fwiw, i don't actually think that a plastic bag ought to fall in the definition of "single use plastic". you can actually recycle them at walmart. i only take small numbers of them for items that need to be protected from leakage in my school bag (like strawberries, which otherwise get messy), but what i do is hang on to them and use them as garbage bags, after i've used them repeatedly for other reasons, in some cases.
it would be useful if they were biodegradable in the end, so that they decompose in the landfill. but, it's not the same thing as straws or forks; these are not meant to be used once, and, for most people, are probably used repeatedly. there is a future for plastic bags, even when so much of this other stuff is converted or done away with.
a bigger problem than any of this is lids, and that goes for a large number of items. plastic lids are not usually recyclable. to be clear: they are in theory recyclable, but almost nobody recycles them. for years, i ignored this and sent them through the blue bin as a means of protest, hoping that if i overloaded the system then they would increase their ability. nowadays, i separate them out and hand them over to whole foods, instead. this is something that both my city and your city and all of the other cities should be dealing with, and that some agitation is required around - we should be pushing mass protests to increase our local capacities to deal with plastic, as a big part of the problem is that the recycling facilities are inadequate. they can't process things they should be able to process, so they throw it away, instead.
Monday, June 10, 2019
if only we could be more like rwanda.
one day.
if we put our minds to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/28/world/africa/rwanda-plastic-bags-banned.html
one day.
if we put our minds to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/28/world/africa/rwanda-plastic-bags-banned.html
this seems like an answer, right here.
...although, as a canadian, i'd like to figure out something worthwhile to do with the rest of the marijuana plant. it's really quite a wasteful industry, if left to it's own.
you should be able to do basically exactly the same thing with marijuana or hemp stalks.
https://www.businessinsider.com/loliware-plastic-straws-seaweed-edible-2019-3
...although, as a canadian, i'd like to figure out something worthwhile to do with the rest of the marijuana plant. it's really quite a wasteful industry, if left to it's own.
you should be able to do basically exactly the same thing with marijuana or hemp stalks.
https://www.businessinsider.com/loliware-plastic-straws-seaweed-edible-2019-3
and, i don't use straws myself.
at all.
about the only time i could imagine using one is buying a fountain drink at a fast food restaurant, and i essentially never do that - not even on the rare occasions when i actually go to one. if i get anything to drink at all, it's usually either a coffee or a pop or juice in a bottle.
i really can't remember the last time i drank anything out of a straw.
at all.
about the only time i could imagine using one is buying a fountain drink at a fast food restaurant, and i essentially never do that - not even on the rare occasions when i actually go to one. if i get anything to drink at all, it's usually either a coffee or a pop or juice in a bottle.
i really can't remember the last time i drank anything out of a straw.
a part of the historical liberal party strategy would be to fund r&d with government money, but with single use plastics it's actually not that complicated, we just need to change our mindset. and, i think you might get the wrong idea about this by reading the corporate press.
research into plastics is very focused on the question of longevity. i mean, that's the point - it's supposed to last forever, because it was engineered that way. so, when we talk about plastics, we have this assumption that the material should be stable at room temperature for more or less ever. chemists would broadly consider the idea of a plastic that is biodegradable at room temperature to be a kind of contradiction in terms; it's not plastic then, right?
well, maybe not.
but, that's just the point: plastic wasn't intended to be used the way we use it. it wasn't intended to get thrown out after one use, it was intended to sit in the cupboard forever; that was indeed the point, and we've lost it somewhere.
so, you'll hear people argue that plastic can't degrade at room temperature, and that's largely true, but that's not a fundamental rule of nature so much as it's a purposeful engineering choice; it doesn't decompose because we designed it not to, and companies that produce plastic are going to need an extra push to modify their thoughts about that.
so, at the end of the day, if we want sustainable single use items, you might need to learn to put your straws in the fridge, and they might have a best before date, and they might turn into mush on the counter. and, that's fine. because we should have never engineered immortal straws in the first place; that's what we should have had from the start...
for a big company like mcdonalds, it shouldn't be much of a shift. so, you ship your straws and forks frozen; they move enough units that there shouldn't be an issue with thawing them out in the morning. and, hey - would you like your utensils heated? is kind of a cool question, when you're ordering your poutine.
it's a lot easier than the oil industry wants you to think it is - the technology is here, if we choose to use it.
research into plastics is very focused on the question of longevity. i mean, that's the point - it's supposed to last forever, because it was engineered that way. so, when we talk about plastics, we have this assumption that the material should be stable at room temperature for more or less ever. chemists would broadly consider the idea of a plastic that is biodegradable at room temperature to be a kind of contradiction in terms; it's not plastic then, right?
well, maybe not.
but, that's just the point: plastic wasn't intended to be used the way we use it. it wasn't intended to get thrown out after one use, it was intended to sit in the cupboard forever; that was indeed the point, and we've lost it somewhere.
so, you'll hear people argue that plastic can't degrade at room temperature, and that's largely true, but that's not a fundamental rule of nature so much as it's a purposeful engineering choice; it doesn't decompose because we designed it not to, and companies that produce plastic are going to need an extra push to modify their thoughts about that.
so, at the end of the day, if we want sustainable single use items, you might need to learn to put your straws in the fridge, and they might have a best before date, and they might turn into mush on the counter. and, that's fine. because we should have never engineered immortal straws in the first place; that's what we should have had from the start...
for a big company like mcdonalds, it shouldn't be much of a shift. so, you ship your straws and forks frozen; they move enough units that there shouldn't be an issue with thawing them out in the morning. and, hey - would you like your utensils heated? is kind of a cool question, when you're ordering your poutine.
it's a lot easier than the oil industry wants you to think it is - the technology is here, if we choose to use it.
but i want to be clear about what i'm saying.
a ban on plastic will fail. horribly. it's a waste of time because it's a stupid approach that has no end point besides not managing to accomplish anything at all. if you ban straws and forks, people will just smuggle them back in; people aren't going to keep metal forks or metal straws in their cars, they'll just buy plastic shit in the states and bring it back.
and, what are you going to do when you catch people with plastic they smuggled in from the states? put them in jail? tie up the court systems?
do you think the cops will enforce this?
it's not enforceable; it's moronic, it won't work and we need better ideas than this.
a ban on plastic will fail. horribly. it's a waste of time because it's a stupid approach that has no end point besides not managing to accomplish anything at all. if you ban straws and forks, people will just smuggle them back in; people aren't going to keep metal forks or metal straws in their cars, they'll just buy plastic shit in the states and bring it back.
and, what are you going to do when you catch people with plastic they smuggled in from the states? put them in jail? tie up the court systems?
do you think the cops will enforce this?
it's not enforceable; it's moronic, it won't work and we need better ideas than this.
btw, if you're near detroit and you need to recycle some things that the blue bin won't take - like styrofoam or polystyrene - then this is the place to take it.
it's been a while; i'm in need of a big run. i've got piles of number 5 plastic to drop off.
most big cities will have alternative recycling plants that can more comprehensively accept waste than the city will.
i'm honestly as good as i can be. really. i mean, if you have suggestions, i'd like to hear them, but i'm doing as well as i can. the only things i haven't been able to deal with are cheese wrappers, pasta wrappers and doritos bags. if legislation can force these into biodegradable packages, then i'm down to near zero waste.
http://www.recyclehere.net/
it's been a while; i'm in need of a big run. i've got piles of number 5 plastic to drop off.
most big cities will have alternative recycling plants that can more comprehensively accept waste than the city will.
i'm honestly as good as i can be. really. i mean, if you have suggestions, i'd like to hear them, but i'm doing as well as i can. the only things i haven't been able to deal with are cheese wrappers, pasta wrappers and doritos bags. if legislation can force these into biodegradable packages, then i'm down to near zero waste.
http://www.recyclehere.net/
so, where are the liberal party apparatchiks? why is this party so devoid of policy, after having been the "party of policy" for most of the previous century? what the fuck happened?
it's tempting to compare trudeau to trump. truly.
but, the better comparison is - ironically - to what happened to the russians under stalin, although this process actually began with what we call the "martin purges" in canada. trudeau very much picked up where martin left off, in this regard.
the sad truth is that there's nobody around to write policy because they fired everybody and, like in stalinist russia, that mass purge of the party intelligentsia has led to a generation of decline and regression.
we are at least in a better state of affairs than communist russia, though - in canada, at least they're not dead. which means you could, potentially, bring them back.
trudeau had an opportunity to rebuild a dying party, and he started off the right way, but in the end just revealed himself as completely full of shit as he carried on the same mistakes that were made by his immediate predecessors. he blew it...
...and the party is on the brink of being back where it was in 2011.
it's tempting to compare trudeau to trump. truly.
but, the better comparison is - ironically - to what happened to the russians under stalin, although this process actually began with what we call the "martin purges" in canada. trudeau very much picked up where martin left off, in this regard.
the sad truth is that there's nobody around to write policy because they fired everybody and, like in stalinist russia, that mass purge of the party intelligentsia has led to a generation of decline and regression.
we are at least in a better state of affairs than communist russia, though - in canada, at least they're not dead. which means you could, potentially, bring them back.
trudeau had an opportunity to rebuild a dying party, and he started off the right way, but in the end just revealed himself as completely full of shit as he carried on the same mistakes that were made by his immediate predecessors. he blew it...
...and the party is on the brink of being back where it was in 2011.
i'm going to state this another way.
you would expect the ndp to support a single-use plastic ban. that's their realm, and it's what their voters would be yelling for.
but, people that are actually intelligent have historically voted for the liberals in the expectation that they'll come up with policies that are better than that.
and, we can do better than a plastic ban, we can write policies that will actually work, if we want to.
you would expect the ndp to support a single-use plastic ban. that's their realm, and it's what their voters would be yelling for.
but, people that are actually intelligent have historically voted for the liberals in the expectation that they'll come up with policies that are better than that.
and, we can do better than a plastic ban, we can write policies that will actually work, if we want to.
so, no - i don't support banning single-use plastic.
rather, i support policies that provide businesses with incentives to purchase plant-based plastics as often as possible.
and, yes, we have plant-based plastic, it's readily available, and it's not even that expensive.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/are-bioplastics-made-from-plants-better-for-environment-ocean-plastic/
rather, i support policies that provide businesses with incentives to purchase plant-based plastics as often as possible.
and, yes, we have plant-based plastic, it's readily available, and it's not even that expensive.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/are-bioplastics-made-from-plants-better-for-environment-ocean-plastic/
it baffles my mind that it's 2019 and "progressives" are still talking about banning things, as though they think that is going to work.
i use very little plastic, and almost none of it purposefully or consciously. for example, i bought some eggs sunday morning and they gave me a plastic fork, but i didn't ask for it - and i actually brought it home and plan to reuse it. i have a number of them in my utensil drawer, actually. the reality is that we can't get through life without throwing away some plastic, but i'm about as good about it as a person can be, and the little pile with my name on it is comparable to people living in the third world.
that's really not relevant, though. if people were going to change their habits, they would have done so by now. all that banning things is going to do is create a black market; people will cross the border to buy plastic and bring it back. don't laugh, they will. prohibiting the sale and purchase of things is just not how you actually solve actual problems in the real world, you have to actually find a way to change how people think and behave and act. laws don't change anybody's behaviour - they never have, and they never will.
the root cause of the problem is really actually not in people's consumption habits. i'm not a luddite; i don't have a problem with the use of commodities. humans have always used things and then thrown them away, as evidenced by the mountains of up to ten thousand year old garbage we can unearth in archaeological digs. that is normal human behaviour, and attempting to modify it is a foolish waste of time, not to mention not particularly desirable. i mean, i don't see any broader philosophical value in trying to get people to be less wasteful, for the sake of it. there's nothing wrong with consumption, in itself.
the root cause of the problem is the material that we make plastic out of, namely oil, which is important because what the government is doing is trying to distract from it's failed carbon reduction policies with a litter policy; it's a bait and switch, and actually exactly what doug ford just did. there's no longer a lot of substantive differences between the conservatives and the liberals in canada, unfortunately - this is a recent change, but it's the new reality that we need to get used to. so, they're trying to change the topic, and switch the discussion to waste policy instead of carbon reduction. i guess they don't realize that plastic is made out of oil.
what we need are policies that convince companies to purchase more sustainable types of plastic. so, i ask the following question: if they pass a single-use plastic ban, would the restaurant be able to give me a fork made out of hemp plastic? or would they tell me i have the choice between dirtying a fork in their restaurant or waiting until i got home to eat?
and, what are the ways that you convince the market to move to plant-based plastic? well, you can provide subsidies to specific companies, you can create a targeted small-business tax break, you can create an attitude-changing marketing strategy, etc.
but, just banning things is stupid.
and, you're stupid if you support it.
again: we have a serious problem in search of serious policies, and you're not going to get them from this government.
i use very little plastic, and almost none of it purposefully or consciously. for example, i bought some eggs sunday morning and they gave me a plastic fork, but i didn't ask for it - and i actually brought it home and plan to reuse it. i have a number of them in my utensil drawer, actually. the reality is that we can't get through life without throwing away some plastic, but i'm about as good about it as a person can be, and the little pile with my name on it is comparable to people living in the third world.
that's really not relevant, though. if people were going to change their habits, they would have done so by now. all that banning things is going to do is create a black market; people will cross the border to buy plastic and bring it back. don't laugh, they will. prohibiting the sale and purchase of things is just not how you actually solve actual problems in the real world, you have to actually find a way to change how people think and behave and act. laws don't change anybody's behaviour - they never have, and they never will.
the root cause of the problem is really actually not in people's consumption habits. i'm not a luddite; i don't have a problem with the use of commodities. humans have always used things and then thrown them away, as evidenced by the mountains of up to ten thousand year old garbage we can unearth in archaeological digs. that is normal human behaviour, and attempting to modify it is a foolish waste of time, not to mention not particularly desirable. i mean, i don't see any broader philosophical value in trying to get people to be less wasteful, for the sake of it. there's nothing wrong with consumption, in itself.
the root cause of the problem is the material that we make plastic out of, namely oil, which is important because what the government is doing is trying to distract from it's failed carbon reduction policies with a litter policy; it's a bait and switch, and actually exactly what doug ford just did. there's no longer a lot of substantive differences between the conservatives and the liberals in canada, unfortunately - this is a recent change, but it's the new reality that we need to get used to. so, they're trying to change the topic, and switch the discussion to waste policy instead of carbon reduction. i guess they don't realize that plastic is made out of oil.
what we need are policies that convince companies to purchase more sustainable types of plastic. so, i ask the following question: if they pass a single-use plastic ban, would the restaurant be able to give me a fork made out of hemp plastic? or would they tell me i have the choice between dirtying a fork in their restaurant or waiting until i got home to eat?
and, what are the ways that you convince the market to move to plant-based plastic? well, you can provide subsidies to specific companies, you can create a targeted small-business tax break, you can create an attitude-changing marketing strategy, etc.
