i remain without vlog. what's the deal with that?
well, i'm not done the record. that's all there is to it. but, i'm also kind of digging the freedom.
i am vlogging. i just dumped a 32 gb sd card to hard drive. so, lots of data.
but i've been clear over and over - i'm not vlogging for profit. i'm vlogging partly for marketing (i do many things, but i identify as a composer) and partly for documentation.
i mean, imagine if beethoven had a vlog. he would have smashed the camera, and there would have been no more vlog. i've digressed.
what that means is that there really isn't any reason why i need to upload my vlogs in any specific frequency. so long as the data exists, it exists. it doesn't matter if it gets uploaded or edited or not. right?
well, i like the idea of a stable vlog, even if it's staggered. clearly, a week was not enough time. and, i'm not going to catch the two week target. three weeks is just weird. so, i'm moving to a month. well, four weeks. so, a little less than a month...
the vlog for nov 15th will be published at 00:30 on dec 14th, and we'll keep going from there.
hopefully, what that means is that i can restrict editing to two or three days a month.
Monday, November 28, 2016
j reacts to the ubiquity of junk economics in the mainstream press
"Trump's stated plans to cut taxes and ramp up infrastructure spending is expected to boost the U.S. economy, and the Federal Reserve is expected to boost U.S. interest rates, which could draw investors toward the U.S. greenback."
no.
rather, i'd expect that a congressional push for austerity and entitlement clawbacks is going to lead to a punishing recession, which will lead to a strong sell-off. republicans are generally terrible for the american economy, and usually create recessions. the combination of congressional austerity with a protectionist white house is likely going to be disastrous.
i agree with the rate hike, but i do not believe that rate hikes or cuts affect the value of the currency much.
the canadian dollar is traded on a market. rates are not meaningful because traders sell the currency quickly. it does not react to macroeconomic factors, either. it's value is determined by the perception of investors, not by causal economic laws. these predictions are consequently always worthless - when they are right, it is by sheer chance.
that said, i'd also expect that the sum effect of trump's policies is going to push oil lower (unless he manages to piss off opec, or something). and, because canada's dollar is perceived as a petro-currency, that remains the dominant psychological factor on the value that the canadian currency is traded at.
so, what we're going to be looking at with the loonie is finding a middle point between a worse-than-usual republican recession (which helps the loonie) and low oil prices (which doesn't). i'm not going to guess where it balances out, and don't think you should either. but, i'd bet more on stability than instability.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loonie-us-dollar-forecasts-1.3863851
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/20/trumps-turn-republican-presidents-rule-recessions/93976832/
"While we see substantial support in Congress for proposals to cut taxes and reform the tax code, our current impression is that market expectations of quick fiscal expansion may be running ahead of political and legislative realities," Goldman said.
yup.
tax cut? check.
infrastructure spending? nope.
the report also makes the "error" of assigning gdp growth to tax cuts. i say "error" because i do not believe that goldman sachs actually believes in reaganomics, so much as it is holding to the lie because it wants the tax cut.
expect a recession. and pretty quickly.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/us-recession-odds-relatively-low-but-curb-your-enthusiasm-on-trumponomics-goldman.html
don't be surprised if the recession turns into a depression, either.
no.
rather, i'd expect that a congressional push for austerity and entitlement clawbacks is going to lead to a punishing recession, which will lead to a strong sell-off. republicans are generally terrible for the american economy, and usually create recessions. the combination of congressional austerity with a protectionist white house is likely going to be disastrous.
i agree with the rate hike, but i do not believe that rate hikes or cuts affect the value of the currency much.
the canadian dollar is traded on a market. rates are not meaningful because traders sell the currency quickly. it does not react to macroeconomic factors, either. it's value is determined by the perception of investors, not by causal economic laws. these predictions are consequently always worthless - when they are right, it is by sheer chance.
that said, i'd also expect that the sum effect of trump's policies is going to push oil lower (unless he manages to piss off opec, or something). and, because canada's dollar is perceived as a petro-currency, that remains the dominant psychological factor on the value that the canadian currency is traded at.
so, what we're going to be looking at with the loonie is finding a middle point between a worse-than-usual republican recession (which helps the loonie) and low oil prices (which doesn't). i'm not going to guess where it balances out, and don't think you should either. but, i'd bet more on stability than instability.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loonie-us-dollar-forecasts-1.3863851
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/20/trumps-turn-republican-presidents-rule-recessions/93976832/
"While we see substantial support in Congress for proposals to cut taxes and reform the tax code, our current impression is that market expectations of quick fiscal expansion may be running ahead of political and legislative realities," Goldman said.
yup.
tax cut? check.
infrastructure spending? nope.
the report also makes the "error" of assigning gdp growth to tax cuts. i say "error" because i do not believe that goldman sachs actually believes in reaganomics, so much as it is holding to the lie because it wants the tax cut.
expect a recession. and pretty quickly.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/us-recession-odds-relatively-low-but-curb-your-enthusiasm-on-trumponomics-goldman.html
don't be surprised if the recession turns into a depression, either.
didn't they actually buy a drone company for delivery?
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
liberals need to avoid taking the alt-right bait on a racist narrative. this can't be about white liberals standing up for brown people. that just plays into their identity politics narrative, and perpetuates further conflict, even if we win most of the battles. it has to be a teachable moment used to banish race from the discourse altogether.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed
news flash: voter suppression or not, it was the republicans that were most successful in using identity politics, this election.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed
news flash: voter suppression or not, it was the republicans that were most successful in using identity politics, this election.
the right-wing press is nailing trudeau for refraining from demonizing castro.
they don't represent popular opinion in the country. trudeau should stick by his comments, which were reflective of the broad understanding in this country that castro was not perfect but that he did far more good than he did harm.
that's the historical narrative that will stick. the tory media is, as usual, completely wrong.
trudeau did not win the election by caving to the media. and, he should not cave to the media, now.
a lot of the people in the tory press that are criticizing trudeau today for his comments on castro were no doubt supporting apartheid south africa while castro was fighting it. they were on the wrong side of history then, and they are on the wrong side of history, now.
these are the same people that declared mandela a terrorist and stuck to it.
their opinions are wrong. they have always been wrong. and, if their media parent companies had any concept of social responsibility, their microphones and pens and keyboards would have been taken away from them years ago.
you don't have to be an advocate of historical materialism to realize that you can't expect a primitive society to respect queer rights. my understanding is that the reality was less that castro was an opponent of queer rights and more that he chose not to prevent their persecution. the ultimate problem stemmed from centuries of colonial rule by the catholic church. it was something that he couldn't overturn quickly, and fighting against it too strenuously may have put the whole thing in jeopardy.
the same thing is true today in russia. putin does not care about gay people one way or another. but, he knows that standing up to the church, which is what is actually leading the persecution, would put his own position in jeopardy.
i'm not trying to whitewash putin or castro. you can call putin weak, and be right. and, you can question castro's judgement. but, let us attribute the problem, correctly - in both cases, the problem is religion. and, on the left, we know how careful we have to be about religion and striking the right balance in letting it die out slowly.
it's not that queer rights are not important. of course, they are. but, they are a second-generation concern.
there is consequently something deeply bourgeois and distressingly haughty in these upper class tories and liberals looking down on these developing societies and criticizing them for not overturning their colonial brainwashing fast enough.
queer rights are a deduction, and not a premise. a certain framework must come first.
and, in time, castro's society did become more free for queer people - once it had time to undo the effects of catholicism.
they don't represent popular opinion in the country. trudeau should stick by his comments, which were reflective of the broad understanding in this country that castro was not perfect but that he did far more good than he did harm.
that's the historical narrative that will stick. the tory media is, as usual, completely wrong.
trudeau did not win the election by caving to the media. and, he should not cave to the media, now.
a lot of the people in the tory press that are criticizing trudeau today for his comments on castro were no doubt supporting apartheid south africa while castro was fighting it. they were on the wrong side of history then, and they are on the wrong side of history, now.
these are the same people that declared mandela a terrorist and stuck to it.
their opinions are wrong. they have always been wrong. and, if their media parent companies had any concept of social responsibility, their microphones and pens and keyboards would have been taken away from them years ago.
you don't have to be an advocate of historical materialism to realize that you can't expect a primitive society to respect queer rights. my understanding is that the reality was less that castro was an opponent of queer rights and more that he chose not to prevent their persecution. the ultimate problem stemmed from centuries of colonial rule by the catholic church. it was something that he couldn't overturn quickly, and fighting against it too strenuously may have put the whole thing in jeopardy.
the same thing is true today in russia. putin does not care about gay people one way or another. but, he knows that standing up to the church, which is what is actually leading the persecution, would put his own position in jeopardy.
i'm not trying to whitewash putin or castro. you can call putin weak, and be right. and, you can question castro's judgement. but, let us attribute the problem, correctly - in both cases, the problem is religion. and, on the left, we know how careful we have to be about religion and striking the right balance in letting it die out slowly.
it's not that queer rights are not important. of course, they are. but, they are a second-generation concern.
there is consequently something deeply bourgeois and distressingly haughty in these upper class tories and liberals looking down on these developing societies and criticizing them for not overturning their colonial brainwashing fast enough.
queer rights are a deduction, and not a premise. a certain framework must come first.
and, in time, castro's society did become more free for queer people - once it had time to undo the effects of catholicism.
more projection. classic trump. he knows the election was rigged in his favour - that millions more votes for clinton disappeared. this is what he does to control his herd of idiots and deplorables (it was a stupid thing to say, but it was always true, and i'm going to stick with it). at some point, the sheep will react. but, they're sheep. it could be a while.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-calls-it-sad-that-clinton-joining-recount-effort/article33058826/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-calls-it-sad-that-clinton-joining-recount-effort/article33058826/
j reacts to the idea that pipelines can be a compromise in fighting climate change
"Mr. Trudeau has appeared willing to take that risk because it could lead to a political triumph. If he can balance a pipeline with a climate deal with premiers at a meeting Dec. 8 – and it appears a deal with all provincial premiers except Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall is likely – then he can claim the broad political middle by asserting he delivered both a pipeline to tidewater and a deal on emissions."
this is stupidity. he will do neither. he will alienate both constituencies.
there is no "political middle". it's a fantasy created by conservatives to co-opt the left.
the liberals played this game in the 90s and lost. the lesson they should have learned is that they can't balance the left and right, and that they're only deluding themselves in pretending that they can.
the reason is that nobody actually wants this compromise. there's no victory in getting pipelines built, while you address climate change. that's not something i want, or something i'll celebrate. it's just feet-dragging and weak tea.
i know it's coming. i never pretended it wasn't. i knew he was going to approve pipelines, and i knew they would need to be fought in court and on the ground. but, i'm not looking forward to it, and nobody else is, either.
that's delusional. simply. plainly.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-about-to-see-just-how-ruthless-trudeau-can-be/article33065655/
this is stupidity. he will do neither. he will alienate both constituencies.
there is no "political middle". it's a fantasy created by conservatives to co-opt the left.
the liberals played this game in the 90s and lost. the lesson they should have learned is that they can't balance the left and right, and that they're only deluding themselves in pretending that they can.
the reason is that nobody actually wants this compromise. there's no victory in getting pipelines built, while you address climate change. that's not something i want, or something i'll celebrate. it's just feet-dragging and weak tea.
i know it's coming. i never pretended it wasn't. i knew he was going to approve pipelines, and i knew they would need to be fought in court and on the ground. but, i'm not looking forward to it, and nobody else is, either.
that's delusional. simply. plainly.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-about-to-see-just-how-ruthless-trudeau-can-be/article33065655/
Sunday, November 27, 2016
i actually really don't like the idea of posting pictures with your partner in your profile pic, whatever the site is. it broadcasts a lack of individuality. and, i'll never see the upside to that, no matter how you try and explain it. your profile is yours, it's never your partner's. and, no, you can't share it.
it's kind of like going to the bathroom with the door open. you're going to do it. and, everybody knows you're going to do it. but, it's never ok.
it's kind of like going to the bathroom with the door open. you're going to do it. and, everybody knows you're going to do it. but, it's never ok.
publishing inri019
this is the final section of the last proper inri demo, which was written as somewhat of a suite, but only in a fleeting moment, and then forgotten. it's a sort of sardonic take on the jesus story, in that it follows a persecuted person through a suicide and a resurrection, with tongue in cheek commentary.
initially, it was a song suite about being young and not listened to, culminating in a rather dramatic overreaction - that i ridiculed as counter-productive, partly by reference to kurt cobain, whose suicide is an event that hangs over the childhood of my generation. people that were adults at the time might want to think of it in the same way that they interpreted watching kennedy get his brains blown out on live tv. as i grew up (stated loosely - i was still 17/18, here), i realized this is a general condition of society that is not limited to young people. so, i generalized it to reflect the illusion of what we call "democracy", and gave it an exaggerated persecution complex. the cynicism was targeted at the clinton administration, but in a broader sense i'm sort of ridiculing the rather cartoonish perception of generation x as this kind of raelian mass of fatalist children....
my final vocal edit for viewless focused on a small part of the verse and cut the chorus out altogether. i then distributed that small part into the rest of the song by cutting into parts and pasting it in where i wanted. this drops the more general commentary, which seems like an anachronism, in favour of refocusing the listener on the direct storyline of individual persecution. for suicide, i left the vocal track largely in tact, except to remove the suicide note, which in hindsight also seems like a giant distraction from the satirical storyline. what's left is more direct.
i also want to note that there was a conscious decision to move to a more recited vocal style on the 1999 rerecording (and subsequent 2016 reconstruction), rather than the screamy style that dominates the initial 1996 demo. at the time, i considered screaming to be sort of contrived and passe. the recitation is actually a very considered reaction to something i interpreted as largely cartoonish. i was certainly still heavily influenced by the screamy stuff i grew up with, but it wasn't a characteristic of much of anything i was attracted to after about '97 or so and actually something that i really wanted to distance myself from.
i've pulled back from insisting on recited vocals in order to minimize that contrivedness, but the truth is that the vast majority of music released after about '97 that has screamed vocals very much *is* contrived. time has only cemented my rejection of falsely emotionalized vocals in punk-derived genres.
written and demoed from 1996-1999. initially constructed in this form in january, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. sequenced on nov 22-24, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. audio permanently closed on nov 24, 2016. release finalized on nov 27, 2016. this is my second symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one ("epilag"): initially created in early 1999. remastered on nov 23, 2016.
section two ("viewless"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 19, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 29, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016. corrected to remove an errand click on nov 24, 2016.
section three ("anticipation"): background noise built in 1996. rebuilt in late 1998. edited in late 2013. remastered on nov 24, 2016.
section four ("suicide"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016.
section five ("resurrection"): initially written and recorded on january 4, 1999.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).
