july 17, 2014
they're going to need all the help they can get.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d6dff6e4ce6ea2ad881224abf&id=91b6e8147c&e=5f5e2b367a
i recognize that aboriginal communities are in bad shape in canada, but i don't support the idea that ethnic groups can or should own land and i'm flat out violently opposed to reasserting traditional societies and all the social and religious implications it implies. i cannot reconcile my scientific, atheistic anarcho-communism with support for traditional, conservative societies. to me, these groups aren't allies in the world i want to build - they're really quite active opponents.
and few people may be willing to state that, but i know a lot of people agree with me. and, i know the indigenous groups themselves are always apprehensive about these groups of white university students that think they're dealing with some cartoonish archetype of tonto (or, worse, something out of a fictitious engels text) rather than anything that approaches reality.
it just makes it difficult. i want to support the environmental aspect, but i can't organize with groups that want to force people into strict gender roles and think that trees have spirits. i want to organize with scientists, atheists and socialists that want to build high tech renewable systems.
you go to one of these things, and you have to endure all kinds of indigenous religious nonsense, and you walk out smelling like you bathed in sage - which is every bit as bad as patchouli. it's hard to sit through without snickering, or storming off.
like, if i wanted to hang out in a fucking church, i wouldn't be an anarchist, y'know? i'd just go be a christian...
more than anything else, that's what needs to be cut out of the process. but, you can't convince an indigenous leader that there ought to be a separation between religion and politics, because, to them, it's a holistic whole.
and that should frighten people. i'm always confused when it doesn't. but, do you want to know why it doesn't, really? because they're not perceived as a serious threat.
you get white people talking like that, and they're instant targets. think of ann coulter. but the natives don't get the same reaction because all the propaganda has them pegged as inferior "noble savages" that could never set up that kind of society.
but if these white "allies" had taken an afternoon to read up on it, rather than relying on 60s folk songs, they'd realize that it's EXACTLY what they want to set up.
the thinking seems to be that we have to bend on this and deal with the mumbo jumbo or they won't organize with us, but i really think it needs to be other way around.
i'd like to organize with people of all backgrounds, races, genders, orientations and whatever else - just so long as they leave their beliefs at home, where they belong. and the focus should be on kicking out the people that want to force their religious beliefs on others.
for now? there's no way this gets to critical mass so long as the religion and nationalism remains intertwined with the environmental politics. it's a humongous stretch to move from one to the other. and what it actually does is chase off the left and bring in the right.
people will talk about relativism and colonialism and whatnot, and it's not that i'm ignoring or discounting any of that, it's just that it's placing the solidarity in the wrong place. i'm never going to be able to place any solidarity with any group that wants to set up any kind of hierarchical, oppressive system. my solidarity lies with the individuals that could potentially be told they can't do something - a woman who is told she can't do something because she is a woman - and not with the tribal system.
and, there's not any way to synthesize this. cultural relativism works when you're talking about things like diet. i can't eat caterpillars, but, hey, that's how some people get their protein. it doesn't work when you're talking about individual rights. that's where the solidarity needs to be at all times.
and, i'm even mostly on the side of "letting" (that's a colonial idea, but you get the point) cultures work out their own solutions. that's democracy, right? but, it's one thing to stand back and let them work their shit out, and it's another to actively work towards putting oppressive systems in place.
i again need to point out that the white allies (or, more generally, non-indigenous allies) just mostly don't understand what they're actually supporting. but, i do, and my conscience will not allow me to support the underlying aims of nationalism, tribalism and exclusion.
this pipeline is not likely to be stopped. and this focus on traditional ways of thinking is going to be one of the primary reasons.
the organizers need to change their approach and start focusing more on getting scientists and technologists out on the front lines.
i've tried to bring up these concerns, but i haven't been successful in convincing anybody.
and i fully understand i'm moving against the grain of post-leftist thinking.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Sunday, January 15, 2017
so, it's like...it's not that
there were a few cops. it's that they were ALL cops. and to the point
where it seemed like it was organized by the cops, as a data run.
at
22:41
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i want to be clear about occupy because i've said this more than twice, now.
i was aware pretty early on that the place was infested with undercover cops. but, here's the twist: i was scoping them out as much as they were scoping me out. i wanted to understand what they were doing, for future reference...
there were a few really dead giveaways.
1) if they refused the pass. this is the oldest approach, and i know a lot of people find it distasteful, but it's starkly accurate. i mean, we didn't have any renowned academics or anything...there's not a lot of logic in the refusal. but, accepting the pass doesn't mean you're not a cop. there was one guy that claimed he lived on disability, but seemed to smoke through way more than he could possibly afford, and i'm pretty sure he was a cop.
2) if the uniformed cops always arrested them. there was one guy that got arrested at every protest. he was obviously a cop.
3) if they tried to organize distraction protests. this is hard to explain unless you know it.
4) if they were insistent that people go to their house, rather than somewhere else.
5) if they incited violence. one person really badly outed herself by trying to get people to key up a car. she was already obvious (i figured out that she was 24, after she claimed to be in second year), but that really, really gave her away.
6) if they were in really, really great shape - as though they seemed to train, but never went to the gym.
i want to be crystal clear about how bad it was. there were situations where i was in a room of ten or so people and almost certain i was the only person that wasn't a cop. i even think i went to a few semi-official officer parties....
out of all of the people i met, there was really only one that i was pretty certain about not being a cop because we had mutual friends going back a good ways.
i was aware pretty early on that the place was infested with undercover cops. but, here's the twist: i was scoping them out as much as they were scoping me out. i wanted to understand what they were doing, for future reference...
there were a few really dead giveaways.
1) if they refused the pass. this is the oldest approach, and i know a lot of people find it distasteful, but it's starkly accurate. i mean, we didn't have any renowned academics or anything...there's not a lot of logic in the refusal. but, accepting the pass doesn't mean you're not a cop. there was one guy that claimed he lived on disability, but seemed to smoke through way more than he could possibly afford, and i'm pretty sure he was a cop.
2) if the uniformed cops always arrested them. there was one guy that got arrested at every protest. he was obviously a cop.
3) if they tried to organize distraction protests. this is hard to explain unless you know it.
4) if they were insistent that people go to their house, rather than somewhere else.
5) if they incited violence. one person really badly outed herself by trying to get people to key up a car. she was already obvious (i figured out that she was 24, after she claimed to be in second year), but that really, really gave her away.
6) if they were in really, really great shape - as though they seemed to train, but never went to the gym.
i want to be crystal clear about how bad it was. there were situations where i was in a room of ten or so people and almost certain i was the only person that wasn't a cop. i even think i went to a few semi-official officer parties....
out of all of the people i met, there was really only one that i was pretty certain about not being a cop because we had mutual friends going back a good ways.
at
22:37
July 15, 2014
so, i've got my border pass interview on thursday and i have to admit i don't know how i'm going to get over that bridge to the enrollment centre. i've been sending out emails and calling people all month, and nobody has a good answer for me.
the thing is that the bridge is closed to pedestrian traffic. somehow, the bridge became privately owned, which makes the owner liable. there were some suicides in the 70s from jumpers, and the owner had to pay out, and it's been closed to pedestrians and bicyclists ever since. i'm going to avoid ranting about property rights, other than to note that none of the governments in the region at any of the levels have had anything but problems with the guy. i mean, he has a monopoly on cross-border traffic that can't fit through the tunnel, which is virtually all trucks amongst other things, and he hasn't really been responsible about it....
so, they're building a publicly owned bridge in reaction, but it won't be done until like 2020. i should be able to take my bike on that one, but it's also way out of the way. you'd have to think the operator will make some changes when he gets some competition. until then, i simply can't walk over the bridge.
the tunnel is also closed to pedestrians and cyclists because it doesn't have a sufficient walkway, which is a court case i'd probably win if i bothered, but it's a lot of effort i don't really have to expend. it does have tunnel bus service, which is what i'd have to use to get across the river when i want to. most of the places i'd want to get to are then within walking distance up woodward avenue, but i may want to go to pontiac from time to time and i'd have to take the bus for that. if i find myself doing that often, i'll probably get a worthless bicycle and lock it somewhere near the tunnel in detroit. i mean, they won't let bikes on the bus either, unless they're disassembled into a bag, which is really outrageous. i'd probably want to take one of the tires with me back and forth...
so, the problem is that i'm going to show up at the border crossing on thursday morning and not know how to get across. i'm HOPING the border guards will just drive me over, but i'd like to get some verification of that. if i can't, my plan is going to be as follows...
1) i'll show up to the earliest tunnel shuttle across and hope the border people either let me walk to the enrollment centre or escort me there. hopefully, that's worked out before 6:00 am.
2) if i get sent back, i'll have to walk to the bridge and ask them to get me over there somehow.
the instructions that the center provides just assume i'll have a car. in fact, the primary purpose of this exercise seems to be to get my plates on film.
July 16, 2014
grargh. i still can't get a hold of anybody on the other side of the border. and it turns out booking a taxi is a process of trial and error - most taxi drivers can't or won't drive across the bridge. after all, that's what the tunnel bus is for. and it's going to cost like $40....
catch-22s. gotta love 'em.
i'm just going to show up at the tunnel really early and see what happens. i'm hoping that if they don't let me walk they'll escort me, and if they don't do that they'll let me call the center from detroit, where it's not long distance.
i tried calling two of those numbers from a pay phone.
one was a full mailbox, the other was an automated system. i can't be dropping $5 on dead ends over and over. that $10 is waste enough.
july 16, 2014
i think i'm just going to spend the night listening and analyzing. i've gotta leave early in the morning to go on what will no doubt be a surreal, kafkaesque journey of a nightmare...
see, in order to get across the border, i need a nexus card. but, in order to get the nexus card, i need to get across the border. it would be a simple exercise if the enrolment centre was in an accessible location, but it's located directly underneath a bridge that i cannot cross. (that sounds poetic, but i can't cross because i don't have a vehicle, and they do not allow pedestrian crossing, and there's no public transportation, and it's almost impossible to find a taxi cab driver both willing and able to cross). so, the only option i can conceive of is to try and cross somewhere else, and hope they let me walk, or escort me to the centre and back. but i'm not really hopeful either is a possibility...
i will say that when i get to the border, i'm certain that i'll understand what my actual options are. i'm just a little fearful that none of them are going to be realistic.
but, logically, is there really much of a difference between letting me drive over a bridge to the center and letting me walk over? i'm clearing customs and being allowed to move from customs to the centre on my own either way, right? i may be freaking out over a perception of the location of the office to the bridge, rather than anything rational that the border guards can actually interpret, one way or the other.
if my plan *does* work, i'm basically going to be walking through detroit at 6:00 am. well, i'm going to end up doing that relatively frequently anyways. my experience with walking through unsafe neighbourhoods has mostly been that thugs go after thugs and so long as one does not project wealth (meaning, it's not a good idea to pull out a roll of hundred dollar bills....as though i have any, right...), there's really little risk in these supposed high risk neighbourhoods.
and, for me, in the end, i'm on their side. i've had my share of conversations with thugs that are probably thinking some nasty shit in the back of their mind, but i tend to convince 'em i'm cool - and not any better off than they are. despite being white and well spoken....
the only other thing i can think of is trying to hitch over the bridge. if that's my only option, that's my only option. i'll find out.
i don't want to come off some drug war narc, i'm really not, but i know that the big problem is not poverty but drugs.
and not any drugs. it's the nasty ones. coke. meth. there's no discussion there, no attempt to size me up - it's just a possible income source to exploit to get high.
i know to stay on the main roads.
and 6:00-7:00 am is not 3:00 am, either.
i'll be fine...
like, i've never seen or heard of a fight in any place in any city in any downtown that wasn't ultimately about cocaine. even when it's about sex, it's really about cocaine...
so...
hey, kids.
i'm not going to tell you not to do drugs. drugs can be fun, sometimes!
but cocaine is baaaaaaad.
baaaaaaaad.
baaaaa.
it IS though. don't do coke...
july 17, 2014
so, i took a google tour up fort street, which is where i'm headed this morning.
it's pretty run down, but it's an industrial area so i'm not really walking through the 'hood. and there's only been one shooting in the vicinity this year.
there's been two on my block in windsor. yeah. well, it's perspective.
i'll be fine...
i'll point out i *am* wearing $5 shoes and a stained white tshirt.
it's less about wanting to keep the shoes and more about not projecting wealth.
not that i have any wealth, of course. but shit is relative.
July 17, 2014
well, that was indeed a kafkaesque mess but i got my expedited border clearance. hey, all those years of avoiding a criminal record came in handy. i'm squeaky clean. i get to use the special line...
but, that doesn't mean this wasn't a pain in the ass. i've ranted about this here quite a bit over the last year. it's only fitting that the last section of it was off the wall ridiculous...
getting across the actual border was not a problem. i just showed them my letter, and he let me through. but, he chuckled and wished me luck. he knew what was coming...
the walk up fort street at around 7 am was purposefully brisk; i was admittedly a little uncomfortable. but, the more i walked, the more it just reminded me of montreal. yes: detroit is full of decaying bridges, falling apart buildings, abandoned industrial centres, smoldering sewers and people sleeping on the street. but, i didn't feel threatened so much as i felt a level of empathy. how'd it get that bad, anyways?
the other thing that made me relax a little was a friendly retriever that ran over across a field to say good morning. it's funny how goldens are basically the universal stress reliever.
it was about twenty minutes to the bridge, which is a short walk for me.
once i got there, though, i wasn't sure how to proceed. i tried going under the bridge first. this is the first point that the smog got to me: i nearly heaved, and had to sit down. first attempt at directions was a hotel that looked like something out of a stephen king movie...
"do you know if i can get in some kind of plaza around the bridge?"
no.
"does that pay phone work?"
*laughs* no.
"do you know if there's a phone around here?"
there's no gas stations for a good ways in either direction.
"well, thanks, then."
so, i went back under the bridge again...
there was a side street running along the complex (and it was a complex. it looked like a prison.) that i decided to take a walk up, and it took me into a nicer street full of very old churches and quaint, if dilapidated houses. three houses in a row had angry, barking, unchained rottweilers that could have easily hopped their four foot tall enclosures should they have decided to. it's a problem in windsor, too. cheaper than a security system, i guess.
and apparently very necessary.
i bumped into a border cop on his way to work and flagged him down...
"how do i get in here?"
do you have a car?
"no."
well, why do you want to get into here?
"i have a nexus interview."
why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?
"so i can get across the border. i'm from canada..."
you're from canada? how did you get across the border?
"the tunnel."
and how did you get here?
"i walked."
*awkward pause*
"well, you can't get in here without a car. you're going to have to call a cab."
ok, so here's the thing: i can see the enrollment centre through the fence. it's a few hundred yards, at most. and, yet i need to call a cab to transport me those few hundred yards? yes, i do: this is what the cop is trying to tell me. but, i'm not about to call a cab, so i keep walking.
eventually, i get to a cross street with a big sign
MICHIGAN WELCOME CENTER* --->
*note yankee spelling.
well, that sounds like a good thing to try.
hours:
9 am - 4 pm
it's like 7:30...
so, i look up the road and notice it runs into customs. i'm thinking "maybe there's a phone in there". customer service is closed, and there's no barriers so i just keep walking, until a border cop yells at me:
WOAH. WOAH. YOU CAN'T BE IN HERE. WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING?