but, just banning things is stupid.
and, you're stupid if you support it.
again: we have a serious problem in search of serious policies, and you're not going to get them from this government.
i am broadly in support of this, and while i would not consider it to be a ballot issue, i would warn opposition groups against making yourself come off as being in favour of puritanism, temperance or islamism by trying to make it an issue. conservatives won't vote for you, but leftists are likely to react with cynicism and disdain. conservatives are supposed to be the ones making it harder to get alcohol, not leftists. if this issue realigns, so that liberals or new democrats are seen as supporting increased restrictions to access alcohol, it will result in drastic harm to the left in the long run.
the only serious problem i've ever had with access to alcohol in ontario was that things are closed on sundays, and the previous government mostly fixed that. it's a solution without a problem.
so, while it's not a ballot issue, a reaction against it might become one, in the sense that i could see myself voting green if the liberals and ndp decide to be "progressive" about it.
half of me expects the ndp to take the puritanical road of christian temperance. that is the ndp's history, after all. if they do, this could potentially be a strong wedge issue for the liberals. but, they have to take the right position on it, first.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-beer-sales-convenience-stores-official/
the only serious problem i've ever had with access to alcohol in ontario was that things are closed on sundays, and the previous government mostly fixed that. it's a solution without a problem.
so, while it's not a ballot issue, a reaction against it might become one, in the sense that i could see myself voting green if the liberals and ndp decide to be "progressive" about it.
half of me expects the ndp to take the puritanical road of christian temperance. that is the ndp's history, after all. if they do, this could potentially be a strong wedge issue for the liberals. but, they have to take the right position on it, first.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-beer-sales-convenience-stores-official/
this kind of interference is an abuse of power, and threatens to devolve our system of government into the kind of gridlock that exists in the disastrous american system.
if the province is going to do this kind of bullshit, we need to look at opening up the constitution to remove the province's oversight and give municipalities more independence.
the city of toronto rejected doug ford as mayor. he has no mandate for this.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-government-wants-change-hundreds-future-plans-toronto/
if the province is going to do this kind of bullshit, we need to look at opening up the constitution to remove the province's oversight and give municipalities more independence.
the city of toronto rejected doug ford as mayor. he has no mandate for this.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/06/ontario-government-wants-change-hundreds-future-plans-toronto/
so, i made a choice around 9:00 this morning that it seemed like it was going to rain pretty hard - the wind was picking up, and the temperature dropped very suddenly - and i'd better get me and my bike home before it did.
that turned out to be a bad choice, as it cleared up early in the afternoon. what seemed like it was going to be a cold and wet day turned into a humid, overcast one - and i like humid, overcast days. it would have been a good afternoon for a beer outside, if there was indeed a good place to find one, which was less clear. that food truck was penciled in as a kind of a joke.
so, i didn't make it to the end of the day symphony, but i'm going to figure this out, eventually. in some sense, it's still early in the year. but, where's the place that is open not just until 6:00 but until 12:00? even accepting that it's a good idea to put an hour or two aside to eat, if i want to get to these sunday afternoon or evening shows i need something better to do on sunday morning.
hey, maybe i'll start going to church.
(laugh track)
i missed everything in the afternoon, but i got some nice biking in. the early show ran late, meaning i only caught around 10 minutes of the last show, which was also early. the early show was mildly entertaining, but i was more interested in the second show, and i should have left early, but i actually didn't realize it was that late (although, again, the second show was also early). i'm not really fans of either act, so it's not that catastrophic, really, but i would have ideally been able to have caught most of oozing wound. alas. the first dance club was empty a little before midnight and the music wasn't interesting enough to shrug it off, so i did leave early, and ended up at menjo's a little before midnight. the bartender at r&r seemed to think i was drunk, but the bartender at menjo's served me. i guess the best way to answer the question is that i was certainly under the influence of alcohol, but i don't think i was too drunk to serve; r&r was wrong, here, and menjo's was right. and, they waived me cover again (that's three times in the last month). i guess i had three drinks at menjo's before going back to r&r, and i did eventually convince them to serve me, just further demonstrating that the initial decision not to serve me was wrong - if i was too drunk to serve when i came in, how could i be less drunk three drinks later? the event listing said 7:00, but i didn't expect them to be open later than 5:00, and they had the place cleared by 5:30.
see, i wasn't sure what the right logic would be about the gay complex on pride weekend. i want to be clear here: there were a lot of disappointed people walking out of that place at 5:30, many of whom clearly thought they'd be there a lot later than that. there was a general consensus that the other place would be closed right at 6:00. a lot of bars will stay open all morning on movement, so why not stay open all day on pride? you can start serving again at 7:00! and, there were 300 people there that didn't want to leave. so, i was hoping, with little supporting evidence, that they'd be open very late - but i just ended up as one of a large number of people that was pushed out earlier than they wanted.
there's another complex opening up in the west end and i need to make a point that should be obvious: if you hire a dj to spin at 7:00 am until noon or three or four in the afternoon on the sunday of pride weekend, you will attract hundreds of people that want to be there. my search for a more general early sunday morning dance party may be a little obscure, but i was hooked into the gay zeitgeist this week, anyways.
i want to make a general statement about alcohol: i don't think there's anything wrong with being drunk. i don't drink when i'm at home, but when i'm out partying, i enjoy being drunk, and drink because i like it. i have no shame in these truths, and would behoove you to change your attitude, if you do. so, i have no response to people pushing temperance other than to tell them to proselytize to somebody else - i have no interest in your politics or your morals or your worldview in general, so fuck off.
regarding my alcohol intake, we all screw up once in a while, but i can actually generally handle my alcohol quite well. i mean, you're looking at a 95% success rate in terms of making it home without blacking out. so, you play the odds, and tell me what the right answer is. further, i am absolutely certain that i was drugged on at least two of those nights (one of them because he told me as much). the only times i've ever run into actual confirmed alcohol problems are when i'm taking shots or otherwise drinking strong drinks; so long as i'm drinking beer, i'm able to essentially drink all night, and i will if you let me.
the thing that tends to knock me on my ass is actually not alcohol but marijuana. alcohol is a cns depressant, but it is also a racing buzz - it makes you want to get up and dance. good pot will amplify the effects of alcohol, but if you take a pass on somebody's sativa, or eat a brownie somebody made in their kitchen, you could find yourself in need of a couch. please be clear on this point: if you find me sitting down somewhere, it's probably (like, 95 out of a 100 times) not because i'm drunk but because i'm stoned and i'll probably be fine once it wears off a little. and, so long as i smoked it rather than ate it, you're probably looking at ten minutes before i'm up and ready to go.
storefront marijuana stores in michigan are coming soon, and, when they are, i should be able to minimize this problem by ensuring that i'm only smoking high-thc indica. in the meantime, it's an environmental hazard i have to deal with: people are going to pass me shit that is going to make me need to sit down, and i'm going to need to do it, when they do.
that turned out to be a bad choice, as it cleared up early in the afternoon. what seemed like it was going to be a cold and wet day turned into a humid, overcast one - and i like humid, overcast days. it would have been a good afternoon for a beer outside, if there was indeed a good place to find one, which was less clear. that food truck was penciled in as a kind of a joke.
so, i didn't make it to the end of the day symphony, but i'm going to figure this out, eventually. in some sense, it's still early in the year. but, where's the place that is open not just until 6:00 but until 12:00? even accepting that it's a good idea to put an hour or two aside to eat, if i want to get to these sunday afternoon or evening shows i need something better to do on sunday morning.
hey, maybe i'll start going to church.
(laugh track)
i missed everything in the afternoon, but i got some nice biking in. the early show ran late, meaning i only caught around 10 minutes of the last show, which was also early. the early show was mildly entertaining, but i was more interested in the second show, and i should have left early, but i actually didn't realize it was that late (although, again, the second show was also early). i'm not really fans of either act, so it's not that catastrophic, really, but i would have ideally been able to have caught most of oozing wound. alas. the first dance club was empty a little before midnight and the music wasn't interesting enough to shrug it off, so i did leave early, and ended up at menjo's a little before midnight. the bartender at r&r seemed to think i was drunk, but the bartender at menjo's served me. i guess the best way to answer the question is that i was certainly under the influence of alcohol, but i don't think i was too drunk to serve; r&r was wrong, here, and menjo's was right. and, they waived me cover again (that's three times in the last month). i guess i had three drinks at menjo's before going back to r&r, and i did eventually convince them to serve me, just further demonstrating that the initial decision not to serve me was wrong - if i was too drunk to serve when i came in, how could i be less drunk three drinks later? the event listing said 7:00, but i didn't expect them to be open later than 5:00, and they had the place cleared by 5:30.
see, i wasn't sure what the right logic would be about the gay complex on pride weekend. i want to be clear here: there were a lot of disappointed people walking out of that place at 5:30, many of whom clearly thought they'd be there a lot later than that. there was a general consensus that the other place would be closed right at 6:00. a lot of bars will stay open all morning on movement, so why not stay open all day on pride? you can start serving again at 7:00! and, there were 300 people there that didn't want to leave. so, i was hoping, with little supporting evidence, that they'd be open very late - but i just ended up as one of a large number of people that was pushed out earlier than they wanted.
there's another complex opening up in the west end and i need to make a point that should be obvious: if you hire a dj to spin at 7:00 am until noon or three or four in the afternoon on the sunday of pride weekend, you will attract hundreds of people that want to be there. my search for a more general early sunday morning dance party may be a little obscure, but i was hooked into the gay zeitgeist this week, anyways.
i want to make a general statement about alcohol: i don't think there's anything wrong with being drunk. i don't drink when i'm at home, but when i'm out partying, i enjoy being drunk, and drink because i like it. i have no shame in these truths, and would behoove you to change your attitude, if you do. so, i have no response to people pushing temperance other than to tell them to proselytize to somebody else - i have no interest in your politics or your morals or your worldview in general, so fuck off.
regarding my alcohol intake, we all screw up once in a while, but i can actually generally handle my alcohol quite well. i mean, you're looking at a 95% success rate in terms of making it home without blacking out. so, you play the odds, and tell me what the right answer is. further, i am absolutely certain that i was drugged on at least two of those nights (one of them because he told me as much). the only times i've ever run into actual confirmed alcohol problems are when i'm taking shots or otherwise drinking strong drinks; so long as i'm drinking beer, i'm able to essentially drink all night, and i will if you let me.
the thing that tends to knock me on my ass is actually not alcohol but marijuana. alcohol is a cns depressant, but it is also a racing buzz - it makes you want to get up and dance. good pot will amplify the effects of alcohol, but if you take a pass on somebody's sativa, or eat a brownie somebody made in their kitchen, you could find yourself in need of a couch. please be clear on this point: if you find me sitting down somewhere, it's probably (like, 95 out of a 100 times) not because i'm drunk but because i'm stoned and i'll probably be fine once it wears off a little. and, so long as i smoked it rather than ate it, you're probably looking at ten minutes before i'm up and ready to go.
storefront marijuana stores in michigan are coming soon, and, when they are, i should be able to minimize this problem by ensuring that i'm only smoking high-thc indica. in the meantime, it's an environmental hazard i have to deal with: people are going to pass me shit that is going to make me need to sit down, and i'm going to need to do it, when they do.
Saturday, June 8, 2019
it's starting to maybe become a bit more clear that a part of the problem in detroit - not the whole problem, but a part of it - is that it's lost in a state of social development that marx (or engels) called utopian socialism. they're essentially lost in ignorance and for that reason lack the ability to govern themselves, but i guess that's what happens when you stop funding the school systems.
throughout history, socialism has usually been "utopian" in this way, in the sense that it is small-minded, insular and focused solely on what is directly in front of it. and, because it comes out of desperation and poverty, it centers itself around religious institutions, or whatever functions as a religious institution in the relevant culture.
i am not a politician, i'm just an astute analyst. i observe, i take notes - but i watch from the sidelines, i don't participate. i'm neither a leader nor a follower but an observer; i'm outside the crowd, aloof, and unable to exist on a social level that can lead.
but, my very marxist analyst is that detroit is ripe for strong, focused and scientifically leftist leadership. you'll have to fight with the religious bureaucracy when you get here, but the people here seem to know that socialism is what they want - they just don't know how to do it.
throughout history, socialism has usually been "utopian" in this way, in the sense that it is small-minded, insular and focused solely on what is directly in front of it. and, because it comes out of desperation and poverty, it centers itself around religious institutions, or whatever functions as a religious institution in the relevant culture.
i am not a politician, i'm just an astute analyst. i observe, i take notes - but i watch from the sidelines, i don't participate. i'm neither a leader nor a follower but an observer; i'm outside the crowd, aloof, and unable to exist on a social level that can lead.
but, my very marxist analyst is that detroit is ripe for strong, focused and scientifically leftist leadership. you'll have to fight with the religious bureaucracy when you get here, but the people here seem to know that socialism is what they want - they just don't know how to do it.
broadly speaking, the united states does not have a problem with food production, but rather has a problem with food distribution. in fact, the united states has a problem with over-production - you produce too much food, and you waste tonnes if it every day. we waste a lot of food in canada, too, but at least we maintain some concept of supply management (although this is under constant threat).
in that sense, community gardening is kind of a solution without a problem, and i would consider it to belong to a list of upper class bourgeois liberal do-gooder policies that are more about feeling good about yourself than doing anything substantive.
it would be more worthwhile to fight for common ownership of the actual grain basket.
in that sense, community gardening is kind of a solution without a problem, and i would consider it to belong to a list of upper class bourgeois liberal do-gooder policies that are more about feeling good about yourself than doing anything substantive.
it would be more worthwhile to fight for common ownership of the actual grain basket.
the thing with farming in the city - and especially a city with such an industrial history as detroit - is that the soil and air you're growing in is very likely to be contaminated and polluted. if you grow in dirty air and/or dirty soil, all the pollution will get stored in the plant; if you then eat that plant, you'll get sick from the pollution that it sucked out of the air. so, if you want to set up a carrot garden in your front yard, you need to understand that your carrots are probably going to be pulling in automotive emissions from the atmosphere and sucking up centuries of industrial waste from the ground. if your city has ever had acid rain, you want to think twice before planting in your yard.
it's not that the farm out of town doesn't have the same problems, on a lower scale, it's that they understand that it's a problem and do regular testing for it. you probably just don't have the resources or know-how to make sure you're doing this safely, but if you do then power to you. but, please understand what you're doing, and the risks you pose to the people that you're feeding if you don't. if you just start growing randomly downtown, those vegetables could very well end up as concentrated carcinogenic poison, in addition to being carbon sinks.
my suggestion - and i've made this over and over again in public spaces - is that you should leave outdoor growing explicitly for carbon sinks, meaning trees and non-edible plants, and that if you want to do urban farming then you should keep it to a controlled, indoor environment with fresh soil and minimal access to outside air. greenhouses are a bit more of an investment and require a bit more upkeep, but if you're doing this for the quality of the food then you should try not to be stupid or hypocritical about it.
it's not that the farm out of town doesn't have the same problems, on a lower scale, it's that they understand that it's a problem and do regular testing for it. you probably just don't have the resources or know-how to make sure you're doing this safely, but if you do then power to you. but, please understand what you're doing, and the risks you pose to the people that you're feeding if you don't. if you just start growing randomly downtown, those vegetables could very well end up as concentrated carcinogenic poison, in addition to being carbon sinks.
my suggestion - and i've made this over and over again in public spaces - is that you should leave outdoor growing explicitly for carbon sinks, meaning trees and non-edible plants, and that if you want to do urban farming then you should keep it to a controlled, indoor environment with fresh soil and minimal access to outside air. greenhouses are a bit more of an investment and require a bit more upkeep, but if you're doing this for the quality of the food then you should try not to be stupid or hypocritical about it.
and, before you ask the question, yes - the best way to see rachmaninov is shit-faced drunk.