*download only
initially, it was a song suite about being young and not listened to, culminating in a rather dramatic overreaction - that i ridiculed as counter-productive, partly by reference to kurt cobain, whose suicide is an event that hangs over the childhood of my generation. people that were adults at the time might want to think of it in the same way that they interpreted watching kennedy get his brains blown out on live tv. as i grew up (stated loosely - i was still 17/18, here), i realized this is a general condition of society that is not limited to young people. so, i generalized it to reflect the illusion of what we call "democracy", and gave it an exaggerated persecution complex. the cynicism was targeted at the clinton administration, but in a broader sense i'm sort of ridiculing the rather cartoonish perception of generation x as this kind of raelian mass of fatalist children....
my final vocal edit for viewless focused on a small part of the verse and cut the chorus out altogether. i then distributed that small part into the rest of the song by cutting into parts and pasting it in where i wanted. this drops the more general commentary, which seems like an anachronism, in favour of refocusing the listener on the direct storyline of individual persecution. for suicide, i left the vocal track largely in tact, except to remove the suicide note, which in hindsight also seems like a giant distraction from the satirical storyline. what's left is more direct.
i also want to note that there was a conscious decision to move to a more recited vocal style on the 1999 rerecording (and subsequent 2016 reconstruction), rather than the screamy style that dominates the initial 1996 demo. at the time, i considered screaming to be sort of contrived and passe. the recitation is actually a very considered reaction to something i interpreted as largely cartoonish. i was certainly still heavily influenced by the screamy stuff i grew up with, but it wasn't a characteristic of much of anything i was attracted to after about '97 or so and actually something that i really wanted to distance myself from.
i've pulled back from insisting on recited vocals in order to minimize that contrivedness, but the truth is that the vast majority of music released after about '97 that has screamed vocals very much *is* contrived. time has only cemented my rejection of falsely emotionalized vocals in punk-derived genres.
written and demoed from 1996-1999. initially constructed in this form in january, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. sequenced on nov 22-24, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. audio permanently closed on nov 24, 2016. release finalized on nov 27, 2016. this is my second symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one ("epilag"): initially created in early 1999. remastered on nov 23, 2016.
section two ("viewless"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 19, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 29, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016. corrected to remove an errand click on nov 24, 2016.
section three ("anticipation"): background noise built in 1996. rebuilt in late 1998. edited in late 2013. remastered on nov 24, 2016.
section four ("suicide"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016.
section five ("resurrection"): initially written and recorded on january 4, 1999.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).
*download only
credits
released January 13, 1999
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, electric piano, vocals, drum kit, drum programming, sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, light-wave synthesis, noise generators, sound design, loops, tapes, digital wave editing, production
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, electric piano, vocals, drum kit, drum programming, sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, light-wave synthesis, noise generators, sound design, loops, tapes, digital wave editing, production
pot, kettle.
but, is he worried? see, i don't think he should be. i think his handlers cleaned up.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38121264
but, is he worried? see, i don't think he should be. i think his handlers cleaned up.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38121264
guys, listen - zizek is a troll. i mean, he calls himself a stalinist. isn't that the first clue that you shouldn't take him seriously? but, he's not actually a stalinist. he's just a smart capitalist. he knows what sells, and he says ridiculous things for profit.
this is not new, either. it's good that this is chomsky, because he's the go-to guy to expose that entire school of sophistry. but, there have always been sophists. and there have always been fools willing to give those sophists their money.
you should have listened to chomsky.
and, in the end that might be the chapter in the history book on the era of the american empire. you can imagine it in the table of contents...
the british empire.............................10063
the american empire........................26575
the new chinese empire...................26576
shouldda listened to chomsky.
-
i remember an old friend showing up at my place with a zizek video sometime in the mid 00s, thinking i'd enjoy it. my reaction was the standard reaction one gets from actual smart and actual educated people that are not easily hypnotized by his psycho-babble: he just rambled for an hour without actually saying anything.
rather than take my far more educated opinion on the topic seriously, he gave me the standard kneejerk, which i suspect is a part of the orientation material (no doubt sold separately, or perhaps free with orders of a certain magnitude):
"you just didn't understand it."
sure. right. went right over my head, man.
he's not a stalinist, but he does flirt with the worst tendencies on the right. and, he should not be taken seriously by anybody that is remotely left of center.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html
no, honestly, though. you might think a zizek "concert" is full of philosophy students. but, ask around. my experience is that your average zizek "fan" is actually somebody that thought they were too smart for school and may or may not have bothered to finish grade 12.
that's the ruse: he sells nonsense to idiots that spend their whole lives failing, who then get to feel superior because they understand things that the smart kids don't. and, the more that actual academics smack this nonsense down, the more elite the failures get to feel.
there's maybe something to all the reverse psychology. but, what that something is is a tactic to sell shit to the people that are buying it. nor is this particularly novel. as mentioned: there have always been sophists, and there have always been people willing to give them money.
it's just as simple as giving losers a way out of feeling inferior. that's always a good business model. they're not stupid, after all. they get the secret knowledge. they're the special ones. it's the kids that went to school that are stupid, and don't get it.
and, political movements have always had to find a way to inoculate themselves against this kind of anti-intellectualism, under threat of collapse into absurdity.
this is not new, either. it's good that this is chomsky, because he's the go-to guy to expose that entire school of sophistry. but, there have always been sophists. and there have always been fools willing to give those sophists their money.
you should have listened to chomsky.
and, in the end that might be the chapter in the history book on the era of the american empire. you can imagine it in the table of contents...
the british empire.............................10063
the american empire........................26575
the new chinese empire...................26576
26575
The American Empire
shouldda listened to chomsky.
-
i remember an old friend showing up at my place with a zizek video sometime in the mid 00s, thinking i'd enjoy it. my reaction was the standard reaction one gets from actual smart and actual educated people that are not easily hypnotized by his psycho-babble: he just rambled for an hour without actually saying anything.
rather than take my far more educated opinion on the topic seriously, he gave me the standard kneejerk, which i suspect is a part of the orientation material (no doubt sold separately, or perhaps free with orders of a certain magnitude):
"you just didn't understand it."
sure. right. went right over my head, man.
he's not a stalinist, but he does flirt with the worst tendencies on the right. and, he should not be taken seriously by anybody that is remotely left of center.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html
no, honestly, though. you might think a zizek "concert" is full of philosophy students. but, ask around. my experience is that your average zizek "fan" is actually somebody that thought they were too smart for school and may or may not have bothered to finish grade 12.
that's the ruse: he sells nonsense to idiots that spend their whole lives failing, who then get to feel superior because they understand things that the smart kids don't. and, the more that actual academics smack this nonsense down, the more elite the failures get to feel.
there's maybe something to all the reverse psychology. but, what that something is is a tactic to sell shit to the people that are buying it. nor is this particularly novel. as mentioned: there have always been sophists, and there have always been people willing to give them money.
it's just as simple as giving losers a way out of feeling inferior. that's always a good business model. they're not stupid, after all. they get the secret knowledge. they're the special ones. it's the kids that went to school that are stupid, and don't get it.
and, political movements have always had to find a way to inoculate themselves against this kind of anti-intellectualism, under threat of collapse into absurdity.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
re: the fake news. not the norm macdonald fake news, the facebook stuff.
it was late 2013 that i just got fed up and unplugged.
so, i wasn't paying attention to facebook over the election. i haven't had a feed to check in around three years.
feb 25, 2015
this somewhat ironically explains why i discarded social media and went back to traditional media.
the cat pictures were admittedly bad. the memes were worse. but what really permanently turned me off was the lack of filters, combined with a disturbing level of mass ignorance.
i was hooked up to a number of "libertarian" type political movements, most leaning towards the socialist brand of libertarianism (anarchism). occupy, idle no more, groups against tar sands development and other protest groups with similar purposes that organized large protests and generated substantial interest.
i'd guess that roughly 75% of the articles that i'd read that had gone "viral" within that political spectrum were absolute nonsense. the stuff on gmos was particularly illiterate. and, it would just get shared by dumb hippie after dumb hippie after dumb hippie. it's the perfect example of how lies can become truth if they're repeated often enough - which in this case means if they're shared over enough feeds.
i reacted, of course. you send out crap in your feed, i'm going to correct you. but, what it lead to was a lot of interpersonal tension, accusations that i wasn't on "their side" and just general close-mindedness to criticism. the meme was authoritarian truth; how dare i challenge it with my puny citations!
what i learned was that social media isn't a replacement for anything - it's merely an evolution of the mob mentality. it reminded me of how important good journalism really is, and why it can't be tossed aside as a relic of the past.
i think that free-thinking people ought to be very cautious of how social media might shape social movements in the future, mostly for the worst. it really pushes a conformist mob mentality, with little interest in fact checking.
i think we can probably blame the anti-vaccine campaign on social media.
i fear it's just the beginning.
it was late 2013 that i just got fed up and unplugged.
so, i wasn't paying attention to facebook over the election. i haven't had a feed to check in around three years.
feb 25, 2015
this somewhat ironically explains why i discarded social media and went back to traditional media.
the cat pictures were admittedly bad. the memes were worse. but what really permanently turned me off was the lack of filters, combined with a disturbing level of mass ignorance.
i was hooked up to a number of "libertarian" type political movements, most leaning towards the socialist brand of libertarianism (anarchism). occupy, idle no more, groups against tar sands development and other protest groups with similar purposes that organized large protests and generated substantial interest.
i'd guess that roughly 75% of the articles that i'd read that had gone "viral" within that political spectrum were absolute nonsense. the stuff on gmos was particularly illiterate. and, it would just get shared by dumb hippie after dumb hippie after dumb hippie. it's the perfect example of how lies can become truth if they're repeated often enough - which in this case means if they're shared over enough feeds.
i reacted, of course. you send out crap in your feed, i'm going to correct you. but, what it lead to was a lot of interpersonal tension, accusations that i wasn't on "their side" and just general close-mindedness to criticism. the meme was authoritarian truth; how dare i challenge it with my puny citations!
what i learned was that social media isn't a replacement for anything - it's merely an evolution of the mob mentality. it reminded me of how important good journalism really is, and why it can't be tossed aside as a relic of the past.
i think that free-thinking people ought to be very cautious of how social media might shape social movements in the future, mostly for the worst. it really pushes a conformist mob mentality, with little interest in fact checking.
i think we can probably blame the anti-vaccine campaign on social media.
i fear it's just the beginning.
j reacts to the possibility of toll booths in canada
you might expect me to be opposed to toll booths, and i am. but not really.
"isn't that why we pay taxes?"
well, maybe that's what you'd like your tax money to be spent on. but you're being a little presumptuous. not everybody that uses the roads pays taxes, and not everybody that pays taxes uses the roads.
reality check: while i'm not currently paying taxes (i get way more back in rebates than i pay), i have paid taxes in the past. i don't even have a driver's license. and, i think this is becoming a lot more common with younger people, especially younger people in the cities.
if i were to stand up and say "i pay taxes. shouldn't i get on the bus and the subway and the light rail for free? i mean, that's why i pay taxes, isn't it?", i'd likely get eye rolls. but, it is fundamentally the same argument. i use public transportation and am expected to pay for it. i'm also expected to subsidize highways that i don't use. where's the reciprocity in this?
i think a just solution can happen in one of two ways:
1) we neither have toll booths on highways nor do we have toll booths on subways or buses or light rail.
2) we have toll booths on highways, just like we have toll booths on subways and buses and light rail.
i prefer the first option. but, my opposition to the second is not going to be so high - not so long as i have to pay to get on the bus.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/road-tolls-will-they-actually-reduce-congestion/article32974843/
if, in the end, we end up using toll booth revenue to fund public transit? that's some wealth redistribution in the right direction...
"isn't that why we pay taxes?"
well, maybe that's what you'd like your tax money to be spent on. but you're being a little presumptuous. not everybody that uses the roads pays taxes, and not everybody that pays taxes uses the roads.
reality check: while i'm not currently paying taxes (i get way more back in rebates than i pay), i have paid taxes in the past. i don't even have a driver's license. and, i think this is becoming a lot more common with younger people, especially younger people in the cities.
if i were to stand up and say "i pay taxes. shouldn't i get on the bus and the subway and the light rail for free? i mean, that's why i pay taxes, isn't it?", i'd likely get eye rolls. but, it is fundamentally the same argument. i use public transportation and am expected to pay for it. i'm also expected to subsidize highways that i don't use. where's the reciprocity in this?
i think a just solution can happen in one of two ways:
1) we neither have toll booths on highways nor do we have toll booths on subways or buses or light rail.
