on the longterm historical irrelevance of bob dylan

the honest truth is that i don't have an opinion of blonde on blonde because i've never found dylan to be historically interesting enough to bother listening to. of the '66 discs, i'll take revolver and freak out! over the rest of them. sorry.

but, even more accurate is that the historical path forwards to what i listen to doesn't really start until '67, and is actually mostly british. crimson. genesis. floyd. moody blues.

if i was in california in 1966, i wouldn't have been into the doors or the beach boys or any hippie garbage of the sort. i would have been into surf music, mostly. some early punk, no doubt. i probably would have preferred to be in detroit. and, i would have agreed with zappa that the hippie culture was basically the beginning of the collapse of western civilization.

so, don't expect happy retrospectives. that's not my culture. sorry.

i'm actually really disappointed in this, as it is operating purely at the consumer realm of hot dog gadgetry. enough audience building. when is crazy russian hacker going to open a discussion about collective ownership of the means of producing hot dog gadgetry? we the people ought to own the hot dog gadgets, not the 1%. it is only through their control of the technology. but, we don't need them. we can democratize the technology. we can build the hot dog gadgets for ourselves!

--

look at you. pushing product placements for cheap american garbage. you're a spokesman for capitalism. you should do a video on your favourite type of apple pie, and change your name to SelloutAmericanInfomercialChannel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe_vXdMrHHseZ_esYUskSBw/discussion?lc=z12esnfiirudetgio04cjz3beortchnb3vs0k

"losing patience"

yeah. right. what are you going to do, hill? not get voted for?

sanders has incredible leverage, here. and, he's been pretty patient, himself. if i was him, i'd be launching an independent run right now and laying out arguments that hillary is truly no better than trump. i'd be threatening to split the democrats in half unless i got what i wanted.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-primary-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-1.3621007

j reacts to the outcome of the democratic primary

disappointing outcome for sanders supporters in california, certainly. but, clinton's win has to come with an asterisk.

2008 turnout in california:
clinton - 2.6 million
obama - 2.2 million

there's some reasonable rounding, there. but it's 4.8 million voters - a little less, but more than 4.7 million.

with 94% reporting, these are the numbers in 2016:

clinton - 1.8 million
sanders - 1.4 million

that's 3.2 million.

she got less votes this year than she did in 2008; total turnout is probably going to be down by over a million votes.

what of the media reports of voter registration amongst young latinos? i don't know. i've seen reports of deregistration, both recently and a while back.

but, whether this is a weak measure of enthusiasm all around - she also got less votes in new jersey - or yet another reflection of voter suppression, it's not a strong walk into the convention.

there's been a substory the whole time about sanders bringing kids into the democratic party, and this idea that it's going to be good for clinton. but, they're nowhere close to each other on policy. one way or another, the lack of voter enthusiasm we just saw in california (which is used to not mattering - that's not unique to this cycle) should be a dose of reality.

bernie is not going to deliver for hillary.

--

and, google throws greg palast at me right off the bat. first result.

http://www.gregpalast.com/california-stolen-sanders-right-nowspecial-bulletin-greg-palast/

--

i've got a great idea for how clinton can celebrate her gender identty.

why doesn't she go around to elementary schools around the country and get all the little girls to write their names on the bombs she plans to drop all over the world?

maybe, if we're lucky, she can be the first woman executed for war crimes, too.

actually, that glass ceiling has already been broken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Grese

but, it's true.

it's great to have a strong, female war criminal in office for little girls to look up to. maybe they can be war criminals when they grow up, too.

of course, more sane people may suggest that hillary clinton is actually a terrible role model for girls and that she's hindering her cause more than she's helping it.

but, this is america. nobody cares about sanity in america!

--

alright, alright.

it was turnout. abysmal. who knows why.

let's take a moment to vent, resolve to vote for jill stein and move on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGdoqsuiN8

07-06-2016: eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn (offer me alternatives...)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to the end of the democratic primary, as it happened

55% is a little low for initial results in jersey.

i really think that there's a substantial possibility that there could be a huge upset in new jersey tonight. as mentioned: the best predictor is rhode island, because it's the only open primary for miles around.

her initial numbers were way better than 55% in the closed primaries around jersey.
see, you have to keep in mind how this works, right.

hillary always jumps out ahead on mail-ins. strangely. then bernie catches up on day-of voting.

if she can't cross 60 in early voting, it's going to be close.

see, i think there's reason to expect they'd fuck up the demographic modelling. it's the same situation as michigan, where they're plugging closed primary data into an open primary.

i'm not saying he's going to win. i'm just saying that you shouldn't be surprised if it's closer than expected.

--

yeah.

jersey was an open primary in a liberal state. you can say what you want about the dynamics walking into the situation, but an inability to split in a liberal state like jersey suggests that the party has made a choice one way or the other.

again: do not expect me to post positive things about hillary clinton. i'm mostly going to be just tuning out altogether.

but, i'd advise voting for jill stein.

i don't think hillary clinton should be president. i think she should be tried at the hague for war crimes, and sentenced appropriately.

--

but, i just want to...

i'm saying the party's made a choice, right. and i'm rejecting that choice. does that make me some kind of a sore loser, or something?

no. because i was never a supporter of the party.

see, and this is going to drive a lot of democrats nuts. there's going to be a substantial number of people that aren't going to fall in line, here. and, the media will throw all kinds of accusations of treason at them and scratch their head and not understand.

but, we're not democrats. we never wanted to be democrats. we've spent our entire lives protesting against democrats - rhetorically, and in some cases more than rhetorically. in a normal year, we would have never even considered the democrats as a serious option. support for sanders was just a pragmatic decision to support a candidate that was really to the right of where we actually are, but actually had a serious chance of winning.

now that this has evaporated, we're not going to all of a sudden become democrats and support everything we've spent all of our lives fighting against.

again: the american spectrum doesn't make any sense. there's no socialist option. not even a watered down one. nobody should be surprised that there's so many disenfranchised people when you only offer two options.

bernie's legacy can't be in helping hillary win. i mean, he can't seriously turn around and endorse her. it's not like 2008 - he represents an entirely different political philosophy. sanders endorsing clinton is not like clinton endorsing obama. it's more like clinton endorsing mccain.

in fact, i desperately hope he doesn't, because he'll instantly become irrelevant if he does. this isn't 'bernie can deliver', it's only 'bernie can destroy himself'.

bernie's legacy has to be the construction of an independent socialist movement in the united states. that has to be what bernie or bust really means.

and, in the process, we'll have to see who aligns with the establishment and who doesn't.

don't be tricked. trump == clinton == obama == bush == gore.

