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.

they're saying it was a suicide...

soundgarden was in detroit last night. i knew they were here. but, i can't spend 60 dollars, us, on a concert, unless it's the one and only thing i do that month, and the frank truth is that i haven't been listening to much soundgarden over the last 20 years. the belew show was simply more affordable, and actually even more relevant, as he's released more interesting records over the last decade or so.

tears for fears were here, too.

i missed them at the ottawa bluesfest a few years ago for basically the same reason. in the end, i did not get a chance to see the band.

i would have rather seen them before they reformed, for obvious reasons.

detroit is a mostly black city nowadays, and i suspect a lot of people in the region had to make the same basic economic decision: yeah, i'd like to see soundgarden (maybe again...maybe for the first time in years....), but not at that price or in that venue.

so, i hope he didn't make a rash decision based on turnout last night.

....because the band was no doubt always better in smaller spaces, anyways.