https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/young-people-have-informed-and-defined-views-that-should-not-be-discarded-off-hand-due-to-their-age
Monday, December 28, 2015
27-12-2015: split day; making progress in the mix
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/young-people-have-informed-and-defined-views-that-should-not-be-discarded-off-hand-due-to-their-age
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/young-people-have-informed-and-defined-views-that-should-not-be-discarded-off-hand-due-to-their-age
Sunday, December 27, 2015
neither sanders nor corbyn are leftists. they're at most center-left moderates. before history came to an end, they would have been in the mainstream of their respective parties.
i think we're just learning that the truth is that history isn't over, after all.
and, that maybe it was kind of....stupid....to think that it was.
rather, the elites have just steered the spectrum to a point of total disconnect - both from reality and from voters. this needs to be corrected.
we saw the same thing in canada, who maybe experienced the first correction. the liberals moved right in the 90s, along with everybody else. history was over! starting around 2004, the electorate started moving from the liberals to the ndp, the nominal left-wing protest party. this ended up electing the conservatives. the ndp got opposition status in 2011, even. it took the liberals ten years to figure out that we still have history to write, and realign themselves to the center-left.
there's a helluva campaign slogan:
"it's time to make history again."
i think that may be more than an ironic turn of phrase, too. i think it might have some serious potential to tap into something, to mobilize something.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/27/larry-bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn_n_8860508.html
i think we're just learning that the truth is that history isn't over, after all.
and, that maybe it was kind of....stupid....to think that it was.
rather, the elites have just steered the spectrum to a point of total disconnect - both from reality and from voters. this needs to be corrected.
we saw the same thing in canada, who maybe experienced the first correction. the liberals moved right in the 90s, along with everybody else. history was over! starting around 2004, the electorate started moving from the liberals to the ndp, the nominal left-wing protest party. this ended up electing the conservatives. the ndp got opposition status in 2011, even. it took the liberals ten years to figure out that we still have history to write, and realign themselves to the center-left.
there's a helluva campaign slogan:
"it's time to make history again."
i think that may be more than an ironic turn of phrase, too. i think it might have some serious potential to tap into something, to mobilize something.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/27/larry-bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn_n_8860508.html
carnigeon
written 1999-2000. reconstructed from electronics source files in dec, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/carnigeon
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/carnigeon
rept
these parts were all written and recorded over the first half of 2002. this section was remixed repeatedly in late 2014 and finally isolated and rendered in this form on dec 27, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/rept
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/rept
insp
written in the summer of 2001. remembered over july, 2014. completed august-september, 2014. isolated on dec 27, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/insp
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/insp
deus ici
initially written in 1996. recreated in mar, 1998. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/deus-ici
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/deus-ici
finalizing suicide is a personal choice
this track is now closed. this is the first time i've uploaded an instrumental version of the track, meaning i'm finally over the hump and moving forwards again.
this is not the file i rendered on july 20. however, i have not modified the cubase file since then, either. i was unable to create a null...
the common theme in being unable to recreate the output seems to be when i'm doubling tracks and rendering before i re-open the save. i'm going to guess that it's essentially a cascade of run-off and floating point errors; stuff ends up phased differently, routed differently, etc. i might be able to recreate the exact output if i stripped the project down completely and tried to recreate my steps, but...
...i can't hear the difference in an a/b, anyways. so i just rerendered.
regarding the phones...
i was testing with this track for quite a while this evening and led to the conclusion that it needs a bit of a boost in the high end, and a bit of a cut in the low end. but, before i actually saved over the project, i swapped back to the old phones to verify....and realized i was compensating for the exaggerated bottom end.
it would have been a mild cut - a db around 100 hz. but, it's enough that my ears picked it up, and i'm consequently swearing off mixing with them.
i don't want to reflect overly badly on the new phones. they otherwise sounded great. but the 440-IIs are just flat as saskatchewan, and the difference really was immediately noticeable. it's more that i'm used to mixing with very flat phones. like i'm a real producer or something.
the reality is that almost everything sounds better with a bit of a boost on the bottom, especially material that's been compressed to mp3. i will find a good use for these phones. but, i can't go from what would be $500+ studio phones today to $150 consumer phones and not notice the difference.
i knew that. i was just hoping i could maybe double with them in a pinch. and, i think i still might be able to. but i need to finish this project with my tinfoiled over archaic babies and hope a new cord fixes what ails them...
initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/suicide-is-a-personal-choice
i mean, i gotta be clear...
the record sounds very dynamic through the new phones. it's a bass-heavy disc, and they do a good job of stretching it out without losing the rest of the spectrum. i'd recommend it, even.
but i can't mix with them, because they're not flat.
or, at least, i'd have to spend a long time getting used to them. and i'd rather fix my flat phones.
it's just a question of what the proper application is for a tool. you don't hammer a screw, right. and you don't mix with bassy phones. well, unless you make particularly lame hip-hop.
i think the proper application for this pair is stationary listening to material that has already been mastered, probably while reading or daydreaming. they really seem to be orthopedically designed for reclining. so, you'll get your extra db or two of bass without killing the rest of the signal, and it will mostly sound good.
but if you want totally flat phones, they don't do that.
this is not the file i rendered on july 20. however, i have not modified the cubase file since then, either. i was unable to create a null...
the common theme in being unable to recreate the output seems to be when i'm doubling tracks and rendering before i re-open the save. i'm going to guess that it's essentially a cascade of run-off and floating point errors; stuff ends up phased differently, routed differently, etc. i might be able to recreate the exact output if i stripped the project down completely and tried to recreate my steps, but...
...i can't hear the difference in an a/b, anyways. so i just rerendered.
regarding the phones...
i was testing with this track for quite a while this evening and led to the conclusion that it needs a bit of a boost in the high end, and a bit of a cut in the low end. but, before i actually saved over the project, i swapped back to the old phones to verify....and realized i was compensating for the exaggerated bottom end.
it would have been a mild cut - a db around 100 hz. but, it's enough that my ears picked it up, and i'm consequently swearing off mixing with them.
i don't want to reflect overly badly on the new phones. they otherwise sounded great. but the 440-IIs are just flat as saskatchewan, and the difference really was immediately noticeable. it's more that i'm used to mixing with very flat phones. like i'm a real producer or something.
the reality is that almost everything sounds better with a bit of a boost on the bottom, especially material that's been compressed to mp3. i will find a good use for these phones. but, i can't go from what would be $500+ studio phones today to $150 consumer phones and not notice the difference.
i knew that. i was just hoping i could maybe double with them in a pinch. and, i think i still might be able to. but i need to finish this project with my tinfoiled over archaic babies and hope a new cord fixes what ails them...
initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/suicide-is-a-personal-choice
i mean, i gotta be clear...
the record sounds very dynamic through the new phones. it's a bass-heavy disc, and they do a good job of stretching it out without losing the rest of the spectrum. i'd recommend it, even.
but i can't mix with them, because they're not flat.
or, at least, i'd have to spend a long time getting used to them. and i'd rather fix my flat phones.
it's just a question of what the proper application is for a tool. you don't hammer a screw, right. and you don't mix with bassy phones. well, unless you make particularly lame hip-hop.
i think the proper application for this pair is stationary listening to material that has already been mastered, probably while reading or daydreaming. they really seem to be orthopedically designed for reclining. so, you'll get your extra db or two of bass without killing the rest of the signal, and it will mostly sound good.
but if you want totally flat phones, they don't do that.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
finalizing sample used without permission
i'm closing this track.
i couldn't get the output to null with the version from july, but i do not believe that the version from july was correct, either. it seems to be routed differently. it's very strange, too, as the time stamps suggest it's almost impossible for the output to be unreconstructible.
to be clear: everything nulled perfectly except a thirty second section of guitar. but, that guitar part is layered over 8 times in the cubase project so it's not as simple as just resetting an eq.
i would be tempted to think that i was getting layered over floating point or round-off errors on all the eqs (i think i'm getting that for another track), but the difference in sound is fairly dramatic - it's really more like it's routing differently.
the only thing i can really think of is that the july output was some kind of error. i may have temporarily placed a bus on those guitar tracks, or perhaps routed them directly to the master.
whatever it was, the reality is that version i have saved in cubase sounds much better and has been uploaded in replace of the previous version.
initially written in 1996. recreated in jan, 1998. reclaimed july 2, 2015. remixed july 12, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 26, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/sample-used-without-permission
i couldn't get the output to null with the version from july, but i do not believe that the version from july was correct, either. it seems to be routed differently. it's very strange, too, as the time stamps suggest it's almost impossible for the output to be unreconstructible.
to be clear: everything nulled perfectly except a thirty second section of guitar. but, that guitar part is layered over 8 times in the cubase project so it's not as simple as just resetting an eq.
i would be tempted to think that i was getting layered over floating point or round-off errors on all the eqs (i think i'm getting that for another track), but the difference in sound is fairly dramatic - it's really more like it's routing differently.
the only thing i can really think of is that the july output was some kind of error. i may have temporarily placed a bus on those guitar tracks, or perhaps routed them directly to the master.
whatever it was, the reality is that version i have saved in cubase sounds much better and has been uploaded in replace of the previous version.
initially written in 1996. recreated in jan, 1998. reclaimed july 2, 2015. remixed july 12, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 26, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/sample-used-without-permission
there's so much racism on youtube...
...and so much of it as actual racism, too. not just mindlessness. but, actual arguments for racial hierarchy.
listen.
let's say you carried out a cross-oceanic trade in people, then took those people and separated out the weak and turned the strong into slaves. now, let's say that you selectively bred those people for physical characteristics, and you killed all the ones you thought might be smart enough to figure out a way to stop you. now, let's say that this carried on for hundreds of years, over many generations.
if, centuries later, the descendants of these people showed disproportionate levels of aggression and a heightened difficulty in assimilating, along with exceptional athletic abilities, would you suggest that the cause of this is their skin colour?
if i were a deity trying to correct the consequences of human folly, i would ensure that the descendants of black american slaves find their way to new african immigrants in order to breed. and, i would no doubt work in mysterious ways.
if i were a government representing a people that is opposed to forced marriages, and there are of course good reasons to oppose forced marriages, i would prioritize infusing more ancestral african dna (i'm trying to avoid using terms related to increasing variation, because that's not quite right - it's more a question of watering down the effects of the targeted breeding) into the african american population by increasing immigration from africa. it actually doesn't even have to be targeted at the smartest people. it just has to counteract the saturation of certain alleles, by providing american blacks that do not show these gene expressions greater opportunity to avoid mating with people that do. self-selection may not be a proper evolutionary concept, but we are unique in our cognitive abilities on this planet.
the point is that there are good reasons to try and minimize population increases from certain particularly devastated segments of the slave descendant population.
i think the long term genetic consequences of slavery should not be underestimated. one could point to the middle east as an example of a society that has been defined by the genetic consequences of not just slavery but also mass rape, and the consequences are somewhat dire. mass rape, especially, prevents women from choosing proper suitors, creating a generation of children who did not have mothers that screened for good sperm. it's well understood that a lot of the problems that exist in the broader middle east today can be traced to the mongol invasions, but i don't think that the genetic component is well understood. that's not a racial comment, either. any group invading a region, killing the men and mass raping the women would create a comparable demographic problem where, a few dozen generations down the line, the majority of the population is the consequence of forced breeding rather than proper mating rituals. women are gatekeepers of their eggs for good evolutionary reasons.
...and so much of it as actual racism, too. not just mindlessness. but, actual arguments for racial hierarchy.
listen.
let's say you carried out a cross-oceanic trade in people, then took those people and separated out the weak and turned the strong into slaves. now, let's say that you selectively bred those people for physical characteristics, and you killed all the ones you thought might be smart enough to figure out a way to stop you. now, let's say that this carried on for hundreds of years, over many generations.
if, centuries later, the descendants of these people showed disproportionate levels of aggression and a heightened difficulty in assimilating, along with exceptional athletic abilities, would you suggest that the cause of this is their skin colour?
if i were a deity trying to correct the consequences of human folly, i would ensure that the descendants of black american slaves find their way to new african immigrants in order to breed. and, i would no doubt work in mysterious ways.
if i were a government representing a people that is opposed to forced marriages, and there are of course good reasons to oppose forced marriages, i would prioritize infusing more ancestral african dna (i'm trying to avoid using terms related to increasing variation, because that's not quite right - it's more a question of watering down the effects of the targeted breeding) into the african american population by increasing immigration from africa. it actually doesn't even have to be targeted at the smartest people. it just has to counteract the saturation of certain alleles, by providing american blacks that do not show these gene expressions greater opportunity to avoid mating with people that do. self-selection may not be a proper evolutionary concept, but we are unique in our cognitive abilities on this planet.
the point is that there are good reasons to try and minimize population increases from certain particularly devastated segments of the slave descendant population.
i think the long term genetic consequences of slavery should not be underestimated. one could point to the middle east as an example of a society that has been defined by the genetic consequences of not just slavery but also mass rape, and the consequences are somewhat dire. mass rape, especially, prevents women from choosing proper suitors, creating a generation of children who did not have mothers that screened for good sperm. it's well understood that a lot of the problems that exist in the broader middle east today can be traced to the mongol invasions, but i don't think that the genetic component is well understood. that's not a racial comment, either. any group invading a region, killing the men and mass raping the women would create a comparable demographic problem where, a few dozen generations down the line, the majority of the population is the consequence of forced breeding rather than proper mating rituals. women are gatekeepers of their eggs for good evolutionary reasons.