"well, i'm looking for a phone. is there one in that building?"
PLEASE STEP TO THE SIDE AND EMPTY YOUR POCKETS.
"ok."
so, i pull out some pieces of paper, keys, a few dollars...
who do you want to phone?
"i'm trying to get in contact with the nexus office."
how did you get in here?
"i just walked in. there's no barriers or anything."
do you have a car?
"no."
why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?
"well, i'm from canada and..."
you're from canada? how did you get across the border without a car?
"i took the tunnel."
what? how did you get here?
"i walked"
*awkward pause*
another officer walks over....
this person just strolled in here, can you believe that.
where are you going?
"i'm looking for nexus."
do you have a car?
"no."
why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?
i laughed out loud at this point.
"because i'm from canada and..."
wait. how did you get across the border?
"i took the tunnel."
and they let you in without documents?
"well, i have this nexus document. i'm here for a defined purpose."
pfft. anybody could print that off. do you have any drugs on you?
"what? no..."
yeah. right. step into the office, please
so, i walk into the office...
he takes my id and starts running it through the system, asks me all kinds of absurd questions, accuses me repeatedly of living in collingwood and having a record of escaping the custody of an officer, visibly shatters a blood vessel in his forehead when i provide "jessica" as an alternate name and eventually gives up.
go back to the michigan welcome center and call a cab from there.
again with the cab. they were really serious about this.
i did walk back to the welcome center, but i was planning on calling the enrollment centre, not the cab. it's now barely 8:00, so i have an hour to wait, and wait an hour i did.
the cop drives by about 8:30...
"listen, i knew this was going to be a problem, but i'm pretty sure the person i initially talked to said they'd give me a lift. the thing is i think they meant from canada, and i couldn't get a hold of anybody to provide instructions, so here i am."
he seems to have softened up a bit, after realizing i'm both harmless and frustrated. the absurdity of the situation actually seems to have become clear to him. but...
i'd drive you down there myself, but then i have to pat you down, which means i need a female officer present and there aren't any.
"i can't waive that?"
(i don't care what gender my doctor is, and i don't care what gender the cop patting me down is)
no. plus, i'd have to do all kinds of paperwork, and i just don't want to.
ah, yes. a lazy cop. gee, whudda thunk that possible, huh?
but, i'll call you a cab if you want.
there's no irony in any of this.
i refuse the offer, and suggest i'll call the place when the welcome center opens.
this is where i got a break, and i have to say it's every bit as surreal as the rest of this. the place opens at 9:00, i use the bathroom, and then ask if there's a pay phone...
there isn't, but he offers the office phone, depending on who i'm calling.
i'm calling nexus, because i'm on foot and need to find out how i'm going to get in there.
apparently, this kind fellow has been working at the michigan welcome center for years and years, and given out instructions on how to get into the nexus office hundreds of times, but has never been in there himself. he's been wondering the whole time if his directions are even accurate, and he wants to know what it looks like inside the complex.
so, he offers to drive me in.
and i graciously accept.
he takes me back along the side street i came in at, past the entrance the first border cop went in, back under the bridge and around through a gated area. i am now finally at the nexus enrollment area. i thank the kind fellow and that is that.
but, the border guards are concerned about how i'm going to exit the complex.
"i guess i'll call a cab."
nobody else got the sarcasm. i was actually planning on asking somebody for a lift to the other side of the fence.
so, the interview goes well. the interviewer was a little older, and i seemed to convince him i'm a good kid. which is what i needed to do.
i got the marijuana question, i was honest, and he overlooked it. they can be very strict about that. but, the thing should get here in 7-10 days.
at the end of it, he asks me if i have a phone. i don't carry a phone. so, he picks up the phone and starts dialing the number for a cab for me...
"listen. if you call me a cab, i'm just going to ask that they drop me on the other side of the fence and walk back to the tunnel. so, why don't you just let me ask somebody for a lift out?"
and, finally, i got some fucking logic from somebody.
no. we'll just escort you out.
a few minutes later, a truck pulls up with a border cop in it.
"are you here to escort me out?"
yes.
so, i reach for the door....
no. i'm not driving you. you're going to walk.
at first, he tries to lead me to the exit to the ambassador bridge.
canada is that way, but where's your car?
"i don't have a car."
why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?
i was on the brink of being a smartass, but managed to restrain myself.
"so i can get across under the tunnel. i just need to get to fort street."
well, how are you going to get over the bridge?
"no, i want to walk to the tunnel."
walk...to...the....tunnel?
at this point, i understand that every single one of the awkward pauses was shock that i'd walk that far. remarkable.
"yeah."
well, follow the truck around the building and meet me at the crossing.
i did this, and we walked to the gate that first border cop went through. then i was out the side street and back up fort towards the tunnel...
without having to call a cab.
this is your tax dollars at work, protecting you from terrorism.
(edit: fwiw, i recognized the collingwood question. now i know why it was asked of me by a specific occupier - and confirmed my suspicion that he was a cop.)
so, i've got my border pass interview on thursday and i have to admit i don't know how i'm going to get over that bridge to the enrollment centre. i've been sending out emails and calling people all month, and nobody has a good answer for me.
the thing is that the bridge is closed to pedestrian traffic. somehow, the bridge became privately owned, which makes the owner liable. there were some suicides in the 70s from jumpers, and the owner had to pay out, and it's been closed to pedestrians and bicyclists ever since. i'm going to avoid ranting about property rights, other than to note that none of the governments in the region at any of the levels have had anything but problems with the guy. i mean, he has a monopoly on cross-border traffic that can't fit through the tunnel, which is virtually all trucks amongst other things, and he hasn't really been responsible about it....
so, they're building a publicly owned bridge in reaction, but it won't be done until like 2020. i should be able to take my bike on that one, but it's also way out of the way. you'd have to think the operator will make some changes when he gets some competition. until then, i simply can't walk over the bridge.
the tunnel is also closed to pedestrians and cyclists because it doesn't have a sufficient walkway, which is a court case i'd probably win if i bothered, but it's a lot of effort i don't really have to expend. it does have tunnel bus service, which is what i'd have to use to get across the river when i want to. most of the places i'd want to get to are then within walking distance up woodward avenue, but i may want to go to pontiac from time to time and i'd have to take the bus for that. if i find myself doing that often, i'll probably get a worthless bicycle and lock it somewhere near the tunnel in detroit. i mean, they won't let bikes on the bus either, unless they're disassembled into a bag, which is really outrageous. i'd probably want to take one of the tires with me back and forth...
so, the problem is that i'm going to show up at the border crossing on thursday morning and not know how to get across. i'm HOPING the border guards will just drive me over, but i'd like to get some verification of that. if i can't, my plan is going to be as follows...
1) i'll show up to the earliest tunnel shuttle across and hope the border people either let me walk to the enrollment centre or escort me there. hopefully, that's worked out before 6:00 am.
2) if i get sent back, i'll have to walk to the bridge and ask them to get me over there somehow.
the instructions that the center provides just assume i'll have a car. in fact, the primary purpose of this exercise seems to be to get my plates on film.
July 16, 2014
grargh. i still can't get a hold of anybody on the other side of the border. and it turns out booking a taxi is a process of trial and error - most taxi drivers can't or won't drive across the bridge. after all, that's what the tunnel bus is for. and it's going to cost like $40....
catch-22s. gotta love 'em.
i'm just going to show up at the tunnel really early and see what happens. i'm hoping that if they don't let me walk they'll escort me, and if they don't do that they'll let me call the center from detroit, where it's not long distance.
i tried calling two of those numbers from a pay phone.
one was a full mailbox, the other was an automated system. i can't be dropping $5 on dead ends over and over. that $10 is waste enough.
july 16, 2014
i think i'm just going to spend the night listening and analyzing. i've gotta leave early in the morning to go on what will no doubt be a surreal, kafkaesque journey of a nightmare...
see, in order to get across the border, i need a nexus card. but, in order to get the nexus card, i need to get across the border. it would be a simple exercise if the enrolment centre was in an accessible location, but it's located directly underneath a bridge that i cannot cross. (that sounds poetic, but i can't cross because i don't have a vehicle, and they do not allow pedestrian crossing, and there's no public transportation, and it's almost impossible to find a taxi cab driver both willing and able to cross). so, the only option i can conceive of is to try and cross somewhere else, and hope they let me walk, or escort me to the centre and back. but i'm not really hopeful either is a possibility...
i will say that when i get to the border, i'm certain that i'll understand what my actual options are. i'm just a little fearful that none of them are going to be realistic.
but, logically, is there really much of a difference between letting me drive over a bridge to the center and letting me walk over? i'm clearing customs and being allowed to move from customs to the centre on my own either way, right? i may be freaking out over a perception of the location of the office to the bridge, rather than anything rational that the border guards can actually interpret, one way or the other.
if my plan *does* work, i'm basically going to be walking through detroit at 6:00 am. well, i'm going to end up doing that relatively frequently anyways. my experience with walking through unsafe neighbourhoods has mostly been that thugs go after thugs and so long as one does not project wealth (meaning, it's not a good idea to pull out a roll of hundred dollar bills....as though i have any, right...), there's really little risk in these supposed high risk neighbourhoods.
and, for me, in the end, i'm on their side. i've had my share of conversations with thugs that are probably thinking some nasty shit in the back of their mind, but i tend to convince 'em i'm cool - and not any better off than they are. despite being white and well spoken....
the only other thing i can think of is trying to hitch over the bridge. if that's my only option, that's my only option. i'll find out.
i don't want to come off some drug war narc, i'm really not, but i know that the big problem is not poverty but drugs.
and not any drugs. it's the nasty ones. coke. meth. there's no discussion there, no attempt to size me up - it's just a possible income source to exploit to get high.
i know to stay on the main roads.
and 6:00-7:00 am is not 3:00 am, either.
i'll be fine...
like, i've never seen or heard of a fight in any place in any city in any downtown that wasn't ultimately about cocaine. even when it's about sex, it's really about cocaine...
so...
hey, kids.
i'm not going to tell you not to do drugs. drugs can be fun, sometimes!
but cocaine is baaaaaaad.
baaaaaaaad.
baaaaa.
it IS though. don't do coke...
july 17, 2014
so, i took a google tour up fort street, which is where i'm headed this morning.
it's pretty run down, but it's an industrial area so i'm not really walking through the 'hood. and there's only been one shooting in the vicinity this year.
there's been two on my block in windsor. yeah. well, it's perspective.
i'll be fine...
i'll point out i *am* wearing $5 shoes and a stained white tshirt.
it's less about wanting to keep the shoes and more about not projecting wealth.
not that i have any wealth, of course. but shit is relative.
July 17, 2014
well, that was indeed a kafkaesque mess but i got my expedited border clearance. hey, all those years of avoiding a criminal record came in handy. i'm squeaky clean. i get to use the special line...
but, that doesn't mean this wasn't a pain in the ass. i've ranted about this here quite a bit over the last year. it's only fitting that the last section of it was off the wall ridiculous...
getting across the actual border was not a problem. i just showed them my letter, and he let me through. but, he chuckled and wished me luck. he knew what was coming...
the walk up fort street at around 7 am was purposefully brisk; i was admittedly a little uncomfortable. but, the more i walked, the more it just reminded me of montreal. yes: detroit is full of decaying bridges, falling apart buildings, abandoned industrial centres, smoldering sewers and people sleeping on the street. but, i didn't feel threatened so much as i felt a level of empathy. how'd it get that bad, anyways?
the other thing that made me relax a little was a friendly retriever that ran over across a field to say good morning. it's funny how goldens are basically the universal stress reliever.
it was about twenty minutes to the bridge, which is a short walk for me.
once i got there, though, i wasn't sure how to proceed. i tried going under the bridge first. this is the first point that the smog got to me: i nearly heaved, and had to sit down. first attempt at directions was a hotel that looked like something out of a stephen king movie...
"do you know if i can get in some kind of plaza around the bridge?"
no.
"does that pay phone work?"
*laughs* no.
"do you know if there's a phone around here?"
there's no gas stations for a good ways in either direction.
"well, thanks, then."
so, i went back under the bridge again...
there was a side street running along the complex (and it was a complex. it looked like a prison.) that i decided to take a walk up, and it took me into a nicer street full of very old churches and quaint, if dilapidated houses. three houses in a row had angry, barking, unchained rottweilers that could have easily hopped their four foot tall enclosures should they have decided to. it's a problem in windsor, too. cheaper than a security system, i guess.
and apparently very necessary.
i bumped into a border cop on his way to work and flagged him down...
"how do i get in here?"
do you have a car?
"no."
well, why do you want to get into here?
"i have a nexus interview."
why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?
"so i can get across the border. i'm from canada..."
you're from canada? how did you get across the border?
"the tunnel."
and how did you get here?
"i walked."
*awkward pause*
"well, you can't get in here without a car. you're going to have to call a cab."
ok, so here's the thing: i can see the enrollment centre through the fence. it's a few hundred yards, at most. and, yet i need to call a cab to transport me those few hundred yards? yes, i do: this is what the cop is trying to tell me. but, i'm not about to call a cab, so i keep walking.
eventually, i get to a cross street with a big sign
MICHIGAN WELCOME CENTER* --->
*note yankee spelling.
well, that sounds like a good thing to try.
hours:
9 am - 4 pm
it's like 7:30...
so, i look up the road and notice it runs into customs. i'm thinking "maybe there's a phone in there". customer service is closed, and there's no barriers so i just keep walking, until a border cop yells at me:
WOAH. WOAH. YOU CAN'T BE IN HERE. WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING?
"well, i'm looking for a phone. is there one in that building?"
PLEASE STEP TO THE SIDE AND EMPTY YOUR POCKETS.
"ok."
so, i pull out some pieces of paper, keys, a few dollars...
who do you want to phone?
"i'm trying to get in contact with the nexus office."
how did you get in here?
"i just walked in. there's no barriers or anything."
do you have a car?
"no."
why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?
"well, i'm from canada and..."
you're from canada? how did you get across the border without a car?
"i took the tunnel."
what? how did you get here?
"i walked"
*awkward pause*
another officer walks over....
this person just strolled in here, can you believe that.
where are you going?
"i'm looking for nexus."
do you have a car?
"no."
why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?
i laughed out loud at this point.
"because i'm from canada and..."
wait. how did you get across the border?
"i took the tunnel."
and they let you in without documents?
"well, i have this nexus document. i'm here for a defined purpose."
pfft. anybody could print that off. do you have any drugs on you?
"what? no..."
yeah. right. step into the office, please
so, i walk into the office...
he takes my id and starts running it through the system, asks me all kinds of absurd questions, accuses me repeatedly of living in collingwood and having a record of escaping the custody of an officer, visibly shatters a blood vessel in his forehead when i provide "jessica" as an alternate name and eventually gives up.
go back to the michigan welcome center and call a cab from there.
again with the cab. they were really serious about this.
i did walk back to the welcome center, but i was planning on calling the enrollment centre, not the cab. it's now barely 8:00, so i have an hour to wait, and wait an hour i did.
the cop drives by about 8:30...