--

regarding my error in analysis, it's hard to say much without the cancelled exit polling. i mean, the polls were fairly accurate, in the end - i just didn't trust the polling. less because i thought they were doing something wrong, and more because i thought they'd been paid off.

i don't think my logic was wrong. but, i'll point out that it looks like turnout in new jersey in 2016 is going to be less than it was in 2008. we're not going to get exit polls, but if we did have them i think we'd learn that the flux of independents that bernie needs - and was able to get in rhode island - just didn't show up at the polls. it might not be precisely due to the ap's declaration last night. but, it may be a consequence of a widespread perception that the race was over, so why bother.

you can twist the logic around either way, right. but, old people are more likely to vote than young people. young people need the movement. old people don't. further, partisans are more likely to vote than independents. to suggest otherwise is just a bad argument. so, if clinton is drawing old partisans (who would vote through a nuclear attack) and sanders is drawing young independents (who might be more interested in a tv show), it's...

i mean, this is the story of the century, right. young people don't vote.

again, without exit polling, i'm just guessing. but, the turnout numbers implicitly suggest that sanders' strength bailed on him in jersey, which would have the effect of approximating a closed primary.

so, the racist models fluke out one last time.

--

i've been over this before. and i'm a canadian, remember. but, i just want to put down an idea of the demographic that you can expect is tuning out, or voting for the greens.

1) i paid almost no attention to the 2012 election at all. i interpreted mitt romney as being everything that barack obama always wished he was. i would have voted for jill stein had i voted at all.

2) i initially supported clinton in 2008, based largely on the strength of her more progressive health care plan and memories of her role in the good friday agreement [that is something she should actually be proud of]. but, it was always fairly tepid. i was never fooled by obama - i saw him as a front for the banks from the absolute very start. by november, i would have voted for ralph nader, if i bothered voting at all.

3) i actively supported john kerry in 2004, based largely on his less aggressive foreign policy.

4) my first choice for the leader of the greens was jello biafra, but i would have enthusiastically voted for ralph nader in 2000.

5) i was only 15 in 1996. i would trace my political awakening to propaganda surrounding the bombing of serbia. i would have probably voted for clinton.

--

so, i'm hardly a defining demographic. but, i do exist.

--

if you're curious about my actual voting record in canada..

1) i voted for the liberals under jean chretien in 2000.
2) i voted for jack layton's ndp in 2004. this was a vote against paul martin. in hindsight, i somewhat regret this.
3) i voted for jack layton again in 2006.
4) i voted for the liberals in 2008, which was the year that stephane dion was running for prime minister.
5) i voted for jack layton again in 2011. this was a vote against michael ignatieff. in hindisght, i do _not_ regret this.
6) i voted for the liberals again in 2015. this was a vote for justin trudeau.

i have voted exclusively for the liberals at the provincial level, which would be votes for either dalton mcguinty or kathleen wynne.

--

so, i'm a useful-to-study swing voter in canada.

but i'm off the spectrum in the united states.

--

nonono, listen - i didn't expect sanders to follow the expected path. i do not expect sanders to concede until the last superdelegate votes at the convention. it's over. but, that doesn't matter. and, i know this is strange for americans, but it's not so strange from the perspective of somebody raised with a three party spectrum.

the question is not whether he'll concede before the convention. he won't. he won't. the question is whether he'll concede after the convention. that is, whether or not he will run as independent.

so, let's be clear. you want to ask when he'll give up and support clinton. the question is if he'll give up and support cllinton.

this goes back to what i've been saying about how sanders is representative of a different tradition than hillary clinton. people raised around the american political spectrum are going to be confused about this. there's two parties, right. he can't win. why fight?

because he's not a democrat. that's the actual truth of it.

i still think that the answer is that he will eventually support clinton. but, i don't think he's completely decided that he will, yet. the entire set up is to facilitate a third-party run. i mean, listen to what he says.

"i'll support clinton if she supports single payer."

she's never going to support single-payer. so, he'll never support her.

like, that's not random rhetoric. it's calculated. he might not follow through with it in the end, but he's talking like that to keep the option open.

so, let's get the question right. it's reasonable to conclude that his apprehension about trump is too great - that's what he's broadcasting. but, don't take it for granted, because that's also what he's broadcasting.

fdr wouldn't have moved an inch without the threat of a popular movement. that's his mindset. he's not thinking about sucking up to clinton. he's thinking about scaring the hell out of her.

-

it's not like the coverage is naive either, right. if you read the headlines from the perspective of a third party on the left, rather than the perspective of a democrat or republican, what they actually state is something like this:

"sanders should drop out because he has leverage over clinton and may succeed in extracting concessions from her."

--

i'm kind of glad you posted this the way you did, so i can respond contextually in an appropriate way. you need to think of hillary like the liberals and sanders like the ndp, and then place them in a minority government - as we saw in the 60s, 70s and 00s. it worked out well in the 60s and 70s. especially the 60s. lots of people think it was our greatest parliament.....

the ndp would never just let the liberals pass whatever they want. they always demanded some influence, and when they didn't get it? they'd vote down the budget.

it's a hard game of difficult negotiations. but, it's how the parliament works.

the american punditry is going to have a hard time with this because the three-party system is foreign to most living americans. it shouldn't be, though. it happened in the 30s, when the socialist parties forced a set of concessions from fdr that is now called the new deal.

they could call a history prof and get them to explain it. or they could call a canadian. but, what we're seeing unfold in the united states right now has not happened for a century. this isn't politics as usual. this is very different. our media is uniquely positioned to understand and explain it and should take the opportunity to.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-california-primary-1.3621301

j reacts to the allied media conference

you might expect that i should probably go to the allied media conference in detroit this month. i kind of wanted to post this on their site, but i think it's better if i post it here. and, you can bring them here, if you'd like.

i just don't want to concede the ability to moderate (or not moderate).

if you go through the list of events, something should jump out: it seems designed to break people down into tiny little subsets. so, you have the meeting for trans people of colour, the meeting for latinas, the meeting for women of colour - and a few meetings that are exclusively geared at white people, too.

when i see that, i interpret it as counter-productive. you get all of these people together in the same space to talk about politics, then you break them into micro-demographics. if i was going to write the book on how to break-up the revolution without a stick, that's pretty much exactly what i'd write. break them down into divisions. make sure they don't talk to each other. make sure they walk out having seen nothing but their own reflections, and maybe with a heightened sense of isolation.

and, i mean, what else do you get out of walking into a conference like this and only talking to other people that are like you, or that can be categorized as statistically similar, anyways? you should expect to walk out of this place feeling isolated - because the conference was designed to isolate you!

where's the meeting on inter-racial class struggle? it's not in the list. there's an introduction to being a dj. there's nothing about bridging divides. it's all about creating and enforcing them.

then, i looked a little closer. this event has some major sponsors, including the ford foundation. now, what do you think the ford foundation wants out of an event like this? do you think the ford foundation wants to fund seminars on class struggle?

rather, i might suggest that what the ford foundation - as well as google, who is funding it through their (functional) mozilla subsidiary - really wants is data. well, if you're an advertising company, that's what you do, right? you break people down into these microscopic categories.

so, what is this going to be like? i'd expect to get asked a lot of questions, and for some people in the back to be taking notes.

the one thing that i pulled out that looked a little bit interesting was this workshop. it kind of seems a little anarchist at first glance. but, on second glance what came out was the likelihood that it's probably a focus group to unveil an advertising strategy. the website says venture capitalist all over it.

you need to be careful with this shit. but, this isn't real. don't be fooled into thinking that it is.