Friday, December 25, 2015
this is actually a really enjoyable record. if you could consider toning down the misfits' misanthropy and splicing it with a "jello has been mellowed-out-by-pot" fronted dead kennedys - it's not serious, but it's cheeky and it's consequently found a middle point of....fun...that is generally (strangely) absent from punk rock nowadays.
i actually have no real feelings about christmas. i mean, on some level i think it's....stupid. basically. but, i really have no meaningful aversion, or attachment at all, to it.
https://night-birds.bandcamp.com/track/less-the-merrier
i actually have no real feelings about christmas. i mean, on some level i think it's....stupid. basically. but, i really have no meaningful aversion, or attachment at all, to it.
https://night-birds.bandcamp.com/track/less-the-merrier
Thursday, December 24, 2015
23-12-2015: headphone testing
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
i walk around the neighbourhood, and i don't smell much food baking - but i do smell a lot of marijuana. for blocks, around.
i suspect this christmas will be remembered by canadians as "the year we smoked mom".
see, i think it's already fairly normal for the family members under 40 - or is it 50 now - to take a walk out to the garage at the christmas get together and come back smelling a little funny. i guess the proposed change is more an inclusive thing.
i suspect this christmas will be remembered by canadians as "the year we smoked mom".
see, i think it's already fairly normal for the family members under 40 - or is it 50 now - to take a walk out to the garage at the christmas get together and come back smelling a little funny. i guess the proposed change is more an inclusive thing.
cheetahs may not be easy to tree, but they are in fact closely related to cougars. it's interesting to wonder what would happen should the cheetah make contact with a cougar of the opposite sex.
if it weren't for the collar, i may even wonder how likely it would be for a cougar to maintain their spots to such an age.
what would a cougar-bobcat hybrid look like? being intermediate in size is almost guaranteed, and cheetah-like spots are a distinct possibility.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/cheetah-on-the-loose-along-highway-near-kootenay-bay-bc-/61268/
if it weren't for the collar, i may even wonder how likely it would be for a cougar to maintain their spots to such an age.
what would a cougar-bobcat hybrid look like? being intermediate in size is almost guaranteed, and cheetah-like spots are a distinct possibility.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/cheetah-on-the-loose-along-highway-near-kootenay-bay-bc-/61268/
thanks
got your card and your check. thanks.
it's been very warm here, too. there were days in november where we got over 20 degreees, and over 25 with the humidex. humidex readings in november! and, we've gotten over 15 a few times in december.
it's 12 right now, but it's more than the temperature - it feels like april. just the air humidity. the fact that there is no frost in the ground at all. i don't think we're going to actually get a winter, here at all. the closest thing to winter will be a few snaps around 0.
i mean, the days are getting longer, now. there's no ice on the lakes. there's not even much snow cover in northern ontario. in order to have winter here, we have to have snow cover north of here to reflect the sunlight and we have to have the lakes freeze over, at least a little bit.
it's supposedly the el nino, and that's no doubt true. but these increasingly intense el ninos are a consequence of warming ocean temperatures.
i think it might get cold again for a few years after this, though. when the el nino fades, we're going to have to go back to dealing with those exaggerated jetstreams as a consequence of the upcoming solar minimum. so enjoy the nice weather this year.
it's been very warm here, too. there were days in november where we got over 20 degreees, and over 25 with the humidex. humidex readings in november! and, we've gotten over 15 a few times in december.
it's 12 right now, but it's more than the temperature - it feels like april. just the air humidity. the fact that there is no frost in the ground at all. i don't think we're going to actually get a winter, here at all. the closest thing to winter will be a few snaps around 0.
i mean, the days are getting longer, now. there's no ice on the lakes. there's not even much snow cover in northern ontario. in order to have winter here, we have to have snow cover north of here to reflect the sunlight and we have to have the lakes freeze over, at least a little bit.
it's supposedly the el nino, and that's no doubt true. but these increasingly intense el ninos are a consequence of warming ocean temperatures.
i think it might get cold again for a few years after this, though. when the el nino fades, we're going to have to go back to dealing with those exaggerated jetstreams as a consequence of the upcoming solar minimum. so enjoy the nice weather this year.
i'm going to explain why this is a bad tactic: it's because it's too easy to emulate, and turn horribly. in fact, it's probably already too late.
imagine the conservatives, with defense industry backing, running an action movie star that wants to turn canada into a terrorist killing supermachine. boom boom. pow wow. when you lower the narrative this far, you open people up for this level of manipulation.
fashion is highly subjective, but there is one objective truth about it: it always burns itself out. there's always a new thing. it's a way to write yourself directly into irrelevance, by giving yourself an expiry date.
but, i think you have to expect this kind of institutional pr shtick from the liberals. the team is full of educated, upper class people. they'll never figure it out.
www.cbc.ca/news/arts/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-style-icon-1.3376861
SkyBlue1
Hahahaha! you're kidding right? This is the Arts and Entertainment section, I think people can figure it out for themselves except those miserable cons who can't get past the fact that their guy lost.
jessica murray
they seem to be following a conscious strategy of mobilizing the apolitical. it's a strategy that various third parties have cited for quite some time - this idea that 30% of the population doesn't vote, and if you can tap into them then you can build a base out of them. while there may be some value to this, mobilizing them on the basis of fashion or popular culture is a self-defeating proposition.
imagine the conservatives, with defense industry backing, running an action movie star that wants to turn canada into a terrorist killing supermachine. boom boom. pow wow. when you lower the narrative this far, you open people up for this level of manipulation.
fashion is highly subjective, but there is one objective truth about it: it always burns itself out. there's always a new thing. it's a way to write yourself directly into irrelevance, by giving yourself an expiry date.
but, i think you have to expect this kind of institutional pr shtick from the liberals. the team is full of educated, upper class people. they'll never figure it out.
www.cbc.ca/news/arts/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-style-icon-1.3376861
SkyBlue1
Hahahaha! you're kidding right? This is the Arts and Entertainment section, I think people can figure it out for themselves except those miserable cons who can't get past the fact that their guy lost.
jessica murray
they seem to be following a conscious strategy of mobilizing the apolitical. it's a strategy that various third parties have cited for quite some time - this idea that 30% of the population doesn't vote, and if you can tap into them then you can build a base out of them. while there may be some value to this, mobilizing them on the basis of fashion or popular culture is a self-defeating proposition.
yeah. this is basically reducing a classic work of art to strict pornography.
i would probably react well to something that was more thought out.
i need to point something out, though.
if i were the remaining members of queen, as one entity, i might be somewhat unhappy with the song's identification with wayne's world, and might want to have that changed - both for artistic reasons and perhaps also for financial ones. that association seems to be fairly engrained in people's minds.
see, they'd have to do a lot better than this to break that association, though.
i mean, honestly.
imagine having your masterpiece forever entangled with a dana carvey & mike myers skit. there should have been a "no rhapsody" sign on the filming set. it's an injustice!
i would probably react well to something that was more thought out.
i need to point something out, though.
if i were the remaining members of queen, as one entity, i might be somewhat unhappy with the song's identification with wayne's world, and might want to have that changed - both for artistic reasons and perhaps also for financial ones. that association seems to be fairly engrained in people's minds.
see, they'd have to do a lot better than this to break that association, though.
i mean, honestly.
imagine having your masterpiece forever entangled with a dana carvey & mike myers skit. there should have been a "no rhapsody" sign on the filming set. it's an injustice!
that flow, baby. that flow.
i'm just a little confused by this recent meme of rem being the whitest music ever.
not that there isn't some gleam of truth to it, or that it would be terrible if it were true.
but, i think that the idea of pigeon-holing their music by race would strike them as a revolting one, and i think there's plenty of potential for cross-cultural enjoyment of their music - especially, as it would be, with hip-hop fans. there's actually legitimately some very serious crossover potential, there.
it's sad to me that people don't see that, and are willing to jump to what are blatantly unsupportable conclusions based on minimal exposure.
i'm just a little confused by this recent meme of rem being the whitest music ever.
not that there isn't some gleam of truth to it, or that it would be terrible if it were true.
but, i think that the idea of pigeon-holing their music by race would strike them as a revolting one, and i think there's plenty of potential for cross-cultural enjoyment of their music - especially, as it would be, with hip-hop fans. there's actually legitimately some very serious crossover potential, there.
it's sad to me that people don't see that, and are willing to jump to what are blatantly unsupportable conclusions based on minimal exposure.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
i think that compensating those convicted of non-violent marijuana offenses is a noble use of some of the tax funds.
if we acknowledge that consensual marijuana use amongst adults is absolutely harmless today, it means it always was and the state has a duty to right the wrong created by it's previous negligence.
a class-action suit would win, and should win.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-convictions-justin-trudeau-legalization-1.3377056
if we acknowledge that consensual marijuana use amongst adults is absolutely harmless today, it means it always was and the state has a duty to right the wrong created by it's previous negligence.
a class-action suit would win, and should win.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-convictions-justin-trudeau-legalization-1.3377056
Monday, December 21, 2015
if you're going to title your talk "obama in china", i fully expect gratuitous use of airbrushed photos of obama's head on nixon's body, dancing provocatively in front of giant pictures of mao.
hey. the republicans would pay good money for it.
deathtokoalas
+jessica i've been waiting for years for the discourse to change to language that suggests that the problem is being taken more seriously, and if anything the language and consequent ideological approaches have only gotten worse. i actually read one report a little after paris that criticized the agreement for being too reliant on "20th century governing approaches" and not "implementing modern, incentive-based policies".
all that this language broadcasts is that the issue isn't actually being taken seriously - still.
i think maybe some of it might have to do with the way that wealthy people interact with the environment. it's seen as something in the realm of philanthropy. politicians treat it all as legacy issues. the result is that the upper class has this warped perspective - making space for a wetland is "giving something back", merely an act of unprovoked kindness, whereas destroying a wetland is just doing business. there's no sense of duty - either legally or morally.
from this warped concept, we get the idea of levying fines to address climate change. we give out fines for breaking rules that have few externalities, or largely meaningless ones. if you park your car on the side of the road, or cross the street away from the lights - that's a fine. and, if you dump acid into the river then that's a fine, too - because not doing so would be an act of kindness, of giving back.
we're never getting anywhere with this until we change our attitude. dumping acid into the river is a crime and should land you in jail. that's right. jail. down the river. cuffs.
you think that's too much? then you're not taking the problem seriously.
stop. shut up. you really aren't.
hey. the republicans would pay good money for it.
deathtokoalas
+jessica i've been waiting for years for the discourse to change to language that suggests that the problem is being taken more seriously, and if anything the language and consequent ideological approaches have only gotten worse. i actually read one report a little after paris that criticized the agreement for being too reliant on "20th century governing approaches" and not "implementing modern, incentive-based policies".
all that this language broadcasts is that the issue isn't actually being taken seriously - still.
i think maybe some of it might have to do with the way that wealthy people interact with the environment. it's seen as something in the realm of philanthropy. politicians treat it all as legacy issues. the result is that the upper class has this warped perspective - making space for a wetland is "giving something back", merely an act of unprovoked kindness, whereas destroying a wetland is just doing business. there's no sense of duty - either legally or morally.
from this warped concept, we get the idea of levying fines to address climate change. we give out fines for breaking rules that have few externalities, or largely meaningless ones. if you park your car on the side of the road, or cross the street away from the lights - that's a fine. and, if you dump acid into the river then that's a fine, too - because not doing so would be an act of kindness, of giving back.
we're never getting anywhere with this until we change our attitude. dumping acid into the river is a crime and should land you in jail. that's right. jail. down the river. cuffs.
you think that's too much? then you're not taking the problem seriously.
stop. shut up. you really aren't.
you would need to run super-computers in parallel, hillary. it needs to be brute force.
unless you think you can revolutionize number theory in ways that are widely considered to be impossible and have eluded mathematicians for thousands of years. can you find a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers, for example? these are very difficult, but very foundational, questions in mathematics. history has repeatedly presented answers to questions of these sorts in the form of accidents, and often from unknown prodigies. i'd love to see the money directed that way, but you're not going to get a better theory of arithmetic by increasing spending.
there's no royal road to geometry.
there's a sticker on my microwave that claims that the device is complaint with communications regulations. what that actually means is that it can be controlled remotely. this is true of almost any electronic device. if you can pass a law that says the government has the right to take control of your toaster, i don't know why it's considered so brazen to pass a law that says that the government has the right to take control of your phone.
i think people need to change their perspectives on digital privacy. it's not even a question of ideals, it's more of a question of being realistic. if you have a reason to not use a phone, you should really not use a phone. i don't mean to present that in your typical "you have nothing to hide" context, i mean to state that as a pragmatic directive: if you are an activist, and you have any legitimate concerns about privacy whatsoever, be it in the context of civil disobedience or perhaps corporate espionage, you should not use any telecommunications devices.
