandering, and flatly foolish.

maybe i should bring some black friends with me next time i go, that'll distract them.

and, i'm not even being intentionally crude. there used to be blacker people at this place, but they've all disappeared. it's not an accident. but, it's not a reflection of individual prejudice, either. it's the nature of the job - when security is proactive, it will always target minorities, and you're just lost in space if you insist otherwise.

and, to address the most absurd and naive point of all: shouldn't i be looking for a "safe space" given that i'm an openly queer jew stumbling around smashed by myself?

but, what liberals have been saying since the beginning of time is that when you give an entity power of surveillance or control, that entity always goes after the most vulnerable. this idea that expanded powers will protect us is preposterous: there is absolutely no empirical basis for it whatsoever, and rather mountains of evidence that implies the opposite.

minorities like myself will always be targeted, as soon as you let anybody target us. and, so, the way you keep us safe is that you take away the watchers, and let a kind of concept of group immunity kick in. this operates at every level, from the very top to the very bottom.

i'm, in fact, upholding a well understood and time-tested truth. and, if you were to sit down and analyse the situation carefully from the start, the idea that the tranny jew would get targeted by security is so obvious as to be unavoidable - which, to be clear, is not a personal attack on the individual security personnel, but a broader critique of security, to begin with.

i want to be clear as possible: you should not have expected a bar with heavy security to protect the tranny jew. you should have, from the start, expected such an arrangement to have no other outcome but targeting the tranny jew - and other minorities it's supposed to be shielding. you don't even need to cite milgram's or something. it's something liberals have understood since the renaissance, and is scattered across centuries of writing on authority: they always go after the minorities. and, you can't avoid that, it's systemic.

beer: contains estrogen.
red bull: increases testosterone production.
vodka: hormonally neutral.

which one do you think i want? huh?

i've made clear what i'm looking for, but i'll be that much more terse: give me a space that offers a dance floor until 8:00 on sunday mornings and lets people flail around as much as they want, so long as they don't get into anybody's face.

the only rule you need is the non-aggression principle.

i'm not going to buy energy drinks, because they contain testosterone. i probably won't buy water, either. but, i'll be glad to get a coffee on the way out. and, i'd take a shot of espresso at 4:19 if it was there for me to take, too.

that's something i can't grasp: of all the all night parties i've been to, i've never found one that sells coffee. they sell red bull. why not coffee?

it ought to be the most obvious thing. there ought to one on every corner. surely, there ought to be one somewhere in detroit....

it's actually a bit more sinister than this. what neo-liberal identity politics really does is offer a hand to minorities: you, too, can be a part of the oppressing classes. it then claims that this is a type of progress. in doing so, it converts what should be broader race-based struggles into purely class struggles. the key thing is the next point: it manages to convince people that a society rooted in class divisions is "normal" or "natural", due to this concept of "human nature", which is not derived empirically but via the convenient process of construction in order to justify what it's supposed to prove is inevitable. the neo-liberals might not all miss the circularity of it, but the masses often do, as they're only capable of knowing what they're taught. if they're taught that our nature implies the inevitability of class, then it's enforcement is justified, and opening up a class-based society to minorities becomes a kind of progress, rather than a kind of oppression. so, the class struggle ends up co-opted by an idea of an "american dream": minorities compete against each other for status, rather than work with each other (and with others) for freedom. so, the capitalist class is converted from a source of oppression that needs to be struggled against into an ideal to aspire to. the result is that the same oppression carries on as it always had, it's just somehow better because the racial components within the classes are more evened out.

in the long run, this is unsustainable, but for the time being it gives capitalism enough support from the people that should be opposing it to allow it to kind of limp along at 1% growth.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/24/beyond-neoliberal-identity-politics/

it's tuesday, now.

it turns out that both april and may were really over the top, for me. as mentioned, i'm expecting a much quieter month. maybe not too quiet. i could maybe get one weekend out...

i'm going to want to make a pact with security in that bar. it's not like it's the greatest bar - all i've done is complain about it - but there often isn't really any other choice. i mean, i can't walk from mexicantown to gratiot - or grand. and one of the rock bars i frequent is a block from it, making it absurdly convenient. so, this is what i need:

a) i don't like bars with heavy security. i'm an anarchist. fuck the police. but, i will acknowledge that the bar is security-minded....if...
b) security agrees that i make choices about whether i'm too drunk to dance or not, so long as
c) i promise to be honest in my assessment and sit down or leave if i'm truly too drunk to dance. and, in fact, i have done this from time to time, in the past - i've needed to sit down for a few minutes before i get back up. i haven't allowed myself to pass out.
d) it follows that when i tell security i'm fine that i am and they should immediately fuck off and leave me alone.

as i mentioned, i happened to be just about to leave, anyways. they were going to close in a few minutes. but, i actually have every right to be irritated with their refusal to listen, and with the bruise on my knee that is their fault. i mean, how do they know if i'm drunk or not? that's crazy. i think this whole discussion is ridiculous, but they ultimately must concede that i get to decide whether i'm drunk or not, or i'm going to have to permanently boycott.

i don't want to put myself into spaces that are heavily policed, like that. i need a truce, or i'll have to avoid it.

it could be a few weeks, or even a few months, before i get in there to talk, though. the only thing i really have planned for june is on a sunday, a good ways from the place in question.

but, i am, in fact, currently officially banned from the works in detroit, for the apparent reason of dancing too hard. i'm going to have little choice but to wear it as a badge of honour for as long as they insist upon it. create a meme: too hardcore for the works in detroit! yeah. well, of course it's preposterous, and of course they're going to have to eventually admit it's preposterous. i honestly don't want to go back in there until i get an assurance that i have agency and autonomy, and they'll back off and leave me alone.

what am i doing about this $320 that i owe the legal loan sharking company?

well, i'm just going to finish my regular monthly scheduling stuff, first. i guess i'm going to have to test my feet on wednesday, at least enough to get to the various stores. once i've done my budgeting and shopping for the month, i'll take a look at what the balance is.

i think i mentioned here that i'd like to put down half in the next few days and the other half on june 30th. i need to verify i'm not walking into a trap with it. but, that's probably how this is going to work, and it should let me get out to a show or two mid-month. functionally speaking, it will be my gst cheque that will pay down the bulk of the second half of the loan, albeit a few days prematurely.

if they don't let me split it, i'm going to have to put it aside somewhere.

right now, i'm finally awake enough to get a coffee so i'm going to focus on editing until the sun comes up and then spend the day cleaning. i'm back to the list of things for the next few days.

i'm also going to share my thoughts on this point because it may clear up a misperception. this isn't the first time i've posted these thoughts.

ecstasy. as a drug. do i take it? not a fucking chance.

it's not quite what you think...

safe drugs: marijuana. mdma. mushrooms.
iffy drugs: alcohol. lsd.
stupid drugs: meth, cocaine, heroin.

if you know a little about how the process works, you know what i'm getting at.

i would buy and take and consume pure mdma. but, you will never find pure mdma on the street. ever. what you will find is some kind of concoction of meth and coke that might have trace mdma, if you're lucky.

it's probably meth.

and, if you try to give me meth, i'm going to punch you in the face.

andrew scheer is more like stockwell day than he is like stephen harper. somebody get him a wetsuit.

oh, look - trudeau is wearing one through the press availability.