http://amc2016.sched.org/event/77Qf/peer-to-peer-sharing-economy-and-commons-roundtable

what i think that a lot of the reactionary right fails to realize is that a great deal of what they're railing against is really corporate advertising and people that get sucked into it looking for something better.

plumbing update

the sink has been a little slow the whole time, but it began to slow down a bit more yesterday. we did get some rain, but it wasn't very much. the toilet is not currently clogged, but it is draining a little bit slowly. the sewers outside are a foot higher on marion than they are on cataraqui. i remain convinced that there is a substantial clog under the intersection that will recreate itself until it is removed.

i have been addressing the problem with water pressure - that is, i will fill the sink up to the very top and then let it drain. this is noticeably effective, but only temporarily.

while i am not requesting action at this point, i am taking note of the circumstances as was requested.

j

06-06-2016: day four of detox ends with the realization that facebook has broken it's timeline

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

the reality is that this is pornography.

sex sells.

or, if you'd prefer different language, just realize that the way rape culture is covered and capitalized on is a part of rape culture, itself.

i just want good solutions. and that means rejecting bad ones.

you might think you're fighting something. you're not. you're entrenching it.

she seems to believe that it is of the utmost importance to prevent the lion she's grooming from smelling the interviewer. i suspect that's not arbitrary.

j reacts to the stanford rape case (you're all stuck in the fucking cave)

if you want to put him in jail for 20 years, might i suggest contributing funds? 'cause i really don't want to pay to house, feed and entertain the guy for the second third of his life - and then repeat for the last third, because he can't find a job due to the fact that he's a convict.

listen. nobody doubts that this is a problem. but vengeance isn't an answer. deterrence doesn't work - it's just a waste of resources that could be better spent on things that actually work.

you could have a bake sale to raise money to pay for food & shelter for rapists.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/stanford-swimmer-brock-turner-sexual-assault-father-reacts-1.3618571

i'm really ultimately reacting to a different concept of freedom. you want to punish the guy? make him work at walmart for twenty years. but, you have to discard the idea of a free market, first. you have to discard labour as freedom and understand it properly as slavery. that's subversive.

leftists yell and scream that the christian social order is a failure, but they're not really addressing the crux of the matter. it's a tool, rather than an end to itself. so long as we accept these capitalist social norms, we're stuck in their self-perpetuation. we'll never see outside of the cave.

why don't you just shoot him in public? that's what you really want, right?

fucking christians. or muslims. whatever. you drive me nuts. and you get the world you deserve.

it's conservatives that demand punishment for criminal behaviour. conservatives then accuse liberals of being "soft on crime" because we prefer academically tested social programs that work, not old testament fire and brimstone that just perpetuates the problem.

i bet hillary agrees with you, though.

you should be educating people as to why they're wrong to demand repentance and vengeance, not helping to perpetuate their stone age ignorance.

stuck in the fucking cave.

---

aldphillip2003
He should really be castrated. If the punishment for rape was castration, I think we would see a drastic reduction of rape.

Eddycurrents
If the punishment for any crime is genocide, there wouldn't be any crime any more! Everyone would be dead, isn't that wonderful! /s

Tommy Vo
Let's shoot people in the face for smoking weed. That would totally help things

UUHH66
And what happens if someone innocent was convicted of rape? It happens, probably especially to minorities. Then innocent people would be getting castrated.

TheBushdoctor68
Harder punishments lead to harder crimes. If their balls will be cut of when convicted for rape, they will make sure the victim is never going to talk. You won't see a lot of women surviving rapes anymore.

Richard Wilson
or maybe we should spay women who lie about being raped?

and yes. I mean spay. I mean cut open a woman's groin and rip out her ovaries. There have been a few cases of women assaulting males. would you advocate doing that to a 20 year old woman? you want equality right? just playing devil's advocate.

espyTV
So if a woman rapes a man we should sew close her vagina?

kay jewl
your probably a Muslim right ?

jessica
why not just behead him?

---

putting people in jail doesn't solve problems. putting people in jail makes problems worse.

j reacts to requests to play nice with democrats

listen. i'm not walking on eggshells, worried about what fucking democrats think.

you picked a shitty candidate. you'll have to deal with that. next time, pick a less shitty candidate.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/did-bernie-sanders-just-hand-trump-the-election

here's some fucking 90s for you.

you made your bed, democrats. now, lie in it.

if you want to put him in jail for 20 years, might i suggest contributing funds? 'cause i really don't want to pay to house, feed and entertain the guy for the second third of his life - and then repeat for the last third, because he can't find a job due to the fact that he's a convict.

listen. nobody doubts that this is a problem. but vengeance isn't an answer. deterrence doesn't work - it's just a waste of resources that could be better spent on things that actually work.

you could have a bake sale to raise money to pay for food & shelter for rapists.

www.cbc.ca/news/trending/stanford-swimmer-brock-turner-sexual-assault-father-reacts-1.3618571

the email scandal promises better ratings.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/sanders-clinton-nominaton-report-1.3619679

j reacts to the ap's call that clinton has clinched the nomination

my best guess is that nbc has decided that you'll stay home and watch friends if you think the primary is already over.

when, i voted for the liberals it was because i wanted them to pass legislation - not because i wanted them to create a mess in the senate that would prevent them from passing legislation. it's really a comically absurd situation; he's obstructing his own agenda. the media should really be taking him to task for it. it doesn't matter what you think of the senate; this is the worst possible outcome from any perspective.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856

the government could get a majority in the senate with a stroke of a pen. there is absolutely no excuse for having their legislation gutted, and they should be loudly called out for incompetence should that be something that actually happens. there's an easy answer to avoid this: fill the senate with liberal senators immediately. it's just incompetence to leave the senate open, then complain that they can't pass legislation.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856

j reacts to clinton's appeals for democratic unity

so, yes: i think bernie should keep going. and i think he should run as an independent. but, i know that he's not going to convince any superdelegates. see, i think he should push them to the absolute brink - make them show up and vote - but i don't think he has a real chance. it's an act of protest. further, i know he's not going to run as an independent. so, what next?

i think the first thing that leftists/progressives need to do is start asking hillary some questions. if she wants to represent the left, she's going to have to start explaining how she reflects ideas on the left.

so, what you need to do is start asking questions every time you see her. questions like this:

"when do you plan to table legislation for single-payer health care?"

well, she wants to represent the left. she wants bernie supporters to vote for her. she wants unity. obviously, then, she must have plans to introduce single-payer, right?

here's another one:

"given that you don't support taxes on wall street, how do you expect to fund an opening of tuition at public universities and colleges?"

again: she says she wants bernie supporters to vote for her. so, surely she has thought through how she plans to pay for this.

this one is really key.