what you do through telecommunications - which travels in public through airwaves or cables - needs to be perceived as as public as what you do at a shopping mall. i guess the disconnect is that you were once on a computer in your living room, so people saw the internet as in the realm of your personal life. but, this collapses pretty quickly when you think about it. if you're walking around in public and sending signals through the air to towers then you're in public - and should behave as though you are.
if you're going to use their servers, you're simply naive to expect them not to snoop on you. this question of exactly what they're doing and exactly what they're not doing is not what you should be concerning yourself with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gph0CupQv0
unless you think you can revolutionize number theory in ways that are widely considered to be impossible and have eluded mathematicians for thousands of years. can you find a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers, for example? these are very difficult, but very foundational, questions in mathematics. history has repeatedly presented answers to questions of these sorts in the form of accidents, and often from unknown prodigies. i'd love to see the money directed that way, but you're not going to get a better theory of arithmetic by increasing spending.
there's no royal road to geometry.
there's a sticker on my microwave that claims that the device is complaint with communications regulations. what that actually means is that it can be controlled remotely. this is true of almost any electronic device. if you can pass a law that says the government has the right to take control of your toaster, i don't know why it's considered so brazen to pass a law that says that the government has the right to take control of your phone.
i think people need to change their perspectives on digital privacy. it's not even a question of ideals, it's more of a question of being realistic. if you have a reason to not use a phone, you should really not use a phone. i don't mean to present that in your typical "you have nothing to hide" context, i mean to state that as a pragmatic directive: if you are an activist, and you have any legitimate concerns about privacy whatsoever, be it in the context of civil disobedience or perhaps corporate espionage, you should not use any telecommunications devices.
what you do through telecommunications - which travels in public through airwaves or cables - needs to be perceived as as public as what you do at a shopping mall. i guess the disconnect is that you were once on a computer in your living room, so people saw the internet as in the realm of your personal life. but, this collapses pretty quickly when you think about it. if you're walking around in public and sending signals through the air to towers then you're in public - and should behave as though you are.
if you're going to use their servers, you're simply naive to expect them not to snoop on you. this question of exactly what they're doing and exactly what they're not doing is not what you should be concerning yourself with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gph0CupQv0
i'm a little skeptical of the idea that light is the absolute limit, but i'm not at all skeptical about the idea of a boundary point occurring in mass-energy transfer. the reason light is claimed to be the speed limit is because it's assumed to be pure energy. no mass. there's no experimental support for this claim; rather, we have a particle-wave duality that ought to cast some questions on it. on top of that, the math makes more sense when you acknowledge the existence of the always present implied epsilon, rather than pretend it's not really there.
but, if light is not the fastest thing then the fastest thing cannot be much faster because light cannot have much mass. there is some space for the possibility of moving two or three times the speed of light, but not faster than that.
so, therefore aliens are impossible, right? no. because, you're making another assumption without realizing it: that aliens must have comparable life spans to humans. if an alien could live for tens of thousands of years, space travel would be an entirely feasible proposition.
some biologist will reject this offhand. but, the truth is that we seem to have taken a wrong turn on the evolutionary tree in terms of longevity, some time many millions of years ago. had we evolved from turtles, we would likely live for several centuries rather than several decades. there's no intrinsic requirement for cell death; arguments about the laws of physics on earth only apply to the earth. a different kind of environment may actually select for extreme longevity.
it seems to be clear that space travel is not something that humans will be possible of for many eons, if ever at all. we're running up against a biological limit rather than a technological one. now, there's abstract ways around this. we could consider cloning our consciousness to data storage and then reuploading it into a new clone created from scratch - that way we could exist in the computers for the thousand of years of travel time. but, that is not just solving the problem of space travel, it is solving the problem of mortality.
i think the key point in grappling with this is in realizing what the actual problem is in contemplating the likelihood of travel, and it's that our lives are too short.
but, if light is not the fastest thing then the fastest thing cannot be much faster because light cannot have much mass. there is some space for the possibility of moving two or three times the speed of light, but not faster than that.
so, therefore aliens are impossible, right? no. because, you're making another assumption without realizing it: that aliens must have comparable life spans to humans. if an alien could live for tens of thousands of years, space travel would be an entirely feasible proposition.
some biologist will reject this offhand. but, the truth is that we seem to have taken a wrong turn on the evolutionary tree in terms of longevity, some time many millions of years ago. had we evolved from turtles, we would likely live for several centuries rather than several decades. there's no intrinsic requirement for cell death; arguments about the laws of physics on earth only apply to the earth. a different kind of environment may actually select for extreme longevity.
it seems to be clear that space travel is not something that humans will be possible of for many eons, if ever at all. we're running up against a biological limit rather than a technological one. now, there's abstract ways around this. we could consider cloning our consciousness to data storage and then reuploading it into a new clone created from scratch - that way we could exist in the computers for the thousand of years of travel time. but, that is not just solving the problem of space travel, it is solving the problem of mortality.
i think the key point in grappling with this is in realizing what the actual problem is in contemplating the likelihood of travel, and it's that our lives are too short.
Stone Pestal
Hey Justin I am a Canadian who cannot find a job ,along with 1,000,000 plus other Canadians .Your government just allowed 27,000 unknown Syrian refugees into Canada .Meanwhile Canadians are homeless ,living on the streets and short of food .You are paying $375 a month for rent to people on Welfare .You have just brought in refugees while Canadians are suffering and there is an affordable housing crisis .What ? Are you going to do for Canadians ?
jessica
+Stone Pestal
there's not really a reason why we have to choose between helping existing canadians and getting people out of a situation of imminent genocide. i don't want to stop the flow of refugees, but i would like to see more resources put into subsidized housing.
the thing you have to understand, though, is the way the division of powers in the country works. it's not 100% a provincial responsibility. but, it's about 90% a provincial responsibility. trudeau can basically do one thing, here, and it's write a check. if you're concerned about the low level of assistance, or the shoddy state of subsidized housing, you need to contact your mpp and your local city council representative.
jessica
+Karl Hans
if the refugees we're admitting were in support of sharia law, they'd have stayed in the region.
the governments of syria and iraq, pre-catastrophe, were both secular. organizations that outlawed groups that supported sharia law. you could be executed for joining the muslim brotherhood, which is actually relatively moderate.
the historical roots of the assad and hussein regimes were in atheistic socialism, not islamic fundamentalism. this has been the conflict in the region for decades.
the refugees are more likely to be communists than fundamentalists.
Hey Justin I am a Canadian who cannot find a job ,along with 1,000,000 plus other Canadians .Your government just allowed 27,000 unknown Syrian refugees into Canada .Meanwhile Canadians are homeless ,living on the streets and short of food .You are paying $375 a month for rent to people on Welfare .You have just brought in refugees while Canadians are suffering and there is an affordable housing crisis .What ? Are you going to do for Canadians ?
jessica
+Stone Pestal
there's not really a reason why we have to choose between helping existing canadians and getting people out of a situation of imminent genocide. i don't want to stop the flow of refugees, but i would like to see more resources put into subsidized housing.
the thing you have to understand, though, is the way the division of powers in the country works. it's not 100% a provincial responsibility. but, it's about 90% a provincial responsibility. trudeau can basically do one thing, here, and it's write a check. if you're concerned about the low level of assistance, or the shoddy state of subsidized housing, you need to contact your mpp and your local city council representative.
jessica
+Karl Hans
if the refugees we're admitting were in support of sharia law, they'd have stayed in the region.
the governments of syria and iraq, pre-catastrophe, were both secular. organizations that outlawed groups that supported sharia law. you could be executed for joining the muslim brotherhood, which is actually relatively moderate.
the historical roots of the assad and hussein regimes were in atheistic socialism, not islamic fundamentalism. this has been the conflict in the region for decades.
the refugees are more likely to be communists than fundamentalists.
Gravitating
To this day.. I have no idea what Michael Stipe is signing about.. I like to think, that he was singing about something, so Beautiful, it couldn't be expressed in words...
deathtokoalas
+Gravitating
he'd long grown out of mumbling at this point. and, in general, i don't think he's as hard to decipher as a lot of people claim. but, i think the general theme of this record is exasperation. there's a kind of process of accepting the futility of struggle that, in places, comes off as sort of absurdist.
i think this is the most important line on the record:
i know that this is vitriol. no solution, spleen-venting,
but I feel better having screamed. don't you?
the record exists in that space where you're done screaming. or, at least are for the day, anyways.
Peter Gray
+deathtokoalas ..true to the exasperation in point - but maybe it's a kind of maturity.. almost like Ghandi's non violence ethos .. accepting a higher (not particularly religious) plane, and way of thinking .. complete absurdity (?) - yet sublime (?) ..after the storm is always peace.
deathtokoalas
+Peter Gray
but, i think there's a difference between this kind of philosophical perspective that change is impossible in general and concluding, through observation, that change is impossible right now.
i didn't really understand stipe well until i read up a little on the beat poets. i mean, i got the themes, sort of, but i didn't really grasp it. i think there was a big buddhist slant in their writing, but i also think there was a big existentialist slant in it. stipe draws from both traditions, but i think he tends to lean more towards an existentialist concept of futility than a buddhist concept of release.
To this day.. I have no idea what Michael Stipe is signing about.. I like to think, that he was singing about something, so Beautiful, it couldn't be expressed in words...
+Gravitating
he'd long grown out of mumbling at this point. and, in general, i don't think he's as hard to decipher as a lot of people claim. but, i think the general theme of this record is exasperation. there's a kind of process of accepting the futility of struggle that, in places, comes off as sort of absurdist.
i think this is the most important line on the record:
i know that this is vitriol. no solution, spleen-venting,
but I feel better having screamed. don't you?
the record exists in that space where you're done screaming. or, at least are for the day, anyways.
Peter Gray
+deathtokoalas ..true to the exasperation in point - but maybe it's a kind of maturity.. almost like Ghandi's non violence ethos .. accepting a higher (not particularly religious) plane, and way of thinking .. complete absurdity (?) - yet sublime (?) ..after the storm is always peace.
deathtokoalas
+Peter Gray
but, i think there's a difference between this kind of philosophical perspective that change is impossible in general and concluding, through observation, that change is impossible right now.
i didn't really understand stipe well until i read up a little on the beat poets. i mean, i got the themes, sort of, but i didn't really grasp it. i think there was a big buddhist slant in their writing, but i also think there was a big existentialist slant in it. stipe draws from both traditions, but i think he tends to lean more towards an existentialist concept of futility than a buddhist concept of release.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
your constitution is hundreds of years out of date, functionally obsolete and needs a serious rewrite, and you're just going to fall further and further behind until you figure that out.
i could say something ironic about false idols. but, this is more like blood-letting.
i mean, don't let it get as bad as it's gotten with the christians.
it's an over two hundred year old text, and you're still thumping it around like it's a state of the art document. will you be doing this when it's two thousand years old? how long before enough is enough?
don't be that country.
canada's constitution is only 33 years old. it's a modern, comprehensive document - far superior to your moldy old thing.
(deleted post)
jessica
somebody just asked me if that means i think communism was right (the comment was painfully stupid and has been removed).
the constitution is actually so old that it says nothing about communism because it didn't exist yet, and couldn't have existed yet. it was before marx ever wrote anything. it was before the failure of the french revolution. in fact, it was before any kind of industrial revolution in the united states.
this is actually useful in grappling with how irrelevant the document is. we currently live in a post-industrial economy; call it what you will, but it's defined by the unravelling of the socialization of labour. and, that phenomenon suggests that marx was very wrong.
yet, you want to base your society around a document written before the industrial revolution? you want to hold to it without modifications? read it literally?
i think you need to rip it up and start all over again, myself. it's become so out of date that it's an impediment to progress.
John Roy
+jessica It has been changed since the industrial revolution, it can be amended, has been many times before. Tearing it up and starting new wouldn't help much. If we did that then most of what was already on there would return.
deathtokoalas
+John Roy the modifications are minor. you replaced chattel slavery with wage slavery, for example. but, the document is still fundamentally designed for an agrarian society, and an agrarian economy. it can't and won't be able to keep up with changes in the modern world. so long as america holds to the archaic document, it will fall further and further behind.
you have routine yearly crises around trivial governing issues that most countries couldn't even contemplate. it's not an expression of greater democracy, it's just a waste of everybody's time and everybody's resources. it actually fuels mass apathy. you can't get basic agreements signed. you can't participate in international forums as a full member. it's really a noose around your neck. and, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the world gets fed up and relegates you to the status of a failed pariah state.
i could say something ironic about false idols. but, this is more like blood-letting.
i mean, don't let it get as bad as it's gotten with the christians.
it's an over two hundred year old text, and you're still thumping it around like it's a state of the art document. will you be doing this when it's two thousand years old? how long before enough is enough?
don't be that country.
canada's constitution is only 33 years old. it's a modern, comprehensive document - far superior to your moldy old thing.
