so, the canadian right is very upset about this following motion:

"That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid%2888849%29/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8661986

we have our own steve bannon up in canada. his name is ezra levant. you can't believe a word he says; as usual, he's lying through his teeth. i won't repeat what he said, because it's not worth it.

what is my analysis of the motion?

i think that this is a political pastiche of incoherent buzz words designed to increase the profile of the mp. this is cynical self-promotion. for example, consider the following line:

condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination 

how do you make sense of the idea of islamophobia as "systemic racism and religious discrimination" in the context of canada, where the entire establishment from the top down is falling all over itself to appear inviting, and the push back is coming from isolated weirdos that live in their parents' basements? the motion is being brought up in the context of the mosque attack, which very clearly demonstrated the reality that the system has work to do in enforcing tolerance from the top down, while the self-identified pure laine quebecois struggle and resist against this elitist push for social engineering.

so, yes: this exposes the flaws of unthinkingly importing theories and language from the united states. it makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against blacks in georgia, and it even makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against indigenous groups in canada. but, there is no "systemic racism" against muslims in canada; this is a total fabrication, a complete fiction. there is, rather, a strong social engineering push to manufacture harmony within diversity. but, that's all there really is to it: it's just a bunch of incoherent buzz words strung together for self-interest. if it passes, as a non-binding motion, it means nothing. some students will clap, some old men will jeer. life moves along.

but, what the reaction really draws attention to is the need to define the term islamophobia, especially in the context of hate crimes legislation. how can you vote on a measure like this without defining the idea you're voting on? the mp did not think that through for the simple reason that it's nothing more than a pr stunt. that leaves it to observers to do so.

does this refer to a healthy skepticism of religion, as i've outlined in my previous posts? if so, i could hardly support the motion, and would agree that it's a step backwards towards religious despotism. but, it seems unlikely than anybody intended for this interpretation, or any court would pick it up. does it instead refer to violent attacks on muslims? i would be more likely to support a non-binding resolution in the latter context, but apprehensive in going beyond it as i think the existing laws are more than sufficient.

see, here's the thing: while i'm never going to buy into the narratives presented on the right, because they are so frequently obvious excuses to push racist nonsense, i am actually aware of the reality that free speech is considered incompatible with islam by most muslims. i'm exceedingly apprehensive about religious groups co-opting left-leaning political parties as a consequence of not being welcomed by the right, which is where their views more accurately align. this is actually a legitimate concern.

they have to define islamophobia to clarify their intent; in doing so, they should probably eject the term from the motion and in the future avoid using it altogether. the court would smack something stupid down, here, pretty fast. but, there's little reason to fight a losing battle on multiple fronts that has the potential to cut deep into the party's actual base.

i think that a body of evidence is emerging that trump has been successfully brainwashed by the christians. frankly, i think he's an easy target....

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-wants-to-tear-down-the-wall/

we're all going to spend the next eight to twelve years fighting christians tooth and nail on everything imaginable, and while we can rely on strong solidarity from non-believers of middle eastern descent, we will not get an ounce of it from practicing muslims, who will align with the christians at every step of the way.

wake up, guys.

you're fighting the wrong battle...

actually, i think that all sane people should fear islam; if you're not afraid of muslims, you need to get your head checked. but, you should also fear christians and jews and buddhists and...

the reason is that these people want to tell you how to live your life. they want to enforce repressive systems of thought, and reject anybody that is different from them. they want draconian laws. your ignorance on the matter doesn't change the reality of the situation.

so, this term "islamophobia" is kind of stupid - as though islam is something we shouldn't fear, and it is irrational to be afraid of religion. right. people that read books that advocate stoning people in public shouldn't be feared. there's nothing at all that is scary about people that believe that quasi-historical figures rode chariots to heaven. and, thinking somebody died for your sins 2000 years ago, and is going to return from the dead and separate the righteous from the wicked? there's nothing loopy about that at all (or in thinking a messiah is on the way, to smite the enemies of your race, for that matter). this is all perfectly reasonable - not at all crazy. what's crazy is fearing this.

i mean, you can be naive about this, if you want. but, i'm not going to follow you into a future of religious despotism. i will stand up for secularism at every step of the way. and, if that upsets you then i guess we're not on the same side.

know your history, people: religion experiences down points, but it doesn't moderate. there's no such thing as a "moderate christian" or a "moderate muslim". the inherently extremist nature of religion always remains dormant, waiting for an opportunity to seize power. you may think that secularism is dominant, but the religious right is about to seize power in the united states in a way that it perhaps never has. reproductive rights are going to experience serious setbacks. science is under serious attack. mike pence is the fucking vice president. and, what side are the muslims on? they're on the same side as the christians.

we have to remain vigilant - or we're going to suffer the consequences.

so, this process was a little slower yesterday than i'd have liked it to be, and i'm slow getting back to it today, but i'm about to get back to it and expect to get at least most of it done by the end of the day.

the air quality is poor this morning, but it's middling: the fan is enough. but it's annoying. i'll be glad when it warms up enough that i can just keep the windows open all of the time.

i'm firming up saturday as a night out. it's going to depend on how i feel tomorrow. but, i'm actually really not at all interested in anything on the bill; it's all very generic and largely boring. it's the kind of thing that's all image and no substance. it's billing itself as an "industrial" festival, but i'd describe it more as a bunch of millenial hipsters imagining what they think industrial was through the filter of bad films and shitty books. see, i'm willing to shrug all that off, though, for the opportunity to just dance all night. but, i'm a little iffy on the weather. if i don't go, that's a shame; but, i don't feel like i'm missing anything, either. the actual upside is that i'm definitely going to miss the bus, so i'd end up at the works for the rest of the night. that really extends the night. but, the walk is...i dunno...i'm still thinking about it...

if i go, it's going to be against my better instincts. but, i kind of want to support the festival, too, even if i think it's a little weak to start off with, because it's at least a good idea.

for right now, i want to get back to it and hopefully get close to finishing...

https://sdion.liberal.ca/en/news-nouvelles/p3-voting-system-canada/

one of the things that trump has talked about is "eliminating the food police".

i kind of like having a food police. and, as a member of a foreign country, i'm kind of apprehensive of importing food from a country that doesn't have a food police, anymore.

it turns out that we're going to have to renegotiate the trade agreement we have with the united states. can we ensure that we retain the ability to block imports that don't meet stringent regulatory requirements?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWgphYPf0PA

i have very little respect for paul wells, but i agree with him on this. we have to be firm, no doubt. but just about the worst thing we could do is send somebody down there that is going to talk over trump.

george w. bush took a particular liking to tony blair. blair could have exploited this better, even if the feeling wasn't mutual. but, the reason that dubya like him is that he didn't speak down to him, and he didn't threaten him. chretien and martin had a lot harder time trying to juggle their contempt - which, to be fair, was a lot deeper.

trump doesn't want to deal with strong egos. he doesn't want to be talked down to. he doesn't want to be grovelled at, either. and, he likes to be around attractive people, too.

trudeau's weaknesses are in his grasp of policy, not in his people skills. he'll be fine. and, i'd actually struggle to suggest a better alternative.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/09/a-face-to-face-meeting-is-trudeaus-best-bet-for-dealing-with-trump-paul-wells.html

https://www.good.is/articles/immigration-ban-distraction

i mean, let's take a step back and understand what's happening from a distance.

