the rabit reconstruction closed quickly after i finished 9:46 in mid-november.

first, i should point out that i republished the rabit is wolf demo on november 8th. this was done over the course of the morning, and was really just a process of combining together several existing demos. the material wasn't remixed.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf


the next two releases were also very fast. the time single was built over nov 17-19,

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/time


...whereas the imaginary tour demo was created in the afternoon of the 19th:

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-imaginary-tour-demo-ep


the end of november and beginning of december was then spent finalizing the trepanation nation for the last time.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/trepanation-nation

here's the thing: there aren't a lot of people operating in the same musical space as me. so, it's like finding a unicorn at the mall.

"dude."
"dude."
"umm..."
"dudette."
"thanks."

but, he's absurdly overrated. or, at least he is if you ignore the absurdity of the entire presentation in the first place. i'd kind of like to hear him take it to the next level, but then he'd have to change his name to "tense steve" or something.

it's passively enjoyable. but he continues to evade. it's a tease.

i don't care about the cash-for-access issue, but i'd like to see the government completely abolish the ethics commissioner, altogether, as an absurd relic of the victorian age.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-cash-for-access-fundraisers-changes/article33788333/

i've been clear that i'm not an advocate of marx' teleological reasoning, and it always was despite his protests, but i will tell you that this is very much true: it is very rare for somebody to be born into the elite classes and not end up as a tory. that is something that just doesn't happen.

his father was bourgeois, but it's not comparable.

but, you know, it's actually another great example.

the reality is that the liberal party's historical immigration policies are very similar to what the populists say they want. if you throw caution to the wind for a moment and take ann coulter at her word, she claims she just wants to make sure that immigrants have skills, so they don't end up on welfare or in crime. and, she puts a big emphasis on language. that's exactly what the liberal party's historical immigration policy stressed. granted, the context is different. in the 60s, putting a focus on language and education was designed to open the system up to more immigrants. but, acknowledging that change in context doesn't change the basic reality that this is, in fact, rational - once you separate it from all of the racism and other nonsense that coulter and her ilk spew. why wouldn't you want your immigration system based on skills? and why would you let in hordes of people that speak foreign languages? i exaggerate to stress the point: this really isn't controversial.

so, we're in this situation where there's this populist uprising. on point after point, the populists are basically articulating historical liberal party policy. the liberals are in power. and, they are reacting by pushing down various types of toryism...!?

it boggles the mind.

why isn't trudeau doing the obvious populist pivot, given that doing so is nothing more complex than upholding pearson's legacy?

again: the canadian immigration system is actually very selective, and this is a strong legacy of the liberal party. the architect of this was lester pearson. the idea was to make issues like religion and ethnicity irrelevant and instead focus entirely on education.

this pearsonian points system has been fundamental in ensuring that immigrants to canada do not arrive at the bottom of the socio-economic system, and are able to experience strong economic mobility when they get here. and, this is actually in pretty stark contradiction to the idea that we ought to just let in any refugee that knocks on the door.

that said, we've also always had refugee programs when necessary, and i think the issue in syria is fairly pressing.

so, it's complicated. and people have subtle positions that don't fit into this cartoon narrative being pushed down right now.

stop.

how many muslim immigrants do you see at the queer rally? at the environmental rally? at the workers rallies? at the women's march?

the reality is that there's a lot of policy space in between open arms and total bans - and that i don't happen to feel a lot of solidarity with this particular group, which tends to lean very far to the right.

my position on the burka ban last year was that i'm opposed to a government operated fashion police, not that i have any intellectual or emotional investment in the idea of "religious freedom" - which i consider to be a contradiction in terms.

they have legal and constitutional rights that should be upheld. i'll agree with that statement. i can offer legal opinions, and uphold the law as it stands - and agree in an abstract, intellectual way. but, this doesn't hit me in the gut. and, i'm not going to go out of my way to stand up for them, or let it affect my voting decisions.

they're just not allies to a secular, leftist vision. i'm sorry - but they're not.

i just want to clarify that my vote in 2015 was not determined by immigration policy, and my vote in 2019 will not be determined by immigration policy, either. the truth is that i'm somewhere between the two extremes presented by media, but i don't want to get lost in the topic because i consider it a distraction from more pressing issues, like environment and trade policies. in canada, it's an easy out for the government. and, while i might be willing to give them that out in an election, i will not give it to them in the second year of the mandate.