the conservatives were nearly bottomed out last election. the next time around, it's not likely that they'll do much worse than they did the last time around. but, he has almost no chance of winning. in fact, i'd expect some crossings and resignations over the next week as the more moderate and opportunistic wing of the party realizes what just happened and seeks to get out.

trudeau always had more to worry about with the ndp race.

but, the mexicans don't care about a rules-based order, either. that's actually the root of the problem: workers don't have any rights in mexico. we even put down some labour agreements in nafta, and nobody talks about them because they're "unenforceable".

it goes back to the dawkins film, again. cooperation is good. but, the only party in nafta that wants to cooperate is the canadian government; the americans and mexicans are both driven by violent self-interest. and, we will be badly taken advantage of if we don't wake up to that.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3484283/justin-trudeau-donald-trump-g7-summit-crossroads

what is a realistic expectation from canada? 2% of gdp is a demand from american industry, not a substantive defence consideration.

the europeans have every right to prefer to maintain their own force, and if the americans want to insist on it, i'm sure they'll be happy to oblige.

canada's contribution should be entirely defensive. coast guard. norad. immigration. i'd be almost willing to provide a blank cheque on norad in return for an agreement to avoid further colonialism.

but, remember: the canadian oligarchs wants high oil prices, right now.

to begin with, i'm glad they're writing white papers again. i've kind of felt deprived. i might not read this one, but if they keep coming in areas i'm more interested in, i will.

what about canada and the 2%? well, the truth is that we're good at sneaking out of it. trudeau is pushing a line about being a reliable member of the alliance, which is true enough, but like a lot of what he says there's this kind of child-like naivete to it - as though lockheed martin is driven by concepts of fraternal bonds of friendship and patriotic fervour rather than cynically driven by greed and profit, and as though trump isn't in the pockets of the defence lobby.

i've been over this a few times. we have historically avoided involving ourselves in conflicts we're not excited about, and sometimes downright opposed to, by putting resources into occupying strategic cold war regions, which had the happy coincidence of doing things like building hospitals. and, we're proud of that, up here. but, that world no longer exists. now, they're demanding that we buy weapons. maybe, we could get some of those data wizards on the point of why defence jobs have shitty multipliers and you'd create more jobs with green energy? but, how do we get out of this, this time?

"we're spending money on veterans" seems entirely insufficient, granted. but, that level of insufficiency is also consistent, dare i even say characteristic, of the current pmo.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-defence-policy-1.4131623

the trump administration wants to present the arrangement as though they're doing europe a favour, rather than continuing a 70 year occupation force. the europeans should not have to pay for their own occupation.  but, why would they send blank cheques to washington when they can build their own army, anyways?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-europe-as-a-stronger-global-actor/file-european-defence-union

the germans have always been a reluctant ally. you don't build allies through foreign occupation; ask the iraqis. so, the americans had to know it was a matter of time, after reunification, before the germans reasserted themselves. they couldn't have been delusional enough to think otherwise. it's just too obvious.

so, it always followed that the americans would eventually have to relinquish some sovereignty to a more assertive europe.

but, not the uk.

the uk is a part of the empire.

by the way, though, this:

The times in which we could rely fully on others — they are somewhat over

...is actually exactly what trump actually wants to hear.

see, my take on brexit was that it was a reaction to german realignment.

i stated repeatedly leading up to the vote that what brexit passing signalled was that the americans were pulling the uk out of europe, because the germans were reorienting themselves towards the russians. what brexit failing would imply would be american confidence in german participation in the alliance.

nice try, merk.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-donald-trump-germany-us-no-longer-rely-european-union-climate-change-g7-a7760486.html

Nicola Sturgeon has defended Jeremy Corbyn's view that there is a link between the deadly attack in Manchester and UK foreign policy.

they state it like there's some kind of controversy around the claim.

why do you think they bomb you, uk? is it because you think they hate your freedom? because they're barbarians, and it's just what barbarians do? because they want to take over the world, one subway bombing at a time? or maybe just to piss you off?

they know bono is from ireland, right?

yes, obviously, the bombings are a consequence of your foreign policy. and, propaganda aside, it's hard to believe there is a properly oxygenated brain in the united kingdom that is defective enough to fail to grasp this.

i don't want to hang out in places that organize people into hierarchies or judge people according to status. in fact, i would prefer to avoid these kinds of spaces. if your bar has a vip section, i don't want to go to it.

i don't want to hang out in booty bars or meat markets that people go to in order to pick up and get laid. i'm not into disco...

what i seek is a traditional rave environment where people are into the music and a set of basic democratic principles: equality, acceptance and respect. the basic premise of electronic music culture is that we're all equal on the floor; entities contradicting this principle, for profit or for status, are co-opting the culture for their own ends and should be denounced and boycotted. the reason that people go to the kind of parties i want to go to is not to be seen in the right place or to find somebody to have sex with but to do drugs and dance in an introverted daze. the ideal is for a room that is full of people lost in their own heads, happy to be stuck in there and disinterested in escaping.

the first bar that i went to this weekend is somewhere i'd been to previously and seemed to be a moderately open rave hangout, but has proven itself otherwise over the last several weeks. they've actually been giving me a hard time for a while. it may seem absurd on it's face for security at an all-night dance club to ask you to leave because you're dancing while drunk, but perhaps this absurdity is actually rooted in a contradiction of capitalism. i initially rejected the claim as preposterous, but perhaps i was giving the bar too much credit in the process of doing so. that is, perhaps the space is intended to be a more conservative environment than initially seemed apparent. that said, i still believe that the reason i've been harassed at this bar by security is related primarily to gender expression. when you realize that the space is intended to promote a conservative atmosphere, these factors are reinforcing rather than contradictory: an inebriated transsexual busting a move on the dance floor is an expected sight at a rave, but remains taboo in a business-normalized, corporatized environment where everybody is expected to be predicable and fall into defined roles. i just would have never gone to this space in the first place if i realized it was meant to uphold a business-normal atmosphere. in my defence, the place has a reputation for being a dingy dive bar, not somewhere teeming with security intent on enforcing hierarchy. i suppose that the bar is transitioning; my experience may be a harbinger for others.

the second bar that i went to was more like the kind of place i'd rather be at. it's a shame that it's geographically located on the other side of downtown. it's also a shame that the police are keying on the place that has a more open atmosphere, forcing it to close early while the business-friendly bar can stay open seemingly indefinitely. but, this is again consistent: the reality is that security at the works is giving me a hard time for exactly the same reason that the cops are trying to shut down grenadier.

i state in my vlog that i should have ended up at grenadier or marble anyways; the works was just more attractive due to cost, hours and location. so, i took my chances, there. and, to be clear: i enjoyed both nights i was there - except the part where security told me to stop dancing.

but, i've got the hint. and i'll adjust.

my feet are shot, and my legs are crickety.

that was a ridiculous weekend.

i'm going to need some time to heal. ouch.

hi.

i've been at your bar a few times over the last few months, and i seem to be a magnet for security, who has repeatedly ask that i leave and which tossed me out a little bit roughly this morning. i'm getting the point. but, i'm just trying to better understand what the concern is, and am seeking an honest response.

sure: i'll acknowledge that when i go to your bar, my intent is to consume alcohol and dance. see, i kind of thought that was the point of having a bar that serves alcohol and plays dance music. maybe i'm missing something?