"listen, i knew this was going to be a problem, but i'm pretty sure the person i initially talked to said they'd give me a lift. the thing is i think they meant from canada, and i couldn't get a hold of anybody to provide instructions, so here i am."
he seems to have softened up a bit, after realizing i'm both harmless and frustrated. the absurdity of the situation actually seems to have become clear to him. but...
i'd drive you down there myself, but then i have to pat you down, which means i need a female officer present and there aren't any.
"i can't waive that?"
(i don't care what gender my doctor is, and i don't care what gender the cop patting me down is)
no. plus, i'd have to do all kinds of paperwork, and i just don't want to.
ah, yes. a lazy cop. gee, whudda thunk that possible, huh?
but, i'll call you a cab if you want.
there's no irony in any of this.
i refuse the offer, and suggest i'll call the place when the welcome center opens.
this is where i got a break, and i have to say it's every bit as surreal as the rest of this. the place opens at 9:00, i use the bathroom, and then ask if there's a pay phone...
there isn't, but he offers the office phone, depending on who i'm calling.
i'm calling nexus, because i'm on foot and need to find out how i'm going to get in there.
apparently, this kind fellow has been working at the michigan welcome center for years and years, and given out instructions on how to get into the nexus office hundreds of times, but has never been in there himself. he's been wondering the whole time if his directions are even accurate, and he wants to know what it looks like inside the complex.
so, he offers to drive me in.
and i graciously accept.
he takes me back along the side street i came in at, past the entrance the first border cop went in, back under the bridge and around through a gated area. i am now finally at the nexus enrollment area. i thank the kind fellow and that is that.
but, the border guards are concerned about how i'm going to exit the complex.
"i guess i'll call a cab."
nobody else got the sarcasm. i was actually planning on asking somebody for a lift to the other side of the fence.
so, the interview goes well. the interviewer was a little older, and i seemed to convince him i'm a good kid. which is what i needed to do.
i got the marijuana question, i was honest, and he overlooked it. they can be very strict about that. but, the thing should get here in 7-10 days.
at the end of it, he asks me if i have a phone. i don't carry a phone. so, he picks up the phone and starts dialing the number for a cab for me...
"listen. if you call me a cab, i'm just going to ask that they drop me on the other side of the fence and walk back to the tunnel. so, why don't you just let me ask somebody for a lift out?"
and, finally, i got some fucking logic from somebody.
no. we'll just escort you out.
a few minutes later, a truck pulls up with a border cop in it.
"are you here to escort me out?"
yes.
so, i reach for the door....
no. i'm not driving you. you're going to walk.
at first, he tries to lead me to the exit to the ambassador bridge.
canada is that way, but where's your car?
"i don't have a car."
why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?
i was on the brink of being a smartass, but managed to restrain myself.
"so i can get across under the tunnel. i just need to get to fort street."
well, how are you going to get over the bridge?
"no, i want to walk to the tunnel."
walk...to...the....tunnel?
at this point, i understand that every single one of the awkward pauses was shock that i'd walk that far. remarkable.
"yeah."
well, follow the truck around the building and meet me at the crossing.
i did this, and we walked to the gate that first border cop went through. then i was out the side street and back up fort towards the tunnel...
without having to call a cab.
this is your tax dollars at work, protecting you from terrorism.
(edit: fwiw, i recognized the collingwood question. now i know why it was asked of me by a specific occupier - and confirmed my suspicion that he was a cop.)
at
20:58
cm:
Good music should never be popular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOld-kvQYm0
jessica
good music can't become popular. in order to become popular, it must reflect the status quo and cease to be good. now, there's a grey area where it can be quasi-good and manage to sell. and you can manage to sell quite a few records without becoming popular. but, it's ultimately a contradiction in terms.
fm
that's not true man. There's plenty great bands in the underground that are popular in their own ways. Sometimes we get so Into the whole idea of things staying under ground that we kinda in.a way never want them to get popular but through the years they do. Look at the Jesus lizard for example... a d they're still Indy...
jessica
we're defining "popular" rather differently - you're talking about bulk album sales and picking some arbitrary number, while i'm talking about tapping into the public consciousness in a way that represents mainstream attitudes. the truth is that you can sell hundreds of thousands of records without ever tapping into the mainstream and becoming "popular".
a good example of that is ministry. they play stadiums. they're not popular.
cm-2
good music ought to be popular. because if everyone were in to good music of all genres, we'd get far more exposure to that quality of content than we do in our lesser numbers. i believe in the right to ones personal view. opinion is freedom. but when you go left or right, id say crack a window. allow possibilities an opportunity to expand u. not to get so fucking deep, but we can all agree that existence is in infinite motion. "ever changing," 'cause if something moves, its not at its former place. consider a world where every person had the opinion that music is a standard, and speaks volumes about the individual. the latter is fact. or is it? manson enjoyed the beatles.. lol embrace the maybes', like i just did, mid sentence. we can all be wrong and right, depending on where we're positioned. original thought was simply: a world full of dope music would surround you with the shit. imagine an existence where every song you heard was impactful, so much so that it constantly opened you up. ah, such a place is a dream. thusly, in my "opinion" (just another assclown on this tele tube, to someone, hopefully!) i beg to differ with you, and those who can't see the possibilities. if all the good fucking music (there is INFINITY of it...) was POPULAR, we wouldn't form the jaded views you have. friend, you have validity. but you are disenchanted because popular music sucks lengthy, sturdy, pulsing-... i'll stop there. ~_~ <3 peace, bruhskee.
cm
If it's popular, it starts to suck. If it needs lengthy explanation, it starts to suck. Ya dig?
jr
so what are you implying that the general population has bad taste in music.
cm
No I'm stating my opinion. But yes the general population does have bad taste in music or Nickleback would not exist.
jessica
it's a statistical necessity. the exceptional cannot be the mainstream, or it ceases to be exceptional. it should follow a bell curve, with most people interested in stuff that's unoffensive and bland and minorities into the extremes of talent and garbage.
it doesn't really matter what metrics you're using. creativity cannot be the norm, or it ceases to be creative. technical proficiency cannot be the norm, or it ceases to be such. exceptional taste cannot be the norm, or it loses it's exceptional nature.
that's why critics have no choice but to rail against the fashions. otherwise, they wouldn't be critics.
jr
so the people the listen to it will continue to be labeled hipsters or edgy
jessica
but, by the same logic, that's driven by their conformity - and that upholds the status quo that rejects innovation.
attitudes change over time. that which was labeled as "hipster" becomes interpreted as "visionary". sometimes the artists are lucky enough to live long enough to see that shift and get acknowledgement; often, they're not.
we don't have to be silly and talk about beethoven. syd barrett was kicked out of pink floyd because they thought he was killing their marketability. examples are endless.
la
Im not a music expert or less, but, have you ever thought thats a very subjective matter? Whats supossed to be "good music" and "the message behind the music that lesser intuitive generations cant get"?
cm
I don't want to see lesser generations turn the music and bands I like and consider good, Into fashion statements. There is no message to get anymore! anytime music tries to make a point its lost in the fray of popularity. Popular music sucks because it's made for mass consumption. Designed to suite a wide variety of people but ends up only alienating the people who loved them for what they were to begin with. So fuck the lesser generation, If they cant find interest unless MTV tells them it's cool. Just fuck em!
jr
I'm into this type of music. And I'm from the 90s generation
jessica
activists tend to look at music through a marxist filter of propaganda of the deed and agitprop - this idea that music can play a role in pushing social awareness and changing the status quo. but, i think it's worth looking at what socrates had to say: he said that when you see musicians start to gather, you know a change has already happened. it reverses the causality. it suggests that art is not a driver of change, but a reaction to it.
what you're getting at is probably correct. man or astroman are aesthetically a punk band, but they're not a political one. but, when you do look at political music that has built a following in the post-war era, what you see is the following pattern:
1) a community begins to develop that expresses a certain kind of ideals. this was true of the beatniks, the hippies, the punks, the ravers, hip-hop, etc.
2) as that community grows, people with status quo ideas enter into it.
3) they slowly begin to ostracize the people that held the ideals, as they co-opt the aesthetic qualities of the music into the status quo.
4) business people take notice and market the aesthetic qualities of the music, completely stripped of the ideals that initially generated the community.
5) the idealists scatter, and have to rebuild.
it happens consistently. and, it's not a function of corporatism, or capitalism or any kind of financial motives - those only come in at the last stage. it's just a function of norms asserting themselves. it's an entirely social phenomenon.
as i stated: it's virtually an impossibility. it's so unusual, that the rare really good band that builds a mainstream audience becomes elevated to the status of icon, which in large part misses the point [kurt cobain would be disgusted at the cottage industry built up around him]. even when future generations look back on these movements, they tend to overlook the founding principles. the textbooks will remember vivienne westwood, not jello biafra or crass - that will be left to specialized scholarship.
bking87
Yes, because as we all know, the Beatles turn to absolute sh*t after they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show... NOTHING of cultural significance came from them after that. Pink Floyd was TERRIBLE after they released Saucerful of Secrets... I can't think of a single song that I've liked since. Rolling Stones has to be the worst bunch of sell-outs ever... except for maybe Led Zeppelin. Bob Marley bringing reggae to the attention of the world population is akin to audible genocide and all of his albums should be burned. Beethoven has gone down in history as the worst sell-out based on his popularity back in the day.
Good music speaks to the individual and the state of mind that they are in at the time they are listening to it. Should it grab the attention of more than a handful of people and gain exposure to the general populace, it doesn't suddenly lose authenticity. Rage Against the Machine is an example of this (although there are those who do take the whole "they don't live in a van down by the river, so they're sell-outs!" approach to them).
Popular music isn't always good (and I will admit has grown increasingly bad in recent years), and in many cases where they are studio-driven, it is indeed very bad, but flipping that statement around to "good music can't be popular" doesn't doesn't fit as a logical conclusion.
Personally, I take a song/singer/musician and say "if they looked more like Mama Cass or Jerry Garcia but still had the equal talent that they have right now, would they remain equally popular?" If the answer is "sure", then their music is judged on their talent, but if the answer is "no", then their popularity is based more on physical attractiveness and advertising and indeed, THAT music is sh*t.
jessica
that's all counter-culture, though. even late beatles. some of it might have sold, but none of it was popular.
bking87
and just for giggles, go ahead and do an internet search for "top selling bands of all time" and look at the various lists that you'll find. Sure, there will be some in there that will make you gag (for me Celine Dion comes to mind), but if you're going to say that these bands as a group don't make "good music", then you are just a hater, and haters don't hate others... haters hate themselves because they're jealous of the success of others.
jessica
even with a best-selling bands of all time list, you need to be careful. the beatles wouldn't be on that list if it wasn't for their early success; you can't start talking about them as an artistic force until revolver, and it's very unlikely that their later material would have sold nearly as well if it wasn't for the beatlemania that preceded it. it's hard to analyze them on that level. then you have a collection of mostly 70s stuff like queen, zeppelin, floyd, the who, the rolling stones, genesis - this was never really mainstream, it was just representative of a large counter-culture. you also have to factor in format conversion for everything released in the lp era - and the fact that these acts stand out and others don't speaks more to their ability to transcend short term fashion trends than it does for their popularity in their own periods (excepting the beatles, where the issue is beyond question). there's then a collection of 80s and 90s bands (u2, rem, chili peppers, nirvana) that were a different counter-culture - still not mainstream. and, there's not much left, after that.
we've never really exited a singles culture. if you take any of these bands that have sold a lot of records over multiple generations, few of them will have ever dominated any kind of singles charts for any length of time. what is popular tends to not persevere, though, because popularity is fashion.
one example is to compare the saturday night fever soundtrack to the dark side of the moon. at the time of it's release, the saturday night fever soundtrack quickly became the greatest selling record of all time. but, dark side has outsold it by more than a factor of 10 since 1980. it actually snuck back into the billboard 100 a few years ago, amazingly, almost forty years after it's release. it's now sold far, far more units. and, in fact, it's been outselling thriller as well for years, by a good margin, and could very well catch it in the upcoming years. but it's longevity doesn't imply it's popularity. it implies it's status as a counter-cultural milestone, and it's ability to appeal to generation after generation of people outside of the mainstream. if waters lives long enough, he could see this happen.
again: you can sell huge amounts of records without being popular because there's a giant space to exist within outside of the norm. and, as time goes on, what is less popular often catches up in terms of sales. nobody would argue that radiohead were more popular than britney spears. but, 50 years from now, they may very well have more units moved.
cm
Everything your saying is nonsense. It sounds like your just regurgitating things you learned from Wikipedia. 5 year olds know every band you listed here because they all are or were at some time popular. Or just plain sucked like U2. Listen, My statement was that good bands should not be popular or they get watered down. I'm not saying good bands haven't been popular. But when a good band starts to draw a watered down crowd, I wash my hands of them. You can spout crap about the Beatles or Led Zeppelin until you pass out, There before my time and I have no opinion on them say that I don't like either of them. Underground music is what I'm about. While these bands your on about were considered counter culture, That doesn't make them good in my book. I like metal, but I don't like Metallica. I like jazz and blues, But I don't like Pink Floyed. The bands and musicians I'm into don't fall under any of the categories you have laid out here, because they were against the norm from the get go and never changed. I'll give you one example, and only one. The Dickies are a great band that you would have trouble putting in a category because they are unique. They aren't trying to start a trend, and you'll be hard pressed to find to many people who listen to them. Not because they suck or because they don't play radio friendly music. But because they live and breath for the music. They don't have an agenda to make more money or to gain more popularity. They simply are. I hate going on like this.
jessica
i don't really care what you're saying. i care what i'm saying. i'm saying this is impossible - good music cannot be the mainstream, by definition.
and, go ahead and ask even a twenty-five year old nowadays what they know about pink floyd or led zeppelin or, yes, even the beatles. they might know a bit more about queen due to the special interest story around freddie mercury's sexuality. these people grew up in an entirely different reality, with an entirely different counter-culture. it's ancient history, to them. they know nothing of this.
let's focus on zeppelin - but it's as applicable to the rest of them (excluding the beatles, and to a lesser extent floyd). zeppelin never had a hit single. they had a large following of hippies and outcasts, and it often put their albums at the top of the charts at the time of their releases, but they were never mainstream, never popular. and, you can cut their album sales in at least half due to the fact that they sold everything two or three times to the same people. they also released several records over a long period. a moderately sized, dedicated counter-cultural audience can add up over twenty records (including compilations and live discs) when you sell it to them multiple times. ((140/20))/2 = 3.5. that's an average, so it's a little lower than a few and a little higher than a few others. but, in contemporary terms, that puts them on par with a successful alternative rock band. the white stripes. green day. or, of the aforementioned bands, only zeppelin could be compared to the foofighters. that's a long ways away from the kind of mainstream popularity that actual pop music enjoys - it is not popular, nor is it mainstream.
i don't like zeppelin, either. but i realize it has greater value than the pop of the period. and that is the reason people bought those discs on cd.
but, looking at the list all these years later badly skews the reality of it.
jr
it can't because radio won't ever play it.
bking87
So what happens if The Dickies suddenly gain enough popularity that you hear one of their songs on a Kia commercial (and don't think that will never happen as I'm sure any Ramons fan from back in the day would say the same thing)... does their work, or that particular song that you love today magically and immediately become rubbish? And if any listing sounds like something from Wikipedia, it's because it's a list of good bands that 5 year olds have heard of because they are/were popular.
