https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
the reason that trump is the best choice for the republicans is that he has a legitimate chance of swinging partisan democrats - those traditionally working class, union-stiff types (mostly white) that are, today, kind of irked about their employment prospects, and may end up preferring trump's analysis over sanders', god bless their uneducated souls.
Daniel65
Buying Sun newspapers was a waste of money. It's a right wing rag that the general public ignores.
jessica murray
actually, i think shutting down the sun chain - if that's what this works out as - is the greatest thing to happen to canadian journalism since the internet.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/postmedia-job-cuts-1.3410497
Buying Sun newspapers was a waste of money. It's a right wing rag that the general public ignores.
jessica murray
actually, i think shutting down the sun chain - if that's what this works out as - is the greatest thing to happen to canadian journalism since the internet.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/postmedia-job-cuts-1.3410497
a quarter of a percent cut will not have any effect on anything or anyone at all.
well, that's not completely true. it will reduce interest on the debt.
just keep it above zero, please.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-advancer-1.3408694
well, that's not completely true. it will reduce interest on the debt.
just keep it above zero, please.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-advancer-1.3408694
i think this guy might be missing the idea that the attacks are ironic - sounds kind of like what we've been hearing *from* alberta directed at the rest of the country for decades now, doesn't it?
pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, alberta. quit yer whining, too.
maybe it would do them some good to freeze in the dark for a little bit. take them down a notch.
it's truly honestly hard to care - because they've simply never reciprocated.
the best introduction to reciprocal altruism that i'm aware of is a film by dawkins, although i cannot recall the name of it. alberta has been playing a losing strategy. and, it's just catching up to it.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/letter-from-oilpatch-worker-to-trudeau-incites-backlash-1.3410343
pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, alberta. quit yer whining, too.
maybe it would do them some good to freeze in the dark for a little bit. take them down a notch.
it's truly honestly hard to care - because they've simply never reciprocated.
the best introduction to reciprocal altruism that i'm aware of is a film by dawkins, although i cannot recall the name of it. alberta has been playing a losing strategy. and, it's just catching up to it.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/letter-from-oilpatch-worker-to-trudeau-incites-backlash-1.3410343
see, i don't...
can a conservative explain to me why you want to be at this meeting?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-not-invited-isis-paris-meeting-1.3409420
Kopaja _Avenger
I'm not a conservative but I'll try to explain. Being in that room actually allows Canada to sway the group to a plan that actually may work. If we are not in the room we cant tell others why the agreed to plan may fail or garner opposite to desired results (which keeps on happening).
jessica murray
yeah, you're not a conservative - you're too naive.
imrighton
It should be obvious but then you ask that a "conservative" give you an explanation. So you are no doubt a Lib partisan playing dumb.
We are engaged in a war Jessica. Our allies are holding important strategic, planning sessions. We aren't invited. Decisions will be made affecting our military operations and Canada won't have a say. We have been sent to the kid's table.
jessica murray
well, no. i've been over this many times. i'm many degrees to the left of the liberal party.
you're not really answering the question: why, exactly, do you want to be involved in this war?
i mean, from my perspective it was more like we were stuck in something we couldn't get out of. we didn't really have the choice of withdrawal. if the americans are going to give us that option, i'd say we should jump at it.
can a conservative explain to me why you want to be at this meeting?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-not-invited-isis-paris-meeting-1.3409420
Kopaja _Avenger
I'm not a conservative but I'll try to explain. Being in that room actually allows Canada to sway the group to a plan that actually may work. If we are not in the room we cant tell others why the agreed to plan may fail or garner opposite to desired results (which keeps on happening).
jessica murray
yeah, you're not a conservative - you're too naive.
imrighton
It should be obvious but then you ask that a "conservative" give you an explanation. So you are no doubt a Lib partisan playing dumb.
We are engaged in a war Jessica. Our allies are holding important strategic, planning sessions. We aren't invited. Decisions will be made affecting our military operations and Canada won't have a say. We have been sent to the kid's table.
jessica murray
well, no. i've been over this many times. i'm many degrees to the left of the liberal party.
you're not really answering the question: why, exactly, do you want to be involved in this war?
i mean, from my perspective it was more like we were stuck in something we couldn't get out of. we didn't really have the choice of withdrawal. if the americans are going to give us that option, i'd say we should jump at it.
this is a great example of how clueless the media is.
rate cuts have to be really big to affect the economy. if you want to buy a house, are you going to change your mind because the interest rate is a quarter of a percent lower? if it even *is*? there's no guarantee that the central bank changing it's inter-bank lending rate will have any effect on interest rates that you or i have to deal with. that's still an external market. and, if you weren't thinking about buying a house, is a quarter of a percent going to make you jump at it?
a three-five percent change might make you change your mind. a 0.25% change? it's like it didn't even happen, right.
the bank knows that. the government knows that. economists know that. it's only the media that doesn't know this.
so, why do this?
the answer is that the government is about to create a lot of debt through stimulus spending. that's actually not bad, either, because the economy is dead - although see my recent repost on keynes for some healthy skepticism. but, if you're going to create a lot of debt, it is optimal to do so in an environment with minimal interest rates - because then you're paying less interest on the debt.
the article says nothing about this. you won't find one that does. it says something about not needing to cut rates because of the stimulus spending. which is total fucking derp derp derp.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-advancer-1.3408694
rate cuts have to be really big to affect the economy. if you want to buy a house, are you going to change your mind because the interest rate is a quarter of a percent lower? if it even *is*? there's no guarantee that the central bank changing it's inter-bank lending rate will have any effect on interest rates that you or i have to deal with. that's still an external market. and, if you weren't thinking about buying a house, is a quarter of a percent going to make you jump at it?
a three-five percent change might make you change your mind. a 0.25% change? it's like it didn't even happen, right.
the bank knows that. the government knows that. economists know that. it's only the media that doesn't know this.
so, why do this?
the answer is that the government is about to create a lot of debt through stimulus spending. that's actually not bad, either, because the economy is dead - although see my recent repost on keynes for some healthy skepticism. but, if you're going to create a lot of debt, it is optimal to do so in an environment with minimal interest rates - because then you're paying less interest on the debt.
the article says nothing about this. you won't find one that does. it says something about not needing to cut rates because of the stimulus spending. which is total fucking derp derp derp.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-advancer-1.3408694
what are the oscars? what do they measure? what does it mean when somebody gets an oscar?
jada seems to be approaching the issue from the same lens as kayne was - that the oscars actually legitimately reflect excellency in the field of acting. so, to get an oscar is a form of recognition for that excellence. jada seems to be upset for the same reason as kanye, which is also the same reason nicki minaj was upset - they felt they produced something excellent and they should be acknowledged for that excellence. they think they won the talent show, kind of thing, and it's an injustice that they are (or their preferred choice is) being ignored.
(audience laughter)
vivian, here, seems to be taking a different perspective - namely that the oscars are a kind of promotional tool, and should be awarded not based on total excellency but on more of a needs-based basis. that is, they should go to the actors that demonstrate the best potential and need the most exposure. to vivian, the oscars should be used as a way to establish a career.
their different deductions come from their different perspectives.
if you think the oscars are all about massaging your own ego, it follows that they should only go to established icons - and so it must be all about acknowledgement. the obvious racial biases that exist across all american institutions become a clear reason to boycott the institution; because, from that perspective, it is truly all about reaching the top of a hierarchy. yet, if you think the oscars are to be seen as a launching pad that has little reflection on actual performance or actual talent, then that logic makes no sense - winning an oscar is just another public relations tactic.
so, who is right?
i'm leaning towards vivian. but, not because the oscars are racist; rather, because the oscars have no artistic credibility. if they had any credibility at all, i would agree with jada. but, they don't. so, i agree with vivian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9eY-kKXBnQ
jada seems to be approaching the issue from the same lens as kayne was - that the oscars actually legitimately reflect excellency in the field of acting. so, to get an oscar is a form of recognition for that excellence. jada seems to be upset for the same reason as kanye, which is also the same reason nicki minaj was upset - they felt they produced something excellent and they should be acknowledged for that excellence. they think they won the talent show, kind of thing, and it's an injustice that they are (or their preferred choice is) being ignored.
(audience laughter)
vivian, here, seems to be taking a different perspective - namely that the oscars are a kind of promotional tool, and should be awarded not based on total excellency but on more of a needs-based basis. that is, they should go to the actors that demonstrate the best potential and need the most exposure. to vivian, the oscars should be used as a way to establish a career.
their different deductions come from their different perspectives.
if you think the oscars are all about massaging your own ego, it follows that they should only go to established icons - and so it must be all about acknowledgement. the obvious racial biases that exist across all american institutions become a clear reason to boycott the institution; because, from that perspective, it is truly all about reaching the top of a hierarchy. yet, if you think the oscars are to be seen as a launching pad that has little reflection on actual performance or actual talent, then that logic makes no sense - winning an oscar is just another public relations tactic.
so, who is right?
i'm leaning towards vivian. but, not because the oscars are racist; rather, because the oscars have no artistic credibility. if they had any credibility at all, i would agree with jada. but, they don't. so, i agree with vivian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9eY-kKXBnQ
it is often stated that, as individuals, we produce a large amount of trash.
i'm calling bullshit on this claim. that is to say that i don't believe i create much of any trash at all. extrapolating, it would be completely inaccurate to shoulder the trash-generation burden upon all of us equally, or suggest we are all equally culpable. the truth is more along the lines of that a very small percentage of people produce an absolutely astounding amount of trash. we should be focusing on the culprits and coercing and ostracizing them to behave more responsibly as individuals, not socializing the responsibility.
to demonstrate my claim, i am going to record how long it takes for me to fill a shopping bag full of trash. it's just your standard shopping bag. and it's just every day trash.
i believe that it will take me at least a year to fill this bag worth of trash. so, how much am i *actually* adding to the landfill this year? less than a shopping bag's worth of highly compressible plastic...
that is, almost nothing at all. if i can do it, you can do it too!
i'm calling bullshit on this claim. that is to say that i don't believe i create much of any trash at all. extrapolating, it would be completely inaccurate to shoulder the trash-generation burden upon all of us equally, or suggest we are all equally culpable. the truth is more along the lines of that a very small percentage of people produce an absolutely astounding amount of trash. we should be focusing on the culprits and coercing and ostracizing them to behave more responsibly as individuals, not socializing the responsibility.
to demonstrate my claim, i am going to record how long it takes for me to fill a shopping bag full of trash. it's just your standard shopping bag. and it's just every day trash.
i believe that it will take me at least a year to fill this bag worth of trash. so, how much am i *actually* adding to the landfill this year? less than a shopping bag's worth of highly compressible plastic...
that is, almost nothing at all. if i can do it, you can do it too!
Monday, January 18, 2016
so, is it still not winter yet?
cold snap 1:
jan 3: +0.9/-4.3
jan 4: -3.6/-11.4
jan 5: -2.4/ -13.2
jan 6: +1.9/-6.8
and, that -11.4 was late on the 4th and the -13.2 was early on the 5th, so we actually only got a few hours of cold weather. that's an autumn cold snap. most generously, this is four days - not the five required to define a winter.
cold snap 2:
jan 10: +5.4/-7.3
jan 11: -7.3/-12.1
jan 12: -2.9/-9.2
jan 13: -8.5/-11.1
jan 14: 0.5/-8.2
so, this was a more extended period of cold. but, it did not produce a snow cover (there was a dusting of snow that disappeared in the rain storm we got right after). and, it's still not a solid 5 days of cold - although it is very close. this is still late autumn weather, not winter weather. remember: this is canada. we need stringent definitions of sustained cold, not just a cold snap.
cold snap 3:
jan 16: +3.3/-1.2
jan 17: -1.2/-11.9
jan 18: cold
jan 19: cold
jan 20: cold
jan 21: warming up
we'll have to see. it's shaping up to be very close. and, if you take the broader view from the 10th-25th, it could be seen as a two-week period of winter.
but, the long range after the 21st suggests a very early spring.
i may have to concede the point on the length of cold snap #3. but, it will be very close. and, i'm not there yet.
cold snap 1:
jan 3: +0.9/-4.3
jan 4: -3.6/-11.4
jan 5: -2.4/ -13.2
jan 6: +1.9/-6.8
and, that -11.4 was late on the 4th and the -13.2 was early on the 5th, so we actually only got a few hours of cold weather. that's an autumn cold snap. most generously, this is four days - not the five required to define a winter.
cold snap 2:
jan 10: +5.4/-7.3
jan 11: -7.3/-12.1
jan 12: -2.9/-9.2
jan 13: -8.5/-11.1
jan 14: 0.5/-8.2
so, this was a more extended period of cold. but, it did not produce a snow cover (there was a dusting of snow that disappeared in the rain storm we got right after). and, it's still not a solid 5 days of cold - although it is very close. this is still late autumn weather, not winter weather. remember: this is canada. we need stringent definitions of sustained cold, not just a cold snap.