"can you elaborate on your plans to withdraw american forces from the middle east?"

i think you get the point.
there's two components of this.

yes, there's a bit of sarcasm, here.

but, the truth is that you're going to have to do this. even if you end up voting for jill stein in the end. you should not give her a free pass, or give up, or drop these ideas. and, this is a kind of a non-confrontational way to demonstrate that there are real differences that can at best be glossed over.

if you just let her loose, she's going to immediately bolt back to the center-right, where she's most comfortable. so, you have to keep constant pressure on her to hold to whatever concessions you can get out of her - and constantly be pushing for more.

in the end, if she decides she wants to run on the right, you should force her to broadcast it. and, you should force her to deal with the consequences of it.
you fought too hard to just give up.

j reacts to trump's invocation of critical legal theory to analyze his trump u case

to be a little provocative for a moment....

i think the facts in the trump university case are clear enough. it was a scam. and trump is deflecting.

but, it's a little curious to me that accusing an hispanic judge of racial bias is a horrible injustice, whereas accusing a white judge of racial bias is the core of a theory taught in university courses all around the continent. can we get some consistency, here?

reality check: trump has been railing against hispanics for months. i really don't think it's so outlandish to suggest that this might affect the ruling. when you deny this, what you're really doing is pushing this thoroughly debunked "justice is blind" model of legal theory. it's just not right - not as a way to describe how the legal system actually works in reality. rather, we have something called critical legal theory that explains the decisions made in court rooms in terms of things like racial and gender biases, class analyses, ideological positions....

judges don't exist in a vacuum. their opinions come out in their rulings.

so, would that mean that the ruling is invalid? no. it would mean that there are consequences for running your mouth off.

j reacts to the idea that sanders will benefit from the email scandal

dude. listen. you're half right, but you're grasping at straws.

what you're suggesting is that hillary will be indicted before the convention, and bernie will therefore be the nominee. but, this is some kind of projective fantasy thinking.

in fact, the reason that hillary has not been indicted yet - and everybody agrees that the investigation is dragging it's feet - is that bernie refuses to concede. do you think that these people want bernie sanders to be president? i mean, get real.

see, it's the great lie, right. the thing that lets the system function. the perception that the united states is a democracy. but, we all know it really isn't, that the whole thing is political theatre. every cycle. every time.

they've got great screenwriters, though. really.

here's the plot, dude:

1) they've gotta get rid of bernie, first, before they can think about indicting hillary. so long as bernie is running, she'll prolong the charges. don't be surprised if the indictment comes within hours of bernie conceding.

2) then, once bernie's gone, they can use the email scandal to take down hillary. and, don't be surprised when this happens, either. expect a complete media take down. expect it to be brutal. expect it to be final.

so, no, it won't be bernie. but, here's an interesting twist: the only way to stop the indicitment is probably for bernie to launch an independent run at the exact same time as he drops out of the democratic primary.

otherwise, you're looking at the party bosses picking a candidate - and bernie's not on the list.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-hillary-clinton-likel_b_10317324.html

j reacts to the consequences of trudeau's refusal to appoint liberal senators

the government could get a majority in the senate with a stroke of a pen. there is absolutely no excuse for having their legislation gutted, and they should be loudly called out for incompetence should that be something that actually happens. there's an easy answer to avoid this: fill the senate with liberal senators immediately. it's just incompetence to leave the senate open, then complain that they can't pass legislation.

when i voted for the liberals, it was because i wanted them to pass legislation - not because i wanted them to create a mess in the senate that would prevent them from passing legislation. it's really a comically absurd situation; he's obstructing his own agenda. the media should really be taking him to task for it. it doesn't matter what you think of the senate; this is the worst possible outcome from any perspective.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856

this is, like, right out of the politburo. exit polls are used to determine the fairness of elections everywhere else. it's the tool. the state department insists on it, even. but, everybody knows that they're not any good here.

right. and, it was sanders that shut down the polling. sure.

hate! hate! hate!

again: what it demonstrates is desperation. we're not going to get exit poll data out of puerto rico, because they cancelled them. because they're useless, i guess. along with most of the voting stations - useless, too, apparently. so, we're not going to know whether he won day-of voting or not, like he did in arizona.

but, we do know that the dnc is clamping down pretty hard, right now.

this is no longer an election. it's now a character assassination. get ready for it.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3173097/did-bernie-sanders-suppress-voting-in-puerto-rico-officials-accuse-sanders-campaign-of-requesting-drastic-cut-in-polling-places-leading-to-long-lines/

guys.

do a report on agent provocateurs.

05-06-2016: detox/recovery weekend, pt 3 (more reading on this day than ranting)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

"sandernistas."

see, this is another interesting example of head-scratching media from the clinton side.

what, exactly, does the clinton campaign wish to accomplish by reminding young people that the united states supported the contras? what is their concept of history, here? are they proud of this?

if i were hillary clinton, about the absolute last topic i'd want to bring up is american support for the contras. that's an argument that sanders is going to win. every time.

it's literally taking the wrong side of history.

i just want to address the "closing stations is bad for both of them" argument.

there's a strong consistency in just about every state: clinton performs curiously well with early ballots (well enough that it should be suspicious), while sanders wins day-of voting - and sometimes by dramatic margins. according to exit polls, he actually won day-of voting in arizona.

so, it might seem reasonable to suggest that closing down polling stations hurts them equally. but, the numbers we have suggest that this is not the case.

personally, i'm extremely interested in what the discrepancy is in puerto rico. we might not get exit polls. but, if we can find a way to learn that sanders won day-of voting, it...

....it's desperate. that's the most honest and most altruistic way to state it. nobody expected puerto rico to be competitive. but, the results are ultimately of little consequence. this is just desperate authoritarianism - transparent image projection.

j reacts to a media trick to hide the undecideds and exaggerate the front-runner

ah. this is a familiar trick...

scroll down a little.

actual numbers:
clinton - 40
trump - 32
other - 29

but, that's not the headline they want. the headline they want is that clinton is running away with it.

now, we saw this happen recently in canada. the dynamic in canada was an unpopular incumbent (stephen harper) and two other guys that were seen as interchangeable. so, you'd get polls that said something like this:

conservatives - 33
ndp - 29
liberals - 25
undecided - 13

the media would report this as:

conservatives - 38
ndp - 33
liberals - 29
undecided - 0

unfortunately, most statisticians will tell you that this is not wrong. the undecided should distribute.

the thing is that when they asked undecideds who they were willing to consider, something like 90% of them said they'd never consider the conservatives. so, the votes didn't distribute. in the end, that 13% (plus a little more) went entirely to the liberals.

i got into a lot of arguments about this. the crux of my argument was that the data tells us where undecideds are leaning, and they are almost entirely sitting between the ndp and the liberals. in the end, i was right. but, i didn't ever really get the clarity from my opponents that i wanted; it's still not clear to me if they understand what they were doing wrong.

so, now we have a nice big chunk of 30% undecided. that's a giant number. we're not sure, yet, whether there will be two or three or four major candidates. but, we can state two things clearly:

1) the large number of undecideds is not a consequence of voters seeing two options as interchangeably acceptable (implying the need for the candidates to define themselves better), but the result of voters disliking both candidates equally. so, you're looking at upwards of 30% of voters that are saying they want another option. that's unheard of in the united states.