...because he was one himself.
that said, i am fully aware that americans tend to ruin rachmaninov by converting his angry, drunken russian romps into posh bourgeois slop, but we'll see how well they do soon enough.
ideally, you want to listen to rachmaninov in a bar full of rowdy people, and not in a concert hall full of snobs. but, i can behave for a few hours. promise.
...because he was one himself.
that said, i am fully aware that americans tend to ruin rachmaninov by converting his angry, drunken russian romps into posh bourgeois slop, but we'll see how well they do soon enough.
ideally, you want to listen to rachmaninov in a bar full of rowdy people, and not in a concert hall full of snobs. but, i can behave for a few hours. promise.
i've pointed this out before - americans have a big problem with walking. they seem to think it's medieval, or something.
where
are all my virile, fit gay boys at? c'mon. it's literally around the
corner. what's the point? you bros don't even lift, do you?
we should be marching to ferndale and back, dammit.
so, i'm not marching across the street. it's symbolic, sure, but rather silly, in truth.
i actually took an unexpect nap this afternoon and ended up staying in tonight. that means i get to take the long option for tomorrow. and it is long...
the actual event at the plaza is just over-priced drinks and bad music. so, i'm going to be a good queer and get some actual culture in and do this instead, tentatively:
11:00-12:00 - windsor poutine festival. cost of food. riverside marina, windsor.
13:00-15:00 - akropolis pop-up. experimental classical music. free. dequindre cut.
15:30 - 16:30 - belle isle dance performance. ambient music. belle isle nature centre.
16:30 - 17:00 - exploring belle isle for the first time on a bicycle.
18:00 - 19:30 - having a beer or two somewhere in hamtramck.
19:30-22:00 - facs. no wave art rock. free. painted lady.
22:15-00:00 - oozing wound. thrash pronk. $10. sanctuary.
00:15-02:00 - ufos on the floor. experimental techno. free. high dive.
03:00-07:00++ - "after thots" queer dance party. free. eagle of detroit.
++07:00-11:00-- ?
--11:00-14:00 - hangover brunch. free (+ the cost of food, presumably). detroit shipping co.
15:00-18:00 - rachmaninov/bartok/paganini. legit high art. $15. dso.
catch me if you can.
we should be marching to ferndale and back, dammit.
so, i'm not marching across the street. it's symbolic, sure, but rather silly, in truth.
i actually took an unexpect nap this afternoon and ended up staying in tonight. that means i get to take the long option for tomorrow. and it is long...
the actual event at the plaza is just over-priced drinks and bad music. so, i'm going to be a good queer and get some actual culture in and do this instead, tentatively:
11:00-12:00 - windsor poutine festival. cost of food. riverside marina, windsor.
13:00-15:00 - akropolis pop-up. experimental classical music. free. dequindre cut.
15:30 - 16:30 - belle isle dance performance. ambient music. belle isle nature centre.
16:30 - 17:00 - exploring belle isle for the first time on a bicycle.
18:00 - 19:30 - having a beer or two somewhere in hamtramck.
19:30-22:00 - facs. no wave art rock. free. painted lady.
22:15-00:00 - oozing wound. thrash pronk. $10. sanctuary.
00:15-02:00 - ufos on the floor. experimental techno. free. high dive.
03:00-07:00++ - "after thots" queer dance party. free. eagle of detroit.
++07:00-11:00-- ?
--11:00-14:00 - hangover brunch. free (+ the cost of food, presumably). detroit shipping co.
15:00-18:00 - rachmaninov/bartok/paganini. legit high art. $15. dso.
catch me if you can.
Friday, June 7, 2019
to be clear...
i still have absolutely no idea who caroline chevalier is. i could bump into her tonight or some other night and not know it. i don't know what she looks like, i don't know how old she is, and i don't even really know what country she lives in. it's really just a name on a screen.
but, i will state this clearly: what she did is wrong, and anybody that is unclear about the point should understand that. she essentially filed a false police report, that led to a comprehensive trampling over all of my relevant rights. justice won out in the end, but you can't do what she did without consequences. and, she will need to defend herself in court in due time.
she will have her day in court, and her ability to make her argument. but, i am filing a very serious lawsuit, here. and, if you think this was some kind of prank, you should be aware that it's going to cost her tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs, whether she wins in the end or not.
and, if i win the case, you're looking at a $50,000+ settlement. a discrimination lawsuit is a big deal in canada, and my case against her is very, very strong. if i lose the case, it's going to cost her that in legal fees, and she'll never recover them.
so, i mean, laugh it up. but, i'll be laughing in the end. i just need to wait for the cops to finish the investigation into the officer, first - or not. this will be filed by early september at the very latest.
and the solution is that you shouldn't discriminate against people, or file false police reports to try and cover your ass for it.
i still have absolutely no idea who caroline chevalier is. i could bump into her tonight or some other night and not know it. i don't know what she looks like, i don't know how old she is, and i don't even really know what country she lives in. it's really just a name on a screen.
but, i will state this clearly: what she did is wrong, and anybody that is unclear about the point should understand that. she essentially filed a false police report, that led to a comprehensive trampling over all of my relevant rights. justice won out in the end, but you can't do what she did without consequences. and, she will need to defend herself in court in due time.
she will have her day in court, and her ability to make her argument. but, i am filing a very serious lawsuit, here. and, if you think this was some kind of prank, you should be aware that it's going to cost her tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs, whether she wins in the end or not.
and, if i win the case, you're looking at a $50,000+ settlement. a discrimination lawsuit is a big deal in canada, and my case against her is very, very strong. if i lose the case, it's going to cost her that in legal fees, and she'll never recover them.
so, i mean, laugh it up. but, i'll be laughing in the end. i just need to wait for the cops to finish the investigation into the officer, first - or not. this will be filed by early september at the very latest.
and the solution is that you shouldn't discriminate against people, or file false police reports to try and cover your ass for it.
and, yes, i have the opposite problem with women - i interpret women as friends, and they interpret me sexually or romantically; i interpret men sexually or romantically, whereas they interpret me as friends. it creates an impossible dynamic, all around, so i have to shove my tits in your face for you to get the point.
so, i know it seems weird to show up to this room full of straight guys in a tanktop and makeup.
but, i'm there to see the band just like they are, and i need the people around me to interpret me properly when i'm there. we don't get anywhere in pretending that i'm somebody that i'm not in order to fit in.
it's the only rational approach, if you think it through.
but, i'm there to see the band just like they are, and i need the people around me to interpret me properly when i'm there. we don't get anywhere in pretending that i'm somebody that i'm not in order to fit in.
it's the only rational approach, if you think it through.
in fact, the places i hang out at are mostly full of straight white men in their 30s-50s.
...because that's what i'm actually attracted to.
duh?
about the last thing in the world that i'd want to do is hang out in a space full of cis-women, as they have nothing to offer me. i've learned that; i may have thought differently when i was younger, but i know better, now. nowadays, i purposefully avoid places that are full of women.
so, why not just be a gay male then? because i'm not attracted to gay men, i'm attracted to straight men. it's a big difference. and, if i were to show up presenting myself as a dude, i'd be being dishonest.
so, for example, i'm probably going to some rock shows this weekend, to take advantage of the weather, while i can. i've pointed out several times that i'm expecting a shitty summer; it's at least going to be nice this weekend. almost all women at these spaces are going to be somebody's girlfriend, and there in that capacity - that's the reality of the types of rock bands i'll be checking out. it just is. really.
so, i'm going to check out some guitar music with a nearly exclusively straight white male audience.
if i were to show up to these spaces in a male-presenting way and try and interact with the people there, they would assume that i'm like them - a straight white male. but, in fact, the truth is that i'm checking them out. they may even think i'm a "cool guy" because i'm at a lot of the same shows as them, and try and build a friendship with me on that basis - but i'm going to be consistently interpreting them sexually and/or romantically, and not reciprocating in their desire for basic friendship. and, i know this because i've been through it when i was younger. they will eventually figure this out, and the end result is a lot of wasted time for everybody involved, if not something more dangerous or uncomfortable than that.
the most honest thing for me to do is present myself as what i am, which is a female-identifying person that is attracted to straight men. it's then up to them to decide how they want to react to that. but, i'd rather get a negative reaction up front then string people along on a charade of friendship, only for them to realize in the end that i want to sleep with them.
i'm very keen on honesty, and this is just consistent with that.
i have the intuition that there's a larger and/or different audience here than there used to be, and much of it may be confused by the events i actually go to. you might be expecting me to go places where there are lots of younger women, for one reason or another. but, you're wrong - check the event history. i've usually gone to shows full of straight men for years, and that isn't going to change, now.
but, i need the people there to interpret me properly from the start. i've had enough problems with making friends with straight men, who misinterpret me via first impression and then get turned off when they realize the truth of what i'm actually like.
...because that's what i'm actually attracted to.
duh?
about the last thing in the world that i'd want to do is hang out in a space full of cis-women, as they have nothing to offer me. i've learned that; i may have thought differently when i was younger, but i know better, now. nowadays, i purposefully avoid places that are full of women.
so, why not just be a gay male then? because i'm not attracted to gay men, i'm attracted to straight men. it's a big difference. and, if i were to show up presenting myself as a dude, i'd be being dishonest.
so, for example, i'm probably going to some rock shows this weekend, to take advantage of the weather, while i can. i've pointed out several times that i'm expecting a shitty summer; it's at least going to be nice this weekend. almost all women at these spaces are going to be somebody's girlfriend, and there in that capacity - that's the reality of the types of rock bands i'll be checking out. it just is. really.
so, i'm going to check out some guitar music with a nearly exclusively straight white male audience.
if i were to show up to these spaces in a male-presenting way and try and interact with the people there, they would assume that i'm like them - a straight white male. but, in fact, the truth is that i'm checking them out. they may even think i'm a "cool guy" because i'm at a lot of the same shows as them, and try and build a friendship with me on that basis - but i'm going to be consistently interpreting them sexually and/or romantically, and not reciprocating in their desire for basic friendship. and, i know this because i've been through it when i was younger. they will eventually figure this out, and the end result is a lot of wasted time for everybody involved, if not something more dangerous or uncomfortable than that.
the most honest thing for me to do is present myself as what i am, which is a female-identifying person that is attracted to straight men. it's then up to them to decide how they want to react to that. but, i'd rather get a negative reaction up front then string people along on a charade of friendship, only for them to realize in the end that i want to sleep with them.
i'm very keen on honesty, and this is just consistent with that.
i have the intuition that there's a larger and/or different audience here than there used to be, and much of it may be confused by the events i actually go to. you might be expecting me to go places where there are lots of younger women, for one reason or another. but, you're wrong - check the event history. i've usually gone to shows full of straight men for years, and that isn't going to change, now.
but, i need the people there to interpret me properly from the start. i've had enough problems with making friends with straight men, who misinterpret me via first impression and then get turned off when they realize the truth of what i'm actually like.
how is it with the a/c in here, so far? i don't think it's been warm enough to turn the a/c on yet this year, at all, but it's not comparable to the previous basement. i've been less frustrated with the a/c and more frustrated with the fact that it's just cold out; it's been cooling down to around ten degrees at night, and barely making it to twenty degrees during the day. so, even if you think room temperature is 21 - and i'd like it closer to 25 - it's been barely even making it to 21 most days.
there was an a/c in here when i moved in, but i uninstalled it and i don't plan on reinstalling it ever. but, i wouldn't even think to turn an a/c on until it got to at least 30 degrees. if i had central air, i'd set it to around 27 or 28. it's just a last resort.
the guy upstairs from the previous basement had the temperature set to something like 17 degrees. it was just uninhabitable; i would wake up shivering with the windows open in mid-august. i had to resort to cranking the heater all summer. i'm sure he likes the cold summer we're having, but he probably still has the a/c cranked. and, it's not because he's male, it's because he's obese - or was. the guy had months left to live when i moved out, because that much extra weight is a death sentence.
it doesn't seem like the guy upstairs is anything like this. he's a little bit fat, but it's roughly normal for his age; he's not obese, he's just in poor shape. it's not yet an issue, but you'll definitely hear me complain about it if it becomes one.....
i think i'm more likely to get annoyed by his dehumidifier than by his a/c, but we'll see what happens. i don't know why people can't just relax and enjoy the fucking summer....it's so short, here.....
there was an a/c in here when i moved in, but i uninstalled it and i don't plan on reinstalling it ever. but, i wouldn't even think to turn an a/c on until it got to at least 30 degrees. if i had central air, i'd set it to around 27 or 28. it's just a last resort.
the guy upstairs from the previous basement had the temperature set to something like 17 degrees. it was just uninhabitable; i would wake up shivering with the windows open in mid-august. i had to resort to cranking the heater all summer. i'm sure he likes the cold summer we're having, but he probably still has the a/c cranked. and, it's not because he's male, it's because he's obese - or was. the guy had months left to live when i moved out, because that much extra weight is a death sentence.
it doesn't seem like the guy upstairs is anything like this. he's a little bit fat, but it's roughly normal for his age; he's not obese, he's just in poor shape. it's not yet an issue, but you'll definitely hear me complain about it if it becomes one.....
i think i'm more likely to get annoyed by his dehumidifier than by his a/c, but we'll see what happens. i don't know why people can't just relax and enjoy the fucking summer....it's so short, here.....