cold snap 3:
jan 16: +3.3/-1.2
jan 17: -1.2/-11.9
jan 18: cold
jan 19: cold
jan 20: cold
jan 21: warming up
we'll have to see. it's shaping up to be very close. and, if you take the broader view from the 10th-25th, it could be seen as a two-week period of winter.
but, the long range after the 21st suggests a very early spring.
i may have to concede the point on the length of cold snap #3. but, it will be very close. and, i'm not there yet.
it's actually a relatively understood phenomenon. it's not really that the tiger is lonely, tigers do tend to live alone in the wild, and more that dropping a goat in plain sight isn't setting off it's instincts to hunt. further, tigers are advanced mammals and consequently relatively smart creatures - it no doubt was able to compute that the stream of food was constant. so, you put those things together and what you get is something more along the lines of the idea that the tiger is *bored*.
but, it only explains half of the issue. i have somewhat of a hunch that the tiger may soon try and mate with the goat. that might be what's actually going on.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/tiger-and-his-prey-form-an-unlikely-friendship/62466/
but, it only explains half of the issue. i have somewhat of a hunch that the tiger may soon try and mate with the goat. that might be what's actually going on.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/tiger-and-his-prey-form-an-unlikely-friendship/62466/
Dec 26, 2011
bookmark these links. they have everything you need to prove the 'kerosene can't melt steel' folks wrong.
the key point of error on their behalf is that they're trying to use the melting point of steel, which is when steel turns into liquid, as a reference point. it is true that kerosene will not liquify steel. but, you don't have to liquify steel to make it incapable of holding up tonnes and tonnes worth of mass. clearly? all you have to do is soften it up. think that through, it's obvious.
that means that they shouldn't be focusing on the melting point but on something called the critical point, which is a well defined engineering term. the critical point of steel is not absolute. thinking like that misunderstands what the term means. the critical point refers to a building, not a material. so, you ask what the critical point of a steel beam in a building is, and that depends on the weight that the building needs to hold up. more weight, lower critical point. there's a nice graph in the pdf that shows that it's as low as 200 C for very heavy loads.
that means that they're wrong. kerosene can burn plenty hot to get past the critical point.
http://dubious-maxims.blogspot.com/2006/08/kerosene-wont-melt-steel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel - Fire_resistance
www.lmc.ep.usp.br/people/valdir/wp-content/artigos/jbsmse.pdf
bookmark these links. they have everything you need to prove the 'kerosene can't melt steel' folks wrong.
the key point of error on their behalf is that they're trying to use the melting point of steel, which is when steel turns into liquid, as a reference point. it is true that kerosene will not liquify steel. but, you don't have to liquify steel to make it incapable of holding up tonnes and tonnes worth of mass. clearly? all you have to do is soften it up. think that through, it's obvious.
that means that they shouldn't be focusing on the melting point but on something called the critical point, which is a well defined engineering term. the critical point of steel is not absolute. thinking like that misunderstands what the term means. the critical point refers to a building, not a material. so, you ask what the critical point of a steel beam in a building is, and that depends on the weight that the building needs to hold up. more weight, lower critical point. there's a nice graph in the pdf that shows that it's as low as 200 C for very heavy loads.
that means that they're wrong. kerosene can burn plenty hot to get past the critical point.
http://dubious-maxims.blogspot.com/2006/08/kerosene-wont-melt-steel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel - Fire_resistance
www.lmc.ep.usp.br/people/valdir/wp-content/artigos/jbsmse.pdf
nov 28, 2011
didn't i say something about this yesterday? solipsism alert...
i've rambled about this before, but not here. the major flaw in modern economics - and, yes, i started with mankiw's horrendous text - is that it repeatedly assigns causal relations based on theory rather than experiment. to call that flunkie science would be being nice.
those nice little graphs where you take an intersection point back and forth are mostly complete nonsense from a scientific perspective because there aren't studies to back them up, just supposedly pristine logic.
a perfect example of the flawed causal relations is the idea that cutting taxes increases jobs. i'm not the first person that's pointed this out, but maybe it's less realized that the discipline routinely produces arguments that are equally causally terrible. and, it's as a causal relation that these things are presented, as though there's some physical force in the universe that is as powerful as any magnetic force that demands that one necessarily leads to the other.
in reality, it's a bad argument based on utopian caricatures of human nature. in fact, dozens of the causal relations presented are....
it's admittedly hard to do experiments in economics. but, data is slowly building. and, when it does, the unsettling conclusion is going to be that they don't even have correlation, let alone causality.
our system of economics is really in an incredibly primitive aristotlian stage of philosophy. we need a newton to reform the system into a science, and then an einstein to actually understand it.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/98/new-spirit-economics.html
didn't i say something about this yesterday? solipsism alert...
i've rambled about this before, but not here. the major flaw in modern economics - and, yes, i started with mankiw's horrendous text - is that it repeatedly assigns causal relations based on theory rather than experiment. to call that flunkie science would be being nice.
those nice little graphs where you take an intersection point back and forth are mostly complete nonsense from a scientific perspective because there aren't studies to back them up, just supposedly pristine logic.
a perfect example of the flawed causal relations is the idea that cutting taxes increases jobs. i'm not the first person that's pointed this out, but maybe it's less realized that the discipline routinely produces arguments that are equally causally terrible. and, it's as a causal relation that these things are presented, as though there's some physical force in the universe that is as powerful as any magnetic force that demands that one necessarily leads to the other.
in reality, it's a bad argument based on utopian caricatures of human nature. in fact, dozens of the causal relations presented are....
it's admittedly hard to do experiments in economics. but, data is slowly building. and, when it does, the unsettling conclusion is going to be that they don't even have correlation, let alone causality.
our system of economics is really in an incredibly primitive aristotlian stage of philosophy. we need a newton to reform the system into a science, and then an einstein to actually understand it.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/98/new-spirit-economics.html
sept 6, 2011
"but you didn't even sign kyoto!"
"sure we did."
"ok. but, you didn't implement it."
"well, we were studying it."
"and how long were you going to study it?"
"until we could come up with an economically feasible solution. you know, the economy is important. we are the british liberal party."
"ok, but if we don't have a clean world we can live in, growth won't mean much, will it?"
"we agree. but, we weren't willing to act in ways that would ravage the economy. we had to try and find a way that would balance both of these concerns."
"you took too long, so long that it seemed like you weren't doing anything."
"but, we were doing something. we had all kinds of commissions set up and they wrote all kinds of reports for parliament. that's how our system works."
"we need action now and can't wait for this."
"then you should join us. we have mountains of reports, now. we have plans...you have ideas, too. we can work together."
"you will ask us to compromise too much."
"the truth is that you don't have a choice. you can risk joining us and accomplishing nothing, or you can continue on with the certainty of accomplishing nothing."
"but you didn't even sign kyoto!"
"sure we did."
"ok. but, you didn't implement it."
"well, we were studying it."
"and how long were you going to study it?"
"until we could come up with an economically feasible solution. you know, the economy is important. we are the british liberal party."
"ok, but if we don't have a clean world we can live in, growth won't mean much, will it?"
"we agree. but, we weren't willing to act in ways that would ravage the economy. we had to try and find a way that would balance both of these concerns."
"you took too long, so long that it seemed like you weren't doing anything."
"but, we were doing something. we had all kinds of commissions set up and they wrote all kinds of reports for parliament. that's how our system works."
"we need action now and can't wait for this."
"then you should join us. we have mountains of reports, now. we have plans...you have ideas, too. we can work together."
"you will ask us to compromise too much."
"the truth is that you don't have a choice. you can risk joining us and accomplishing nothing, or you can continue on with the certainty of accomplishing nothing."
sept 4, 2011
yes, i was rooting for clinton in '08. exclusively. barry struck me as a conservative from day one.
of course, i'm from canada. bernie sanders would be a moderate up here.
i remember watching hillary on tv when i was a kid. i remember the work she did with trying to get some health reform through.
...and she struck me as genuine. real.
are we talking about the same hillary clinton?
we actually might not be.
regardless, those images stuck in my mind. i conceive of her as a fighter, somebody with a conscience, and that's rare in politics.
are we talking about the same hillary?
we actually might not be.
she didn't even hold an office at the time, besides that of first lady. yet, she was spending all of her time trying to get humanitarian legislation pushed through congress, feed starving kids and end wars. why? for her legacy? her husband's? it didn't seem that way, and i don't think it was. it seemed like she was just driven by a desire for positive change.
...and that's very rare in politics.
are we talking about the same hillary?
actually...
(edit: i just love that i pulled out bernie sanders, of all the people i could have picked. i could have picked kucinich, for example.
it's true, though.
in canada, obama would be widely seen as a conservative, hillary would be seen as a right-wing liberal and bernie sanders would be pretty much dead center. in fact, jill stein would be barely left of center.)
yes, i was rooting for clinton in '08. exclusively. barry struck me as a conservative from day one.
of course, i'm from canada. bernie sanders would be a moderate up here.
i remember watching hillary on tv when i was a kid. i remember the work she did with trying to get some health reform through.
...and she struck me as genuine. real.
are we talking about the same hillary clinton?
we actually might not be.
regardless, those images stuck in my mind. i conceive of her as a fighter, somebody with a conscience, and that's rare in politics.
are we talking about the same hillary?
we actually might not be.
she didn't even hold an office at the time, besides that of first lady. yet, she was spending all of her time trying to get humanitarian legislation pushed through congress, feed starving kids and end wars. why? for her legacy? her husband's? it didn't seem that way, and i don't think it was. it seemed like she was just driven by a desire for positive change.
...and that's very rare in politics.
are we talking about the same hillary?
actually...
(edit: i just love that i pulled out bernie sanders, of all the people i could have picked. i could have picked kucinich, for example.
it's true, though.
in canada, obama would be widely seen as a conservative, hillary would be seen as a right-wing liberal and bernie sanders would be pretty much dead center. in fact, jill stein would be barely left of center.)
aug 13, 2011
i'm breaking with keynes, but it's not because i think he was wrong, although i've never been in absolute agreement in the first place, nor am i adopting austrian or marxist economic theory. what i think is that the world has changed and that keynes' theory is no longer realistic. i don't have an answer, but let me provide a more realistic example of what happens to stimulus money:
joe, who has been unemployed for six months and is now deeply in debt, gets a job from the government digging ditches. he takes his first pay check and gives half to the bank. he spends the other half buying necessities at walmart.
when he pays his rent, it goes to an offshore property holding company. when he buys gas, it goes to a foreign-owned cartel. when he pays his utilities, it goes to a trans-national corporation.
the end result is that the amount of money in circulation is not being increased. the shop keeper or the local mechanic don't have more money to spend because they're now all salaried employees of large corporations. they don't get wage increases from stimulus that's for sure! so, in actuality, nobody has more money to spend and the theory collapses. stimulus today is really just a handout to banks and big business. it's almost like another kind of corporate subsidy.
that doesn't mean keynes was wrong, it just means that his theory is only applicable within a society that is dominated by independent businesses, which is not our society.
if we want keynes' theory to work, we'll have to go back to independent contractors and a society where money changes hand person to person, not person to organization.
if we want to maintain a corporatist system of government and large, centralized manufacturing conglomerates then we need to find a different approach to getting money circulating again.
what we have right now are these banks and massive corporate institutions acting like giant money vacuums, sucking up every cent, acting as incredible blocks on circulation.
whatever solution we come up with is going to have be rooted in stopping these institutions from taking all of the money out of circulation and it's probably going to have to be radical: inflation adjusted pay rates, personal debt forgiveness, incredible corporate tax hikes, mandated charitable contributions, societal salary caps....
harsh truth, world: keynesian policy worked pretty well under capitalism. it doesn't work anymore because we don't have capitalism anymore.