2) while it seems like both of the major candidates are being affected by this, it seems like trump is being more affected.

so, is clinton leading by double digits? maybe. but, she should call gary up and buy him a beer - she's not winning so much as he's losing.

that's not something for her to celebrate or get complacent about, as it could (and probably will) change very quickly as trump aligns himself with the republican consensus.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0YP2EX

j reacts to the error of projecting american experiences on race to the outside world

one of the difficulties canadians have in communicating with other activists - and sometimes have in understanding the world outside of canada - is that poverty is not racialized, here.

we have poverty, sure.

we also have areas that happen to be quasi-segregated, by some combination of choice and market realities.

however, they're not at all correlated with each other.

one of the reasons for this is that canada actually has a pretty strict immigration policy that is focused very strongly around education. the result is that our immigrants are actually the most educated members of our society.

brampton is not a wealthy town in spite of it's high immigrant population, but because of it. it has very high education levels - not in spite of it's immigrant population, but because of it.

and, in fact, it's attracting a lot of investment because of it. if you drive through brampton, you'll see a lot of corporate offices. engineering. technology. fortune 500.

in a sense, it's almost a gated community. but, the gate isn’t about skin colour.

so, ghetto? absurd. canada doesn't have ghettos because we plan our cities to ensure that rich and poor neighbourhoods are intertwined. we have an effective tax system that distributes wealth properly. more importantly, we understand that the issue is not race but class. i grew up in a welfare project that was sandwiched between wealthy developments. there were gates at the top of the hill, but the geography prevented slumification of the area. the projects were only a few rows of houses at a time.

for a while, my mom lived in the welfare strip while my dad lived in a four bedroom standalone. the only thing that separated the two properties was a public park. i remember forming teams to play soccer in the park: it was the rich kids vs the poor kids. we were starkly aware of the class divide, yes. but, we used the same facilities. we kicked the same balls. we did it together.

so, no - brampton is not a ghetto. but, it will not stay how it is forever, either. the city will have to move some poor white people in at some point, and it will be good for everybody when they do.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/brampton-a-story-of-political-importance-power-and-ethnic-enclaves/article30273820/

i have a lot more to say about this, but i stopped reading when she said "white people send their kids to private catholic schools when they can afford it".

in ontario, we have a public catholic school system. this is a historical relic of canada being a francophone/catholic colony with a protestant/english ruling class. the solution was to set up two public school systems: a protestant school system for the english and a catholic school system for the french. over time, the protestant school system became a public school system and the catholic school system became bilingual to accommodate for irish immigrants.

but, the schools are neither separated by class nor by race nor by religion. i went to a catholic school. it was paid for by public funds. there were muslims in some of my classes.

i don't know why this piece was written, but it obviously wasn't fact checked and shouldn't have been published. it's attempting to understand canada through the filter of internalized american racism and ultimately declaring that canada must conform to a set of preconceptions, rather than learning that those preconceptions are actually not supported by any of the facts.

like i say: this is hard. americans think that america is the center of the universe, and that everything is pretty much the same, everywhere else. they have a very hard time understanding that the vast majority of their problems are unique to their own history and failure of governance and simply don't exist elsewhere. it's another example of the fallacy of universalizing the specific.

but, publishing the idea that white people have private catholic schools in ontario is pretty bad, globe & mail. you're in toronto. you should have caught that.

at the end, there's something about how brampton might collapse into a ghetto if the immigrant population loses it's source of low-wage labour.

no! you don't get it!

you can't become an immigrant into canada unless you have an advanced degree, can speak at least one of the languages and are determined to have strong market potential.

canada does not have a low skill, low wage immigrant population because it does not admit immigrants unless they are highly skilled.

i know. let's stop for a second.

has it clicked?

!?!?

if you're coming from india to canada, and we let you stay here, you probably have a phd. honestly. at least a masters. you don't even get the form unless you've graduated from something or other, alright?

they don't work in low skilled, low wage positions. they're at the top of the wage hierarchy. they're doctors. engineers.

and, if you look at the numbers, it comes out: south asians have the highest average income of any ethnic group in canada.

so, it's not a ghetto - it's one of the wealthiest places in canada, actually. because it's one of the most educated. because there's so many brown people.

yeah, i know. let your head explode. and realize that the solution is that government matters.

...and that america is not the center of the universe.

i just want to be clear.

let's say you're a young south indian fellow that wants to come to canada and start a business. you don't speak the language well, but you'll learn. you don't have money, but you'll work as a dishwasher for a while and then get a loan. this is the classic american immigrant experience in the minds of most, as placed there through a combination of 20th century propaganda and modern film work.

no. just no. canada will never let you in.

first, you need to be able to speak the language. beforehand. you get two options: english or french. we'll test you, too. rigorously. not an easy test. no comprende? no cigar, amigo. the americans have lower standards, we'd suggest you try them.

then, you need to have some money before you get in. we're pretty generous and everything, sure. but, you're applying for immigrant status. if you want to apply for refugee status, that's the line over there. we're not going to let you in if you're not bringing anything with you. that wouldn't be so smart, would it?

next, you need to have some education. high school? no. hit a school, and call us back. what, you want to go to school here? well, get through the process, and we'll let you in temporarily - but you're probably going home right afterwards, unless you find a job really fast.

finally, you need to have job prospects. it's not 1900. you can't just come here and think you're going to get a job picking grapes or something. you have to be able to prove you have some kind of communication with somebody on the inside. and, we want documents. we're gonna check up on you, be sure of it.

strict? well, maybe. but, note that we don't have any ghettos.

puerto rico wasn't even supposed to be in play. clinton was supposed to win handily. this wouldn't be happening at the last minute like this if internal polling wasn't suggesting a sanders win.

again: it's a reflection of the depth of corruption, and why sanders never had a real chance.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/puerto-rico-primary-election-fraud-voter-suppression-polling-places-workers-certified-bernie-sanders/

when they put blair in charge, i kind of vomited a little in my mouth. i concluded that the current justice minister is probably not in favour of legalization, or sees it as a career liability or something. it was less of a question of intention and more an issue of mismanagement: what does bill blair know about international law?

landslide annie is a much better choice. this will get done.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/former-chretien-cabinet-minister-anne-mclellan-to-head-panel-on-marijuana-legalization

04-06-2016: the needed detox/recovery weekend, pt 2 (rant, rant, rant...)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

this is actually a humongous pet peeve of mine, this idea that stuttering or speaking slowly is reflective of some kind of lack of intelligence. it's the literal definition of "style over substance"; the absolute reflection of an anti-intellectual culture that places hollywood actors reciting lines at the top of a hierarchy and people that are actually processing things as they speak at the bottom of it. it's about projecting a sense of false confidence over actually knowing what you're talking about. and, trump is very much the poster boy for this kind of backwards thinking.

what the criticism actually says is "i have never been in a university classroom in my life". it consequently speaks for itself. but, you need to get over that instantiation of rage first. i'm pretty tolerant, but there's a specific kind of idiocy that just sets me off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxo9-Z5Ki0

it's funny how if you go through a marxist forum post from more than five years ago, every single one of the users on the forum is now banned.

no, really. i've noticed this before. it's not a fleeting thought. i was at revleft, sorting through a post from 2011 - everybody on the thread was banned.

it wasn't a troll, either. really. and, you see this at lots of marxist sites, too.

"i can't get laid 'cause everyone is dead."

(i should explain that last comment.