Thursday, June 6, 2019
the heat randomly turned on this morning. it's cold out, but not more so than other days, recently. it's actually welcome, as i've been cold down here in the morning lately, and don't want to ask him to turn on the heat in mid june (especially considering that he seems to be running the a/c during parts of the day), but it is unusual, and is just making me wonder what exactly is going on up there. i mean, yeah, it's june, but i'm in a basement with black drapes over all of the windows during an unseasonably cold snap; he's at least on ground level, so he should be getting sunlight in his unit. there's no way around it: it's weird.
anyways, what am i doing?
i was initially going to work through this huge list of shows from may 10-23 and then move on to the next pile, but i think this is a recipe for endless frustration, as i'll never really catch up. further, what am i doing next, once i've caught up? well, i need to actually do the paperwork for the four lawsuits and i need to get back to the liner notes. so, i'm going to do something else instead: i'm going to just convert all of the facebook listings into bandcamp or soundcloud sites in tabs, and then try to keep up on it daily. then, i can listen to these hundreds of records as i'm actually working. it's going to start off slow, but it should be a better way to multitask in the long run.
i haven't made any calls yet. i dunno. soon. it's a big deal for me, picking up the phone. i hate doing it; i'd rather just communicate over email.
anyways. last night, i got through the list of tabs i had open, which was may 10-23. now, i need to get through the last two weeks, and i'm going to try to make the process faster. i'm going to need to look a little bit ahead as well, before i get back to the writing.
anyways, what am i doing?
i was initially going to work through this huge list of shows from may 10-23 and then move on to the next pile, but i think this is a recipe for endless frustration, as i'll never really catch up. further, what am i doing next, once i've caught up? well, i need to actually do the paperwork for the four lawsuits and i need to get back to the liner notes. so, i'm going to do something else instead: i'm going to just convert all of the facebook listings into bandcamp or soundcloud sites in tabs, and then try to keep up on it daily. then, i can listen to these hundreds of records as i'm actually working. it's going to start off slow, but it should be a better way to multitask in the long run.
i haven't made any calls yet. i dunno. soon. it's a big deal for me, picking up the phone. i hate doing it; i'd rather just communicate over email.
anyways. last night, i got through the list of tabs i had open, which was may 10-23. now, i need to get through the last two weeks, and i'm going to try to make the process faster. i'm going to need to look a little bit ahead as well, before i get back to the writing.
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
so, what do i think they should do with the al aqsa / temple mount complex, for example?
what i actually think is that they should turn it into a museum, and i'm not really interested in having a discussion about competing religious access to different crumbling walls here in the 21st century. it's a ridiculous discussion to have, and i'll get up and walk out of the room if it erupts. these people are all idiots that aren't worth listening to.
we need to look towards the future, and leave religion in the past as we walk forwards as equals together.
i've mused in the past about creating a new religion, but it's just a social engineering ploy. it's worthwhile to contemplate it, though. i mean, they say that most of the region converted to christianity, and that was probably something that was invented by roman social engineers to create unity. it worked, for a while. ironically, the muslim invasions would have likely failed if it weren't for theological debates about things like monophysitism, which alienated the egyptians and the descendants of the hebrews, but you learn from your mistakes, right? it did work for a while.
so, if you could create some new messianic religion and then convert both the palestinians (who are the descendants of the jews, remember.) and the jews to it, you could conceivably eliminate most of the root causes of the existing problems, even if you end up creating more in the long run. at the least, prying people away from their existing mythologies is probably a positive step towards an atheistic future.
but, i'm only half serious. and i am half serious.
i don't want to tear it down, it has value to archaeologists, historians and anthropologists. but, we need to find a way to leave this debate behind, because it's really, actually a pretty stupid and backwards thing to be fighting about.
what i actually think is that they should turn it into a museum, and i'm not really interested in having a discussion about competing religious access to different crumbling walls here in the 21st century. it's a ridiculous discussion to have, and i'll get up and walk out of the room if it erupts. these people are all idiots that aren't worth listening to.
we need to look towards the future, and leave religion in the past as we walk forwards as equals together.
i've mused in the past about creating a new religion, but it's just a social engineering ploy. it's worthwhile to contemplate it, though. i mean, they say that most of the region converted to christianity, and that was probably something that was invented by roman social engineers to create unity. it worked, for a while. ironically, the muslim invasions would have likely failed if it weren't for theological debates about things like monophysitism, which alienated the egyptians and the descendants of the hebrews, but you learn from your mistakes, right? it did work for a while.
so, if you could create some new messianic religion and then convert both the palestinians (who are the descendants of the jews, remember.) and the jews to it, you could conceivably eliminate most of the root causes of the existing problems, even if you end up creating more in the long run. at the least, prying people away from their existing mythologies is probably a positive step towards an atheistic future.
but, i'm only half serious. and i am half serious.
i don't want to tear it down, it has value to archaeologists, historians and anthropologists. but, we need to find a way to leave this debate behind, because it's really, actually a pretty stupid and backwards thing to be fighting about.
there's not going to be a two-state solution in israel. it's not a question of what you like or don't like, it's a question of what's realistic and what isn't.
that said, i'm not shy in pointing out that i don't like ethnic nationalism and i don't like the idea of the nation state and i don't want the world cut up into segregated, ethnic enclaves. however, that's secondary to what the reality on the ground is at this point, which is that israel controls almost all of the west bank, leaving nowhere left to actually put a palestinian state.
i understand that this is hard for people of a certain age, that have been pushing this idea at least since camp david. that was 40 years ago. the facts on the ground have changed, since then.
we can do better than jared kushner, but this is something that's going to require a fresh and new perspective on, and it's inevitably going to come via generational change.
as stated previously, i support a single state with equal rights for everybody. i know this is hard, but it's the only realistic choice in front of us - whether i like it better or not.
that said, i'm not shy in pointing out that i don't like ethnic nationalism and i don't like the idea of the nation state and i don't want the world cut up into segregated, ethnic enclaves. however, that's secondary to what the reality on the ground is at this point, which is that israel controls almost all of the west bank, leaving nowhere left to actually put a palestinian state.
i understand that this is hard for people of a certain age, that have been pushing this idea at least since camp david. that was 40 years ago. the facts on the ground have changed, since then.
we can do better than jared kushner, but this is something that's going to require a fresh and new perspective on, and it's inevitably going to come via generational change.
as stated previously, i support a single state with equal rights for everybody. i know this is hard, but it's the only realistic choice in front of us - whether i like it better or not.
i don't often have time for historical ceremonies, but d-day is something we should maintain some collective memory of.
to begin with, it's probably the only time in history that britain invaded france. even the plantaganets were already there.
jokes aside (yes, that was a joke. sorry.), if you know or knew or heard about somebody that died that day, you have a right to pride regarding it. and, that's a rare statement coming from an anarchist.
there have been very few wars in history that had to be fought; this was one of them. and, we should remember the singularity of it as much as we remember the thing itself, as it should help us to see the triviality of the next war we have thrust upon us.
to begin with, it's probably the only time in history that britain invaded france. even the plantaganets were already there.
jokes aside (yes, that was a joke. sorry.), if you know or knew or heard about somebody that died that day, you have a right to pride regarding it. and, that's a rare statement coming from an anarchist.
there have been very few wars in history that had to be fought; this was one of them. and, we should remember the singularity of it as much as we remember the thing itself, as it should help us to see the triviality of the next war we have thrust upon us.
so, is hate speech free speech?
yes.
but, all that means is that the government shouldn't be regulating speech, even if it's "hateful". that doesn't mean that the "hateful" speaker has a right to be heard. free speech also means that protestors have the right to drown out the "hateful" person, and prevent them from being heard, if they really insist - so long as they are not being threatening or harassing, themselves.
what free speech really means is that the government needs to back off, that it shouldn't pick a side, and that it's neither there to police nor protect free expression: this is up to us, as citizens, to work out.
so, as a free speech activist, what i want to see is protestors yelling down ann coulter while the cops sit quietly and watch. should the yelling turn to violence, she would then deserve protection. but, she does not have the right to be heard over the crowd, if the crowd decides otherwise - she only has the right to be drowned out.
in order to gain control over the space, she would need to be asserting property rights, which is a different concept than free speech. once she is in a private space, she can use private security to assert her privilege - not her right - to be heard in a space she has property rights over, or that an owner is asserting property rights over on her behalf. and, i actually don't like that, either, but i'll respect it as the existing legal order in most cases.
generally, a public speaker would not have these kinds of property rights at a public university, and should not, either. the public university should be seen as a state institution, and should not be regulating expression one way or another.
so, again: if you have a speaker at a public university being drowned out by protestors, then that is not a violation of speech rights but an expression of it. if you disagree then, at best, you're confusing property rights with speech rights.
the only way that a speech violation can occur here is if the police come in and try and control the situation, as the government is then taking a side in a debate that they are obligated to avoid taking a side on.
yes.
but, all that means is that the government shouldn't be regulating speech, even if it's "hateful". that doesn't mean that the "hateful" speaker has a right to be heard. free speech also means that protestors have the right to drown out the "hateful" person, and prevent them from being heard, if they really insist - so long as they are not being threatening or harassing, themselves.
what free speech really means is that the government needs to back off, that it shouldn't pick a side, and that it's neither there to police nor protect free expression: this is up to us, as citizens, to work out.
so, as a free speech activist, what i want to see is protestors yelling down ann coulter while the cops sit quietly and watch. should the yelling turn to violence, she would then deserve protection. but, she does not have the right to be heard over the crowd, if the crowd decides otherwise - she only has the right to be drowned out.
in order to gain control over the space, she would need to be asserting property rights, which is a different concept than free speech. once she is in a private space, she can use private security to assert her privilege - not her right - to be heard in a space she has property rights over, or that an owner is asserting property rights over on her behalf. and, i actually don't like that, either, but i'll respect it as the existing legal order in most cases.
generally, a public speaker would not have these kinds of property rights at a public university, and should not, either. the public university should be seen as a state institution, and should not be regulating expression one way or another.
so, again: if you have a speaker at a public university being drowned out by protestors, then that is not a violation of speech rights but an expression of it. if you disagree then, at best, you're confusing property rights with speech rights.
the only way that a speech violation can occur here is if the police come in and try and control the situation, as the government is then taking a side in a debate that they are obligated to avoid taking a side on.
and, at least somebody is taking the right perspective on this.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/social-media-blackouts-are-authoritarian-power-move
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/social-media-blackouts-are-authoritarian-power-move
and, yes, our own idiot in toronto has picked this up entirely, backwards framing and all.
again: it is the students that have actual speech rights here, and they should be launching a constitutional challenge against the orwellian "free speech" policy. but, they've bought right into the narrative, and seem to actually believe that they're opposed to free speech.
...because they're fucking idiots.
https://www.marxist.com/canada-student-protests-suppressed-under-guise-of-free-speech.htm
again: it is the students that have actual speech rights here, and they should be launching a constitutional challenge against the orwellian "free speech" policy. but, they've bought right into the narrative, and seem to actually believe that they're opposed to free speech.
...because they're fucking idiots.
https://www.marxist.com/canada-student-protests-suppressed-under-guise-of-free-speech.htm
we need the aclu to start doing mass teach-ins or something.
really.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters
really.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters
of all the idiocy we see before us, of all the orwellian backwardsness, of all of the dystopic screwiness, the way the speech debate is framed is the single, worst offender. nothing is this vacuous.
it is tragic that the discourse is so poor. truly. it's depressing, really.
and, i will slam you both, at every opportunity.
it is tragic that the discourse is so poor. truly. it's depressing, really.
and, i will slam you both, at every opportunity.
if you've been following my writing for any length of time, you already know that i think that the contemporary debate on free speech in the united states is incoherent, and i'm not on either side of the debate.
i've already posted this in many places, but i'll summarize my perspective here.
i do not think that a posh for-profit speaker can claim "freedom of speech" to silence a crowd that is opposing it. rather, it is the crowd that is exercising the freedom of speech in drowning out the posh speaker. so, the crowd has speech rights, here, not the speaker.
but, the issue has been framed in a way that is legally, philosophically and rationally bankrupt, in attempting to argue that the protestors are infringing on the for-profit speaker's right to speak - something that exists nowhere in any law at all.
insofar as the constitution of either the united states or canada is relevant, it has nothing to say about the rights of for profit speakers to speak at universities. what it has to say is that the government cannot interfere to control the outcome. what that means is that the only group that is guilty of breaking the constitution is the police.
i haven't had the occasion to involve myself in these debates, up to this point, but what these students should be doing is launching constitutional grievances against the relevant police forces. but, they're so horribly ignorant that they don't even understand what they're actually doing, or what is actually being done to them.
i will gleefully make you look stupid if you try and paint me on one side of this debate that is incoherent through and through, and that i am viciously in opposition to both sides on. so, don't bother.
i've already posted this in many places, but i'll summarize my perspective here.
i do not think that a posh for-profit speaker can claim "freedom of speech" to silence a crowd that is opposing it. rather, it is the crowd that is exercising the freedom of speech in drowning out the posh speaker. so, the crowd has speech rights, here, not the speaker.
but, the issue has been framed in a way that is legally, philosophically and rationally bankrupt, in attempting to argue that the protestors are infringing on the for-profit speaker's right to speak - something that exists nowhere in any law at all.
insofar as the constitution of either the united states or canada is relevant, it has nothing to say about the rights of for profit speakers to speak at universities. what it has to say is that the government cannot interfere to control the outcome. what that means is that the only group that is guilty of breaking the constitution is the police.
i haven't had the occasion to involve myself in these debates, up to this point, but what these students should be doing is launching constitutional grievances against the relevant police forces. but, they're so horribly ignorant that they don't even understand what they're actually doing, or what is actually being done to them.
i will gleefully make you look stupid if you try and paint me on one side of this debate that is incoherent through and through, and that i am viciously in opposition to both sides on. so, don't bother.
this is a perfectly orwellian article: protecting free speech is equated with dismantling it.
the freedom to speak does not imply the right to be heard, and the only entity in society that has any obligation to uphold speech rights is the state - but it is important to recognize that the state is unique, and imperative that we don't attempt to draw parallels between the special obligation that the state has to protect speech and the behaviour of private citizens.
free speech is the right to yell in a crowd, not the right to speak on a stage.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/now-that-justin-trudeau-has-tasted-de-platforming-directly-he-should-help-stop-it
the freedom to speak does not imply the right to be heard, and the only entity in society that has any obligation to uphold speech rights is the state - but it is important to recognize that the state is unique, and imperative that we don't attempt to draw parallels between the special obligation that the state has to protect speech and the behaviour of private citizens.
free speech is the right to yell in a crowd, not the right to speak on a stage.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/now-that-justin-trudeau-has-tasted-de-platforming-directly-he-should-help-stop-it
was jesus gay?
well, i don't think he even existed at all. but, it's a question that is more interesting than may initially appear obvious, in the sense that it can help us understand how wrong our current mainstream (not scientific. mainstream.) understanding of homosexuality is.
you usually start this off by appealing to his band of merry men, and claiming that it's kind of obvious that somebody that asks grown men to denounce their possessions and follow him around the countryside must be gay. i mean, what did they do when they weren't creating bread out of thin air?
but, you're kind of missing the broader historical point, and the reality that sex between men was pretty normal in the greek world, which is the actual world that jesus lived in, rather than a jewish one. the jews were allowed to return to israel by the persians (or were perhaps actually first settled there by them.), but then they fell to alexander, and when the romans moved in it was just as the hegemon - the area was really deeply greek from the time of alexander to the years immediately preceding the crusades, which was nearly 1500 years.