(deleted post)
jessica
somebody just asked me if that means i think communism was right (the comment was painfully stupid and has been removed).
the constitution is actually so old that it says nothing about communism because it didn't exist yet, and couldn't have existed yet. it was before marx ever wrote anything. it was before the failure of the french revolution. in fact, it was before any kind of industrial revolution in the united states.
this is actually useful in grappling with how irrelevant the document is. we currently live in a post-industrial economy; call it what you will, but it's defined by the unravelling of the socialization of labour. and, that phenomenon suggests that marx was very wrong.
yet, you want to base your society around a document written before the industrial revolution? you want to hold to it without modifications? read it literally?
i think you need to rip it up and start all over again, myself. it's become so out of date that it's an impediment to progress.
John Roy
+jessica It has been changed since the industrial revolution, it can be amended, has been many times before. Tearing it up and starting new wouldn't help much. If we did that then most of what was already on there would return.
deathtokoalas
+John Roy the modifications are minor. you replaced chattel slavery with wage slavery, for example. but, the document is still fundamentally designed for an agrarian society, and an agrarian economy. it can't and won't be able to keep up with changes in the modern world. so long as america holds to the archaic document, it will fall further and further behind.
you have routine yearly crises around trivial governing issues that most countries couldn't even contemplate. it's not an expression of greater democracy, it's just a waste of everybody's time and everybody's resources. it actually fuels mass apathy. you can't get basic agreements signed. you can't participate in international forums as a full member. it's really a noose around your neck. and, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the world gets fed up and relegates you to the status of a failed pariah state.
i'm not sure if he's applying for president or that-barely-used-snl-cast-member-that-nobody-is-aware-of.
i gotta wonder though: is this focus grouped? and is the republican base really that warped? or is this just desperate, aimless flailing?
as a canadian, what i really see here is some kind of weird, post-modernist version of stephen harper.
i gotta wonder though: is this focus grouped? and is the republican base really that warped? or is this just desperate, aimless flailing?
as a canadian, what i really see here is some kind of weird, post-modernist version of stephen harper.
see, you gave him the benefit of picking a segment where he's saying something that's actually true. in an attempt to "prove she's tough", hillary has become a horrible, barbaric, war monger. her stint as secretary of state really renders her unelectable, in the same way that ignatieff was unelectable from the start in canada. trump is more so, mind you. and, she'll get a little help from history - she's so close to dubya, that he will probably end up taking credit for her catastrophes. but, only if she's forgotten...
she was really amongst the worst foreign policy leaders that the country has ever had. this was predictable, but not to this extent. we all should have known she has going to wave her cock around a little in the republicans' faces. that was predictable. but, the scale of it was not predictable. the consequences of her rather substantial errors are going to take decades to resolve.
it may be the best argument for electing her - so she can fix the mess she created.
again: i'm not suggesting trump is better. i'm suggesting that trump v clinton means we're all fucked. they're both lunatics. they're both war mongers. they're both insane. we're probably looking at an escalation of world war three, either way.
but, this is a trick - he doesn't sound smart here because of the tone of his voice. he sounds smart because he's actually right, for once.
but, the broad swath of you seem pretty stupid for thinking that intelligence is contained within style rather than within substance.
we should really all take a moment to reflect on the candidacy of bernie sanders. i think this is bigger than the current election cycle. people say that about every election cycle, i know. but, i think it's actually true this time.
the united states is in one of those historical pivot points, where it needs to choose a longer term direction. the direction being presented by clinton differs little from the direction being presented by the republicans. and, it is a path towards the conversion of the "perpetual endless wars" of the "war on whatever" towards a serious geopolitical conflict that could only be referred to as a new world war.
i mean, these forces are already in full swing. it's not a question of starting something. it's a question of stopping something.
i'm not exaggerating when i suggest that electing sanders may be the only way to save the country.
she was really amongst the worst foreign policy leaders that the country has ever had. this was predictable, but not to this extent. we all should have known she has going to wave her cock around a little in the republicans' faces. that was predictable. but, the scale of it was not predictable. the consequences of her rather substantial errors are going to take decades to resolve.
it may be the best argument for electing her - so she can fix the mess she created.
again: i'm not suggesting trump is better. i'm suggesting that trump v clinton means we're all fucked. they're both lunatics. they're both war mongers. they're both insane. we're probably looking at an escalation of world war three, either way.
but, this is a trick - he doesn't sound smart here because of the tone of his voice. he sounds smart because he's actually right, for once.
but, the broad swath of you seem pretty stupid for thinking that intelligence is contained within style rather than within substance.
we should really all take a moment to reflect on the candidacy of bernie sanders. i think this is bigger than the current election cycle. people say that about every election cycle, i know. but, i think it's actually true this time.
the united states is in one of those historical pivot points, where it needs to choose a longer term direction. the direction being presented by clinton differs little from the direction being presented by the republicans. and, it is a path towards the conversion of the "perpetual endless wars" of the "war on whatever" towards a serious geopolitical conflict that could only be referred to as a new world war.
i mean, these forces are already in full swing. it's not a question of starting something. it's a question of stopping something.
i'm not exaggerating when i suggest that electing sanders may be the only way to save the country.
but, this is in fact the time of year when the sun is down for days at a time. there is somewhere in canada that will have no light over that period.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/15-days-of-darkness-in-november-its-not-going-to-happen/59800/
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/15-days-of-darkness-in-november-its-not-going-to-happen/59800/
what if the reason we can't make contact with extra-terrestrials is that we're in some kind of a system that treats us as an infection, and we simply haven't been treated yet?
what if it doesn't even know we exist, yet? what kind of depths would we need to penetrate to set off a reaction?
see, this is why cosmological theories don't impress me. i'm not really looking for a technical argument right now, but all these broadly unjustifiable assumptions just mask the limitlessness of the actual possibilities. nothing we think we understand about the universe makes sense unless we assume it's a closed system. but, i think we have more reasons to think it's open, and then the entire concept of the universe collapses - on the basis of reversing a single, tiny and mostly unrealized but absolutely vital and yet entirely baseless assumption.
what if it doesn't even know we exist, yet? what kind of depths would we need to penetrate to set off a reaction?
see, this is why cosmological theories don't impress me. i'm not really looking for a technical argument right now, but all these broadly unjustifiable assumptions just mask the limitlessness of the actual possibilities. nothing we think we understand about the universe makes sense unless we assume it's a closed system. but, i think we have more reasons to think it's open, and then the entire concept of the universe collapses - on the basis of reversing a single, tiny and mostly unrealized but absolutely vital and yet entirely baseless assumption.
this is just a little bit of historical fiction that i was thinking about as i was having a smoke.
i was thinking about something i typed somewhere, about how any kind of serious cold war monument would have to recognize the struggle of the cuban and angolan freedom fighters against the apartheid regime. that's loaded language. but that's also the correct and necessary language - perhaps toned down only by a miniscule degree. the cubans and their communist allies would need to be recognized as being on the correct side of history in that struggle, however complex the situation may have been.
it got me to thinking that you really have to put apartheid in the context of the cold war, and we never do that, here. so, we don't really understand it, because we don't put it in context. at the bottom line of everything else, the new british empire - and remember that south africa was a reasonably important british colony - had to maintain an imperialist friendly regime in the face of russian interests in the region. finding some way to transition power that was acceptable to the british would have meant ensuring that there were no communist-friendly elements, and that was a non-starter for decades. it's not a coincidence that the anc took over at the same time as the collapse of communism, allowing for eventual effective western co-option in the absence of any meaningful russian influence.
so, then how does that lesson apply to israel? well, it would suggest that any effective strategy would have to remove israel's strategic usefulness to the british imperialists. that is at the core of the issue. the americans will only change their policy relating israel when maintaining control of israel is no longer such a pressing geostrategic necessity. this is related to oil. so, the solution is oil independence - or fossil fuel abandonment.
that got me to thinking about the fracking push in the united states....
i was thinking about something i typed somewhere, about how any kind of serious cold war monument would have to recognize the struggle of the cuban and angolan freedom fighters against the apartheid regime. that's loaded language. but that's also the correct and necessary language - perhaps toned down only by a miniscule degree. the cubans and their communist allies would need to be recognized as being on the correct side of history in that struggle, however complex the situation may have been.
it got me to thinking that you really have to put apartheid in the context of the cold war, and we never do that, here. so, we don't really understand it, because we don't put it in context. at the bottom line of everything else, the new british empire - and remember that south africa was a reasonably important british colony - had to maintain an imperialist friendly regime in the face of russian interests in the region. finding some way to transition power that was acceptable to the british would have meant ensuring that there were no communist-friendly elements, and that was a non-starter for decades. it's not a coincidence that the anc took over at the same time as the collapse of communism, allowing for eventual effective western co-option in the absence of any meaningful russian influence.
so, then how does that lesson apply to israel? well, it would suggest that any effective strategy would have to remove israel's strategic usefulness to the british imperialists. that is at the core of the issue. the americans will only change their policy relating israel when maintaining control of israel is no longer such a pressing geostrategic necessity. this is related to oil. so, the solution is oil independence - or fossil fuel abandonment.
that got me to thinking about the fracking push in the united states....
Saturday, December 19, 2015
finalizing i’m sure your mom is probably a very nice person
this track is now closed. i've also stuck with the mix from last july.
the remaining tracks have yet to be uploaded.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/im-sure-your-mom-is-probably-a-very-nice-person
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/omm
the remaining tracks have yet to be uploaded.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/im-sure-your-mom-is-probably-a-very-nice-person
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/omm
finalizing no longer confused
i'm closing this one as well. no changes since july...
there will be a few more mixes of this track coming. if i do any singles, this track will get a single.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/no-longer-confused
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/cnusodef
there will be a few more mixes of this track coming. if i do any singles, this track will get a single.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/no-longer-confused
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/cnusodef
finalizing yup. i still fuck the dead.
i'm closing this, as well. no alteration since july.
the pattern is clearly that the mixes were stable all along, and it was the playback that altered. that's now clear, although it wasn't for quite some time.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/yup-i-still-fuck-the-dead
the pattern is clearly that the mixes were stable all along, and it was the playback that altered. that's now clear, although it wasn't for quite some time.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/yup-i-still-fuck-the-dead
finalizing just say no to mood altering prescription drugs
i had remixed this track in september, but i was confused about what the natural conditions of the output should have been. i double compressed it, which squished the fuck out of the drums.
i have replaced the september version with the initial july version and closed the track.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/just-say-no-to-mood-altering-prescription-drugs
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/open
i have replaced the september version with the initial july version and closed the track.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/just-say-no-to-mood-altering-prescription-drugs
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/open
splitting the ry30 mixes off from inrimixed
i had decided to add an extra component to inrimixed of ry30 mixes. i've decided to split this off into it's own idea, and include ry30 material that was created after period 1.2. so, this will now be inri05x and positioned at the end of period 2.
that opens up some more spaced on inrimixed for loose ends that i think ought to be released.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ry30-remixes
that opens up some more spaced on inrimixed for loose ends that i think ought to be released.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ry30-remixes
i know i said that i give up, but i'm still flabbergasted.
so, when you say you're pulling out of a mission, that's something you need to plan for. you need to give your allies notice, ensure a transition is in place, etc. that's going to take a few months. i don't understand what's confusing.
further, the government has indicated repeatedly that the reason they're pulling out is because they have a mandate to. now, i think this has actually gotten worse over the week - because now you're actually denying the mandate, rather than having a discussion about it.
i'm all for the resulting discussions. i've had them. if it's necessary, i'll reiterate. but, let's get the mandate part clear, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/real-change-comes-early-to-liberal-promises-1.3371721
mnovak
if you are already flabbergasted, think how you will feel about this government in 3 years time?
jessica murray
i'm not confused by the government. the government has been very clear. i'm flabbergasted by how the media is seemingly unable to understand what is really very simple and clear messaging.
Day Tripper
My how you Liberals change your story once elected. We all heard what JT said during the campaign and no amount of spin will change what he said. He had no idea what he was talking about and lied period.
jessica murray
well, i'm not a liberal. it would be more accurate to call me a new democrat, although i think they're both far too right-wing for me to really identify with either party. i'm actually a left libertarian.
but the point is that the story is not being changed. the media seems to be trying to force them to change their story, and they're very much resisting this. it's got to the point where instead of debating interpretations of their mandate to withdraw, they're denying a mandate altogether.
the reason i'm keying on this is that i'm really just sort of concerned by the way the media is reacting to this. it goes beyond the usual media incompetence and suggests some kind of ulterior motive. war drums are being beaten loudly, by what has becoming a jingoist, pro-war media. why is this happening?
i mean, how did canada end up with this aggressive, militaristic media? when did this happen?
you could reasonably ask in return: when did the country become isolationist? and while liberals may suggest that something like "non-interventionist" is better language, they'd be spinning that argument: the country is currently isolationist. and i can answer when that happened: when we got stuck in an intractable conflict that we don't actually want anything to do with.
so, when you say you're pulling out of a mission, that's something you need to plan for. you need to give your allies notice, ensure a transition is in place, etc. that's going to take a few months. i don't understand what's confusing.
further, the government has indicated repeatedly that the reason they're pulling out is because they have a mandate to. now, i think this has actually gotten worse over the week - because now you're actually denying the mandate, rather than having a discussion about it.
i'm all for the resulting discussions. i've had them. if it's necessary, i'll reiterate. but, let's get the mandate part clear, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/real-change-comes-early-to-liberal-promises-1.3371721
mnovak
if you are already flabbergasted, think how you will feel about this government in 3 years time?
jessica murray
i'm not confused by the government. the government has been very clear. i'm flabbergasted by how the media is seemingly unable to understand what is really very simple and clear messaging.