)

again: this has to be a reflection of internal polling.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/282228-sanders-campaign-accuses-puerto-rico-dem-officials-of-fraud

j reacts to "the hispanic vote"

"Exit polls also show some evidence of Clinton’s strong performance with Hispanics, although with some inconsistencies. They had her winning Hispanics by more than 40 percentage points in Florida and Texas and by nearly 30 points in New York, although narrowly losing them in Nevada and Illinois."

but, this is exactly the kind of boneheaded thinking that has pushed silver into such a corner with his models, this year. texas is texas. if you discard texas, because it's texas, note that florida & new york were closed primaries (and therefore skew towards upper class voters) whereas nevada and illinois were open (and are therefore both a broader representation of latin-speakers and a better predictor in california).

instead of arguing that clinton performs well with latin speakers, silver should be pointing out that closed primaries make it very hard for latin speakers to vote. what he's picking out is consequently not minority strength from clinton, but the efficacy of voter suppression laws in preventing poor minorities from taking part in elections.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hispanic-voters-will-decide-bernie-sanderss-fate-in-california/

i want to be clear about what i think is actually happening.

1) a state elects a republican governor. like in texas. or florida. or arizona.
2) that state passes restrictive voter suppression laws that makes it hard for poor people, who happen to mostly be minorities, to vote. so, this is a class thing. but, poverty is racialized in large swaths of the united states, so it's easy to get confused.
3) the state runs a closed primary, which requires registration. registration is hard in states with voter suppression laws.
4) so, only wealthy minorities (with proper id) are able to vote.
5) exit polls indicate clinton won minorities by large margins, and the media concludes she has a large lead with minorities - when, in fact, this is just the consequence of laws that make it hard for minorities to vote.

i think this explains why sanders wins latin speakers in open primary states and loses them in closed primary states. it also goes a long way to explaining the ridiculous age discrepancy with black voters, but cannot be a total solution - there has to be some level of disenfranchisement or apathy amongst young black voters, as well.

j reacts to clinton's consistency of political answers around gay marriage

you know what? she actually didn't change her position on gay marriage. she says that all the time, right. she claims consistency, and people laugh at her. but, if you look at the situation closely, on this issue, it's true.

she always said it was a court issue. so, she was always consistent in separating her own opinion (which was opposed) to the official position (which she claimed was out of her jurisdiction). the actual truth is that she still doesn't support gay marriage, on a personal level. but, she acknowledges that the court has made a ruling, and that's the correct legal mechanism to work it out through. she sees her role as upholding the rights determined by the court, not contradicting it.

now, you can dissect that all you want. if you want to believe she's a gay advocate, you argue that she supported it all along but held back politically. if you want to believe she's a fundamentalist methodist, you argue that she's just cynically phishing for votes. fwiw, i think the second option is more correct.

but, the truth is that there's really no flip-flopping. there's a consistent message of it being a court issue. as the court has changed, she has shifted to reflect that. but, the underlying position has remained the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYFUlR-Qy0

j reacts to the question of whether america is a third world country or not

this is a legitimate classic at this point. i first saw it live in ottawa at the babylon club on the slow riot tour in 1999. i was still a few months underage, and had to bring my dad with me to get in.

i'm listening to it now because hillary clinton has been working the accusation that trump thinks the united states is a third world country into her stump speeches. she's saying it every day. a few times a day.

if you're familiar with the track, you know the line:

america is a third world country.
and i think it's pretty sad that people can't recognize that their own country is a third world, third rate, third class slum.

you can agree with him or not. the third world is defined by tremendous wealth inequality, which was the result of enforced market theory from the outside. neither the united states nor europe had ever truly been a market economy until the last thirty years or so, but the colonies have been since the dawn of colonialism. india. china. africa. south america. it's a part of the process of colonialism.

so, it shouldn't be so much of a shock to see north america approximate third world conditions when it adopts third world (market) economics.

but, that's secondary. more to the point is that this guy (who the band also samples on their first record) is a trump voter. clear as day. this was recorded in the 90s, but what you hear in the track is what is fueling things forwards.

maybe listening to the track will clarify why hillary's response of attacking him for a lack of patriotism is something roughly equivalent to "let them eat cake".

it's becoming more and more apparent that if sanders doesn't win, then trump will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8XBJc2p_g

jessica
take the safe with you.

Elliot Poots
Please tell me you're taking the piss.

jessica
it's not that heavy. he'd be better off getting the safe out and finding a way to melt it open using welding tools.

03-06-2016: i needed a detox/recovery weekend, pt 1 [much ranting]

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

i've explained this in my vlogs, but it's a hard thing to find. i have reasons for posting this here.

i do not monetize show footage, nor do i include it in the vlogs. the reason is that it would give the copyright owner on the footage the ability to steal my vlog.

i think that people "out there" may be a little confused about youtube. youtube is not a system where people can post and make money from whatever they want. facebook video largely is exactly this. but, youtube is actually a very controlled system of content management.

here is one example. i was walking through detroit a few months ago, talking into my camera. i happened to walk by a bar that was playing a michael jackson song for a few seconds. understand that this is incidental audio - neither captured with intent, nor inserted consciously. it's not even "fair use"; i had no intention of even using it at all. it was just random background sound. however, sony was then able to take control of the entire half hour vlog and i had no ability to argue against it. i'm left to conclude that the same thing would happen if i recorded myself talking in a mall, a restaurant or anywhere else with background audio.

is that legal? of course not. but, there's no legal mechanism in place to have this discussion. the system is designed to benefit copyright owners at the expense of content creators, with no exceptions or caveats.

now, as it is, i don't really care about recording your band for the sake of recording your band. there will be some exceptions, but i go to a lot of shows and i'm only really deeply interested in a small fraction of it. rather, i'm recording a vlog. take yourself down a notch. it's not about you. it's about me.

but, what that means is that i have to abide by the rules - which not only do not allow me to monetize songs i didn't make (if i'd want to....but it's not what it's about...), but actually would give the artists i'm recording the ability to claim copyright over my entire vlog.

so, please be cognizant of the actual reality, here: in order to prevent record labels and other rentier capitalists from copyrighting my vlogs, i am required to separate performances out of my vlogs. not only am i not cashing in on their performances, but i need to take steps to prevent them from cashing in on my vlogging!

the system is unsustainable; it will have to be changed to take power away from copyright holders. but, for now, it is what it is.

nor do i claim copyright over material i do not own. should that be discovered, i would face punitive measures. the second picture demonstrates what happens when you upload something by an artist in a relationship with a large rentier: sony claimed ownership of the son lux video, whereas universal claimed ownership of the julia holter one.

j reacts to the dnc's actions indicating that they are not taking sanders seriously

yeah.

listen - you can say what you want about this, but the important takeaway is that the dnc is a lost cause. voter suppression in an unorganized territory, in the last two weeks to save an unpopular frontrunner?

if you were to call the dnc the absolute embodiment of mindless foolishness, you'd be on to something. it might be an understatement. but, the idea that bernie has any serious chance of swaying the elites is delusional.