1) the ban is a political tactic to distract from things like the collapse of glass-steagall dodd-frank, or the return of the dapl. trump himself has pointed out that he's not getting any push back on dapl. of course he isn't; that's what the muslim ban is for. this logically follows directly from the campaign, which generated xenophobia as a way to distract from the economy.

2) as such, the ban is temporary. the administration knows it's unconstitutional. they know it's a waste of time; that's the entire point.

3) the judiciary is actually taking the bait in pushing down unusual and obviously political rulings, but we'll have to see how long that goes on for.

if the judiciary would have ruled in favour of the ban, it would have run out. if they rule against it in the end, it still runs out. this outcome is not in question: it will be gone in a few months. but, what is he ramming through while you're not paying attention?

"The government argued that not having the refugee and visa ban in place would cause the United States immediate harm, by increasing the risk of a terrorist attack. 

That argument has often inspired deference from judges; they don’t think it’s their job to weigh security risks. But the Ninth Circuit has rejected it.

The states in this case have argued that — from its origins as a campaign promise to ban “Muslims” from entering the US to President Trump’s promise, the day the executive order was signed, to make an exception to the refugee ban for “Middle Eastern Christians” — there’s a lot of evidence that this ban is discriminatory in a way that’s too blatant for the courts to ignore."

but, this isn't an argument. 

the precedent, from my understanding, and certainly in canada, is that the judges really don't think it's their job to weigh security risks, or interfere with executive orders of this nature. that's the norm that was always in place.

so, it's never ok for the judges to assume the role of the executive branch, except when they decide that it is because their actions are "discriminatory"?

i mean, everybody knows that the courts wouldn't rule this way on search and seizure rights, or even on freedom of assembly. why is discrimination more important than freedom of assembly?

vox probably has the right answer:

they really didn’t like the federal government’s contention that the executive order is beyond the scope of the courts to review at all.

right. of course.

this is a power struggle, no doubt informed by the judiciary buying into the media narrative about trump being an autocrat. and, keep in mind that conservatives and liberals both bought into this. i don't think pointing to reagan or bush appointees is some way out of a critical analysis.

i'm not arguing against the likelihood that the order is probably going to be declared unconstitutional, i'm just very surprised that this is being used as a reason to stop the ban, given that it normally wouldn't be (consider laws on wiretapping, or orders to clear public spaces - and canada has a process in the constitution for this situation). and, i have to again suggest that this is a political ruling, rather than a legal one - and that some attention should be drawn to this, even if you agree with it.

"We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay."

see, this is a different argument, and i think it speaks to the incoherency of the order in the first place. even so, i'm a little surprised that they took the approach of arguing that the illegality of the order overpowered the separation of powers; the exact opposite would have happened in canada. and, we're supposed to have the more powerful judiciary....

let's consider the possibility that the court would have allowed the ban to come back into force. it would have been appealed, for precedent if nothing else. but, by the time the appeal would have been heard, the ban would be over. what happens then? do the groups drop the appeal?

see, it is for this reason that i would have argued it more likely that the courts would step back and let the executive implement it's power. but, it seems to rather be arguing that the entire thing is a waste of time. and, i must again point to this zealous use of power by the judiciary as a bit of an ominous problem. they're vetoing an executive order, here...

...but, now, the problem has been shifted to the administration: what is the point of appealing a gag on an order that is going to run out before the appeal is finished? and, if that happens, the only logic towards reapplying the ban is that they were incompetent at resolving the issues the ban was put in place to resolve.

pro-tip: the reasons doctors don't say what i'm saying is not because they disagree (they know i'm right...), but because they don't think it will work. they're convinced that north americans are hopeless, fat slobs with irreversibly sedentary lifestyles, and they'll never get anywhere telling them to decrease their total intake. so, they just give up on them and try and tweak their diets, instead.

when your doctor tells you to change your diet, this is harm reduction. the actual solution is to modify your energy intake to be more in line with your energy expenditure so that you aren't storing fuel for later, and then internally imploding like the scene from se7en.

not only is sugar certainly not terrible for you, it is the only fuel that your body understands.

you are not a hybrid vehicle. you take sugar. that's it.

so, virtually everything you eat is converted to glucose along the way. if you eat the glucose straight, your body just requires less energy in converting it. that is all.

that said, if you eat too much sugar then your body needs to find a way to store it, and that is where you get the various problems that are said to be associated with sugar, such as high cholesterol and diabetes.

but, the actual blunt reality is that these are actually not problems with sugar but problems with over-eating. it's really just a simple conservation of energy problem: if you don't eat too much, then your body won't store it the wrong way.

once again: the issue is not what you eat, but how much you eat. you are not what you eat. you are how much you eat.

so, don't worry too much about that errant can of pop or that odd bag of doritos. just watch the total intake.

i was worried that i was going to have to find a way around my router. but, the update was both a little deeper and a lot less complicated than i thought.

so, the appspot site is now serving from python 2.7:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/

...which means that google won't shut me down in the summer.

now, to get the show reviews up...

the show schedule for the rest of the month is going to depend on the weather, but is made up of an array of classical & jazz performances and techno nights.

it's not that there aren't rock shows happening, it's that the genre is no longer consistently creative. i understand that rock shows, moving forward, are going to be sporadic. i will need electronic, jazz and classical forms to fill the vacuum...

i'm staying in tonight...

...and then i could be out every other night or stay in for weeks. saturday depends on the timing of the cold front; it's going to have to be warm, though, and seems unlikely.

now, i need to figure out how to upgrade from python 2.5 to python 2.7. 

and, to me, this is not surprising. but, let us understand it: it is a consequence of an immigration policy that does not screen for education levels.

when you have an open door policy like europe has had, and i understand that the circumstances are dire in syria, but, nonetheless, when you let refugees in with little if any screening, then these refugees act as ambassadors for their entire religion and their entire ethnicity and opinions and perceptions are formed based on what people see in front of them: because, of course, many of the europeans that the refugees are coming into contact with are not particularly skilled or intelligent, themselves.

i do agree that the way the situation was handled in europe was shockingly poor, and that there are going to be long term circumstances. i mean, there's a "jungle" of refugees in calais. there are camps of hundreds or thousands of people. when the government lets this happen (and, again, i know it's hard), you have to expect the outcomes you're seeing.

i don't live in europe. i live in canada. and the government needs to understand that it's all in the implementation: the system that pearson designed works, and now is not the time to fuck with it - lest we see results like this begin to appear.