....so, bring back capitalism or build an economic theory based on corporatism, which is neither market fundamentalist (austrian) nor socialist. they won't work in this system, either...
applying a theory for a capitalist system to a corporatist state is always going to fail.
it's not and never has been a question of which theory is "best", "right" or "correct". this is economics, not religion. the question is which theory is most applicable to the reality around us, and that's going to change as the systems change. it's dynamic...
to my knowledge, there isn't really a valid fascist economic theory, but we're quickly coming up on the choice between writing one and revolutionizing society to a system where a theory does exist.
i'm not denying the multiplier effect in theory if applied to a closed economy that is dominated by independent actors, but i don't think a local multiplier effect can apply in a global market defined by free trade agreements that is dominated by massive transnational corporations and nearly static pay rates, especially not in a market that produces nearly nothing. i also think the barriers to circulation are not rooted in government policy but in the private sector and that the more important goal is to reform corporate practices through government; de-regulation has been a part of the cause of this problem, and furthering it is not a solution to it.
i'm not swinging right, i'm just concluding that the world we live in bears almost no resemblance to the one that keynes lived in.
in fact, i'd even go so far as to state it bluntly: one of the consequences of the adoption of global free trade agreements is the collapse of keynesian economic theory, and that didn't really start happening until the 80s. if we're going to have global free trade, we're going to have to leave keynes behind.
the idea that walmart, gap and guess are going to put 90% of what they get back into the economy is absurd. the workers don't see a dime from increased demand, and what the companies do invest, they invest in asia. the result is just a trickling-up and out....
i'm breaking with keynes, but it's not because i think he was wrong, although i've never been in absolute agreement in the first place, nor am i adopting austrian or marxist economic theory. what i think is that the world has changed and that keynes' theory is no longer realistic. i don't have an answer, but let me provide a more realistic example of what happens to stimulus money:
joe, who has been unemployed for six months and is now deeply in debt, gets a job from the government digging ditches. he takes his first pay check and gives half to the bank. he spends the other half buying necessities at walmart.
when he pays his rent, it goes to an offshore property holding company. when he buys gas, it goes to a foreign-owned cartel. when he pays his utilities, it goes to a trans-national corporation.
the end result is that the amount of money in circulation is not being increased. the shop keeper or the local mechanic don't have more money to spend because they're now all salaried employees of large corporations. they don't get wage increases from stimulus that's for sure! so, in actuality, nobody has more money to spend and the theory collapses. stimulus today is really just a handout to banks and big business. it's almost like another kind of corporate subsidy.
that doesn't mean keynes was wrong, it just means that his theory is only applicable within a society that is dominated by independent businesses, which is not our society.
if we want keynes' theory to work, we'll have to go back to independent contractors and a society where money changes hand person to person, not person to organization.
if we want to maintain a corporatist system of government and large, centralized manufacturing conglomerates then we need to find a different approach to getting money circulating again.
what we have right now are these banks and massive corporate institutions acting like giant money vacuums, sucking up every cent, acting as incredible blocks on circulation.
whatever solution we come up with is going to have be rooted in stopping these institutions from taking all of the money out of circulation and it's probably going to have to be radical: inflation adjusted pay rates, personal debt forgiveness, incredible corporate tax hikes, mandated charitable contributions, societal salary caps....
harsh truth, world: keynesian policy worked pretty well under capitalism. it doesn't work anymore because we don't have capitalism anymore.
....so, bring back capitalism or build an economic theory based on corporatism, which is neither market fundamentalist (austrian) nor socialist. they won't work in this system, either...
applying a theory for a capitalist system to a corporatist state is always going to fail.
it's not and never has been a question of which theory is "best", "right" or "correct". this is economics, not religion. the question is which theory is most applicable to the reality around us, and that's going to change as the systems change. it's dynamic...
to my knowledge, there isn't really a valid fascist economic theory, but we're quickly coming up on the choice between writing one and revolutionizing society to a system where a theory does exist.
i'm not denying the multiplier effect in theory if applied to a closed economy that is dominated by independent actors, but i don't think a local multiplier effect can apply in a global market defined by free trade agreements that is dominated by massive transnational corporations and nearly static pay rates, especially not in a market that produces nearly nothing. i also think the barriers to circulation are not rooted in government policy but in the private sector and that the more important goal is to reform corporate practices through government; de-regulation has been a part of the cause of this problem, and furthering it is not a solution to it.
i'm not swinging right, i'm just concluding that the world we live in bears almost no resemblance to the one that keynes lived in.
in fact, i'd even go so far as to state it bluntly: one of the consequences of the adoption of global free trade agreements is the collapse of keynesian economic theory, and that didn't really start happening until the 80s. if we're going to have global free trade, we're going to have to leave keynes behind.
the idea that walmart, gap and guess are going to put 90% of what they get back into the economy is absurd. the workers don't see a dime from increased demand, and what the companies do invest, they invest in asia. the result is just a trickling-up and out....
Sunday, January 17, 2016
aug 2, 2011
what i've learned from watching the debt deal play out is that the ideal in a democracy is to have three parties, not two, and have the one in the centre in power as often as possible. american democracy has actually misunderstood the dialectic.
thesis: republican
anti-thesis: democrat
synthesis: bi-partisanship.
....wrong....
thesis: right
anti-thesis: left
synthesis: centre
....correct....
if there was a left-wing force exerting pressure on obama, he wouldn't have been able to cave so spectacularly. as it is right now, there's no consequences attached to his behaviour. there's no other option to support..
when you have only two actors on the stage, it's not a dialectic, it's a power struggle. you need three for a dialectic to occur.
starting a new party from scratch will never work. the democrats need to fracture. Progressive Democrats of America need to leave the democratic party and start a new one.
otherwise, the power struggles will continue indefinitely, and no synthesis will ever occur.
what i've learned from watching the debt deal play out is that the ideal in a democracy is to have three parties, not two, and have the one in the centre in power as often as possible. american democracy has actually misunderstood the dialectic.
thesis: republican
anti-thesis: democrat
synthesis: bi-partisanship.
....wrong....
thesis: right
anti-thesis: left
synthesis: centre
....correct....
if there was a left-wing force exerting pressure on obama, he wouldn't have been able to cave so spectacularly. as it is right now, there's no consequences attached to his behaviour. there's no other option to support..
when you have only two actors on the stage, it's not a dialectic, it's a power struggle. you need three for a dialectic to occur.
starting a new party from scratch will never work. the democrats need to fracture. Progressive Democrats of America need to leave the democratic party and start a new one.
otherwise, the power struggles will continue indefinitely, and no synthesis will ever occur.
jan, 2012
again. what do we do with veterans? it's not safe to allow them back into our communities.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/02/mount-rainier-shooting.html?cmp=rss
year over year, veterans kill many times more people than terrorists.
this happens over and over and over again.
just stop them from coming back, already.
again. what do we do with veterans? it's not safe to allow them back into our communities.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/02/mount-rainier-shooting.html?cmp=rss
year over year, veterans kill many times more people than terrorists.
this happens over and over and over again.
just stop them from coming back, already.
jan 11 2012
don't bring the troops home. i don't want them here.
send them to the arctic, or something.
you want to bring this home? give it a nice pension? take care of it?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/home-j23.shtml
that happens all the time.
they signed up for it. nobody forced them. and, it should be a one-way ticket out of the country.
don't bring the troops home. i don't want them here.
send them to the arctic, or something.
you want to bring this home? give it a nice pension? take care of it?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/home-j23.shtml
that happens all the time.
they signed up for it. nobody forced them. and, it should be a one-way ticket out of the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-activists
--
i support the injection sites. but, heroin addicts fall over and convulse. they're only a threat if they don't get their fix. alcoholics rape people and break stuff. they're a greater threat after they've had their fix.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/vancouver-group-pitches-free-booze-to-reduce-rubbing-alcohol-listerine-consumption/
--
i support the injection sites. but, heroin addicts fall over and convulse. they're only a threat if they don't get their fix. alcoholics rape people and break stuff. they're a greater threat after they've had their fix.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/vancouver-group-pitches-free-booze-to-reduce-rubbing-alcohol-listerine-consumption/
sept 19, 2012
so, this is happening, and won't somebody think of the children...
in fact, i think this is a good thing and would like to see it made permanent. hopefully, it lasts long enough that it becomes the norm. i have massive issues with the idea of the school system funding competitive sports.
first, it's competitive, which means it provokes and incites competitive behaviour. i don't want my taxes being spent on something that fosters that kind of behaviour. and, no, i don't want kids; it's not about my kids, it's about the society that i want to live in. i don't want to live in a society that pits individual against individual, team against team, glorifies the idea of 'winning' and ridicules those who 'lose'. if that's the kind of horrible world you want to raise your kids in, the very least you can do is accept responsibility for paying for it yourself. but, you should really be finding less violent ways to get your kids in shape, for the benefit of everybody.
second, we have this huge gender gap in high schools and we can't figure it out. duh? IT'S THE EMPHASIS ON SPORTS, STUPID. you take these young guys, you wake them up at 5 am, you tell them their sexuality depends on how gracefully they can handle a tree branch, you place their very worth as a human on it...and then you wonder why they don't care about school and can't do well in it. could it be that you taught them to skate but didn't teach them to read?
third is money, and i don't mean absolutely. this is a true story: in the ninth grade, they gave me a brand new football helmet, right out of the packaging. yeah, i got coerced; i told people i played left bench. but, also in the ninth grade, i didn't have a functional science textbook, not one amongst the array of battered, decade old texts. i had to keep swapping out half-texts. they were over-enrolled, i was told. does that seem reasonable to you?
sports & religion: out of schools!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/09/17/ottawa-sports-teams-high-school-deadline.html
so, this is happening, and won't somebody think of the children...
in fact, i think this is a good thing and would like to see it made permanent. hopefully, it lasts long enough that it becomes the norm. i have massive issues with the idea of the school system funding competitive sports.
first, it's competitive, which means it provokes and incites competitive behaviour. i don't want my taxes being spent on something that fosters that kind of behaviour. and, no, i don't want kids; it's not about my kids, it's about the society that i want to live in. i don't want to live in a society that pits individual against individual, team against team, glorifies the idea of 'winning' and ridicules those who 'lose'. if that's the kind of horrible world you want to raise your kids in, the very least you can do is accept responsibility for paying for it yourself. but, you should really be finding less violent ways to get your kids in shape, for the benefit of everybody.
second, we have this huge gender gap in high schools and we can't figure it out. duh? IT'S THE EMPHASIS ON SPORTS, STUPID. you take these young guys, you wake them up at 5 am, you tell them their sexuality depends on how gracefully they can handle a tree branch, you place their very worth as a human on it...and then you wonder why they don't care about school and can't do well in it. could it be that you taught them to skate but didn't teach them to read?
third is money, and i don't mean absolutely. this is a true story: in the ninth grade, they gave me a brand new football helmet, right out of the packaging. yeah, i got coerced; i told people i played left bench. but, also in the ninth grade, i didn't have a functional science textbook, not one amongst the array of battered, decade old texts. i had to keep swapping out half-texts. they were over-enrolled, i was told. does that seem reasonable to you?
sports & religion: out of schools!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/09/17/ottawa-sports-teams-high-school-deadline.html
Saturday, January 16, 2016
this story seems surreal, but i think it's representative of a generational shift. middle aged, balding people on skateboards is going to be pretty normal pretty soon.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/07/10/ottawa-skateboarder-fall-injuring-head-not-wearing-helmet.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/07/10/ottawa-skateboarder-fall-injuring-head-not-wearing-helmet.html
feb 11, 2012
i think i just finally understood why godel became a platonist. it always sort of bugged me. platonism is sort of.....insane. i sort of wrote it off as ptsd or something. lots of geniuses sort of lose it...
it's sort of intuitive to think of numbers as human constructions. abstractions, perhaps, but things that came from our own imagination. to think number has an independent existence from human thought seems sort of insane, although i've had to contemplate it when reading up on pythagoreanism. i've flirted with it, but have always rejected it. maybe the abstraction exists independently of physical existence, but that's what an abstraction *is*. where would this universe of numbers exist? it's crazy talk.
but, if there are true statements that exist outside of arithmetic then this means that the way we understand numbers is, in fact, a model of something that has an outside existence. just like the way that we understand the universe with physics is a model while the universe has an existence outside of that model.
so, if number theory is an incomplete model of something that exists without it, if number has an independent existence outside of the minds of human beings....well that's what the pythagoreans thought and what plato accepted.
yeah. ok. got it. still creates more questions than it answers, though...
what we call 'mathematics' is itself a model, a model of how numbers behave.
(edit: what that means is that what godel really did is debunk this entire line of thinking that centers around kant.
i don't think that's well understood.)
i think i just finally understood why godel became a platonist. it always sort of bugged me. platonism is sort of.....insane. i sort of wrote it off as ptsd or something. lots of geniuses sort of lose it...
it's sort of intuitive to think of numbers as human constructions. abstractions, perhaps, but things that came from our own imagination. to think number has an independent existence from human thought seems sort of insane, although i've had to contemplate it when reading up on pythagoreanism. i've flirted with it, but have always rejected it. maybe the abstraction exists independently of physical existence, but that's what an abstraction *is*. where would this universe of numbers exist? it's crazy talk.
but, if there are true statements that exist outside of arithmetic then this means that the way we understand numbers is, in fact, a model of something that has an outside existence. just like the way that we understand the universe with physics is a model while the universe has an existence outside of that model.
so, if number theory is an incomplete model of something that exists without it, if number has an independent existence outside of the minds of human beings....well that's what the pythagoreans thought and what plato accepted.
yeah. ok. got it. still creates more questions than it answers, though...
what we call 'mathematics' is itself a model, a model of how numbers behave.