2) we have toll booths on highways, just like we have toll booths on subways and buses and light rail.
i prefer the first option. but, my opposition to the second is not going to be so high - not so long as i have to pay to get on the bus.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/road-tolls-will-they-actually-reduce-congestion/article32974843/
if, in the end, we end up using toll booth revenue to fund public transit? that's some wealth redistribution in the right direction...
j reacts to the reports of the demise of nafta being greatly exaggerated (from canada)
i think that what trudeau is trying to say, here, is that he doesn't expect that trump will actually ask to renegotiate nafta, so he's not going to comment on a theoretical that he doesn't expect to actually happen. it's a pretty standard public relations tactic when faced with a lack of clarity in events happening around you.
it's consistent with what he said earlier, too: that he'd love to sit down with the president and talk about renegotiating nafta. sure. pull up a seat, don. because the liberal party always loved nafta, right? it wasn't something that mulroney fucked up hard and that chretien had no realistic means of escape from and had to eat whether he liked it or not. what trudeau was doing was calling his bluff.
sure. let's renegotiate nafta! there's this list of stuff, here, that we've been waiting for 25 years to squirm out of...
trudeau is not going to get along with trump. and, it may be the best thing he can hope for, too: because nothing unites canadians behind the liberal party like an asshole republican in the white house.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3072173/justin-trudeau-canada-will-only-respond-to-concrete-proposals-from-donald-trump/
to be clear: i'd love to renegotiate nafta, and i couldn't ask for a more clueless idiot than trump to renegotiate it with. how's that for playing a hand?
free trade with the united states - reciprocity - has always been in the canadian interest. the liberals have always supported it. but, the agreement was negotiated and signed by the worst prime minister that the country has ever had. he sold the country off. he threw away our sovereignty. he caved on everything imaginable. so, of course the liberals opposed it - and they were right to oppose it.
but, then they win the election in 1993 and they can't escape it. if they sign it, we're fucked. but clinton knows he can't get a renegotiation through congress, and he's not interested in opening it up. so, if they don't sign it, we're even more fucked because we're poking the eyes of our biggest export market. it's a brutal cost-benefit analysis. but, they were right to sign it, even after they were right to oppose it.
so, they signed a deal they opposed because they didn't have a choice. and, they've been waiting for the opportunity to renegotiate ever since.
so, yeah - let's sit down and talk. you've twisted our arm.
if the liberals had the opportunity in 1993, they would have scrapped nafta and started from scratch. that wasn't an option, then. we got sucked into an agreement that was primarily between the us and mexico. the fta was bad, but it was better because it was actually about us. so, i would strongly support this, still, today. remember: if we trash nafta, the fta still exists. that would be a good start. but don't count on it....
"NAFTA was built upon CUSFTA. The text of CUSFTA was used during negotiations with Mexico and there were some new provisions. For example, trading automobiles had to be adjusted because Mexico’s investment rules were also somehow adjusted and one of the big changes connected with NAFTA and Canada-US free trade agreement is the Investment Chapter. NAFTA has also chapter 11 which deals with dispute settlement connected with the protection of investment. The CUSFTA did not have this chapter. There was no particular investment dispute settlement, there was only some general dispute settlement between government, but in the case of NAFTA, US Government was very concern of protection of US Investments. Mexican court system was adequate for the US and Canadian investments so the part be of Chapter 11 was added and NAFTA became the first RTA which contains an investment arbitration."
so, if trump were to come in and trash nafta, reverting back to the fta, i'd be about 95% of the way there, in terms of supporting a free trade agreement with the united states, specifically.
chances of that happening? i'd say close to zero.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/introduction-north-american-free-trade-agreement-isds-khachatryan
it's consistent with what he said earlier, too: that he'd love to sit down with the president and talk about renegotiating nafta. sure. pull up a seat, don. because the liberal party always loved nafta, right? it wasn't something that mulroney fucked up hard and that chretien had no realistic means of escape from and had to eat whether he liked it or not. what trudeau was doing was calling his bluff.
sure. let's renegotiate nafta! there's this list of stuff, here, that we've been waiting for 25 years to squirm out of...
trudeau is not going to get along with trump. and, it may be the best thing he can hope for, too: because nothing unites canadians behind the liberal party like an asshole republican in the white house.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3072173/justin-trudeau-canada-will-only-respond-to-concrete-proposals-from-donald-trump/
to be clear: i'd love to renegotiate nafta, and i couldn't ask for a more clueless idiot than trump to renegotiate it with. how's that for playing a hand?
free trade with the united states - reciprocity - has always been in the canadian interest. the liberals have always supported it. but, the agreement was negotiated and signed by the worst prime minister that the country has ever had. he sold the country off. he threw away our sovereignty. he caved on everything imaginable. so, of course the liberals opposed it - and they were right to oppose it.
but, then they win the election in 1993 and they can't escape it. if they sign it, we're fucked. but clinton knows he can't get a renegotiation through congress, and he's not interested in opening it up. so, if they don't sign it, we're even more fucked because we're poking the eyes of our biggest export market. it's a brutal cost-benefit analysis. but, they were right to sign it, even after they were right to oppose it.
so, they signed a deal they opposed because they didn't have a choice. and, they've been waiting for the opportunity to renegotiate ever since.
so, yeah - let's sit down and talk. you've twisted our arm.
if the liberals had the opportunity in 1993, they would have scrapped nafta and started from scratch. that wasn't an option, then. we got sucked into an agreement that was primarily between the us and mexico. the fta was bad, but it was better because it was actually about us. so, i would strongly support this, still, today. remember: if we trash nafta, the fta still exists. that would be a good start. but don't count on it....
"NAFTA was built upon CUSFTA. The text of CUSFTA was used during negotiations with Mexico and there were some new provisions. For example, trading automobiles had to be adjusted because Mexico’s investment rules were also somehow adjusted and one of the big changes connected with NAFTA and Canada-US free trade agreement is the Investment Chapter. NAFTA has also chapter 11 which deals with dispute settlement connected with the protection of investment. The CUSFTA did not have this chapter. There was no particular investment dispute settlement, there was only some general dispute settlement between government, but in the case of NAFTA, US Government was very concern of protection of US Investments. Mexican court system was adequate for the US and Canadian investments so the part be of Chapter 11 was added and NAFTA became the first RTA which contains an investment arbitration."
so, if trump were to come in and trash nafta, reverting back to the fta, i'd be about 95% of the way there, in terms of supporting a free trade agreement with the united states, specifically.
chances of that happening? i'd say close to zero.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/introduction-north-american-free-trade-agreement-isds-khachatryan
j reacts to the death of fidel castro
ah, fidel. things could have been so much different. but it was largely not your fault, and history will acknowledge that. the modern mithridates. may you rest in the peace you never had.
j reacts to the recounts in wisconsin & pennsylvania (and michigan)
i don't expect that the recounts in wisconsin or michigan will change the tallies much. you'll note that i never argued that the elections were being rigged by a foreign power, or that the voting machines were suspect or that data was being altered (with the possible exception of early voters calling in to change their votes, which i think should be investigated). what i argued was that the polls were obviously being manipulated to exaggerate white voter turnout and minimize turnout from non-white voters, and this indicated that there was an understanding in the background (and the sources suggested deep state intelligence collusion) that voter suppression tactics were going to swing the outcome of the election. the media used terms like "likely voters" as code words and jargon; what they meant was that they expected that the minority vote was going to be suppressed.
i didn't argue that the tactics weren't used in north carolina or florida or arizona, either. what i argued is that the margins in these states make the manipulation less obvious, and that it would consequently be a lot harder to prove. resources should be focused on the places where the fraud is most obvious, and that would be in wisconsin & pennsylvania & michigan.
(put another way, the polls predicted that the results in north carolina & arizona & florida were going to be close enough that a systemic bias could be explained solely in the margin of error. basically, they could cheat in these states and get away with it because polling is not perfect. that was not true in pennsylvania or wisconsin or michigan, where clinton was ahead by margins that exceeded any reasonable error. you have to rely on not just a systemic bias but also on an unreasonably large shy trump voter effect in these states that was consistent through all polling and even the exit polling. either people were lying to the polling firms consistently for months and the data reflected it or they weren't and votes were destroyed.)
i initially just thought they were using bad modelling. it took me time to realize that what should have been bad modelling was actually at the least predictive due to the understanding that the election was going to be stolen through voter intimidation and discarded ballots. they were modelling voter suppression, and that voter suppression that they modelled actually happened.
what that means is that the paper trail is probably in provisional ballots if it exists, but that there's no guarantee that it's there at all. a proper accounting would no doubt yield a correct result, but it would take a long time and probably break privacy laws. and, those ballots may have very well just been discarded.
i don't expect that there's going to be any way to prove that it was stolen, other than to point at the polling discrepancies and argue that this is fishy (and to point out that the media seems to have seen it coming). this was an inside job and these guys are pros. they know what they're doing. they didn't leave a smoking gun at the polling booth.
it's not that trump's vote totals are higher. they're not. he underperformed romney.
it's that millions and millions of votes for clinton seem to have just disappeared. and, if they disappeared then they disappeared. you're not going to find them hiding somewhere in a school gym in scranton.
i don't think this was trump's cronies showing up with baseball bats and giving people offers they can't refuse. i think this was highly co-ordinated. and i think they cleaned up - i think they destroyed the evidence.
if you're lucky, you might be able to find data that indicates that ballots were destroyed and that might be useful in passing reforms. but, i say that like it's some kind of accident, right?
-
yes, i'm saying that the united states is in truth a military dictatorship with a fraudulent veneer of fake elections designed to trick people into thinking they live in a democracy in order to prevent a real revolution. i've been saying that for years.
look at american foreign policy. it destroys democracy everywhere it finds it. but, you think it wants it at home?
-
but, i want to be clear: what makes this election different is not that it was stolen. the 2000 election was stolen. the 1980 election was stolen. the 1968 election was stolen. and the 1960 election was stolen, too. what makes this election different is that they stole states that were obviously not even in play. the difference is how brazen they were, and how much contempt they showed for voters in the process.
i didn't argue that the tactics weren't used in north carolina or florida or arizona, either. what i argued is that the margins in these states make the manipulation less obvious, and that it would consequently be a lot harder to prove. resources should be focused on the places where the fraud is most obvious, and that would be in wisconsin & pennsylvania & michigan.
(put another way, the polls predicted that the results in north carolina & arizona & florida were going to be close enough that a systemic bias could be explained solely in the margin of error. basically, they could cheat in these states and get away with it because polling is not perfect. that was not true in pennsylvania or wisconsin or michigan, where clinton was ahead by margins that exceeded any reasonable error. you have to rely on not just a systemic bias but also on an unreasonably large shy trump voter effect in these states that was consistent through all polling and even the exit polling. either people were lying to the polling firms consistently for months and the data reflected it or they weren't and votes were destroyed.)
i initially just thought they were using bad modelling. it took me time to realize that what should have been bad modelling was actually at the least predictive due to the understanding that the election was going to be stolen through voter intimidation and discarded ballots. they were modelling voter suppression, and that voter suppression that they modelled actually happened.
what that means is that the paper trail is probably in provisional ballots if it exists, but that there's no guarantee that it's there at all. a proper accounting would no doubt yield a correct result, but it would take a long time and probably break privacy laws. and, those ballots may have very well just been discarded.
i don't expect that there's going to be any way to prove that it was stolen, other than to point at the polling discrepancies and argue that this is fishy (and to point out that the media seems to have seen it coming). this was an inside job and these guys are pros. they know what they're doing. they didn't leave a smoking gun at the polling booth.
it's not that trump's vote totals are higher. they're not. he underperformed romney.
it's that millions and millions of votes for clinton seem to have just disappeared. and, if they disappeared then they disappeared. you're not going to find them hiding somewhere in a school gym in scranton.
i don't think this was trump's cronies showing up with baseball bats and giving people offers they can't refuse. i think this was highly co-ordinated. and i think they cleaned up - i think they destroyed the evidence.
if you're lucky, you might be able to find data that indicates that ballots were destroyed and that might be useful in passing reforms. but, i say that like it's some kind of accident, right?
-
yes, i'm saying that the united states is in truth a military dictatorship with a fraudulent veneer of fake elections designed to trick people into thinking they live in a democracy in order to prevent a real revolution. i've been saying that for years.
look at american foreign policy. it destroys democracy everywhere it finds it. but, you think it wants it at home?
-
but, i want to be clear: what makes this election different is not that it was stolen. the 2000 election was stolen. the 1980 election was stolen. the 1968 election was stolen. and the 1960 election was stolen, too. what makes this election different is that they stole states that were obviously not even in play. the difference is how brazen they were, and how much contempt they showed for voters in the process.
