in general, i'm no fan of hippies, but neil still slays. damn.

yup. i still fuck the dead.

recorded in jan, 1998. reclaimed july 5, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/yup-i-still-fuck-the-dead

i still don't fully understand this. (initial upload)

initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. reclaimed july 5, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-still-dont-fully-understand-this

no longer confused (initial upload)

initially written in 1997. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed july 5, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/no-longer-confused

just say no to mood altering prescription drugs

recorded in april, 1998. reclaimed july 4, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/just-say-no-to-mood-altering-prescription-drugs

some people don't read much outside their own culture.

"a new national poll reveals that 42 percent of Americans wrongly attribute Marx’s famous communist slogan, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” to one of the country’s Founding documents. Nearly one in five Americans believe this phrase can be found in the Bill of Rights, of all places. You can take some solace in knowing that among young adults, only six percent made this mistake, though 30 percent of them believe Marx’s statement can be found in either the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution."

while this reflects poorly on the education level of americans (blame that asshole reagan, he did this on purpose), it reflects positively on their political viewpoints.

well, see, here's the thing: she's right about the bible. that really is what the bible says. and that's really how you're supposed to react if you're a christian. god only changed it's nature once, in the switch from judaism to christianity. well, and maybe a third time in the jump to islam, but christians shouldn't concern themselves with that. besides that one change in nature, god's nature doesn't change. those prohibitions are like diamonds; they're forever. it's all written there. christians can't pick and choose like that, and the ones that try really aren't being good christians. she's right on point. she gets it. most self-identified christians seem not to grasp this as well as she does.

she's wrong about the constitution, though. deists and atheists, the lot of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLUwNUg4rTA

"the fate of easter island awaits us all."

pause

"no chowder! no chowder!"

i wish they would have panned out to the audience, to expose a sea of blank, stony faces.

hedges has been uncharacteristically rational as of late. here's a good reminder that he's somebody that you want to take with a large grain, and keep your intellectual distance from - even when you agree with him.

he's just a tad unstable, as we can see here.

God
In all seriousness, folks. I don't really give a shit who you love. Love is love. I would know. I Am Love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLUwNUg4rTA

deathtokoalas
+God actually, you do. you're a delusional asshole for it, but you've made it clear in multiple passages that you're in exclusive support of heteropatriarchy. you can't walk that back; i'm going to hold you to what you said. and, i'm not you, so i don't go for perpetual forgiveness, either.

God
+deathtokoalas I'm too busy putting images of my son on pieces of toast to give a shit about what two men do in their bedrooms.

deathtokoalas
+God no. you're not walking this back like this. it's in that damned book of yours. repeatedly. you need to own that. you said it, and you meant it.

watching these briefings can at times be surreal.

it's pretty clear to me that most of the room realizes that the travel ban is to keep out reporters. but, despite knowing that, nobody states as much or challenges the spokesperson on it; instead, the discussion turns to press freedom, which produces the usual meaningless verbiage from the spokesperson, as she's announcing a policy meant to restrict press access. it's a conspiracy of silence, but a means of pressure nonetheless. they won't address the issue, but they'll coerce her into making a fool of herself.

what i'm unclear on is whether it's really seriously meant to be pressure, or just a cynical form of self-amusement.

it's typical rock star baddassery - the kind of thing you'd see in some macho 80s rock video, or something. an old cliche. and fox is playing the role of the offended conservative. in the end, it's all image - and it sells because of the reaction fox gave it.

there's no coherent messaging. no worthwhile analysis. the establishment has nothing to fear from this. but, it takes a hefty cut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziuCl9ZbXbw

excellent production. but the machismo, misogyny & generally trite vocal content is hardly serving anything but his bank account.

disaster capitalism.

"what erdogan is saying is offensive and wrong"

...and absolutely factually accurate, with a plethora of scholarly literature to support it - much of it drawn from direct statements from israeli leaders. it's actually refreshing to hear somebody with political influence stand up and say it. and, it needs to be said and understood in order to make any real progress on dealing with it.

it's not an anti-terror operation. it's not even apartheid. it's systemic, intentional and planned genocide.

from a us geo-strategic perspective, though, this is concerning. turkey is a nato ally. blah blah blah. what is pushing them to speak like this? it's a little too wavering from the narrative to be purely internal, although that's no doubt part of it.

i've been posting about turkey for a while. they're isolated, and they don't like it. the eu doesn't want them and, frankly, if i was turkey, i wouldn't want them, either. the saudis are more interested in competing with them. their military alliances are leaving them in an economic limbo. turkey needs to be integrated into a stable economic partnership. they're not big enough to go it alone. otherwise, "turkey is a nato ally. blah blah blah" is not going to be true much longer. this needs to be a focus by us foreign policy. this relationship needs mending; turkey is not getting much out of it, and that needs to be resolved.

they're increasingly being forced to economically integrate with russia and iran, which are traditional enemies. but, given that europe sees them as foreigners and the saudis see them as rivals, this is what is left - central asia and eastern europe, which is some kind of stew of their historical homeland and their byzantine roots.

everybody knows how important turkey is to nato. but, nato is not working out for turkey. if that's not addressed, turkey is going to bolt for the cementing asian alliance. and, nato will only have itself to blame.

sample used without permission (initial upload)

initially written in 1996. recreated in jan, 1998. reclaimed july 2, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/sample-used-without-permission

marriage was really the last thing that needed to be broken apart to complete the separation of church and state and move into a fully secular society. it's at the end of something that's been going on since 1776. there's still the thatcherite idea of the church being responsible for social services, but that's on a different level than this. so, you have to expect this kind of response, as it's the final end of the christian order.

this is not how i'd preferred to have seen it happen. i'd prefer to have seen marriage abolished, and financial aspects of relationships dealt with on an issue-by-issue basis. the contract about the house shouldn't be the same as the contract about the kids; these are different things. but, it's overdue.

you shouldn't doubt or trivialize the trauma associated with this. it's a real thing. it's a collapse of a worldview.

rather, you should look at it like an epiphany in understanding that they're missing. there is still a flat earth society.

in fact, the earth revolves around the sun. evolution is a fact. and homosexuality is entirely natural and normal.

they may be upset and confused right now. they need empathy. but, they also need to understand that their viewpoints are wrong and change their perspectives accordingly.