that means that we can't let the whole world in; it means that we need to address the problem at the source. a good sales strategy would be to convince the protestors that this is rational, just and correct. you won't convince all of them, but it is so obvious that i think that most of them can be convinced that wide open immigration is not the answer to the problems they're identifying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/most-europeans-want-muslim-ban-immigration-control-middle-east-countries-syria-iran-iraq-poll-a7567301.html

as mentioned, yesterday ended up split between days. that happens when my schedule clashes with my circadian cycle: i end up napping out of sequence, then stumbling through the end of the day until i get back in the cycle. so, i was eventually up yesterday evening around 20:00 and able to lock back into the pattern. i was a little slow getting started, but i'm back into it.

that said, i'm planning on shifting gears for the night, and getting back at the rebuild tomorrow.

first off, i skipped a band called lemuria tonight...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ4n2b2_RxY

i stated that february could have a lot of shows; it seems like it's going to rather have a lot of skipped shows.

again: i'm not actually a fan of this band. in truth, i had not even heard of them until about a week ago. so, this was another whim show just to go out and have a beer and enjoy the walk. but, the weather turned nasty (again...) and i decided against it.

i think i probably should have heard of them previously as they exist in a genre i like and seem to be good at it, but this is right in the middle of my kind of deadzone period, about 2005-2009. i was more introverted than usual over these years...

as it is, i don't have those memories, and didn't want to go out in the cold.

delicate steve is tonight and it's also pretty unlikely, although i haven't ruled it out entirely, yet. it's just too cold out. i know delicate steve a little bit better: this is a kind of a twisted, post-modern joke that i suspect a large percentage of people aren't really in on. if i were to go at all, it would be solely on a lark, kind of thing. i know i'm going to cringe. the point is enjoying the cringe...

but, i want to do a little research on what the live show is actually like before i rule it out altogether. i dunno - you tell me: is this worth it, or is it just a frustrating tease that ultimately spins out and would be worth a beer on a nice night but is just not worth braving the cold for on this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4BvqSE2G7U

it's very low probability. but, i could surprise myself at the last minute. i've done it before...

but, now that i'm past the cloud nothings show last night, what i need to do tonight is my formal run through for the month. that will take a few hours and make the rest of the month make more sense. major question to answer: am i going to have extra cash at the end of february if i don't go to the al di meola show, which is considerably more expensive than the shows i'm used to going to?

when i'm done, i'm going to pivot into rebuilding the show review archive:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/index.html

this is clearly very out of date, with links to dead facebook posts and a cut off date in january, 2014. but, it will not be very time consuming because all of the reviews are written....

...except the one for the show last night. so, i'll need to do that....

...and we'll have to see where we are when i get there.

reality check: the colonization of eastern canada has failed.

deal with it.

see, this is the kind of stupidity that underlies the historical conservative economic and immigration policies in this country.

the population is declining because there aren't any jobs. locals are getting up and leaving to areas where there is greater economic opportunity: there isn't any in these regions. so, what do the conservatives at the globe propose? increasing immigration to offset the outflow caused by the absence of an economy!

....because, the lack of a local economy will be magically transformed over night by migrants that neither know the land, nor the customs, nor the language. that makes perfect sense, right ibbitson?

faith is a terrible disability, whether it be in religion or in economics. he is being blinded by faith, here, and it is harming his ability to reason.

the population decline should simply be accepted for what it is and we should move on. the area has a brighter future as a cheap retirement destination. and, perhaps the indigenous inhabitants will reclaim the land, as they claim is inevitable.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-is-the-only-way-to-reverse-atlantic-canadas-population-decline/article33958301/

this is what people want to hear. that's step one.

chrystia freeland is a brutally intelligent and exceedingly capable person, and i have every expectation that she'll get what she wants, in the end. what i'm worried about is what it is that she wants.

but, at least they're broadcasting that they know what we want to hear. that hasn't always been clear. and, that's progress.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-call-washington-wednesday-1.3972686

no, listen.

it's one thing to be respectful towards your opponents. i'm not sure it's a virtue, so much as it's a tactic. but, i'm not going to argue with you.

but, it's another thing altogether to become your opponents.

let the old tory media die. good.

....and we have a little self-interest, here, for a change. it's nice to see.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/07/liberals-news-bailout-melanie-joly-budget-2017_n_14635626.html

what the results suggest is that canadians are broadly libertarian about immigration: we don't really care. it doesn't drive our voting decisions. it doesn't keep us up at night.

so, i think the reading that there's potential for a backlash is wrong. but, it's equally true that the idea that trudeau can run on a pro-immigration platform and win is delusional: at best it won't hurt him, because the frank truth is that nobody cares.

i've been posting a lot about immigration the last few days, but i can promise you that it won't affect my voting decisions. i'm not going to vote conservative on a refugee ban, if they want to slash corporate taxes. and, i'm not going to vote against the liberals because they want to bring in refugees, if there's other reasons i support them (which right now is looking highly doubtful...).

but, take note: the reason that nobody cares is that the pearsonian system has been successful. the real fear is in the ramifications of tinkering the system so that it creates the kinds of problems that we have not, to this point, had to deal with.

again: the answer is that the liberals need to embrace the legacy of their own party.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-not-so-exceptional-when-it-comes-to-immigration-and-refugee-views-new-study-finds

once again: the easy answer is for trudeau to stop acting like a conservative, and embrace the legacy of his own party.

we didn't elect the son of brian mulroney. but, it seems like that's what we've got...

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-deeply-dislike-trump-but-prefer-him-to-trudeau-on-economy-security-poll

and, i'll confuse you a third time.

it should be hard to get in, and that difficulty should act as a disincentive to come here - and an incentive to stay where they are, and improve those conditions. that's the ultimate ideal, here: to convert refugees into foreign nationals. the incentives should be in convincing refugees to stay and improve their countries, not come to this one.

so, i would rather see money put into improving situations in refugee starting points than in facilitating the flow of refugees out of those starting points. i would like to see a return to the good neighbour policy. i would like to see nato stop generating civil wars and supporting coups, and instead increasing the flow of foreign aid.

a further disincentive to migrate should come in the stricter enforcement of labour laws. there should be a strong crackdown on employers that hire "illegals", especially those that hire them below the minimum wage. if employers are prevented from illegally hiring "illegal" migrants (and note where the quotes are....), the economic incentive for migration will quickly cease. this crackdown, coupled with generous aid and the cessation of imperialism, should largely stop the flow of migrants.

but, no - those that get here should not be expelled.

the actual truth is that i find the narrative of nihilism v conservatism, and the total non-existence of anything resembling a left, to be depressing. these are the basic outlines of a socialist immigration policy. it's unfortunate that this is so strange to people nowadays that they can't even fathom it, and immediately conflate any rejection of conservatism with nihilism.

i promised a talk last night, and it will come up in the review. i'm kind of stuck in between days - tired but not tired...

this is just a little more subtlety to confuse you with.

1) i actually support sanctuary cities, and reject the idea of "illegal immigration". no one is illegal! so, there's almost no scenario where i would argue that you should be sent back, if you manage to get here. i'd sent you back if you have a criminal record or there's a warrant out for you. that's about it. but, understand that there's a big difference between not deporting people that get here on their own and actively picking people and bringing them here. that's only a contradiction if you want to make the issue about race, which is not what i want to make it about. so, i see no contradiction in supporting sanctuary cities and opposing active measures by the state to bring refugees in legally. but, note that it isn't very conservative of me to essentially be in favour of "illegal" refugees and opposed to "legal" refugee resettlement. it's really very anarchist of me...and that's the consistency you're struggling with.