Sorry, but your original statement was "good music should never be popular", not "man, it sucks that some bands lose their vision and focus once they start gaining some monetary success. I'm happy that Man or Astro-Man? never became one of those bands." And then you double-downed with a statement about how poverty improves talent or something to that effect, which is completely insane. Will I suggest that success doesn't change people... of course not and there's a myriad of examples of this out there. But I also won't make a blanket statement that all musicians lose their creative vision once they are in a space of relative comfort.
The issue for me with folks that carry this feeling is that it creates a Catch-22 scenario for the artist because all musicians change over time. If they don't, if they produce the same thing, the same sound, over and over and over again, they are labelled as stale. If their music shifts, they are selling out. There is no winning. The fact of the matter is that, in order to support yourself as an artist, you must be able to make a living with your art. This doesn't necessarily mean selling out and indeed, if you purposely change your artistic focus to meet the needs of a record company, that's selling out. But if you ARE successful and you are producing music for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, well, as is the case with ALL artistic avenues out there, your sound, your voice, your direction will take on new directions. Picasso didn't have just one phase... do we call him a sell-out because he moved past his "blue stage"? The written word of Hunter S Thompson definitely took shifts from his earlier to later works, but I don't think many people question his integrity as a writer. So why can't a musician grow as their life experiences grow?
I realize it's another "before your time" reference, but 50 years ago, Bob Dylan walked onto stage and plugged in his guitar, practically inciting a riot amongst the counter-culture people of the day... there was a LOT of "sell out" chants and gnashing-of-teeth from the underground movement at the time, but it turned out to be one of the most important moments in rock-n-roll history. What you're basically saying is that you'd be on of those in the crowd demanding his head for "turning his back to the cause" and history would be looking back at you and just shaking it's head.
Is there a LOT of sh*t music out there that is corporate driven? You betcha. Are there people who sell their musical integrity in the name of fame and money? Happens all the time. Are there people who are able to reach a cord in the general public and become popular without sacrificing their artistic integrity... yup, and that's why I challenged the original statement.
And to deathtokoalas, indeed, your points are all valid and I'm not trying to suggest that any of the bands that I listed (other than the Beatles) were the top performer in their day... I'm sure any search for "Top Billboard" in any particular year back then will reveal a lot of "who the f*ck are THEY!?!" results. They might not have been the "most popular", but they were popular and selling out stadiums wherever they went and their sustained popularity all these decades later can demonstrate how quality isn't necessarily diminished by cultural acceptance.
cm
If the Dickies sell out, I stop listening to them, because I no longer identify with them. Maybe I should clarify. In my opinion, because there is no way I can speak for anyone but myself. Good music, What I consider good music should never be popular. I'm not saying they shouldn't make money or have fans. I'm not saying that good bands that started underground haven't become popular. When a band begins to get to big I, Me, Myself loose interest. And when they become a product of Hollywood like so many of the bands you have listed I loose interest completely. I don't like the underground because of its exclusivity or its ability to keep trendies out. I like it because that's often the purest message you'll get from the artist, Un tainted by to much fame or fan base. They're often still grounded. you don't get songs or ideas tailored for the vast majority. Like all the movies that have come out over the last 10 years. Made for everybody but satisfies only the most watered down. I wouldn't even say all popular bands are bad, I just wont call myself a fan of theirs. I don't want to see the music that inspired me to play, be turned into the next generations Hot Topic fashion trend. There are still some bands out there who are great and haven't become to big. Man or Astro-man is one of them, and for that I am thankful.
jessica
you know that the dickies suck, right?
cm
I'm glad you think so.
jessica
utterly vapid. and, intentionally so. seems like a very strange band to hold up as an example of holding their credibility. they're basically doing a clown routine.
cm
lol, ok kid. You must know allot about music. I guess I'll just go enjoy my vapid clown show. Way to look up a few vids on YouTube to prove nothing.
jessica
i'm a lot older than i look. i still get carded. the kid upstairs seems to think i'm his age; i don't have the heart to tell him i'm probably literally twice it. but, hey, you don't deny this. i just think it's somewhat comical.
"i consider the absolute high point of art music to be goatwhore."
cm
Manny, Moe and Jack
Pretty Please Me
Toxic Avenger
Caligula
Road Kill
All great songs. Most of which pre date you, I'm willing to bet. Unless your 40. I can't tell from your pic.
cm
No, I believe your allot older then I think.
jessica
i'm not 40.
it's silly, fluffy pop music. i have no objection to you enjoying that. but i would expect a certain ironic distance, as in "i like this because it sucks!". it has to be in the guilty pleasure pile, or not listened to at all.
cm
I've seen Goatwhore open for Gwar maybe 3 times. There the band everyone stands real still for, right?
jessica
i really don't know much about goatwhore, their name is just particularly well suited for punchlines.
lucidloon
So what's your opinion on Motown? The Temptations and such. That was very much pop music, but I would argue it's damn good too.
jessica
to be frank, i have very little opinion of it. i haven't heard much of it. it's something that peaked 20 years before i was born and has little cultural connection or relevance to the things i'm interested in.
i have somewhat of an opinion on what you could call 60s girl groups, but it's from a feminist perspective and is broadly negative.
i've recently moved to the canadian side of detroit, so i might be expected to. but, i really don't.
and, i guess if i were to take a walk through dearborn and randomly ask around about opinions on stockhausen, i wouldn't get much of a response, either. that's understandable. it's just not culturally relevant.
most of the shows i've been to since i've been here are broadly categorized as punk shows, so the audience is broadly white. but, i mean, i'm white. a little native, a little jewish, a little italian, but white. that's not that weird, really.
i'd like to hit a good jazz show, but i haven't come across one yet. the billy cobham show a while back was a bit steep, price wise. i'd be more interested in the fusion of the period.
and, if i could trace motown forwards to something i could connect with, i'd have more interest in it. but, my understanding is that motown became disco, which became hip-hop. and it's just not a lineage i've delved into.
so, when i say i don't have an opinion, i really mean that: i'm approaching it largely from a point of ignorance, brought on by the fact that it really has no relevance to me, culturally.
but, regarding the girl groups, specifically?
i find most of it is coming from a very repressed place. the lyrics are broadly horrible. it's all upholding demure stereotypes of women. a lot of it was written by men, and most of the profits went to men. i find it really offsetting on that level, and don't see a lot of value in it.
i think that does tie in to what i'm saying, because it was upholding a concept of femininity that the counter-culture was railing against pretty hard at the time.
lucidloon
I was thinking more in terms of musicality than the social impact of lyrical content to be perfectly honest. I think that's two different conversations.
jessica
see, i can't honestly have this discussion; i'm not well enough informed.
lucidloon
Fair enough!
Good music should never be popular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOld-kvQYm0
jessica
good music can't become popular. in order to become popular, it must reflect the status quo and cease to be good. now, there's a grey area where it can be quasi-good and manage to sell. and you can manage to sell quite a few records without becoming popular. but, it's ultimately a contradiction in terms.
fm
that's not true man. There's plenty great bands in the underground that are popular in their own ways. Sometimes we get so Into the whole idea of things staying under ground that we kinda in.a way never want them to get popular but through the years they do. Look at the Jesus lizard for example... a d they're still Indy...
jessica
we're defining "popular" rather differently - you're talking about bulk album sales and picking some arbitrary number, while i'm talking about tapping into the public consciousness in a way that represents mainstream attitudes. the truth is that you can sell hundreds of thousands of records without ever tapping into the mainstream and becoming "popular".
a good example of that is ministry. they play stadiums. they're not popular.
cm-2
good music ought to be popular. because if everyone were in to good music of all genres, we'd get far more exposure to that quality of content than we do in our lesser numbers. i believe in the right to ones personal view. opinion is freedom. but when you go left or right, id say crack a window. allow possibilities an opportunity to expand u. not to get so fucking deep, but we can all agree that existence is in infinite motion. "ever changing," 'cause if something moves, its not at its former place. consider a world where every person had the opinion that music is a standard, and speaks volumes about the individual. the latter is fact. or is it? manson enjoyed the beatles.. lol embrace the maybes', like i just did, mid sentence. we can all be wrong and right, depending on where we're positioned. original thought was simply: a world full of dope music would surround you with the shit. imagine an existence where every song you heard was impactful, so much so that it constantly opened you up. ah, such a place is a dream. thusly, in my "opinion" (just another assclown on this tele tube, to someone, hopefully!) i beg to differ with you, and those who can't see the possibilities. if all the good fucking music (there is INFINITY of it...) was POPULAR, we wouldn't form the jaded views you have. friend, you have validity. but you are disenchanted because popular music sucks lengthy, sturdy, pulsing-... i'll stop there. ~_~ <3 peace, bruhskee.
cm
If it's popular, it starts to suck. If it needs lengthy explanation, it starts to suck. Ya dig?
jr
so what are you implying that the general population has bad taste in music.
cm
No I'm stating my opinion. But yes the general population does have bad taste in music or Nickleback would not exist.
jessica
it's a statistical necessity. the exceptional cannot be the mainstream, or it ceases to be exceptional. it should follow a bell curve, with most people interested in stuff that's unoffensive and bland and minorities into the extremes of talent and garbage.
it doesn't really matter what metrics you're using. creativity cannot be the norm, or it ceases to be creative. technical proficiency cannot be the norm, or it ceases to be such. exceptional taste cannot be the norm, or it loses it's exceptional nature.
that's why critics have no choice but to rail against the fashions. otherwise, they wouldn't be critics.
jr
so the people the listen to it will continue to be labeled hipsters or edgy
jessica
but, by the same logic, that's driven by their conformity - and that upholds the status quo that rejects innovation.
attitudes change over time. that which was labeled as "hipster" becomes interpreted as "visionary". sometimes the artists are lucky enough to live long enough to see that shift and get acknowledgement; often, they're not.
we don't have to be silly and talk about beethoven. syd barrett was kicked out of pink floyd because they thought he was killing their marketability. examples are endless.
la
Im not a music expert or less, but, have you ever thought thats a very subjective matter? Whats supossed to be "good music" and "the message behind the music that lesser intuitive generations cant get"?
cm
I don't want to see lesser generations turn the music and bands I like and consider good, Into fashion statements. There is no message to get anymore! anytime music tries to make a point its lost in the fray of popularity. Popular music sucks because it's made for mass consumption. Designed to suite a wide variety of people but ends up only alienating the people who loved them for what they were to begin with. So fuck the lesser generation, If they cant find interest unless MTV tells them it's cool. Just fuck em!
jr
I'm into this type of music. And I'm from the 90s generation
jessica
activists tend to look at music through a marxist filter of propaganda of the deed and agitprop - this idea that music can play a role in pushing social awareness and changing the status quo. but, i think it's worth looking at what socrates had to say: he said that when you see musicians start to gather, you know a change has already happened. it reverses the causality. it suggests that art is not a driver of change, but a reaction to it.
what you're getting at is probably correct. man or astroman are aesthetically a punk band, but they're not a political one. but, when you do look at political music that has built a following in the post-war era, what you see is the following pattern:
1) a community begins to develop that expresses a certain kind of ideals. this was true of the beatniks, the hippies, the punks, the ravers, hip-hop, etc.
2) as that community grows, people with status quo ideas enter into it.
3) they slowly begin to ostracize the people that held the ideals, as they co-opt the aesthetic qualities of the music into the status quo.
4) business people take notice and market the aesthetic qualities of the music, completely stripped of the ideals that initially generated the community.
5) the idealists scatter, and have to rebuild.
it happens consistently. and, it's not a function of corporatism, or capitalism or any kind of financial motives - those only come in at the last stage. it's just a function of norms asserting themselves. it's an entirely social phenomenon.
as i stated: it's virtually an impossibility. it's so unusual, that the rare really good band that builds a mainstream audience becomes elevated to the status of icon, which in large part misses the point [kurt cobain would be disgusted at the cottage industry built up around him]. even when future generations look back on these movements, they tend to overlook the founding principles. the textbooks will remember vivienne westwood, not jello biafra or crass - that will be left to specialized scholarship.
bking87
Yes, because as we all know, the Beatles turn to absolute sh*t after they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show... NOTHING of cultural significance came from them after that. Pink Floyd was TERRIBLE after they released Saucerful of Secrets... I can't think of a single song that I've liked since. Rolling Stones has to be the worst bunch of sell-outs ever... except for maybe Led Zeppelin. Bob Marley bringing reggae to the attention of the world population is akin to audible genocide and all of his albums should be burned. Beethoven has gone down in history as the worst sell-out based on his popularity back in the day.
Good music speaks to the individual and the state of mind that they are in at the time they are listening to it. Should it grab the attention of more than a handful of people and gain exposure to the general populace, it doesn't suddenly lose authenticity. Rage Against the Machine is an example of this (although there are those who do take the whole "they don't live in a van down by the river, so they're sell-outs!" approach to them).
Popular music isn't always good (and I will admit has grown increasingly bad in recent years), and in many cases where they are studio-driven, it is indeed very bad, but flipping that statement around to "good music can't be popular" doesn't doesn't fit as a logical conclusion.