Hearowsify
+deathtokoalas I totally get what you're saying here. It's almost uncomfortable to watch a group of people recognizing their worldview is moving into the past.

americans seem to have difficulty following the plot.

so, back in 1945, north america and europe entered into an alliance to prevent russian expansion into western europe. whether that was ever a serious threat, and how much of a driver it really was under the alliance, and whether it was ever what europe really wanted, are open questions, but that isn't the point; the basis of the alliance was to militarily protect western europe from communism, be it for altruistic reasons or to protect an export market.

somewhere along the way, the threat resolved and europe and russia interlinked economically.

now, we hear americans grumbling that europe is not "doing as much as we'd like". what does that mean? what is the basis for this expectation? it's as though the alliance was always offensive. that it's irresolvable. or - let's be real - that europe is an insolent province.

nato was not designed as a staging ground for an invasion of russia. or, at least, we're told it wasn't. america has no right to expect that europe will facilitate this; rather, it ought to expect the opposite, given the nature of american aggression.

a true spiritual successor to nato would be an alliance across europe (including russia) to minimize american influence.

ali is his own worst enemy.

i didn't want to be running around tomorrow, at least, so i walked to the second furthest store and got some soy milk. laundry will need to wait until tomorrow, and that will slow me down a little, but at least i'm locked here in the cabin for about ten days.

i was planning on ramping down today and hermiting for the next two weeks, but everything's been pushed back a day due to the fact that i can't find any soy milk. that means i'll be doing laundry tomorrow, instead, and could conceivably have something up by the end of the night. on the other hand, if there's no soy milk at the grocery store tomorrow then i'm in for a long day looking for it. it's the central part of my diet. i get almost everything i need from my daily smoothie (1 banana, 5 strawberries, two scoops of cherry ice cream and roughly 300 ml of vanilla soy milk). they had the plain soy milk, but it was for a higher price than i'd normally pay for the vanilla and, like....the vanilla is essential to the smoothie. i may crack tomorrow and get it, but i'm not going to be happy about it. i also can't get the light stuff, because it's my primary source of fat.

note to world: fat from milk is good. if you want to lose weight, eat less big macs, don't cut the healthy fat out.

i'm done all of the tracks that i specifically wanted to *remove* the vocals from. there's still a few that i'm not sure about yet; i'll have to mix them with vocals, and then decide what i want to use. i'm leaning heavily towards a full instrumental, and just dropping the vocal remixes on to the aleph disc. i've already decided that i'm not swapping anything into the main records, largely because these aren't exact replicas - pretty much everything is missing a fill or an overdub that i added at the productions stage and have no way to recreate. that needs to stand as it is.

half of me would like to work it into the second inricycled, which is now becoming superfluous. the idea was to put together some ideas that stripped the vocals out. now, i'm stripping the vocals out altogether. i may decided to retain it as a shorter mix tape (the mix tape portion is only about 30 minutes) and strip the full tracks out. i'll figure this out when i get it all in front of me. but, if i decide to backtrack on the singles, after all, it could get me through this without renumbering.

in some neighbourhoods, the boogeyman is slightly more than an imaginary monster

initially written in 1993. first full recording in 1996. recreated in dec, 1997 and again in jan, 1999. reclaimed on july 2, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/in-some-neighbourhoods-the-boogeyman-is-slightly-more-than-an-imaginary-monster

use value is somewhat difficult to define in the human propensity towards artistic expression

recorded in jan, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. remixed july 2, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/use-value-is-somewhat-difficult-to-define-in-the-human-propensity-towards-artistic-expression-2

skaters (electronics only mix) (initial upload)

initially written in 1997. recreated in jan, 1998. reclaimed july 1, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/takers

thug culture is enforced by the media from the top down

initially written in 1997. recreated in jan, 1998. reclaimed july 1, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/thug-culture-is-enforced-by-the-media-from-the-top-down

use value is somewhat difficult to define in the human propensity towards artistic expression (initial upload)

recorded in jan, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/use-value-is-somewhat-difficult-to-define-in-the-human-propensity-towards-artistic-expression

reaction to canada day

parade outside my door. not this kind of parade. wish it was...

hey god (electronics only mix) (initial upload)

initially programmed in 1997. digitally modified in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/hey-god-electronics-only

i can't believe that bernie sanders is the guy the bank is running to beat clinton. the establishment candidate hasn't appeared, yet.

an interview with cornel west

he's consistently so great to listen to. that part at the end made my day.

it's a nice sentiment and everything, but the issue isn't really base racism. racism is almost always a consequence of economic conditions. a hundred years ago, this was widely understood; unfortunately, we've been led astray by a century of economic liberalism that has glossed over hard questions with feel good slogans.

donald trump doesn't care where you're from or what colour you are or what language you speak. he's a ruthless, financial tyrant. if you check his business transactions, you'll no doubt see that people of all colours and nationalities are good enough to carry out deals with him.

what he's really doing is playing to a political agenda, and while it's something that gets whipped up by the rupert murdochs of the world as a distraction, the base he's playing to is actually poor whites with low levels of education and limited economic options. rather than blame that on people like donald trump, they blame it on "immigrants" - because that's what rupert murdoch and his cronies teach them.

the difficult part of the situation, though, is the reality that, on some level, they're actually right. you could look at the situation with seasonal farm workers in california, as one example. they make a lot of food, and it feeds a lot of people. even way up here in canada, most of the strawberries come to us from california for most of the year. and, the labour that picks these strawberries (and does most of the other work) is, in fact, mostly undocumented immigrant labour. the producers prefer this because it allows them to pay less than the minimum wage, and the politicians and law enforcement look the other way due to bribery. they won't hire year-round residents in these areas because of fear that they'll unionize, and because labour laws demand that they pay them a minimum salary. it goes well beyond that, though, with "temporary foreign worker" programs that reduce to renting slaves for a while and then sending them back.

the reality is that, in conjunction with outsourcing and mechanization, this actually has reached a level where you've got year-round residents (mostly white) that really can't find jobs, while the big producers are bringing in workers from outside of the country and paying them a fraction of what they're entitled to. and, when the media stands up and points the finger, it's easy to fall into the wrong narrative.

so, there is a pretty real problem that's a consequence of corruption and free trade. but, what's necessary, here, is to get the whole story across to people, so that they're blaming donald trump rather than migrant workers. and, while these slogans may make you feel nice, they don't really get anybody closer to understanding anything.

she gets points for the surreal, at least.

rap news 33

the papacy nowadays is a kind of a supreme court of the church, rather than an executive or legislative branch. what it does is codify perspectives that are already in practice. he's saying this now because followers of the catholic faith - and let's not forget that catholicism is a minority religion in the heart of the empire, which is based on protestant values - have already come to this conclusion. it's leading from behind. preaching to the choir...

likewise, if he ever comes out in favour of restricting oppression to homosexuality, it will be because it's already established.

infallibility? decrees of god's will? hardly. it's just a reaction to the grassroots. you could even call it a type of crude democracy.

the effect will be minimal.

i mean, the moonseed perspective is exaggerated here, but the broad view amongst american christians remains that the pope is an agent of satan. that's hardcoded into virtually all of the protestant denominations. american christianity is and always has been a violent reaction to catholicism. the more the pope speaks like this, the more the dominant narrative is upheld, about climate change being a globalist/satanist plot - because the pope is their guy.

conversely, insofar as this is relevant in latin america and africa, what the church provides is a place for organizing movements, rather than any guiding principle. and, if it starts meddling too much into something that is happening independent of it's control, it's more likely to act as a co-opting and dispersive force.

in order to be effective, this movement needs to be secular. that doesn't mean rejecting religious people. it just means keeping religion out of it.

it maybe exposes a cynical truth, though: perhaps all we have left is prayer. perhaps we're at that base level of hopelessness.