2) i also think that the evidence in front of us suggests very strongly that canada cannot in good faith continue to argue that the united states is a "safe destination" for refugees, and would agree with calls to suspend the existing agreements until the existing president is no longer president any more, pending further review at that time. it's disingenuous to argue that these agreements should continue to stand.

also, i'm pretty sure i had a smoke with the these two guys out back (along with my free beer).

 

http://detroit.eater.com/2017/2/6/14522528/free-beer-comedy-central-detroiters-premiere

 

 

 

 

so, this is why i had to walk to macdonald's to get a coffee.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/knifepoint-windsor-carjacking-police-1.3970247

...and i'm going to post a little about this when i finish my my munchies.

no, i'm not a populist, and my arguments are not meant to be interpreted that way. there are sound economic arguments against increasing unskilled labour in a flat, if not structurally recessionary, economy that is moving towards increasing automation. we are going to have increasing problems with unemployment as it is. we don't need more unskilled labour to add to the problem.

it is basic social science to understand that influxes of unskilled immigrants increase crime rates in a stagnant economy. and, it is not controversial to point out that muslims do not assimilate in the same percentages, or that policing will be required to prevent them from breaking the law under arguments of "religious freedom". nor is it controversial to point out that islamic society is intrinsically heteropatriarchal, and that bringing in unskilled refugees is importing and strengthening the heteropatriarchy.

i do not think that refugees are a national security problem. and, i support increasing immigration for skilled applicants. but, i oppose further refugee resettlement at this time - and my arguments are good arguments that should be listened to, and should be persuasive to all but the most fundamentalist conservatives.

and, the last set of releases that i focused on before i cycled back was a collection of compilations to be placed at the end of period 2.

1) the thru compilation of midi-generated synthesizer music:


2) the eventual ambient works vol 1-2:


3) the orchestral works:


4) the chamber works (deleted, but coming back)

5) the eventual ambient works vol 0:

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/05/social-critics-are-unpopular-by.html

the last single that i spent time working on before i cycled back was for the track 'reflections'. but, that was already the title track to the symphonic ep of the same name, and that was longstanding. so, i retitled the remix ep to 'refractions'.

i think the difference in hr costs between sending boomers home at 65 and letting young people in the workforce vs. keeping young people out of the workforce by keeping boomers an extra two years is probably not measurable by a proper accounting, and anybody telling you otherwise is operating on ideology and sending you bad accounting.

i'm not even sure it's politically costly with young people.

but, it's political suicide with older voters, who are still going to hold the balance of power for quite a while - not just because of what it is, but because it's another example of the ruling party looking voters in the eye and lying to their faces.

if the government decides that that kind of loss of credibility is worth saving a tenth of a percent of gdp, then all i can say is that the finance minister is in the wrong line of business: he should go back to the private sector.

it's a great example of why you shouldn't treat a government like a business, and the kinds of absurd policies that develop when you do. the purpose of government is not to maximize profit, and no politician will ever be successful if they approach the job as though it is. making these kinds of cutthroat decisions that come from the business mentality of profit maximization at all costs tend to leave politicians unemployed...

the first trivial group symphony was uploaded without modification on may 3, 2015. this is the most recent piece to be reposted, as of yet. so, it's an inflection point.

as i was finishing the lalalala single, i completed my absurdly epic sixth record:


....and posted the first trivial group single:

the transition out of the guitar concerto had me spending some time working on this track, which exists on the cusp of the rabit is wolf and trivial group eras.

actually, i made the choice a very long time ago: i have no interest in organizing with foucauldians. i'm just waiting for them to go away, so we can get back to a broad, class-based struggle. and, in the end, the way this will probably work is that they'll just get ignored. movements will generate past them, and they just won't get listened to.

i don't want to argue with them. i don't want to try and push them out. i just choose to avoid them until they go away.

movements need people like fire needs oxygen. boycotting the foucauldians will be effective, if we hold to it.

and, how does that work, in practice?

when a foucauldian speaks, just get up and walk out. don't bother arguing with them. don't try to enforce yourself on them. just get up and walk away...

eventually, organizers will get the hint and stop inviting them. and, eventually, they will get the hint that nobody's listening and change their approach.

#notmyrevolution.

i've had short days for weeks...

i finally get a long day, and the stomach wrench hits along with the warm front.

so, i'm wide awake but have to stop and curl.

i was much more productive, today, getting two and a half months in. or, perhaps, the volume went down. either way, let's hope i can stay this productive when i get back to it on wednesday.

i'll tell you what....

i'd be more willing to support funds for refugee resettlement if they were matched, dollar-for-dollar, by funds to address the staggering problem of homelessness amongst young queer people on this continent.

and, how about this: for every refugee that you resettle, you resettle a canadian homeless person, too.

and, i'd also like to see the people that want to bring refugees in put funds aside to deal with the inevitable conflict that is going to arise between secularists and religionists. this is going to include funds for court battles to prevent the religionists from discriminating against queer people, atheists and women and funds for policing to ensure that certain aspects of their religion are repressed. if you want an example, fgm is an example: that cannot be tolerated. period.

once we've addressed these issues, the next thing we're going to need to do is commit to a dialogue about opening the religion up to allow for greater participation by women, by queer people and by other groups that it currently discriminates against.

if all of these conditions are met, i'll be less apprehensive about bringing in refugees.

but, the honest truth is that this is a headache that i'd rather not deal with. we have enough fundamentalists to deal with already, as it is....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c_Yg8azAi0

the relativism in the situation is not pointing out that the russians are no worse, and in fact far less brutal in terms of total body counts, but in pretending that american crimes are justified due to some absurd notion of exceptionalism.

see, the media is making it easy for trump when they pretend that there's something controversial with pointing out that virtually every american president since world war two would be sentenced and hung at nuremberg.

and, that's not a "relativist" position. it's most prominent spokesperson is noam chomsky, who might be the least relativist intellectual on the planet. obama, bush, clinton, reagan.....it's a statement of fact: they're all war criminals.

i look at the situation and interpret it as a farce. how can the media honestly treat this as controversial, and then expect to be taken seriously?

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/02/id-much-rather-be-hated-and-despised.html

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/02/im-essentially-certain-at-this-point.html

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/02/grargh.html

it seems like the weather met me halfway: it's not as bad as they said, but it would not have been a pleasant walk with that nasty north wind. i'm glad i stayed in.

back to the rebuild...

i'm at the start of february. i'm alert. the air is clear, tonight. hopefully, i'm productive.

articulate announcements...

they did the research that i just abstracted. good article.

basic point is that he can't talk it down forever.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/usd/6155-anti-dollar-rhetoric-is-responsible-for-the-greenback-s-current-plight-say-goldman-sacs

only talk...

this works through the contradiction properly.

trump claims he wants to lower the dollar. and, this would be in the benefit of us workers, at the expense of investors. of course, i am aligned with workers and not with investors. the fact that i'm a canadian complicates things, but only mildly - a lower dollar is in my self-interest and i would support policies to weaken the greenback.

great, right?