(edit: what that means is that what godel really did is debunk this entire line of thinking that centers around kant.
i don't think that's well understood.)
dec 30, 2012
paywalls.
they're coming up on the most popular publications in canada in the new year, some of them are already in place, and it seems like the idea is expanding. i know a lot of people are saying they won't pay, and the papers are going to come out of this badly. while i agree, i think there are some other issues that should be addressed.
if anybody has this right, it's the new york times. they give you ten free articles a month throughout the site, then the paywall comes up. that means moderate users can get the odd article if they want it, but heavy users have to pay. yes, you can get around this very easily by deleting your cookies, but not everybody knows this; regardless of this way around the paywall, it is about as close to a fair proposal for a for-profit news site that i've yet to come across.
i've only had to delete my cookies once, and it was when i was reading up on paul krugman a little bit. but, i'd guess that, on average, i do read between five and ten articles at the new york times per month. it's not a great paper, and it certainly has a very right-of-centre bias, but it's also useful as a gateway: it's well known that they have contacts with government and that they consequently present a lot of propaganda in the way that the government *wants* you to interpret it. this is why i read those articles; while i know they're mostly full of bullshit, the strain of bullshit is "official bullshit", and understanding the official bullshit is often useful in piecing together what is actually not bullshit.
so, the new york times is worth reading. sometimes. is the toronto star worth reading? the globe and mail? it is by no means obvious that these papers contribute much of anything to any kind of worthwhile discourse, or provide much of any kind of information or analysis that isn't mirrored by the canadian press or even done incomparably better by our state-run media, the cbc.
it is really the cbc that is going to make these paywalls catastrophic to the newspapers putting them up. the cbc's mandate, which is most definitely not to generate profit, means that they will never be putting up paywalls. well, unless they change their mandate. so, if you just want the facts - something in syndication, something that explains events that have happened or are happening - then you have lost nothing when the paywalls come up. in fact, the cbc generally breaks stories before these papers do, and provides more detailed reporting, with better sources. might this even add a new level of appreciation for what the cbc does? perhaps, it might.
what's left is analysis and opinion. but, these papers do not excel at this, either. at best, their columnists write boring, uninformative and/or crude pieces that tend to talk (write) down to their audience; at worst, they skew and misrepresent facts to fulfill an agenda. who sets that agenda? see, this is where the paywall starts to come across as beneficial...
i'm not sure there's a columnist at the star or the globe that can remotely compete with the level of writing that is present in the blogosphere for free. so, if these blogs are free, and the papers present an inferior product, it would stand to reason that the papers should also be free. this is how things have been; this is the correct relationship, and the market will uphold it in the upcoming year. what is really being exposed here is the untenable nature of for-profit written media in the internet age, and the coming obsolescence of the field of journalism as a vocation.
this is actually progress! what does a journalist at the globe or star know about much of anything at all, other than how to compile sources and write at an eighth grade level so as to not lose a larger readership? what motives must this journalist succumb to in order to continue to write and be paid to do it? now, what does a professor with a blog know about the subject they teach? what motives might a professor have? which should be able to generate a higher asking price for an article? which should people be reading, if they want to know about a current topic?
paywalls.
they're coming up on the most popular publications in canada in the new year, some of them are already in place, and it seems like the idea is expanding. i know a lot of people are saying they won't pay, and the papers are going to come out of this badly. while i agree, i think there are some other issues that should be addressed.
if anybody has this right, it's the new york times. they give you ten free articles a month throughout the site, then the paywall comes up. that means moderate users can get the odd article if they want it, but heavy users have to pay. yes, you can get around this very easily by deleting your cookies, but not everybody knows this; regardless of this way around the paywall, it is about as close to a fair proposal for a for-profit news site that i've yet to come across.
i've only had to delete my cookies once, and it was when i was reading up on paul krugman a little bit. but, i'd guess that, on average, i do read between five and ten articles at the new york times per month. it's not a great paper, and it certainly has a very right-of-centre bias, but it's also useful as a gateway: it's well known that they have contacts with government and that they consequently present a lot of propaganda in the way that the government *wants* you to interpret it. this is why i read those articles; while i know they're mostly full of bullshit, the strain of bullshit is "official bullshit", and understanding the official bullshit is often useful in piecing together what is actually not bullshit.
so, the new york times is worth reading. sometimes. is the toronto star worth reading? the globe and mail? it is by no means obvious that these papers contribute much of anything to any kind of worthwhile discourse, or provide much of any kind of information or analysis that isn't mirrored by the canadian press or even done incomparably better by our state-run media, the cbc.
it is really the cbc that is going to make these paywalls catastrophic to the newspapers putting them up. the cbc's mandate, which is most definitely not to generate profit, means that they will never be putting up paywalls. well, unless they change their mandate. so, if you just want the facts - something in syndication, something that explains events that have happened or are happening - then you have lost nothing when the paywalls come up. in fact, the cbc generally breaks stories before these papers do, and provides more detailed reporting, with better sources. might this even add a new level of appreciation for what the cbc does? perhaps, it might.
what's left is analysis and opinion. but, these papers do not excel at this, either. at best, their columnists write boring, uninformative and/or crude pieces that tend to talk (write) down to their audience; at worst, they skew and misrepresent facts to fulfill an agenda. who sets that agenda? see, this is where the paywall starts to come across as beneficial...
i'm not sure there's a columnist at the star or the globe that can remotely compete with the level of writing that is present in the blogosphere for free. so, if these blogs are free, and the papers present an inferior product, it would stand to reason that the papers should also be free. this is how things have been; this is the correct relationship, and the market will uphold it in the upcoming year. what is really being exposed here is the untenable nature of for-profit written media in the internet age, and the coming obsolescence of the field of journalism as a vocation.
this is actually progress! what does a journalist at the globe or star know about much of anything at all, other than how to compile sources and write at an eighth grade level so as to not lose a larger readership? what motives must this journalist succumb to in order to continue to write and be paid to do it? now, what does a professor with a blog know about the subject they teach? what motives might a professor have? which should be able to generate a higher asking price for an article? which should people be reading, if they want to know about a current topic?
Friday, January 15, 2016
i'm feeling like i could probably get back to work - and i'm done smoking. that's five and a half days; a week, saturday afternoon. cold turkey. zero. and i have no urge to smoke. but, i want to really get over this this time...i am very serious about it, and that's a different scenario than previously, when i was forcing myself to quit for financial reasons without really seriously wanting to...
i'm also convinced i've got at least a few years left. i wasn't convinced of as much this time last year. it's ultimately that odsp extension that is going to put me in the right headspace to quit smoking.
so, i'm giving myself however long it's going to take to get all of my scattered writing into a single word document. this is going to require some scouring. and it may take a few weeks.
it puts other things on hold, and that's fine. they've been on hold forever, anyways. and, it's simply more important to me to make sure i'm getting over the smoking, for right now.
on top of that, i'm going to be integrating the unveiling of the web site with the alter-reality. my earliest ramblings were in early '98 - where the alter-reality is - although i don't know how much i'll be able to find until early '99. a true period disc would actually even integrate the relevant rantings, and i will try to work in as much as i can.
it will take some time to pull it all together, but it will operate the same way that the other alter-reality does. i'll set up an rss feed. it will literally update the site on a daily basis, relative to this date 18 years ago.
i think that's the best way to approach to this mountain of data. but, it means ordering it, first. i'm currently over 2,000 pages of scattered commentary, and the truth is i'm just getting started piecing it together.....
first up is actually closing down the facebook page. so, expect my facebook present to revert back to cv status relatively shortly.
i'm also convinced i've got at least a few years left. i wasn't convinced of as much this time last year. it's ultimately that odsp extension that is going to put me in the right headspace to quit smoking.
so, i'm giving myself however long it's going to take to get all of my scattered writing into a single word document. this is going to require some scouring. and it may take a few weeks.
it puts other things on hold, and that's fine. they've been on hold forever, anyways. and, it's simply more important to me to make sure i'm getting over the smoking, for right now.
on top of that, i'm going to be integrating the unveiling of the web site with the alter-reality. my earliest ramblings were in early '98 - where the alter-reality is - although i don't know how much i'll be able to find until early '99. a true period disc would actually even integrate the relevant rantings, and i will try to work in as much as i can.
it will take some time to pull it all together, but it will operate the same way that the other alter-reality does. i'll set up an rss feed. it will literally update the site on a daily basis, relative to this date 18 years ago.
i think that's the best way to approach to this mountain of data. but, it means ordering it, first. i'm currently over 2,000 pages of scattered commentary, and the truth is i'm just getting started piecing it together.....
first up is actually closing down the facebook page. so, expect my facebook present to revert back to cv status relatively shortly.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
damage as many locks as you can. make it expensive. it will provide an incentive to reverse the changes.
use keys, chemicals, crowbars - whatever will make a mess.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/frozen-mailboxes-cause-public-uproar/62342/
use keys, chemicals, crowbars - whatever will make a mess.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/frozen-mailboxes-cause-public-uproar/62342/
and, everyone laughs and reflects on how funny it is. how about putting somebody in jail for breaking the law?
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/london-uk-has-already-exceeded-pollution-limits-for-2016/62372
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/london-uk-has-already-exceeded-pollution-limits-for-2016/62372
i'm sorting through old posts, trying to shut down my facebook politics page from 2012. it's interesting to read certain things.
16 october 2012
so, it's mcguinty v. trudeau.
there's the challenger that people were expecting. i had john manley at the top of the list, but mcguinty was never far down; despite what he's said about completing his third term, that he would run for the liberal leadership when the opportunity is right has been obvious for a while now. it's also obvious that he's doing this now precisely because he's concerned that if trudeau gets in then he'll be there for the next thirty years.
this is actually an interesting race, because it's likely going to determine if the liberals are going to present a third centre-right option or swing out to the left of the ndp. mcguinty will not be substantially different from harper or mulcair, but trudeau just might be.
28 september 2012
several years ago, before he even ran for mp, i remember seeing some old videos of justin trudeau floating around on youtube. he was doing some kind of campus speaking tour, i think some time in the late 90s. the topic was the decline of western civilization, and how young people growing up in canada need to prepare themselves for a future where the nexus of global power, wealth and influence resides in asia, rather than in america – and
the consequences of such a shift. these videos no longer appear to be available on youtube, but i'm sure they'll surface over the course of the next few months as conservative attack ad fodder.
of course, it wasn't the first time i'd heard somebody say something like that, but coming from such a source (while he was not in the public eye at the time, he was still the oldest and most visible son of what amounts to canada's version of thomas jefferson), it was rather shocking. such statements would threaten to shatter the delusions that continue to be held by much of canada's middle class.
"civilizations rise and fall.".
he was elected as an mp not long after i saw those videos. over the last few years, he's played the media fairly well. his supposedly controversial statements have in fact been widely popular, and when pushed his responses have been both surprisingly phrased to appeal to an extremely socially liberal audience as well as surprisingly nuanced.
the point i'm getting to is that i think that baby trudeau is a bigger wild card than many observers will recognize on first glance because he has the potential to eat back into the ndp; when contrasted against mulcair's cold, business-person exterior the flippant trudeau is going to come off very, very well with younger voters. the newspapers are going to write him off as a liberal aristocrat, being floated by the party leadership. it remains to see if this is going to be the case or not. however, he really hasn't seriously defined his political stances yet, so it's going to be hard to determine if the commentary is accurate or sensational on a wide variety of topics. however, this is where the next few months of campaigning for the liberal leadership are going to be very interesting - he's going to have to finally do precisely that. judging from those clips i saw on that campus tour, as well as the select commentary he's provided, i think there may be more of interest in his views than one might expect.....
there have been multiple polls suggesting that if an election were to be held tomorrow and baby trudeau were to be the liberal party candidate then we'd be back at a liberal majority. the liberal party may be currently broken, but it's still the most successful democratic political apparatus (measured in terms of political wins) that's ever existed, anywhere. as i've said repeatedly: it's the fucking british liberal party. it's not going to pass up on that kind of opportunity.
the question is whether or not it realizes that trudeau's popularity is due partly to his name and partly to his attitude, the precise attitude that the press is going to deride him for. given that we're talking about the liberal party, and it's long history of charismatic leaders, i'm sure it does.
a couple of key policy differences, accompanied with the ndp's move to the right, could position the liberals to their left. judging from what i've heard so far from baby trudeau, i think that's where his mind just might be.
so, this is going to get interesting.
16 october 2012
so, it's mcguinty v. trudeau.
there's the challenger that people were expecting. i had john manley at the top of the list, but mcguinty was never far down; despite what he's said about completing his third term, that he would run for the liberal leadership when the opportunity is right has been obvious for a while now. it's also obvious that he's doing this now precisely because he's concerned that if trudeau gets in then he'll be there for the next thirty years.
this is actually an interesting race, because it's likely going to determine if the liberals are going to present a third centre-right option or swing out to the left of the ndp. mcguinty will not be substantially different from harper or mulcair, but trudeau just might be.