Friday, November 25, 2016
see, actually, the thing is that most of the time a gender transition isn't shocking to the people around the transitioner. and, that's kind of the point. in situations where it is a surprise, it should maybe be questioned extra rigorously.
my sister's response, verbatim: "obviously. what took you so long?". not only was there not an expression of shock, but there was actually an expectation that it was coming.
my dad was initially confused, but he admitted afterwards that he just didn't know a thing about it and that he would have probably seen it coming if he did. he did admit to being aware that i was queer in some way.....but he didn't want to make assumptions, either. he had some expectation, but he didn't really know how to frame it.
i had guy friends admit that they basically always saw me as a female friend. it was stuff like "well, you were basically always a chick and we did realize it, we just never really thought about whether you were going to like actually be a chick. you were just being j." . this idea that "j is different because j is j and j is different" was cemented across a network of people, and just not questioned. again: the concept was blurry, but the realization was apparent. and, it wasn't a shock so much as it was an explanation.
that's the point, right. one does not become somebody that never existed on the other side of it, like it's a metamorphosis. rather, one aligns with what they always were in the first place.
my sister's response, verbatim: "obviously. what took you so long?". not only was there not an expression of shock, but there was actually an expectation that it was coming.
my dad was initially confused, but he admitted afterwards that he just didn't know a thing about it and that he would have probably seen it coming if he did. he did admit to being aware that i was queer in some way.....but he didn't want to make assumptions, either. he had some expectation, but he didn't really know how to frame it.
i had guy friends admit that they basically always saw me as a female friend. it was stuff like "well, you were basically always a chick and we did realize it, we just never really thought about whether you were going to like actually be a chick. you were just being j." . this idea that "j is different because j is j and j is different" was cemented across a network of people, and just not questioned. again: the concept was blurry, but the realization was apparent. and, it wasn't a shock so much as it was an explanation.
that's the point, right. one does not become somebody that never existed on the other side of it, like it's a metamorphosis. rather, one aligns with what they always were in the first place.
whenever i hear somebody call somebody a "cuck", i think of al bundy going after marcy. and, isn't that show strangely prophetic? isn't the alt-right really just no ma'am?
don't al and trump actually even look kind of similar, really?
today's moment of surreal truth: america just basically elected al bundy president.
this was basically the debates.
see, she would have beat him if she used this tactic instead of the one she used.
reverend al will make america great again!
don't al and trump actually even look kind of similar, really?
today's moment of surreal truth: america just basically elected al bundy president.
this was basically the debates.
see, she would have beat him if she used this tactic instead of the one she used.
reverend al will make america great again!
i was with you up until the very end. there is a reason - this is a backdoor to slavery, like the jim crow laws were before them. that is the correct, longterm historical view of the drug war: the drug war is the current way that we capture blacks and convert them back into slaves.
the drug war needs to end and everything. but, the actual issue here is related to the 13th amendment. and, until the country is able to pass a real abolition amendment that abolishes all slavery, you will continue to see these kinds of laws assert themselves.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
that's why jim crow laws were possible. it's why the drug war exists. and, you're a fool to think it was an accident of language.
that amendment needs to be amended, or the horrors will continue.
it's an easy fix, in principle: .
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
i've never even heard anybody else even suggest it.
i suppose that such is the power of the myth of lincoln.
the drug war needs to end and everything. but, the actual issue here is related to the 13th amendment. and, until the country is able to pass a real abolition amendment that abolishes all slavery, you will continue to see these kinds of laws assert themselves.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
that's why jim crow laws were possible. it's why the drug war exists. and, you're a fool to think it was an accident of language.
that amendment needs to be amended, or the horrors will continue.
it's an easy fix, in principle: .
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
i've never even heard anybody else even suggest it.
i suppose that such is the power of the myth of lincoln.
this is a subtle psychological tactic - deep state propaganda. cnn is an arm of the intelligence establishment. what you're supposed to do is empathize with her, take the black trump supporter's side and conclude that the guy that was calling out trump's racism is the actual racist.
because you're supposed to be a mindless automaton with no critical thinking skills.
this is how fascism works.
fascism is only partly about corporate dominance over the state. what fascism is really about is media. what fascism is really about is control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfhMDt92F8Q
if you understand your history properly, you should understand that the accusation that the media is run by jews is always a deflection tactic, and always perpetuated by those with real media control. the purpose is to ensure that those that can at least see through the immediate charade and can intuit the existence of a background organizing force are not allowed to become aware of it's true nature.
"you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
the media is controlled by the people that tell you that the media is controlled by the jews.
the conspiracy is the conspiracy theory, itself.
-
nazism and white supremacism and racism and chauvinism are not errant viruses, or subversive thought patterns. they are tools of control by the state. and, they are very carefully fostered by the state through intelligence contacts.
the person at the protest that is most likely to be a cop is the one that self-identifies as a nazi.
-
so, when you see the media claiming that trump is nailing the media, that's the trick: you need to be distracted from the truth that the media has been pushing trump as it's preferred candidate the whole time.
the lie: the jews are giving trump bad media.
the truth: the media is controlled by the military-industrial-intelligence complex deep state and has been pushing trump from the start.
i should be listening. i'm just wasting my time.
because you're supposed to be a mindless automaton with no critical thinking skills.
this is how fascism works.
fascism is only partly about corporate dominance over the state. what fascism is really about is media. what fascism is really about is control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfhMDt92F8Q
if you understand your history properly, you should understand that the accusation that the media is run by jews is always a deflection tactic, and always perpetuated by those with real media control. the purpose is to ensure that those that can at least see through the immediate charade and can intuit the existence of a background organizing force are not allowed to become aware of it's true nature.
"you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
the media is controlled by the people that tell you that the media is controlled by the jews.
the conspiracy is the conspiracy theory, itself.
-
nazism and white supremacism and racism and chauvinism are not errant viruses, or subversive thought patterns. they are tools of control by the state. and, they are very carefully fostered by the state through intelligence contacts.
the person at the protest that is most likely to be a cop is the one that self-identifies as a nazi.
-
so, when you see the media claiming that trump is nailing the media, that's the trick: you need to be distracted from the truth that the media has been pushing trump as it's preferred candidate the whole time.
the lie: the jews are giving trump bad media.
the truth: the media is controlled by the military-industrial-intelligence complex deep state and has been pushing trump from the start.
i should be listening. i'm just wasting my time.
j reacts tactically to the need to save data & research from trump
i don't think you can reverse science. you can forget it. you can put it on hold. you can't destroy it. some other power will fill the vacuum.
but, you need to get sneaky with trump. he's the ceo, now. he's the boss. and government is just like a business.
so, wouldn't it be more profitable to sell the technology to europe or china than shut it down? and, that's fine. they can have their decline if that's what they really want. let's just try to salvage what we can.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
i bet the donald would go for this. it's a great deal. he can sell the weather monitors to china and use the money to pay down the debt. everybody wins, right?
he likes to make deals. he's great at making deals. he makes the best deals. nobody makes better deals than him.
so, let's all take advantage of the situation and make some wonderful deals.
just remember: paying the debt is the most important thing. so, there's probably all kinds of things for sale, if you inquire.
and, if you have an ear somewhere, let's get him nudging in that direction, k? why shut it down when you can make a deal for a profit?
america is going to have a wonderful, beautiful decline. it will be such a great decline, you won't even believe it. believe me. you should really be looking forward for this decline.
but, you need to get sneaky with trump. he's the ceo, now. he's the boss. and government is just like a business.
so, wouldn't it be more profitable to sell the technology to europe or china than shut it down? and, that's fine. they can have their decline if that's what they really want. let's just try to salvage what we can.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
i bet the donald would go for this. it's a great deal. he can sell the weather monitors to china and use the money to pay down the debt. everybody wins, right?
he likes to make deals. he's great at making deals. he makes the best deals. nobody makes better deals than him.
so, let's all take advantage of the situation and make some wonderful deals.
just remember: paying the debt is the most important thing. so, there's probably all kinds of things for sale, if you inquire.
and, if you have an ear somewhere, let's get him nudging in that direction, k? why shut it down when you can make a deal for a profit?
america is going to have a wonderful, beautiful decline. it will be such a great decline, you won't even believe it. believe me. you should really be looking forward for this decline.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
i'm going to spend a little time listening to inri019 this afternoon, and hopefully get the cover art mostly done. it's probably going to be the extent of labour completed for the day.
i've got running around to do for tomorrow. but, inri20 and the remaining three tracks for inri021 are what is up, next.
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/it-turns-out-that-i-had-click-in-track.html
i've got running around to do for tomorrow. but, inri20 and the remaining three tracks for inri021 are what is up, next.
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/it-turns-out-that-i-had-click-in-track.html
i'd actually like to see them omnibus everything harper ever did into a giant "undo" button and then set it on fire in a public ceremony.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
due to our universal health care system, obtaining voter id in canada is not the same kind of problem that is for some low income people in the united states. but, anything that makes it easier to vote is a step forwards and should be applauded.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
meh.
if you walk into an intersection chasing a pokemon, you shouldn't get a fine - unless it's a standard negligence tort. you should get a darwin award.
"distracted walking" is kind of like "drunk in public". it happens. it's part of living in a free society.
but, dui is inexcusable. so, likewise, go after the people texting and driving.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/majority-of-canadians-support-legislation-to-ban-distracted-walking-poll-suggests-1.3822086
if you walk into an intersection chasing a pokemon, you shouldn't get a fine - unless it's a standard negligence tort. you should get a darwin award.
"distracted walking" is kind of like "drunk in public". it happens. it's part of living in a free society.
but, dui is inexcusable. so, likewise, go after the people texting and driving.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/majority-of-canadians-support-legislation-to-ban-distracted-walking-poll-suggests-1.3822086
it was an inside job, though.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3083800/hillary-clinton-urged-to-demand-vote-recounts-over-claims-polls-were-rigged/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
if you were paying close enough attention, you saw this coming from a good ways away. the fbi leak. wikileaks. kellyanne conway was on tv 24/7. it was rigged, alright - but not by russia. this was an inside job. cia, and the whole network subterranean to it. and, clinton is being ordered to stand down.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3083800/hillary-clinton-urged-to-demand-vote-recounts-over-claims-polls-were-rigged/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
if you were paying close enough attention, you saw this coming from a good ways away. the fbi leak. wikileaks. kellyanne conway was on tv 24/7. it was rigged, alright - but not by russia. this was an inside job. cia, and the whole network subterranean to it. and, clinton is being ordered to stand down.
your brother is trying to pressure me into signing a document with false information on it
i don't know what he's up to.
but, it obviously doesn't matter if i sign it if it has false information on it. false information is false information. signing it doesn't make it true. and, a court isn't going to uphold it if it's false.
as we both know, and as can be easily demonstrated, i signed an all-inclusive lease in the summer of 2013. i did not sign a utility-dependent lease in 2010.
(pause)
seems like a misunderstanding. nevermind.
although i should also point out that he threatened to initial for me if i didn't sign it.
it was explained to me incorrectly the first time and i didn't sign it because it said six years instead of three. when i read the full thing, i was not opposed to it; she told me it said i paid my utilities, but when i read it it said that the utilities were included. so, i initialled it.
but, he should be aware that signing for a tenant is not only legally invalid but can get him in a lot of trouble.
i would highly suggest you call him.
j
but, it obviously doesn't matter if i sign it if it has false information on it. false information is false information. signing it doesn't make it true. and, a court isn't going to uphold it if it's false.
as we both know, and as can be easily demonstrated, i signed an all-inclusive lease in the summer of 2013. i did not sign a utility-dependent lease in 2010.
(pause)
seems like a misunderstanding. nevermind.
although i should also point out that he threatened to initial for me if i didn't sign it.
it was explained to me incorrectly the first time and i didn't sign it because it said six years instead of three. when i read the full thing, i was not opposed to it; she told me it said i paid my utilities, but when i read it it said that the utilities were included. so, i initialled it.
but, he should be aware that signing for a tenant is not only legally invalid but can get him in a lot of trouble.
i would highly suggest you call him.
j
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
tues at 4:30pm
sister
santa
http://www.cpr.ca/holiday-train/schedule-canada
jessica
i'm sorry, but i don't understand this email.
sister
you live in windsor? the train is coming through on tues at 4:30.
jessica
ok. but, like...so...?
sister
lol, are you so bah humbug? thought it might be fun to see so sent it to you.
nothing deep or profound to understand otherwise.
jessica
are you going to be on the train, or are you just informing me of the existence of said train?
(pause)
ok. so the train exists. thank you for the information.
i haven't celebrated christmas in something like 20 years. and even then it wasn't really a thing.
sister
would you like us to visit?
jessica
frankly, not really.
listen: you asked that question.
(pause)
i'm finishing a major discography update that's taken me far too long.
i completed two synth-pop records in the late 90s. unfortunately, they had awful vocals that make listening to them difficult. i've spent the last two years stripping the vocals out of them and reconstructing them as best as i can. that, and fighting with environmental noise.
first (1998/2016 - inri015):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
second(1999/2016 - inri021):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
there's an elaborate sequence of singles to accompany these releases.
santa
http://www.cpr.ca/holiday-train/schedule-canada
jessica
i'm sorry, but i don't understand this email.
sister
you live in windsor? the train is coming through on tues at 4:30.
jessica
ok. but, like...so...?
sister
lol, are you so bah humbug? thought it might be fun to see so sent it to you.
nothing deep or profound to understand otherwise.
jessica
are you going to be on the train, or are you just informing me of the existence of said train?
(pause)
ok. so the train exists. thank you for the information.
i haven't celebrated christmas in something like 20 years. and even then it wasn't really a thing.
sister
would you like us to visit?
jessica
frankly, not really.
listen: you asked that question.
(pause)
i'm finishing a major discography update that's taken me far too long.
i completed two synth-pop records in the late 90s. unfortunately, they had awful vocals that make listening to them difficult. i've spent the last two years stripping the vocals out of them and reconstructing them as best as i can. that, and fighting with environmental noise.
first (1998/2016 - inri015):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
second(1999/2016 - inri021):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
there's an elaborate sequence of singles to accompany these releases.
j reacts to the supreme congressional authority on trade deals (not trump's choice...)
you need to understand that the president doesn't decide whether a trade deal goes through or not. this is a congressional responsibility. and, they can override him. and, he can't veto it.
as mentioned: he may be setting up a make believe fight, where he feigns opposition, only to be defeated by a supermajority - or decides in the end not to fight it. that's how clinton did his make believe fight against the repeal of glass-steagall. they had a supermajority; he couldn't have stopped it. so, he didn't bother fighting it. and, now everybody blames him for it...
i still think he's going to come around to it.
but, you have to understand that it doesn't mean anything for the president to declare he's going to pull out of the tpp on day one - and that itself should be instructive that this is a pr stunt. he can't do that. he's not the dictator, yet.
likewise, when he says he's not going to pursue charges against clinton, that is completely meaningless because he couldn't have pursued charges against clinton, anyways. there's an independent judicial system in the united states.
almost everything he said was nonsense. just about the only thing he said that isn't nonsense is that he wants to start a war with china. and, that's what the tpp is about.