ZYX
+deathtokoalas It is a good set of Commandments to live by for humanity. For those of either secular & religious persuasion. I salute Pope Francis for reminding us

I am an atheist , but believe we should take heed these words, regardless of the source. The Pope has over a billion followers. We cannot divest them of their religious beliefs, nor why we would want to.This message is so clearly a universal force for good, not dependant on religious persuasion.

deathtokoalas
+ZYX well, i think there's a lot of reasons to want to, but it's not the point. the church is approaching this from a "bait and capture" approach. you want to think of it as a type of "green capitalism".

not quite what i thought from the headline; this phenomenon is generally explained by dirt on the lense.

but, i'm actually entirely down with alien contact as a naturalistic explanation for a large proportion of the bible. stuff like elijah flying to heaven in a chariot, for example. really, this whole sky god thing altogether.

i've seen footage of humans in helicopters approaching herds of elephants, descending and performing medical care on them and then flying off. elephants are very, very smart animals. they perform rituals around their burials, which only humans (and neanderthals) are known to do. really, they may not be that far from where we were when we came up with religion. and, it's very interesting to me to wonder what they're thinking as they're experiencing this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wySFvmvr6Mg

the bathroom scare mongering is particularly ridiculous for the reason that the vast majority of us take androgen reducers that leave us chemically castrated. it's kind of the point. i'll volunteer some information: i haven't had an erection in five years. i couldn't assault somebody if i wanted to [and, of course i don't, but....].

that said, this is a subtle issue and you'll find less uniformity on it than you might think. i'm going to share my logic, because it's sort of ironic.

public washrooms are inherently gross places that most women prefer to avoid. squatting in public is just a "yuck" thing. so, if you ask around, you'll hear a common opinion amongst women: when forced to deal with public washrooms, i wish i could stand to urinate. now, as it happens to be, i have the ability to stand to urinate. no woman would ignore this, when faced with the obstacle of a public toilet.

but, i consider it rather disrespectful to walk into a woman's washroom and urinate standing up. this question of "passing" is sort of silly; if somebody is looking at me closely, they're going to pull out the adam's apple, at the least. it's not a function of my projection so much as it is a function of others' perception. i can't control that. i can fix a percentage, a likelihood. but, it's inevitable that some percentage of cis women are going to notice, and consequently inevitable that i'm going to be "outed". to me, the more important question is that i'm following conventions when i'm in there, out of respect for the security and comfort of others. that means no peeing standing up in the women's washroom, or, put another way, that i will squat when i decide to use the female facilities.

often, though, the idea is not appealing. i've walked into the women's washroom, got a good look at it and walked out into the men's room. but, this is something any woman would do if they only could! and, i generally default to the men's room, even if i'm wearing a skirt, as a result of it.

that's a different logic. don't generalize this and apply it. rather, the point is we're individuals and generalizing is dangerous.

as others have pointed out, my preferred solution would be one bathroom stalls.

ironically, again, i'm more likely to bite my tongue and squat when i'm in a more conservative setting, and don't want to confuse people or get into an argument.

ok, i get it - this is a self-reflection, and he's asking where his talent is, when he needs it. deep.

weird. i don't remember this part of grease. either that, or travolta seems to have had a lot of surgery, and lost a lot of weight.

there should be a rule in the music industry that men are not allowed to write lyrics for little girls to sing. what a terrible song...

it's maybe a gruesome analysis, but gaza needs to take a closer look at it's tactics. the narrative is often defined by this idea of targeting innocent civilians, and as much as it is true, it's only half true. worse, this iron dome system has rendered the rockets useless. any logic of resistance is no longer logic, but entirely irrational.

these tactics would be more useful in the west bank, where there is active colonization. but, gaza is not being colonized, and all evidence suggests that israel does not wish to colonize it.

the best thing thing that palestine can do at this point is neutralize the israeli excuse. and, it is an excuse. but it holds sway.

i'm not going to condemn the resistance. i understand why it seems necessary, but the situation on the ground has rendered it illogical and counter-productive. and i know that muslim palestinian culture is not comparable to hindu indian pacifism. but, their best tactic at this point is non-violent resistance.

and, israel is correct in stating that they will be slaughtered until they come to terms with that.

that may mean sitting on their hands while israel blows up hospitals. a hard pill to swallow. but the rockets are worse than useless - they fuck up the narrative.

there is definitely something wrong with ironic hipster homophobia

initially written in 1997. recreated in jan, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/there-is-definitely-something-wrong-with-ironic-hipster-homophobia

if god somehow does exist, it is sadistic and should be destroyed

initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/if-god-somehow-does-exist-it-is-sadistic-and-should-be-destroyed

hey god (absolutely backwards mix)

initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/hey-god-absolutely-backwards-mix

hey god (straight forwards mix)

initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/hey-god-straight-forwards

aliens are more likely than god (initial upload)

initially written in 1996. recreated in march, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god

i agree, y'all should clear right out. i suggest mars.

if we could actually get rid of all the fucking idiot christians, i might actually praise the lord, and sing hallelujah! talk about a dream come true...

last night, i had a dream that my dead dog could talk. she told me she wished i fed her less corn. i agreed it was a shitty deal, but it's just the reality of being a dog.

Layna87
+deathtokoalas - YOU, MY DEAR, ARE IN A VERY SAD CONDITION - SELF-DELUSION AND DEMONIC POSSESSION IS NOT A 'FUN PLACE' TO BE...THAT'S YOU...WE WILL PRAY FOR YOUR DELIVERANCE - FOR YOU NEED IT...Mocking Christians is not a wise endeavour...when you mock and curse Christians - you are mocking GOD...and He hears everything and will bring you to a place of, either, brokenness in Him or being crushed to powder by the weight of your ill decision...Selah...L.

deathtokoalas
+Layna8 the demons keep me company; it would be very insensitive of you to take them away.

MrGodsking
+deathtokoalas demons destroy lives i have never seen one person claiming to be happy when living with demons soon the demonic world will burn for eternity God's word

deathtokoalas
+MrGodsking funny. i've never seen a happy christian; they're always looking forward to the apocalypse, due to how miserable they are. but, i think i get to decide whether i like the demons or not. personal autonomy and whatnot. and your religion is actually big on personal choice, whether you understand that or not.

see, this is the kind of thing you have to do collectively. the reason solar has failed to break through up to this point is that it's being marketed as an individualistic solution to "get off the grid". if you look at countries like germany, where it's working, the reason it's working is because the state is heavily subsidizing it and integrating it into the existing systems. it's maybe unrealistic to think americans will ever understand that the reason electricity costs are so high is that they're privatized on a market, but they're going to have to at least get over the hurdle in realizing that storage costs for the lifestyles we live are only really realistically paid for collectively.

the reality is that solar is not an alternative to the grid. the reality is that solar is the future of the grid.

the open question, in my mind, is whether it's proximity to our living spaces will generate a broader concept of collective ownership.

www.greentechmedia.com/articles/featured/Storage-Is-the-New-Solar-Will-Batteries-and-PV-Create-an-Unstoppable-Hybri

werso smidits (initial upload)

originally written in 1996. recorded in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 28, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/werso-smidits

the threat of terrorism is used to restrict civil liberties (initial upload)

initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 28, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-threat-of-terrorism-is-used-to-restrict-civil-liberties

ok, now that this is dealt with, can we get back to focusing on real issues? like the several unnecessary wars that we're fighting, and the historical (and rising) income inequality?

i'm actually in favour of abolishing marriage. all marriage. but whatever. it's done. let's move on now, please.

"we like to get as much out as possible, but sometimes we can't. really. it's not just a fun thing to say. sometimes, we really can't.