in classical greece, as in classical rome, sex was something buddies did with each other to prove they were friends. so, you have propaganda about roman emperors that "wore their male partners out", which was just mean to broadcast their strength and dominance and virility. in america, we had "don't ask, don't tell"; in the ancient world, sex between soldiers was encouraged by the leadership to demonstrate fraternity and equality, as they fought to uphold a warped concept of liberty. and, the mystery cults that were dominant at the time of jesus would have been full of all kinds of sex, with all kinds of people, including those we would today consider to be far too young to consent. if the mass has a memory of bacchian ritual embedded within it, it's worthwhile to ask what part of the body you're consuming.
it's easy to forget that these categories we have - "gay" and "straight" - didn't exist until the victorian period, and are a consequence of exiting the dark ages, where they'd burn you at the stake for sodomy. before the rise of christianity, people didn't think in these categorical ways, or try to find an answer as to why people were "different" - because they weren't. homosexual sex was perfectly normal.
so, you hear this sarcastic question - "when did you decide you were straight?" - as though you can't answer that, and it therefore follows that you didn't decide you were gay, either. but, you did decide you were straight, as a part of a process of socialization and normalization growing up in childhood. you weren't born that way, it's not a default, it's not inherent or more normal.
so, did jesus have sex with his apostles? i think you should assume that this is obvious, and the burden of proof is on demonstrating that he didn't.
well, i don't think he even existed at all. but, it's a question that is more interesting than may initially appear obvious, in the sense that it can help us understand how wrong our current mainstream (not scientific. mainstream.) understanding of homosexuality is.
you usually start this off by appealing to his band of merry men, and claiming that it's kind of obvious that somebody that asks grown men to denounce their possessions and follow him around the countryside must be gay. i mean, what did they do when they weren't creating bread out of thin air?
but, you're kind of missing the broader historical point, and the reality that sex between men was pretty normal in the greek world, which is the actual world that jesus lived in, rather than a jewish one. the jews were allowed to return to israel by the persians (or were perhaps actually first settled there by them.), but then they fell to alexander, and when the romans moved in it was just as the hegemon - the area was really deeply greek from the time of alexander to the years immediately preceding the crusades, which was nearly 1500 years.
in classical greece, as in classical rome, sex was something buddies did with each other to prove they were friends. so, you have propaganda about roman emperors that "wore their male partners out", which was just mean to broadcast their strength and dominance and virility. in america, we had "don't ask, don't tell"; in the ancient world, sex between soldiers was encouraged by the leadership to demonstrate fraternity and equality, as they fought to uphold a warped concept of liberty. and, the mystery cults that were dominant at the time of jesus would have been full of all kinds of sex, with all kinds of people, including those we would today consider to be far too young to consent. if the mass has a memory of bacchian ritual embedded within it, it's worthwhile to ask what part of the body you're consuming.
it's easy to forget that these categories we have - "gay" and "straight" - didn't exist until the victorian period, and are a consequence of exiting the dark ages, where they'd burn you at the stake for sodomy. before the rise of christianity, people didn't think in these categorical ways, or try to find an answer as to why people were "different" - because they weren't. homosexual sex was perfectly normal.
so, you hear this sarcastic question - "when did you decide you were straight?" - as though you can't answer that, and it therefore follows that you didn't decide you were gay, either. but, you did decide you were straight, as a part of a process of socialization and normalization growing up in childhood. you weren't born that way, it's not a default, it's not inherent or more normal.
so, did jesus have sex with his apostles? i think you should assume that this is obvious, and the burden of proof is on demonstrating that he didn't.
what i've been doing, and the test results justify this, is taking extra androgen blockers as i feel i need them.
and, i think what i was tying to cortisol is probably actually testosterone. i didn't end up with the cortisol test, because it doesn't make sense relative to my schedule, and i was smoking drugs at the bar last week.
so, if i'm feeling anxious or agitated, i just take an extra one. for now.
once they're gone, though, i'll be off the cyproterate altogether.
and, i think what i was tying to cortisol is probably actually testosterone. i didn't end up with the cortisol test, because it doesn't make sense relative to my schedule, and i was smoking drugs at the bar last week.
so, if i'm feeling anxious or agitated, i just take an extra one. for now.
once they're gone, though, i'll be off the cyproterate altogether.
if i'm removing my testicles largely out of concern for my liver, shouldn't i be switching to injections?
my primary concern about the injections was always that they were carcinogenic, and i'm not sure that recent studies uphold this concern, but you have to understand the difference between the way this works.
if i start getting injections, what happens is they give me enough estrogen for a month all at once, and it slowly gets metabolized and excreted. so, i have a maximum estrogen level a short time after the injection, and then decreasing levels for weeks. functionally speaking, what that means is that the actual experience i'd be undergoing is near constant estrogen withdrawal, which is kind of missing the point. i haven't seen anybody make the link, but i wonder if the high suicide rate in mtf trans people could in some way be tied to these injections, as withdrawal is...well, it's the hormonal reaction associated with menstruation, but literally on steroids. again, the thought process is that the actual experience of having injections is a short "high" followed by weeks of withdrawal. you would also expect to see bursts of physical effects, followed by decreases; for example, you might see a brief and rapid increase in breast growth (often cited as the reason people want injections), but this would be followed by decline, and then another spurt, and you'd kind of have to get used to that every month - which i suspect would be very difficult.
injections of modern estrogens, do, however, come without the stress on the liver, which has side effects of blood clots from coagulation factors. but, i should point out that these risk factors were mostly tied to what is called conjugated estrogen, that is estrogen that the human liver has difficulty metabolizing. what i and most people take is a middle risk factor - not as dangerous as the old horse estrogen that they used to take in the 60s and 70s, but not free of the risk factor the way that the injections are (as they bypass the liver).
if you take them orally, it's a different game - rather than load yourself up with an absurd amount of estrogen and then wait for it to metabolize, what you do is take small amounts constantly, to maintain a constant hormone level. that actually means that i don't have a cycle at all, i'm just on estrogen all of the time, similar to women taking birth control pills, which, let's be honest, is really a modern woman, isn't it? the difference is that i'm taking something like 150-200x as much as estrogen as women on the strongest pills are. well, i'm on 8 mg/day, now - you do the math. and, the more you take, the worse off it is on your liver...
removing my testicles will increase the efficacy of the estrace because it won't be fighting with what's left of the testosterone anymore, and fwiw my testosterone test came back at 0.4 - clinically acceptable, but just barely. it was lower than that last year. it's still in the range of "chemically castrated", but at the very upper end of it. it's just tolerance, like anything else, and you would expect to have to increase your dosage over time. i want it closer to 0.1, but i don't want to increase my dosage, because the cyproterate is legitimately hard on your liver. when i get the testicles out, that should fall back to negligible levels again.
i don't expect to actually cut my estrogen, but taking the testicles out should remove the need for another dose increase for quite a while.
my primary concern about the injections was always that they were carcinogenic, and i'm not sure that recent studies uphold this concern, but you have to understand the difference between the way this works.
if i start getting injections, what happens is they give me enough estrogen for a month all at once, and it slowly gets metabolized and excreted. so, i have a maximum estrogen level a short time after the injection, and then decreasing levels for weeks. functionally speaking, what that means is that the actual experience i'd be undergoing is near constant estrogen withdrawal, which is kind of missing the point. i haven't seen anybody make the link, but i wonder if the high suicide rate in mtf trans people could in some way be tied to these injections, as withdrawal is...well, it's the hormonal reaction associated with menstruation, but literally on steroids. again, the thought process is that the actual experience of having injections is a short "high" followed by weeks of withdrawal. you would also expect to see bursts of physical effects, followed by decreases; for example, you might see a brief and rapid increase in breast growth (often cited as the reason people want injections), but this would be followed by decline, and then another spurt, and you'd kind of have to get used to that every month - which i suspect would be very difficult.
injections of modern estrogens, do, however, come without the stress on the liver, which has side effects of blood clots from coagulation factors. but, i should point out that these risk factors were mostly tied to what is called conjugated estrogen, that is estrogen that the human liver has difficulty metabolizing. what i and most people take is a middle risk factor - not as dangerous as the old horse estrogen that they used to take in the 60s and 70s, but not free of the risk factor the way that the injections are (as they bypass the liver).
if you take them orally, it's a different game - rather than load yourself up with an absurd amount of estrogen and then wait for it to metabolize, what you do is take small amounts constantly, to maintain a constant hormone level. that actually means that i don't have a cycle at all, i'm just on estrogen all of the time, similar to women taking birth control pills, which, let's be honest, is really a modern woman, isn't it? the difference is that i'm taking something like 150-200x as much as estrogen as women on the strongest pills are. well, i'm on 8 mg/day, now - you do the math. and, the more you take, the worse off it is on your liver...
removing my testicles will increase the efficacy of the estrace because it won't be fighting with what's left of the testosterone anymore, and fwiw my testosterone test came back at 0.4 - clinically acceptable, but just barely. it was lower than that last year. it's still in the range of "chemically castrated", but at the very upper end of it. it's just tolerance, like anything else, and you would expect to have to increase your dosage over time. i want it closer to 0.1, but i don't want to increase my dosage, because the cyproterate is legitimately hard on your liver. when i get the testicles out, that should fall back to negligible levels again.
i don't expect to actually cut my estrogen, but taking the testicles out should remove the need for another dose increase for quite a while.
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
as per usual, my health is absurdly ideal - glucose levels lined up directly with the averages, and cholesterol levels on the dangerously low side.
the doctor is continually flabbergasted by the cholesterol, stating things like "these are the lowest cholesterol numbers i've ever seen". he keeps asking me about my diet. but, the real answer is not what i eat but how much; my cholesterol is low because i keep excess storage to a minimum, by not eating more than i need and getting enough exercise to burn off or convert storage when it appears. it really is just a conservation law.
physics is all.
i will have an interview with a nurse in july to get a rec to get my balls out. literally. i'll keep the sac though, as they'll use it to build a vagina, one day. they're just going to make a little cut, sever them from the pipeline up and pop 'em out. voila - no more testosterone. so, that will likely not be until early in the year, or late in this one.
i'm also upping my estrogen from 6 mg/day to 8 mg/day, and i'm not sure how i want to do it, yet. probably every six hours, but maybe 4 every 12. i dunno.
for now, i have enough groceries to last some time, so i am taking a showering and heading to sleep, with the intent to catch up and then some before i leave the house next.
the doctor is continually flabbergasted by the cholesterol, stating things like "these are the lowest cholesterol numbers i've ever seen". he keeps asking me about my diet. but, the real answer is not what i eat but how much; my cholesterol is low because i keep excess storage to a minimum, by not eating more than i need and getting enough exercise to burn off or convert storage when it appears. it really is just a conservation law.
physics is all.
i will have an interview with a nurse in july to get a rec to get my balls out. literally. i'll keep the sac though, as they'll use it to build a vagina, one day. they're just going to make a little cut, sever them from the pipeline up and pop 'em out. voila - no more testosterone. so, that will likely not be until early in the year, or late in this one.
i'm also upping my estrogen from 6 mg/day to 8 mg/day, and i'm not sure how i want to do it, yet. probably every six hours, but maybe 4 every 12. i dunno.
for now, i have enough groceries to last some time, so i am taking a showering and heading to sleep, with the intent to catch up and then some before i leave the house next.
i was expecting to need to do some write-ups for my appointment tomorrow (about an orchiectomy), but what he gave me was a form letter for the doctor to fill in, and i'm not going to do that. i mean, i can't write a letter for the doctor. if that's what he wants me to do, i'll have to tell him i misunderstood.
testicular removal is a very minor step in transition, and usually isn't done alone but rather as a part of a larger surgery, like a vaginoplasty. the thing is that, for right now, i feel like i'm plateauing. it is true that i try to live in a female identity full time, but i have to temper the statement by pointing to physical reality: i know i don't exactly pull it off. so, i'm in an awkward position where i want to be living full time, but know i'm not fooling anybody.
what removing the testicles will do is completely eliminate testosterone production, which will do three things for me. the first is the obvious, namely that i will become unable to produce testosterone. however, i already produce very little testosterone due to the large amounts of anti-androgens i'm on, so that itself is not going to be experiential, except that i won't have to experience the annoyance of resetting every time i'm late on a dose. if i sleep in or otherwise am 4-5 hours late on a pill, i can feel it in my pants, and i want that to stop. the second is that it will take a huge strain off of my liver, and that is actually my primary concern: i don't want to be doing this to my liver any more. the third is that eliminating this battle between the androgens and anti-androgens that is constantly raging inside me should actually allow the estrogen to work more effectively, which should allow things like larger breast growth. i can't continue to increase my estrogen every 12 months, either, i need to deal with the source of testosterone.
it's only going to be after i've gone through another lengthy period with zero testosterone that i'm going to feel comfortable with taking final steps to full transition. if i had started this process in my teens, or kept to it in my early 20s, things would be different. but, as it is, for me, what i'm hoping is that removing the testicles will be enough that i can really be convincing enough to be living full time, and then take it to the next step from there.
if not? well, i know i don't want kids, and i don't have any interest in women. i'd rather be a eunuch than a cis-male, and if that's what i have to settle for, i can deal with it.
testicular removal is a very minor step in transition, and usually isn't done alone but rather as a part of a larger surgery, like a vaginoplasty. the thing is that, for right now, i feel like i'm plateauing. it is true that i try to live in a female identity full time, but i have to temper the statement by pointing to physical reality: i know i don't exactly pull it off. so, i'm in an awkward position where i want to be living full time, but know i'm not fooling anybody.
what removing the testicles will do is completely eliminate testosterone production, which will do three things for me. the first is the obvious, namely that i will become unable to produce testosterone. however, i already produce very little testosterone due to the large amounts of anti-androgens i'm on, so that itself is not going to be experiential, except that i won't have to experience the annoyance of resetting every time i'm late on a dose. if i sleep in or otherwise am 4-5 hours late on a pill, i can feel it in my pants, and i want that to stop. the second is that it will take a huge strain off of my liver, and that is actually my primary concern: i don't want to be doing this to my liver any more. the third is that eliminating this battle between the androgens and anti-androgens that is constantly raging inside me should actually allow the estrogen to work more effectively, which should allow things like larger breast growth. i can't continue to increase my estrogen every 12 months, either, i need to deal with the source of testosterone.
it's only going to be after i've gone through another lengthy period with zero testosterone that i'm going to feel comfortable with taking final steps to full transition. if i had started this process in my teens, or kept to it in my early 20s, things would be different. but, as it is, for me, what i'm hoping is that removing the testicles will be enough that i can really be convincing enough to be living full time, and then take it to the next step from there.
if not? well, i know i don't want kids, and i don't have any interest in women. i'd rather be a eunuch than a cis-male, and if that's what i have to settle for, i can deal with it.
when they bring out the cowboys, you know it's getting real.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1124685/spain-usa-cuba-venezuela-donald-trump-helmes-burton-act
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1124685/spain-usa-cuba-venezuela-donald-trump-helmes-burton-act
Monday, June 3, 2019
well, it's a bullshit poll.
the right answer - that socialism is when the workers take control of the means of production - is not listed in the responses. so, how do you react to a poll that gives people a multiple choice set of responses, without providing the correct response?
to be clear,
1) "government ownership of some aspects of the economy" is a wrong answer. socialism is about the people running the economy, as a transitional phase to communism, which is when the state is abolished altogether. you should be exceedingly suspicious of anybody trying to tell you that socialism is about government control over the economy, as that is little more than a right-wing talking point.