i've never been into a physical altercation, nor am i the kind of person that would get in one. i don't bring weapons or drugs. i keep to my own space when i'm dancing, and don't interfere with the space of others. the fact is that the only answer i've ever been given as to why security is basically harassing me is that i'm actually having a good time. i've literally been pulled of the dance floor and asked to leave, and when i ask why they seriously tell me that i have to leave because i'm dancing under the influence. and, yeah - of course i am.

i'm just seeking an honest reaction, because i'm feeling like there is an underlying reason why i'm being targeted, and it's beginning to make me feel unwelcome in your bar. perhaps i've misunderstood. but, i don't want to go where i'm not welcome.

my position is this: if you find somebody's gender expression upsetting, then you're better off hanging out in a church than at an all-night dance party. i was at the right place. it is you, yourself that was at the wrong bar. given your worldview, maybe you shouldn't have been at a bar at all. and, the staff made the wrong decision.

it's not likely that i'll go back there.

all i can do is point out the absurdity of the situation and avoid putting myself in situations where i have to deal with them.

the biggest threat to liberalism today is not conservativism. conservatism has been largely discredited. the biggest threats to liberalism come from these people that call themselves progressives, as they're trojan horses for the church - friendly fascists that want to enforce the same worldview that conservatives do, but prefer to use more collectivist methods.

that is the difference between a conservative and a progressive: conservatives are pragmatists that want to enforce religion with a gun, whereas progressives are idealists that want us to come to religion together and live it out via free will.

liberals that want to overthrow the religious order altogether need to step away and see them as two sides of the same coin.

this is what is happening: "progressives" and conservatives are merging into a bipartisan consensus that wants to push down a kind of deist religious order that strips out the specifics and upholds the general rules. and, if you reject the rules, they call you a racist. the result is that the society is renormalizing the messianic order under the cover of an acceptance of islam. we're to have these judaic value systems pushed down on us, one way or another. and, they've spun you around and got you standing up for christian values at  all-night industrial dance parties and other spaces that should be safe from the influence of the authorities.

so, my argument in favour of rejecting and resisting so-called religious allies on the left is that, if allowed to occur unchecked, the renormalization of religion is going to undermine liberal value systems and lead to a more conservative society, where things like gender roles end up strictly enforced, as the christian society that we successfully destroyed once did in the past.

you don't see the irony, do you?

you couldn't stretch your arms long enough to make an adequate gesture for beauty.

you know that, don't you?

therefore, beauty lies within the impossibilities of the body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndK3BM77o5s

the loan is actually due at the end of june. as expected, it's $320 to pay on the $300. so long as i pay it on time, it will only cost me $20.

obviously, i want to deal with this asap. the staff there were absurdly slimy; they made it abundantly clear that the business model is generating interest on repeat loans by taking advantage of people that aren't getting enough from assistance. luckily, i just need some quick cash to go dancing. i'll be happy if i never go back in there. but, i'm just going to have fun this weekend and figure out what the best way to juggle it is, afterwards.

i expect to pay it off right away on the 31st. but, i could technically put aside $150 this month and pay in full using $150 from the july check, as well. the thing is that i'm used to living with nothing, so paying it upfront will not harm me as much as it might harm others. it would obviously be more leisurely to soften it over two checks, but i may prioritize getting rid of the issue, instead. it will depend on what's left at the end of the weekend. if i run through everything, i'll probably split it over the two months. if i end up with more than $50 left, i'll probably pay it in full.

i need to nap.

i just want to stress the point.

i don't need this loan. i could stay in this weekend. i had three overnights already this month, although the first was unintentional. i had a good month, already. i merely want this loan.

there's no need for systemic reforms to allow me to party in detroit. this is frivolous. i'm well taken care of.

but, so long as it's really only going to cost me 20 bucks, i'm going to do it.

if i walk in there and get a different story, i'll walk right out. i mean, that's the difference between my circumstance and the circumstance of somebody getting taken advantage of: i can read the terms and walk out. i'm not in a day-at-a-time situation, where i need to take a gamble and hope for the best.

that means i'm planning for a much quieter june, and will hopefully get back to doing something.

i feel like i need a bit of a blowout. this weekend should provide that, and then some.

there wasn't any really serious chance i was going to hitch to the dte to see tool in the summer of 2017, and pay a sum to get in that i don't even want to know about. i hope people that go have a good time.

i might have seen tera melos on the 13th, but i'd probably have walked out critical of it.

more likely would be noveller on the 14th, but i saw her here a few years ago, already. and, that show is cheap enough that i could maybe sell some cds....

it was just a quick run through, granted. i will need to do a more serious run next week. but, i did not immediately see any reason why i'd want to save my june spending money.

and, i'm consequently cleared to run this through.

i will need to put the $320 down on the 31st, first thing in the morning. with the $670 for rent, $30 for internet and $60 for hormones, that's going to leave me with about $50 for food for the first two weeks - unless i spend less than $300, of course. i'll get $60 in around the 10th. so, that's a little over $100. i budget for $200, but can eat well on $150 for one month. i have backups of most things. i'm really only going to need to buy perishables like fruit, bread, cheese and eggs - and i can do that for $130, if not $100. so, if i spend $250 instead of $300 this weekend, that will work itself out.

at the end of the day, i'm only throwing away $20 to do this. and, it doesn't seem like i'm throwing anything away in june...

yeah.

i'm doing it..

they're open at 8:00.

i'm really just ordering my thoughts...

there's a payday loan company in windsor with a $300 for $20 deal on.

yes, i'll make sure there's nothing hidden.

that's going to get me to 3 of 4 days, at least. it'll be 4 if i stretch it to the max possible; more realistic is that it's three days, andi only spend something like $250.

if i do this, i'll be in for june, and probably need to cut my diet down a little - although that extra $50 is probably the difference.

i'm not sure it's worth it, yet. i have a few hours, still...

worst case, i could try and sell a few cds mid-month. or maybe try the same trick again. yeah, i know that that's how they get you, but so long as it's a $20 fee and i'm confident i'll catch up in a month or two, it's not so terrible. the thing you have to stop yourself from doing is not realizing fees. i'm too smart to get tricked, and too humble to get done in by arrogance. they won't get me on this.

and, i'll sue if anybody gets dishonest.

i'm seriously considering exploring it, anyways. i mean, i get paid on wednesday at midnight. and i can make my budget work for $320, even though i know i probably won't spend it all. it's really honestly just an advance for a week - although it's also going to honestly take away the whole of june, too.

hrmmn.

i guess i need to check june listings, too.

this is a very strong set.



unfortunately, it may be the only set worth attending tomorrow. well, tonight.

and, i don't actually know that the set tomorrow will be like this one, either.

the update on the weather is that it's not the best night, although it actually seems like the overnights are all comparable, it's the days that are going to be different temperatures.

not lining up well... but i have a few more hours to think about it...

i hope julian assange leverages himself and finds a way to build ecuador the nicest fucking embassy you've ever seen.

i don't expect that a corbyn government would be much different from a may government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-mcdonnell-shadow-chancellor-is-the-new-voice-of-fiscal-responsibility-a6927926.html

in north america, balanced budget amendments are associated with the extreme right - and portend crushing austerity when floated before or during elections.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/03/thinking-behind-john-mcdonnell-s-new-fiscal-credibility-rule

what does it mean to support the "freedom to pass things to your children" when you don't believe in property at all? or in the family, for that matter.

any support for inheritance is a propertarian position, clearly.