...because, sometimes, what we're referencing doesn't actually exist."

videos, johnny? from where? satellites?

while marie harf is clearly more knowledgeable than jen psaki on the topic of policy, she is just as obviously not a marketing expert. she seems to want to argue via reductio ad bitchy-face, which relies on the presumption that bitching out your opponent will force them to concede the point. it's a shame, because it makes the administration look like it's hiding something.

re: egypt. israel would like to rid itself of gaza altogether, and sees it's annexation by egypt as the logical endpoint. some reporters see the area as an independent state; this is misunderstanding the motives of virtually everybody involved. this is why israel insists on talking with egypt.

in fact, the likelihood of homosexuality increases with each older brother; a male born into a family with 3 brothers is more likely to be gay than a male born into a family with 2, and so forth as n approaches...well, it's not approaching infinity.

if i was freud, i'd think this is a call to write a complex!

but, given that this doesn't happen in women (who have different social conditioning when it comes to hugging and generally touching each other, and different arousal mechanisms), it strikes me as almost impossible that this is biological. if it was some kind of reaction, we'd expect the same thing for women born into families with many sisters.

what's interesting is that it seems to be agreed that birth order has a stronger correlation than any known genetic factor - meaning this is the strongest evidence we have as of yet.

and, it seems to me to be something based on conditioning. it suggests that the more time a young boy spends in intimate relationships with multiple male family members, the more likely they are to normalize, internalize and then crave it. there's the freudian complex, for you.

now, suppose you generalize this. i think you're getting closer to the right answer.

i would like to see a study that asks the question of if gay men are attracted to people that are similar to their older brothers.

human sexuality is not innate. it's not even fixed; it's fluid, and can change repeatedly over the course of a lifetime. the entire concept of "sexual orientation" is less than two hundred years old. for most of human history, this separation didn't exist - which is the reason why feudal institutions like the church spent so much time trying to convince people that attraction to the same gender was "wrong". you don't get more serfs that way, so it's not productive behaviour, from their perspective. if it were really true that 90% of people are innately heterosexual, you wouldn't need that kind of enforcement. you could just write the gays off and send them to war, like the spartans did.

what that means is that you're all bisexual, you're just pushed into one category or another through the power of social conditioning. it's a pretty complicated thing, but it's also a pretty simple thing.

if you're conditioned strongly enough, you can be attracted to anything. trees. rocks. imipolex g. it's all about pavlov; nothing to do with mendel.

package sent. now, i wait.

i should be able to get enough of a start on this project tonight to be able to get a feel as to how it's going to work itself out.

Sure There’s a Catch…

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. 

This is an interesting issue for me to approach, because the reality is somewhat circular. I’ve presented myself to several professionals looking for a longer term diagnosis (which is truly what I was seeking as I embarked on this path; please see the attached document, with my first write-up), and they’ve been unable to determine any symptoms. I’m left with no option but to agree that I am not demonstrating symptoms. However, there’s a catch – I am not demonstrating symptoms because ODSP has left me stable and happy, by allowing me to immerse myself in my art. If I’m not demonstrating symptoms, I should not qualify for ODSP; but if I lose the ODSP, I will again begin to demonstrate symptoms, and need to go back on ODSP.

See, the truth is that I truly am unstable – a glance at my unwritten biography would demonstrate that clearly. I have been without an address several times, and am prone to absurd behaviour when placed under stress. I’ve been fired repeatedly, and unable to find a job for many years. I really should be grounded. Yet, my concern for my safety appears rational to the professional observer. Hence, requests for diagnosis are misunderstood as evidence of stability.

Rather than try and obfuscate, I believe I should be honest: I am not just currently stable and happy. I am actually currently more stable and happier than I’ve ever been in my life. My prerogative to argue for stasis is consequently not merely a desire to prevent the inevitable collapse I will face should I be denied ODSP, but to actively argue for it as the best case scenario for me. It’s almost an appeal for benevolence.

I think that, when discussing an individual’s qualification for disability, there are three perspectives to analyze. The first is whether the applicant is able to work. The second is whether the applicant is able to find work. The third is whether the applicant desires work. I believe that these issues are not disconnected, but are very interrelated and that the causal forces acting between them can be very complex.

One way to see that this is true is to look at the results of my cra application in 2008. I wrote several tests for this application and did very well on the ones that were “competency” related. My GCT2 mark was actually exceedingly high; I earned a mark of 80/90 on this test, in a competition where the minimum pass was 51/90. When I went in to the interview, they told me it was the highest mark they’ve ever seen on that test. This would appear to indicate not just competence but possible excellence. Yet, my grade on the situational judgement test (a workplace behaviour test) was so poor that I was removed from the competition. I failed that test twice more over the next few years. Together, that indicates that I would have likely been capable of performing the task asked of me, and perhaps even of excelling at it, but that I would not have been able to adjust to the workplace environment – and consequently could not be hired. In fact, I actually agree with the combined results, as it fits my experience of frequent firings and infrequent attendance at school, even while my performance was strong and my grades were high. While other employers may be less rigorous in their hiring, they seem to be able to intuitively understand this about me and avoid me as a result of it. It does then follow that my anxiety is a block; when I’ve been forced to try and get around it because I have no other choice but to get around it in order to pay rent and bills it nonetheless continues to flag me as a problem and either make me an unviable candidate or a swiftly terminated employee. I consequently can’t work because I can’t find work because of the condition.

The gender dysphoria is not insignificant in piecing this together, as it is one of the dominant causes of the anxiety. This works on two levels – both on the level of unrealistic expectations and on the level of a self-consciousness that manifests itself as a lack of confidence, which is devastating in context. Even when I was living as a male, it was something that was easily “figured out”, which created some pretty bad attitudes and behind-the-back murmurings. I don’t feel there’s an answer to this. My gender/body combination remains at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

I claim I am happy and stable on ODSP, but did I ever seek labour? I have teenager memories of being excited about saving money up to get certain things. My first major purchase was a cd burner in 1998, back when such things were still novel. I worked two or three jobs at a time over the summers of 2002 and 2003, and while it was hectic I was happy to contribute to my education. I worked for Microsoft over 2006 and legitimately enjoyed it; I was able to take that money to get my own apartment and buy some recording gear. Employment provided me with financial independence and control over my means of production. So, the answer is an unambiguous yes: I have actively sought and enjoyed labour in the past.

However, in time, prejudicial attitudes began to sink in – and it’s a contribution to the anxiety. My interests have converged to things that are outside any kind of concept of wage labour. For many years, I’ve looked at employment very cynically, with the understanding that I’m wasting my time somewhere doing something I don’t care about with people that don’t respect me. Over 2007 and 2008 (the last time I was employed), I called in sick repeatedly – often because I just couldn’t get up to go in due to anxiety and depression. I would also leave work early due to depression, which tended to manifest itself in powerful headaches and short tempers. I have not experienced any of these problems over the last two years; I have been stable and happy. Alas, that catch-22…

Yet, do I not want to work, to contribute? Well, let’s reverse the question around. I think there are two reasons why people might want to work. The first is for the benefit of society - altruism. The second is for personal gain - individualism. But what is personal gain? A stock broker may argue that it is about capital accumulation, whereas an athlete may argue it’s about being the best. As an artist, I find these things actually overlap more than they contradict – the art is made both for me and for everybody else. Expression for the sake of expression is the most valuable form of personal gain, and asking challenging questions is the thing I’m most suited to do in society. If the goal is to maximize personal gain through contributing to society, I don’t think that work is the way to do that; I think that art is the way to do that.