2) "abolishing private property" is the closest thing to the right answer, but it is not the same thing as seizing control over production. there is a substantial intersection. i mean, if forced, i'd pick this one, while realizing it's lacking.
3) "lack of civil liberties" has nothing to do with socialism. wrong. right-wing talking point.
4) "end poverty and provide access to services" is a corollary, but not a definition. socialism would aspire to this, and it would be true in a functional socialist system, but it is not the definition of socialism.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/446377-20-percent-of-americans-cant-define-socialism-even-as-its
the right answer - that socialism is when the workers take control of the means of production - is not listed in the responses. so, how do you react to a poll that gives people a multiple choice set of responses, without providing the correct response?
to be clear,
1) "government ownership of some aspects of the economy" is a wrong answer. socialism is about the people running the economy, as a transitional phase to communism, which is when the state is abolished altogether. you should be exceedingly suspicious of anybody trying to tell you that socialism is about government control over the economy, as that is little more than a right-wing talking point.
2) "abolishing private property" is the closest thing to the right answer, but it is not the same thing as seizing control over production. there is a substantial intersection. i mean, if forced, i'd pick this one, while realizing it's lacking.
3) "lack of civil liberties" has nothing to do with socialism. wrong. right-wing talking point.
4) "end poverty and provide access to services" is a corollary, but not a definition. socialism would aspire to this, and it would be true in a functional socialist system, but it is not the definition of socialism.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/446377-20-percent-of-americans-cant-define-socialism-even-as-its
"and, now i would like to introduce our keynote speaker, jim balsilly, who is going to speak about how to make a competitive firm uncompetitive."
why not put him on an expert panel with kim campbell and michael cowpland?
there's a junta for canadian success, if i've ever seen one.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/is-it-time-to-delete-facebook-1.5155783/they-re-exploiting-a-regulatory-gap-former-rim-ceo-calls-for-penalties-on-social-media-companies-1.5159551
why not put him on an expert panel with kim campbell and michael cowpland?
there's a junta for canadian success, if i've ever seen one.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/is-it-time-to-delete-facebook-1.5155783/they-re-exploiting-a-regulatory-gap-former-rim-ceo-calls-for-penalties-on-social-media-companies-1.5159551
i've actually been arguing for a very long time that the liberals need to do something about the tory media in this country. but, i don't think that a bailout package is nearly enough or nearly understands the depth of the problem.
it is typical of this government to think you can get what you want by sucking up to people, and it's tempting to read something into trudeau's privileged upbringing; is the crux of the matter that the most important thing that trudeau learned from his father was how to butter him up to get what he wants? but, your dad is probably mostly on your side anyways, whereas the president of a neighbouring state and an inherently hostile media are not.
we have too much media concentration in this country, and some steps to break up the big companies and reduce their market share would be a big step in the right direction. ideally, that market share would be gobbled up by independent bloggers on the internet.
but, trudeau doesn't really want a diversity of sources - he wants to capture the industry, and use it to his advantage, much as his predecessor didn't want to shut down the cbc, so much as he wanted to take control of it (and did).
if harper's attempt to control the state media was frightening in it's authoritarianism, what do you say about trudeau's attempt to control private sector media?
as is the case with so many things right now, this is a serious issue in search of a serious policy maker to tackle.
it is typical of this government to think you can get what you want by sucking up to people, and it's tempting to read something into trudeau's privileged upbringing; is the crux of the matter that the most important thing that trudeau learned from his father was how to butter him up to get what he wants? but, your dad is probably mostly on your side anyways, whereas the president of a neighbouring state and an inherently hostile media are not.
we have too much media concentration in this country, and some steps to break up the big companies and reduce their market share would be a big step in the right direction. ideally, that market share would be gobbled up by independent bloggers on the internet.
but, trudeau doesn't really want a diversity of sources - he wants to capture the industry, and use it to his advantage, much as his predecessor didn't want to shut down the cbc, so much as he wanted to take control of it (and did).
if harper's attempt to control the state media was frightening in it's authoritarianism, what do you say about trudeau's attempt to control private sector media?
as is the case with so many things right now, this is a serious issue in search of a serious policy maker to tackle.
this is a sad, embarrassing day to be a canadian.
i mourn for the loss of my country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-venezuela-embassy-1.5159498
i mourn for the loss of my country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-venezuela-embassy-1.5159498
this appears to be a fact-based analysis of bernie's historical income sources and levels, and how many houses he's owned. and, it's actually rather flattering to him.
the idea that it is anti-semitic is desperate and wrong and should not be repeated further, as it harms the credibility of people making the claim.
you sound stupid, stop saying it.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982
the idea that it is anti-semitic is desperate and wrong and should not be repeated further, as it harms the credibility of people making the claim.
you sound stupid, stop saying it.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982
this is a projecting article, and i pointed this out weeks or even months ago.
i don't think the data is there, yet. but, this is what the establishment wants - it wants you to support warren instead of sanders, and it wants you to do that because her policies don't threaten it. they've been setting this up from the start.
she does not support single payer health care, and her industry reforms are all in the form of setting up bodies that can be easily captured to avoid serious oversight.
she's exactly what the bankers want, right now - and that's why she gets such glowing media praise.
the establishment candidate is not joseph biden, and in fact they don't like him. the establishment candidate is elizabeth warren.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/as-sanders-reprises-greatest-hits-elizabeth-warren-is-surging
i don't think the data is there, yet. but, this is what the establishment wants - it wants you to support warren instead of sanders, and it wants you to do that because her policies don't threaten it. they've been setting this up from the start.
she does not support single payer health care, and her industry reforms are all in the form of setting up bodies that can be easily captured to avoid serious oversight.
she's exactly what the bankers want, right now - and that's why she gets such glowing media praise.
the establishment candidate is not joseph biden, and in fact they don't like him. the establishment candidate is elizabeth warren.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/as-sanders-reprises-greatest-hits-elizabeth-warren-is-surging
this is very silly, at this stage in the race.
in order for her to win the riding, she'd have to swing conservatives. ndp voters aren't going to be happy with her record on things like marijuana legalization, breathalyzers and assisted dying; conservatives might be, but they're viciously partisan, so it's a non-starter.
i actually think she would have probably been a liability in that riding to the liberals; i wouldn't have voted for her as a liberal, even before snc.
we will have to see who else ends up running. but, she will probably play spoiler, it's just not clear yet to whom.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/
in order for her to win the riding, she'd have to swing conservatives. ndp voters aren't going to be happy with her record on things like marijuana legalization, breathalyzers and assisted dying; conservatives might be, but they're viciously partisan, so it's a non-starter.
i actually think she would have probably been a liability in that riding to the liberals; i wouldn't have voted for her as a liberal, even before snc.
we will have to see who else ends up running. but, she will probably play spoiler, it's just not clear yet to whom.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/
Sunday, June 2, 2019
the liberal party of the past would have told the americans that it would only support regime change in venezuela if it were upheld by a security council vote, in which case it would join the alliance produced by the global governing body. and, if global consensus could not be reached, we would withhold our active support - although they could still buy weapons and intelligence from us if they insist, and the price is right.
i want to be clear: i'm not saying that the liberals of the past would have rejected regime change outright, and am in fact rather explicitly pointing out that they wouldn't have. what i'm pointing out is that they would have rejected the idea that the americans have the right to act unilaterally, and outside of international law - and rather pointed to the united nations as the body that has the sole right to make these decisions. our historical liberal party would have then stuck to the decision made by the global body, with little wavering on the point.
and, why would they have done this? because they understood that a world order where the americans can use their military arbitrarily puts us at grave danger. they didn't care about iraqi or vietnamese or venezuelan civilians. no; don't think that, you're missing the point. what they cared about was ensuring that a rules-based international order existed that would prevent the americans from doing things like blockading the juan de fuca strait, or seizing the tar sands or invading and/or bombing quebec. if they can bomb vietnam or iraq or venezuela whenever they want, and without answering to anybody, why can't they bomb us under equally flimsy pretexts?
well?
why can't they?
what the sitting liberal government has done is abandoned this leveraging or balancing approach in favour of full on brown-nosing. the new principle at work in canada-us relations is that we're best off sucking up as best we can, in hopes of generating special treatment. so, we are to go out of our way to demonstrate that we're really the bestest of friends, and always were.
this is a continuation of a change put in place by the harper government.
and, it's failing.
because it's absurd and transparent and disingenuous, and ultimately irrelevant - trump doesn't care if you want to be his friend or not.
people will look back at the wisdom of our foreign policy in the second half of the last century, and wonder what caused canada to lose it's intelligence, starting in the mid 00s. and, the answer is at the root of so many of our problems: we decided against educating our children.
i want to be clear: i'm not saying that the liberals of the past would have rejected regime change outright, and am in fact rather explicitly pointing out that they wouldn't have. what i'm pointing out is that they would have rejected the idea that the americans have the right to act unilaterally, and outside of international law - and rather pointed to the united nations as the body that has the sole right to make these decisions. our historical liberal party would have then stuck to the decision made by the global body, with little wavering on the point.
and, why would they have done this? because they understood that a world order where the americans can use their military arbitrarily puts us at grave danger. they didn't care about iraqi or vietnamese or venezuelan civilians. no; don't think that, you're missing the point. what they cared about was ensuring that a rules-based international order existed that would prevent the americans from doing things like blockading the juan de fuca strait, or seizing the tar sands or invading and/or bombing quebec. if they can bomb vietnam or iraq or venezuela whenever they want, and without answering to anybody, why can't they bomb us under equally flimsy pretexts?
well?
why can't they?
what the sitting liberal government has done is abandoned this leveraging or balancing approach in favour of full on brown-nosing. the new principle at work in canada-us relations is that we're best off sucking up as best we can, in hopes of generating special treatment. so, we are to go out of our way to demonstrate that we're really the bestest of friends, and always were.
this is a continuation of a change put in place by the harper government.
and, it's failing.
because it's absurd and transparent and disingenuous, and ultimately irrelevant - trump doesn't care if you want to be his friend or not.
people will look back at the wisdom of our foreign policy in the second half of the last century, and wonder what caused canada to lose it's intelligence, starting in the mid 00s. and, the answer is at the root of so many of our problems: we decided against educating our children.
let's get the basic facts on the table: there were no canadian troops in vietnam or iraq, although we did provide peace-keeping or training forces after the fact. the reason we did not participate in these invasion forces has nothing to do with pacifism or anti-war rhetoric, but was rather solely because the invasions were not agreed upon by the united nations.
chretien has been crystal clear from the start that he would have sent troops to iraq if the united nations had backed the invasion, and we have a testable way to demonstrate the accuracy of this claim, because he did send troops to afghanistan, under the united nations mandate.
this is not an original idea that i'm espousing, but is rather the central thesis of any book written after the second world war on canadian foreign policy. i'm not letting anything out of the bag. the americans understand our position, or at least what it used to be. and, if you don't understand what i'm saying, then you don't know what you're talking about - it's that basic, that fundamental, to canadian foreign policy.
our position on venezuela is consequently a dramatic break from our historical position, because it for the first time in our history (as a british colony until 1982, and a sovereign state since) acknowledges the primacy of the monroe doctrine, over the supremacy of the un charter. that does not mean that it is the first time that we've aligned with the united states, and it clearly is not. but, it is the first time we've acted as a client state, disinterested or unaware of our own interests, and focused solely on the promotion of washington's, in the hope we'll get some kind of reward from the white house. we have never, ever, ever done that before. at all.
chretien has been crystal clear from the start that he would have sent troops to iraq if the united nations had backed the invasion, and we have a testable way to demonstrate the accuracy of this claim, because he did send troops to afghanistan, under the united nations mandate.
this is not an original idea that i'm espousing, but is rather the central thesis of any book written after the second world war on canadian foreign policy. i'm not letting anything out of the bag. the americans understand our position, or at least what it used to be. and, if you don't understand what i'm saying, then you don't know what you're talking about - it's that basic, that fundamental, to canadian foreign policy.
our position on venezuela is consequently a dramatic break from our historical position, because it for the first time in our history (as a british colony until 1982, and a sovereign state since) acknowledges the primacy of the monroe doctrine, over the supremacy of the un charter. that does not mean that it is the first time that we've aligned with the united states, and it clearly is not. but, it is the first time we've acted as a client state, disinterested or unaware of our own interests, and focused solely on the promotion of washington's, in the hope we'll get some kind of reward from the white house. we have never, ever, ever done that before. at all.
i don't know when we're going to come to terms with what is happening.
and, it is even very possible that valcourt doesn't actually know.
but, the evidence is pretty clear: there is some clique or agency within the canadian government that is, in fact, attempting to systemically exterminate the indigenous population by targeting the women, who continue to disappear at alarming rates.
that fits the definition of genocide, in my view.
but, nobody knows who or what is organizing this - it's covert, and shrouded in mystery. there are no released documents, no conspiracy theories, no secret csis plans - just all of these females that disappear after being taken into custody, with no explanation or further elaboration as to why.
and, it is even very possible that valcourt doesn't actually know.
but, the evidence is pretty clear: there is some clique or agency within the canadian government that is, in fact, attempting to systemically exterminate the indigenous population by targeting the women, who continue to disappear at alarming rates.
that fits the definition of genocide, in my view.
but, nobody knows who or what is organizing this - it's covert, and shrouded in mystery. there are no released documents, no conspiracy theories, no secret csis plans - just all of these females that disappear after being taken into custody, with no explanation or further elaboration as to why.
i was in loose communication with the sisters in spirit when i lived in ottawa, and i've looked into this. one of the more distressing pieces of information that you see when you look at the data is that it is frequently the case that the last person that the missing person was seen with was a police officer.
the truth is the opposite of what valcourt is saying: the report is a cover-up.
everybody that's looked into this knows what the truth is, but nobody wants to state it, and it's not stated in the report, either.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/valcourt-mmiwg-report-1.5159437
the truth is the opposite of what valcourt is saying: the report is a cover-up.
everybody that's looked into this knows what the truth is, but nobody wants to state it, and it's not stated in the report, either.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/valcourt-mmiwg-report-1.5159437
i guess i had to catch up on sleep this weekend; i've been sleeping since friday night, awaking only to eat.
i could blame it on the weather but there's probably a better answer: i went to four parties last week and smoked a lot of cigarettes at them. i don't smoke when i'm at home, so i've been thrown back in withdrawal. nicotine is a physical addiction...
there is no possibility that i'm going to start smoking habitually again, but that could go a good ways to explaining why i'm so tired right now.
i need to get up, though. i need to clean, i need to do some writing. coffee, it is.
i could blame it on the weather but there's probably a better answer: i went to four parties last week and smoked a lot of cigarettes at them. i don't smoke when i'm at home, so i've been thrown back in withdrawal. nicotine is a physical addiction...
there is no possibility that i'm going to start smoking habitually again, but that could go a good ways to explaining why i'm so tired right now.
i need to get up, though. i need to clean, i need to do some writing. coffee, it is.
this is just a reminder: i have until mid-september to file the human rights complaint, and if i have to wait until then, i will. there are no time frames around the other suits.
the longer that it takes for the oiprd to get it's review completed (and i'm still waiting. it's now over two months since they agreed to the review.), the worse off they'll look in the eyes of the judge. it was supposed to be done by mid-april....
the longer that it takes for the oiprd to get it's review completed (and i'm still waiting. it's now over two months since they agreed to the review.), the worse off they'll look in the eyes of the judge. it was supposed to be done by mid-april....
