fuck, i'd be happy to never leave the apartment again. really.

well, except concerts.

i dunno how well i'd be able to meet friends around here, because i haven't tried. i've spent a lot of time avoiding people, and almost no time looking for them.

which isn't to say i'm an exception. i had my share of sketchy behaviour; i walked out on somebody with a lease, and eventually left her homeless, forcing her to shack up in a way that left her with an...let's say an unprepared pregnancy. and, while i'd do the same thing a second time, and think i was right to do it, i'll take some responsibility for the fact that my cruelty had some unintended consequences.

what i'm unwilling to deduce is that i'm a loner because of this.

i really am alone primarily by choice.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

at the end of the day, all three of these dipshits are going to end up with ruined careers, completely separated from each other, and plausibly at opposite ends of the country - alone. that's what happens when you behave like this, and they're all guilty of it.

there are no good guys, here. and, nobody gets out of the situation alive. everybody gets turned on. everybody loses.

it is a tale of three morons.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

in fact, the only new record i spent any substantive amount of time with in 2017 was the new do make say think record and, by default, it consequently wins record of the year.

and, it's a strong record - it's going to deserve somewhere in the low 90s, out of 100. it deserves mention, at least.

if there were stronger records released last year, i'm not the person to look to for elucidation, at this point. broadly speaking, i need to dig hard to find what i want; i'm not going to find much of value in these year end lists, and, for me, 2017 was a 'me' year, where i focused mostly on my own music, while restricting my exploration to acts i already had a high confidence in. i don't expect to spend much time digging over 2018, either. rather, i'll probably end up cycling back over 2019 or 2020.

when i get to the process of digging, you will no doubt be surprised by what i pull out - and much of it will be obscure or forgotten.

i've added a few new acts to my core list over the last few years, and they've mostly run the course, at this point. cloud nothings & la dispuye are done. i'm going to give touche amore one more, at most - but they're going to sell out, not break up. but, in truth, wasn't even really keeping up with that, and that's something i'm going to be doing as i finish what i'm doing over the next few weeks.

i have no intention to move from firefox to chrome, due to the spyware that comes packaged with chrome.

no, i mean google spyware. installing chrome on your system is basically like installing a trojan for google. and, because i exclusively use older machines, all of the bloat is a substantive problem.

but, i'm going to hope that firefox follows their lead on this point. because, i don't really run ad blockers to block the ads - i'm post-paradoxical on the ads, i don't even see them - but because the ad blocker dramatically increases the responsiveness and speed of the browser.

i came to this conclusion about the ads quite some time ago, though, when i was walking past a billboard. i realized that i'd walked past that billboard at least 500 times, and had never taken the time to read it. this is why they make the ads invasive in the first place, of course.

but, in a situation where the ads are purely text? i won't even notice that they're there.

rather, i suspect that google is beginning to realize that it's business model is really very delicate, and not due to ad blockers but due to the actual efficacy of the delivery method.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/critics-wary-as-google-s-chrome-begins-an-ad-crackdown-1.3803866

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

aaaaand, in other news, former prime minister kim campbell has invented a time machine.

this is what she had to say, upon returning from the 1950s.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-pm-kim-campbell-says-sleeveless-dresses-demeaning-for-tv-broadcasters-1.3801543

i don't know why they keep putting microphones in front of her. it's been one disaster after another, for twenty years going.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

oh, and you can get back to me in june about which way the market has been moving over the last six months.

jagemeet singh must cut his beard.

not really a lot to react to here, other than that we once again see that this government cares more about what the foreign press thinks than it does about what canadians think.

i wrote an essay about this:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/aboriginalself.html

will we get something like a nisga'a agreement?

if you read the essay, you'll see why i'm skeptical about the idea that what the government is up to is anything more than a continuation of existing assimilationist policies, mostly for the benefit of the resource sector - which is not just oil but also minerals.

we'll see what it looks like, though.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-speech-indigenous-rights-1.4534679


jagmeet singh must his beard.

the warren peace report

so, is amy goodman complicit or misinformed?

i'm actually going to vote for both. i'd be surprised if anybody needed to actually explain to her what is actually happening; it would be a first in so long as i've been watching or listening to the program , which is, off and on, about twenty years or so. she's the host, so it's her job to be quiet and let others speak. but, she will correct you if she knows you're wrong, and i've never heard her say anything that isn't correct. it would be hard to believe that she's just misinformed, seven or eight years into this.

but, there's not actually a meaningful contradiction in taking what these spooks she brings on her shows say seriously and actually knowing what is actually happening. that contradiction only arises when you synthesize, and start generalizing; so long as you avoid that step, you can hold these contradictions separate and believe both of them. orwell described the phenomenon as doublethink. and, the context is devastating, because amy goodman has most certainly gone through standard pc brainwashing; all that the intelligence networks need to do is send her a brown person and tell her they're from syria, and she'll instantly drop any kind of critical analysis, because that person needs to be able to tell their story.

and, so she can believe a fact-based narrative on the one hand, which is that syria was never a civil war at all, but always a proxy conflict. there is no substantive movement against assad inside syria, but only a rat's nest of foreign fighters carrying out foreign interests, for money or religious orthodoxy (which are equally corrupting influences). and, she can allow these cia tools to pretend they're telling a syrian narrative, too. as long as they don't directly interweave, it doesn't matter.

so, is she misinformed, then? she is in the sense that she allows herself to be, through the mental trojan horses that the state has installed inside of her, which then let them in to feed on her mind. and, if she's not careful, she could lose her mind altogether, in which case she would quickly end up more classically uninformed, on top of being misinformed.

how is she complicit then? because she does know the truth of it, even as she upholds the doublethink. it would be bad enough if it was just silence. but, she of course runs an influential broadcast.

these questions are important, because i don't actually think she's been bought. i think she's actually struggling with this.

the propaganda is powerful. it's designed by professionals to hook people. and, in the end, nobody is invincible.

not even the ineffable amy goodman.

we'll be back in a few minutes....