-
it is not donald trump that will determine the fate of the tpp. a senate supermajority is already all but certain. the major player is actually paul ryan.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/paul-ryan-standing-ovation-koch-donors-retreat/
it's not unheard of for the president to disagree with congress on international agreements, either. clinton couldn't get kyoto through congress. or the rome statute, either. there may be a broader precedent to look for there, in understanding what trump's relationship with his congress is going to be like.
somebody else that had huge problems with his congress on international agreements was woodrow wilson.
but, like i say: i expect him to come around on this.
as mentioned: he may be setting up a make believe fight, where he feigns opposition, only to be defeated by a supermajority - or decides in the end not to fight it. that's how clinton did his make believe fight against the repeal of glass-steagall. they had a supermajority; he couldn't have stopped it. so, he didn't bother fighting it. and, now everybody blames him for it...
i still think he's going to come around to it.
but, you have to understand that it doesn't mean anything for the president to declare he's going to pull out of the tpp on day one - and that itself should be instructive that this is a pr stunt. he can't do that. he's not the dictator, yet.
likewise, when he says he's not going to pursue charges against clinton, that is completely meaningless because he couldn't have pursued charges against clinton, anyways. there's an independent judicial system in the united states.
almost everything he said was nonsense. just about the only thing he said that isn't nonsense is that he wants to start a war with china. and, that's what the tpp is about.
-
it is not donald trump that will determine the fate of the tpp. a senate supermajority is already all but certain. the major player is actually paul ryan.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/paul-ryan-standing-ovation-koch-donors-retreat/
it's not unheard of for the president to disagree with congress on international agreements, either. clinton couldn't get kyoto through congress. or the rome statute, either. there may be a broader precedent to look for there, in understanding what trump's relationship with his congress is going to be like.
somebody else that had huge problems with his congress on international agreements was woodrow wilson.
but, like i say: i expect him to come around on this.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
j reacts to trump's obvious eventual support for the tpp as a metric for his sanity
i actually still don't think that trump is going to pull out of the tpp. he may be setting up some kind of optical charade with congress...
...but what i actually think is that he fundamentally does not understand what the tpp actually is. i think he probably thinks that it's a trade deal with china. when his advisers sit him down and explain that it's a containment strategy of china - that is, that it is completely consistent with the anti-chinese strain in his foreign policy - i believe he'll prove obama right and come around to it.
i just can't comprehend how they're going to let him abandon east asia to china after seventy years. and, that's the truth of it: pulling out of the tpp is handing over the entire region to china. including japan and australia.
so, i remain convinced that he's still totally clueless - and, that the situation may be severe enough that his life may depend on cluing in.
if they're going to do it, they'll do it fast.
i mean, the guy campaigns on getting tough on china and then hands over trillions of dollars of gdp to them on day one?
you need to believe him on getting tougher on china. it just needs to be explained to him that the tpp is all about getting tougher on china...
-
see, this is what's driving him.
"The TPP is a horrible deal, a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door, and totally take advantage of everyone." - donald trump
he believes that. somehow. still.
the truth is the exact opposite: it's a containment policy. which is exactly what he wants.
somebody will eventually set him straight. it will get signed.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/10/donald_trump_says_tpp_is_a_nefarious_plot_by_china.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top
i mean, don't get me wrong. i'm no fan of the agreement. i'd like to see it stopped. but, you don't hear trump talking about the isds mechanisms, and you don't see him talking about labour or environmental standards. he honestly thinks it's a trade deal with china. he just truly doesn't understand it. he's going to have to eventually understand it. and, when he does, he'll realize he supports it.
we've reached a level of total absurdity here, by the way. this is beyond the pale.
but, peeling away all the layers of obstruction and ignorance leaves us with a simple truth: donald trump wants less trade with china and more conflict with them. signing the tpp is the rational way to get less trade and more conflict with china. therefore, donald trump will sign the tpp. qed.
-
this is exactly what trump has been broadcasting.
if he doesn't bend on this, he'll prove that he's being driven entirely by ego: that he cannot accept the premise that he might be mistaken and is willing to do any and every absurd thing imaginable to avoid admitting error.
one of his core messages was getting tough on china. and, that's a message that no doubt resonated with the establishment that put him in power.
he will either understand the agreement and sign it, or he will refuse to understand the agreement and tear it up out of spite. and, while i oppose the agreement, i think that such a reaction of narcissism over reason will send a message that should be taken with the utmost seriousness - that would be a broadcast to the world that he is unreachable.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/
...but what i actually think is that he fundamentally does not understand what the tpp actually is. i think he probably thinks that it's a trade deal with china. when his advisers sit him down and explain that it's a containment strategy of china - that is, that it is completely consistent with the anti-chinese strain in his foreign policy - i believe he'll prove obama right and come around to it.
i just can't comprehend how they're going to let him abandon east asia to china after seventy years. and, that's the truth of it: pulling out of the tpp is handing over the entire region to china. including japan and australia.
so, i remain convinced that he's still totally clueless - and, that the situation may be severe enough that his life may depend on cluing in.
if they're going to do it, they'll do it fast.
i mean, the guy campaigns on getting tough on china and then hands over trillions of dollars of gdp to them on day one?
you need to believe him on getting tougher on china. it just needs to be explained to him that the tpp is all about getting tougher on china...
-
see, this is what's driving him.
"The TPP is a horrible deal, a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door, and totally take advantage of everyone." - donald trump
he believes that. somehow. still.
the truth is the exact opposite: it's a containment policy. which is exactly what he wants.
somebody will eventually set him straight. it will get signed.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/10/donald_trump_says_tpp_is_a_nefarious_plot_by_china.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top
i mean, don't get me wrong. i'm no fan of the agreement. i'd like to see it stopped. but, you don't hear trump talking about the isds mechanisms, and you don't see him talking about labour or environmental standards. he honestly thinks it's a trade deal with china. he just truly doesn't understand it. he's going to have to eventually understand it. and, when he does, he'll realize he supports it.
we've reached a level of total absurdity here, by the way. this is beyond the pale.
but, peeling away all the layers of obstruction and ignorance leaves us with a simple truth: donald trump wants less trade with china and more conflict with them. signing the tpp is the rational way to get less trade and more conflict with china. therefore, donald trump will sign the tpp. qed.
-
this is exactly what trump has been broadcasting.
if he doesn't bend on this, he'll prove that he's being driven entirely by ego: that he cannot accept the premise that he might be mistaken and is willing to do any and every absurd thing imaginable to avoid admitting error.
one of his core messages was getting tough on china. and, that's a message that no doubt resonated with the establishment that put him in power.
he will either understand the agreement and sign it, or he will refuse to understand the agreement and tear it up out of spite. and, while i oppose the agreement, i think that such a reaction of narcissism over reason will send a message that should be taken with the utmost seriousness - that would be a broadcast to the world that he is unreachable.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/
Monday, November 21, 2016
j reacts to the request to suspend critical thinking around trudeau's senate reform
this is nice rhetoric and everything, but there's going to be hell to pay if they ever interfere with the democratic authority of the house - and it's simply irresponsible to them to suggest that they have any kind of meaningful mandate.
the way i see this unfolding is one of two ways. either this fizzles out, and things go back to the way they were or it doesn't and it generates a movement to abolish the senate.
i may even go so far as arguing that, if a time ever comes that the senate overrules the house, then canadians should ignore the senate's ruling and behave as though the legislation is law.
this is a potential break in the social contract. it's a potential justification for revolt.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/appointing-independent-senators-leave-the-skepticism-behind/article32658198/
i don't want a fucking guardian council.
this body is inherently illegitimate as a governing structure. and, there is no desirable way to convert it into one.
senators should be seen and not heard.
the way i see this unfolding is one of two ways. either this fizzles out, and things go back to the way they were or it doesn't and it generates a movement to abolish the senate.
i may even go so far as arguing that, if a time ever comes that the senate overrules the house, then canadians should ignore the senate's ruling and behave as though the legislation is law.
this is a potential break in the social contract. it's a potential justification for revolt.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/appointing-independent-senators-leave-the-skepticism-behind/article32658198/
i don't want a fucking guardian council.
this body is inherently illegitimate as a governing structure. and, there is no desirable way to convert it into one.
senators should be seen and not heard.
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/im-back-online-because-my-tongue-is.html
hrmmn. yeast infection, huh? i just ate, but i haven't been eating any of that lately.
you have to wonder if that's the kind of thing that can get passed around via food workers or something...?
but, it started when i woke up on sunday night. and i haven't left the house since i got the monitor last monday. like, at all. literally. so, how does that happen.....
actually, you know what? i had the window open for a good part of the weekend, and i live close enough to the walkerville brewery that i can often smell the yeast.
it's a distinct possibility.
better than a seizure.
i'd have to think my immune system can handle some candida, though. c'mon, you phagocytes. stop sleeping on the job, get to work...
some time ago, i dated a girl that was epileptic when she was a teenager. she never had any seizures when we were dating. she believed that marijuana was a cure, and smoked quite a bit as a result - but i think this was probably a rationalization for the pot habit. apparently, it's fairly normal to just "grow out of" epilepsy. that's probably what actually happened.
but, the way she described it was that her tongue would go numb. every once in a while, she'd have a scare - "my tongue is numb". and, sometimes she'd have a hard time talking for a few minutes.
that's just all i could think about when my tongue started tingling, so i sat down. well, just in case, right? but, i think it's passed now without any effects at all.
hrmmn. yeast infection, huh? i just ate, but i haven't been eating any of that lately.
you have to wonder if that's the kind of thing that can get passed around via food workers or something...?
but, it started when i woke up on sunday night. and i haven't left the house since i got the monitor last monday. like, at all. literally. so, how does that happen.....
actually, you know what? i had the window open for a good part of the weekend, and i live close enough to the walkerville brewery that i can often smell the yeast.
it's a distinct possibility.
better than a seizure.
i'd have to think my immune system can handle some candida, though. c'mon, you phagocytes. stop sleeping on the job, get to work...
some time ago, i dated a girl that was epileptic when she was a teenager. she never had any seizures when we were dating. she believed that marijuana was a cure, and smoked quite a bit as a result - but i think this was probably a rationalization for the pot habit. apparently, it's fairly normal to just "grow out of" epilepsy. that's probably what actually happened.
but, the way she described it was that her tongue would go numb. every once in a while, she'd have a scare - "my tongue is numb". and, sometimes she'd have a hard time talking for a few minutes.
that's just all i could think about when my tongue started tingling, so i sat down. well, just in case, right? but, i think it's passed now without any effects at all.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
j reacts to krugman's take on the supposed infrastructure plan
i think krugman is actually giving him too much credit.
my bet is that the infrastructure plan reduces to a tweet to ask investors to invest more in infrastructure, maybe followed by another tweet calling paul ryan some mean names for supposedly blocking it.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/infrastructure-build-or-privatization-scam/
there's actually precedence for this: whenever obama was faced with doing anything complicated, he wrote a speech explaining that congress should do it.
my bet is that the infrastructure plan reduces to a tweet to ask investors to invest more in infrastructure, maybe followed by another tweet calling paul ryan some mean names for supposedly blocking it.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/infrastructure-build-or-privatization-scam/
there's actually precedence for this: whenever obama was faced with doing anything complicated, he wrote a speech explaining that congress should do it.
j reacts to the impossibility of keynesianism in the neo-liberal era (by design)
the primary reason that i endorsed justin trudeau was also for stimulus spending, and specifically an idea he floated in his platform around a "green infrastructure bank". that's a far better idea than a carbon tax...
the economy in the country is such that we can't reasonably expect that anybody is going to shut down the oil industry on a dime, especially not after the previous government, which operated loosely like a petro-state. we spent nine years of increasing integration with the oil economy. and, that just made it harder to disengage.
so, trudeau is going to support pipelines. he has to. and, we're going to have to stop them using direct action and court orders.
but, what trudeau can do is set the ball in motion around a larger systemic change by setting up a financial industry around the green sector. and, yes you have to do it like this. i'm not an advocate of historical materialism, but the ideas floated by naomi klein and others are getting the causality backwards - you need capital investment first, and then a worker's movement. marx understood that.
and, so trudeau can play a very important facilitative role, here. given that we exist in the existing neo-liberal order, what he's floating is really a pre-requisite for a serious economic shift to renewables. that's why i endorsed him. well, that and the pot...
he's been taking some steps in this direction, and the media is trying to change the topic by pointing out that he's floating the bank as a public-private investment. you can make the argument that this is exactly the same error that his father made in shifting to more private borrowing, which some people pinpoint as the source of our debt problems in the 80s. and, you'd be right to argue this was an error - but you'd be wrong to argue this was trudeau's error. the error came out of an international agreement around the dismantlement of bretton woods. canada would have faced penalties had it ignored it. rather than point to trudeau's implementation as an error, one should look at his incomplete implementation as a partial victory. the reasons we didn't get nailed on the housing collapse ultimately stem back to trudeau pushing back, however carefully, on this international consensus, as it developed in the early 70s. and he had to be careful, too. extremely careful. he had both the brits and the americans lined up against him.