Personally, I take a song/singer/musician and say "if they looked more like Mama Cass or Jerry Garcia but still had the equal talent that they have right now, would they remain equally popular?" If the answer is "sure", then their music is judged on their talent, but if the answer is "no", then their popularity is based more on physical attractiveness and advertising and indeed, THAT music is sh*t.
jessica
that's all counter-culture, though. even late beatles. some of it might have sold, but none of it was popular.
bking87
and just for giggles, go ahead and do an internet search for "top selling bands of all time" and look at the various lists that you'll find. Sure, there will be some in there that will make you gag (for me Celine Dion comes to mind), but if you're going to say that these bands as a group don't make "good music", then you are just a hater, and haters don't hate others... haters hate themselves because they're jealous of the success of others.
jessica
even with a best-selling bands of all time list, you need to be careful. the beatles wouldn't be on that list if it wasn't for their early success; you can't start talking about them as an artistic force until revolver, and it's very unlikely that their later material would have sold nearly as well if it wasn't for the beatlemania that preceded it. it's hard to analyze them on that level. then you have a collection of mostly 70s stuff like queen, zeppelin, floyd, the who, the rolling stones, genesis - this was never really mainstream, it was just representative of a large counter-culture. you also have to factor in format conversion for everything released in the lp era - and the fact that these acts stand out and others don't speaks more to their ability to transcend short term fashion trends than it does for their popularity in their own periods (excepting the beatles, where the issue is beyond question). there's then a collection of 80s and 90s bands (u2, rem, chili peppers, nirvana) that were a different counter-culture - still not mainstream. and, there's not much left, after that.
we've never really exited a singles culture. if you take any of these bands that have sold a lot of records over multiple generations, few of them will have ever dominated any kind of singles charts for any length of time. what is popular tends to not persevere, though, because popularity is fashion.
one example is to compare the saturday night fever soundtrack to the dark side of the moon. at the time of it's release, the saturday night fever soundtrack quickly became the greatest selling record of all time. but, dark side has outsold it by more than a factor of 10 since 1980. it actually snuck back into the billboard 100 a few years ago, amazingly, almost forty years after it's release. it's now sold far, far more units. and, in fact, it's been outselling thriller as well for years, by a good margin, and could very well catch it in the upcoming years. but it's longevity doesn't imply it's popularity. it implies it's status as a counter-cultural milestone, and it's ability to appeal to generation after generation of people outside of the mainstream. if waters lives long enough, he could see this happen.
again: you can sell huge amounts of records without being popular because there's a giant space to exist within outside of the norm. and, as time goes on, what is less popular often catches up in terms of sales. nobody would argue that radiohead were more popular than britney spears. but, 50 years from now, they may very well have more units moved.
cm
Everything your saying is nonsense. It sounds like your just regurgitating things you learned from Wikipedia. 5 year olds know every band you listed here because they all are or were at some time popular. Or just plain sucked like U2. Listen, My statement was that good bands should not be popular or they get watered down. I'm not saying good bands haven't been popular. But when a good band starts to draw a watered down crowd, I wash my hands of them. You can spout crap about the Beatles or Led Zeppelin until you pass out, There before my time and I have no opinion on them say that I don't like either of them. Underground music is what I'm about. While these bands your on about were considered counter culture, That doesn't make them good in my book. I like metal, but I don't like Metallica. I like jazz and blues, But I don't like Pink Floyed. The bands and musicians I'm into don't fall under any of the categories you have laid out here, because they were against the norm from the get go and never changed. I'll give you one example, and only one. The Dickies are a great band that you would have trouble putting in a category because they are unique. They aren't trying to start a trend, and you'll be hard pressed to find to many people who listen to them. Not because they suck or because they don't play radio friendly music. But because they live and breath for the music. They don't have an agenda to make more money or to gain more popularity. They simply are. I hate going on like this.
jessica
i don't really care what you're saying. i care what i'm saying. i'm saying this is impossible - good music cannot be the mainstream, by definition.
and, go ahead and ask even a twenty-five year old nowadays what they know about pink floyd or led zeppelin or, yes, even the beatles. they might know a bit more about queen due to the special interest story around freddie mercury's sexuality. these people grew up in an entirely different reality, with an entirely different counter-culture. it's ancient history, to them. they know nothing of this.
let's focus on zeppelin - but it's as applicable to the rest of them (excluding the beatles, and to a lesser extent floyd). zeppelin never had a hit single. they had a large following of hippies and outcasts, and it often put their albums at the top of the charts at the time of their releases, but they were never mainstream, never popular. and, you can cut their album sales in at least half due to the fact that they sold everything two or three times to the same people. they also released several records over a long period. a moderately sized, dedicated counter-cultural audience can add up over twenty records (including compilations and live discs) when you sell it to them multiple times. ((140/20))/2 = 3.5. that's an average, so it's a little lower than a few and a little higher than a few others. but, in contemporary terms, that puts them on par with a successful alternative rock band. the white stripes. green day. or, of the aforementioned bands, only zeppelin could be compared to the foofighters. that's a long ways away from the kind of mainstream popularity that actual pop music enjoys - it is not popular, nor is it mainstream.
i don't like zeppelin, either. but i realize it has greater value than the pop of the period. and that is the reason people bought those discs on cd.
but, looking at the list all these years later badly skews the reality of it.
jr
it can't because radio won't ever play it.
bking87
So what happens if The Dickies suddenly gain enough popularity that you hear one of their songs on a Kia commercial (and don't think that will never happen as I'm sure any Ramons fan from back in the day would say the same thing)... does their work, or that particular song that you love today magically and immediately become rubbish? And if any listing sounds like something from Wikipedia, it's because it's a list of good bands that 5 year olds have heard of because they are/were popular.
Sorry, but your original statement was "good music should never be popular", not "man, it sucks that some bands lose their vision and focus once they start gaining some monetary success. I'm happy that Man or Astro-Man? never became one of those bands." And then you double-downed with a statement about how poverty improves talent or something to that effect, which is completely insane. Will I suggest that success doesn't change people... of course not and there's a myriad of examples of this out there. But I also won't make a blanket statement that all musicians lose their creative vision once they are in a space of relative comfort.
The issue for me with folks that carry this feeling is that it creates a Catch-22 scenario for the artist because all musicians change over time. If they don't, if they produce the same thing, the same sound, over and over and over again, they are labelled as stale. If their music shifts, they are selling out. There is no winning. The fact of the matter is that, in order to support yourself as an artist, you must be able to make a living with your art. This doesn't necessarily mean selling out and indeed, if you purposely change your artistic focus to meet the needs of a record company, that's selling out. But if you ARE successful and you are producing music for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, well, as is the case with ALL artistic avenues out there, your sound, your voice, your direction will take on new directions. Picasso didn't have just one phase... do we call him a sell-out because he moved past his "blue stage"? The written word of Hunter S Thompson definitely took shifts from his earlier to later works, but I don't think many people question his integrity as a writer. So why can't a musician grow as their life experiences grow?
I realize it's another "before your time" reference, but 50 years ago, Bob Dylan walked onto stage and plugged in his guitar, practically inciting a riot amongst the counter-culture people of the day... there was a LOT of "sell out" chants and gnashing-of-teeth from the underground movement at the time, but it turned out to be one of the most important moments in rock-n-roll history. What you're basically saying is that you'd be on of those in the crowd demanding his head for "turning his back to the cause" and history would be looking back at you and just shaking it's head.
Is there a LOT of sh*t music out there that is corporate driven? You betcha. Are there people who sell their musical integrity in the name of fame and money? Happens all the time. Are there people who are able to reach a cord in the general public and become popular without sacrificing their artistic integrity... yup, and that's why I challenged the original statement.
And to deathtokoalas, indeed, your points are all valid and I'm not trying to suggest that any of the bands that I listed (other than the Beatles) were the top performer in their day... I'm sure any search for "Top Billboard" in any particular year back then will reveal a lot of "who the f*ck are THEY!?!" results. They might not have been the "most popular", but they were popular and selling out stadiums wherever they went and their sustained popularity all these decades later can demonstrate how quality isn't necessarily diminished by cultural acceptance.
cm
If the Dickies sell out, I stop listening to them, because I no longer identify with them. Maybe I should clarify. In my opinion, because there is no way I can speak for anyone but myself. Good music, What I consider good music should never be popular. I'm not saying they shouldn't make money or have fans. I'm not saying that good bands that started underground haven't become popular. When a band begins to get to big I, Me, Myself loose interest. And when they become a product of Hollywood like so many of the bands you have listed I loose interest completely. I don't like the underground because of its exclusivity or its ability to keep trendies out. I like it because that's often the purest message you'll get from the artist, Un tainted by to much fame or fan base. They're often still grounded. you don't get songs or ideas tailored for the vast majority. Like all the movies that have come out over the last 10 years. Made for everybody but satisfies only the most watered down. I wouldn't even say all popular bands are bad, I just wont call myself a fan of theirs. I don't want to see the music that inspired me to play, be turned into the next generations Hot Topic fashion trend. There are still some bands out there who are great and haven't become to big. Man or Astro-man is one of them, and for that I am thankful.
jessica
you know that the dickies suck, right?
cm
I'm glad you think so.
jessica
utterly vapid. and, intentionally so. seems like a very strange band to hold up as an example of holding their credibility. they're basically doing a clown routine.
cm
lol, ok kid. You must know allot about music. I guess I'll just go enjoy my vapid clown show. Way to look up a few vids on YouTube to prove nothing.
jessica
i'm a lot older than i look. i still get carded. the kid upstairs seems to think i'm his age; i don't have the heart to tell him i'm probably literally twice it. but, hey, you don't deny this. i just think it's somewhat comical.
"i consider the absolute high point of art music to be goatwhore."
cm
Manny, Moe and Jack
Pretty Please Me
Toxic Avenger
Caligula
Road Kill
All great songs. Most of which pre date you, I'm willing to bet. Unless your 40. I can't tell from your pic.
cm
No, I believe your allot older then I think.
jessica
i'm not 40.
it's silly, fluffy pop music. i have no objection to you enjoying that. but i would expect a certain ironic distance, as in "i like this because it sucks!". it has to be in the guilty pleasure pile, or not listened to at all.
cm
I've seen Goatwhore open for Gwar maybe 3 times. There the band everyone stands real still for, right?
jessica
i really don't know much about goatwhore, their name is just particularly well suited for punchlines.
lucidloon
So what's your opinion on Motown? The Temptations and such. That was very much pop music, but I would argue it's damn good too.
jessica
to be frank, i have very little opinion of it. i haven't heard much of it. it's something that peaked 20 years before i was born and has little cultural connection or relevance to the things i'm interested in.
i have somewhat of an opinion on what you could call 60s girl groups, but it's from a feminist perspective and is broadly negative.
i've recently moved to the canadian side of detroit, so i might be expected to. but, i really don't.
and, i guess if i were to take a walk through dearborn and randomly ask around about opinions on stockhausen, i wouldn't get much of a response, either. that's understandable. it's just not culturally relevant.
most of the shows i've been to since i've been here are broadly categorized as punk shows, so the audience is broadly white. but, i mean, i'm white. a little native, a little jewish, a little italian, but white. that's not that weird, really.
i'd like to hit a good jazz show, but i haven't come across one yet. the billy cobham show a while back was a bit steep, price wise. i'd be more interested in the fusion of the period.
and, if i could trace motown forwards to something i could connect with, i'd have more interest in it. but, my understanding is that motown became disco, which became hip-hop. and it's just not a lineage i've delved into.
so, when i say i don't have an opinion, i really mean that: i'm approaching it largely from a point of ignorance, brought on by the fact that it really has no relevance to me, culturally.
but, regarding the girl groups, specifically?
i find most of it is coming from a very repressed place. the lyrics are broadly horrible. it's all upholding demure stereotypes of women. a lot of it was written by men, and most of the profits went to men. i find it really offsetting on that level, and don't see a lot of value in it.
i think that does tie in to what i'm saying, because it was upholding a concept of femininity that the counter-culture was railing against pretty hard at the time.
lucidloon
I was thinking more in terms of musicality than the social impact of lyrical content to be perfectly honest. I think that's two different conversations.
jessica
see, i can't honestly have this discussion; i'm not well enough informed.
lucidloon
Fair enough!
at
19:51
if you're measuring yourself against others, rather than against yourself, i can assure you that you're a failure.
at
18:49
i've had backlashes both ways. i remember a kid in grade school that
looked me in the eye at the end of the school year, after the tan had
come in, and said "i thought you were white!". and, i can also remember
tanned girls in high school start giving me the cold shoulder after
hallowe'en, when they realized i'm more white than they thought.
at
17:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the norwegian in me from my mom's side is pasty white. it takes over in
the winter. but, the italian, jewish and cree on my dad's side gives me a
dark tan in the summer. at least i don't burn. but, the shifts can be
really stark.
at
16:57
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
fwiw, my hep b symptoms seem to be finally lessening.
- less tired
- my skin is lightening (i'm a hybrid, so my tone changes drastically with the sun. this is complicating my ability to self-diagnose. but, i've been darker than i should be this winter. it's finally fading.). this is jaundice related, i think.
- yellow in the eyes is fading.
- urine is lightening
i'm not going to get that blood test until march, probably. i won't know for sure until then. but i feel like i'm beating it - as i really should be expected to, given my age and general good health.
again: the lesson is don't take shots on low sleep and an empty stomach.
- less tired
- my skin is lightening (i'm a hybrid, so my tone changes drastically with the sun. this is complicating my ability to self-diagnose. but, i've been darker than i should be this winter. it's finally fading.). this is jaundice related, i think.
- yellow in the eyes is fading.
- urine is lightening
i'm not going to get that blood test until march, probably. i won't know for sure until then. but i feel like i'm beating it - as i really should be expected to, given my age and general good health.
again: the lesson is don't take shots on low sleep and an empty stomach.
at
16:53
what i'm saying about karina gould is not so terrible. you just have to be starkly realistic about it.
in canada, the landslide effect will often swing ridings unexpectedly. now, i was probably the only person in the country that correctly called peterborough and burlington for the liberals (i also called kitchener, and was wrong). the reason is that liberals were polling at nearly 45% in ontario, and when that happens the whole province swings.
i think it was in 1993 when the liberals won 106 out of 106 ridings in ontario. every single riding over an area that is probably larger than washington, oregon and california combined. there's around 15 million people here.
such a landslide will probably happen again, but probably not in 2019. so, these normally conservative seats will almost certainly swing back. it's just a regression to the mean. and, there's no long term demographic reasons to think that either of these cities are likely to trend liberal, either. burlington is an established wealthy enclave of toronto, and peterborough is converting from a large town on the very outskirts of toronto into a wealthy suburb of it. so, the demographic trends both lean conservative.
it will be almost impossible for either mp to hold the seat.
so, what that means is that, whatever her qualifications and upsides, it is also the case that karina gould is one of the most expendable members in parliament. she might be the single most expendable. and, that's why she got stuck with the portfolio that nobody wants.
and, you know what? i bet neither one of them thought they were going to win, either. so, hey - it's been a fun ride, right? they won a seat they didn't expect win. they became cabinet ministers. it will look good on a resume for a real job.
but, that's no doubt the actual calculation, here.
and, now i need to eat and put this down until i'm done.
in canada, the landslide effect will often swing ridings unexpectedly. now, i was probably the only person in the country that correctly called peterborough and burlington for the liberals (i also called kitchener, and was wrong). the reason is that liberals were polling at nearly 45% in ontario, and when that happens the whole province swings.
i think it was in 1993 when the liberals won 106 out of 106 ridings in ontario. every single riding over an area that is probably larger than washington, oregon and california combined. there's around 15 million people here.
such a landslide will probably happen again, but probably not in 2019. so, these normally conservative seats will almost certainly swing back. it's just a regression to the mean. and, there's no long term demographic reasons to think that either of these cities are likely to trend liberal, either. burlington is an established wealthy enclave of toronto, and peterborough is converting from a large town on the very outskirts of toronto into a wealthy suburb of it. so, the demographic trends both lean conservative.
it will be almost impossible for either mp to hold the seat.
so, what that means is that, whatever her qualifications and upsides, it is also the case that karina gould is one of the most expendable members in parliament. she might be the single most expendable. and, that's why she got stuck with the portfolio that nobody wants.
and, you know what? i bet neither one of them thought they were going to win, either. so, hey - it's been a fun ride, right? they won a seat they didn't expect win. they became cabinet ministers. it will look good on a resume for a real job.
but, that's no doubt the actual calculation, here.
and, now i need to eat and put this down until i'm done.
at
15:42
also, i'm not going to complain too loudly about automotive tariffs on canada.
hopefully, that will incentivize our manufacturing sector to shift to more sustainable industries.
i mean, if they want to go back to the 50s, we can't stop them, but we don't have to follow them. maybe it's the shake-up we need.
hopefully, that will incentivize our manufacturing sector to shift to more sustainable industries.
i mean, if they want to go back to the 50s, we can't stop them, but we don't have to follow them. maybe it's the shake-up we need.
at
14:38
the liberals never expected to hold peterborough, and they don't expect to hold burlington, either.
at
14:18
but, i'm wasting days at a time, now.
i have to sit in front of the machine to accomplish my task of reconstructing the journal. but i need to focus. and i can't.
so, i cannot be ranting here until i'm done. and i have to enforce this.