i stated a few months ago that all bernie can really accomplish is a rigorous demonstration of systemic party corruption. he's done that, and it will have long term consequences - the democratic party is done, as a vehicle for anything but the status quo. i stated a few weeks ago that he can't win, but he can sure make the party look stupid for refusing to give him the nomination. i do think that's what you're going to see happen over the next few days.

i've also stated that none of this makes any sense unless he's planning a run, but that the decision to run as an independent must be taken over the careful analysis of voter intention. we'll see if that works out or not.

but, the data that's coming in right now suggests that if you want a lock on latinos, sanders is the better choice. the capitalist refugees from cuba are going to continue to warp the narrative, but understand that this is about money and not about votes.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/03/3783185/puerto-rico-polls-closed/

j reacts to the media party's new bad math around the dnc delegate process

this is the media party's new nonsense: if there weren't super-delegates, clinton would only need 50% of pledged delegates to win, so she would only need half of the 4051 pledged delegates, which is 2026.

it's entirely circular logic. the party rules are that she needs 58% to win, not 50% to win. of course, if it were true that the party set the threshold at 50%, then that's what she would need. but, they very obviously did not do that.

well, unless you think that a pledged delegate is of equal weight to an unpledged delegate, which is an argument nobody would ever make. one would need to take that entirely ridiculous and elitist position to eliminate the circular logic, but it is itself a contradiction to take an undemocratic position to try and argue for a more democratic position.

just deal with it: the democratic party set the threshold at 58% because they wanted a strong candidate. hillary clinton has failed to meet the minimum threshold to win in the first round. the convention should therefore be seen as round two.

and, nothing could possibly be more american - if you understand what that actually means.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-most-important-number-bernie-sanders-next-week-256

i had an unexpected talk about the hip last night. i couldn't remember the name of this track.

for those unaware, their singer was recently diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. they're doing a final tour. i hope he gets through it.

i think the hip have been overrated in canada, and underrated outside of it. their influence as canadian cultural icons probably never extended outside of a subculture, and that subculture got left in the 90s.

at the end of the day, which is coming soon, they will have amassed a collection of mediocre records and a really, really, really good greatest hits collection. but, as is usually the case with rock bands, the record label will fuck the choices up. hit spotify for some fan takes on this.

j reacts to the imminent establishment take down of hillary clinton

guys. listen. this is a set-up.

clinton is not the establishment pick. they hate her. she wants to be the establishment pick. but, the establishment doesn't want her.

they hang on to her in case of emergency. and, they nearly had to break the glass. but, trump is coming around.

who was the establishment pick in 2008? it was not clinton. nor was it mccain. it was obama. and, who got the media? who won? yes, plenty of people understood what was happening. you could look it up.

i'll leave it to the journalists to determine if we've been subject to a charade over the last year, or if the conflict is actually real. but, trump is very rapidly coming around.

the establishment candidate is donald trump. and, they're in the process of taking hillary clinton out to make room for him to walk in.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281973-new-clinton-emails-due-out-in-days-before-convention

j reacts to the logic around what is acceptable to throw at trump supporters

the eggs are fine. appropriate, even. it washes out. but please avoid glass if you're going to start hurling things at trump supporters. somebody may lose an eye.

let's think this through together.

things that are perfectly fine to throw at trump supporters

- eggs
- tomatoes
- *oranges
- *bananas
- sanitary liquids originating from supersoakers, spray bottles or soap dispensers
- !rhetoric

things that should not be thrown at trump supporters

- glass of any type
- bottles
- pets
- wild animals
- children
- muslims
- migrant workers
- #gavels

* - peeled, only
! - ymmv
# - non-rhetorically

i just want to reiterate that this is entirely appropriate.

these are people that are publicly supporting an open bigot. you have an obligation to make them feel uncomfortable.

just keep your elbows down. which is canadian for "don't throw glass shards at heads full of rocks".

it goes back to what i've said about trump normalizing the absurd. if he can convince you that his discourse is acceptable, the country is already done.

it's one thing to stand back and passively let him win, then start fighting him the next day. it's another thing to show up at the rallies and actively support what he's saying. that can't be seen as socially acceptable. the fact that he's running a major party isn't any kind of excuse for it.

so, there has to be an appropriate and proportional response. i think tossing tomatoes and eggs at supporters is within those bounds.

boycotting business is within those bounds. termination of employment may be, as well.

but no glass. no molotovs...

http://sputniknews.com/us/20160603/1040729138/clinton-trump-us-morales.html

clinton seems to have worked "donald trump says america is a third world nation" into her stump. and, the similarity is non-trivial.

j reacts to the underlying schizophrenia in clinton's arguments against trump

it's hard to disagree with her.

but, the problem with this approach - and the reason it's a losing strategy - is that she's stuck with this glaring problem: the objective facts indicate that she simply doesn't offer much of an alternative to what she's describing. the insider understanding is that she has a reputation for temper tantrums as a negotiation tactic, and that obama had developed a habit of just ignoring her when she went off on them. she's also describing herself. and, the more she takes this approach, the more attention she draws to her own dangerous - if predictable - foreign policy.

some of what she's saying is even simply anti-populist. america has been in europe long enough. has her court allowed her to interact with any "yankee go home" protesters in japan? she's likely only barely aware of such sentiments or how powerful they are, interpreting them as fringe voices from the peasant class.

tearing your opponent down only works if you take the opportunity to build yourself up. that's the point, right. the contrast. if you spend a half hour tearing down your opponent and then say nothing of yourself, you've just kind of lost the plot. you've just given your opponent free publicity. you might think it's bad publicity, but things have a tendency to define themselves differently. because you've implicitly defined yourself in the process - as an angry, spiteful person willing to set up a press conference to tear somebody down. it doesn't matter if what you say is true.

let's say i set up a press conference about oprah and put down a half hour speech about how she needs to lose some weight. this may be a narrative from her husband's term; i haven't seen any pictures of oprah recently. she gained weight, lost weight, gained weight - the tabloids loved it. constant material. but, i could spend an hour explaining that oprah needs to hit the gym and ultimately be correct in everything i say. but, in doing so, i'd be defining myself as an ass as much as anything else.

the thing is that she can't draw a contrast, because there isn't one. one can only control narratives in the presence of ignorance. hillary's foreign policy perspectives are too widely known. everybody knows she's not offering an alternative to what she's describing. and, she isn't. the more obvious she makes that by drawing attention to the topic, the more she places them on a level playing field.

i know she doesn't see it like this. she lives in a bubble of upper class, white meritocracy. but, that's the problem.

so, we heard a lot about donald trump, here. we didn't hear much about hillary clinton. and, while i won't argue with her overall message, or with any of her details, i must point out that if she's going to instigate this argument she must draw more effective contrast - which she can't do, because it's not real and everybody knows it.

trump has won by watching his opponents fuck up over and over. hillary's doing the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpX0YAbhtvY

02-06-2016: two shows in detroit and a hard crash at the end (last day out for a while)

show footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqebb8PH9ac

more footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsorZklwtpY

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/06/02.html

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

02-06-2016: rabble rabble - full set (detroit)

their music:
https://rabblerabble.bandcamp.com/album/composure-2

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/06/02.html

vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9SUQXsxw1Y

"The most likely outcome is that Trump would be neither good nor disastrous as president, but simply bad. For example, he might mismanage the country's finances, needlessly inflame racial tensions, undermine the rule of law, confuse and antagonize our allies, and hurt the economy through erratic policies that punish and reward investors based on his political whims."