Saturday, June 1, 2019
there's a few things canadian politicians don't do.
- they don't talk about baseball. ever. that's instant death. and, the same rule ought to apply to basketball.
- they don't refer to americans using terms like "us" or "we".
- they don't drink american beer.
- ...and they don't launch political initiatives using references to historical american policies.
- they don't talk about baseball. ever. that's instant death. and, the same rule ought to apply to basketball.
- they don't refer to americans using terms like "us" or "we".
- they don't drink american beer.
- ...and they don't launch political initiatives using references to historical american policies.
this is what i want to hear the ndp talk about, not some "green new deal".
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/
and, you'll notice that it is very canadian in a lot of ways. that's important, because we're not trying to rebuild a rust belt that we don't have, we're trying to fundamentally change how we see the world around us.
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/
and, you'll notice that it is very canadian in a lot of ways. that's important, because we're not trying to rebuild a rust belt that we don't have, we're trying to fundamentally change how we see the world around us.
if jagmeet singh wants to be taken seriously, he should start by forgetting about parroting the american propaganda (itself not very inspiring. are we going to elect the ndp so they can have a non-binding resolution of no substance defeated on the house floor? this is empty politicking, and smart leftists can see through it.) and instead giving this national treasure we have named naomi klein a call.
remember when she proposed something like this four years ago?
how did the ndp react?
so, why should anybody take this horribly vague "new green deal" farce seriously, an idea created in a foreign country, when they won't act on a detailed plan presented by their own very real party apparatchik?
no. the fact that they're walking down the american path rather than our own is evidence that they're lying through their teeth - as they always do.
remember when she proposed something like this four years ago?
how did the ndp react?
so, why should anybody take this horribly vague "new green deal" farce seriously, an idea created in a foreign country, when they won't act on a detailed plan presented by their own very real party apparatchik?
no. the fact that they're walking down the american path rather than our own is evidence that they're lying through their teeth - as they always do.
it's taken some time for it to come out as robust, but you really are looking at a distinct liberal--->green swing, here, with continued stagnation from both the ndp and the conservatives.
right now, the liberals are going to lose because they're bleeding support to the greens.
the ndp is a tainted vessel; there is no future for them, after the notley fiasco. i've been arguing for years that they're usually worse than the liberals when they actually win, but after oil queen notley, they have about as much credibility as the old parties, now - the jig is up, it's time to walk away. so, the goal for everybody on the left in this election needs to be to have the greens beat the ndp, outright - both in votes and in seats.
the liberals and conservatives are so similar at the federal level at this point, that it doesn't really matter which one wins. the focus needs to be more about the future of the left, and to have the greens repositioned as the actual protest party in the country.
right now, the liberals are going to lose because they're bleeding support to the greens.
the ndp is a tainted vessel; there is no future for them, after the notley fiasco. i've been arguing for years that they're usually worse than the liberals when they actually win, but after oil queen notley, they have about as much credibility as the old parties, now - the jig is up, it's time to walk away. so, the goal for everybody on the left in this election needs to be to have the greens beat the ndp, outright - both in votes and in seats.
the liberals and conservatives are so similar at the federal level at this point, that it doesn't really matter which one wins. the focus needs to be more about the future of the left, and to have the greens repositioned as the actual protest party in the country.
i wouldn't bother taking much of what he says seriously, frankly.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-climate-change-green-party-1.5157591
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-climate-change-green-party-1.5157591
this is the relevant precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
canada's attempt to control the northwest passage as a purely "internal waterway" is inconsistent with international law and doomed to failure.
rather, the international law on the topic should lead to an agreement similar to the one that governs the bosporus, where the turks maintain some rights to inspection but ultimately are forced to allow for free passage.
a reasonable person would ask the following reasonable question: is there a way to travel between greenland and alaska (or russia) without transiting canadian waters? and, there is not actually a way to do this. it would not be reasonable to conclude that, because there is no way to do this, canada should benefit from the ownership of the straits; rather, a reasonable person would recognize that our monopoly over the area requires us to allow access to passing vessels, subject to very limited and measured expressions of sovereignty. and, we are expected to behave reasonably.
the issue of resource exploration is a different one, and we are on much firmer ground there, although we shouldn't actually exploit it.
rather, the international law on the topic should lead to an agreement similar to the one that governs the bosporus, where the turks maintain some rights to inspection but ultimately are forced to allow for free passage.
a reasonable person would ask the following reasonable question: is there a way to travel between greenland and alaska (or russia) without transiting canadian waters? and, there is not actually a way to do this. it would not be reasonable to conclude that, because there is no way to do this, canada should benefit from the ownership of the straits; rather, a reasonable person would recognize that our monopoly over the area requires us to allow access to passing vessels, subject to very limited and measured expressions of sovereignty. and, we are expected to behave reasonably.
the issue of resource exploration is a different one, and we are on much firmer ground there, although we shouldn't actually exploit it.
to put it another way...
the reason el club was successful was that it tapped into a lucrative market that opened up after the magic stick changed formats, from a rock/punk club into an urban club. the magic stick has had problems attracting people since then, and has quietly started booking rock shows again in the larger theatre downstairs.
with the demise of el club, a large and lucrative market for a rock bar in downtown detroit is again on the table.
this is a huge opportunity...
it just needs a more responsible operator.
the reason el club was successful was that it tapped into a lucrative market that opened up after the magic stick changed formats, from a rock/punk club into an urban club. the magic stick has had problems attracting people since then, and has quietly started booking rock shows again in the larger theatre downstairs.
with the demise of el club, a large and lucrative market for a rock bar in downtown detroit is again on the table.
this is a huge opportunity...
it just needs a more responsible operator.
there's actually a sort of a pattern, here.
these venues set up in detroit and, because they are capitalist enterprises that are ultimately trying to make money, they make marketing decisions to try and appeal to the people that have money to spend, which, in detroit, is going to mostly be people past a certain age - and these people are either going to be mostly white, or mostly asian. i mean, if you really want to make money in detroit, or most other places, then go full asian...
then, the community - which everybody knows is overwhelmingly black - starts complaining that the programming doesn't appeal to them, is racist, etc, when the truth is that they're just trying to make money and just trying to appeal to where the money is.
but, people mostly aren't racist anymore (i understand that this doesn't apply in this specific case.), it isn't accepted socially in any context anywhere, and nobody wants to be seen as racist, so they listen and adjust and try to make the programming more appealing to broader demographics in order to try and prevent the pr fallout that comes from everybody thinking you're a fucking racist, even while knowing that they made the choice they made in the first place for good financial reasons.
then, once they've made their programming adjustments to be more inclusive, the thing that actually happens is that the place empties out; the people that used to go there are no longer interested, and there's just not enough disposable income in the market they're trying to tap into, which is why they didn't go after it in the first place. so, they lose money, and they either close or have to find a way back to where they were.
if i was an asshole i'd say fine: white people out of detroit. they don't want us here, let's go. but, i know that this is what caused the city's problems in the first place, it's just been inverted. what we used to call white flight has been converted into black slight; what was once a bunch of white people fleeing the scary black areas has become those black areas erecting fences and saying "this is ours". and, it's not any better when the blacks are pushing the whites out than it was when the whites were trying to escape.
there will be another attempt to set up a rock venue in downtown detroit, and it will have a mostly white audience when it happens. i just want to stress the importance of being racially sensitive from the start, in understanding that the person or group that does this next is walking into a situation that is already damaged from so many decades of conflict, that you can't start from a point of mutual understanding and that you have to take special steps to reach out from the start.
but, we want this to work, in the end. we don't want segregated communities, and we don't want ghettos.
these venues set up in detroit and, because they are capitalist enterprises that are ultimately trying to make money, they make marketing decisions to try and appeal to the people that have money to spend, which, in detroit, is going to mostly be people past a certain age - and these people are either going to be mostly white, or mostly asian. i mean, if you really want to make money in detroit, or most other places, then go full asian...
then, the community - which everybody knows is overwhelmingly black - starts complaining that the programming doesn't appeal to them, is racist, etc, when the truth is that they're just trying to make money and just trying to appeal to where the money is.
but, people mostly aren't racist anymore (i understand that this doesn't apply in this specific case.), it isn't accepted socially in any context anywhere, and nobody wants to be seen as racist, so they listen and adjust and try to make the programming more appealing to broader demographics in order to try and prevent the pr fallout that comes from everybody thinking you're a fucking racist, even while knowing that they made the choice they made in the first place for good financial reasons.
then, once they've made their programming adjustments to be more inclusive, the thing that actually happens is that the place empties out; the people that used to go there are no longer interested, and there's just not enough disposable income in the market they're trying to tap into, which is why they didn't go after it in the first place. so, they lose money, and they either close or have to find a way back to where they were.
if i was an asshole i'd say fine: white people out of detroit. they don't want us here, let's go. but, i know that this is what caused the city's problems in the first place, it's just been inverted. what we used to call white flight has been converted into black slight; what was once a bunch of white people fleeing the scary black areas has become those black areas erecting fences and saying "this is ours". and, it's not any better when the blacks are pushing the whites out than it was when the whites were trying to escape.
there will be another attempt to set up a rock venue in downtown detroit, and it will have a mostly white audience when it happens. i just want to stress the importance of being racially sensitive from the start, in understanding that the person or group that does this next is walking into a situation that is already damaged from so many decades of conflict, that you can't start from a point of mutual understanding and that you have to take special steps to reach out from the start.
but, we want this to work, in the end. we don't want segregated communities, and we don't want ghettos.
it's an empirical question, people. and, if empiricism bothers you then walk away - it's all i have for you.
here's the link to the events at the club. go ahead and sort through it and see what sells out and what's mostly empty.
https://www.facebook.com/elclubdetroit/events/
the article suggested white 20-somethings, but the bar was actually geared more towards white 30 and 40 somethings. they were bringing in grunge bands & alternative rock acts - some of them influenced by the music of the 90s, and some of it literally the music from the 90s. the melvins show was famously so ridiculously packed that it got canceled as a fire risk; this was the 80s seattle band that kurt cobain cited as his biggest influence.
but, i'll draw attention to two specific shows. one is an east coast no wave band called a place to bury strangers, and the other is a popular young rapper called chief keef. the place to bury strangers show is at the end of july and is sold out; the chief keef show is in mid june and there are still tickets available.
does that mean that a place to bury strangers is more popular than chief keef? well, that would be an absurd proposal. chief keef is a mainstream act, that has cracked the billboard 200. a place to bury strangers is an underground rock band, and their last two records don't even have wikipedia pages.
the venue is all ages - and makes a point about it.
given that detroit is 80% black, and chief keef is a big star, why can't he sell out a 300 person bar in southwest detroit? and, why can this underground rock band from new york do so with ease?
and, you can point to the systemic racism - and i'll agree with you - but you're just exacerbating the point, because you're articulating a real problem, and then rejecting the only possible solution.
none of this excuses the alleged behaviour, and that's not what i'm trying to do - if the allegations are even 20% true, he should never be allowed to set foot in the bar ever again. but, there's this undercurrent that the community doesn't want a white bar with people coming in to spend money - it wants a black bar that reflects the tastes of the community. and, the problem is that it doesn't make any economic sense, at least not until you can get the people that live there more disposable income.
here's the link to the events at the club. go ahead and sort through it and see what sells out and what's mostly empty.
https://www.facebook.com/elclubdetroit/events/
the article suggested white 20-somethings, but the bar was actually geared more towards white 30 and 40 somethings. they were bringing in grunge bands & alternative rock acts - some of them influenced by the music of the 90s, and some of it literally the music from the 90s. the melvins show was famously so ridiculously packed that it got canceled as a fire risk; this was the 80s seattle band that kurt cobain cited as his biggest influence.
but, i'll draw attention to two specific shows. one is an east coast no wave band called a place to bury strangers, and the other is a popular young rapper called chief keef. the place to bury strangers show is at the end of july and is sold out; the chief keef show is in mid june and there are still tickets available.
does that mean that a place to bury strangers is more popular than chief keef? well, that would be an absurd proposal. chief keef is a mainstream act, that has cracked the billboard 200. a place to bury strangers is an underground rock band, and their last two records don't even have wikipedia pages.
the venue is all ages - and makes a point about it.
given that detroit is 80% black, and chief keef is a big star, why can't he sell out a 300 person bar in southwest detroit? and, why can this underground rock band from new york do so with ease?
and, you can point to the systemic racism - and i'll agree with you - but you're just exacerbating the point, because you're articulating a real problem, and then rejecting the only possible solution.
none of this excuses the alleged behaviour, and that's not what i'm trying to do - if the allegations are even 20% true, he should never be allowed to set foot in the bar ever again. but, there's this undercurrent that the community doesn't want a white bar with people coming in to spend money - it wants a black bar that reflects the tastes of the community. and, the problem is that it doesn't make any economic sense, at least not until you can get the people that live there more disposable income.