so, as an anti-propertarian (a necessary ideological position to hold in order to exist on the left) in a propertarian system, i'm left with a choice to make in which policy i think is less harmful: is it more tyrannical to seize property, or more tyrannical to uphold it?

you might think that's a silly question, but that's because you're a propertarian, and you've probably never read the critiques of property. property is freedom, but only at the expense of others; property is theft, but in being so enriches the individual that has it.....and, property is therefore impossible in a truly free society.

in a truly free society, the issue consequently wouldn't exist. that is, you wouldn't debate inheritance, because we wouldn't own anything to pass down to our children to begin with. it would simply be understood that the property would go to somebody that needs it. we would all recognize the logic in it, and nobody would push back against it.

in the short term, i have to make a pragmatic choice in the presence of the existence of property. which option more closely emulates my actual position on property? clearly, seizing it does. allowing property to pass across family lines is upholding the basis of feudalism, after all, and putting state support behind the concept of class. seizing property and redistributing it is an inevitable step in the abolition of property, anyways.

at least he's consistent in his views about reducing estate taxes....

https://www.ft.com/content/dc8a98fa-64ff-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2

no.

stop.

labour is fighting an election over reducing estate taxes.

and, they say this guy is on the left?

this 'dementia tax' strikes me as a good idea, actually - and is similar to things i've suggested here. the answer to "who should pay for the boomer?" is the boomers, themselves.

i would broadly support taxes on inheritance. i would support any and all death and estate taxes. if the concern is that the tax will reduce inheritance, not only does that not concern me, but i'm actually in favour of that.

it's certainly strange that the conservatives are supporting a tax on inheritance, while the various parties that claim they are on the left are opposing it. conservatives are always strange creatures, in that they can come around from time to time. but, what leftist can stand in front of you with a straight face and oppose a tax on inheritance?

due diligence is one of those terms in english - another example is 'gold standard' - that has come to mean the opposite of what it actually means.

people think that 'due diligence' refers to some kind of broad concept of upholding responsibility. so, they may use it to refer to a property owner upkeeping their property, or perhaps an employee following best practices. but, this is completely wrong.

due diligence refers to the responsibility of a lender to ensure that the person they're lending money to can pay it back. it's a 'reasonable person' abstraction: would a reasonable person foresee that an individual may be unable to pay back a loan?

and, here's the twist nobody knows: the law says that if a lender lends to somebody without doing this research, that is without performing their due diligence, then it's their own stupid fault when they get defaulted on. what the law actually says is that if you give a loan to a crack addict and that crack addict never pays you back then it's your own stupid fault for being dumb enough to give a loan to a crack addict - and, further, that it's your own responsibility to make sure you're not lending to crack addicts.

there is only one exception to this rule: student loans.

is this madness?

yes.

it's a farce. it's been two years of farce, and it will remain a farce as long as we let it continue for.

but, at the core, it's madness.

to the rest of the world, beware: avoid elevating your dauphins.

"what happened?"
"the senate blocked the legalization bill."
"a bunch of harper stooges, right?"
"actually..."
"...when will we get a majority in the senate?"
"we already do."
"i don't understand."

when an understanding of the situation is achieved, it's going to be devastating.

but, people that wanted to save the liberal party as an institution are too late. it's been thoroughly taken over by progressives, fleeing the reform-pc merger. abandonment is the right approach.

what trudeau is doing is setting up a conservative-dominated senate to block the left-leaning parliament. he has consistently placed conservatives in places of power, while rejecting liberals. then, he claims it's about being "non-partisan".

this is how marijuana legalization will be blocked, and how trudeau will more broadly sabotage the interests of his own party, and his own voters. but, it will also allow him to campaign further left, fully aware that he can introduce liberal legislation, only to have it blocked by the progressive/conservative body he's set up.

thankfully, this charade can be easily dismantled when this party is removed from power. in the mean time, prepare yourself for immense disappointment until the country finally clues in to the nature of this charlatan and sends him home to his trust fund.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-rules-caucus-change-1.4112744

i'm not the first person that's pointed out that it's pathetic that you have to read uk papers for us news, because the news media in the united states is focused on distracting you from the news with nonsense, rather than reporting it.

you'd think the fucking budget would get some coverage, regardless of what's in it. now, look what's fucking in it.

but, it's not some accident that you're being distracted with conspiracy theories and scandals, when they aren't actually even the same thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/23/republicans-opposition-trump-budget-medicaid-spending

i'm almost expecting theresa may to suggest that elections are no time to discuss serious issues.

the united kingdom is going to remove the conservatives from power, eventually. she's kind of making it seem like the time is right. but, that's kind of scary, because there appears to be a lot of cynicism around the labour party. it's scenarios like this that you get weird results in.

corbyn should have attended the debates, as he needs to win an election against these smaller parties - especially ukip - more than he does against the tories. and, it should be a bit of a red flag that they think they're more likely to sway tories than greens or lib dems.

see, this is the scenario where the lib dems should actually be taking advantage of the situation to try and sneak up the middle. the prime minister appears to be hopeless. labour is trying to leap frog them, again. they're the only ones that showed up to the debate. i don't know how seriously they can be taken right now, but they should be a serious wild card.

...because it is inevitable that the country will just tire of the ruling party and seek a replacement, and this looks like as good a time as any.

try #2 left me with an amazing $0.25.

i skipped out on the stragglers. i mean, there weren't any, anyways. but, i kind of came to the realization around 12:30 or so that what i was doing was unrelatable to anybody walking by and if the point was to gather change then the chances of anybody walking by and stopping to appreciate what i was doing was negligible, because it was legitimately impossible to do so. i had most of autechre's discography (ripped from cds i bought, as it may be) on random in my mp3 player, which is just about the most abstract rhythm track that you could possibly imagine. i mean, autechre in sequence is wacky enough. but i had stuff from oversteps sequenced to stuff from confield, sequenced to stuff from amber, sequenced to stuff from tri repetae...yes, ++. and, when the suite from ep7 came in mixed with pieces of lp5, netlon sentinel and drane, that was just sublime. i was completely trapped in my own head. there was one person earlier in the evening that seemed to at least be able to empathize with what i was expressing, but his reaction was distant, if vaguely appreciative.

i mean, if you want to busk you need to play songs people know, so they can stop and sing along for a few minutes. that's supposed to be the ploy. i get it. i wasn't going to do that, though. i was reasoning that what i was doing was interesting enough that it would...i'd be throwing away a lot of the market, but i reasoned i'd hit a niche, if i sat there long enough. the realization i came to was that even that was incomprehensible, because the entire thing was just too abstract - you couldn't hear the music in my headphones, so you couldn't put what i was doing into context.

maybe i should phrase it like this: if anybody did come by and was able to understand what the fuck i was playing, that would be a person i'd want to jam with. that would be my collaborative unicorn, which i know does not exist.

that said, i greatly enjoyed both sets, despite only making $0.25 in total. it had been a while since i had really played my guitar at all, let alone played it in public. i kind of wish i was able to record the totality of the sound that existed in my mind, which was not just the autechre and the guitars but also the direction. it's actually something i've been wanting to do for a really long time. it will be a part of closing the discography.

for now, i just want to take a shower and get to bed.

but, does that mean i'm in for the weekend? as i was walking home, i thought maybe i was overhyping it, anyways. the weather is going to be unpleasant for most of the weekend. i'm going to make a decision about selling cds on thursday, but i'm leaning towards staying in. and, i'll have to make the same decision on friday, which is maybe a bit more open.