Day Tripper
My how you Liberals change your story once elected. We all heard what JT said during the campaign and no amount of spin will change what he said. He had no idea what he was talking about and lied period.
jessica murray
well, i'm not a liberal. it would be more accurate to call me a new democrat, although i think they're both far too right-wing for me to really identify with either party. i'm actually a left libertarian.
but the point is that the story is not being changed. the media seems to be trying to force them to change their story, and they're very much resisting this. it's got to the point where instead of debating interpretations of their mandate to withdraw, they're denying a mandate altogether.
the reason i'm keying on this is that i'm really just sort of concerned by the way the media is reacting to this. it goes beyond the usual media incompetence and suggests some kind of ulterior motive. war drums are being beaten loudly, by what has becoming a jingoist, pro-war media. why is this happening?
i mean, how did canada end up with this aggressive, militaristic media? when did this happen?
you could reasonably ask in return: when did the country become isolationist? and while liberals may suggest that something like "non-interventionist" is better language, they'd be spinning that argument: the country is currently isolationist. and i can answer when that happened: when we got stuck in an intractable conflict that we don't actually want anything to do with.
i think everybody should read this and think about it:
http://www.theweedblog.com/how-can-you-tell-if-your-marijuana-comes-from-a-cartel/
imagine buying a bag with paperclip in it. has that ever happened to you? no, worse - imagine being the guy that sells the bag with a paperclip in it.
"dude. you sold me a bag with a paperclip in it. what the %$#!?"
(and i apologize for censoring that myself, but there are certain childish rules in this forum that one has no choice but to adhere to, should they decide to use the forum. it is what it is.)
"really?", suppressing laughter, "it had a paperclip in it?"
"yeah. not joking."
"i don't know where that came from man, but i think i should be more careful with my sources, clearly. i'm sorry man."
"you know you're never going to live this down right. ten years from now, i'll be asking you if there's a paperclip in it. if i ever go over to your place with my grandchildren, they will ask you if there's paperclips in the meals you prepared and my daughter-in-law will carefully check the meals to make sure."
i think that the major aim of the cartels is to cross borders. it's something that requires significant amounts of bribery, and hence necessarily requires a proper system. but, the canadian market doesn't source it's marijuana from outside the country, and there therefore isn't a requirement for a cartel system. that would only be necessary for canadian exports - and for imports into canada of more tropical drugs.
i just think we need to understand what we're actually driving out of business before we drive it out of business, and take a good long think about it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-should-liquor-control-boards-manage-weed-sales-they-already-know-how/article27757191/
--
Wild bill 2
When marijuana is sold as all other products I will have one more thing to worry about when I drive my car
Now we have drunk drivers - drivers on cell phones - drivers texting - - drivers taking selfies - drivers eating - drivers having romance with their ladies - and now thanks to selfie baby PM Trudeau we will have drivers high on marijuana
I think it is time to pull the car over and park !
deathtokoalas
you'd be doing future generations a tremendous service if you were to drive less. i would like to thank you for them, in advance, as they will not get a chance to, themselves.
http://www.theweedblog.com/how-can-you-tell-if-your-marijuana-comes-from-a-cartel/
imagine buying a bag with paperclip in it. has that ever happened to you? no, worse - imagine being the guy that sells the bag with a paperclip in it.
"dude. you sold me a bag with a paperclip in it. what the %$#!?"
(and i apologize for censoring that myself, but there are certain childish rules in this forum that one has no choice but to adhere to, should they decide to use the forum. it is what it is.)
"really?", suppressing laughter, "it had a paperclip in it?"
"yeah. not joking."
"i don't know where that came from man, but i think i should be more careful with my sources, clearly. i'm sorry man."
"you know you're never going to live this down right. ten years from now, i'll be asking you if there's a paperclip in it. if i ever go over to your place with my grandchildren, they will ask you if there's paperclips in the meals you prepared and my daughter-in-law will carefully check the meals to make sure."
i think that the major aim of the cartels is to cross borders. it's something that requires significant amounts of bribery, and hence necessarily requires a proper system. but, the canadian market doesn't source it's marijuana from outside the country, and there therefore isn't a requirement for a cartel system. that would only be necessary for canadian exports - and for imports into canada of more tropical drugs.
i just think we need to understand what we're actually driving out of business before we drive it out of business, and take a good long think about it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-should-liquor-control-boards-manage-weed-sales-they-already-know-how/article27757191/
--
Wild bill 2
When marijuana is sold as all other products I will have one more thing to worry about when I drive my car
Now we have drunk drivers - drivers on cell phones - drivers texting - - drivers taking selfies - drivers eating - drivers having romance with their ladies - and now thanks to selfie baby PM Trudeau we will have drivers high on marijuana
I think it is time to pull the car over and park !
deathtokoalas
you'd be doing future generations a tremendous service if you were to drive less. i would like to thank you for them, in advance, as they will not get a chance to, themselves.
well, see, i'd rather interpret this as a well-deserved insult to lettuce, which is basically useless. check the nutritional components. you'd might as just have a glass of water. i've long made a habit of holding the lettuce, as it's just entirely pointless and simply takes up too much space. when you get off it for a while, getting something with lettuce starts to taste like you left it underwater.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/the-one-way-lettuce-is-actually-worse-for-you-than-bacon/61296/
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/the-one-way-lettuce-is-actually-worse-for-you-than-bacon/61296/
see, when trudeau says he's going to spend the money from pot legalization on "treatment" and "education", this is what i worry about happening.
it's really only a cgi sloth away from being realistic.
also, regarding relevant substitutions for pot, i think i'd lean towards prozac.
this is not a good reflection of what pot does to you. but, it's a reasonable reflection of what prescription drugs can do to you.
it's really only a cgi sloth away from being realistic.
also, regarding relevant substitutions for pot, i think i'd lean towards prozac.
this is not a good reflection of what pot does to you. but, it's a reasonable reflection of what prescription drugs can do to you.
Friday, December 18, 2015
there's a very simple two-step solution to this problem.
1) F. and don't give in on it. hold to it. as long as it takes. let his parents deal with it from there.
2) students that fail - even once - need to be put in separate classes. they should be able to get out of those classes by passing a full year, too. but, it's the way to get out of this pushing-them-through mentality. nobody wants 20-somethings in high school. that does have real consequences; i broke some asshole's arm in the ninth grade by pushing him down the stairs because he kept slamming me into the locker, and he should have been in 12th grade (and he was white, of german descent). so, put them in their own classes. at their own schools, even.
we need to bring back the idea of failing.
1) F. and don't give in on it. hold to it. as long as it takes. let his parents deal with it from there.
2) students that fail - even once - need to be put in separate classes. they should be able to get out of those classes by passing a full year, too. but, it's the way to get out of this pushing-them-through mentality. nobody wants 20-somethings in high school. that does have real consequences; i broke some asshole's arm in the ninth grade by pushing him down the stairs because he kept slamming me into the locker, and he should have been in 12th grade (and he was white, of german descent). so, put them in their own classes. at their own schools, even.
we need to bring back the idea of failing.
this is actually a useful short because it explores the situation from russia's defensive priorities, which has been their dominant concern since before stalin. so much western media focuses on this bluntly comical idea of russia as an offensive power, trying to conquer the world.
it's also useful in the sense that it really draws the connection between modern russia and historical rome. this foreign policy is quintessentially byzantine, and so are the consequences - perpetual suspicion of imperial treachery.
i think that, in the broader historical perspective, "western civilization" has yet to truly break it's way out of the division of the roman empire. i know this is very abstract, but it's something i've drawn attention to before and i really think there's a lot of truth to it.
it's tied into the american historical psyche, and to the foundations of the nation itself - this idea of america as the new rome. but, it's sort of typically american in it's lack of scope. london was the actual new rome. washington is in many ways the new constantinople.
but, it's recursive. as much as the american revolution was a civil war within the british empire rather than a revolution, one that ended with washington as the new center of the british empire, the new roman empire, this is only the western half of the story.
the eastern half of the story sees moscow as the new constantinople, the continuation of the eastern sphere of roman civilization. and, it sees the russian empire as the continuation of the byzantine sphere.
so, then what was the cold war, really?
as history unfolds, conflicts localized in space and time open themselves up to these broader interpretations. the details fade. what's left is the broader narrative.
when this story is told to children on distant planets, it seems unlikely to me that any meaningful separation will occur over what we call the modern era. the whole thing will coalesce. moscow vs. washington, constantinople vs. rome, pope vs patriarch - this will all become intertwined into a single, epic struggle for control over roman civilization.
it's also useful in the sense that it really draws the connection between modern russia and historical rome. this foreign policy is quintessentially byzantine, and so are the consequences - perpetual suspicion of imperial treachery.
i think that, in the broader historical perspective, "western civilization" has yet to truly break it's way out of the division of the roman empire. i know this is very abstract, but it's something i've drawn attention to before and i really think there's a lot of truth to it.
it's tied into the american historical psyche, and to the foundations of the nation itself - this idea of america as the new rome. but, it's sort of typically american in it's lack of scope. london was the actual new rome. washington is in many ways the new constantinople.
but, it's recursive. as much as the american revolution was a civil war within the british empire rather than a revolution, one that ended with washington as the new center of the british empire, the new roman empire, this is only the western half of the story.
the eastern half of the story sees moscow as the new constantinople, the continuation of the eastern sphere of roman civilization. and, it sees the russian empire as the continuation of the byzantine sphere.
so, then what was the cold war, really?
as history unfolds, conflicts localized in space and time open themselves up to these broader interpretations. the details fade. what's left is the broader narrative.
when this story is told to children on distant planets, it seems unlikely to me that any meaningful separation will occur over what we call the modern era. the whole thing will coalesce. moscow vs. washington, constantinople vs. rome, pope vs patriarch - this will all become intertwined into a single, epic struggle for control over roman civilization.
i really think we need some fact-based analysis here.
1) most people don't buy pot from cartels. they buy it from local growers.
this is useful reading:
http://www.theweedblog.com/how-can-you-tell-if-your-marijuana-comes-from-a-cartel/
2) your kids' hook-up ultimately probably comes from somebody's dad, or somebody's older sibling, and not from organized crime.
3) marijuana is not addictive.
4) because marijuana is not addictive, pushers don't push it. they push speed. meth. it's big business, and run by smart business people. if you can create a speed addict, you're going to get steady revenue streams from that person - regularly, multiple times a week. if you get a marijuana customer, you'll get sporadic sales every once in a while. so, they don't focus on pot because it's not in their self-interest to.
i've had these discussions with street-level dealers, and a lot of the time they don't even know where to find pot - despite having a knapsack full of speed that they're selling on the corner. you ask them for pot, and they try and push you speed and then tell you to get lost.
i'm not opposed to putting some of the money towards treatment centres. but, it would be better spent on treatment for actually damaging and actually addictive substances. the most damaging, addictive substance in our society is alcohol.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/legal-marijuana-taxes-1.3370358
(removed reply)
as i mentioned, marijuana is not addictive. acid isn't either, and i wouldn't be opposed to legalizing it, although i'm not about to strenuously argue the point, either. the thing about hallucinogenics is that you'd have to set a higher legal age, but the truth is that people mostly grow out of them by the age of 21.
the gangs push speed and meth, mostly. they don't start with pot. they jump right to the stuff that hooks them; pot is useless in hooking them. it's all about pills. and, it's actually a very different subculture, too. you would be targeting very different kinds of kids that would go for popping a pill to get an upper than kids that want to smoke a joint and chill out.
also: kids don't do heroin. it's an adult drug
i remember watching kids pop speed pills on the school bus when i was 13. nobody in that group had ever tried or knew how to get pot. i don't even think any of them had smoked a cigarette. and, i think that observation is pretty normal.
they weren't the outcast kids, either. they were the popular kids - the in crowd.
--
anglophile
No one will buy pot from a Gov't outlet. It will be expensive, much like cigars, or more. Once the substance is legal, pot smokers will simply grow it in their backyards, even if it is less potent. There will be no legal means to prevent this from happening. Also, remember that pot can't be used without abusing it. only a few "tokes" will have you completely inebriated. Unlike alcohol, it can't be used responsibly. A "casual" pot user, would be equivalent to an excessive drinker. One can enjoy a couple of glasses of wine with dinner, and still be legal to drive home, or supervise their children. Parents who smoke at home might find that they are putting their children at risk, if they smoke a joint only to find they have to rush the kid to the hospital for some reason. Their judgment would be so impaired that they might not even recognize a serious situation. Also, pot will be the chosen drug for kids at school. A few tokes between classes will get you stoned, while the same high might requires 7 or 8 beer, which would be hard to carry around, or consume inconspicuously.
jessica murray
i'm not going to comment on your conclusions regarding how marijuana users behave, but i want to point that you're half right about effects.
marijuana tolerance increases as you smoke. i'm a light, sporadic and social smoker - i only need a three toke pass to get stoned for the night, and into the morning. that wouldn't be true if i smoked regularly, but it is true because i don't smoke regularly. so, you're right that you don't need a lot, if you don't use a lot.
the flip side of that is that marijuana does a fraction to you of what alcohol does, and plateaus at a fairly low point. you will never blackout and forget what you did last night due to marijuana use. you won't spontaneously pass out. "as stoned as you can get" is roughly equivalent to the immediate buzz you get after talking 2-3 shots at the same time and it lasts for several hours - but then you can't get more stoned than that, and you don't deal with the effects of drunkenness.
so, it's faster, yes. and you need less. but it's also impossible to overdo it.
it's common sense that one should not drive stoned. but, the reality is that you're never going to see any stoned person stumbling all over the place, slurring words, cursing, unable to walk straight. marijuana just doesn't have the ability to create that effect, or at least not on it's own.