28 september 2012
several years ago, before he even ran for mp, i remember seeing some old videos of justin trudeau floating around on youtube. he was doing some kind of campus speaking tour, i think some time in the late 90s. the topic was the decline of western civilization, and how young people growing up in canada need to prepare themselves for a future where the nexus of global power, wealth and influence resides in asia, rather than in america – and
the consequences of such a shift. these videos no longer appear to be available on youtube, but i'm sure they'll surface over the course of the next few months as conservative attack ad fodder.
of course, it wasn't the first time i'd heard somebody say something like that, but coming from such a source (while he was not in the public eye at the time, he was still the oldest and most visible son of what amounts to canada's version of thomas jefferson), it was rather shocking. such statements would threaten to shatter the delusions that continue to be held by much of canada's middle class.
"civilizations rise and fall.".
he was elected as an mp not long after i saw those videos. over the last few years, he's played the media fairly well. his supposedly controversial statements have in fact been widely popular, and when pushed his responses have been both surprisingly phrased to appeal to an extremely socially liberal audience as well as surprisingly nuanced.
the point i'm getting to is that i think that baby trudeau is a bigger wild card than many observers will recognize on first glance because he has the potential to eat back into the ndp; when contrasted against mulcair's cold, business-person exterior the flippant trudeau is going to come off very, very well with younger voters. the newspapers are going to write him off as a liberal aristocrat, being floated by the party leadership. it remains to see if this is going to be the case or not. however, he really hasn't seriously defined his political stances yet, so it's going to be hard to determine if the commentary is accurate or sensational on a wide variety of topics. however, this is where the next few months of campaigning for the liberal leadership are going to be very interesting - he's going to have to finally do precisely that. judging from those clips i saw on that campus tour, as well as the select commentary he's provided, i think there may be more of interest in his views than one might expect.....
there have been multiple polls suggesting that if an election were to be held tomorrow and baby trudeau were to be the liberal party candidate then we'd be back at a liberal majority. the liberal party may be currently broken, but it's still the most successful democratic political apparatus (measured in terms of political wins) that's ever existed, anywhere. as i've said repeatedly: it's the fucking british liberal party. it's not going to pass up on that kind of opportunity.
the question is whether or not it realizes that trudeau's popularity is due partly to his name and partly to his attitude, the precise attitude that the press is going to deride him for. given that we're talking about the liberal party, and it's long history of charismatic leaders, i'm sure it does.
a couple of key policy differences, accompanied with the ndp's move to the right, could position the liberals to their left. judging from what i've heard so far from baby trudeau, i think that's where his mind just might be.
so, this is going to get interesting.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
i thought this was the left wing establishment institute?
i only have up until the end of 2014 in my watchlist, btw. another few videos, and then i'm on to something else. i'll be back eventually.
but, how do you get through this presentation on uncertainty and not say a thing about geopolitics? which, specifically, means the war budget?
because that's what happened, right. clinton basically fixed the deficit. then some crazy people took down some buildings in manhatten, war spending went through the roof and the reagan cold war military budget catastrophe was duplicated by his protege, bush II.
now, you can talk about weak growth or the war economy or whatever else, but the basic problem that the state faced - the uncertainty it had to deal with - was it's inability to predict this war we've all been fighting for the last fifteen years.
it's astounding to me that this is completely ignored at all, let alone by what is supposed to be the left-wing establishment.
i only have up until the end of 2014 in my watchlist, btw. another few videos, and then i'm on to something else. i'll be back eventually.
but, how do you get through this presentation on uncertainty and not say a thing about geopolitics? which, specifically, means the war budget?
because that's what happened, right. clinton basically fixed the deficit. then some crazy people took down some buildings in manhatten, war spending went through the roof and the reagan cold war military budget catastrophe was duplicated by his protege, bush II.
now, you can talk about weak growth or the war economy or whatever else, but the basic problem that the state faced - the uncertainty it had to deal with - was it's inability to predict this war we've all been fighting for the last fifteen years.
it's astounding to me that this is completely ignored at all, let alone by what is supposed to be the left-wing establishment.
so, i've got my 96+ hours of non-smoking in and, while i'm still sore, i think i could maybe get back to work tomorrow.
this has to be final. smokers have a tendency to claim they're quitting. but this really has to be the end of it.
i started editing the dec 19th vlog on the afternoon of the 11th. i'm rendering the jan 12th vlog right now. so, that's a good three days straight of editing for three and a half weeks. meaning i could maybe edit a week in a day? a lot of them were short. but, it means i'm caught up until next week, now....
i don't want to ever waste three days editing vlogs again. but, i think it actually helped keep my mind distracted.
i'm getting bursts of awakeness. i don't know. i may need another day or two. if i do, i'll take it. i'm willing to take my time with this right now and wait until i'm ready.
this has to be final. smokers have a tendency to claim they're quitting. but this really has to be the end of it.
i started editing the dec 19th vlog on the afternoon of the 11th. i'm rendering the jan 12th vlog right now. so, that's a good three days straight of editing for three and a half weeks. meaning i could maybe edit a week in a day? a lot of them were short. but, it means i'm caught up until next week, now....
i don't want to ever waste three days editing vlogs again. but, i think it actually helped keep my mind distracted.
i'm getting bursts of awakeness. i don't know. i may need another day or two. if i do, i'll take it. i'm willing to take my time with this right now and wait until i'm ready.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
i've been almost two days without smoking, now. a confluence of things has led me to stopping...i'm late by the calendar date, but i'm early in my own mental flow chart.
there's a lot of things i should stop and do before i get back to work. catching up on the vlogs is one of them.
so, expect a bit more than two weeks of vlogs to come up over the next few days.
there's a lot of things i should stop and do before i get back to work. catching up on the vlogs is one of them.
so, expect a bit more than two weeks of vlogs to come up over the next few days.
rip david bowie
bowie's death is kind of a complicated thing.
up until a few days ago, i think it was reasonable to conclude that bowie - the artist, rather than the person - died roughly fifteen years ago. then he releases a decent - if not outstanding - record a few days before he actually dies, as an individual. so, it's a process of him coming back to life as much as it is a process of him dying. simultaneously.
i'm just sort of confused, i guess. blind-sided. i didn't get the undertones in the blackstar video - i thought he was just capitalizing on witch house. they're clear, in hindsight. i kind of knew it was probably going to be his last worthwhile recording, or at least the beginning of a last worthwhile phase. but, i didn't see anything as imminent.
bowie was one of the older boomers. he didn't make it quite to 70. but, let us realize that there are many people that are crossing over that milestone in the next few months, or have in the last few.
i've talked about this before: people are going to start dropping like flies over the next few years. call it a parade, even. the boomer death parade! the final last hurrah! they're talkin' 'bout their generation...
seriously, though. there's going to be prominent people that had wide footprints dying on a weekly basis, starting some time relatively soon. historical music fans are going to get hit over the head with it like a sack of black death. it's just going to be this brutal succession of death - mostly from cancer. and, we're going to wake up from it after however long it is - 12, 18, 24 months - in a drastically different musical reality.
the past will soon assert itself as the past.
up until a few days ago, i think it was reasonable to conclude that bowie - the artist, rather than the person - died roughly fifteen years ago. then he releases a decent - if not outstanding - record a few days before he actually dies, as an individual. so, it's a process of him coming back to life as much as it is a process of him dying. simultaneously.
i'm just sort of confused, i guess. blind-sided. i didn't get the undertones in the blackstar video - i thought he was just capitalizing on witch house. they're clear, in hindsight. i kind of knew it was probably going to be his last worthwhile recording, or at least the beginning of a last worthwhile phase. but, i didn't see anything as imminent.
bowie was one of the older boomers. he didn't make it quite to 70. but, let us realize that there are many people that are crossing over that milestone in the next few months, or have in the last few.
i've talked about this before: people are going to start dropping like flies over the next few years. call it a parade, even. the boomer death parade! the final last hurrah! they're talkin' 'bout their generation...
seriously, though. there's going to be prominent people that had wide footprints dying on a weekly basis, starting some time relatively soon. historical music fans are going to get hit over the head with it like a sack of black death. it's just going to be this brutal succession of death - mostly from cancer. and, we're going to wake up from it after however long it is - 12, 18, 24 months - in a drastically different musical reality.
the past will soon assert itself as the past.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
publishing inri (inri015)
my first record has been constructed without lyrics. yikes.
this is the new inri011.
up until this point, i always considered this record to exist within my "training wheels" phase. i was off the trike. and i was riding by myself in spurts. but i was falling down a whole lot.
it is now out of that pile and firmly in my "serious works" list. and that feels very good, after all these years.
i'm going to need to break for a few days to de-nic.
==
it took eighteen years and multiple attempts at a construction, but this record is finally permanently completed as an instrumental electronic work and i am finally proud to refer to it as my first record.
while most of these songs have defined concepts underlying them, i have ejected these concepts from the final recording and left them in a series of singles. i would prefer that this album be understood solely as the instrumental recording of electronic music that i am presenting it as.
written and demoed in multiple stages from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reconstructed and resequenced jan 6-10, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. re-released on jan 10, 2016. this is my first official record; as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, drum programming, orchestral & other sequencing, sampling, vocal relics, cool edit synthesis, windows 95 sound recorder, found sounds, strategies, soundraider, hammerhead, sound design, metronome, digital wave editing, production
the rendered electronic orchestra includes piano, organ, electric guitar, orchestra hit, pizzicato strings, synth pads, violin, viola, cello, contrabass, electric bass, sitar, tubular bells, tinkle bells, synthesizer effects and flute.
released june 20, 1998
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
this is the new inri011.
up until this point, i always considered this record to exist within my "training wheels" phase. i was off the trike. and i was riding by myself in spurts. but i was falling down a whole lot.
it is now out of that pile and firmly in my "serious works" list. and that feels very good, after all these years.
i'm going to need to break for a few days to de-nic.
==
it took eighteen years and multiple attempts at a construction, but this record is finally permanently completed as an instrumental electronic work and i am finally proud to refer to it as my first record.
while most of these songs have defined concepts underlying them, i have ejected these concepts from the final recording and left them in a series of singles. i would prefer that this album be understood solely as the instrumental recording of electronic music that i am presenting it as.
written and demoed in multiple stages from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reconstructed and resequenced jan 6-10, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. re-released on jan 10, 2016. this is my first official record; as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, drum programming, orchestral & other sequencing, sampling, vocal relics, cool edit synthesis, windows 95 sound recorder, found sounds, strategies, soundraider, hammerhead, sound design, metronome, digital wave editing, production
the rendered electronic orchestra includes piano, organ, electric guitar, orchestra hit, pizzicato strings, synth pads, violin, viola, cello, contrabass, electric bass, sitar, tubular bells, tinkle bells, synthesizer effects and flute.
released june 20, 1998
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
about a squirrel (final album mix)
initially created in 1997. remastered from source and resequenced on jan 10, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/about-a-squirrel
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/about-a-squirrel
swim (final album mix)
initially created in 1998. remastered from source and resequenced on jan 10, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/swim
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/swim
i feel much better now (final album mix)
initially created in 1998. remastered from source and resequenced on jan 10, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-feel-much-better-now
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-feel-much-better-now
think (final album mix)
initially written in 1996. recreated in the spring of 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on nov 26, 2015. sequenced on jan 10, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/think
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/think
Saturday, January 9, 2016
skaters (final album mix)
initially written in 1997. recreated in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 1, 2015. resequenced jan 9, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/skaters-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/skaters-2
catchin’ up (final album mix)
initially created in 1997. remastered from source and resequenced on jan 9, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/catchin-up-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/catchin-up-2
war (final album mix)
this segue was also more time consuming than i expected, and i have to interject a few words about it. i want to point out that the unmodified version is still available on inrisampled - along with multiple remixes elsewhere. i'm tempted to put together a little ep, even.
sample art is what it is, and i do have a level of respect for it. because christianity is stupid. and communism is good. you can get a lot across through the form, and it can be as valid a means of musical expression as anything else. but, it can also be cringey if it's too heavy-handed. there's plenty of sample art in my discography, and quite a bit on this record even, and i'll stand by it against any criticism. i may be using existing sources of sound, but these are clearly my own creations.
the reality is that all music is created by recombining existing sound. i didn't invent the big muff, the minor chord or the guitar, either. nobody's going to get on me about recombining existing sounds in that context. it's just ludditism to treat technology as something distinct.
but, the version of this particular track that was initially on this record was a little too heavy-handed in the introduction. now, there was a thematic unity to it - it was meant to represent serenity, and was then smashed through by a goofy drum beat meant to represent war. the calm before the storm sort of thing. further, i *did* orchestrate it a little with backwards windows 95 samples (thank you, mr. eno). it wasn't a straight lift from...