the reality is that i planned on not going anywhere this weekend. a part of the reason i'm backtracking is that the last two weeks were....last week wasn't bad but it felt too short, but what i really feel an urge to do is to make up for the week previous. that said, it was kind of silly from the start to think i could do all four nights. even if i had stayed in all month, that would have been a stretch. i should have settled on one night in the first place.

if the weather guides me towards friday, so be it. and, it means there's a few things i can wait on, too.

i'm not going to bother going back out in the morning, even if it stays dry. this was a reasonable idea, but it has demonstrated itself unfruitful, admittedly partly due to my own idiosyncrasies.

well, i made $2.10 busking this afternoon, from about 4:30 to about 7:30. but, i bought an extra large coffee....for $2.10.

i was parked outside a closed bank. it was probably the worst time of day.

i was going to go out tomorrow, but it's going to be raining. it's a tuesday night. i'm still probably better off charging and going back out for the night. yeah...

the charge on my mp3 player died a lot sooner than i thought, actually. it should have been more like five hours. i'm not sure what's up with that. but, i bought it in....2007? it's old. the flash drive will eventually die. i'm not sure if the charger will eventually fail.

i just don't want to sell any more cds, dammit.

and, the truth is that i enjoyed it, too. i said to myself walking out that there's worse things i could do on a nice tuesday afternoon than hang out and play guitar. and now i'm actually keen to go back out.

if i can get a third or a half of the way there, i'll feel better about selling a few discs. and, i think i can take this one day at a time, even. the best night is friday, but it's also the most expensive....ugh...

if the bank messes up due to the holiday on monday, and it might, i'll know on friday morning. if so, i could even only need to worry about thursday. and if the weather is shit, i could just be saving money up.

the property owners informed me this morning that the upstairs tenants (the smokers...) are moving out, so i would be unlikely to enforce any settlement in my favour, if it comes, unless it's the $89 worth of costs i put down. and, that would cover thursday and then some.

there's paths.

i know they're all remote...

if i can pull in $20 overnight, i have a chance to make it work. maybe the pawn shop will take the dvd player for $10. i can try. i don't know how long it needs to charge, but i hope i'm back out by 10:30. if i can do 11:00-2:30 that's the best chance i've got.

why don't these idiots ever learn?

metals are just as volatile as any other fiat currency.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-canadian-mint-silver-superman-numismatics-1.4119986

this is the reality: the british never wanted to come over here and beat the indians to a pulp, what they wanted was to subjugate and tax them. that means converting them into happy, productive citizens, which is impossible when they're so traumatized from lives full of abuse that all they can do is get drunk.

it's hard language. that's intentional.

this may seem like it's shifting the blame, but i actually think it's extremely important and am in full support of not just asking him once but being vocal about the central problem being that the church was given too much autonomy to do something that should have been overseen more directly by the state.

that's going to upset people, too. but, listen..

colonialism has it's own set of interests, and they're hardly benign - sure. but, they're also actually directly opposed to raping and beating colonized groups to the point that they can't even function. i know that people want to create a kind of monolithic concept of colonialism as this force of aimless evil, and it's certainly always been disinterested in human rights, but it was not aimless: it was intended to maximize extraction. in the canadian example, the church was actually acting against both the short-term interests of colonialism (these populations were not converted into anything but dependants; they were utterly devastated) and the long-term interests of it as well (the state wanted to convert them into productive farmers that would further the colonial project, not reduce them to generationally dependent wards of the state).

this is tricky language. but, i don't think there's an answer in walking on eggshells. nor can we turn the clocks back. we need to be looking at more benevolent ways to integrate. what that means is agreeing on the barbarity of the catholic church as we try and move past their crimes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-apologize-residential-schools-1.4124212

the easier way to do this is for all of the people that are reading this (ha...) to just download some of my music.

more broadly speaking, if you want to toss me some money, this is the way to do it. you don't even have to actually listen to it, if you don't want to.

i haven't gotten any actual sleep. but, i'm going to plan to be out for noon with an acoustic guitar, a set of headphones and an mp3 player full of a bunch of autechre records. i've been planning to basically record myself jamming over techno classics for a while, now. let's see where that takes me for the day.

i've got several hours on the charge, so it should be enough to get an assessment as to whether i should bother coming back tomorrow, and whether i should bring an electric and my belt-sized marshall with me, if i do. i don't want to pay for batteries on it. i'll keep an eye out for a public electrical outlet.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/

see, the price of the weekend is the reason i don't go to movement, and didn't plan for it. but, i'm kind of feeling like i want to burn out a little this year...because i'm not convinced i'm going to continue living this lifestyle much longer....

i was hoping i could get a few dollars for an extra dvd player i've had sitting around for years, but the model is listed on ebay for $10-$30. it's worthless. well, it's ancient. ancient dvd players? sure.

i sold off my vinyl over the last few weeks. the guy at the cd store thought he was ripping me off, and in a relative sense he may have been. i mean, he can no doubt resell it for quite a bit. but, vinyl is worthless to me. it sounds like shit. i'm sorry. i'm not drinking that kool-aid. i don't want the vibrations from the air conditioner upstairs and the cars outside when i'm listening to something. if somebody can sell a pile of shit for more than i can, good for them, but they're still selling a pile of shit. i got what i wanted for what i presented and it got me through the nights i wanted it to get me through. i have it all in superior quality on cd...

like, he seemed excited about an unopened copy of joshua tree - as though they didn't make 50 million copies of it. some stupid person will no doubt pay for it. but, the item isn't worth the $2.00 i accepted for it, and you could no doubt find it in a garage sale in any given city on any given weekend for the same price or less - or just download it for free. it was the same thing with the stack of beatles records i threw away. you want these dirty records - in mono - that they've been mass manufacturing for fifty years? i know somebody will pay for them. but, the reality is that they're not actually worth the sleeves they're in. wouldn't you rather go for the remastered copy on cd? why the fuck not?

the point is that they're gone...

....and, now, i'm wondering if i'd might as well sell the turntable. but i don't think i'd get more than a few dollars for it, either. and, they're not *all* gone....i kept a few that i'll never play.

the turntable is selling for $100 (us) on ebay, meaning i'll be lucky if i can get $50 for it. that doesn't help me, in context. might as well keep it...for now...

no, to generate this much this fast, i'm going to need some kind of labour. could i spend a few days busking, maybe? hrmmn. i have no real experience doing this. but, i could conceivably spend the next three days at it. could i make $100/day? well, even i can do $50/day, i can probably get thurs/fri in. as mentioned, the weather may disqualify sat/sun, anyways.

i'm going  to take a nap and decide when i wake up.

so, i kind of feel like if i'm going to go at all then i should go all four nights.

according to my calculations, that would mean i would need at least $350, canadian. that's about $260 usd. yeah. the exchange gets pretty noticeable when you get over $100.

i have $0.18 in my account and will not have money enter it until wednesday morning, unless i fluke out on lazy bankers. weird things of the sort have happened before. i can't plan around it.

there's not really a good day for weather - it's kind of chilly over nights all of the nights, and it might rain on sunday. i'm thinking thurs/fri actually look like the best nights. friday is the most expensive cover.


let me think about this....