i have to sit in front of the machine to accomplish my task of reconstructing the journal. but i need to focus. and i can't.
so, i cannot be ranting here until i'm done. and i have to enforce this.
at
13:35
to clarify: i don't think that "sjws" are leftists, either, or that the future of the left has anything to do with them. i think that they're conservatives - opponents - and that the left needs to wipe them out in order to move forward.
so, i'm not interested in co-operating with them. i'm interested in destroying them. and, very specifically, i'm interested in destroying this idea that logic and evidence is imperialist.
they must be forced to see that the evidence is not on the side of white supremacism, and that the best way to defeat racism is through applying science and logic.
so, i'm not interested in co-operating with them. i'm interested in destroying them. and, very specifically, i'm interested in destroying this idea that logic and evidence is imperialist.
they must be forced to see that the evidence is not on the side of white supremacism, and that the best way to defeat racism is through applying science and logic.
at
13:32
my opinion about critical race theory is that it is internalized white supremacism. and i am broadly an advocate of critical theories.
so, when i point out historical facts like the muslim slave raids on london, it is done with an attempt to collapse what i consider to be a white supremacist narrative.
try it. go find an "sjw" and run that by them and see what they say. they'll have a hard time with it, because it will upset the burkean order that foucault placed in their heads. white people cannot be enslaved by muslims, and certainly can't be victims of slave raids, and especially not in london, and not during the shakespearean era. that couldn't have happened.
but, it did.
and your internalized hierarchy is racism.
so, when i point out historical facts like the muslim slave raids on london, it is done with an attempt to collapse what i consider to be a white supremacist narrative.
try it. go find an "sjw" and run that by them and see what they say. they'll have a hard time with it, because it will upset the burkean order that foucault placed in their heads. white people cannot be enslaved by muslims, and certainly can't be victims of slave raids, and especially not in london, and not during the shakespearean era. that couldn't have happened.
but, it did.
and your internalized hierarchy is racism.
at
03:56
i just want to expand on cenk's point about slavery not being about race. i don't agree that it's about human nature; i'd argue that it's about economics and that it's about a more generalized concept of xenophobia and exclusion to uphold the economics. but, cenk is a conservative and i am an anarchist. where we agree is in realizing the importance of looking at the real causes of slavery in order to understand where they've gotten us today.
slavery as we understand it is actually primarily about religion, and this was developed by the muslims, but in europe and not in africa. when the romans enslaved people, it was largely about class. the muslims changed this by converting the basis of slavery to a question of whether one was muslim or not. so, when they enslaved the ukrainians, it was not because they were white or even because they were christian but explicitly because they weren't muslim. there is some remnant of this today in isis' declaration to non-muslims to convert or be enslaved (or die...) - that is more or less how the process of islamic expansion occurred in a very wide area of the world. when they showed up on the shores of europe and raided european cities for slaves (and they did not just raid rome and marseilles, but also raided london and paris), they did it under the justification that they were non-muslims. when they built their janissaries, it was to spread islam by force.
european slavery happened as a reaction to islamic slavery, and stems not from an aristocratic declaration of ownership or a corporate drive for profit but from a papal bull declared in 1452 - 40 years before columbus, and directed primarily at the western coast of africa. the christians were upset that the muslims could enslave them based on their religion, but they couldn't enslave the muslims based on their religion. they saw this as unfair, and wanted reciprocity. so, the following papal edict was declared to address the point:
We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.
with that declaration, christian explorers were now allowed to take slaves of arab and african, and eventually native american, populations - not because of what they looked like, but because of their beliefs. with that edict, the christian declared the rest of the world it's slave.
you may argue that this is a kind of convenient fiction, for surely the christian never found a mirror-image in africa! but, you would be wrong. in fact, this policy was tested on the ethiopians, who were christianized in the pre-islamic era, presumably by romanized copts moving south along the nile. they apparently had a memory of rome, although the portugese had no idea they were there and were flatly shocked to find them. but, there was no raiding of ethiopian villages for slaves. europeans never colonized them - not until the italians invaded them in the 1930s. that's a distance of almost five hundred years, in which ethiopia maintained independence while the rest of africa was invaded. the portugese actually signed a mutual defense treaty with them against their common enemy, the saracens.
so, it's important to understand the nature of slavery in the pre-modern era as being explicitly religious and ultimately of islamic origin, imported by the pope so that christians could compete with muslim slave raids. and, this remained the basis of slavery in the christian world for centuries.
it was only when the puritans in america started questioning the logic of things and pulling out contradictions in the reasoning that race was presented as an argument, and even then it was to uphold an existing economy that slave owners did not want to reform. everything else aside, including questions of papal authority, the reality is that they were christianizing the africans, so how could it be claimed that they should be enslaved? isn't the premise in opposition to pretty much every christian principle that there is? in an attempt to quell a potentially dangerous dissent, the slave owners turned their own book on the earliest abolitionists: it is stated in genesis that the descendants of ham should be punished. that's why they had burnt skin and flat noses. they could cite aristotle for back-up.
so, it was only after the system existed and the brutality of it was questioned that race was brought in to justify it. preachers were told to go out and teach this, and it disseminated through the church from that point. as the black african must not just be enslaved but also punished, the brutality of the system increased - not just for economic reasons but for perceived moral ones.
in time, this lost effectiveness, and most people know the history form there. when religion failed, they tried to use science. it's always been a means to an end. but, the effects of this cynical reading of christian scripture to uphold an economic system have never been fully erased or resolved.
slavery as we understand it is actually primarily about religion, and this was developed by the muslims, but in europe and not in africa. when the romans enslaved people, it was largely about class. the muslims changed this by converting the basis of slavery to a question of whether one was muslim or not. so, when they enslaved the ukrainians, it was not because they were white or even because they were christian but explicitly because they weren't muslim. there is some remnant of this today in isis' declaration to non-muslims to convert or be enslaved (or die...) - that is more or less how the process of islamic expansion occurred in a very wide area of the world. when they showed up on the shores of europe and raided european cities for slaves (and they did not just raid rome and marseilles, but also raided london and paris), they did it under the justification that they were non-muslims. when they built their janissaries, it was to spread islam by force.
european slavery happened as a reaction to islamic slavery, and stems not from an aristocratic declaration of ownership or a corporate drive for profit but from a papal bull declared in 1452 - 40 years before columbus, and directed primarily at the western coast of africa. the christians were upset that the muslims could enslave them based on their religion, but they couldn't enslave the muslims based on their religion. they saw this as unfair, and wanted reciprocity. so, the following papal edict was declared to address the point:
We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.
with that declaration, christian explorers were now allowed to take slaves of arab and african, and eventually native american, populations - not because of what they looked like, but because of their beliefs. with that edict, the christian declared the rest of the world it's slave.
you may argue that this is a kind of convenient fiction, for surely the christian never found a mirror-image in africa! but, you would be wrong. in fact, this policy was tested on the ethiopians, who were christianized in the pre-islamic era, presumably by romanized copts moving south along the nile. they apparently had a memory of rome, although the portugese had no idea they were there and were flatly shocked to find them. but, there was no raiding of ethiopian villages for slaves. europeans never colonized them - not until the italians invaded them in the 1930s. that's a distance of almost five hundred years, in which ethiopia maintained independence while the rest of africa was invaded. the portugese actually signed a mutual defense treaty with them against their common enemy, the saracens.
so, it's important to understand the nature of slavery in the pre-modern era as being explicitly religious and ultimately of islamic origin, imported by the pope so that christians could compete with muslim slave raids. and, this remained the basis of slavery in the christian world for centuries.
it was only when the puritans in america started questioning the logic of things and pulling out contradictions in the reasoning that race was presented as an argument, and even then it was to uphold an existing economy that slave owners did not want to reform. everything else aside, including questions of papal authority, the reality is that they were christianizing the africans, so how could it be claimed that they should be enslaved? isn't the premise in opposition to pretty much every christian principle that there is? in an attempt to quell a potentially dangerous dissent, the slave owners turned their own book on the earliest abolitionists: it is stated in genesis that the descendants of ham should be punished. that's why they had burnt skin and flat noses. they could cite aristotle for back-up.
so, it was only after the system existed and the brutality of it was questioned that race was brought in to justify it. preachers were told to go out and teach this, and it disseminated through the church from that point. as the black african must not just be enslaved but also punished, the brutality of the system increased - not just for economic reasons but for perceived moral ones.
in time, this lost effectiveness, and most people know the history form there. when religion failed, they tried to use science. it's always been a means to an end. but, the effects of this cynical reading of christian scripture to uphold an economic system have never been fully erased or resolved.
at
00:26
Saturday, January 14, 2017
and, yes - trump's framing is racist as racist can be. but, let's be real, here.
you want to pick a side in a debate between a racist and a sellout?
no. a pox on both their houses.
this is exactly the narrative that democrats need to resist in opposing trump, in order to prevent themselves from being co-opted.
you want to pick a side in a debate between a racist and a sellout?
no. a pox on both their houses.
this is exactly the narrative that democrats need to resist in opposing trump, in order to prevent themselves from being co-opted.
at
21:17
actually, john lewis should focus on pleasing the multinationals that keep him in place as a figurehead in a corporate district. he's one of the most egregious corporate democrats in congress; his history doesn't absolve him of being a tool for big money.
he doesn't represent his constituents, and he doesn't represent civil rights. he represents capital.
he supported clinton over sanders. what does that tell you about who he really represents?
he's a sell-out.
he doesn't represent his constituents, and he doesn't represent civil rights. he represents capital.
he supported clinton over sanders. what does that tell you about who he really represents?
he's a sell-out.
at
20:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, July 13, 2014
if you throw the liberal philosophy and rhetoric about property rights
out the window (and this is especially necessary in canada, where
property rights are only weakly recognized by common law, and have no
standing whatsoever at a constitutional level, being explicitly rejected
by parliament (perhaps for political reasons, but nonetheless)
repeatedly), the way "buying" property works in reality is something
that is basically still feudal in nature.
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
at
18:46
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
at
18:37
i told you from the start that you'll never get co-operation from alberta. in the great game of life, they constantly play D. when you try and cut a deal with them, they just want to take advantage of you. they're bullies; they want to fight. and, you have to take the fight right to them.
they'll complain and whine and cry about it, but the reality is that they thrive on the confrontation. it's what they want.
they'll complain and whine and cry about it, but the reality is that they thrive on the confrontation. it's what they want.
this is a fundamental point of tension in the country, east v west. it's
never going to resolve. it is consequently not the task of eastern
politicians to try and play nice, but to try and use the conflict to
their advantage.
of course, you need to be
careful. as is the case with quebecois nationalism, the ultimate fear is
that the americans may swoop in. but, both sides can use this as
leverage.
if you hand them a fig leaf, they will take it out of your hand and stomp on it. so, we need to stop doing it.
at
15:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
to be clear: it's arms-length.
and, harper made it a priority to take control of it. it's become a
swarming hive of right-wing hacks.
cbc: conservative broadcasting corporation.
somebody needs to get the
importance of removing these people across to the liberal party. i don't
think this is clear enough to them.
at
13:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
sitting and watching cbc comments change in real-time is always fun, because you can actually see the upvotes decrease in front of you.
this is the statement:
"phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position."
the upvotes go up....and then they come down, because this is a statement that cannot be upvoted.
to be clear: the ups and downs are independent. clicking down shouldn't decrease the ups. it's just being manipulated. and, like i say, you can watch it happen if you sit and wait.
this is the statement:
"phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position."
the upvotes go up....and then they come down, because this is a statement that cannot be upvoted.
to be clear: the ups and downs are independent. clicking down shouldn't decrease the ups. it's just being manipulated. and, like i say, you can watch it happen if you sit and wait.
at
13:13
a parliamentary system is not set up to send a figurehead around to take
questions from audiences. the only people that can vote for or against
the prime minister are in his riding. the people that are tasked to talk
to their constituents and bring their concerns back to ottawa are the
sitting members in the house. that is how the data that they want should
be collected.
so, the media narrative of "he should say this...he should say
that..."....no. he should leave the job of local representation to local
representatives and go back to ottawa and govern.
when i go in to the voting area, i'm not going to remember the answers he gave at a town hall meeting. what i'm going to remember is the choices he made when governing. and, right now, he hasn't made very many choices at all - he's just answered a lot of questions.
if i have a concern, i'm not
going to call the prime minister. i'm going to call my mp. and, that's
who should be doing these town halls.
when i go in to the voting area, i'm not going to remember the answers he gave at a town hall meeting. what i'm going to remember is the choices he made when governing. and, right now, he hasn't made very many choices at all - he's just answered a lot of questions.
at
12:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
no, you don't...
i actually don't care how he answers the questions; i care what he does when he goes back to ottawa. and, i actually think he should have stayed there in the first place, because it doesn't actually matter how he answers the questions.
the greatest, most carefully crafted responses in the world will not overshadow policy decisions. the most beautiful platitudes imaginable will not alter the contents of the budget. and, the most vociferous claims of a change of direction in government mean little, when they are not backed up by meaningful legislation.
we've heard trudeau talk enough. i know what he has to say. what i want is more action.
i actually don't care how he answers the questions; i care what he does when he goes back to ottawa. and, i actually think he should have stayed there in the first place, because it doesn't actually matter how he answers the questions.
the greatest, most carefully crafted responses in the world will not overshadow policy decisions. the most beautiful platitudes imaginable will not alter the contents of the budget. and, the most vociferous claims of a change of direction in government mean little, when they are not backed up by meaningful legislation.
we've heard trudeau talk enough. i know what he has to say. what i want is more action.
at
12:24
july 12, 2014
it's all the same cultural themes as at the end of the clinton administration. techno. emo. ufos. these things actually have something in common. if you don't think the economy is planned, you're not paying attention. but note that the planners do not believe in democracy; the social engineering is being pushed down from above, and it's not a utopian vision. this future has a new religion in it, with new value systems, but it's designed to uphold the status quo rather than abolish it.
it's the type of thing people fear the republicans are scheming up. but, that's the democratic plan, which seems to have just been rebooted with obama without so much as a thought. it's absolute clinton redux. the republicans don't even care anymore, the democrats do everything the business class wants anyways, so they're just happy to hold the office every few years to cut their own taxes.
one of the more surreal conversations i've stumbled upon in relation to this was actually from peter gabriel, who very coyly suggested that the social and political messaging behind his art was to create a globalized culture, and there was some kind of structure underlying it. well, if the nwo sounds like passion, i must say that, i, for one, welcome our new kosmische overlords.
not to drag the nwo scare tactics out. we may end up ruled by computerized aliens, but no intelligent person is going to actually believe it's anything more than a front. these guys aren't marxists; they're not even on the left side of capitalism. it's fascists across the board, right now. and global bodies like the un remain the only way to stop them.
if you want to stop them. it's a hard road from a to b, but we may require a long period of horrific global governance to reach a state of communism.
i mean, things aren't working out so well at the moment.
it's all the same cultural themes as at the end of the clinton administration. techno. emo. ufos. these things actually have something in common. if you don't think the economy is planned, you're not paying attention. but note that the planners do not believe in democracy; the social engineering is being pushed down from above, and it's not a utopian vision. this future has a new religion in it, with new value systems, but it's designed to uphold the status quo rather than abolish it.