Yet, how did I get there? How did I decide that expression is personal gain? Why not competition, or accumulation, or material wealth? Well, in all of these cases the root cause is the same: its sexual dominance. The use value of a car is hardly worth its price; nowadays I walk most places, but I’ve never had a ¬need for such a thing, between bicycles and city busses.  If anything, it puts the car owner into an impossible loop: they need to go to work to pay for a car that they only use to go to work. It’s running on a treadmill; except, it isn’t, because a car is a status symbol, and that status symbol is a tool to compete with peers for the sexual interests of others. Competition, accumulation and materialism are often blamed for the violence we experience in our society, but they are merely masking the sexual motives underlying their fetishization. As an individual who has undergone voluntary chemical castration, these motives are not valid to me. Rather, my motives for personal gain are largely intellectual – and no labour, at any salary, can appeal to me on this level. Nor can I hide this reality from interviewers – it is a part of the visible anxiety that sets in. So, I cannot work because I can’t find work because I don’t want to work because of the condition.

I believe that humans are malleable creatures and that I could no doubt be conditioned out of this, but to what end? Is it worth the state’s time and energy to put a hopelessly apathetic personality type through therapy so that it can flip burgers for minimum wage? Excuse me for being jaded by the prospect…

So, what happens if I get this renewed? Well, I have a lot of art to work on, and would continue to apply myself to it over thirty hour work days of happy, strenuous and productive labour. Its value is perhaps unclear, but I think I can make a bigger difference to society through my opinions than I ever can through wage labour, and I’m certain I’ll be happier and more stable that way. What happens if this is denied? It is exceedingly unlikely that I will be able to find employment, and if I do I will no doubt be very unhappy. I will likely become very depressed and completely unstable; a suicide attempt is not unlikely, which will generate further documents which will get me back on odsp - until I’m stable again, no doubt.

Rather than forcing me to continue to rebuild these sandcastles on the beach after every tide, I propose that you allow me to rebuild further from shore by granting me the longest disability term that you can. For me, this is really the only workable solution to my problems, and removing the solution will accomplish nothing but bring them all back again.

wow, look at that botfly infect that human! like a boss!

can we stop with this "like a boss" bullshit? absolute class hierarchical nonsense. bosses don't actually do things, they just sit in air-conditioned offices and steal your money - and they usually get their status from their personal connections (like being born into a family of bosses), rather than any kind of merit. how about "like a trained professional." ?

(deleted)

not in areas where there are large predatory felids, we're not. this is a misunderstanding that i think it's very important to get our heads around. in africa and india, we're just a different type of monkey - felids are apex predators. some theories suggest that escaping lion (or proto-lion) predation is even a part of the reason we ended up so smart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNUY-EheK8Q

the footage seems sped up at points, and the rabbit seems pretty distracted in the way it hops out and then back. i know rabbits aren't normally known as vicious predators, despite having big, sharp, pointy teeth, and they may not really have the instincts to fight rationally, but it still seems to me like this is spliced together footage.

i have to say, though, that that's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent i've ever set my eyes on!

i don't want to come off as an apologist for the bank, i'm really not, but it's frustrating to see the left pick up right-wing populism. i've been trying to get these points across for years....

the government loaned the financial sector a lot of money, and it was spent in ways that could conceivably upset people. however, it was generally a relatively safe - and in fact profitable - investment for the state. the ones that were determined unsafe were shut down or merged into other companies. in the end, the state got back everything they lent out and made a very hefty profit on top of it - profit that could have been applied to setting up single payer, and perhaps might have been with a better president.

so, it's easy to see why that doesn't apply to homeowners. if the state were to step in, they'd merely be taking over a loan, at what would may, in the end, turn out to be a loss.

i don't like any of this. but, it's the actual truth of the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2RX2kC5Keg

it's maybe a little ironic, given the content of the speech - because the lender of last resort was another new deal provision, designed to prevent the collapse of assets held in the bank.

let's say you have a modest nest egg of $20,000 in the bank. the bank defaults. that $20,000 is gone. up in air. and you don't get it back. ever.

that's why we need a lender of last resort. it's designed to prevent things like predatory institutions coming in and stealing your house.

gotta love the look on the reporter's face when he ran off that nonsense about anonymous sources.

"it is my opinion that you ought to ask informers to identify themselves, to increase their credibility - and also so we know who they are, and can go beat them over the head with a stick. you shalt identify the informers amongst you due to the bandages on their skulls."

'cause, you know. politicians speaking in official capacities are trustworthy. they don't spin things. and they never bluntly lie to your face. those anonymous sources are not in line with the official narrative, so they shouldn't be trusted as much as those who state the narrative.

that's just josh' opinion, of course. it's not a subtle threat, or anything.

right. so you've gotta understand that the israelis are perfectly willing - and in some sense eager - to recognize gaza as a palestinian state, or otherwise get rid of it, because it's outside of historical israel - it's the homeland of the philistines, who are israel's biblical enemies.

the west bank, on the other hand, is considered to be "judaea and samaria", which is actually at the core of historical israel. hence the colonization through settlers. so long as israel is a "jewish state", it will never cede it's claim to the west bank.

it follows that they can't accept a unity government, because they fully intend to exterminate the palestinians from the west bank (perhaps by deporting many of them to gaza...), whereas they really don't want sovereignty over gaza. to israel, these are separate areas with very different futures, and they will do whatever they can to keep it that way.

it follows that they were probably less concerned about fatah influencing hamas and more concerned about hamas influencing fatah. despite the western rhetoric, the israeli perspective is that the government in gaza is legitimate and the government in ramallah is not. they consequently can't have what they see as sovereign leaders in gaza integrating with what they see as a province in the west bank, as it would give gaza rights to a territory that israel thinks it has no rights to.

the western propaganda is designed for internal consumption. it rarely has any remote connection to reality.

Sydney K
is there a reason they're not married?

Jay Pathak
It's quite simple to avoid "DIVORCE SETTLEMENT MONEY"

deathtokoalas
if that's the reason, it's not thought through well - common law sets in after a few years, and comes with the same liabilities as marriage. if there's a desire to get married, and concern on that level, it would be better to do it and sign a pre-nub.

in fact, i'd expect she'd have a very strong claim for unjust enrichment, considering she's an integral part of these videos. i've read cases where common law "wives" get large settlements just for taking care of the kids - which is fair, in some way, but isn't directly related to the income source. from what i've seen, she's very well entitled to at least a third of the profits he's getting from the videos. at this point, a pre-nub might not even make sense, as she's surely entitled to a portion of it, anyways.

man, i just got holla'd at by what looked to me to be 12 year-old boys. had to repress the urge to weggie and dunk them...

well, what else do you do? little brats.

it's distressing, though. maybe i ought to be thinking about weggying and dunking their fathers.

during the occupy moment, a number of activists got together to put together a "food not bombs" in downtown ottawa. during the winter months, it was cold out, so the idea of "serving" in city hall came up. i'll be blunt about my motives for looking into this: i was under the strong impression that there were undercover intelligence people involved in scoping out the remains of the occupy gathering, and i wanted to check the actual legality about gathering in such a space. i suspected we were being tricked into something with naive language about "reclaiming public space".