hrmmn. sounds like obama.

this argument is actually particularly egregious given the circumstances, which is itself an argument to re-engineer society to abolish markets.

the general way to prevent scalping is to prevent people from exceeding their ticket quotas. but, i have no problem with sending cops out to arrest them, confiscating their tickets and distributing them on a needs basis.

www.cbc.ca/news/business/tragically-hip-scalper-outrage-1.3610489

send this viral before the 7th.

j reacts to marxists rejecting sanders (what of historical materialism?)

see, i can make this argument because i'm an anarchist. but, this is a strange argument to hear from a socialist.

socialists aren't immune to political grandstanding or opportunism. they can throw around bullshit with the best of them. and, it might sway a few kids. but, the problem is that when people that understand the theory get wind of it, it exposes them as bourgeois and kills their credibility.

there's a kind of difficult truth at play, here. sanders is not actually a socialist in any meaningful way, and anybody on the left has a responsibility to point it out. but, it necessarily follows from pointing that out that it makes more sense to support him than it does to support a small third party. the reason is that historical materialism is incrementalist in nature.

now, i'm an anarchist, so i think historical materialism is a lot of nonsense. but, anybody that is walking around and calling themselves a marxist, a trotskyist, a maoist - anything of the sort, really - should be supporting sanders as a necessary stage in transition.

again: i can duck out of that, because i think hegel is a pile of anti-scientific nonsense. i reject the idea of the state reforming society. i want decentralized co-operatives. but, no marxist can get away with discarding the logic around supporting sanders. and, if you hear it from them, they're being disingenuous.

i mean, there's not even a health care system.

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/sanders-socialist-some-far-left-say-sellout-more-i/nrXd6/

j reacts to the shooting of the gorilla at the zoo in ohio

this isn't going to go away for a while, is it?

gorillas are individuals. the way they will react to different situations depends on their personality, which is in turn a function of their life experiences.

think of it like this. let's say the situation was flipped and a gorilla fell into the human pit. would you say "humans aren't dangerous, it's fine."? that would be an error, wouldn't it? many humans would bludgeon the gorilla almost immediately. but, it would be no less of an error than saying "humans are vicious monsters, shoot it!" - as plenty of humans would take the time to care for the child. put tersely, you would shoot if it was jeffrey dahmer in the enclosure and shrug if it was mahatmas gandhi. right?

while you can probably be pretty sure that the male gorilla in ohio would not have eaten the child, as a distant onlooker you and i are simply not qualified to say anything else of any value. in order to make a worthwhile decision, you need to be familiar with the personality of the animal.

this is a situation where experts are experts because they are experts, and everybody else is not because they aren't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xr1YjwDNm4

01-06-2016: the day in between other days

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

yeah. you know, i almost wrote this essay a few days or weeks ago. it was the term "folk theory of elections" that just about caused me to break something. it was used to describe the idea that voters have brains and can work things out, in contrast with the scientific understanding of elections that claims we vote based on identity.

i just didn't have the stamina to work it out. they've done the work here for me. thanks, guys.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/bernie-sanders-achen-bartels-white-men-krugman-election-clinton/

j reacts to the tactical blunder of clinton running on her foreign policy experience

see, she just doesn't get it. she thinks her "foreign policy experience" is going to help her win voters, despite the deep unpopularity of her open imperialism. the reality is that if she wasn't such an open fascist when she was secretary, she'd probably have been able to get to 60%. she honestly thinks that the american people are fully interchangeable with the romans, at their most savage point. she thinks that more wars will bring her more popularity. i was over this once before. the united states has not yet seen this kind of naked imperialism, but it's coming.

there was a period when roman emperors would routinely begin their rule by adding a province to the empire. this showed the roman people that the emperor had the favour of the gods and could uphold the glory of the empire. hillary clinton really, honestly thinks that this is the way to increase her popularity - partly because she sees america as a country full of illiterate savages.

trump is of course a horrible candidate. she's been handed a gift. there's only a couple of strategies she could pick that will squander such good fortune. making the election a referendum on her foreign policy (while trump pushes for glorious, splendid, long overdue isolation) is pretty much the only thing i can think of that will seal her loss with clear certainty. unfortunately, that's exactly what she's going to do.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0YN52L

j reacts to final polling for june 7th

i'm not going to talk a lot about the final polls. the saying is that the polls don't lie, but the pollsters might. i'm not even convinced that much is true - i have little faith in the sanctity of the data being thrown around.

it's not that the polls are meaningless due to bad methodology or whatever other thing. i'm flatly suspicious that the polling companies are corrupt. and, i've made this argument in this space already.

i'll just point out that:

1) hillary clinton has not won an open primary since mar 15th.
2) the polling leading up to several of her losses since then favoured her, and was shown to be "wrong".
3) in fact, the demographics also favoured her in several of the states that she lost.

i'd argue that you want to look more at recent contests for predictors. california should fall somewhere between the closed primary in oregon and the open caucus in washington. and, the best guess we've got for jersey is rhode island.

see, this should really work the other way around. that is, autonomous worker collectives that own their means of production should be forcing companies to bid on which products will be made there.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ge-picks-welland-over-windsor-as-site-for-new-factory-150-jobs-1.3610954

"Despite the praise Stephen Harper had in his speech to the party's convention last week for the Conservatives' electoral gains in Quebec, that is one province where the party saw its support decrease for a second consecutive quarter."

it's remarkable really. free from the shackles of governance, the man admirably carries on in total oblivion to reality.

31-05-2016: thoroughly confused by lunch cult

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/31.html

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to third parties on the right and on the left

just a few points.

first, you suggest the media should take note of the unrest and report it. but, the media exists to quell unrest. there's a potential for a moment of clarity there, actually.

second, i think it's a mistake to assume too much kneejerking. if you're the pro-market type of conservative that the republicans have been nurturing, donald trump is basically satan. it's a non-option for the economic wing of the republican party. if you ask around, you'll no doubt find people desperately seeking for 'real conservatives' and coming out with the libertarians.

it might not last. but it's probably legit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4iNBrYbEjA

30-05-2016: early morning grocery shopping

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

there's an acceptable middle point. if you're going to show up with a pro camera and record the whole thing, that's called piracy. but, if you take a song or two on your phone, that's fair use.

there's a lot of recorded snippets of live music on my profile; for me, it actually doesn't have anything to do with them, it's just a part of the vlog. i've been questioned a few times and i'm just totally transparent: what i'm doing has nothing to do with recording them and everything to do with documenting me. they're not any more important or special than the seagull i filmed last night when i was smoking a joint in the park. so, i go to a lot of concerts and i try to take one song from each band i'm there to see. but, i'm the topic, not them.

i think that logic transfers over to really anybody that's taking a song or two for personal use, whatever it happens to be. but, as mentioned, there's a point where it's not reasonable. it's all about discretion around a concept of reasonable behaviour.