the idea that the private-public partnership is being compared against, that is a new infrastructure bank set up as a subsidiary of the bank of canada, is certainly a superior one in the eyes of this commentator. that would allow the country to arbitrarily print money for infrastructure. there is some misinformation floating around on this point that seems to ultimately stem from paul hellyer; canada never printed all of it's money debt-free. but, it certainly had a higher percentage of it printed debt-free, in the past. and, this did keep our debt down. but, while superior, this idea is also illegal under our international trade agreements. justin has little choice but to compromise, as his father did in the 70s.
we need a thought experiment, here. but, this experiment is also very real - it happened recently in ontario, and many of trudeau's closest advisers lived it first hand. let's say that trudeau sets up the green bank and uses it to subsidize local technology companies. what that does is open up the government to legal action under the wto, under nafta, under the tpp (should it come into force....) and under the ceta, too, for "anti-competitive investment practices". we would never win such a case. rather, these agreements were designed partially to prevent public investment strategies. we would have to shut the bank down and pay out exorbitant sums to the entities launching legal action. it can happen here - it already did.
the irony is that many of the people pushing the alarm on the involvement of private investment are also in support of the agreements that necessitate it. this is not nefarious, it is ignorance - which has been the problem the whole time. activists tried to warn people that these agreements would tie the hands of government, years down the road. this reality is upon us, and the media still refuses to see it.
i would rather see a subsidiary of the bank of canada, as was promised. but, i knew at the time that such a subsidiary would require leaving the wto, first. i held out hope for the latter, but expected that private money would be involved in the long run - either immediately or through eventual privatization. but if you want public funding of infrastructure, as i do, then let's get the steps in order: we'll have to get out of the wto, first. oops? no. we told you...
if we want major infrastructure projects right now, this is the only way to do it. it's not ideal. but, i support it.
the effects of the stimulus are not different, if the money is private. and, that's what we need.
debt is ultimately just an abstraction, it's not real. we can deal with that later.
infrastructure is real. and, we needed dramatic spending boosts years ago.
in the long run, if the investors become an annoyance then we can just nationalize. simple.
for right now? take their money. and put it to good use.
it's a path of least resistance. it's smart. and it's why this party works, and this country works - despite being surrounded by a world that is often irrational.
http://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2016/docs/themes/infrastructure-en.html
the economy in the country is such that we can't reasonably expect that anybody is going to shut down the oil industry on a dime, especially not after the previous government, which operated loosely like a petro-state. we spent nine years of increasing integration with the oil economy. and, that just made it harder to disengage.
so, trudeau is going to support pipelines. he has to. and, we're going to have to stop them using direct action and court orders.
but, what trudeau can do is set the ball in motion around a larger systemic change by setting up a financial industry around the green sector. and, yes you have to do it like this. i'm not an advocate of historical materialism, but the ideas floated by naomi klein and others are getting the causality backwards - you need capital investment first, and then a worker's movement. marx understood that.
and, so trudeau can play a very important facilitative role, here. given that we exist in the existing neo-liberal order, what he's floating is really a pre-requisite for a serious economic shift to renewables. that's why i endorsed him. well, that and the pot...
he's been taking some steps in this direction, and the media is trying to change the topic by pointing out that he's floating the bank as a public-private investment. you can make the argument that this is exactly the same error that his father made in shifting to more private borrowing, which some people pinpoint as the source of our debt problems in the 80s. and, you'd be right to argue this was an error - but you'd be wrong to argue this was trudeau's error. the error came out of an international agreement around the dismantlement of bretton woods. canada would have faced penalties had it ignored it. rather than point to trudeau's implementation as an error, one should look at his incomplete implementation as a partial victory. the reasons we didn't get nailed on the housing collapse ultimately stem back to trudeau pushing back, however carefully, on this international consensus, as it developed in the early 70s. and he had to be careful, too. extremely careful. he had both the brits and the americans lined up against him.
the idea that the private-public partnership is being compared against, that is a new infrastructure bank set up as a subsidiary of the bank of canada, is certainly a superior one in the eyes of this commentator. that would allow the country to arbitrarily print money for infrastructure. there is some misinformation floating around on this point that seems to ultimately stem from paul hellyer; canada never printed all of it's money debt-free. but, it certainly had a higher percentage of it printed debt-free, in the past. and, this did keep our debt down. but, while superior, this idea is also illegal under our international trade agreements. justin has little choice but to compromise, as his father did in the 70s.
we need a thought experiment, here. but, this experiment is also very real - it happened recently in ontario, and many of trudeau's closest advisers lived it first hand. let's say that trudeau sets up the green bank and uses it to subsidize local technology companies. what that does is open up the government to legal action under the wto, under nafta, under the tpp (should it come into force....) and under the ceta, too, for "anti-competitive investment practices". we would never win such a case. rather, these agreements were designed partially to prevent public investment strategies. we would have to shut the bank down and pay out exorbitant sums to the entities launching legal action. it can happen here - it already did.
the irony is that many of the people pushing the alarm on the involvement of private investment are also in support of the agreements that necessitate it. this is not nefarious, it is ignorance - which has been the problem the whole time. activists tried to warn people that these agreements would tie the hands of government, years down the road. this reality is upon us, and the media still refuses to see it.
i would rather see a subsidiary of the bank of canada, as was promised. but, i knew at the time that such a subsidiary would require leaving the wto, first. i held out hope for the latter, but expected that private money would be involved in the long run - either immediately or through eventual privatization. but if you want public funding of infrastructure, as i do, then let's get the steps in order: we'll have to get out of the wto, first. oops? no. we told you...
if we want major infrastructure projects right now, this is the only way to do it. it's not ideal. but, i support it.
the effects of the stimulus are not different, if the money is private. and, that's what we need.
debt is ultimately just an abstraction, it's not real. we can deal with that later.
infrastructure is real. and, we needed dramatic spending boosts years ago.
in the long run, if the investors become an annoyance then we can just nationalize. simple.
for right now? take their money. and put it to good use.
it's a path of least resistance. it's smart. and it's why this party works, and this country works - despite being surrounded by a world that is often irrational.
http://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2016/docs/themes/infrastructure-en.html
Saturday, November 19, 2016
publishing inri018
this track represents my first serious attempt to break out of the synth-pop sound i'd been developing over the first half of 1998 and into the more epic electro-noise-rock that defines the next period. while i'd been careening in this direction the whole time, and the track is ultimately a failed experiment, this is really the portal i go through that ultimately opens the way for what follows.
conceptually, the track was initially meant to mock the news cycle; the circus riff was tongue-in-cheek. you can imagine wolf blitzer and judy woodruff getting out of their clown cars and reading their teleprompter, type of thing. while i've eliminated the vocals from the official release, and there were never any produced for the re-recording, the bonus tracks are both early vocal mixes. it's admittedly hard to ignore the conceptual history of the track in explaining why i have a punk song built around the circus theme, but by the time i got to re-recording the track in late 1998 i'd truly moved past the concept.
yet, i wanted to retain the musical ideas in the track and even take it to a different level. the way the track is sequenced here retains a memory of how i wanted the track to unfold into a lengthy, multi-part epic separated by long sections of guitar-effects generated and digitally shaped ambience. this is not just an idea that would resurface in my next piece, my second symphony, but also something that would follow me for my entire musical career. these collages are crude, but this is where the idea first developed.
conceptual issues aside, i also had a lot of difficulty getting the guitar tone i wanted for the track - a problem i really hadn't previously had on this kind of scale. in hindsight, i think i'd just become a little more aware of the tonal options in front of me. up to this point, when i ran into the problem of the evasive tone, putting it down for a few days and approaching it fresh solved it, but that wasn't working. this track was dragging on for months. i was lost in production...
then, out of the blue, there was a power outage that knocked my computer out as i was running a part of the track through an ambient transform. the track - and all the digital additions i had added to it - were largely destroyed. what was left was this completely corrupted wave file of disjointed guitar fragments. i've never been a religious person (obviously), and i don't want to say i took at as a sign or something. yet, i let chance assert itself; the corrupted wave file became the final version of the track, and i moved on to the next thing.
the actual, proper track was then forgotten about for years. i'm only finally dusting it off now, in 2016, and releasing it here as a single, along with a collection of experimental collages that approximate what the track was meant to sound like. this ep should really be thought of as consisting of two versions of the song, separated by the two minutes of silence after the fifth track. the track was abandoned for good reason; the motif is silly. so, my frustrations with the composition shall have to be recorded in the annals of time.
initially written in 1997. recreated and reconceptualized in late 1998. salvaged somewhat at the end of 1999. remastered in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. finalized on nov 19, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 1998, 2013, 2016).
*download only
conceptually, the track was initially meant to mock the news cycle; the circus riff was tongue-in-cheek. you can imagine wolf blitzer and judy woodruff getting out of their clown cars and reading their teleprompter, type of thing. while i've eliminated the vocals from the official release, and there were never any produced for the re-recording, the bonus tracks are both early vocal mixes. it's admittedly hard to ignore the conceptual history of the track in explaining why i have a punk song built around the circus theme, but by the time i got to re-recording the track in late 1998 i'd truly moved past the concept.
yet, i wanted to retain the musical ideas in the track and even take it to a different level. the way the track is sequenced here retains a memory of how i wanted the track to unfold into a lengthy, multi-part epic separated by long sections of guitar-effects generated and digitally shaped ambience. this is not just an idea that would resurface in my next piece, my second symphony, but also something that would follow me for my entire musical career. these collages are crude, but this is where the idea first developed.
conceptual issues aside, i also had a lot of difficulty getting the guitar tone i wanted for the track - a problem i really hadn't previously had on this kind of scale. in hindsight, i think i'd just become a little more aware of the tonal options in front of me. up to this point, when i ran into the problem of the evasive tone, putting it down for a few days and approaching it fresh solved it, but that wasn't working. this track was dragging on for months. i was lost in production...
then, out of the blue, there was a power outage that knocked my computer out as i was running a part of the track through an ambient transform. the track - and all the digital additions i had added to it - were largely destroyed. what was left was this completely corrupted wave file of disjointed guitar fragments. i've never been a religious person (obviously), and i don't want to say i took at as a sign or something. yet, i let chance assert itself; the corrupted wave file became the final version of the track, and i moved on to the next thing.
the actual, proper track was then forgotten about for years. i'm only finally dusting it off now, in 2016, and releasing it here as a single, along with a collection of experimental collages that approximate what the track was meant to sound like. this ep should really be thought of as consisting of two versions of the song, separated by the two minutes of silence after the fifth track. the track was abandoned for good reason; the motif is silly. so, my frustrations with the composition shall have to be recorded in the annals of time.
initially written in 1997. recreated and reconceptualized in late 1998. salvaged somewhat at the end of 1999. remastered in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. finalized on nov 19, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 1998, 2013, 2016).
*download only
credits
released December 1, 1998
j - guitars, effects, bass, drum kit, synthesizers, sequencers, drum programming, noise generators, sound design, sampling, found sounds, tapes, digital wave editing, cool edit synthesis, loops, vocals, chance, production
j - guitars, effects, bass, drum kit, synthesizers, sequencers, drum programming, noise generators, sound design, sampling, found sounds, tapes, digital wave editing, cool edit synthesis, loops, vocals, chance, production
Friday, November 18, 2016
publishing inri017
these three tracks were not initially connected in any way, other than being the lead sequence on my second record. they are not even connected in time: the first section was written in late 1997 around the ry30, the second section was written in early 1997 around an octaver and the last section was written in mid 1998 as a sound design experiment. however, they've been connected together since they were sequenced together in early 1999.
it was in early 2014 that i first got the idea of splitting the opening sequence into it's own release, in order to upload the tracks together to youtube. i eventually ruled against it as it didn't have a deep enough conceptual unity to justify.
the idea has come back with the revisitation of my first period and the construction of a series of experimental singles. for reasons of chronology, it was somewhat necessary for me to release a single for idiotic in the summer of 1998. but what made the single worthwhile to me in this form was the ability to reversion the concept using the different glitch mixes of the first and third tracks. the result is a challenging and epic listen, and i hope you enjoy it.
--
section 2...
i was violently anti-tobacco in my teens. to an extent, i still am. but, i was also largely just repeating things that had been said to me, without the critical filter that comes with defining a sense of individuality. i think we probably all remember a time when we repeated things told to us by teachers, parents and the media without fully thinking them through. we don't, however, all have demos of songs that we wrote before we'd come to understand who we really are, as individuals.
looking back at the initial recording, i mostly just wish that i had articulated myself a little bit better. i never dropped my opposition to tobacco, not even when i was a smoker. i'm not sure that i ever really even admitted to myself that i was a smoker. so, i don't want to distance myself particularly far from the basic crux of my opinion that smoking tobacco is really pretty stupid - i never really altered that opinion. what i do want to distance myself from is some of the precise language and arguments that i used, as they are not reflective of my own thoughts.
for example, i wouldn't present the health care argument. first, i'm a strong advocate of universal health care. second, the accounting underlying the idea is not well defined, and difficult to construct. third, i reject the entire concept of currency. nor do i think we'd have to make resource-based decisions about health care if it weren't for the limits provided by currency. so, i'm retracting that statement - along with many others.
by the time i got to recording a second version of the track in mid 1998, i'd smoked a few other things and enjoyed them. a purely anti-tobacco song no longer seemed all that relevant to me; more relevant to me was a song comparing marijuana use to tobacco use. so, i hid the vocals through a very heavy vocoder effect and piled a lot of silly samples, many about marijuana, on top of the track. it stayed that way for almost fifteen years.
when i sat down to remaster in late 2013, removing samples was a dominant priority. thankfully, i actually had an archived instrumental version from back in 1998. this allowed me to replace the track with only minimal editing.
there were continuity reasons why i went with the sample version the first time around, but it was against my better judgement, even then. i should have followed my gut.
