yesterday was a weird day; i was up fairly early, and got to work around noon, but i blew the entire day trying to reconstruct the mix from the day before, only to conclude the difference file was reverb from random sampling...

i dunno, though. i tried a few things, and it all ended up inconclusive. i think there's an underlying issue. i went to sleep in the evening with the intent of checking the output file when i woke up. i mean, the point of verifying the out was to tweak - if i didn't need to tweak, i wouldn't need to verify anything.

i've been distracted by the hurricane and other things this morning, but i'm actually content with the mix. so, i'm going to close the ep. 

i should get through at least two more by the end of the night, and hope i can ship the first package on monday at some point...

this strikes me as a setup to generate media coverage, actually.

she's clearly an actress, by her tone of voice. and, not a good one.

"is it better with the mic away from me?"

you can definitely hear her better once you take the mic away from you - and once the sound person turns her up.

the worst part about the whole thing is that this is what the party actually wants to run on. the cynicism underlying this is where the real racists are living....

his candidacy is popular in the party's bureaucratic wing due to the same kind of cynicism that thinks they can win minority ridings by running a minority, but is not catching on amongst members. the ndp doesn't actually have a choice, here: it needs to listen to it's members, because if it doesn't then it won't be a party, any more.

and, this was the problem in the first place: if it had listened to it's members, it wouldn't have swung so far right in the last election.

the country wants to elect a party that doesn't exist: it wants the historical ndp back. everybody - including the liberals - seems to realize this, except for the existing ndp, itself. so long as that surreal situation manifests itself, we're going to be stuck with liberals or conservatives.

i don't have a fundamental opposition to electing a guy with a turban, although i'll admit it's hard for me to imagine a way in which i could harmonize my vision of a secular society with the vision of somebody that wears a turban (i'd imagine a sikh i could actually vote for would probably look more like nikki haley than jagmeet singh). but, the reality is that this guy is simply a bad candidate for a left-wing party.

it's not what's on his head that i don't like, it's what's between his ears.

...and, as this process has played out, what he's really exposed is how corrupt the party is as a vessel: this guy is an empty turban, and the machine behind him is not something anybody on the left should be supporting.

"well, they're misinformed. look at the kind of left-wing conspiracy theories that are rampant in the left-wing media..."

get yourself together, guys.

i, for one, will not tow your line - i will tear you down.

i'd support the raise act, anyways.

my understanding is that it's actually built on legislation that the canadian liberal party pioneered in the 1960s, and was strongly defended by the current prime minister's father. as such, it's actually an absolutely logical corollary of lbj's "great society" program.

i'd also support - and in fact have repeatedly called for - stricter enforcement of labour standards. that's the actual solution, here. lax enforcement of labour standards is the actual problem.

and, i wouldn't mince words directed at democrats that stand up for corporate greed at the expense of the enforcement of labour standards, then try to hide behind some neo-liberal identity politics or nonsensical accusations of racism. these people are just corporate stooges. they don't care about workers, they're just cashing a check. and, they're the crux of the problem. don't fall for that bullshit - call it out for what it is. primary their ass, and get rid of them.

https://www.good.is/articles/how-congress-can-replace-daca-and-make-it-better