yeah, i'm not feeling the rachmaninov. it's by no means terrible, it's just very samey. if you're doing scheduling at the dso, i don't know why you pick such a generic period piece. or, maybe you want to pick a generic period piece? the only other thing i can think of is that the musicians dig it because they can show off a little.

i asked the question: does it sound like the composer is separated from the piece? kind of, yeah. it's a problem. composers get it in their heads that they have to give the critics what they want; the thing is that it never actually works out, or at least not in the long run. composers! write on the instruments you know!

again: it's not awful. i'd enjoy it. but, this could have been written by anyone over a long period of time; at no point does it demonstrate the idiosyncrasies i'm looking for, or the outbursts of expressive playing that i'm looking for. and, don't tell me that you can't express yourself on a violin the way you can on a piano, either. that is absolute bollocks.

proof:

i'm going to double check the dance parties to make sure i'm not skipping anything. but, the last couple of nights have been dj busts. that chiptune night turned out to mostly be a hip-hop night, which was a huge disappointment, especially considering the cost of beer at the place. and, the jungle night on the 20th was actually more like 60% dubstep, much to the frustration of several people i spoke to.

so, i'm kind of coming to the realization that i'm fucked one way or another. i mean, i'm seeking out niche sounds on purpose, here. i have niche tastes, and am pretty critical of the existing trends. but, the bars seem to want to cater more to regulars that don't check event listings and aren't interested in anything except what's fashionable. so, it seems to matter less what promoters are marketing things as and more what the people on the ground want to curate. or, that's the inescapable conclusion, anyways: the promoters can market what they want, but the djs ultimately seem to get instructions when they get there, and it's those instructions that seem to be paramount. therefore, cevin key night is actually rave night. chiptune night is actually hip-hop night. jungle night is actually dubstep night. and, if 30% of the people you tricked with the poster get irritated, it doesn't matter because the regulars get what they always want.

i will say this, though: there were more people at the jungle night than i've seen in a while, and the place was full until late. it was clearly a better draw than usual. they might want to rethink that strategy.

in the mean time, i need to be skeptical about what i'm wasting money on.

and, i mean, it's not even that i'm that picky. i'm really not. but, dubstep and hip-hop are literally the worst possible styles of electronic music to dance to. they're slow moving, uneventful, repetitive. i mean, i'd have more fun at a bon jovi night, or something. honestly. at least you can dance to it...

i need to figure this out now, though, because the rest of the week sort of revolves around it.

this, not christianity, is the foundation of western religion.

http://piereligion.org/

my main interest this weekend is actually not in any of the all night dance parties happening in detroit, but in this rachmaninov symphony.

i'm mostly familiar with his piano concertos, which are actually arguably the pinnacle of the western classical tradition. i'm willing to argue with a straight face that everything before beethoven was shit. but, more importantly, i'm willing to argue that it wasn't really western music, so much as it was church music - and because it was church music it was not truly western. western culture has always been about fighting against the colonizing forces of the eastern church, from the time of the celtic rebellions up until the reformation and the renaissance and beyond. the west has never been defined by christianity, but always by it's struggle against it. so, what beethoven's rebellion against the church' music theory really means is that he was the first truly western composer. if you follow this line of reasoning, western music hit it's pinnacle in the total deconstruction of church music in the first half of the twentieth century, and the greatest composers in the western tradition are not mozart and handel but debussy and rachmaninov. unfortunately, this narrative ends with the second world war. musicians perhaps understood something that other artists and historians did not: western culture was permanently destroyed by hitler & stalin, and there was truly nothing left to do but start over again.

rachmaninov's piano concertos are just pure expression. there's really nothing else like them. but, i've never heard one of his symphonies before.

if i wander to detroit next weekend, i'll no doubt end up dancing somewhere by the end of a long night. but, i won't be going at all unless i can convince myself that this symphony is worth attending.

what do you think? does this live up to the expectations one would have, being solely familiar with the piano work? or does it lose itself in the sterility of a composer writing for instruments he does not play?

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2017/03/to-clarify-context-i-do-not-have-kids.html

is the demographic bulge into retirement harming the social system because it is "unsustainable" or because it is potentially a lucrative market?

and, if that stupid song offends you, our existences diametrically oppose each either.

...and i think you're an idiot.

nonetheless...

nobody in canada cares about the long dead queen's birthday; don't be tricked into thinking that we do.

i have no memories of ever celebrating this day, or at least not in any way that was different than any other weekend, when i was younger.

contrary to the public mythology, i have in fact never been to a cottage on the "2-4" weekend, and don't know anybody that has been. i have never attended a fireworks celebration, or marched in a parade or done anything else to acknowledge the dead empress.

and i actually thought it was next week.

i'm not surprised that trudeau isn't talking about it. and, the media wants to talk more about chapter 19 than chapter 11.

why isn't the ndp bringing it up?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/op-ed-trudeau-needs-to-renegotiate-nafta-to-protect-canadian-water/article/491935

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0307_060307_human_prey.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/evolution_of_anxiety_humans_were_prey_for_predators_such_as_hyenas_snakes.html

of all of the backwards legacies of religion, this idea that we are separate from nature and have a responsibility to take care of the earth that god gave us is one of the most pernicious. we evolved as a prey species; we have natural predators, most specifically large cats. other animals do not have an aversion to eating us, when it is opportunistic for them to do so.

we are not above nature, but contained within it. and, understanding that point is crucial if we want this thing we call civilization to be sustainable.

sea lions exposed!

they're huge, huh?

still think it wouldn't have eaten that kid?

feeding sea lions breadcrumbs is less like giving a bear a ham sandwich and more like giving a lion a salad.

sea lions are carnivorous; they don't eat grains, they eat meat. and, no - it didn't think the dress was a fish. that's ridiculous.

these people did not seem to know that. because seals are cute, right?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sea-lion-drags-girl-into-water-off-steveston-docks-in-richmond-b-c-1.4126203

you know, i've had guys follow me around in their cars and bug me on the dance floor all night and drive me around town drunk and even pull out their penises in front of me on park benches, but before tonight i'd never had anybody try and randomly french kiss me on the dance floor.

i'm extremely passive. a lot of girls would have gotten really mad. that's not usually a good idea, guys.

but, i'll take it as a continuing validation that i look hot as a blonde :P

maybe, in this kind of situation, forecasters should tell people that the uncertainty is too high to present a forecast, rather than pretend that they can provide one. i'd rather get an honest shrug than end up misled....

i don't know why the weather forecasting has been so pathetic over the last few weeks, but it's particularly awful today.

they keep changing the forecast, and the weather keeps doing the exact opposite of what they're saying it's going to do.

i mean, i get that there's some unpredictability when you've got cold and warm fronts hitting each other like this, but i planned yesterday for 25 degree humidity overnight (which is a beautiful over night....) and now they're telling me it's going to be 12 degrees with a wind chill. that's just ridiculously wrong. and, i may have to cancel plans over it. not sure yet...

it could always warm up still. i mean, it keeps doing the opposite of what they're saying...why not again....

TPP language could be recycled, if everyone's politically savvy enough not to emphasize where it's from. 

 weeeeell, we'll have to make sure to yell and scream when we see it, then, won't we?

there are two realistic successors to putin.

1) smiley dmitri:

and, you can't hate smiley dmitri.

he's smiley....