-
section 1...
i had earlier recorded a vocal version of this, but i had the good sense to realize it was awful and replaced the vocal parts with synth sections, creating an electronic/ambient piece with a liberal use of noise. it's admittedly a little elevator-music sounding, but i think that's sort of part of it's charm. it's very precious sounding.
this is one of my favourite early pieces. i used to just sit and play the simple guitar outro, with drum loop in my sennheiser 440-IIs, for hours at a time...
the decision to remove the vocals on this track was largely a reflection of my growing confidence in the quality of the music to stand up on it's own. over the '98-'99 period, i was largely aware of how cringeworthy my lyrics were and put them into three overlapping categories: (1) comedy/satire, in which case i let them stand as they were, (2) cries for help, in which case i upheld them as they were hoping somebody would listen, (3) songs that i had no lyrical idea for but that i felt needed lyrics, in which case i felt trapped by the genre conventions and upheld ideas that i truly didn't even like at the time simply so the songs would have vocals. over time, i eventually got to the point where i had enough confidence in the music that i no longer felt that the songs required lyrics, and i started to look at it as something to use sparingly based on whether i actually had an idea to express. while there are definitely songs in this period that i wish i had kept instrumental versions of, the final mixes only include a couple with lyrics that i actively regret. this is the first time i was able to mentally push back against myself and say "no. this song does not need lyrics.".
--
section 3...
this is what it sounds like when you open dlls with a wave editor. there was some strategic reshaping, but that's where the bulk of the sound comes from.
--
initially written over the course of 1997. recreated and expanded over the course of 1998. lead track first sequenced in this form in feb, 1999. further remixes generated over the course of 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013, and another in late 2015. remastered in november, 2016 from various sources, 1997-2015. finalized on nov 17, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2015, 2016).
*download only
it was in early 2014 that i first got the idea of splitting the opening sequence into it's own release, in order to upload the tracks together to youtube. i eventually ruled against it as it didn't have a deep enough conceptual unity to justify.
the idea has come back with the revisitation of my first period and the construction of a series of experimental singles. for reasons of chronology, it was somewhat necessary for me to release a single for idiotic in the summer of 1998. but what made the single worthwhile to me in this form was the ability to reversion the concept using the different glitch mixes of the first and third tracks. the result is a challenging and epic listen, and i hope you enjoy it.
--
section 2...
i was violently anti-tobacco in my teens. to an extent, i still am. but, i was also largely just repeating things that had been said to me, without the critical filter that comes with defining a sense of individuality. i think we probably all remember a time when we repeated things told to us by teachers, parents and the media without fully thinking them through. we don't, however, all have demos of songs that we wrote before we'd come to understand who we really are, as individuals.
looking back at the initial recording, i mostly just wish that i had articulated myself a little bit better. i never dropped my opposition to tobacco, not even when i was a smoker. i'm not sure that i ever really even admitted to myself that i was a smoker. so, i don't want to distance myself particularly far from the basic crux of my opinion that smoking tobacco is really pretty stupid - i never really altered that opinion. what i do want to distance myself from is some of the precise language and arguments that i used, as they are not reflective of my own thoughts.
for example, i wouldn't present the health care argument. first, i'm a strong advocate of universal health care. second, the accounting underlying the idea is not well defined, and difficult to construct. third, i reject the entire concept of currency. nor do i think we'd have to make resource-based decisions about health care if it weren't for the limits provided by currency. so, i'm retracting that statement - along with many others.
by the time i got to recording a second version of the track in mid 1998, i'd smoked a few other things and enjoyed them. a purely anti-tobacco song no longer seemed all that relevant to me; more relevant to me was a song comparing marijuana use to tobacco use. so, i hid the vocals through a very heavy vocoder effect and piled a lot of silly samples, many about marijuana, on top of the track. it stayed that way for almost fifteen years.
when i sat down to remaster in late 2013, removing samples was a dominant priority. thankfully, i actually had an archived instrumental version from back in 1998. this allowed me to replace the track with only minimal editing.
there were continuity reasons why i went with the sample version the first time around, but it was against my better judgement, even then. i should have followed my gut.
-
section 1...
i had earlier recorded a vocal version of this, but i had the good sense to realize it was awful and replaced the vocal parts with synth sections, creating an electronic/ambient piece with a liberal use of noise. it's admittedly a little elevator-music sounding, but i think that's sort of part of it's charm. it's very precious sounding.
this is one of my favourite early pieces. i used to just sit and play the simple guitar outro, with drum loop in my sennheiser 440-IIs, for hours at a time...
the decision to remove the vocals on this track was largely a reflection of my growing confidence in the quality of the music to stand up on it's own. over the '98-'99 period, i was largely aware of how cringeworthy my lyrics were and put them into three overlapping categories: (1) comedy/satire, in which case i let them stand as they were, (2) cries for help, in which case i upheld them as they were hoping somebody would listen, (3) songs that i had no lyrical idea for but that i felt needed lyrics, in which case i felt trapped by the genre conventions and upheld ideas that i truly didn't even like at the time simply so the songs would have vocals. over time, i eventually got to the point where i had enough confidence in the music that i no longer felt that the songs required lyrics, and i started to look at it as something to use sparingly based on whether i actually had an idea to express. while there are definitely songs in this period that i wish i had kept instrumental versions of, the final mixes only include a couple with lyrics that i actively regret. this is the first time i was able to mentally push back against myself and say "no. this song does not need lyrics.".
--
section 3...
this is what it sounds like when you open dlls with a wave editor. there was some strategic reshaping, but that's where the bulk of the sound comes from.
--
initially written over the course of 1997. recreated and expanded over the course of 1998. lead track first sequenced in this form in feb, 1999. further remixes generated over the course of 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013, and another in late 2015. remastered in november, 2016 from various sources, 1997-2015. finalized on nov 17, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2015, 2016).
*download only
credits
released August 5, 1998
j - guitars, effects, bass, drum kit, synthesizers, sequencers, vocoders, octavers, drum programming, noise generators, sound design, sampling, digital wave editing, loops, a broken tape deck, production
j - guitars, effects, bass, drum kit, synthesizers, sequencers, vocoders, octavers, drum programming, noise generators, sound design, sampling, digital wave editing, loops, a broken tape deck, production
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
i'd rather follow sarkozy's lead, pull out of nafta and put a carbon tariff up. there's more than one way to even the playing field.
the world needs to show some backbone in dealing with trump.
they don't make anything anymore, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trump-climate-change-1.3850223
the world needs to show some backbone in dealing with trump.
they don't make anything anymore, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trump-climate-change-1.3850223
it was CH4 that i was worried about, not CO
i just want to clarify that point - the reason i asked for the CO detector was because i hoped it would also have a CH4 detector in it, which i was worried about due to the rotting egg smell and the subsequent headaches. and, i'd just point out that if you're going to rewire the smoke alarm anyways, it would probably make sense to include a CH4 (that is, methane) detection in it. 'cause you're doing it anyways, right?
i mean, i use the stove down here all of the time. if there ever is a leak, and i don't notice it....
j
i mean, i use the stove down here all of the time. if there ever is a leak, and i don't notice it....
j
Sunday, November 6, 2016
(no subject)
mom
Is this email address still working? Cause, I want to permanently delete my facebook... Do I have to be on facebook to be in contact with you on your stuff? Let me know...
jessica
this is my main email address. i don't check it every day, but i'm definitely reachable here.
Is this email address still working? Cause, I want to permanently delete my facebook... Do I have to be on facebook to be in contact with you on your stuff? Let me know...
jessica
this is my main email address. i don't check it every day, but i'm definitely reachable here.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
continuing gas leak & carbon monoxide alarm
hi.
my nose suggests to me that the fumes are coming in via the ventilation system.
i know you had a co alarm for me, and it never got installed, but with the headache-inducing fumes down here, i need to insist.
and, it has been the law for a few years.
"17. Do all existing residential buildings require CO alarms?
Existing residential occupancies that contain at least one
fuel-burning appliance (e.g., gas water heater or gas furnace),
fireplace or an attached garage, require the installation of a CO
alarm.
[Div. B, 2.16.1.1.(1)]"
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/FireMarshal/CarbonMonoxideAlarms/QuestionsandAnswers/OFM_COAlarms_QandA.html
the thing is that the co alarm is probably also a methane alarm. and if it's not, i'm going to need to find a way to test the air down here.
j
my nose suggests to me that the fumes are coming in via the ventilation system.
i know you had a co alarm for me, and it never got installed, but with the headache-inducing fumes down here, i need to insist.
and, it has been the law for a few years.
"17. Do all existing residential buildings require CO alarms?
Existing residential occupancies that contain at least one
fuel-burning appliance (e.g., gas water heater or gas furnace),
fireplace or an attached garage, require the installation of a CO
alarm.
[Div. B, 2.16.1.1.(1)]"
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/FireMarshal/CarbonMonoxideAlarms/QuestionsandAnswers/OFM_COAlarms_QandA.html
the thing is that the co alarm is probably also a methane alarm. and if it's not, i'm going to need to find a way to test the air down here.
j
Thursday, November 3, 2016
gas leak
hi.
i'm guessing you turned the gas on around the first because there appears to be a gas leak upstairs. i'm getting the smell of rotting eggs and mild headaches. this may be the cause of the migraines i was having last year.
i'm not going to be putting myself through the same literal headache this year. until this is resolved, i will be leaving the windows open to ensure a fresh air supply and turning the heat up to compensate.
j
i'm guessing you turned the gas on around the first because there appears to be a gas leak upstairs. i'm getting the smell of rotting eggs and mild headaches. this may be the cause of the migraines i was having last year.
i'm not going to be putting myself through the same literal headache this year. until this is resolved, i will be leaving the windows open to ensure a fresh air supply and turning the heat up to compensate.
j
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
it's not the first military & intelligence backed republican coup. you had bush in 2000. reagan in 1980. nixon in 1968. this isn't a rare occurrence at all.
but, it's becoming increasingly clear that we're stuck with trump whether we like it or not.
don't pretend like picking sanders over clinton would have gotten us out of this, either.
this is a really hack job. they're not even trying to hide it.
trump is the establishment candidate, now. and the establishment always wins.
well, "wins", anyways.
the abc tracking poll is beyond herding. that kind of movement, out of nowhere, and with no back-up, isn't even worth debunking. but, that's the poll that you're going to hear about.
there are going to be some massive contradictions. you'll never get a good answer. you'll just be expected to swallow them.
we did go through this once before. but, i fear that most of us didn't learn the correct lesson, which is that there wasn't a serious choice on offer. there was never actually an election between bush and gore. it was predetermined...
clinton may be putting up more of a fight, but that doesn't make the outcome any less certain.
i don't want to claim any insider knowledge. i'm not pretending i'm a psychic. i'm just pointing out the obvious.
that poll cannot merely be herding. it's too absurd for that, even.
in the end, the historical record will probably record that it was the emails - even though those of us that lived through it, and were paying close attention, will remember that they shifted the aggregates first, and then created their claimed reason for it afterwards.
and, in fact, this is evidence. if you start seeing the media claim that the numbers came down because of the emails? that's confirmation that this is a setup. because the numbers came down first. or, so they claim
oops?
no.
don't expect a good explanation. you'll never get it.
so, what is trump going to be like, then?
bush. reagan. nixon.
shrug
grab your pitchforks...
or go smoke a joint. whatever. it clearly doesn't matter much.
he's a puppet of the military. and, it's not even that people are too stupid to figure it out. it's that they don't care if people have figured it out or not. because what are we going to do about it?
it's brazen.
zero fucks given.
don't ask me exactly how they're doing this. but expect to guffaw, i think. he's going to "win" michigan, or something.
it will be outlandish...
and, don't expect an answer. you'll never get one.
it's not your fault, america. you didn't have a choice.
but, it's becoming increasingly clear that we're stuck with trump whether we like it or not.
don't pretend like picking sanders over clinton would have gotten us out of this, either.
this is a really hack job. they're not even trying to hide it.
trump is the establishment candidate, now. and the establishment always wins.
well, "wins", anyways.
the abc tracking poll is beyond herding. that kind of movement, out of nowhere, and with no back-up, isn't even worth debunking. but, that's the poll that you're going to hear about.
there are going to be some massive contradictions. you'll never get a good answer. you'll just be expected to swallow them.
we did go through this once before. but, i fear that most of us didn't learn the correct lesson, which is that there wasn't a serious choice on offer. there was never actually an election between bush and gore. it was predetermined...
clinton may be putting up more of a fight, but that doesn't make the outcome any less certain.
i don't want to claim any insider knowledge. i'm not pretending i'm a psychic. i'm just pointing out the obvious.
that poll cannot merely be herding. it's too absurd for that, even.
in the end, the historical record will probably record that it was the emails - even though those of us that lived through it, and were paying close attention, will remember that they shifted the aggregates first, and then created their claimed reason for it afterwards.
and, in fact, this is evidence. if you start seeing the media claim that the numbers came down because of the emails? that's confirmation that this is a setup. because the numbers came down first. or, so they claim
oops?
no.
don't expect a good explanation. you'll never get it.
so, what is trump going to be like, then?
bush. reagan. nixon.
shrug
grab your pitchforks...
or go smoke a joint. whatever. it clearly doesn't matter much.
he's a puppet of the military. and, it's not even that people are too stupid to figure it out. it's that they don't care if people have figured it out or not. because what are we going to do about it?
it's brazen.
zero fucks given.
don't ask me exactly how they're doing this. but expect to guffaw, i think. he's going to "win" michigan, or something.
it will be outlandish...
and, don't expect an answer. you'll never get one.
it's not your fault, america. you didn't have a choice.