--
AlanWilliams
This will only drive the drug dealers to push harder more dangerous substances into the market. They will plan to adapt in order to maintain their market share and profits. This will result in even more people in addictive states unable to function in a sustainable lifestyle. The liberals are only doing this to protect the rich kids of Toronto (Rosedale) from getting a criminal record! They don't care about the devastating results although they say the money will go into addiction programs. Why not just criminalize pot as a deterrent and save lives???
jessica murray
actual drug dealers - bikers and whatnot - already mostly ignore pot, because you can't build dependence on it. they don't bother selling it as a gateway or whatever. they just jump right to selling speed in candy wrappers. and that's something that people should actually be concerned about.
--
captain canada
I can just see the fun at the border when Canada legalizes pot . Get ready to wait while US customs searches for that one joint your kid left in the back seat of the car and you end up in jail for smuggling pot to the USA .
jessica murray
bernie is claiming he'll drop the federal restriction. if he doesn't win, i can't see it being more than 4-8 years away.
1) most people don't buy pot from cartels. they buy it from local growers.
this is useful reading:
http://www.theweedblog.com/how-can-you-tell-if-your-marijuana-comes-from-a-cartel/
2) your kids' hook-up ultimately probably comes from somebody's dad, or somebody's older sibling, and not from organized crime.
3) marijuana is not addictive.
4) because marijuana is not addictive, pushers don't push it. they push speed. meth. it's big business, and run by smart business people. if you can create a speed addict, you're going to get steady revenue streams from that person - regularly, multiple times a week. if you get a marijuana customer, you'll get sporadic sales every once in a while. so, they don't focus on pot because it's not in their self-interest to.
i've had these discussions with street-level dealers, and a lot of the time they don't even know where to find pot - despite having a knapsack full of speed that they're selling on the corner. you ask them for pot, and they try and push you speed and then tell you to get lost.
i'm not opposed to putting some of the money towards treatment centres. but, it would be better spent on treatment for actually damaging and actually addictive substances. the most damaging, addictive substance in our society is alcohol.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/legal-marijuana-taxes-1.3370358
(removed reply)
as i mentioned, marijuana is not addictive. acid isn't either, and i wouldn't be opposed to legalizing it, although i'm not about to strenuously argue the point, either. the thing about hallucinogenics is that you'd have to set a higher legal age, but the truth is that people mostly grow out of them by the age of 21.
the gangs push speed and meth, mostly. they don't start with pot. they jump right to the stuff that hooks them; pot is useless in hooking them. it's all about pills. and, it's actually a very different subculture, too. you would be targeting very different kinds of kids that would go for popping a pill to get an upper than kids that want to smoke a joint and chill out.
also: kids don't do heroin. it's an adult drug
i remember watching kids pop speed pills on the school bus when i was 13. nobody in that group had ever tried or knew how to get pot. i don't even think any of them had smoked a cigarette. and, i think that observation is pretty normal.
they weren't the outcast kids, either. they were the popular kids - the in crowd.
--
anglophile
No one will buy pot from a Gov't outlet. It will be expensive, much like cigars, or more. Once the substance is legal, pot smokers will simply grow it in their backyards, even if it is less potent. There will be no legal means to prevent this from happening. Also, remember that pot can't be used without abusing it. only a few "tokes" will have you completely inebriated. Unlike alcohol, it can't be used responsibly. A "casual" pot user, would be equivalent to an excessive drinker. One can enjoy a couple of glasses of wine with dinner, and still be legal to drive home, or supervise their children. Parents who smoke at home might find that they are putting their children at risk, if they smoke a joint only to find they have to rush the kid to the hospital for some reason. Their judgment would be so impaired that they might not even recognize a serious situation. Also, pot will be the chosen drug for kids at school. A few tokes between classes will get you stoned, while the same high might requires 7 or 8 beer, which would be hard to carry around, or consume inconspicuously.
jessica murray
i'm not going to comment on your conclusions regarding how marijuana users behave, but i want to point that you're half right about effects.
marijuana tolerance increases as you smoke. i'm a light, sporadic and social smoker - i only need a three toke pass to get stoned for the night, and into the morning. that wouldn't be true if i smoked regularly, but it is true because i don't smoke regularly. so, you're right that you don't need a lot, if you don't use a lot.
the flip side of that is that marijuana does a fraction to you of what alcohol does, and plateaus at a fairly low point. you will never blackout and forget what you did last night due to marijuana use. you won't spontaneously pass out. "as stoned as you can get" is roughly equivalent to the immediate buzz you get after talking 2-3 shots at the same time and it lasts for several hours - but then you can't get more stoned than that, and you don't deal with the effects of drunkenness.
so, it's faster, yes. and you need less. but it's also impossible to overdo it.
it's common sense that one should not drive stoned. but, the reality is that you're never going to see any stoned person stumbling all over the place, slurring words, cursing, unable to walk straight. marijuana just doesn't have the ability to create that effect, or at least not on it's own.
--
AlanWilliams
This will only drive the drug dealers to push harder more dangerous substances into the market. They will plan to adapt in order to maintain their market share and profits. This will result in even more people in addictive states unable to function in a sustainable lifestyle. The liberals are only doing this to protect the rich kids of Toronto (Rosedale) from getting a criminal record! They don't care about the devastating results although they say the money will go into addiction programs. Why not just criminalize pot as a deterrent and save lives???
jessica murray
actual drug dealers - bikers and whatnot - already mostly ignore pot, because you can't build dependence on it. they don't bother selling it as a gateway or whatever. they just jump right to selling speed in candy wrappers. and that's something that people should actually be concerned about.
--
captain canada
I can just see the fun at the border when Canada legalizes pot . Get ready to wait while US customs searches for that one joint your kid left in the back seat of the car and you end up in jail for smuggling pot to the USA .
jessica murray
bernie is claiming he'll drop the federal restriction. if he doesn't win, i can't see it being more than 4-8 years away.
start at 33:00.
it is more trade. he was right.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?80216-1/uscanada-relations
it is more trade. he was right.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?80216-1/uscanada-relations
finalizing i still don't fully understand this
this track is also closed. not altered.
even with the tinfoil, i'm picking up a little bit of signal right now. i'm going to tentatively suggest it's because it's friday night and the magnetic field is stronger due to the lines being at peak electrical use, do something else for a few hours and reapproach a little after midnight.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-still-dont-fully-understand-this
even with the tinfoil, i'm picking up a little bit of signal right now. i'm going to tentatively suggest it's because it's friday night and the magnetic field is stronger due to the lines being at peak electrical use, do something else for a few hours and reapproach a little after midnight.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-still-dont-fully-understand-this
takers
i've decided to upload a drum machine mix of this after all. this is a brand new mix, dated to today.
initially written in 1997. recreated in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 1, 2015. deconstructed dec 18, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/takers
initially written in 1997. recreated in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 1, 2015. deconstructed dec 18, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/takers
finalizing use value is somewhat difficult to define in the human propensity towards artistic expression
i'm closing this track, as well. no change from the initial upload.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/use-value-is-somewhat-difficult-to-define-in-the-human-propensity-towards-artistic-expression
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/use-value-is-somewhat-difficult-to-define-in-the-human-propensity-towards-artistic-expression
fisk's comments here are very unfortunate, and no doubt driven by feelings of bitterness by ndp supporters, who were positioned to win the election for months leading up to the vote. strangely, this is no doubt second hand bitterness. this kind of reporting is useful in the line of work fisk usually does, but doesn't lend itself well to an analysis of an election in another country.
it seems like the reporting for the article consisted of fisk calling up a couple of friends in canada.
however, i think that it must also be acknowledged that quebec has developed a nasty nationalist streak in it's politics, but in the context of two important points: first that it is a pragmatic tactic to achieve independence, and second that this tactic keeps getting rejected by voters.
lucien bouchard blamed the loss in the second sovereigntist referendum on "money and the ethnic vote". that's the beginning of this strain of thought, as far as i know, but some others may want to trace it back further. he seemed aware that his vision of a sovereign quebec nation was being thwarted by people that did not have deep roots in the region. while it may be over-exaggerating a single factor at the expense of the importance of others, it is not a spurious observation and there is no doubt some level of truth to it, too.
in fact, there is also some truth to the idea that the federal government - under the guidance of quebec prime ministers - has purposefully targeted quebec for immigration with the purposes of changing the nature of quebec society, to prevent separation.
after the second referendum, quebec clearly started to get a little tired with this one party rule that didn't campaign on spectrum issues. they wanted a debate driven by normal election issues: budgets, services, changes in the laws, etc. so, the separatist forces started breaking up into different political factions. this was very much driven by the body politic, who just wanted a better debate on issues that actually affected them.
when you open things up like this, you have to expect that some bottled up issues are going to get out. there were bent up energies in the quebec nationalist regions that saw people without these multigenerational roots in the region as being responsible for the failure of the referendum. within this, a conservative separatist group - called the adq - started building a kind of collection of ideas about religious immigrants that would eventually be picked up by both the pq (the biggest separatist party) and the liberals (the federalist party).
you have to understand that the legal changes they want to make are purely about assimilation. there's not a racial bias to it, nor is there an exclusionary nature to them. it's about turning immigrants into cultural quebeckers, so they vote in favour of independence. they don't want to restrict immigration to any specific group, they just want to ensure that whomever comes to quebec becomes a quebecker and aligns with what they see as quebec values. should any of these ideas be adopted, i would not expect them to survive independence by very long.
but, canada is a pluralistic society, and so the federal law sometimes gets in the way of these ideas - there have been constitutional challenges. in canada, you can't arbitrarily tell somebody not to wear a scarf and try to enforce it under threat of something.
when the laws are explored over a public debate, the ramifications of them begin to make people uncomfortable - even if they are rational to get to the end point of separation - and they are invariably rejected, even when people admit to agreeing with them - confusing pollsters and policy makers. a few years ago, the pq lost an election over a "values charter" that would have acted as an assimilating force regarding things like head coverings and jewelry. polls claimed strong support for the values charter - yet the party lost, because of it. to support an idea of something is not necessarily to support the actualization of it. "i'd like to tell you to take that off your head" does not necessarily translate into "the law should be able to force you to take that off your head".
we saw the same thing in the last federal election. harper's rhetoric about muslims was pretty gross. public opinion polls seemed to suggest people both approved and realized that they can't actually vote for it.
the nativist streak is there. it has historical reasons. but, it's not xenophobic; rather, it's very strongly assimilating.
it may be a little bit real right now, so it may be easy to lose perspective, but we need to analyze trump correctly, as well. and, le pen, for that matter - although i think le pen is something very different, and destabilizing the region quite intentionally.
my very first comments about trump, before i got lost myself, were that you have to put him in context and understand *why* this is happening. when all the nonsense is debunked, your left with the reality that white people have done poorly in america since the 70s. with the collapse of the unions, the offshoring of jobs, mechanization and the rest, there are really declining living standards. it may not be informed to blame it on mexicans and muslims. but, we can't just leave it at that. the economics underlying this spasm need to be seriously addressed - and a fair bit of it needs to be attributed to nafta. there's other causes, of course. but, you can't do that in print, it seems.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-joy-of-canada-delivered-from-stephen-harper-s-darkness-to-justin-trudeau-s-light-a6779106.html
Emdx
> however, i think that it must also be acknowledged that quebec has developed a nasty nationalist streak in it's politics
Ah, yet another outsider that only relies on other outsiders for his information. You just fell exactly into the same trap you deplore with Mr Fisk.
> lucien bouchard blamed the loss in the second sovereigntist referendum on "money and the ethnic vote".
It was not Lucien Bouchard who made that famous remark, but Premier Jacques Parizeau. The next day, Parizeau resigned and Bouchard became premier.
But yes, Parizeau was right. Of course, money would be against us, as in any colonial situation. And the amount of money illegally spent to buttress the “NO” side during the referendum campaign was staggering. For example, whole planeloads were flown to Montréal, courtesy of airlines, at no cost to passengers. This kind of expense squarely fell into the purview of our election financing laws, and it was clearly illegal.
But nobody howled at the “money” part of the comment, because it was a given that money would be against us.