...but the problem is that his policies are starkly inflationary.

he says one thing and he does another. and, the thing we know about trump is that it's what he does that is substantive, not what he says.

now, he might think he can push through inflationary policies and then talk the dollar down. but, this is probably a rationalization.

the smart analysis is that the rate of increase may slow slightly, but the trendline will remain in place.

http://business.financialpost.com/investing/investing-pro/all-donald-trump-talk-aside-the-u-s-dollar-rally-will-continue

...and, fwiw, i still support ranked ballots and will continue to advocate for them in future election cycles.

it's going to be awkward when the election comes up in 2019 and nobody is promoting what is clearly the superior system, leaving advocates to point out that the governing party had the best idea, and won, but wouldn't implement it.

the media is still trying to confuse you.

the reality is that the ranked ballot system had been in the party platform since stephane dion put it in there. it was party policy the whole time.

you just didn't know it.

...because you never read the document, did you?

could california defend itself, though?

well, it has natural defenses in the rockies that would actually be pretty hard to penetrate. it would be a defensive game, no doubt. but, with a couple of strategic moves (like air defenses...and i don't know what exists....), it would be almost impossible for washington to assert control.

if i was a modern nihilist republican, i'd probably jump at the opportunity to kick california out of the country.

i've made this argument before: canadians lean overwhelmingly democrat, although you have to realize that it's entirely cynical. we're not actually democrats, we just can't stand the republicans. but, that's exactly why we're so much safer under a republican administration. canadians are in the end kind of fatalist about our eventual annexation by the united states; we value our sovereignty, but we can see the reality in front of us. let me be clear: it will not be a republican that annexes canada. they'd be annexing away the presidency for at least a generation, and probably sentencing themselves to single payer health care.

for the same reason, the republicans have to look at a map and conclude that they'd love to expel california. and, what other outcome could the president have in mind when he threatens to withhold federal funds from the single largest contributor to the treasury?

that lincoln fetish might be more accurate than anybody realized.

....although, realize that that comes from somebody that thinks that lincoln was actually a bumbling nincompoop that launched an unnecessary war that needlessly killed millions (and knows that he never intended to abolish slavery, and that it wasn't actually an outcome of the war - that this is all myth).

it's a scary thought. but the american mythology is just that. and, the country is due for a civil war.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/05/trump-threatens-to-defund-california-in-fight-against-sanctuary-cities.html

i was legitimately planning on heading to the show tonight. the vocals did start to get a little grating, as expected, but i haven't been out in a while and it was supposed to be nice out tonight, so it was kind of just meant as an excuse to get out of the house...

when i double checked the forecast last night, i learned that the cold front was coming in a few hours early. that meant that what i was expecting to be a mild walk a few degrees above freezing was instead going to be a walk through a punishing north wind, and i pretty much decided against it at that moment. i'd be dealing with a -15 windchill for the final leg. yuck. my blankie is far more inviting than that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpNn1nht0_8

i could have decided otherwise if they shifted the weather a third time at the last minute, and these late winter blizzards can end up that way more often than not. see, you've got these warm pacific air masses clashing with these outbursts of arctic air, and when they really clash it becomes hard to predict which one is going to overpower. the weather forecast could, in the end, just simply be wrong: we might end up with a nice night, after all.

but, then i slept in.

worse, i was really only interested in the second band, and would have probably left a few minutes into the headliner. in situations like that, i will give the headliner a chance, but it just never works out. even if i wanted to brave the weather (and i don't....), it's too late to get going.

this is what i'm missing:



as mentioned, it was more experiential: a night out. i'm not really a fan, and this is quite a ways out of my normal sphere of interest. i'll survive.

the cloud nothings show on tuesday is closer to my normal area of musical interest.

i was supposed to clean some time this weekend and haven't yet. i guess that will need to happen soon. but i need to eat. and i guess i'll just get back to the rebuild for the rest of the night.

this was the dominant influence on the guitar concerto i finished in early 2015.

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

reality check: the united states is now a net exporter of oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfqYaxc_dT8

again: i don't oppose the premise of using violence to shut down hate speech.

i'm just not convinced that milo yanananawhateverthefuck is threatening enough to justify that kind of response. i'd rather advocate just ignoring his stupid, ignorant ass.

but i don't oppose the tactic, in theory, for the reason. and, it is disingenuous to suggest that leftists would oppose the tactic, or are literalists about free speech.

rather, faux liberals should stop pretending they speak for anybody but themselves and take their reactionary appeals to maintain the status quo back to the republican party, where they belong.

actually, i think it's a neat trick for malcolm turnbull to deny access to these migrants and then blame it on donald trump. why aren't these refugees going to australia in the first place? and, what obligation does the united states have to accept refugees captured trying to enter australia?

i can only think of two things.

1) the australian position may be to blame the displacement on american military action, which is both myopic (as though australia was not a willing accomplice...) and clearly past it's due date.

2) it's actually the pr that trump wants.

you know who trudeau is starting to remind of, though?

nick clegg.

based on the debates, i would have said i'd pick clinton by about a 53-47 margin - which is no endorsement of trump, but a biting indictment of clinton. that is to say, i think clinton was right about 53% of the time and trump was right about 47% of the time. again: read that as massive disagreement with clinton.

i endorsed clinton solely on the hopes that she'd get a democratic congress and push through infrastructure spending. i'd actually have preferred trump on foreign policy.

based on what we've seen so far, i can support about 10% of what trump has done. that's not very impressive. but, i do legitimately think it's a higher level of support than what i'd have for clinton at this stage.

i'm sorry. but that's reality. trump is at least tossing liberals a bone. clinton would be no less friendly to investors, doubling down on the existing global order and readying us for world war three in the middle east. and, if all other things were the same (a republican congress....), she would be no more successful at pushing through an infrastructure package - in fact, probably less so.

we'll see at the end of the day how the trade talk works out. but, i may end up pleasantly surprised: and i will be very surprised, because it still doesn't make any sense for him to pull out of the tpp or rewrite nafta.

the medium term future might very well pit liberals against nihilists and leave conservatives disenfranchised.

no. let's get this right.

the 2016 presidential election pit a conservative (clinton) against a nihilist (trump). and, it turns out that when you disenfranchise liberals in this way, they will not automatically choose conservatism over nihilism because they are not uniformly of the view that conservatism is preferable to nihilism.

i'm on the fence, myself.

today, we have a conservative party (the democrats) and a nihilist party (the republicans). liberals remain disenfranchised. and, they will not automatically choose the conservative party over the nihilist party in the future, either - because they may not see that as a preferable option.

it is still not clear that clinton was the lesser evil. if anything, it's less clear now than it was five months ago. even if the tpp does in the end come back and nafta ends up unscathed,  there's no way that clinton would have dropped the tpp, or even pretended to renegotiate nafta. so, that's at least something positive...