it turns out that ontario law actually explicitly specifies that the charter rights do not apply on city property or around provincial infrastructure, which includes things like electricity generating plants and some rail lines. for example, the right to not be searched is not recognized. one can be arrested without probable cause. this is actually under provincial anti-terror legislation that dates back to the bill davis era.

now, these laws are obviously unconstitutional. i suppose they've simply never been applied, because i couldn't imagine them withstanding a court challenge in the charter era - they're written as almost a direct refutation of the applicable charter rights. but, they're not as unheard of as mulcair is suggesting. they just harken back to an era before the charter. in some sense, i might actually like to see this bill passed and struck down to remove the looming spectre from the horizon.

personally, i tend to lean traditionally liberal on these issues. one would expect a liberal to react to legitimate short-term threats with a system of judicial review and a sunrise clause set forward. now, whether these specific threats are enough to justify legislative action is not something i can really comment on; despite my tendency to reject statist control, i have to recognize that there's not really a decentralized alternative at this point, and that even if we have our own foreign policy to blame for aggression against us then that doesn't in any way justify the death of civilians at a mall. it's less extreme than spanish anarchists supporting the republicans, but it's the same basic idea - if there's a legitimate threat of people blowing things up, there's no alternative but to work together. again: i'm not sure that's clear. but, if we allow it is true, then what's really important is that there's an endpoint - that these are temporary powers, subject to review and termination, rather than a carte blanche for a police state.

one would expect the conservatives to reject this argument, under the argument that threats are perpetual. in some sense, that's no doubt true, but this is where the subtlety of liberalism asserts itself - it necessitates the existence of a clear and present danger, not some abstraction that can't be pinned down.

on one hand, trudeau has said what he's supposed to say. on the other hand, he voted for it anyways. this has been the great problem with the liberals for many years. they say the right things, but their voting record is atrocious.

mulcair is doing something important here - he's presenting himself as the heir to the liberal tradition. and, in truth, the man is a liberal - in an actual, ideological sense, rather than having been born into something he's maybe a little unclear on. canadian liberalism is a purer breed of liberalism than exists anywhere else in the world. and, whether most of us are able to really formulate it when challenged or not, it's pretty culturally rooted - enough that we get it, intuitively. it's what we were raised into and what we want, whether we really realize it or not.

a lot of people are pointing this particular issue out as a vote changer. it might be. but if it is, it's people pining for a return to liberalism that the younger trudeau might not have the self-awareness to provide.

this power of positive thinking thing is truly strange to hear from a trudeau. it's almost like it's a ptsd reaction to his father's absolute assholery. pet didn't win elections with smiley faces and happy thoughts, he won them by bloodying the opposition. kind of more like harper, actually. and, this high road stuff is....well...

for years, i argued that the liberals were focusing too hard on winning the right, at the expense of the ndp's growing dominance on the left. i think what's happened is that the barrier has broken, and the ndp are reaching right across. that is to say that i think that mulcair is actually appealing more to right-wing liberals (both in style and substance) than trudeau is at this point, and trudeau is being pushed into second place across the board. from the bay street executive right across to the street protest anarchist willing to vote, mulcair is preferable.

an explanation for this is that he wasn't really appealing to the center-right in the first place, he was appealing to a combination of industry and what he imagined the center-right ought to think. right-wing liberals are going to be older, wealthy and focused on responsibility; mulcair's a far better fit, as these are the types that understand government's role in social policy as a means of pacification - a way to keep peace in society.

we haven't seen anybody command that kind of consensus (from the soft right to the moderate left) since chretien.

i was initially expecting harper to split them yet again, but it relied on trudeau holding the center.  i'm starting to lean towards a mulcair sweep, and the liberals coming out of the election with a small and very left-leaning rump.

also, he should have never cut his hair.

i mean, let's take a look at these people, and what they did before running for prime minister.

pearson - un envoy, amongst other things.
trudeau - cabinet minister, amongst other things
chretien - is there a portfolio he didn't have?
martin - finance minister
dion - many cabinet positions

now, let's look at these two:
ignatieff - read cue cards on tv
trudeau v 2.0 - umm...

now, look at mulcair:
- multiple cabinet portfolios in quebec, considered for leadership of quebec liberal party.

if you're a liberal that likes people like pearson & trudeau & chretien, who is more in their image - justin or mulcair? who are you honestly going to be more likely to support?

if that coalesces, if it gets into people's heads, if it sinks in, if it actualizes...

mulcair could win 200+ seats.

so, justin is against rage & slice control.

he is right on the terrorism legislation, though. the liberals are very subtle on this stuff - subtle enough that most people don't understand the clauses and rights logic. it's ideological liberalism of a sort that just doesn't exist anywhere else, but would be appealing to most if they could find a way to explain it.
empiricism? reason before passion, huh. hrmmn.

it's gotta happen, though.

you have to keep in mind that israel interprets gaza as a province of egypt because it's not a part of historical israel (it's where the "philistines", who were probably greek settlers, lived). their ideal solution is to convince egypt to annex the region. but, egypt just sees an expensive problem.

this insistence of israel to negotiate with egypt is more than an anti-hamas thing, or a convenient way to generate pretexts.

also, vijay, i think you want to look into israeli arms sales to china. the americans don't like this, of course. but it happens. and the russians help keep it a little under the radar.

on top of that, bringing israel into the syrian conflict would be a headache for everybody - including israel.

i need to be clear: i really don't like guns. people get angry, they get emotional, they stop thinking, they operate on impulse - i don't want one in the house, or want to be anywhere where they're present. but, is the argument that it's ok to be hateful at this level, so long as you don't have a weapon? so long as you keep it to your klan meetings? it's very cynical. i'd like to think that most of us can handle guns (even if i don't like being around them...) without turning into genocidal maniacs.

i don't have an answer. not to this. but, let's not lose focus. the issue is the hate, not the guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwRPJUlUh5M

yeah, you can't just let a bear hunt in your back yard. it's just as bad as feeding it. it will come back to where it knows food is - and you might be on the menu.

you're basically left with the option of killing the bear or moving to a different house.

the more people question her relevancy, the more she's going to attempt to demonstrate otherwise. it's the nature of conquering the world - you can't just take that away. like any revolution, any generational overturn, there's going to be a struggle. she seems to have her minions in check, but you'll notice a glaring cameo absence.

this is pretty much everything she could have possibly done to reassert relevance, from cameos with multiple young pop stars to kids for kids to identify with to heavy, heavy video editing. people commenting on her appearance should realize they're commenting on a computer-generated image.

i'm not the first person to speculate that we may very well get madonna videos until the energy crisis comes to a peak, by converting her into a computer program. madonna might be the first person into the matrix. and, there may not be an end point, where we are no longer subjected to this.

running through some files on my other page, i've determined the precise point where the strange characters appeared. it was the post right after i indicated i was going to london, ontario. the totality of evidence suggests that i'm probably under suspicion for being a terrorist, because i happen to have a concept of morality, and am consequently critical of american foreign policy. indicating that i was leaving the city probably set something off..

listen, cia, we need to talk...

first, i'm from canada. so, take off, eh?