Let’s tackle instead the “ethnic vote”. Historically, immigrants have been used as a tool to minorize us. The expectation was that any immigrant who would come to Canada would become anglicized, and thus would not become part of our community. This was completely true until 45 years ago when the assimilation machine was stopped dead on it’s tracks by Law 101, which simply shut down access to english schools for immigrants.
This is the main reason why Canada hates Law 101, because it almost killed outright the assimilation machine.
What Jacques Parizeau was referring to with the “ethnic vote” is those immigrant communities who blindly vote for what their leaders tell them to, without asking themselves any questions.
Anyone with a brain would acknowledge that such behaviour in a Democracy is pretty deplorable.
Well, we lost by some 50,000 votes, and no doubt a lot more than 50,000 “NOs” were clearly “ethnic votes”.
There is nothing racist in denouncing this, in fact, Parizeau’s remark was clearly a denunciation of the racism that brings about those “ethnic votes”, racism fomented by Canada against Québec’s aspiration for independence.
But again, any minority seeking freedom from a larger country, like the Scots or the Basques are readily labelled as “intolerant”, “xenophobes” and all the unsavoury stuff you hear from Canadian media whenever the subject skirts Québec.
> you have to understand that the legal changes they want to make are purely about assimilation.
As I said before, immigration has been largely been used as a tool to minorize the french and the indians in Canada.
> but, canada is a pluralistic society,
Bollo*ks. It's only “pluralistic” when it suits Canada. And you see it bursting at the seams whenever there are high concentration of immigrants. Why do you think Rob Ford got elected as mayor in Toronto?
We get tagged as “racist” because our interculturalism policies are at odds with the canadian multiculturalism. We have good reasons to reject multiculturalism, because it’s mostly a tool to divide and rule; with immigrants isolated in little cultural ghettoes, it is far easier to manipulate them to keep them subservient than if they were full members of their adoptive society.
Which is what interculturalism does: we only take what we like from what immigrants take here; what we don’t like, we soundly reject and tell immigrants that they better forget about it.
Yes we are assimilationists. Although having immigrants keeping their culture is nice and all that, we don’t really care; what we want is them to take our language first and foremost. Culture will only naturally follow. We do this because we are strictly opposed to segregation and ghettoes; we want immigrants to be full-fledged members of Society, quite unlike the English who are very happy keeping their class system to keep the rabble at it’s place, which is pretty normal for a colonial society.
> In canada, you can't arbitrarily tell somebody not to wear a scarf and try to enforce it under threat of something.
Sure we can. And yet again, you cet carried away with the canadian media misrepresentation about Québec. We don’t bitch against the scarves (fu*k, we wear them ourselves six months a year — during winter, that is), it’s against the face veils we have against. And we’re not the only ones, almost all Europe is up in arms regarding this.
It’s just that the liberal crowd is so taken up in it’s multiculturalism that it stubbornly keeps going into the multiculturalist dead-end, despite the fact that this very subject made the NDP lose the chances at getting in power.
> the nativist streak is there. it has historical reasons. but, it's not xenophobic; rather, it's very strongly assimilating.
Well, yes. But it seems that in Canada, while it's okay to assimilate to the english, it's a no-no to assimilate to the french.
Which is a damn fine reason to get out of Canada.
deathtokoalas
i just want to point out that i'm a french canadian that grew up in the ottawa area. i do appreciate your correction about parizeau - i did misspeak on that point. but, i think you're otherwise demonstrating my points rather than rebutting them.
emdx
As a "french canadian from Ottawa", you have learned early on that your place is subservient to the english, and you clearly show it by your thoroughly colonized positions.
If you want to be french, you're welcome to come to Québec, but if you backstab us, you will be treated as you deserve.
deathtokoalas
i would rather leave ethnic nationalism in the 20th - if not the 19th - century. again: you're demonstrating my points.
to reiterate: the nativist streak is a problem in quebec, but they're not xenophobic. they're assimilationist. it's a very big difference in understanding them from a distance
perhaps the better way to understand quebec nationalism from britain - or the middle east - is to compare it to merkel's recent statements, rather than le pen's. the door is open. but they demand that migrants accept their value systems, should they choose to come in.
--
something else that you'll see floated around by the canadian pseudo-left is this idea of quebec as a victim of settler-colonialism. this is an outrageous narrative; france was of course a participant in settler-colonialism, and the french settlers were fundamentally no different than the english settlers. i'm glossing over a complicated history, but to put the french settlers on the side of the colonized is fundamentally wrong. regardless, i've seen it cited in international sources over the last few years, indicating that the narrative has some traction because it fits into the theories people like.
the actual reason this argument has popped up is due to the supreme court reference case on succession, which claimed that a unilateral declaration would only be valid in the context of a colonial relationship. as no such colonial relationship exists, such a unilateral declaration would be considered illegal and unconstitutional in canada.
you have to understand that context to make sense of the debate, but that's not what gets out of the country.
Emdx
Of course you are (again) wrong.
When the french settlers came, they certainly did not see themselves as superior to the natives; in fact, we actually “went native” and we formed a hybrid european-indian society.
To this day, we carry on several native way of doing things that are rather different from France (like seeking consensus rather than outright imposing one's views).
In all Canada, only the Québec government deals with natives as equals, on a nation-to-nation basis, rather than the “stupid, juvenile savage” way the federal government does. And the results show: in Québec, 80% of natives still speak their language (that’s because law 101 ALSO protects native languages) as opposed to less than 20% in Canada. We also deal with their traditional social structures, rather than the sham democracy that is imposed by Ottawa, and who elects corrupt, unaccountable band councils.
We also let natives administer Justice as they see fit, so, unlike Canada, we do not have a high native jail population.
But you don’t have to take my word for it; go to Moonsonee (or Attawapiskat), Ontario, and ask the Crees who live there if they would rather live in Québec…
deathtokoalas
see, this is skewed so many ways that i don't see any point in bothering. it's political whitewashing. but, as i pointed out, there's a reason for it.
at the start of the colonial period, the various native american groups were broadly more interested in using western technology to defeat their ancestral enemies than they were in defeating the invaders. european powers took advantage of this. but, a big part of understanding how colonialism in north america was possible lies in understanding that they have a very different cultural concept of property rights - the truth is that they didn't really see westerners as invaders because they didn't conceive of themselves as owners of the land. rather, they conceived of themselves as users of the land; it would not have made sense to them to try and stop others from using the land. there were treaties of friendship and land use signed with both early english settlers and early french settlers; neither the french nor the english held to these treaties particularly strongly. today, they're both under the interpretation of the same court system.
despite the complexity of the history, the broad truth is that the various native groups often found themselves aligned with imperial interests against the interests of the colonies. that is broadly true across the continent, and the broadest way to understand the nature of conflict in the period, and continuing to today.
so, for example, you saw the major native groups align with the french imperial interests against british settlers in the seven years war, but then you saw those same groups align with the british crown against american settlers during the revolutionary war. one of the reasons for the revolutionary war was a ban by the british crown on expansion westwards, in recognition of the sovereignty of the existing tribes. and, one of the reasons for the signing of the treaties in western canada was protection from american expansion.
what you're saying about treaty rights is simple nonsense - both in legal terms and historical terms. the single most violent colonial body in the history of canada was the francophone catholic church. there are some french-canadian metis (mixed) groups, but there are also english, scottish and ukrainian metis groups, amongst others.
quebec really needs to come to terms with it's participation in settler colonialism, rather than continue to deny the reality of it.
it seems like the reporting for the article consisted of fisk calling up a couple of friends in canada.
however, i think that it must also be acknowledged that quebec has developed a nasty nationalist streak in it's politics, but in the context of two important points: first that it is a pragmatic tactic to achieve independence, and second that this tactic keeps getting rejected by voters.
lucien bouchard blamed the loss in the second sovereigntist referendum on "money and the ethnic vote". that's the beginning of this strain of thought, as far as i know, but some others may want to trace it back further. he seemed aware that his vision of a sovereign quebec nation was being thwarted by people that did not have deep roots in the region. while it may be over-exaggerating a single factor at the expense of the importance of others, it is not a spurious observation and there is no doubt some level of truth to it, too.
in fact, there is also some truth to the idea that the federal government - under the guidance of quebec prime ministers - has purposefully targeted quebec for immigration with the purposes of changing the nature of quebec society, to prevent separation.
after the second referendum, quebec clearly started to get a little tired with this one party rule that didn't campaign on spectrum issues. they wanted a debate driven by normal election issues: budgets, services, changes in the laws, etc. so, the separatist forces started breaking up into different political factions. this was very much driven by the body politic, who just wanted a better debate on issues that actually affected them.
when you open things up like this, you have to expect that some bottled up issues are going to get out. there were bent up energies in the quebec nationalist regions that saw people without these multigenerational roots in the region as being responsible for the failure of the referendum. within this, a conservative separatist group - called the adq - started building a kind of collection of ideas about religious immigrants that would eventually be picked up by both the pq (the biggest separatist party) and the liberals (the federalist party).
you have to understand that the legal changes they want to make are purely about assimilation. there's not a racial bias to it, nor is there an exclusionary nature to them. it's about turning immigrants into cultural quebeckers, so they vote in favour of independence. they don't want to restrict immigration to any specific group, they just want to ensure that whomever comes to quebec becomes a quebecker and aligns with what they see as quebec values. should any of these ideas be adopted, i would not expect them to survive independence by very long.
but, canada is a pluralistic society, and so the federal law sometimes gets in the way of these ideas - there have been constitutional challenges. in canada, you can't arbitrarily tell somebody not to wear a scarf and try to enforce it under threat of something.
when the laws are explored over a public debate, the ramifications of them begin to make people uncomfortable - even if they are rational to get to the end point of separation - and they are invariably rejected, even when people admit to agreeing with them - confusing pollsters and policy makers. a few years ago, the pq lost an election over a "values charter" that would have acted as an assimilating force regarding things like head coverings and jewelry. polls claimed strong support for the values charter - yet the party lost, because of it. to support an idea of something is not necessarily to support the actualization of it. "i'd like to tell you to take that off your head" does not necessarily translate into "the law should be able to force you to take that off your head".
we saw the same thing in the last federal election. harper's rhetoric about muslims was pretty gross. public opinion polls seemed to suggest people both approved and realized that they can't actually vote for it.
the nativist streak is there. it has historical reasons. but, it's not xenophobic; rather, it's very strongly assimilating.
it may be a little bit real right now, so it may be easy to lose perspective, but we need to analyze trump correctly, as well. and, le pen, for that matter - although i think le pen is something very different, and destabilizing the region quite intentionally.
my very first comments about trump, before i got lost myself, were that you have to put him in context and understand *why* this is happening. when all the nonsense is debunked, your left with the reality that white people have done poorly in america since the 70s. with the collapse of the unions, the offshoring of jobs, mechanization and the rest, there are really declining living standards. it may not be informed to blame it on mexicans and muslims. but, we can't just leave it at that. the economics underlying this spasm need to be seriously addressed - and a fair bit of it needs to be attributed to nafta. there's other causes, of course. but, you can't do that in print, it seems.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-joy-of-canada-delivered-from-stephen-harper-s-darkness-to-justin-trudeau-s-light-a6779106.html
Emdx
> however, i think that it must also be acknowledged that quebec has developed a nasty nationalist streak in it's politics
Ah, yet another outsider that only relies on other outsiders for his information. You just fell exactly into the same trap you deplore with Mr Fisk.
> lucien bouchard blamed the loss in the second sovereigntist referendum on "money and the ethnic vote".
It was not Lucien Bouchard who made that famous remark, but Premier Jacques Parizeau. The next day, Parizeau resigned and Bouchard became premier.
But yes, Parizeau was right. Of course, money would be against us, as in any colonial situation. And the amount of money illegally spent to buttress the “NO” side during the referendum campaign was staggering. For example, whole planeloads were flown to Montréal, courtesy of airlines, at no cost to passengers. This kind of expense squarely fell into the purview of our election financing laws, and it was clearly illegal.
But nobody howled at the “money” part of the comment, because it was a given that money would be against us.
Let’s tackle instead the “ethnic vote”. Historically, immigrants have been used as a tool to minorize us. The expectation was that any immigrant who would come to Canada would become anglicized, and thus would not become part of our community. This was completely true until 45 years ago when the assimilation machine was stopped dead on it’s tracks by Law 101, which simply shut down access to english schools for immigrants.
This is the main reason why Canada hates Law 101, because it almost killed outright the assimilation machine.
What Jacques Parizeau was referring to with the “ethnic vote” is those immigrant communities who blindly vote for what their leaders tell them to, without asking themselves any questions.
Anyone with a brain would acknowledge that such behaviour in a Democracy is pretty deplorable.
Well, we lost by some 50,000 votes, and no doubt a lot more than 50,000 “NOs” were clearly “ethnic votes”.
There is nothing racist in denouncing this, in fact, Parizeau’s remark was clearly a denunciation of the racism that brings about those “ethnic votes”, racism fomented by Canada against Québec’s aspiration for independence.
But again, any minority seeking freedom from a larger country, like the Scots or the Basques are readily labelled as “intolerant”, “xenophobes” and all the unsavoury stuff you hear from Canadian media whenever the subject skirts Québec.