.... i don't even know where it was from. bambi? the simpsons, maybe? i had a bunch of simpsons samples on my computer, because i had downloaded them from like a geocities site or something. i have to suspect that's what it *actually* was - some disney-themed simpson's skit.
but, it opens me up to some problems. i don't think it was a bad choice, in context. but, what i'm doing right now is pulling this record out of my kiddie pile (which is now restricted to those earliest 96/97 demos) and putting it in my collection of polished works. and, the idea is not sitting right with me at this point to put something that lifted in the center of the record.
so, i spliced the track up in a way that is similar to something i would have done at the time and have used that cut-up sample collage in replace of the reorchestration.
i've also brought the guitars back in, because i can. i kept them out more out of pragmatism than artistic intent. completing the record properly means bringing them back in.
so, i've got 11 & 12 up, now. progress. i really don't think that the next few will take nearly as much time to sequence, but we'll find out.
initially created in 1997. abandoned in 1998. reclaimed dec 8, 2014. rebuilt and resequenced on jan 9, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/war-2
sample art is what it is, and i do have a level of respect for it. because christianity is stupid. and communism is good. you can get a lot across through the form, and it can be as valid a means of musical expression as anything else. but, it can also be cringey if it's too heavy-handed. there's plenty of sample art in my discography, and quite a bit on this record even, and i'll stand by it against any criticism. i may be using existing sources of sound, but these are clearly my own creations.
the reality is that all music is created by recombining existing sound. i didn't invent the big muff, the minor chord or the guitar, either. nobody's going to get on me about recombining existing sounds in that context. it's just ludditism to treat technology as something distinct.
but, the version of this particular track that was initially on this record was a little too heavy-handed in the introduction. now, there was a thematic unity to it - it was meant to represent serenity, and was then smashed through by a goofy drum beat meant to represent war. the calm before the storm sort of thing. further, i *did* orchestrate it a little with backwards windows 95 samples (thank you, mr. eno). it wasn't a straight lift from...
.... i don't even know where it was from. bambi? the simpsons, maybe? i had a bunch of simpsons samples on my computer, because i had downloaded them from like a geocities site or something. i have to suspect that's what it *actually* was - some disney-themed simpson's skit.
but, it opens me up to some problems. i don't think it was a bad choice, in context. but, what i'm doing right now is pulling this record out of my kiddie pile (which is now restricted to those earliest 96/97 demos) and putting it in my collection of polished works. and, the idea is not sitting right with me at this point to put something that lifted in the center of the record.
so, i spliced the track up in a way that is similar to something i would have done at the time and have used that cut-up sample collage in replace of the reorchestration.
i've also brought the guitars back in, because i can. i kept them out more out of pragmatism than artistic intent. completing the record properly means bringing them back in.
so, i've got 11 & 12 up, now. progress. i really don't think that the next few will take nearly as much time to sequence, but we'll find out.
initially created in 1997. abandoned in 1998. reclaimed dec 8, 2014. rebuilt and resequenced on jan 9, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/war-2
i've pointed this out a few times before, but it's one of those stern reality checks that i think it's important to hit yourself over the head with from time to time.
when they set the retirement age at 65 back in the depression/new-deal period, they picked that age because it was *life expectancy*. it wasn't based around this idea that everybody gets to retire after they've worked for a while - that it was some kind of right that everybody earns. rather, it was based around the idea of beating the odds. if you made it to 65 (and you weren't a member of the propertied class, of course - they tended to live longer, but they didn't really work) then you were the exception. you were unusually long-lived. you beat the averages. there were workplace management considerations, of course, but the idea was that most people wouldn't live long enough to retire, because that was the average lifespan.
in canada, we're upset that they changed it to 67. or, some people are anyways. and there's good reasons for it. but, realize this: if they were to follow the initial logic that they used in setting the retirement age, they wouldn't be setting it to 67.
they'd be setting it to 82.
when they set the retirement age at 65 back in the depression/new-deal period, they picked that age because it was *life expectancy*. it wasn't based around this idea that everybody gets to retire after they've worked for a while - that it was some kind of right that everybody earns. rather, it was based around the idea of beating the odds. if you made it to 65 (and you weren't a member of the propertied class, of course - they tended to live longer, but they didn't really work) then you were the exception. you were unusually long-lived. you beat the averages. there were workplace management considerations, of course, but the idea was that most people wouldn't live long enough to retire, because that was the average lifespan.
in canada, we're upset that they changed it to 67. or, some people are anyways. and there's good reasons for it. but, realize this: if they were to follow the initial logic that they used in setting the retirement age, they wouldn't be setting it to 67.
they'd be setting it to 82.
Friday, January 8, 2016
but, can you explain to me the difference between allodial title and fee simple?
but, this is really just another example of how the united states constitution is out of date.
you've got crazy people running around thinking it makes sense to have private fiefdoms exist on the same level as the state, in 2015. and they'd take slaves, if you let them, too. total feudalism.
a new document is clearly necessary, that specifies what is standard in the civilized world: that the state owns the country under allodial title, has the right to eminent domain, can raise taxes, etc.
and, if these yahoos don't like that, i'm guessing there's some spots of land in antarctica that haven't been claimed yet.
but, this is really just another example of how the united states constitution is out of date.
you've got crazy people running around thinking it makes sense to have private fiefdoms exist on the same level as the state, in 2015. and they'd take slaves, if you let them, too. total feudalism.
a new document is clearly necessary, that specifies what is standard in the civilized world: that the state owns the country under allodial title, has the right to eminent domain, can raise taxes, etc.
and, if these yahoos don't like that, i'm guessing there's some spots of land in antarctica that haven't been claimed yet.
i disagree with senator paul on most things, but one of things that i agree with him on (or at least agreed with his father on) was the idea of pulling back the american empire. i wish he would have tied these things together, because that's the narrative that's missing.
i don't like guns. i don't want to be anywhere near them. if i know you have a gun in your house, i won't go in your house. and, i think the idea of "temporary insanity" is reason enough for people to...bans don't work. up in canada, most people just don't want guns around. that's the only way forward that can actually work - people collectively making that choice. the most responsible gun owners in the world can snap, lose their head and kill their partners. i just don't think the risk is worth any benefit. but, like i say - that's a social evolution. that's not a legislative priority. and, it's only a small number of gun deaths.
and, so, despite everything i just said, i'm fully cognizant of the reality that restricting the supply is a failing approach. we're just finally coming to terms with the reality that this approach doesn't work with drugs. it doesn't work with guns either.
drawing the connection between a militarized state that treats every problem like a hammer and gun violence within that state is key. again: i hate guns. but, the united states doesn't have a gun problem. the united states has a war economy problem.
it would have been nice to see him pull that together.
again: i don't agree with much of what paul has to say. but, i don't agree with much of what hillary has to say, either. if i was an american, i'm not sure i'd conclude that clinton was actually the lesser evil if her opponent was paul.
i don't like guns. i don't want to be anywhere near them. if i know you have a gun in your house, i won't go in your house. and, i think the idea of "temporary insanity" is reason enough for people to...bans don't work. up in canada, most people just don't want guns around. that's the only way forward that can actually work - people collectively making that choice. the most responsible gun owners in the world can snap, lose their head and kill their partners. i just don't think the risk is worth any benefit. but, like i say - that's a social evolution. that's not a legislative priority. and, it's only a small number of gun deaths.
and, so, despite everything i just said, i'm fully cognizant of the reality that restricting the supply is a failing approach. we're just finally coming to terms with the reality that this approach doesn't work with drugs. it doesn't work with guns either.
drawing the connection between a militarized state that treats every problem like a hammer and gun violence within that state is key. again: i hate guns. but, the united states doesn't have a gun problem. the united states has a war economy problem.
it would have been nice to see him pull that together.
again: i don't agree with much of what paul has to say. but, i don't agree with much of what hillary has to say, either. if i was an american, i'm not sure i'd conclude that clinton was actually the lesser evil if her opponent was paul.
nope (final album mix)
originally created in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 4, 2015
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/nope-4
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/nope-4
useless (final album mix)
recorded in jan, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. remixed july 2, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/useless
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/useless
a psycho kills a cow (final album mix)
so, this insane little tune actually took me all day to remaster.
the highest quality source i have for this is a 56 kbps mp3 from oct, 1997. but, here's the thing: it was constructed almost entirely from 8-bit samples. the only exception is the vocal croak at the end, which i took in at your normal 16-bit level with a mic into the back of the pc.
there was actually a lot of detail to pull out of it. and, it's consequently actually an exquisite speaker test. if you can hear multiple channels of sound, you have a pretty good speaker setup.
my laptop totally fails. even through the bassy phones, strangely. there's some sub frequencies going on down there - try it through a subwoofer. but, be careful with the volume to start...
the first ten tracks have now been replaced. i believe that 12, 14, 16 and 18 will require no editing. the other segues (11,13,15,17,19) are in an undetermined state. i will have to do something or other with all of them, or they'll no doubt sound flat in sequence. but, it may just be a question of running them through the izotope patch for the song before or after them.
i dunno. i know i wanted this done yesterday before lunch...
it can't be too much longer, though.
initially created in 1997. remastered from source and resequenced on jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-psycho-kills-a-cow
the highest quality source i have for this is a 56 kbps mp3 from oct, 1997. but, here's the thing: it was constructed almost entirely from 8-bit samples. the only exception is the vocal croak at the end, which i took in at your normal 16-bit level with a mic into the back of the pc.
there was actually a lot of detail to pull out of it. and, it's consequently actually an exquisite speaker test. if you can hear multiple channels of sound, you have a pretty good speaker setup.
my laptop totally fails. even through the bassy phones, strangely. there's some sub frequencies going on down there - try it through a subwoofer. but, be careful with the volume to start...
the first ten tracks have now been replaced. i believe that 12, 14, 16 and 18 will require no editing. the other segues (11,13,15,17,19) are in an undetermined state. i will have to do something or other with all of them, or they'll no doubt sound flat in sequence. but, it may just be a question of running them through the izotope patch for the song before or after them.
i dunno. i know i wanted this done yesterday before lunch...
it can't be too much longer, though.
initially created in 1997. remastered from source and resequenced on jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-psycho-kills-a-cow
those unemployment numbers are inaccurate. everybody knows this. i won't get into it. the real unemployment rate in the united states (u-6) is at 9.9%, and even this is widely understood as an underestimate. a more realistic real unemployment number for canada is around 15% - and that's the acknowledged underestimate.
here's the thing: bringing back all these manufacturers isn't all about the dollar. it's largely about automation. in the united states, it's even about expanding systems of prison labour (your nikes may now be made by inmates, rather than foreign children; is that an improvement?). but, thankfully, we don't have that here.
if a firm can automate a factory in canada for the north american market, it can actually save on *shipping* by bringing the factory back here. gdp goes up. no jobs are created.
we see the same problem with stimulus spending. walmart's profits may go up by 137%. no jobs will be created.
this historic decoupling of gdp growth from job creation is something that policy makers need to get their head around. it was an absolutely valid assumption up until about 1995 that gdp and jobs are going to move in the same direction. and, because offshoring moved jobs and gdp at the same time, there wasn't initially a decoupling process from "free trade" - that took time to set in. but, with automation, the link breaks. you can no longer assume that increasing gdp will create jobs.
i really think we need a fundamental rethink. if we're automating everything, why not take advantage of it? maybe a 15% unemployment rate isn't the end of the world, if it's accompanied by artist grants and an increased focus on unpaid social work.
there's no question we need to diversify beyond the oil. there's no future in the industry.
but, we're setting ourselves up for a fail if we think re-industrialization is a job creation strategy. it's good for specialists, of course - robotics experts. but that's not what anybody is thinking when they imagine the process.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-poloz-divergence-us-canada-resource-industry-1.3393832
here's the thing: bringing back all these manufacturers isn't all about the dollar. it's largely about automation. in the united states, it's even about expanding systems of prison labour (your nikes may now be made by inmates, rather than foreign children; is that an improvement?). but, thankfully, we don't have that here.
if a firm can automate a factory in canada for the north american market, it can actually save on *shipping* by bringing the factory back here. gdp goes up. no jobs are created.
we see the same problem with stimulus spending. walmart's profits may go up by 137%. no jobs will be created.
this historic decoupling of gdp growth from job creation is something that policy makers need to get their head around. it was an absolutely valid assumption up until about 1995 that gdp and jobs are going to move in the same direction. and, because offshoring moved jobs and gdp at the same time, there wasn't initially a decoupling process from "free trade" - that took time to set in. but, with automation, the link breaks. you can no longer assume that increasing gdp will create jobs.
i really think we need a fundamental rethink. if we're automating everything, why not take advantage of it? maybe a 15% unemployment rate isn't the end of the world, if it's accompanied by artist grants and an increased focus on unpaid social work.
there's no question we need to diversify beyond the oil. there's no future in the industry.
but, we're setting ourselves up for a fail if we think re-industrialization is a job creation strategy. it's good for specialists, of course - robotics experts. but that's not what anybody is thinking when they imagine the process.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-poloz-divergence-us-canada-resource-industry-1.3393832
Stockpicker
I think some of us have our priorities really screwed up:
Unemployed at 7%,
dollar at $0.71,
Healthcare underfunded,
100,000 Canadians living on the street,
2,500 vets living on the street,
Native Canadians drinking filthy water,
Economy, due to oil price in the toilet,
Federal debit growing higher,
Ontario Electrical power 2.5X that of USA,
Manufacturing leaving Canada in droves,
but lets make sure we get our pot into corner stores.......really?