Monday, October 31, 2016
ok, i think i need to take a step back.
the intelligence industry is not a leviathan, and "the establishment" is not of a monolithic mind. we tend to get these notions in our heads that the elite operates in lock step. if it did, we wouldn't have wars.
i pointed out several months ago that there appears to be a part of the security establishment, specifically, that wants clinton barred from office. i don't think that this insight has proven wrong so much as that it seems that hillary is actually outflanking them. i understand that the security agencies are blaming things on russia, but these are exactly the same networks that seem like they're in control.
let's try a thought experiment.
suppose that you're deep state and you want to leak documents to julian assange to make hillary clinton look bad. assange doesn't need to know where he's getting the documents from. is there a non-zero probability that you wouldn't blame it on russia? i mean, all the other bad guys are gone, except that dipshit in north korea that nobody is going to believe can even spell his own name.
so, if you're trying to take her down from the inside, that's exactly what you do: you leak the documents and you blame it on russia.
the reason i've been avoiding this topic is not that the scenario is unclear so much as that it hasn't mattered. and, one could easily make the case that re-opening the email case isn't going to matter, either, because it's not an issue of much importance to anybody except the most extreme elements within the republican party - elements she was never going to reach, even if she's at least as good a candidate by their own metrics. i'd accept the argument, still.
however...
i'm a little uncomfortable about the way some of the polling is being manipulated. the abc tracking poll is particularly outrageous to me - this data is obviously being squeezed. why? well, ratings looks like a good reason. but, what if it's designed to provide evidence for a trump come back?
abc has very strong historical links to the security establishment that seems to be active in the election.
they have been accused, repeatedly, of acting as the propaganda arm of the security establishment.
something else that i pointed out at the time was that there may be some legitimate justification for this kind of deep state security interference. educated opinion on the topic does seem to be that there's a high chance that her foreign policy is essentially for sale. the emails and the benghazi thing may be largely frivolous, but that is a legitimate national security issue: the idea that she's for sale. if you're deep state, you likely know the answer with a higher degree of certainty. and, what if the details are bad enough that it's actually tripped us into a war game, a contingency plan?
i know this sounds outlandish. but, you need to adjust your mental goal posts. it really isn't.
what i'm getting at is that the idea of a rigged election to ensure the establishment candidate wins is perhaps not so absurd. it is basically what happened in 2000. but, maybe we should be more careful in determining what the establishment - the real establishment - actually is, and who their preferred candidate is.
however this works, it is absolutely clear that clinton has serious enemies in the deep state and that if the election is allowed to happen fairly then she's going to be spending her entire term fighting them.
clinton can't rig the election by herself. the security establishment can. and, i think it's clear that they're backing trump.
just keep this in mind: if trump ends up as president, it's not some accident. it's not some victory of the unwashed & ignorant. it's what the bastards actually want.
you don't defeat the establishment. especially not if you're donald fucking trump.
and, if you're one of these idiots that thinks otherwise, just remember: he only got there because he made a deal.
"nobody knows more about corruption than me, folks."
you could get donald trump to literally fuck himself in the ass if you dangle a dollar in front of him. you can't even get hillary clinton to drink a glass of water. who's going to be easier to control? the woman that thinks she's the second coming? or the guy that couldn't find benghazi on a map?
i'm not saying this is clear, yet. i'm saying it looks like it. i don't see any evidence that the polling has shifted - i think she's still ahead 9-10 points. in the end, that might not mean anything.
the intelligence industry is not a leviathan, and "the establishment" is not of a monolithic mind. we tend to get these notions in our heads that the elite operates in lock step. if it did, we wouldn't have wars.
i pointed out several months ago that there appears to be a part of the security establishment, specifically, that wants clinton barred from office. i don't think that this insight has proven wrong so much as that it seems that hillary is actually outflanking them. i understand that the security agencies are blaming things on russia, but these are exactly the same networks that seem like they're in control.
let's try a thought experiment.
suppose that you're deep state and you want to leak documents to julian assange to make hillary clinton look bad. assange doesn't need to know where he's getting the documents from. is there a non-zero probability that you wouldn't blame it on russia? i mean, all the other bad guys are gone, except that dipshit in north korea that nobody is going to believe can even spell his own name.
so, if you're trying to take her down from the inside, that's exactly what you do: you leak the documents and you blame it on russia.
the reason i've been avoiding this topic is not that the scenario is unclear so much as that it hasn't mattered. and, one could easily make the case that re-opening the email case isn't going to matter, either, because it's not an issue of much importance to anybody except the most extreme elements within the republican party - elements she was never going to reach, even if she's at least as good a candidate by their own metrics. i'd accept the argument, still.
however...
i'm a little uncomfortable about the way some of the polling is being manipulated. the abc tracking poll is particularly outrageous to me - this data is obviously being squeezed. why? well, ratings looks like a good reason. but, what if it's designed to provide evidence for a trump come back?
abc has very strong historical links to the security establishment that seems to be active in the election.
they have been accused, repeatedly, of acting as the propaganda arm of the security establishment.
something else that i pointed out at the time was that there may be some legitimate justification for this kind of deep state security interference. educated opinion on the topic does seem to be that there's a high chance that her foreign policy is essentially for sale. the emails and the benghazi thing may be largely frivolous, but that is a legitimate national security issue: the idea that she's for sale. if you're deep state, you likely know the answer with a higher degree of certainty. and, what if the details are bad enough that it's actually tripped us into a war game, a contingency plan?
i know this sounds outlandish. but, you need to adjust your mental goal posts. it really isn't.
what i'm getting at is that the idea of a rigged election to ensure the establishment candidate wins is perhaps not so absurd. it is basically what happened in 2000. but, maybe we should be more careful in determining what the establishment - the real establishment - actually is, and who their preferred candidate is.
however this works, it is absolutely clear that clinton has serious enemies in the deep state and that if the election is allowed to happen fairly then she's going to be spending her entire term fighting them.
clinton can't rig the election by herself. the security establishment can. and, i think it's clear that they're backing trump.
just keep this in mind: if trump ends up as president, it's not some accident. it's not some victory of the unwashed & ignorant. it's what the bastards actually want.
you don't defeat the establishment. especially not if you're donald fucking trump.
and, if you're one of these idiots that thinks otherwise, just remember: he only got there because he made a deal.
"nobody knows more about corruption than me, folks."
you could get donald trump to literally fuck himself in the ass if you dangle a dollar in front of him. you can't even get hillary clinton to drink a glass of water. who's going to be easier to control? the woman that thinks she's the second coming? or the guy that couldn't find benghazi on a map?
i'm not saying this is clear, yet. i'm saying it looks like it. i don't see any evidence that the polling has shifted - i think she's still ahead 9-10 points. in the end, that might not mean anything.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
the surviving uncle
Been wondering how you're dealing with all that fucking humidity. Do you like Windsor? Seems to me, there must be all kinds of shit happening right across the border.Music, hockey, other things... It's been awhile so I'm gonna throw in a few things. What did you think of the Subban/Weber trade? Ever heard this? What do you think? Hear it through, it gets interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdQTYN05wqs
jessica
i actually love the humidity. i'd be happiest in malaysia or something - except that i have somewhat of an irrational fear of large cats, so i'd be constantly on the lookout for tigers.
what's pissing me off is that the guy upstairs wants the building bone dry and 15 degrees. he turned the air on in march and hasn't turned it off yet...
....so i actually had the windows open to let the humidity in and the heat set to 33 degrees all summer. and it was still cold in here, sometimes.
i would suppose that living in windsor is probably not a lot different than living in hull, except that detroit is a lot bigger than ottawa. it's dirt cheap. the small downtown core is nice, but the rest of it is falling apart, until you get out to the suburbs. there's lots of drunks. they smoke in church. i actually haven't been in a church
here, but indoor smoking is pretty standard...
i have been paying absolutely no attention to any sports at all whatsoever. that's the first i've heard of subban getting traded. but, my immediate impression would be that, from what i remember, weber always looked better on paper.
the music scene in windsor is actually fairly lively, but it's completely outside of my spectrum. i did not know before moving down here that windsor is a very active place for heavy metal. it's actually a bit annoying because the kinds of smaller, house party punk shows i would have gone to in ottawa are metal shows here; i have essentially no interest in the music scene here, as a result of it. i can get out to a few math rock shows, but they're infrequent.
detroit is actually not a lot better. the way that detroit has deindustrialized has turned it into a collection of loosely connected small towns, rather than an integrated metropolis. imagine the gta, without toronto. the result is a whole bunch of very small music scenes, none of which are of much note.
they get touring bands in, though. sort of. some of them won't even come into town, they make you transit out. i'm still getting to know the area, and floating around from place to place to see this or that band has actually really helped me do it.
i've always found the neo-prog thing to have lost the plot somewhere. it just doesn't have the excitement of novelty, and instead loses itself in this kind of bland product replication. but, you also have to understand that i grew up in the 90s, not the 70s. so, i see that stuff in a historical context. some of those records - not all of them - are legitimate works of art. when i pick up a crimson or floyd record or something, i'm not connecting with a memory or a point of identity so much as i'm understanding a relic of the culture i exist in. listening to 70s prog isn't a lot different, to me, than listening to debussy or beethoven or something - and i mean that fully experientially. so, what is the point of reliving neo-prog to somebody that didn't live through it in the first place?
i'm usually going to want to get something at the source. but, my own logic kind of breaks down with a couple of types of punk rock. i'll listen to sonic youth knock-off artists by the bucketful, without enforcing any kind of artistic integrity on them because i just like the head cave. so, i get what you're coming from. i'm just very much attached to a different era.
i've taken to vlogging recently, which is the same thing as blogging except with a video camera. which basically means i'm running a video journal. so, i actually have quite a bit of footage built up of
concerts i've seen in detroit. it's up here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH9y-_dCwf0&list=PLrHImg7oLm2aBNQYDAsBZrz0eVnScD5yT
it's not completely comprehensive, but it's actually pretty close. i'm not sure how much of it you'll like but it's there...
life is otherwise actually pretty good. i'm focusing on finishing my own body of compositions, and while i got a little side tracked the last year or so i do think i'm back on track.
j
Been wondering how you're dealing with all that fucking humidity. Do you like Windsor? Seems to me, there must be all kinds of shit happening right across the border.Music, hockey, other things... It's been awhile so I'm gonna throw in a few things. What did you think of the Subban/Weber trade? Ever heard this? What do you think? Hear it through, it gets interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdQTYN05wqs
jessica
i actually love the humidity. i'd be happiest in malaysia or something - except that i have somewhat of an irrational fear of large cats, so i'd be constantly on the lookout for tigers.
what's pissing me off is that the guy upstairs wants the building bone dry and 15 degrees. he turned the air on in march and hasn't turned it off yet...
....so i actually had the windows open to let the humidity in and the heat set to 33 degrees all summer. and it was still cold in here, sometimes.
i would suppose that living in windsor is probably not a lot different than living in hull, except that detroit is a lot bigger than ottawa. it's dirt cheap. the small downtown core is nice, but the rest of it is falling apart, until you get out to the suburbs. there's lots of drunks. they smoke in church. i actually haven't been in a church
here, but indoor smoking is pretty standard...
i have been paying absolutely no attention to any sports at all whatsoever. that's the first i've heard of subban getting traded. but, my immediate impression would be that, from what i remember, weber always looked better on paper.
the music scene in windsor is actually fairly lively, but it's completely outside of my spectrum. i did not know before moving down here that windsor is a very active place for heavy metal. it's actually a bit annoying because the kinds of smaller, house party punk shows i would have gone to in ottawa are metal shows here; i have essentially no interest in the music scene here, as a result of it. i can get out to a few math rock shows, but they're infrequent.
detroit is actually not a lot better. the way that detroit has deindustrialized has turned it into a collection of loosely connected small towns, rather than an integrated metropolis. imagine the gta, without toronto. the result is a whole bunch of very small music scenes, none of which are of much note.
they get touring bands in, though. sort of. some of them won't even come into town, they make you transit out. i'm still getting to know the area, and floating around from place to place to see this or that band has actually really helped me do it.
i've always found the neo-prog thing to have lost the plot somewhere. it just doesn't have the excitement of novelty, and instead loses itself in this kind of bland product replication. but, you also have to understand that i grew up in the 90s, not the 70s. so, i see that stuff in a historical context. some of those records - not all of them - are legitimate works of art. when i pick up a crimson or floyd record or something, i'm not connecting with a memory or a point of identity so much as i'm understanding a relic of the culture i exist in. listening to 70s prog isn't a lot different, to me, than listening to debussy or beethoven or something - and i mean that fully experientially. so, what is the point of reliving neo-prog to somebody that didn't live through it in the first place?
i'm usually going to want to get something at the source. but, my own logic kind of breaks down with a couple of types of punk rock. i'll listen to sonic youth knock-off artists by the bucketful, without enforcing any kind of artistic integrity on them because i just like the head cave. so, i get what you're coming from. i'm just very much attached to a different era.
i've taken to vlogging recently, which is the same thing as blogging except with a video camera. which basically means i'm running a video journal. so, i actually have quite a bit of footage built up of
concerts i've seen in detroit. it's up here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH9y-_dCwf0&list=PLrHImg7oLm2aBNQYDAsBZrz0eVnScD5yT
it's not completely comprehensive, but it's actually pretty close. i'm not sure how much of it you'll like but it's there...
life is otherwise actually pretty good. i'm focusing on finishing my own body of compositions, and while i got a little side tracked the last year or so i do think i'm back on track.
j
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)