> you have to understand that the legal changes they want to make are purely about assimilation.
As I said before, immigration has been largely been used as a tool to minorize the french and the indians in Canada.
> but, canada is a pluralistic society,
Bollo*ks. It's only “pluralistic” when it suits Canada. And you see it bursting at the seams whenever there are high concentration of immigrants. Why do you think Rob Ford got elected as mayor in Toronto?
We get tagged as “racist” because our interculturalism policies are at odds with the canadian multiculturalism. We have good reasons to reject multiculturalism, because it’s mostly a tool to divide and rule; with immigrants isolated in little cultural ghettoes, it is far easier to manipulate them to keep them subservient than if they were full members of their adoptive society.
Which is what interculturalism does: we only take what we like from what immigrants take here; what we don’t like, we soundly reject and tell immigrants that they better forget about it.
Yes we are assimilationists. Although having immigrants keeping their culture is nice and all that, we don’t really care; what we want is them to take our language first and foremost. Culture will only naturally follow. We do this because we are strictly opposed to segregation and ghettoes; we want immigrants to be full-fledged members of Society, quite unlike the English who are very happy keeping their class system to keep the rabble at it’s place, which is pretty normal for a colonial society.
> In canada, you can't arbitrarily tell somebody not to wear a scarf and try to enforce it under threat of something.
Sure we can. And yet again, you cet carried away with the canadian media misrepresentation about Québec. We don’t bitch against the scarves (fu*k, we wear them ourselves six months a year — during winter, that is), it’s against the face veils we have against. And we’re not the only ones, almost all Europe is up in arms regarding this.
It’s just that the liberal crowd is so taken up in it’s multiculturalism that it stubbornly keeps going into the multiculturalist dead-end, despite the fact that this very subject made the NDP lose the chances at getting in power.
> the nativist streak is there. it has historical reasons. but, it's not xenophobic; rather, it's very strongly assimilating.
Well, yes. But it seems that in Canada, while it's okay to assimilate to the english, it's a no-no to assimilate to the french.
Which is a damn fine reason to get out of Canada.
deathtokoalas
i just want to point out that i'm a french canadian that grew up in the ottawa area. i do appreciate your correction about parizeau - i did misspeak on that point. but, i think you're otherwise demonstrating my points rather than rebutting them.
emdx
As a "french canadian from Ottawa", you have learned early on that your place is subservient to the english, and you clearly show it by your thoroughly colonized positions.
If you want to be french, you're welcome to come to Québec, but if you backstab us, you will be treated as you deserve.
deathtokoalas
i would rather leave ethnic nationalism in the 20th - if not the 19th - century. again: you're demonstrating my points.
to reiterate: the nativist streak is a problem in quebec, but they're not xenophobic. they're assimilationist. it's a very big difference in understanding them from a distance
perhaps the better way to understand quebec nationalism from britain - or the middle east - is to compare it to merkel's recent statements, rather than le pen's. the door is open. but they demand that migrants accept their value systems, should they choose to come in.
--
something else that you'll see floated around by the canadian pseudo-left is this idea of quebec as a victim of settler-colonialism. this is an outrageous narrative; france was of course a participant in settler-colonialism, and the french settlers were fundamentally no different than the english settlers. i'm glossing over a complicated history, but to put the french settlers on the side of the colonized is fundamentally wrong. regardless, i've seen it cited in international sources over the last few years, indicating that the narrative has some traction because it fits into the theories people like.
the actual reason this argument has popped up is due to the supreme court reference case on succession, which claimed that a unilateral declaration would only be valid in the context of a colonial relationship. as no such colonial relationship exists, such a unilateral declaration would be considered illegal and unconstitutional in canada.
you have to understand that context to make sense of the debate, but that's not what gets out of the country.
Emdx
Of course you are (again) wrong.
When the french settlers came, they certainly did not see themselves as superior to the natives; in fact, we actually “went native” and we formed a hybrid european-indian society.
To this day, we carry on several native way of doing things that are rather different from France (like seeking consensus rather than outright imposing one's views).
In all Canada, only the Québec government deals with natives as equals, on a nation-to-nation basis, rather than the “stupid, juvenile savage” way the federal government does. And the results show: in Québec, 80% of natives still speak their language (that’s because law 101 ALSO protects native languages) as opposed to less than 20% in Canada. We also deal with their traditional social structures, rather than the sham democracy that is imposed by Ottawa, and who elects corrupt, unaccountable band councils.
We also let natives administer Justice as they see fit, so, unlike Canada, we do not have a high native jail population.
But you don’t have to take my word for it; go to Moonsonee (or Attawapiskat), Ontario, and ask the Crees who live there if they would rather live in Québec…
deathtokoalas
see, this is skewed so many ways that i don't see any point in bothering. it's political whitewashing. but, as i pointed out, there's a reason for it.
at the start of the colonial period, the various native american groups were broadly more interested in using western technology to defeat their ancestral enemies than they were in defeating the invaders. european powers took advantage of this. but, a big part of understanding how colonialism in north america was possible lies in understanding that they have a very different cultural concept of property rights - the truth is that they didn't really see westerners as invaders because they didn't conceive of themselves as owners of the land. rather, they conceived of themselves as users of the land; it would not have made sense to them to try and stop others from using the land. there were treaties of friendship and land use signed with both early english settlers and early french settlers; neither the french nor the english held to these treaties particularly strongly. today, they're both under the interpretation of the same court system.
despite the complexity of the history, the broad truth is that the various native groups often found themselves aligned with imperial interests against the interests of the colonies. that is broadly true across the continent, and the broadest way to understand the nature of conflict in the period, and continuing to today.
so, for example, you saw the major native groups align with the french imperial interests against british settlers in the seven years war, but then you saw those same groups align with the british crown against american settlers during the revolutionary war. one of the reasons for the revolutionary war was a ban by the british crown on expansion westwards, in recognition of the sovereignty of the existing tribes. and, one of the reasons for the signing of the treaties in western canada was protection from american expansion.
what you're saying about treaty rights is simple nonsense - both in legal terms and historical terms. the single most violent colonial body in the history of canada was the francophone catholic church. there are some french-canadian metis (mixed) groups, but there are also english, scottish and ukrainian metis groups, amongst others.
quebec really needs to come to terms with it's participation in settler colonialism, rather than continue to deny the reality of it.
god, my brain hurts.
you know what? i know where the baltics are. i can identify each of them on a map. i know their capital cities. i know which language groups their dominant ethnicities fall into. and, i even know a fair bit of their history.
but, i don't have a favourite one. because that's really NOT a thing.
well, maybe prussia. it's them hats. but that would be a confusing answer.
i don't have a favourite balkan, favourite korea or favourite caribbean island, either.
i really hope the stupidity stops, soon. the canadian media is making fox news look insightful, right now.
this isn't tabloid quality journalism. it's closer to onion quality journalism.
...and it's sinking the conservatives to an ontario pc party level of amateurism. suddenly, they're more humorous than scary.
do they really think people can't work this out? really?
globalnews.ca/news/2409408/baltics-a-thing-because-its-2015/
Jane tow
Good for you Jessica, you sound like a very intelligent young lady. I hope one day you are PM!!
jessica amber murray
that's a good laugh.
maybe i should address this point. i've been rambling enough places that i think i have a passive audience. just a feeling. maybe paranoia, maybe solipsism - but maybe accurate. it's at least as likely, really, isn't it?
the idea of me running for office right now is really something that ought to be explained in the terms of a comic strip, with hilarious hijinks leading to total failure along the way. but, even if it weren't such an outrageously ludicrous proposition, the reality is that i wish my focus was 100% on music production at the moment. hear me out on this.
so, i've been dealing with radio interference in my head phones since july. since then, canada has been through an election and i've been kind of vocal about it. but, it was totally by the accident that my system was malfunctioning, and i had absolutely no idea why.
it took me forever to figure it out. first, i had to check things like drivers and system files, as it's the most likely option. that took months to rule out entirely, and i wasn't helped by the fact that i had two sets of headphones, both, it turns out, with shorts. so, every time i checked for issues with the phones, it was always "either the equipment is faulty, or both my phones are faulty.". and, you always take the odds on that gamble - you always say the equipment is faulty.
but, then i finally realized it had to be electrical. so, you have to check everything that could be creating interference. in a room full of gear, that's a nightmare. eventually, i realized that i was getting the same noise out of an mp3 player as i was getting out of the grid - indicating that the interference had to be in the air, as the mp3 player is not connected to the grid.
so, then i had to check to see how far i could go with this interference, realizing it has boundaries that are blocks away - meaning the interference is broadly environmental, and not coming from inside the unit. but, in the process i found the short in one pair of the phones. then, maybe both pairs had shorts, after all.
so, i think the shorts in my phones are interacting with the environmental field to turn my phones into radio antennas, and i'm picking up the local am radio signals. this isn't creating the sound of a radio station, it's just making the audio sound like am radio - kind of jagged and rough at the edges.
it turns out i can block the radio signals relatively well using tinfoil.
but, it took me six long months of experiments to get me this far. and, i'd never had taken the time to ramble on the internet, if it weren't to vent frustration about not knowing why i can't be done mixing this project by now.
that said, i might think about it. one day. in the exceedingly distant future. under certain unlikely conditions. so, it's not likely. but note that i have thought about how unlikely it is on more than one occasion.
you know what? i know where the baltics are. i can identify each of them on a map. i know their capital cities. i know which language groups their dominant ethnicities fall into. and, i even know a fair bit of their history.
but, i don't have a favourite one. because that's really NOT a thing.
well, maybe prussia. it's them hats. but that would be a confusing answer.
i don't have a favourite balkan, favourite korea or favourite caribbean island, either.
i really hope the stupidity stops, soon. the canadian media is making fox news look insightful, right now.
this isn't tabloid quality journalism. it's closer to onion quality journalism.
...and it's sinking the conservatives to an ontario pc party level of amateurism. suddenly, they're more humorous than scary.
do they really think people can't work this out? really?
globalnews.ca/news/2409408/baltics-a-thing-because-its-2015/
Jane tow
Good for you Jessica, you sound like a very intelligent young lady. I hope one day you are PM!!
jessica amber murray
that's a good laugh.
maybe i should address this point. i've been rambling enough places that i think i have a passive audience. just a feeling. maybe paranoia, maybe solipsism - but maybe accurate. it's at least as likely, really, isn't it?
the idea of me running for office right now is really something that ought to be explained in the terms of a comic strip, with hilarious hijinks leading to total failure along the way. but, even if it weren't such an outrageously ludicrous proposition, the reality is that i wish my focus was 100% on music production at the moment. hear me out on this.
so, i've been dealing with radio interference in my head phones since july. since then, canada has been through an election and i've been kind of vocal about it. but, it was totally by the accident that my system was malfunctioning, and i had absolutely no idea why.
it took me forever to figure it out. first, i had to check things like drivers and system files, as it's the most likely option. that took months to rule out entirely, and i wasn't helped by the fact that i had two sets of headphones, both, it turns out, with shorts. so, every time i checked for issues with the phones, it was always "either the equipment is faulty, or both my phones are faulty.". and, you always take the odds on that gamble - you always say the equipment is faulty.
but, then i finally realized it had to be electrical. so, you have to check everything that could be creating interference. in a room full of gear, that's a nightmare. eventually, i realized that i was getting the same noise out of an mp3 player as i was getting out of the grid - indicating that the interference had to be in the air, as the mp3 player is not connected to the grid.
so, then i had to check to see how far i could go with this interference, realizing it has boundaries that are blocks away - meaning the interference is broadly environmental, and not coming from inside the unit. but, in the process i found the short in one pair of the phones. then, maybe both pairs had shorts, after all.
so, i think the shorts in my phones are interacting with the environmental field to turn my phones into radio antennas, and i'm picking up the local am radio signals. this isn't creating the sound of a radio station, it's just making the audio sound like am radio - kind of jagged and rough at the edges.
it turns out i can block the radio signals relatively well using tinfoil.
but, it took me six long months of experiments to get me this far. and, i'd never had taken the time to ramble on the internet, if it weren't to vent frustration about not knowing why i can't be done mixing this project by now.
that said, i might think about it. one day. in the exceedingly distant future. under certain unlikely conditions. so, it's not likely. but note that i have thought about how unlikely it is on more than one occasion.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
finalizing there is definitely something wrong with ironic hipster homophobia
ok.
so, i still don't know if the ultimate problem here is the short or the interference, but i've found a short on the left side of my phones. and, i'm not sure if it's in the cord or in the phones, either.
i know that an extra bit of foil around the connector between the cable and the phones seems to have me fully shielded.
i am finalizing track four, as of right now. it hasn't been altered since june.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/there-is-definitely-something-wrong-with-ironic-hipster-homophobia
so, i still don't know if the ultimate problem here is the short or the interference, but i've found a short on the left side of my phones. and, i'm not sure if it's in the cord or in the phones, either.
i know that an extra bit of foil around the connector between the cable and the phones seems to have me fully shielded.
i am finalizing track four, as of right now. it hasn't been altered since june.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/there-is-definitely-something-wrong-with-ironic-hipster-homophobia
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)