Jessica Murray
legalizing marijuana will create a lot of jobs - and not just in the recreational industry. there's huge possibilities for spin-off jobs.
the status quo has us continually destroying billions of dollars worth of valuable fiber that could be used for plastics, papers, clothing, fuel and all kinds of other things. the entire plant is valuable. but, producers today just take the buds and destroy the rest of it.
the long term focus needs to be on reversing the petro state that harper let take control, whether due to design or to incompetence. oil has a limited future, altogether. expensive oil has no future at all.
marijuana is the future. oil is the past.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-poloz-divergence-us-canada-resource-industry-1.3393832
I think some of us have our priorities really screwed up:
Unemployed at 7%,
dollar at $0.71,
Healthcare underfunded,
100,000 Canadians living on the street,
2,500 vets living on the street,
Native Canadians drinking filthy water,
Economy, due to oil price in the toilet,
Federal debit growing higher,
Ontario Electrical power 2.5X that of USA,
Manufacturing leaving Canada in droves,
but lets make sure we get our pot into corner stores.......really?
Jessica Murray
legalizing marijuana will create a lot of jobs - and not just in the recreational industry. there's huge possibilities for spin-off jobs.
the status quo has us continually destroying billions of dollars worth of valuable fiber that could be used for plastics, papers, clothing, fuel and all kinds of other things. the entire plant is valuable. but, producers today just take the buds and destroy the rest of it.
the long term focus needs to be on reversing the petro state that harper let take control, whether due to design or to incompetence. oil has a limited future, altogether. expensive oil has no future at all.
marijuana is the future. oil is the past.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-poloz-divergence-us-canada-resource-industry-1.3393832
so, is it winter yet?
well, there's no snow. i was just outside on the grass, and the ground is not really frozen yet - although it's a little firm. that should soften back up entirely in the next few days. we haven't yet had an extended period of subzero temperatures. we briefly made it down to -10 overnight on tuesday morning. but, that's not uncommon, here, in october. and it was only for a few hours.
they're forecasting three days of cold weather starting on monday, but the numbers have been revised upwards repeatedly. a few days ago, they were forecasting a low on tuesday of -16. that's been changed to -11. we'll see if we actually get there. but it looks like we'll see the same thing: a few hours around -10. that's not an extended period below freezing. "normal" nighttime lows here this time of year are around -10. we're barely hitting that, this year, at all. we may end up with something like ten hours below -10 for the whole year.
i'm at this point willing to suggest that we've merely had an extended autumn, and that it looks set to transition directly into spring. like i say: there's only so much winter can do to assert itself, if it can't manage to freeze the ground or establish a snow cover.
i acknowledge it's largely a definitional issue. some people will claim that winter starts at the moment of the first flurry, but then you're extending winter most years from september to may - and that's outrageous. winter in canada requires more stringent conditions: an extended period of subzero temperatures that is at least able to freeze the ground and is accompanied by a visible snow cover. that seems unlikely. so, winter still appears to be cancelled down here, in this little southern crook of canada - although i know this is not the case elsewhere in the country.
"The Swedish meteorological institute (SMHI) define winter as when the daily mean temperatures go below 0 °C (32 °F) for five consecutive days"
i think that this is pretty good, and i do think we've nearly met this definition. but, what if you have four consecutive days three times, each separated by several days? that might be what happens, here.
i also think you need a bit more: you also need a frozen ground. that should be nearly automatic after five actual cold days, but not if the temperature is just hovering around zero, which is really what we've seen - we only had a few hours of actual cold, and will only get a few hours more next week. so, maybe a better mean temperature is -2.5, being halfway to -5 - and then we're not there.
and, if there are further ambiguities, the question of snow cover must be the final determinant that trumps everything. if we end up in this highly ambiguous position, but there's no snow? no winter.
maybe a better definition is a 20 day period where the total average temperature - not an average of the averages, just a flat average, hourly - is below zero. but, then you wouldn't know you had winter until it was done - or at least halfway done.
well, there's no snow. i was just outside on the grass, and the ground is not really frozen yet - although it's a little firm. that should soften back up entirely in the next few days. we haven't yet had an extended period of subzero temperatures. we briefly made it down to -10 overnight on tuesday morning. but, that's not uncommon, here, in october. and it was only for a few hours.
they're forecasting three days of cold weather starting on monday, but the numbers have been revised upwards repeatedly. a few days ago, they were forecasting a low on tuesday of -16. that's been changed to -11. we'll see if we actually get there. but it looks like we'll see the same thing: a few hours around -10. that's not an extended period below freezing. "normal" nighttime lows here this time of year are around -10. we're barely hitting that, this year, at all. we may end up with something like ten hours below -10 for the whole year.
i'm at this point willing to suggest that we've merely had an extended autumn, and that it looks set to transition directly into spring. like i say: there's only so much winter can do to assert itself, if it can't manage to freeze the ground or establish a snow cover.
i acknowledge it's largely a definitional issue. some people will claim that winter starts at the moment of the first flurry, but then you're extending winter most years from september to may - and that's outrageous. winter in canada requires more stringent conditions: an extended period of subzero temperatures that is at least able to freeze the ground and is accompanied by a visible snow cover. that seems unlikely. so, winter still appears to be cancelled down here, in this little southern crook of canada - although i know this is not the case elsewhere in the country.
"The Swedish meteorological institute (SMHI) define winter as when the daily mean temperatures go below 0 °C (32 °F) for five consecutive days"
i think that this is pretty good, and i do think we've nearly met this definition. but, what if you have four consecutive days three times, each separated by several days? that might be what happens, here.
i also think you need a bit more: you also need a frozen ground. that should be nearly automatic after five actual cold days, but not if the temperature is just hovering around zero, which is really what we've seen - we only had a few hours of actual cold, and will only get a few hours more next week. so, maybe a better mean temperature is -2.5, being halfway to -5 - and then we're not there.
and, if there are further ambiguities, the question of snow cover must be the final determinant that trumps everything. if we end up in this highly ambiguous position, but there's no snow? no winter.
maybe a better definition is a 20 day period where the total average temperature - not an average of the averages, just a flat average, hourly - is below zero. but, then you wouldn't know you had winter until it was done - or at least halfway done.
schizoid (final album mix)
initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 12, 2015 & reprogrammed on dec 31, 2015. corrected and remixed on jan 3, 2016. sequenced jan 5-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/schizoid
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/schizoid
abusive (final album mix)
initially created in june, 1998. remastered from various sources on jan 5, 2016. sequenced jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/abusive
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/abusive
mwp (final album mix)
initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected nov 19, 2015. sequenced jan 5-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/mwp
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/mwp
confused (final album mix)
initially written in 1997. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 5, 2015. remixed july 12, 2015. electronics added on july 16, 2015. sequenced jan 6-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/confused
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/confused
symphony #0 (final album mix)
written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. rearranged again at the end of may, 2015. remastered from the 2014 & 2015 sources on jan 6, 2016. sequenced on jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/symphony-0-3
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/symphony-0-3
fuck the dead (final album mix)
originally created in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 5, 2015. expanded on jan 3, 2016 & sequenced jan 6-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-the-dead
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-the-dead
the phantom of the opera (final album mix)
recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016. sequenced jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-phantom-of-the-opera
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-phantom-of-the-opera
i did your mom (final album mix)
initially written in 1994. first full recording in 1996. recreated in mar, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 18, 2015. sequenced jan 6-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-did-your-mom
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-did-your-mom
a sickening obsession (final album mix)
initially written & recorded in 1997. re-recorded in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016. sequenced jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-sickening-obsession
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-sickening-obsession
i really don't think that "selling the plan to the public" is much of a serious issue. check some polls. you don't see those numbers on any other issue, really. it might be the closest thing to a consensus position in the country, perhaps excluding universal health care.
i think the "clear up resources" part is probably closer to the truth. it's just delegating a time consuming process. the fact that blair was once the police chief was likely not a particularly decisive factor.
that said, i dunno. i think this is something you need to throw a lawyer at - particularly one with a background in international law. they have some.
i'm sure he'll get it done. but, i suspect he'll be delegating a lot of the work, himself. it's not really a law enforcement issue. it's more of a constitutional issue.
i think we should just pull out of these conventions altogether, and maybe convince others to, too. they're basically useless in stopping trafficking. the bigger issue is how pulling out of the treaties affects prescription medication. and, really, these things - illegal trafficking and legal trade in prescription medication - should not be under the same conventions.
if we could find a way to denounce the trafficking portion while maintaining the medicine portion, that would be ideal. the support might be there, although it may require ignoring the united states. but, listen - this is a failure. american hegemony is rooted in the success of american-built institutions, not the continued adherence to failed initiatives in global policing. i don't feel any particular reason why the world should hold to failed policies, just because they say so.
something that's not often brought up in this discussion of marijuana legalization is the situation in india. you hear about colorado and uruguay and portugal and the netherlands. but, marijuana has *always* been entirely legal in india. they've signed the conventions, but they got an exemption on it due to religious reasons. marijuana is a "sacred plant" in certain indian religious contexts. something similar happened in bolivia, with the coca plants - they pulled out, got an exemption and rejoined.
i'm not suggesting that's the answer. i'm just pointing out that there are certain levels of flexibility.
but, working all that out and how the provinces react to the feds is....it's a constitutional issue. really.
one approach is this: one could argue that the law is unconstitutional on the ground that it does restrict that religious freedom. and, then the treaties become unenforceable.
see, here's the thing, though: why hasn't that happened yet? it seems like a pretty slam-dunk approach. the supreme court would no doubt rule that a law that forbids people from taking part in a ritual is, in fact, unconstitutional. why haven't they, then?
the point is that we need something like this. we don't have to send an essay to the united nations. but, we shouldn't give them the finger, either. there has to be a way forward that takes advantage of something in our internal governance that contradicts the treaties, or otherwise renders them unenforceable.
or, we need to make the choice to withdraw.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-blair-to-lead-liberal-task-force-on-marijuana-legalization-source/article28075636/
Bud tugley
There is no need to regulate tomatoes, or tomato growing, or tomato trafficking. If this is legal, those who want it will grow it, or buy it from mom and pop growers.
And that is perhaps a bigger issue - getting grow ops out of houses. They are a fire and electrical hazard and a big enough grow-op, run for a few years will completely ruin a house; turn it to bulldozer bait.
deathtokoalas
you're missing the point about international legal treaties.
the reality is that it is not outside the realm of plausibility that a unilateral declaration of legalization in canada could lead to us being excluded from certain pharmaceutical trading norms, and possibly even be the target of sanctions.
this needs to be done carefully. it's not worth people losing access to their pills over. and, that's not alarmist, either.
my point was that i don't think that bill blair has the background necessary to do this. it should be in the hands of a constitutional and international law scholar, not a glorified thug with a baton.
--
Saysomething2
If there is a ‘formidable challenge’ on a federal level then hand it off to the Provinces and support them in their own legalization of it.
deathtokoalas
canada has the opposite system of the united states. the federal government has 100% control of the criminal justice system. that's in the division of powers in the constitution, and was designed specifically to prevent the provinces from having "states' rights", as our founders saw the system of states rights as the cause of the american civil war.
so, the provinces cannot move forward until the federal law changes. there is no provincial law to modify; there is no provincial criminal code for a law to modify to exist within.
the western provinces don't even have their own police forces; it's all under the jurisdiction of the rcmp.