it's the type of thing people fear the republicans are scheming up. but, that's the democratic plan, which seems to have just been rebooted with obama without so much as a thought. it's absolute clinton redux. the republicans don't even care anymore, the democrats do everything the business class wants anyways, so they're just happy to hold the office every few years to cut their own taxes.
one of the more surreal conversations i've stumbled upon in relation to this was actually from peter gabriel, who very coyly suggested that the social and political messaging behind his art was to create a globalized culture, and there was some kind of structure underlying it. well, if the nwo sounds like passion, i must say that, i, for one, welcome our new kosmische overlords.
not to drag the nwo scare tactics out. we may end up ruled by computerized aliens, but no intelligent person is going to actually believe it's anything more than a front. these guys aren't marxists; they're not even on the left side of capitalism. it's fascists across the board, right now. and global bodies like the un remain the only way to stop them.
if you want to stop them. it's a hard road from a to b, but we may require a long period of horrific global governance to reach a state of communism.
i mean, things aren't working out so well at the moment.
at
04:45
put another way..
it's well known that, when forced with the choice, canada picks democrats over republicans by at least a 3-1 margin. there were polls around the iraq invasion that had george w. bush running under 5% in canada - even as he was running high in the polls in the united states.
the flip side of that that is much less realized is that americans are going to pick the conservatives over the liberals by similar margins. they just don't realize it, because they don't really know the parties. they know the words, but they don't realize how they apply, here. all kinds of people that identify as liberal democrats in the united states would very quickly become card-carrying conservatives as soon as they crossed the border and realized what was actually in front of them.
it's well known that, when forced with the choice, canada picks democrats over republicans by at least a 3-1 margin. there were polls around the iraq invasion that had george w. bush running under 5% in canada - even as he was running high in the polls in the united states.
the flip side of that that is much less realized is that americans are going to pick the conservatives over the liberals by similar margins. they just don't realize it, because they don't really know the parties. they know the words, but they don't realize how they apply, here. all kinds of people that identify as liberal democrats in the united states would very quickly become card-carrying conservatives as soon as they crossed the border and realized what was actually in front of them.
at
02:15
the great irony is that so many self-identifying american progressives that want to move to canada would quickly find themselves marginalized on the right, if they were to actually do so.
our conservative party supports single-payer health care, and refuses to discuss abortion. with the single exception of energy policy, it is monolithically to the left of the democratic party.
our "natural governing party", the liberals, is roughly in the same space on the spectrum as the american green party.
and, we have a socialist party that actually succeeded in nationalizing the oil industry for most of the 70s and part of the 80s (with a strong assist from the liberals).
to get an idea of where you'd exist in our spectrum, let's map a few well known personalities:
1) hillary clinton ----> old tory.
2) barack obama ----> old tory.
3) elizabeth warren ----> red tory, or right-wing liberal.
4) jill stein ----> centrist liberal: closest match to the prime minister.
5) ted cruz ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
6) marco rubio ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
7) donald trump ----> oldskool social credit.
8) john kerry ---> right-wing liberal.
9) bernie sanders ----> right-leaning ndp, or left-leaning liberal.
10) naomi klein ----> centrist ndp.
11) noam chomsky ---->left-leaning ndp.
you sure you think this is a good idea?
actually, it's kind of neat to put them together to really solidify the culture shock.
socreds: {trump}
tories: {clinton, obama, rubio, cruz, warren....stephen harper}
liberals: {kerry, stein.....justin trudeau}
ndp: {sanders, klein, chomsky}
our conservative party supports single-payer health care, and refuses to discuss abortion. with the single exception of energy policy, it is monolithically to the left of the democratic party.
our "natural governing party", the liberals, is roughly in the same space on the spectrum as the american green party.
and, we have a socialist party that actually succeeded in nationalizing the oil industry for most of the 70s and part of the 80s (with a strong assist from the liberals).
to get an idea of where you'd exist in our spectrum, let's map a few well known personalities:
1) hillary clinton ----> old tory.
2) barack obama ----> old tory.
3) elizabeth warren ----> red tory, or right-wing liberal.
4) jill stein ----> centrist liberal: closest match to the prime minister.
5) ted cruz ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
6) marco rubio ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
7) donald trump ----> oldskool social credit.
8) john kerry ---> right-wing liberal.
9) bernie sanders ----> right-leaning ndp, or left-leaning liberal.
10) naomi klein ----> centrist ndp.
11) noam chomsky ---->left-leaning ndp.
you sure you think this is a good idea?
actually, it's kind of neat to put them together to really solidify the culture shock.
socreds: {trump}
tories: {clinton, obama, rubio, cruz, warren....stephen harper}
liberals: {kerry, stein.....justin trudeau}
ndp: {sanders, klein, chomsky}
at
01:46
another way to understand what's happening is to use the analogy of a cell phone contract, because it's actually fairly precise and something a lot of people have experience with.
let's say you get a new job that requires you to use a lot of minutes. you look at the plans and pick a plan that gives you unlimited minutes for a considerably higher price. it's expensive in absolute terms, but you know you will use the minutes, so you expect to save money. then, you sign the contract for five years, because you're optimistic about the job.
now, imagine that you get hit by a car the day after you sign the cell contract and it puts you in permanent disability, so that you're not going to work at all for at least five years. now, you have no expectation of needing all of these minutes that you bought - but you're locked into a five year plan.
so, every month when the bill comes in, you're paying for a service you're not using. but, because you're under contract, you can't get out.
what the province of ontario did was sign 20 year contracts with private electricity suppliers that guaranteed them a minimum revenue stream, then figuratively get hit by a car and find itself unable to use all of this electricity that it locked itself into paying for.
you can't buy a cell tower. but, the state could have paid for the wind farm. the problem is that they were afraid that the debt would become a political liability. so, they made what they thought was a great deal, instead. and it backfired very badly....
i've been clear that i'd just pass a law. but, the fastest and easiest solution would be to take on the debt.
let's say you get a new job that requires you to use a lot of minutes. you look at the plans and pick a plan that gives you unlimited minutes for a considerably higher price. it's expensive in absolute terms, but you know you will use the minutes, so you expect to save money. then, you sign the contract for five years, because you're optimistic about the job.
now, imagine that you get hit by a car the day after you sign the cell contract and it puts you in permanent disability, so that you're not going to work at all for at least five years. now, you have no expectation of needing all of these minutes that you bought - but you're locked into a five year plan.
so, every month when the bill comes in, you're paying for a service you're not using. but, because you're under contract, you can't get out.
what the province of ontario did was sign 20 year contracts with private electricity suppliers that guaranteed them a minimum revenue stream, then figuratively get hit by a car and find itself unable to use all of this electricity that it locked itself into paying for.
you can't buy a cell tower. but, the state could have paid for the wind farm. the problem is that they were afraid that the debt would become a political liability. so, they made what they thought was a great deal, instead. and it backfired very badly....
i've been clear that i'd just pass a law. but, the fastest and easiest solution would be to take on the debt.
at
00:35
Friday, January 13, 2017
the electricity issue in ontario is indeed bad.
i've been over this. but to be as terse as possible: we used to have a monopoly on generation. but, we switched to a private/public mix. and, what we did was guarantee private producers a revenue stream, to ensure the system had sufficient generation.
there's a lot of what ifs.
1) had we just built this generation ourselves, instead of relying on private industry, we wouldn't have this problem. but, we'd have more debt. in fact, this works out to a shifting of manageable debt to unmanageable rates. most people will argue it would have been better to keep the system entirely state-run - but that would have meant the government taking on debt. and, conservatives would of course not like that.
2) but, if we had met the demand that was projected, we wouldn't have this problem, either. very specifically: if we had shifted to electric vehicles, we wouldn't have this problem. that was the precise reason that the province went out of it's way to ensure such a high capacity. it projected a nightmare in demand for electrical vehicles, which it saw as inevitable, and signed what today look like absurd contracts. if demand had risen as projected, these contracts would not look so crazy; rather, the architects would be being praised for their foresight.
3) had the government realized the problem earlier, and taken the steps to eat the error rather than pass it on to consumers, we wouldn't have this problem. there are several approaches. instead of passing these fees on to consumers, they could pay it and add it to the debt. they could buy the contracts out. or even refuse to honour them. or, they could go back to the drawing board and nationalize.
however, the idea that market liberalization would have prevented or will resolve this problem is incorrect. when you remove price controls, the prices always go up. in this particular case, taking away the energy board would almost certainly raise prices across the board to the level of the contracts. the energy board is what is keeping the prices down. i know that this is counter-intuitive. but it's not the board that sets the fees; the fees are determined by subtracting actual demand from the guaranteed payouts. in fact, the lower the board sets the rate, the higher the fees are going to be; the higher the board sets the rate, the lower the fees are going to be.
we're just not anywhere close to projected demand...
so, there is somewhat of a cautionary tale in centralized planning, here, it's just not what the right is throwing around. the lesson is that if you're going to plan your economy deep into the future, you need to ensure that you do not rely on private interests. centralized planning has to be public sector. otherwise, externalities and profit motives will invariably fuck everything up.
but what is absolutely beyond any debate is that this is purely a provincial issue. and, the media that is attempting to tie it to the federal government is dishonest.
i've been over this. but to be as terse as possible: we used to have a monopoly on generation. but, we switched to a private/public mix. and, what we did was guarantee private producers a revenue stream, to ensure the system had sufficient generation.
there's a lot of what ifs.
1) had we just built this generation ourselves, instead of relying on private industry, we wouldn't have this problem. but, we'd have more debt. in fact, this works out to a shifting of manageable debt to unmanageable rates. most people will argue it would have been better to keep the system entirely state-run - but that would have meant the government taking on debt. and, conservatives would of course not like that.
2) but, if we had met the demand that was projected, we wouldn't have this problem, either. very specifically: if we had shifted to electric vehicles, we wouldn't have this problem. that was the precise reason that the province went out of it's way to ensure such a high capacity. it projected a nightmare in demand for electrical vehicles, which it saw as inevitable, and signed what today look like absurd contracts. if demand had risen as projected, these contracts would not look so crazy; rather, the architects would be being praised for their foresight.
3) had the government realized the problem earlier, and taken the steps to eat the error rather than pass it on to consumers, we wouldn't have this problem. there are several approaches. instead of passing these fees on to consumers, they could pay it and add it to the debt. they could buy the contracts out. or even refuse to honour them. or, they could go back to the drawing board and nationalize.
however, the idea that market liberalization would have prevented or will resolve this problem is incorrect. when you remove price controls, the prices always go up. in this particular case, taking away the energy board would almost certainly raise prices across the board to the level of the contracts. the energy board is what is keeping the prices down. i know that this is counter-intuitive. but it's not the board that sets the fees; the fees are determined by subtracting actual demand from the guaranteed payouts. in fact, the lower the board sets the rate, the higher the fees are going to be; the higher the board sets the rate, the lower the fees are going to be.
we're just not anywhere close to projected demand...
so, there is somewhat of a cautionary tale in centralized planning, here, it's just not what the right is throwing around. the lesson is that if you're going to plan your economy deep into the future, you need to ensure that you do not rely on private interests. centralized planning has to be public sector. otherwise, externalities and profit motives will invariably fuck everything up.
but what is absolutely beyond any debate is that this is purely a provincial issue. and, the media that is attempting to tie it to the federal government is dishonest.
at
23:42
july 9, 2014
it's funny how, the more a piece is practiced, time begins to slow down. i wonder if anybody's really studied this...
it's just perception, of course. but time is weird. relativity theory suggests (and suggests is the right word. the experiments that supposedly uphold this part of it are kind of weak. for example, they sent a plane around the earth a few times and noticed the clocks came back differently, in a way that sort of verified einstein's predictions. but, in fact, it was in the margin of error. i don't doubt einstein was on to something, and it's not like i found an error in the math or anything, but i'm a little iffy on some of the assumptions. relativity theory is an axiomatic system, built at the precise moment that axiomatic systems were being abandoned as unreliable. so, this is a perilous way to build a theory up. any future corrections to the axioms, and they're perpetually inevitable, may drastically alter the conclusions.) that time is not as constant as we perceive it as, but we're not accelerating to fractions of the speed of light very often, either, so it's not really wrong to think of it as a constant in day-to-day non-experimental life. i mean, playing my guitar isn't anything like synchronizing satellites.
but, there's no question that an ant or a fly must perceive of time as faster than we do. i mean, flies wouldn't be so hard to catch, otherwise. i guess it's just simple physics if you think about it: shorter paths for the electricity to follow. and it's true that insects are roughly comparable to primitive robots in terms of consciousness, it's just action/reaction, so that's not a totally useful comparison. but, if we could somehow be the proverbial fly on the wall, we would probably have difficulty understanding what was being said, because the waveforms would come in to us as slowed down, elongated messes. i don't even know if flies can "hear" or not...well, i guess they get vibrations of some sort but i don't know if that's actually sound or just noise.
something like that seems to happen when getting locked into the groove of an instrument. after a while, playing at 360 seems like playing at 250. it's not just a question of getting the mechanics right, it's the entire computation process. at first, the notes are blurry and it's difficult to think and play at the same time, but eventually the separation of the notes is as clear as it is at slower tempos and the ability to process the whole thing - finger movements, next notes, etc - slows down as well.
and i'm wondering if it might have something to do with higher aptitude to do various mental tasks amongst musicians. i mean, i'm not actually modifying time. my guitar is not a frame of reference. i'm not increasing my velocity. it must be that i'm thinking faster, getting my brain to work at a faster speed. physically, that would have to be synapses being built - that's what it *means* to think faster, right? to have more synapses, shorter paths, faster electrical responses. maybe the brain reuses those for math problems...
i'm rambling, just thinking out loud. but it really is remarkable how we're able to lock in and change that perception of time, whether it's the result of increasing transmission speed or something else.
there's this unfortunate tendency recently to think of intelligence as something genetic, but the brain is a highly plastic organ that is constantly changing with experience.
your current brain is not the brain you were born with. it's a highly individualized culture of cells that was built solely for you as a reaction to the experiences you've had in your life.
and it will continue changing for as long as you live.