the way forwards is that liberals need to re-enfranchise themselves, not scratch their heads over why they can't build momentum around conservative policies and conservative politicians.

i forgot that i appended to the psilocybin symphony in the first week of january, 2015.

in fact, california has more people than canada and a bigger gdp, too. californians may be exaggerating the importance of canada by it's relative size and desirable social systems; the truth is that a merging of california and canada would be one in which canada would be the junior partner - we would more accurately be talking about canada joining the united states of the pacific coast, and that's not something canadians are going to go for.

if california were to separate from the union, it would be better off going it alone - and it would probably take at least nevada with it, too, along with oregon and washington.

i just finally finished the entire rebuild for 2014.

i need to do the entirety of 2015, too, but the posting was far more sporadic. i lost almost all of january to show reviews. februrary, march and april were all spent on the guitar concerto. may put together a lot of loose ends. and, then the interference hit in june and july and i got sucked into the canadian election cycle over the fall and then the american one over the winter and the spring (which was spent archiving...)

the vlogs also start in october, 2015.

i'm going to stop to clean tomorrow. i don't know how much more i'll get tonight. and there's still a lot to do. but, i feel like i just got over a huge hump, too.

i'd be on the first bus to san diego, via vancouver. fuck winter.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/should-california-oregon-and-washington-join-canada-calexit-talk-envelops-west-coast/

In court, Washington solicitor general Noah Purcell called the White House’s arguments “frightening”, arguing that they cloaked everything under a veil of national security concerns. The government had argued, he said: “If the president says, ‘I’m doing this for national security’, then the court cannot review that that’s a reasonable reason. Our view is that’s not the law.”

it probably actually is the law, though. again....canadian....

...but, the white house is probably right that it can't review why, but only how.

so, if the state showed up and said "you can't do this because it's not really for national security", then that's probably not going to hold up on appeal. the state would have to show up and say "what you're doing does not logically follow from the reasons you're citing." - that the ban will not succeed in keeping anybody safer. see, it's not that this is wrong, it's that it's hard to make the argument in court in a way that is powerful enough to overturn the executive branch on a point of fact. the discussion isn't really about facts. so, it's one thing to suggest it's specious, it's another to say it's wrong. how can a judge state that with force? again: this is where the importance of the sunset clause comes in.

it doesn't seem to me that this argument is going to hold. they could pick up another argument, mind you.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/trump-travel-ban-temporarily-blocked-nationwide

Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.

Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.” 

this is actually a pretty ballsy ruling, though, that is likely to get dissected over the next few days. again, i'm in canada, but for a judge to interpret the case this deeply would be considered "activist", even by liberals. i don't know what the american precedents are, but this is probably stretching them - to put it lightly.

but, the judge might not argue with me, either. he might be fully transparent in stating that his ruling is activist and political. and, while you might agree with him, you should be uneasy with the scenario - even if you don't blame him.

i posted the canadian test. what it needs to do is determine a rational connection between what the executive branch orders and the policy put in place. it sounds like that's what he's doing, here. but, it can't question whether the orders of the executive branch are justified, as that would be assuming the role of the executive branch and breaking the separation of powers.

as mentioned, desperate situations call for desperate actions. and, i might argue that you'd have to be kind of clueless to reject critical legal theory in 2017. but, fighting alternative facts with politicized rulings is opening up somewhat of a pandora's box that could end pretty brutally...

it's easier to talk about slippery slopes from a distance than to actually react, though. there's probably not an ideal ruling, here.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15I1CM

this, i applaud.

*claps*.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/life-saving-surgeries-for-kids-cancelled-due-to-trump-order-eric-hoskins/article33896593/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h_ecrxXklQ

you know, you almost want to scrounge together a little empathy.

it's the coldest day of the year, and instead of checking the seals on the windows and setting the furnace up an extra degree, my upstairs neighbour is stomping around in a fit, ensuring that his daughter turns the heat off, under the fear that the tenants around him might force him to break a sweat.

what enforces such a morbid fear of sweat in a grown man, beyond the age of 60? was he teased as a child because of his smell? is that the cause of his morbid obesity - a fear of smelling of sweat?

if only he could put as much effort into losing weight as he does into preventing himself from breaking a sweat....

-10 C = 14 F.

and, yet the heat remains off. and i am forced to open my own windows to clear the pool of gas that has resulted from some leak, or some bad wiring, and that is correlated with and seemingly caused by his refusal to turn on the furnace.

that furnace was newly installed in 2014, btw. if it were up to him, he'd never use it at all. why spend the money? and why force me to suffer the externalities?

i'd be happy to heat his unit for him, if he'd like to disconnect the gas permanently. as it is, i have no option but to try and freeze him out until he turns his furnace on.

existence remains inherently absurd. and i can only continue to laugh...

i'll translate for the dipshits: iran is lost. 

get over it.

maybe he can call his buddy vlad and get him to do a swap: russia pulls out of iran, if nato pulls out of latvia?

otherwise, i'd say that the towelheads got ya, don. not much you can do.

tell your party that they shouldda thought about that before they sent victoria nuland in to destabilize ukraine, in order to destabilize obama.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-iran-missiles-idUSKCN12D0Z2

am i going to get over the border on sunday?

well, i'm going to have to figure this out eventually, right?

there's no actual reason for them to hold me, but we'll have to figure out whether we're dealing with logic or not the hard way....

iran is going to be one of the files that demonstrates just how obvious it is that trump really does not understand what he's doing.

the reason that obama went out of his way to build a sanctions regime - that included china, russia and india - is that unilateral sanctions on iran are merely a punitive measure on american capital. sanctions have absolutely no use as an incentive if the iranians can just trade with the other countries.

unfortunately, obama screwed the whole thing up, anyways, with his sanctions on russia. as soon as obama put sanctions on the russians, the russians removed their sanctions on the iranians. why would the chinese and indians put their own capital at a disadvantage, if the russians are trading with them? and, this is the reason that the iran deal exists as it does - because the whole regime was about to collapse, as a consequence of a foolish decision to put sanctions on moscow at the worst possible time. it was what they got, or nothing at all. and, it was largely a face-saving mechanism.

trump can wave his cock around all he wants, but he has no meaningful leverage so long as the sanctions are unilateral - and no chance of rebuilding a sanctions regime so long as he remains antagonistic towards china.

the iranians are correct to laugh at him.

"i'm sorry mr. speaker, but we could not possibly pass this legislation. it is in our self-interest. what would jesus say? we will only pass legislation that is in the interest of the opposition. after all, that is what we would want them to do."

you can feel them laughing with their eyes. mouths closed. heads down. in a roaring fit of internalized cackling...

fools.

they're fools....

it is not "good governance" to legislate (or fail to legislate, as it may be) in the interests of your opponents.

it is irrational.

....or it is treasonous.

i'm actually going to go with irrational, first and foremost. 80% irrational, 20% treasonous...

what the liberals are basically saying is this.