Friday, May 31, 2019
i mean....
i get that this guy was being a jerk. and, good riddance. fine.
but, detroit can be frustrating when it comes to this, too. i've never seen a city go so far out of it's way to try and stunt investment.
so, the concern is that people from out of town (many who are white) are coming into the area and spending money. most cities actually go out of their way to design economic stimulus plans because they want that, they don't argue that it's "pushing out the local residents" (many who are black). now, i grasp that the way this guy was doing this appears to actually have been literally pushing out local residents by underpaying or not paying them at all, and bringing in workers that lived elsewhere - and no city would want that either. what everybody ought to want is a scenario where you create economic projects that bring in people from out of town (sometimes called tourists), who then spend their money in the local economy, which is then distributed to the locals, who then have money to spend on what they want to spend it on. that's called stimulus, or investment and it's what you're supposed to want, if you're a vaguely leftist liberal keynesian type. what they seem to want is loans for small businesses, while acknowledging that there's no market for what they're selling, because the poverty rate is structural.
what i'm getting at is what everybody knows: if they set up a bar designed to appeal solely to the local residents, it's going to fail, because they don't have the disposable income. in order to get the disposable income, you need to do things that create jobs - and then you need to find ways to attract people to spend money to pay the workers doing those jobs. then, once they've made some money, they can buy a venue, and put on shows for a local population that has disposable income from the employment created by the outside investment. detroit refuses to get this - it wants the end product without building it. this is just another example.....
i wish they would have tried to unionize or something rather than walk out, because the best outcome for everybody in the short run would have been for el club to keep being el club, and have it's profits better distributed amongst the workers, who could then use them to build the economy they want.
if the bar fails in the end, the neighbourhood loses a substantial income source, and everybody is worse off.
i get that this guy was being a jerk. and, good riddance. fine.
but, detroit can be frustrating when it comes to this, too. i've never seen a city go so far out of it's way to try and stunt investment.
so, the concern is that people from out of town (many who are white) are coming into the area and spending money. most cities actually go out of their way to design economic stimulus plans because they want that, they don't argue that it's "pushing out the local residents" (many who are black). now, i grasp that the way this guy was doing this appears to actually have been literally pushing out local residents by underpaying or not paying them at all, and bringing in workers that lived elsewhere - and no city would want that either. what everybody ought to want is a scenario where you create economic projects that bring in people from out of town (sometimes called tourists), who then spend their money in the local economy, which is then distributed to the locals, who then have money to spend on what they want to spend it on. that's called stimulus, or investment and it's what you're supposed to want, if you're a vaguely leftist liberal keynesian type. what they seem to want is loans for small businesses, while acknowledging that there's no market for what they're selling, because the poverty rate is structural.
what i'm getting at is what everybody knows: if they set up a bar designed to appeal solely to the local residents, it's going to fail, because they don't have the disposable income. in order to get the disposable income, you need to do things that create jobs - and then you need to find ways to attract people to spend money to pay the workers doing those jobs. then, once they've made some money, they can buy a venue, and put on shows for a local population that has disposable income from the employment created by the outside investment. detroit refuses to get this - it wants the end product without building it. this is just another example.....
i wish they would have tried to unionize or something rather than walk out, because the best outcome for everybody in the short run would have been for el club to keep being el club, and have it's profits better distributed amongst the workers, who could then use them to build the economy they want.
if the bar fails in the end, the neighbourhood loses a substantial income source, and everybody is worse off.
fwiw, the artist that i saw there on saturday - actress - happens to be both british and black.
that doesn't have much to do with why i was there, but it does happen to be actually true.
most of what i saw there were white rock musicians, because that's where they played, because it's where the best sound system was. but, the thing is that detroit is like 80% black, and rock music has a 90% white audience. so, any rock bar anywhere in detroit is going to come up to the same basic contradiction, unless you put it in a suburb like ferndale, which is kind of a shitty deal. it's a lot easier to put the thing downtown.
i guess the answer is to listen better.
but, i mean, i don't have a lot of patience for wage theft, either. if i knew what was going on, i would have brought the iww in.
i'm hoping they can save the sound system somehow....you don't want that going to waste....
that doesn't have much to do with why i was there, but it does happen to be actually true.
most of what i saw there were white rock musicians, because that's where they played, because it's where the best sound system was. but, the thing is that detroit is like 80% black, and rock music has a 90% white audience. so, any rock bar anywhere in detroit is going to come up to the same basic contradiction, unless you put it in a suburb like ferndale, which is kind of a shitty deal. it's a lot easier to put the thing downtown.
i guess the answer is to listen better.
but, i mean, i don't have a lot of patience for wage theft, either. if i knew what was going on, i would have brought the iww in.
i'm hoping they can save the sound system somehow....you don't want that going to waste....
this is very similar to what i heard the other night, so i guess it checks out.
if he's gone, he's gone.
but, the venue is still too small. which, i mean....it's great in the right circumstance. it's just a question of booking the right acts for a small space, and acknowledging that it's not the right space for others.
https://www.metrotimes.com/table-and-bar/archives/2019/02/25/new-ownership-takes-over-el-club-after-founder-accused-of-wage-theft-and-racial-discrimination
if he's gone, he's gone.
but, the venue is still too small. which, i mean....it's great in the right circumstance. it's just a question of booking the right acts for a small space, and acknowledging that it's not the right space for others.
https://www.metrotimes.com/table-and-bar/archives/2019/02/25/new-ownership-takes-over-el-club-after-founder-accused-of-wage-theft-and-racial-discrimination
i heard some gossip about the situation at el club last night.
what i heard was third hand and one perspective, and i'm not willing to act on it until i hear some more information. but, whatever is happening at the location, it is clearly either scaring people off or pushing them out.
while i don't want to support a bad venue, at the end of the day, i'm going to go to where the bands are playing. and, i want to point something out about el club: it's actually a very small venue.
there's a sign on the door that says capacity: 305.
everything else aside, the sound in the club is good, and it at least ought to be a solid venue for a smaller act to play, if the issues can work themselves out. but, if you're an out of town band, and you think you can fill up a 300 person venue easily, then, everything else aside, i'd suggest you look towards a larger venue, because you're going to sell out el club very fast, and then everybody loses - you sell less tickets, people can't get in and the people that do go end up squished together.
what the city of detroit needs is an el club that can fit 500-600 people in it. what it has are the majestic and st. andrew's. and, the fact is that the culture at el club is no longer that different than the ones at these larger venues.
so, everything else aside, i'd request you think about picking the larger venue, if you think you can sell out el club.
what i heard was third hand and one perspective, and i'm not willing to act on it until i hear some more information. but, whatever is happening at the location, it is clearly either scaring people off or pushing them out.
while i don't want to support a bad venue, at the end of the day, i'm going to go to where the bands are playing. and, i want to point something out about el club: it's actually a very small venue.
there's a sign on the door that says capacity: 305.
everything else aside, the sound in the club is good, and it at least ought to be a solid venue for a smaller act to play, if the issues can work themselves out. but, if you're an out of town band, and you think you can fill up a 300 person venue easily, then, everything else aside, i'd suggest you look towards a larger venue, because you're going to sell out el club very fast, and then everybody loses - you sell less tickets, people can't get in and the people that do go end up squished together.
what the city of detroit needs is an el club that can fit 500-600 people in it. what it has are the majestic and st. andrew's. and, the fact is that the culture at el club is no longer that different than the ones at these larger venues.
so, everything else aside, i'd request you think about picking the larger venue, if you think you can sell out el club.
stop for a second.
what are the historical parallels to a character such as osama bin laden? i've compared castro to mithridates eupator, but the pontic rebel is only one in a long line of roman hostis publicus - many of whom modern historians claim never actually existed, or were otherwise so dramatically exaggerated by the roman propaganda that they might as well have never actually existed.
sorting through propaganda, and validating or invalidating it, is a major part of a historian's job description. it is a substantial part of what a historian actually does.
so, i want you to contemplate a very real possibility - that future historians may actually argue that there never was anybody named osama bin laden. and, given the evidence they have before them, it may be the most reasonable deduction.
i will reiterate: this discussion is not currently in the realm of discourse, because the dearth of evidence is so staggering. i would like to be able to have a discussion and/or debate about who was responsible, but i need the government to release it's evidence before i can do that. all any of us can do is speculate, one way or another. the difference between my position and the mainstream position is simply that i am pointing out that the entire accepted narrative is purely speculative, and deductively equivalent to any conspiracy theory. but, then i'm taking a step back and saying "we can't do this. we don't have the basic facts.".
so, i will at least stand with the conspiracy theorists in requesting that the government finally release it's dossier, if for historical documentation rather than anything else. i mean, you don't think that historians 300 years from now are going to think that oswald acted alone, do you? there's enough time now, from that event, to understand that what we are told, and what so many of us continue to believe, is not what history will record.
but, i will lay something down fairly assertively: it is hard for me to understand how this happened without the aid of some kind of state actor, whether it was inside the country or outside of it.
what are the historical parallels to a character such as osama bin laden? i've compared castro to mithridates eupator, but the pontic rebel is only one in a long line of roman hostis publicus - many of whom modern historians claim never actually existed, or were otherwise so dramatically exaggerated by the roman propaganda that they might as well have never actually existed.
sorting through propaganda, and validating or invalidating it, is a major part of a historian's job description. it is a substantial part of what a historian actually does.
so, i want you to contemplate a very real possibility - that future historians may actually argue that there never was anybody named osama bin laden. and, given the evidence they have before them, it may be the most reasonable deduction.
i will reiterate: this discussion is not currently in the realm of discourse, because the dearth of evidence is so staggering. i would like to be able to have a discussion and/or debate about who was responsible, but i need the government to release it's evidence before i can do that. all any of us can do is speculate, one way or another. the difference between my position and the mainstream position is simply that i am pointing out that the entire accepted narrative is purely speculative, and deductively equivalent to any conspiracy theory. but, then i'm taking a step back and saying "we can't do this. we don't have the basic facts.".
so, i will at least stand with the conspiracy theorists in requesting that the government finally release it's dossier, if for historical documentation rather than anything else. i mean, you don't think that historians 300 years from now are going to think that oswald acted alone, do you? there's enough time now, from that event, to understand that what we are told, and what so many of us continue to believe, is not what history will record.
but, i will lay something down fairly assertively: it is hard for me to understand how this happened without the aid of some kind of state actor, whether it was inside the country or outside of it.
so, to be clear: what that means is that if i do end up supporting the update bill in the end then that doesn't mean that i all of a sudden support nafta.
there's no contradiction in supporting the update package, and continuing to work to rewrite or dismantle the deal. and, if bernie wins, i would hope he pushes to renegotiate.
so, i may decide that this is better and be pragmatic about it, but i am sure that i won't decide that it's good enough, or stop agitating for change.
there's no contradiction in supporting the update package, and continuing to work to rewrite or dismantle the deal. and, if bernie wins, i would hope he pushes to renegotiate.
so, i may decide that this is better and be pragmatic about it, but i am sure that i won't decide that it's good enough, or stop agitating for change.
do i support the new trade agreement?
of course not, or at least not in absolute terms; this is still nafta, and i've been opposed to nafta for 25 years. that hasn't changed, and the reasons for opposing nafta haven't changed. what's changed is that the liberals and ndp have both swung hard to the right, and are expressing support for something that they used to oppose. i'm still where i always was.
but, the issue before us is not whether we can rip up nafta or not, it's whether we're going to accept the precise provisions, and i haven't seen enough of a close analysis yet to determine whether i think the positives are going to outweigh the negatives.
i mean, i've seen some language about labour standards that i like, and some language about intellectual property rights that i don't like.
the final text of the bill is not yet clear, so i don't know. i may support the revisions to the deal, in the end, while still opposing nafta, overall - or i may decide that the strengthened enforcement of intellectual property rights is more dangerous than the increase in labour standards is worth.
we'll see what the american congress comes up with.
of course not, or at least not in absolute terms; this is still nafta, and i've been opposed to nafta for 25 years. that hasn't changed, and the reasons for opposing nafta haven't changed. what's changed is that the liberals and ndp have both swung hard to the right, and are expressing support for something that they used to oppose. i'm still where i always was.
but, the issue before us is not whether we can rip up nafta or not, it's whether we're going to accept the precise provisions, and i haven't seen enough of a close analysis yet to determine whether i think the positives are going to outweigh the negatives.
i mean, i've seen some language about labour standards that i like, and some language about intellectual property rights that i don't like.
the final text of the bill is not yet clear, so i don't know. i may support the revisions to the deal, in the end, while still opposing nafta, overall - or i may decide that the strengthened enforcement of intellectual property rights is more dangerous than the increase in labour standards is worth.
we'll see what the american congress comes up with.
we need to put the process on hold.
you can't be signing deals with an unreliable partner, and the united states is currently an unreliable partner. that is the language we should be using: we cannot rely on you to keep your word, america. and, we need to send a clear message to the americans that if they don't clean up their act then we're not interested in signing further deals with them.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/05/31/no-warning-for-trudeau-of-trumps-latest-tariff-threat.html
you can't be signing deals with an unreliable partner, and the united states is currently an unreliable partner. that is the language we should be using: we cannot rely on you to keep your word, america. and, we need to send a clear message to the americans that if they don't clean up their act then we're not interested in signing further deals with them.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/05/31/no-warning-for-trudeau-of-trumps-latest-tariff-threat.html
actually, i think this is completely absurd and preposterously tyrannical; we can't have the government going in and snooping around in your social media sites and firing you because they don't like your friends. that's despotic.
i hope that he sues for wrongful dismissal, and the court lays down some proper restrictions on what the government is allowed to do and not do, here.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5334013/the-commissionaire-former-door-guard-fighting-rcmp-allegations/
i hope that he sues for wrongful dismissal, and the court lays down some proper restrictions on what the government is allowed to do and not do, here.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5334013/the-commissionaire-former-door-guard-fighting-rcmp-allegations/
i watched something on lady grey this morning when i came in, and had to take some time to recollect myself. my rationalism is pretty cold, and i understand that the state is power and needs to put down rebels in order to keep being the state, but i have a general soft spot for children in my third law reality. it was never her fault. really. so, is it really the low point of english culture, of british civilization? it might be. for all the depravity that happened under monarchy and feudalism, and under the reign of this particularly murderous monarch, there must be very few documented executions of children.
anyways.
i was late for pile, but they were also unfathomably early. piii-ile! i figured they'd come on at 23:00, earliest, but they were a quarter done when i get there a few minutes after ten. the opening bands must have been very short sets. alas.
they let me in for free again, at least.
i was just late. no reasons. i think i caught most of it; it seemed to be exclusively selections from the new record, and was good for what it was. and, i got some good rants out in the smoking section before i left.
i need to fast for a blood test tomorrow, so i don't know how useful i'm going to be for the rest of the night/morning, but i could conceivably get some reviews in. or not. i'm not overly focused on it at the moment.
anyways.
i was late for pile, but they were also unfathomably early. piii-ile! i figured they'd come on at 23:00, earliest, but they were a quarter done when i get there a few minutes after ten. the opening bands must have been very short sets. alas.
they let me in for free again, at least.
i was just late. no reasons. i think i caught most of it; it seemed to be exclusively selections from the new record, and was good for what it was. and, i got some good rants out in the smoking section before i left.
i need to fast for a blood test tomorrow, so i don't know how useful i'm going to be for the rest of the night/morning, but i could conceivably get some reviews in. or not. i'm not overly focused on it at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)