2) the fucking communists, who are the only other force with any remote chance of winning an election at all.

these other options being thrown around are not grounded in reality.

the only way out of these options is to replace smiley dmitri with somebody else.

no.

stop.

no leftist would ever use the term "cultural appropriation" or argue for exclusive property rights based on ethnicity. leftists are about abolishing insular cultural traditions and tribal divisions, in favour of the construction of a single global atheist culture.

it's a right-wing idea through and through; it traces back to edmund burke, not karl marx or john locke.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cornell-death-family-1.4123225

but, in the context of jazz and blues music (rap music is different, because it was purposefully racialized), why are we talking about "black music" instead of "american music"?

no, let's get the question right: why do you want to talk about "black music" instead of "american music"? what does that accomplish? what interests are you serving?

see, if you define jazz as an american art form, there's no issue. it's only when you define it as black music in the first place that you run into any kind of debate.

and, i think that jazz is far better described as american than it is as black, and think it's so obvious that i'm not even willing to provide an argument. jazz could never have developed in africa without the influence of european instruments and music theory, but likewise could never have developed in the strict confines of the european musical tradition. and, it needed the influence of white folk musicians as much as it did the influence of traditional black music. it is american music more than it is black music.

so, i deny your premise, and pull the rug out from under you. and, you can get mad if you want, but i'm right.

it's just one example. but, this is how the left should deal with conservative critics of cultural integration, more generally: instead of getting stuck in these tiring arguments, it needs to question the way that the debate is being framed in the first place.

i mean, if you want to come up to me and start talking about great spirits and talking birds, you'll have to excuse me for not listening, and preferring to consult an anthropology textbook. sorry.

i don't want to tell you that you can't talk about turtles, if you really want to. but, i'm not interested in listening. and, i'll take deep exception to anybody trying to tell me what i should or shouldn't listen to.

i don't want to live in a tribal society, and i will continue to stand with those that wish to tear down tribal divisions, and in opposition to those that want to erect them.

yes - that is inherently disrespectful towards your tribe, because i don't recognize it's legitimacy.

this woman is obviously white. but, that's just the point - why should your ancestry give you property rights over ideas? it's an incoherent premise. of all of the bad arguments in favour of property rights, it's hard to come up with one that's worse. it's some kind of reverse-feudalism or something.

i don't need it explained to me; it's not well thought out, which is why it doesn't and shouldn't make sense to people. these are economic concepts that we did away with centuries ago...

she claims that her claimed indigenous ancestry means she has an exclusive economic right; i'd be more likely to argue that the reality that she's white doesn't take away her ability to speak.

but, what i wanted to say is that this is actually the correct argument. you don't win arguments by silencing opponents, you win arguments by convincing people that you're right. in this case, they're not right, in the sense that these different narratives can and should exist side by side. but, you only get to that realization by putting the narratives side by side and realizing that they're not in conflict with each other.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-cultural-appropriation-debate-is-over-its-time-for-action/article35072670/

i don't even think you need to get beyond the good old harm principle. can speech harm people? sure - and when it can, we should push back. but, the bar needs to be set extremely high. speech is almost always harmless.

like most things, i'm more likely to lean towards chomsky than foucault on speech, but i'm not as absolutist as he is. i think we're using the same framework, i'm just more likely to recognize the potential for harm.

but, the basic point is expressed here: you have to be reasonable about what you're trying to shut down, or you're just being a terrible hypocrite.

if you can tell me who you think that a novelist is harming in exploring the viewpoints of different people, i'd like to hear your argument. i'm not likely to take it very seriously, though.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-do-anarchists-believe-in-freedom

if there's a realignment going on, i have to suspect it's going to end with a merger of conservatives and progressives in the democratic party (both of which are actually historical democratic bases), leaving liberals and libertarians fending off the corporatists in the republican party. and, that's going to be more or less the worst possible outcome for the left, as it will make both parties completely unelectable.

if you're concerned that white authors are taking your voice (and how did the "appropriation" debate get warped into that?), the solution is not to tell white people to stop writing, but to write the stories you want to hear and then promote them ahead of those white authors. you'll need to convince the academies in the process.

but, i ultimately don't see how a fiction writer taking on a viewpoint of somebody that is not them is in conflict with a historian of a particular culture, as though only one is allowed to work in some kind of zero sum game, or how opening up more space for certain types of story-telling requires that another type of story-telling cease altogether.

and, this is the problem that free speech liberals are continually expressing against these confused sjws and progressives on the right: arguing for greater inclusion does not and should not mean shutting people down. there's really not even any reason for there to be an argument, as few people nowadays are going to argue against the premise that there should be a broader inclusion of representative voices. the point where liberals push back against conservatives and progressives is when you start trying to police what people type.

and, i'm sorry - if you think such policing is ok, then you're wrong.

every time i stand in line at a grocery store, or some other place with music playing, i become convinced that the worst part about living through 8 years of trump/pence is going to be 8 more years of 80s radio pop.

why can't we get rid of this shit? we've tried over and over again to burn it, behead it and bury it but it keeps fucking coming back.

it's 2017. there is absolutely no reason why i should be subjected to bonnie raitt. all i wanted was a kiwi...

"because life's not about just doing whatever makes you happy."

?

i think it kind of is, actually. i mean, what else do you propose that life is about?

do you enjoy getting up and going to work every day?

if not, then why do you wish misery upon others? see, you can call me names if you'd like, but i think that makes you small-minded and vindictive and petty - and ultimately flatly pathetic.

here's an idea: instead of demanding everybody be as miserable as you've made yourself, why don't you seek to emancipate yourself?

it's your choice. but, i'd request that you keep your misery to yourself. i'm not having any of it, and don't feel any empathy towards your condition, if you just get up everyday and take it with a smile.

and, when is a pastry a coffee cup?

(i'm sorry.)

when is a pastry a donut, and when is it not?

it follows that the canadian dollar is undervalued.

i have conflicting interests with the exchange rate...

personally, because i'm right on the border and party in detroit on a fixed income, i want a higher canadian dollar. my direct personal interest is in parity.

but, i recognize that the economic strength of the region i live in depends on a lower dollar - and also that the economic strength of the country over all demands a higher one.

i'm really pulled in a lot of directions.

but, it seems to me that the canadian dollar is trying to climb. every time a new report is released, it is accompanied by international headlines declaring a higher dollar. but, then trump opens his mouth and the canadian dollar falls.

it's a pattern, but it has to break. so, i'm putting out a call: stop listening to trump. look at the data.

there is no space for religion in my revolution, and that is a firm position; if the currents wish to move in a different direction at this point where centrists are being pushed into opposition by a neo-liberal establishment, then i will have to keep my support withdrawn until the opposition realigns with a more traditional anti-hierarchical left.

and, i'll take a chance at sabotage when i can. you need to fight hierarchy wherever it exists, and all religion is hierarchy.

centrists will always exist (under capitalism). it's the left that needs to find itself, again, in this period of realignment.

there cannot be a pro-religious left. this issue was discussed at length in the nineteenth century, and is settled. a pro-religious left is never actually a left, but always a conservative movement in disguise. we see this with progressives, both historical and modern.

the longer you drag this religious baggage around, the longer we will endure capitalism for.

ffs...

no, i don't think religious people are inferior or deserve less rights. i just don't like them, and refuse to stand in solidarity with them.

and, russophobia is a very old word.

i first ran across it in a history textbook that i nabbed from my dead step grandfather's shelf, it was written in the 30s or 40s, to describe nineteenth century british tory policy under disraeli.