"given that it appears that all of the parties are going to align with the system that they perceive as maximizing their own interests, we are going to ignore our own voters and choose the system that is in the best interests of the conservative party."

no - and that's fine, and i agree. this is one of the reasons i voted for the liberals, and did not vote for the ndp: i support ranked ballots, and oppose proportional representation and largely for these reasons.

but, it doesn't answer why they pulled the plug on the ranked ballots, which is the only option that was ever seriously on the table. and, it doesn't answer questions around what other party positions are up for debate.

my position is this: there are a handful of reasons why i voted liberal. the promise to bring in ranked ballots was one of them. so, if there were x reasons then there are now x-1 reasons and i am that much less likely to vote for them again.

the thing is that there aren't x-1 reasons, though. there are x-n reasons. and, n--->x.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reform-promise-referendum-1.3963533

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/12/i-think-these-studies-that-suggest-that.html

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/12/this-is-my-basic-argument.html

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/12/well-im-not-particularly-convinced-that.html

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/12/im-starting-to-think-theres-conspiracy.html

and, might california refuse to pay federal taxes if the federal government threatens to defund it's services?

washington needs california far more than california needs washington.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-ucberkeley-protests-idUSKBN15H1R5

see, this is something that's more likely to get a rise out of me.

i actually think they should treat churches like corporations and tax them at the corporate tax rate (which should be much higher).

the problem with allowing social services to be taken care of by charities like churches is that it promotes their value systems at the expense of minority rights. this isn't an abstract concern, either. my stepmother has stories about flying into haiti to do aid work, living in a maximum security facility and then forcing starving people to sit through a sermon before they'd be allowed to eat. it's twisted, fucked up stuff. but, it's the inevitable consequence of allowing religious institutions control over aid services.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-johnson-amendment-political-activity-churches.html

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

what this graph suggests is that the demographics in canada are leaning hard to the left and that all the ndp needs to do to win power is project the image that canadians expect of them: which is to be the conscience of the nation, and offer a strong social-democratic vision.

the reason is that the august numbers reflect where the country's prejudices are. the august numbers reflect where our partisan allegiances fall naturally, before any evidence is presented to alter them. if we would have voted a priori, we would have elected an ndp majority.

but, then the evidence presented itself. tom mulcair opened his big stupid mouth and promised balanced budgets, which is code for cuts to health care. justin trudeau took advantage of this ridiculous blunder and promised budget deficits. the electorate made an informed choice: the november results reflect how the country reacted to the evidence of the candidates in front of us.

but, trudeau has repeated the error that mulcair made, which is the same error that ignatieff made and the same error that paul martin made: he has abandoned the left due to pressure from neo-liberals that believe that history is over. apparently, he has a very short memory. these academics are dead fucking wrong.

the ndp are not ready to govern, and thomas mulcair remains unelectable. but, the data is abundantly clear. all the ndp needs to do is present themselves as the party of douglas and lewis again. they merely need to reclaim their own legacy, to become their own reflection.

if they pick the right leader, they could win the next election - and trudeau could lose his own seat.

trudeau just tossed the ndp a lifeline, right when it seemed like they were drowning. remember those polls in the summer when the ndp were flirting with 40%? that *can* be the result of the 2019 election, now. trudeau has opened up the path for an ndp majority.

but, they need to forcefully push mulcair out and bring in a bernie sanders style populist that is willing to essentially run on all of trudeau's broken promises. who is going to do this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/02/liberal-mp-reax-electoral-reform_n_14570456.html

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/12/i-think-best-way-to-understand-my.html

the next single came up quickly, as it was just a quick remix. this is dated to dec 12, 2014.



....but i then enter a very long process of building up a guitar concerto with a hundred piece electronic orchestra. this took me until the end of april, 2015 to complete.

fwiw, i've been fighting with poor air quality down here all day, again. it was really bad in the afternoon, then got better, then got bad again a little before midnight...

it's a cold night. having the windows open and the heat up is expensive. but, i'm not going to suffer through a migraine.

i *am* going to have to stay up all night, though, because i don't want to fall asleep with the windows open in this temperature. i've got three sweaters and a blanket and an electric heater - i should be ok. but, if i fall asleep and get a chill, it could potentially be nasty. i'm still hoping that the issue resolves itself, but i've lost any concept of cause and effect - it just comes and goes with no real pattern. *shrug*.

i want to get some real work in the rebuild done tonight, too. i'm just about to finish rebuilding the journal for the big 2002 symphony, at which point the whole thing slows down a little bit. it took a long time to finish the next major release, and it was partly because i wasn't focused. so, i'll be drinking lots of coffee in my multiple sweaters and with my open windows.

i also just realized i missed a new three trapped tigers disc, so that will be my soundtrack for what will no doubt be a strange night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QlQw4QU_0E

actually, you might want to take note of the fact that i go out of my way to avoid you. it's not some accident. maybe i avoid you because i don't like you very much?

this actually demonstrates the problem fairly well.

andrew coyne is very upset that the liberals are not carrying through with their promise to bring in proportional representation. his sarcasm is quite intense. it's an impressive display.

the only problem is that the liberals did not actually promise to bring in proportional representation; what the liberals promised was to bring in ranked ballots.

is mr. coyne as equally upset about the prime minister breaking his promise to buy him a unicorn?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-its-not-the-liberals-fault-for-lying-about-electoral-reform-its-yours-for-believing-them

https://canadians.org/blog/liberals-veto-national-pharmacare-more-canadians-cant-fill-their-prescriptions

this is what activists in canada are actually concerned about.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/universal-drug-plan-would-save-billions-ubc-researchers-say-1.2994857

i don't think they should tax private benefits under the argument that it's unfair for low income workers; rather, i think they should nationalize benefits to a single public option, like the rest of the health care system.

well....for dentists and drugs, anyways. chiropractors aren't doctors and shouldn't be treated like they are. they should be treated like personal trainers, or something.

but, realize that the whole point of this was to avoid the discussion of a public drug plan. it's a bait and switch.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/01/health-benefits-tax-off-the-table-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-says.html

this is the special clause in the canadian constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

and this is the section that judges can use to suspend the constitution when legislation is challenged as unconstitutional:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

something similar must exist in the united states, to allow the government to pass unconstitutional legislation for national security reasons, so long as it is set to run out after a certain amount of time.

but, why do you think he did this? do you think he's really going to figure this out in 90 days? do you think he doesn't know where they're coming from in the first place?

the muslim ban is and was promised to be temporary. that doesn't make it less unconstitutional, but the fact that it comes with a sunset clause gives it a level of legitimacy beyond it's unconstitutionality.

i'll remind you again that i'm a canadian. and, i actually don't know what the precedent for this is in the united states. but, in canada, the sunset clause would get him off of the hook.

see, in canada, the law is allowed to be unconstitutional so long as it is justified, and limited in scope (i'm not using legal jargon, but you can google this quickly). the question of whether it's justified rests on the legal premise that the parliament gets to decide this (i suppose the parallel would be in the executive branch, here) and not the court. the court can pull out a factual error, but it has to ultimately defer to the will of the people.