second, i was going to london for a doctor's appointment. you can check my facebook messages over nov, 2014 to verify that. it's all very transparent. and everybody understands that you're incompetent. but, now that i'm pointing it out, go ahead and look and see.

so, if you can get rid of those annoying characters, now, that'd be nice. i don't even care if you continue surveillance - it's the internet. it's facebook. surveillance is the purpose of the internet. privacy on the internet is impossible. i get it. i'm not utopian on he point. so, if i'm ever going to plan a terrorist attack, i'm going to do it without using the internet. it'd just be nice if you did it silently.

alright?

i don't know how many people that i deleted are still following me...as can be seen, this page is a very different place than it was a few years ago.

it was as clear as day, to me, that trudeau was not likely to win - or was likely to have a short run if he did. the reality is that half the country hated his father at a truly primal and violent level, and the half that liked him are fully aware that the younger trudeau is not in his league - or, to be blunt, are actually dead. i'm not exactly the youth vote any more, but everything i know about trudeau has come to me via a history book. you'd have to be at least 50 to have any real recollection of him. in truth, it's been clear from day one that justin trudeau is really, truly a puppet of the party, and that it's a party that has been thoroughly purged of what it once was. martin's knife cut deep - so deep that the wound was mortal. they had a brief chance at reasserting themselves for a few months with dion, but it was of course a disaster...

so, his collapse is not surprising. however, i was expecting the vote to actually partition around trudeau, and split more or less in half. that would once again let harper split - but it would leave the ndp with a long term upper hand.

perhaps it's mulcair's tendency to lean right that is reassuring a segment of liberal voters. and, i would fully expect a mulcair government to be a centre-right government - to the point that we may be talking coalition to start, but see a lot of movement out of the liberal party during the term. that's likely to leave a liberal rump on the *left* of the party. and, frankly, that's what both it and the country actually need. it seems like this is likely to stabilize the same way as britain, with the liberals generally to the left of "labour".

but, can this actually happen? even as a centre-right party, can the ndp actually form a government?

it's nice to see this issue brought up to a large, mainstream audience but the crux of the issue wasn't discussed.

the thirteenth amendment did not abolish slavery, it abolished slavery except as punishment for crimes. what that actually did was nationalize slavery to a state institution, enforced by prison systems. the jim crow era followed, where blacks were arrested for trivialities. in line with the neo-liberal agenda, this is being spun back off onto the market - not because it saves taxpayer money (this is also propaganda) but because it privatizes profit for investors. the privatization of the prison system is the recreation of the plantation system.

the idea that prisoners have all day to think things up is very wrong. rather, prisoners spend most of their time on assembly lines. want an astonishing fact? the united states prison system has a monopoly on paint products in the united states.

as the prison population enlarges, it broadens the potential for use. some prisoners in california already work as farm labourers. the trend is moving towards an increase in this kind of slave labour. and, the possibilities are really limited only by visibility. it's not likely to be long before a company like nike decides it can save costs by using slave labour at home.

the strength of the prison-industrial complex has strengthened and fallen depending on diverse conditions, but it has continued to thrive for the reason that it hasn't been dismantled. it's logic demands that it takes over as much industry as it possibly can. that means these companies have a strong profit motive to enslave as many people as they can, based on whatever justification they can get away with.

the only remedy is a constitutional amendment to ban prison labour altogether. until that happens, we will fight and win and lose in bursts and spurts, and they will continue to expand while we're not paying attention - until that breaking point is reached where they can no longer be stopped.

it's imperative for the continued existence of a free society. there should be a mass movement pushing for this. the abolition of prison labour would pull the rug out from under a swath of social problems.

yet, i've heard almost nobody even consider it.

constitutional bans on prison labour

To: chomsky@mit.edu

hi noam chomsky,

in some sense i feel it would be silly to lay out the argument, but i feel that this is a solution to several of the problems you've drawn attention to over the years. it seems obvious to me that there should be wide, grassroots movements pushing for this...but it's in truth just not something i hear *anybody* saying. so, it would really be nice to hear somebody with a microphone saying it. it's certainly not a radical position, on a global level. so, i'm left to conclude that it's just that so few people seem to understand just how much prison labour is at the core of so many serious social issues. a little light shed on this could maybe light a long overdue, and very necessary, spark.

j

"pew is the most respected polling firm"

i hear this all the time, but every time i've looked at their questions, it's just a lot of propaganda. i've consequently concluded that the idea that pew is reliable is itself propaganda, and that it's a part of the cia-ngo complex. i'd really like to see this line retired. it's nonsense.

it's about as accurate as "cnn is the most respected name in news".

i'm always astounded by right-wing idiots that don't realize that this is a sarcastic diatribe. it's just remarkable.

you see it every year up here in canada on canada day, where neil is somewhat of a future saint in certain broad circles. stumbling, drunk, through the streets, clad in nationalist paraphernalia - flags on sticks, on shirts...

none of them seem to know any of the lyrics, though. well, beside the chorus.

wait. this is a significant cut. no wonder. you know. i'm not old enough to remember hearing this on the radio. was it always cut like this? does that explain it? have most people not even heard the full song?

the bridge is really key.

blake
+ deathtokoalas It may be sarcasm and parody of blind nationalism but who really cares. Every one has there own interpretation of what a song means. Me myself as a conservative like to view it at face value only noticing the good parts about America. If you wanna get deep into music go right ahead but like I said every song has a different meaning to every person.


deathtokoalas
+blake it's more than sarcasm. how do you interpret a line like:

"that's one more kid that will never go to school, never get to fall in love, never get to be cool"

in any remotely positive way? you can't. you've just never paid attention.


it's not like it's a shift in politics, or that neil young was unknown, either. he'd been successfully singing songs like this for 20 years at the point of this release.

but, i've met people that think "southern man" is pro-confederate, too.

trev
+deathtokoalas Just the same with Born in the USA by Bruce Springsteen. It seems America doesn't do irony.

fwiw, bernie sanders is the only sane candidate. but years of hoping kucinich is going to break through have left me pretty cynical about his chances.

this one's for rick perry...

this seems good for rand paul.

what the pauls say sounds good - if you don't know anything about economics. the only outcome of their policies is precisely what they claim their policies are out to reverse.

the only thing that's clear to me is that bush is the shoe-in republican candidate. seriously. he's actually the only serious candidate.

this is the ideal tune for hillary.

i do like hillary, broadly. i supported her over obama pretty much to the end - largely on health care. but, she has this self-righteous streak in her that is very concerning to me.

the establishment will not let her win. ever. she's "too liberal". the bank has not announced it's candidate yet, but whomever it is will beat her.

so, trump wants to use "keep on rockin' in the free world". it's actually totally fitting in an ironic way. and i think we can have some fun with this.

the donald is a man of the people. really.

bbc v. rt is a terrible comparison. bbc has a mandate to publicly educate, and it's for internal consumption. it has satellite stations, but it's all old colonies, and still for internal commonwealth consumption. rt is an international broadcaster that exists to present a russian perspective to the outside world.

bbc needs to be compared to russian language media, and my understanding is that russian language media can be quite critical. westerners may be a little offset by the nature of it (putin has taken a hit in the media for not invading ukraine and letting the russians there be harmed), but it's relatively open. not perfect, but relatively open.

rt needs to be compared to something like voice of america (dare i say radio free europe), which is completely uncritical pro-american hogwash.

i don't watch rt because i'm looking for stable analysis. i watch rt to get the different perspective to balance out the brainwashing. it seems kind of nihilistic, and not particularly up to utopian british press values, but the truth is that oksana is correct.

nobody but your own conscience - except the boss that is taking 95% of your labour. total independence and no male companionship - except the boss on the harness, whipping for more and more product.