the idea can be traced at least as far back as thomas paine, who realized that the british empire would collapse if it did not have a russian bogeyman to justify it's waste of resources on militarism. but, the fear of russian expansion goes back to genghis khan and even atilla the hun.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/ljb1.html

canada is a lot bigger than sweden, so there are deficits in the comparison. but, we should be looking towards the swedes, and perhaps the germans, for models in trying to exist between the united states and the russians, without being absorbed by either one.

geography may be destiny, but the geography is changing.

the arctic ocean is just a big baltic sea, now.

this is the first i've heard of the expansion to windsor, which may seem superfluous at first - until you realize that it becomes very easy to integrate into detroit, which has amtrak services running to chicago.

would i hop on the train to toronto to see a show? it's about 330 km, according to google. the train will run between 250 km/h to 300 km/h, but it will also need to stop a few times. i could conceivably get to toronto on the train about as quickly as i can get to ferndale on the bus.

i guess the change, for me, would be that it would open up the possibility of going to toronto without having to stay the night. but, i would expect it to be kind of expensive, too.

it's years away, still...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/high-speed-rail-train-toronto-windsor-kitchener-london-1.4121663

if your goal is to isolate human rights abusers, then doing so by going after russia - rather than israel or the saudis or the united states - is flatly farcical.

you can't take this seriously. it's just a propaganda smear.

the truth is that this woman is a deep russophobe and that that should have disqualified her from cabinet. her job's prerogative is to advance canada's interests, not to advance the interests of the democratic party in the united states.

and, the reality is that this is very short-sighted. it doesn't take a lot of vision to realize that a warming arctic is going to require canada to develop closer ties with the russians, and that attacking them is acting against the country's self-interest - and in the self-interest of american capital.

freeland should resign her post (under necessary pressure) and move back to the united states. and, i'm not being trite about this. this policy position is so pro-american, and so against canada's long term strategic interests, that it's not outlandish to suggest it's a type of treason.

she's made it very clear who she's working for.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-warns-canada-magnitsky-1.4122758

this was the final compass, based on positions before the election.

i'm still in the far corner, the libertarian left.

and you'll notice something: the compass actually corrects itself and puts hillary to the right of trump on economic issues, while conceding that he's a lot more authoritarian. and, i think what we've seen so far actually upholds that.

i wish there was at least a third axis for foreign policy.

i'm sorry: i'm not going to tow the party line.

no. you don't get it.

very reluctantly agreeing to vote for the democrats as a barely lesser evil (and not even being sure i was right...) does not imply campaigning for them between elections. it implies trying to build a third party between elections, which implies campaigning against them.

but, i'm a canadian. i can't be building parties in a different country.

worse is that i know better, otherwise i'd be active up here.

i want to be working on my art, and will be back to it once i get through this pile of things i have to get through in order to get back to it. but, if i was going to be active, it would be in trying to reclaim spaces in this ghost town of industrial ruins.

my politics have no outlet in a bourgeois parliament.

...and, that's the whole point: it's the reason i'm a valuable observer. i don't have any party allegiances, so i'm not going to get blinded by partisan bullshit.

"that's why the left can't win."

there isn't even a left on the ballot. how can it win when it doesn't even exist?

i've at no point presented myself as pro-trump. rather, i've repeatedly stressed the point that the major parties are all terrible and i don't really prefer one over the other.

i guess you didn't believe me.

i'd be no less critical of clinton on most things, especially her foreign policy but also probably her tax cuts, and no less willing to support a few of the prerogatives i agree with, like keynesian infrastructure spending and climate change mitigation strategies.

what i'm most opposed to is being dishonest in order to advance partisan political positions, especially in the context of not identifying with any of the major political parties.

i'm not on anybody's "side"; i'm only on the side of truth and integrity and honest policy-making.

i don't give a fuck about your party. i don't give a fuck about your career. i don't give a fuck about your culture. i'm interested in issues, in a concrete sense. policies. details.

the truth is that there is no real story around russia, except the story of a deep state that wants leverage over an unpredictable president. i have no interest in pretending that there is a story, in order to politically aid a party i'm largely opposed to.

you'll have to look elsewhere for the hack you want. i'm not it.

but, if you want an honest analysis from outside of the restricted spectrum, i'll keep it coming.

if el nino is an increase in ocean temperatures relative to the average, and the average is increasing due to climate change, is it not wise to question whether we are returning to el nino or merely observing climate change?

i suppose that what you'd need to do is measure the temperature differential. it is, after all, temperature differences that drive local climate events, rather than temperatures themselves.

if the entire system has increased, we may not be dealing with something we would recognize as "el nino". i mean, we may be dealing with something, for sure. just not el nino....

to be clear: i'm not condoning anything, i'm just drawing attention to the continuity.

your enemy is the state. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/james-risen-obama-greatest-enemy-press-freedom-generation

i'm not joking, the band has acknowledged the problem with their fan base (it's largely why they broke up), and my experiences with rage fans are not unusual.

it wasn't just rage, either, it was that whole style of music and the entire culture around it. when they did the neo-woodstock thing in '99, a lot of those bands played and there were people getting beat up and raped in the mosh pit.

but, i mean listen to it for five minutes and tell me you think you're going to get a different outcome. it's obviously designed to make people violent. the intent is to get people worked up to go smash a bank, i get it, but it didn't work out very well. they just got mad and lashed out at whatever they could.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1592211/rage-against-the-machine-fight-the-good-fight-their-fans-fight-everyone-else-in-bigger-than-the-sound/

my opinion of rage against the machine is in the public record, but i'll repeat it here.

i really didn't have much experience with them, besides the fact that the only serious issue i ever had with a bully had to do with a guy that often wore rage against the machine shirts - along with slayer and metallica shirts. that guy did massive negative advertising for the band, in my mind. i associated them with him for years, and in large part still do.

the internet was still developing in the period that rage were relevant, and i didn't have any friends that liked them. the actual reality is that i don't have any recollection of ever even listening to a rage record at all. ever. i may have heard a single a handful of times on the radio around '97 or so.

during the period that rage were at the height of popularity, i was listening to more introverted types of music, like radiohead and sunny day real estate and autechre. i was also at the height of my industrial kick. while i was technically a teenage boy, the truth is that angry music for teenage boys really wasn't on my radar or something i was at all interested in. my cd collection was more what you would have expected from a bookish teenage girl. in hindsight, that's what you should actually expect.

nobody was really sure how old this bully with the rage shirt was. rumour had it that he was on his third try at grade 10. the difference in physical strength between a bookish 16 year-old and a jockish 19 year-old is usually going to be large, and that held in this circumstance. he liked to throw me into lockers. i had no real means of defense.

even at the presumed age of 19, he would sit in grade 10 science class and just listen to his walkman at full blast. the teacher was visibly afraid of him.

he was raging against the machine, alright. and, it's safe to assume that he ended up in jail.

i ended up pushing him down the stairs and breaking his leg, then escaped reprimand because he wouldn't admit he got beat up by a fag.

my understanding is that the band realizes that what they were trying to do had unintended consequences, and that all they really did was provide a soundtrack for bullies and delinquents that didn't understand their messaging at all.

soundgarden came from a very different space, culturally. so, i was never impressed by cornell's decision to join audioslave and never really listened to them much. i found myself more interested in the wellwater conspiracy, and in looking for rare kim thayil sightings.