so, he wouldn't be allowed to pass a permanent ban. that would be wiped out. but, the way he presented the ban is that it is temporary and for a reason that he claims is valid. a court here would agree that it's unconstitutional, but would not overrule it for those reasons.

i again need to suggest that this is a smoke & mirrors tactic. you're being distracted. why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEiJ44K3Oo

the liberals were actually economic nationalists through most of the last century, and are still widely seen that way by voters. there was a struggle in the party. it is now clear that the neo-liberals have won. but, this was not made clear to anybody, and there was actually a lot of evidence suggesting otherwise.

canadians do not support neo-liberalism. again: i thought that trudeau had finally understood that. but, it seems that all he understood is that you need to campaign on the left in order to govern on the right. he could have turned the party around. instead, trudeau is going to suffer the same fate as paul martin and michael ignatieff for failing to learn from their mistakes.

again: i'm done. research your local green and ndp candidates; if they are good, register a protest vote. if not, don't vote at all and let the conservatives win. the liberals will learn one day....

as i pointed out previously, this is tricky - because they're actually right, despite the prime minister having promised it in the election. so, you can't take a binary position. instead you need to look at each claim.

1) did the prime minister promise electoral reform? yes. unambiguously.
2) was this a factor in the election? it may have given him a majority instead of a minority.
3) does the government consequently have a mandate for reform? absolutely.
4) is it fair to accuse the government of lying, of breaking a promise, of being dishonest? without question.
5) but, does a majority of canadians support reform at all? that's not clear.
6) does a clear majority of canadians support any single reform option? it's seems that this is obviously false.
7) does a clear majority of canadians support the precise reform option preferred by the governing party? no. definitely not.

it follows that the government is correct to claim that they do not have broad support, and the opposition is correct to accuse them of lying. so, what's the disconnect?

1) the prime minister should not have made such a promise.
2) voters should have done more research to understand what the prime minister had in mind.

i still think that they should have pushed through with the ranked voting and then held it up as a lesson to voters: do your fucking research. it was one of the reasons i voted liberal. and, now that this is off the table, i will be less likely to vote liberal in the future. 

in a broader scheme of things, it also hurts the credibility of the party, which is where the real branding lies. i couldn't care less about justin trudeau. i voted for the party. this is a longstanding party position. you'll excuse me for being naive, but i think it's reasonable to expect a party to carry through with it's longstanding party positions.

what other longstanding party positions are in the dustbin? support for the united nations? universal health care?

again: this is a stupid time to align with a crumbling order. but, after 40 years of infighting, it's hard to expect them to reverse course.

we have lost our liberal party to globalism and neo-liberalism. it is a sad day for the country. and, we will have to destroy them from the ground - regardless of electoral consequence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-mandate-1.3961736

february is shaping up to have a lot of shows, actually. i just hope the weather co-operates.

i may sneak a show in on sunday....

i've pointed out repeatedly that i'm not a fan of metal, and particularly have a real hate on for metal culture, but this isn't really metal. unfortunately, we appear to be in a metal moment. when we go through these phases, i'm going to exist on the fringes rather than dive into the middle. so, i'm going to seek out what could be referred to as alternative metal.

i went over this once before: i usually identify as punk, but what i'm trying to articulate is a certain kind of alternative counter-cultural vision. punk is really probably actually dead this time. but, that alternative counter-culture is older than punk is - it is the same alternative counter-culture that the hippies and the beatniks articulated, and the same alternative counter-culture that ravers and cyberpunks have articulated since. don't misunderstand me: rock culture is dying. but, if the mainstream rock counter-culture of the era is metal, it will necessarily produce an alternative counter-culture in a concept of alternative metal and this is what i'm going to be attracted to, if i'm going to be attracted to anything from the period at all.

see, i might not like metal, but i like hardcore punk and i like shoegaze and i like dream pop and i like jazz and i like grunge and i like post rock and i like math rock. metal is really the exception; i like most rock period genres. and, the actual reason that metal is the exception is that it's so fucking cock driven. what you could say is that i can't fucking stand cock rock, and therefore can't fucking stand most metal, because it defines itself that way. but, what that means is that i can get into these alt-metal hybrids if they get outside of the cock rock...

i haven't decided yet. this is a vocal style that i can turn sour on very quickly after repeated listens. but i think that the wall of guitars and reverberated vocals will be a good head cave, so it's leaning this way.

i actually don't oppose this - so long as the funds are reinvested into services for natural born citizens. i mean, i don't want to see the money disappear from public funds as tax cuts. i suspect that it will...

now, that said, i think that the numbers may, in the end, determine that the problem is not so large as some people might suspect. my understanding is that the united states has a functioning immigration system, and you're looking at a fraction of immigrants that just end up on welfare. but, so long as we live in a capitalist system that pushes down artificial scarcity, there are economic realities around immigration that need to be dealt with - and one of them is that we shouldn't want to bring in people and then park them on welfare. that is a net drain of common resources.

again: we need to know our left from our right, here. leftists are concerned about the efficient management of collective resources, whereas conservatives feel the obligation to help the needy for whatever religious or chivalric reason. it follows that leftists should seek to minimize entry to parasitic migrants, whereas conservatives are going to want to show off how righteous they are as a badge of honour.

where i disagree with trump is on the scope of the problem and on where to redirect the public resources.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14457678/trump-order-immigrants-welfare

pop quiz.

class harmony: right-wing idea or left-wing idea?

and, as a follow-up:

class struggle: right-wing idea or left-wing idea?

it's been no secret from day one that justin trudeau's role is to place a friendly face upon fascism. he's a salesperson for global capitalism, and all of the rights abuses and enforced social hierarchies that come with it. what he does is present a marketing facade over these rights abuses that washes them away in a sea of platitudes. and, it's always been blatantly transparent...

the thing is that the other options are at least no better. the 2015 election offered the worst choices in my lifetime, anyways. there wasn't even really a lesser evil.

what trudeau provided was a handful of positive policies to go along with the list of terrible policies that they all shared. for example - they were all in favour of pipelines, but the liberal platform had a green infrastructure bank in it. given that there wasn't an option to stop the pipelines, the infrastructure bank was at least something. but, we may be waiting forever for this....

i'm actually going to do what is probably the worst thing i can do: i'm going to drop the mic. i'm not even analyzing this anymore. i'm just going to let him drown. it's clear at this point that the upside was a mirage, and all we're going to get is a continued spokesperson for the worst rights abusers on the planet.

ignore the media, they're clueless.

so, apparently, nafta is now about embracing diversity; i suppose that the next step is accusing opponents of being racists.

i grasp that there's a certain level of political theatre here, and i'm not really opposed to this in principle, but this is not a smart strategy and it's going to badly backfire.

but, i mean, i think it's kind of too late. justin trudeau has aligned himself with the crumbling neo-liberal order, and appears to be too stupid to figure out what's happening around him. his government is going to fall as a consequence of his stubbornness.

the only solution at this point is a caucus revolt.