"imagine working 18 hours a day for a fraction of what could have been considered a fair minimum wage, and being so trapped in it that there is no time for art, literature or any of the other things that define humans as free. imagine, imagine....imagine being a wage slave."

that's negative freedom, for you. the freedom to be exploited by market forces, and be tricked into thinking it's somehow "liberating".

i'll stick with positive concepts of freedom, thanks - the freedom to exist outside the slavery of the factory, the market and the dollar.

i've been saying this for years: at the core, you're all calvinists.

this is a total straw man argument. this is why we throw around words like cis - because we have no desire whatsoever to infringe on your identity, no matter how much you want to fantasize about us raping you. which is why we chemically castrate ourselves, right?

hear that, guys? best way to get the chicks into you is to castrate yourself. they love that. that's right: bitches love castration.

here's the thing: try being born with a penis and showing up to work just with hair. forget the rest of it. the dominant society can't even get beyond hair length. i have to be a macho idiot in order to get a job in a fucking call center, whether i like it or not. and, you want to talk about being a fake? it's not for my benefit. honestly. it's to get the rest of the world to not place expectations on me that i am entirely incapable of living up to - and completely disinterested in trying to, and failing at.

and, frankly, i don't care about some hypothetical future two hundred years from now, after my corpse has been picked clean by insects and my bones are starting to break down under the weight of massive flooding from carbon emissions. if we were immortal, you'd have a valid argument. in infinite time, we'll get it right! unfortunately, we're all going to live our entire lives within a dominant patriarchal reality, and we're all going to have to find a way to learn to live with it, somehow. your critique is consequently about as relevant to reality as a discussion of jumping into the matrix, travelling through time (although this has been pretty much ruled out, anyways) or quantum computing. i'm going to live in the here and now, thanks, and it means adjusting to the reality that exists, not fantasizing about one that is generations and generations away from any realistic thought of application. you're completely failing the is/ought problem.

"just a sober reading of that seems like it's just a call for genocide."

exactly.

it's difficult. nobody wants to accept it. but, it shouldn't even be surprising any more at this point. the israeli state has really made it's intentions crystal clear. and, the necessary first point - before we can even talk about un sanctions - is that this has to be entirely understood, because it remains this contentious and difficult to grapple with point.

but, my honest and realistic assessment? this isn't a conflict any more, it's an escalating slaughter. the humanitarian focus at this point really needs to be finding ways to get the palestinians out. i don't know what that means. maybe saudi oil money can build them a city on the coast or something. but, there's really not a realistic way to stop israel from slowly regressing to the point of mass slaughter - and it's an inevitability.

something else to point out is that israeli expansionism is generally exaggerated, especially in the conspiracy press. they talk about israel expanding into syria, for example. and this overlaps with the idea of israel as a settler-colonial state - which is broadly true in practice, if not in theory. but, i think we need to be clear about the contradictions here, and why it sets borders around israeli expansionism.

israel wants control of the areas that it believes were granted to it by god. it's crazy, but it's actually true and it seriously drives their policy. if you look at a biblical map of the region, what we today call the gaza strip was where the "philistines" lived. we're not sure who the philistines were, exactly, but they appear to have invaded from greece, and, considering the egyptian name (peleset) may have been the same people as the pelasgians. they're certainly not the same people as the palestinians (who are culturally arabic and actually largely genetically hebrew), but that biblical parallel is a large part of what's fuelling this. every good jew knows that fighting their enemies, the phillistines, is an integral part of being jewish. and, this is why the israeli state allowed gaza to be split out. it's outside of biblical israel.

now, consider a future where israel has all of this promised land under control, and it seeks to expand further. it would require a different justification, which would present two problems: it would need the state to move away from the state religion, and it would create a backlash from religious scholars. god did not promise israel the world. religious thinking is a strange thing for the rational mind to get it's head around, but just understand this: killing philistines is ok. settling historical israel is ok. but expanding beyond that is arrogance, and will no doubt produce prophets warning the chosen people not to disobey god - lest they bring upon themselves the repercussions that their ancestors suffered. so, the state can't get away with this, unless it secularizes. and, if it secularizes, it loses it's base.

that doesn't mean this can't happen, but a secularist and expansionist israel is a very different animal with a very different support structure.

so, it does seem safe to move them to the red sea - even if it leads to israel and egypt squabbling over who gets stuck with a parcel of land that neither of them want to administrate.

let me begin by saying that i prefer hedges' politics, but have to lean towards harris' view on religion - so long as nobody gives him a stick to beat it into people with.

christians have given themselves credit for almost everything we hold value to in society, often with rather warped arguments. ask galileo about christianity laying the foundations of an open society. it's a seemingly laughable assertion - along with the idea that christianity was the "keeper of knowledge" through the middle ages, or that it's the source of the anglo-american legal tradition (which is, in truth, deeply pagan in origin).

it's a fun argument to point to the reformation as the point where things began to change. and, in truth it is certainly true; liberalism as we know it is very much rooted in the protestant rebellion against the catholic church that happened at that time. you don't need to be a christian to realize this. marx and engels made the argument as well.

but, it's very telling to be clear as to what they rebelled against. it wasn't the foundations of the religion, it was human abuses. rather than reject the entire system, which was keeping them chained to the land, they argued for a return to a purer state. even in rebellion, they were unable to unshackle their thoughts from the system imposed upon them by their oppressors. worldly ambitions of various despots aside, it merely demonstrates the depth of their brainwashing.

then, a few hundred years later their descendants were out burning people for "non-comformity". and, when the non-comformists took power on their own, they launched a genocide against catholics. that's not to mention the groupthink dominant in the colonies. this is the basis of the open society? perhaps we may want to look a little closer at the changes that happened during the reformation, and seek another source for the roots of liberalism.

i'm not sure which 2nd year professor that hedges is basing his presentation on, but it might do him some good to assert a little more individual thought into it, rather than repeat these stale (and debunked) arguments.

i was just thinking about this when i was sitting outside. my upstairs neighbour is turning my basement apartment into an ice box with his a/c, and it hasn't been consistently warm enough to even get the winter air out yet. ugh. anyways. a lot of people like harris claim the muslim world needs a reformation (i think i remember him saying that, i'm not going to look it up - but it's a commonly stated thing). i have to disagree. if anything, it's a good case study on the marxist analysis of the reformation. what the arab world needs is socialism. and, to their credit, that's something they figured out - and quite a while ago. but, we stamped it out. and, the ruling class in the region has since reasserted religion. see, it's interesting because this is the marxist analysis of the reformation: you had these people looking to abolish feudalism (for good reason...) and assert a concept of common ownership, and the ruling classes stepped in and pushed down a modified form of christianity, which left the system mostly in place. it collapsed in the end. but, when the dust of the reformation settled, the truth is that feudalism remained in most places. and, it kind of makes you wonder a little.