--
well, somebody's studied it.
i don't currently have the time or interest to review the literature, but this is quick survey.
http://www.demneuropsy.com.br/imageBank/PDF/v4n4a05.pdf
it's funny how, the more a piece is practiced, time begins to slow down. i wonder if anybody's really studied this...
it's just perception, of course. but time is weird. relativity theory suggests (and suggests is the right word. the experiments that supposedly uphold this part of it are kind of weak. for example, they sent a plane around the earth a few times and noticed the clocks came back differently, in a way that sort of verified einstein's predictions. but, in fact, it was in the margin of error. i don't doubt einstein was on to something, and it's not like i found an error in the math or anything, but i'm a little iffy on some of the assumptions. relativity theory is an axiomatic system, built at the precise moment that axiomatic systems were being abandoned as unreliable. so, this is a perilous way to build a theory up. any future corrections to the axioms, and they're perpetually inevitable, may drastically alter the conclusions.) that time is not as constant as we perceive it as, but we're not accelerating to fractions of the speed of light very often, either, so it's not really wrong to think of it as a constant in day-to-day non-experimental life. i mean, playing my guitar isn't anything like synchronizing satellites.
but, there's no question that an ant or a fly must perceive of time as faster than we do. i mean, flies wouldn't be so hard to catch, otherwise. i guess it's just simple physics if you think about it: shorter paths for the electricity to follow. and it's true that insects are roughly comparable to primitive robots in terms of consciousness, it's just action/reaction, so that's not a totally useful comparison. but, if we could somehow be the proverbial fly on the wall, we would probably have difficulty understanding what was being said, because the waveforms would come in to us as slowed down, elongated messes. i don't even know if flies can "hear" or not...well, i guess they get vibrations of some sort but i don't know if that's actually sound or just noise.
something like that seems to happen when getting locked into the groove of an instrument. after a while, playing at 360 seems like playing at 250. it's not just a question of getting the mechanics right, it's the entire computation process. at first, the notes are blurry and it's difficult to think and play at the same time, but eventually the separation of the notes is as clear as it is at slower tempos and the ability to process the whole thing - finger movements, next notes, etc - slows down as well.
and i'm wondering if it might have something to do with higher aptitude to do various mental tasks amongst musicians. i mean, i'm not actually modifying time. my guitar is not a frame of reference. i'm not increasing my velocity. it must be that i'm thinking faster, getting my brain to work at a faster speed. physically, that would have to be synapses being built - that's what it *means* to think faster, right? to have more synapses, shorter paths, faster electrical responses. maybe the brain reuses those for math problems...
i'm rambling, just thinking out loud. but it really is remarkable how we're able to lock in and change that perception of time, whether it's the result of increasing transmission speed or something else.
there's this unfortunate tendency recently to think of intelligence as something genetic, but the brain is a highly plastic organ that is constantly changing with experience.
your current brain is not the brain you were born with. it's a highly individualized culture of cells that was built solely for you as a reaction to the experiences you've had in your life.
and it will continue changing for as long as you live.
--
well, somebody's studied it.
i don't currently have the time or interest to review the literature, but this is quick survey.
http://www.demneuropsy.com.br/imageBank/PDF/v4n4a05.pdf
at
19:54
Jul 7, 2014
if you follow the logic in the statement he made last year about it being contingent on a state department review, the reality is that he has already approved the pipeline. and, in fact, it's already pumping. he's just waiting for the right political moment to announce it.
you have to understand that this is a national security issue. the oil is going to china. and, what does the united states focus it's entire foreign policy around? controlling the oil supply. this isn't an economic argument. environmentalists are trying to engage in a debate about the ecological problems, while correcting people on the economic value, but they're missing the point. from the government's perspective, it's not about this...
if canada doesn't ship it through the united states, it's going to be shipping it through british columbia, which is a national security problem because it's draining resources out of an area it considers it's backyard and towards a country it considers it's dominant rival. the military will not allow that to happen. the oil is going through the united states, and harper is going to be removed if he throws any wrenches into it. but, he's not actually throwing wrenches into it. the terms of conditions for the bc pipeline are going to take a decade to work out, the courts are going to slow it down, and by then the oil will be pumping from the south. so, harper can go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. it's no accident...
....because if they pump the oil through the united states, the military maintains control over it, including the ability to block export in the event of sanctions or war. this is what is going to happen whether anybody likes it or not.
it's also the reason canada is not allowed to build refineries, or airplanes or anything else. that would provide us with too much independence.
he'll probably announce it after the midterms, but he might wait as long as the end of his term, or even dump it off to a republican successor, if the politics allow for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM2qOl144c
if you follow the logic in the statement he made last year about it being contingent on a state department review, the reality is that he has already approved the pipeline. and, in fact, it's already pumping. he's just waiting for the right political moment to announce it.
you have to understand that this is a national security issue. the oil is going to china. and, what does the united states focus it's entire foreign policy around? controlling the oil supply. this isn't an economic argument. environmentalists are trying to engage in a debate about the ecological problems, while correcting people on the economic value, but they're missing the point. from the government's perspective, it's not about this...
if canada doesn't ship it through the united states, it's going to be shipping it through british columbia, which is a national security problem because it's draining resources out of an area it considers it's backyard and towards a country it considers it's dominant rival. the military will not allow that to happen. the oil is going through the united states, and harper is going to be removed if he throws any wrenches into it. but, he's not actually throwing wrenches into it. the terms of conditions for the bc pipeline are going to take a decade to work out, the courts are going to slow it down, and by then the oil will be pumping from the south. so, harper can go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. it's no accident...
....because if they pump the oil through the united states, the military maintains control over it, including the ability to block export in the event of sanctions or war. this is what is going to happen whether anybody likes it or not.
it's also the reason canada is not allowed to build refineries, or airplanes or anything else. that would provide us with too much independence.
he'll probably announce it after the midterms, but he might wait as long as the end of his term, or even dump it off to a republican successor, if the politics allow for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM2qOl144c
at
18:56
July 7, 2014
line 9 goes through the state of michigan (allowing the americans to block the line in case of sanctions or war against china) and has a proposed terminal in portland, maine - giving them ultimate control over exports.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/06/13/if_keystone_gets_nixed_canadian_pipeline_operators_have_a_plan_b_olive.html
this is about the americans controlling the supply, and harper being stuck in a tug-of-war between chinese buyers wanting to control it and the americans seeing that as a security threat.
for a long time, i was worried that harper was giving in to those chinese interests and possibly putting western canada under threat of american occupation.
thankfully, he seems to have stepped back from the brink.
if he wanted the western pipelines built, he wouldn't have approved them with hundreds of conditions.
it's going to be decades before anything gets done, and by then the other lines will be operational. it's not worth the cost. they won't be built.
but, what harper can do now is go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. which is true. it's just that they're not tied by regulators, they're tied by the americans.
the oil is already pumping south through the keystone. if obama doesn't approve the wider pipe, his successor will. it's a matter of time.
in the mean time, the line 9 will ship it through michigan and out to maine.
it's all about controlling the oil supply. we know that this is what the americans spend billions on their military to do, but we think of ourselves as special.
there's nothing more obvious than that the americans will insist they are in control. and it seems to be that what that means is having the oil pumped through their borders.
so, keystone is allowed because it goes through the us. line 9 is allowed because it goes through the us. the western pipelines get drowned in bureaucracy because they don't go through the us. and the chinese get stuck with an unstable investment.
that's the cost of doing business in the shadow of the elephant.
and it has nothing to do with ecological concerns.
line 9 goes through the state of michigan (allowing the americans to block the line in case of sanctions or war against china) and has a proposed terminal in portland, maine - giving them ultimate control over exports.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/06/13/if_keystone_gets_nixed_canadian_pipeline_operators_have_a_plan_b_olive.html
this is about the americans controlling the supply, and harper being stuck in a tug-of-war between chinese buyers wanting to control it and the americans seeing that as a security threat.
for a long time, i was worried that harper was giving in to those chinese interests and possibly putting western canada under threat of american occupation.
thankfully, he seems to have stepped back from the brink.
if he wanted the western pipelines built, he wouldn't have approved them with hundreds of conditions.
it's going to be decades before anything gets done, and by then the other lines will be operational. it's not worth the cost. they won't be built.
but, what harper can do now is go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. which is true. it's just that they're not tied by regulators, they're tied by the americans.
the oil is already pumping south through the keystone. if obama doesn't approve the wider pipe, his successor will. it's a matter of time.
in the mean time, the line 9 will ship it through michigan and out to maine.
it's all about controlling the oil supply. we know that this is what the americans spend billions on their military to do, but we think of ourselves as special.
there's nothing more obvious than that the americans will insist they are in control. and it seems to be that what that means is having the oil pumped through their borders.
so, keystone is allowed because it goes through the us. line 9 is allowed because it goes through the us. the western pipelines get drowned in bureaucracy because they don't go through the us. and the chinese get stuck with an unstable investment.
that's the cost of doing business in the shadow of the elephant.
and it has nothing to do with ecological concerns.
at
18:48
do you want to know the primary reason that the program is unpopular, barry?
it didn't work. it left people uninsured. it was expensive.
and, these failures were predictable - because you cannot use a market system to deliver a product like healthcare. it will fail. every time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN14Q2E5
it didn't work. it left people uninsured. it was expensive.
and, these failures were predictable - because you cannot use a market system to deliver a product like healthcare. it will fail. every time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN14Q2E5
at
16:09
also, let us be clear on this point. i believe that these definitions are explicit, in legislation.
ethics: a set of pre-approved codes of conduct and best practices that are defined by the ethics committee.
ethics committee: a body of political appointees, tasked with determining ethics.
ethics: a set of pre-approved codes of conduct and best practices that are defined by the ethics committee.
ethics committee: a body of political appointees, tasked with determining ethics.
at
12:08
i don't think that this is the line the government will take, but it's the line they ought to take.
and, you can imagine the opposition's response, right.
"the prime minister can't just change the rules!"
....except that that's actually what the prime minister's job is - to change the rules.
i still don't see a story, here.
and, you can imagine the opposition's response, right.
"the prime minister can't just change the rules!"
....except that that's actually what the prime minister's job is - to change the rules.
i still don't see a story, here.
at
11:52
rrrrrrrring
"hi. ethics office."
it's justin, again.
"it's 3 am, sir."
i know. but, i had to pull over at the gas station and the tp isn't branded in the stall. what do i do?
"you'll have to sit there and wait until the committee meets in the morning. we'll try and get the memo to your office before lunch. and, yes, you need it in writing."
what if i just...
"well, we'll have to launch an investigation if you take matters into your own hands, sir."
"hi. ethics office."
it's justin, again.
"it's 3 am, sir."
i know. but, i had to pull over at the gas station and the tp isn't branded in the stall. what do i do?
"you'll have to sit there and wait until the committee meets in the morning. we'll try and get the memo to your office before lunch. and, yes, you need it in writing."
what if i just...
"well, we'll have to launch an investigation if you take matters into your own hands, sir."
at
11:30
rrrrrrrring
"hi. ethics office."
it's justin, again.
"the right honourable...."
indeed. i'm just at the store and i need to know: what is the preferred brand of toilet paper? ethically speaking. are these green brands acceptable, or is it just greenwashing?
"we'll have to take it to committee."
do i need this in writing?
"of course."
"hi. ethics office."
it's justin, again.
"the right honourable...."
indeed. i'm just at the store and i need to know: what is the preferred brand of toilet paper? ethically speaking. are these green brands acceptable, or is it just greenwashing?
"we'll have to take it to committee."
do i need this in writing?
"of course."
at
11:24
actually, i think it's very draconian that the prime minister can't take a helicopter ride without express permission from the ethics committee. that's ridiculous. that rule should be wiped out.
at
10:59
so, apparently christopher steele is low energy.
this is the best he can do, guys.
i bet this bugs him:
donald trump? the guy's a one-hit wonder. no innovation. can't write a new song, just keeps playing on the oldies station. and, people are getting sick of it, already.
this is the best he can do, guys.
i bet this bugs him:
donald trump? the guy's a one-hit wonder. no innovation. can't write a new song, just keeps playing on the oldies station. and, people are getting sick of it, already.
at
10:51
it is an obvious empirical fact that white rappers exist, and an obvious
empirical fact that a white market for rap exists, too. i am aware that
the market for rap has more whites than blacks in it. but, that implies
less than is usually assumed. numbers pulled from nowhere, but if the
black rap market is something like 4%/8%, and the white rap market is
something like 6%/70% then that is half of black people but only a tenth
of white people. and it is no doubt more than half and less than a
tenth.
i don't claim to know why these white people feel an attachment to an inherently black form of protest. i guess that solidarity is meaningful. but, if you're listening to music out of solidarity then you're missing the point of what music is. there are other aesthetic factors. and, of course, there are white people that grow up in black neighbourhoods, too, and don't feel that exclusion, or feel included by the exclusion. but, i wouldn't be the first to claim that a large percentage of them just honestly don't get it, and are operating on some kind of vacuous "cool" factor that most people don't operate on.
the reality is that most white people are going to listen to the form and find themselves unable to relate to the topics being discussed because it doesn't reflect their life experiences and therefore be disinterested in delving deeper into something that was obviously not made for them. and, why should they want to delve into it if it wasn't made for them?
i know that this idea that hip-hop was going to be the new mainstream was widely circulated around fifteen years ago, but the reality is that it never got there and that the window has since long passed. it's never going to get there, because it's never going to make sense to the majority demographics as anything besides a form of ethnic protest that does not belong to them.
i don't claim to know why these white people feel an attachment to an inherently black form of protest. i guess that solidarity is meaningful. but, if you're listening to music out of solidarity then you're missing the point of what music is. there are other aesthetic factors. and, of course, there are white people that grow up in black neighbourhoods, too, and don't feel that exclusion, or feel included by the exclusion. but, i wouldn't be the first to claim that a large percentage of them just honestly don't get it, and are operating on some kind of vacuous "cool" factor that most people don't operate on.
the reality is that most white people are going to listen to the form and find themselves unable to relate to the topics being discussed because it doesn't reflect their life experiences and therefore be disinterested in delving deeper into something that was obviously not made for them. and, why should they want to delve into it if it wasn't made for them?
i know that this idea that hip-hop was going to be the new mainstream was widely circulated around fifteen years ago, but the reality is that it never got there and that the window has since long passed. it's never going to get there, because it's never going to make sense to the majority demographics as anything besides a form of ethnic protest that does not belong to them.
at
02:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
rock music was initially always about dancing - and itself evolved out
of earlier dance forms. over time, it hybridized, but it never lots it's
purpose as soundtracking a party. it eventually evolved into different
dance forms. but, because it is about dancing, it is inherently
inclusive. hip-hop was always about protest. and, because that protest
is so heavily tied into an identity, it is inherently deeply exclusive.
at
02:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
"but rock music was black."
except that it wasn't. it was a synthesis. and in the sense that it was partly black, it never identified that way. early rock musicians were sometimes black, but they rarely made their blackness central to their art.
hip-hop was constructed for the sole purpose of exploring black identity. it really doesn't make sense when you separate it from it's blackness. so, how can it make sense to white people? what does it have to offer people that aren't black?
except that it wasn't. it was a synthesis. and in the sense that it was partly black, it never identified that way. early rock musicians were sometimes black, but they rarely made their blackness central to their art.
hip-hop was constructed for the sole purpose of exploring black identity. it really doesn't make sense when you separate it from it's blackness. so, how can it make sense to white people? what does it have to offer people that aren't black?
at
01:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the beatniks became hippies, and the hippies became punks, and the punks became emos and ravers. then capitalism swooped in, and the counterculture stagnated as it stabilized into a set of markets. but, the current evolutionary end point for the beatnik dance parties is the rave scene. bongos have become drum machines; marijuana has become mdma.
hip-hop is in a different cultural heritage. i don't want to talk about appropriation; the reality is that it actually has essentially no appeal to white culture, because it is so inherently black. which isn't to say that white people shouldn't, but to say that they overwhelmingly don't want to. it has not and will not work it's in way into the above lineage, except in the form of an outside influence.
hip-hop is in a different cultural heritage. i don't want to talk about appropriation; the reality is that it actually has essentially no appeal to white culture, because it is so inherently black. which isn't to say that white people shouldn't, but to say that they overwhelmingly don't want to. it has not and will not work it's in way into the above lineage, except in the form of an outside influence.
at
01:44
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)