--
this is worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQXvWq1upUc
i think the "clear up resources" part is probably closer to the truth. it's just delegating a time consuming process. the fact that blair was once the police chief was likely not a particularly decisive factor.
that said, i dunno. i think this is something you need to throw a lawyer at - particularly one with a background in international law. they have some.
i'm sure he'll get it done. but, i suspect he'll be delegating a lot of the work, himself. it's not really a law enforcement issue. it's more of a constitutional issue.
i think we should just pull out of these conventions altogether, and maybe convince others to, too. they're basically useless in stopping trafficking. the bigger issue is how pulling out of the treaties affects prescription medication. and, really, these things - illegal trafficking and legal trade in prescription medication - should not be under the same conventions.
if we could find a way to denounce the trafficking portion while maintaining the medicine portion, that would be ideal. the support might be there, although it may require ignoring the united states. but, listen - this is a failure. american hegemony is rooted in the success of american-built institutions, not the continued adherence to failed initiatives in global policing. i don't feel any particular reason why the world should hold to failed policies, just because they say so.
something that's not often brought up in this discussion of marijuana legalization is the situation in india. you hear about colorado and uruguay and portugal and the netherlands. but, marijuana has *always* been entirely legal in india. they've signed the conventions, but they got an exemption on it due to religious reasons. marijuana is a "sacred plant" in certain indian religious contexts. something similar happened in bolivia, with the coca plants - they pulled out, got an exemption and rejoined.
i'm not suggesting that's the answer. i'm just pointing out that there are certain levels of flexibility.
but, working all that out and how the provinces react to the feds is....it's a constitutional issue. really.
one approach is this: one could argue that the law is unconstitutional on the ground that it does restrict that religious freedom. and, then the treaties become unenforceable.
see, here's the thing, though: why hasn't that happened yet? it seems like a pretty slam-dunk approach. the supreme court would no doubt rule that a law that forbids people from taking part in a ritual is, in fact, unconstitutional. why haven't they, then?
the point is that we need something like this. we don't have to send an essay to the united nations. but, we shouldn't give them the finger, either. there has to be a way forward that takes advantage of something in our internal governance that contradicts the treaties, or otherwise renders them unenforceable.
or, we need to make the choice to withdraw.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-blair-to-lead-liberal-task-force-on-marijuana-legalization-source/article28075636/
Bud tugley
There is no need to regulate tomatoes, or tomato growing, or tomato trafficking. If this is legal, those who want it will grow it, or buy it from mom and pop growers.
And that is perhaps a bigger issue - getting grow ops out of houses. They are a fire and electrical hazard and a big enough grow-op, run for a few years will completely ruin a house; turn it to bulldozer bait.
deathtokoalas
you're missing the point about international legal treaties.
the reality is that it is not outside the realm of plausibility that a unilateral declaration of legalization in canada could lead to us being excluded from certain pharmaceutical trading norms, and possibly even be the target of sanctions.
this needs to be done carefully. it's not worth people losing access to their pills over. and, that's not alarmist, either.
my point was that i don't think that bill blair has the background necessary to do this. it should be in the hands of a constitutional and international law scholar, not a glorified thug with a baton.
--
Saysomething2
If there is a ‘formidable challenge’ on a federal level then hand it off to the Provinces and support them in their own legalization of it.
deathtokoalas
canada has the opposite system of the united states. the federal government has 100% control of the criminal justice system. that's in the division of powers in the constitution, and was designed specifically to prevent the provinces from having "states' rights", as our founders saw the system of states rights as the cause of the american civil war.
so, the provinces cannot move forward until the federal law changes. there is no provincial law to modify; there is no provincial criminal code for a law to modify to exist within.
the western provinces don't even have their own police forces; it's all under the jurisdiction of the rcmp.
--
this is worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQXvWq1upUc
Thursday, January 7, 2016
liberals don't believe that you build free societies through marginalization. rather, they believe that you build free societies through co-operation and development.
so, this isn't unexpected. it's standard liberal economics. rather, what was a little weird was watching the tories act like liberals - you would expect *them* to slap down sanctions and isolate them.
but, what we need in the region is some radical post-marxist neo-con regime change - or at least some vaguely lockean concept of a broken social contract. neither boycotts nor dialogue or going to open that society up.
i think a lot of the confusion over this has to do with the spectrum in the united states. so, let's get this straight, ok?
the democrats are conservatives. the republicans are marxists.
there are no liberals in the spectrum.
i mean, you get the perennial third party liberals - ralph nader and the green party, kind of thing. you've got, like, bill maher running his mouth off on tv. but, liberals basically simply don't exist at all in any meaningful politically organized way in the united states.
and, due to the length of time that the liberals have been out of power in canada and their virtual non-existence in mainstream media, it really seems like there's a lot of people in the canadian media that need a crash course in liberalism 101.
i think ignatieff was basically an imbecile. but, this is something he seemed to get. i guess he left for a while and came back and was astonished by the disconnect. if you look through the archives, you'll see that he made an honest attempt to have this discussion - to get this into the media discourse. hence, the question: what is a liberal? what is liberalism? what are liberal values?
all the media seems to want to push is the idea that liberals are basically a front for a couple of bankers, and they just throw out whatever they think will get them elected. but, this is just a bunch of talking points coming from the ndp - and, in fact, it's a rather pathetic set of them. we're talking about liberalism, here. about the only western system of philosophy with more literature attached to it than liberalism is christianity, and that's arguably an eastern system of thought. and, the media wants to claim this doesn't exist?
on issue after issue, there is a well-defined liberal position that usually has centuries worth of thinking attached to it. the reality is that the liberal party of canada reliably holds pretty close to the status quo of academic liberalism. over and over again. for a long time, now.
it would behoove the media to take the time to work this out.
no liberal ever, anywhere, has ever argued that you approach a regime like the saudis through boycotts.
that is a traditionally conservative position - the idea that good behaviour should be rewarded and bad behaviour should be punished.
again: liberals argue that you approach a regime like the saudis from a distance through trade liberalization, which opens up the society; marxists would argue that you need a revolution.
only conservatives would ever argue, ever, that you approach this through a system of punishment and reward.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-advised-to-deepen-ties-with-saudi-arabia/article28058715/
the liberals have a long history of trade relationships with dictators. it's not passive pragmatism, or disinterest in human rights. it's basic liberal economic theory that you make things worse through boycotts and you make things better through engagement.
the problem is that liberalism died everywhere else in the western world when hitler made a fool out of chamberlain. canada is the only place it carried on, and the only place it still exists.
you will simply not see this government pick up any of the punitive trade policies that the conservatives/democrats were pushing. that kind of thing is not consistent with liberal foreign relations.
you may, however, see them fund democratizing-type institutions in certain places as they increase their trade footprint. the free flow of ideas is powerful, and liberals are confident that they can win those debates. but, a little funding helps, too.
so, this isn't unexpected. it's standard liberal economics. rather, what was a little weird was watching the tories act like liberals - you would expect *them* to slap down sanctions and isolate them.
but, what we need in the region is some radical post-marxist neo-con regime change - or at least some vaguely lockean concept of a broken social contract. neither boycotts nor dialogue or going to open that society up.
i think a lot of the confusion over this has to do with the spectrum in the united states. so, let's get this straight, ok?
the democrats are conservatives. the republicans are marxists.
there are no liberals in the spectrum.
i mean, you get the perennial third party liberals - ralph nader and the green party, kind of thing. you've got, like, bill maher running his mouth off on tv. but, liberals basically simply don't exist at all in any meaningful politically organized way in the united states.
and, due to the length of time that the liberals have been out of power in canada and their virtual non-existence in mainstream media, it really seems like there's a lot of people in the canadian media that need a crash course in liberalism 101.
i think ignatieff was basically an imbecile. but, this is something he seemed to get. i guess he left for a while and came back and was astonished by the disconnect. if you look through the archives, you'll see that he made an honest attempt to have this discussion - to get this into the media discourse. hence, the question: what is a liberal? what is liberalism? what are liberal values?
all the media seems to want to push is the idea that liberals are basically a front for a couple of bankers, and they just throw out whatever they think will get them elected. but, this is just a bunch of talking points coming from the ndp - and, in fact, it's a rather pathetic set of them. we're talking about liberalism, here. about the only western system of philosophy with more literature attached to it than liberalism is christianity, and that's arguably an eastern system of thought. and, the media wants to claim this doesn't exist?
on issue after issue, there is a well-defined liberal position that usually has centuries worth of thinking attached to it. the reality is that the liberal party of canada reliably holds pretty close to the status quo of academic liberalism. over and over again. for a long time, now.
it would behoove the media to take the time to work this out.
no liberal ever, anywhere, has ever argued that you approach a regime like the saudis through boycotts.
that is a traditionally conservative position - the idea that good behaviour should be rewarded and bad behaviour should be punished.
again: liberals argue that you approach a regime like the saudis from a distance through trade liberalization, which opens up the society; marxists would argue that you need a revolution.
only conservatives would ever argue, ever, that you approach this through a system of punishment and reward.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-advised-to-deepen-ties-with-saudi-arabia/article28058715/
the liberals have a long history of trade relationships with dictators. it's not passive pragmatism, or disinterest in human rights. it's basic liberal economic theory that you make things worse through boycotts and you make things better through engagement.
the problem is that liberalism died everywhere else in the western world when hitler made a fool out of chamberlain. canada is the only place it carried on, and the only place it still exists.
you will simply not see this government pick up any of the punitive trade policies that the conservatives/democrats were pushing. that kind of thing is not consistent with liberal foreign relations.
you may, however, see them fund democratizing-type institutions in certain places as they increase their trade footprint. the free flow of ideas is powerful, and liberals are confident that they can win those debates. but, a little funding helps, too.
multiple panelists danced around the issue, but nobody really came out and said it: you can't get good data on "wellness" by asking people. and you certainly can't do it cross-culturally, as you're just collecting cultural bias. robust, my ass. it's doomed...
doomed!
up here in canada, for example, we'd say that we're doing just fine - and thank you for asking. a negative response would actually be considered socially unacceptable, as it's burdening others with one's own problems. it's less of a social responsibility like you see with the brits, and more of a kind of a groupthink-driven social ostracism; that is, if you give a negative response, you won't get asked by that person again and will probably be ignored by them altogether. all that politeness isn't just hubris. we actually demand social pleasantries as a pre-condition for participation in society. we do allow for our few minutes of hate daily, but it only goes towards acceptable targets - like sitting politicians, or american hockey teams that are doing well. a canadian wellness survey really means absolutely nothing internally, and becomes little more than useless data when compared to similar results from, say, uganda.
it's a shame, though, because i do think that this is a better idea than gdp. i just haven't a clue as to how to measure it, and may perhaps lean towards the idea that it's just fundamentally qualitative and outside of the realm of quantitative analysis.
in a functioning democracy, one would think this would actually be measured at the ballot box.
doomed!
up here in canada, for example, we'd say that we're doing just fine - and thank you for asking. a negative response would actually be considered socially unacceptable, as it's burdening others with one's own problems. it's less of a social responsibility like you see with the brits, and more of a kind of a groupthink-driven social ostracism; that is, if you give a negative response, you won't get asked by that person again and will probably be ignored by them altogether. all that politeness isn't just hubris. we actually demand social pleasantries as a pre-condition for participation in society. we do allow for our few minutes of hate daily, but it only goes towards acceptable targets - like sitting politicians, or american hockey teams that are doing well. a canadian wellness survey really means absolutely nothing internally, and becomes little more than useless data when compared to similar results from, say, uganda.
it's a shame, though, because i do think that this is a better idea than gdp. i just haven't a clue as to how to measure it, and may perhaps lean towards the idea that it's just fundamentally qualitative and outside of the realm of quantitative analysis.
in a functioning democracy, one would think this would actually be measured at the ballot box.
publishing on sexual confusion in adolescence (inri013)
i have added a modified vocal reconstruction to the front of this ep and the 2013 remaster to the end of it, as a download only. that closes the ep.
i'll be permanently resequencing the first record next, but i need to get groceries this afternoon while it's nice, first.
==
this was not initially constructed as a standalone work, but it became one almost the moment that it was constructed. there was always an intent to combine the sexuality themed tracks together at the front of my first record, but the initial idea was something more like frontloading the disc than building a cohesive work. it just happened to build itself up that way, and was truly apparent as such on the very first listen. even the phantom of the opera cover in the middle of the track became topical in a sort of subversive way.
i first broke the piece off into a standalone file in the spring of 2014 as a mirror image to the sequence that ends my second record, which actually *was* consciously written as a single work all the way back in 1996 (and appears that way at the end of the very first demo tape). i thought that if the second record was going to have an epic then the first should as well. as the first six tracks had long been a subset in my mind, this was a natural thing to do. the title of the track was first published as an upload to youtube in mar, 2014 on the deathtokoalas channel, which is now deleted.
i did not initially number these tracks as symphonies due to their incorporation of childish vocals, although i had planned to include them on any symphonic compilation discs, nonetheless. i saw them more as proto-symphonies - or just as beginner epics, where i was finding my feet but ultimately still working out ideas.
it wasn't until i finished reclaiming my 1998 demos from tape at the end of 2015 that i realized that i could resequence my first two records from scratch and republish them as instrumental works. the ability to reclaim these two epics as instrumental works, and consequently as full symphonies, followed as a corollary of this. it was consequently not until january, 2016 that i finally elevated the instrumental reconstruction of this recording to the level of my first official symphony, which is where it will now exist into perpetuity: eternally, finally.
the focus in reconstruction was to erect a final version rather than conform to the original mix, so later versions were prioritized over earlier ones. the first through fourth sections are very similar to the original album mix, whereas the fifth and sixth sections have been replaced with expanded mixes.
once the instrumental version had been constructed for the record, i felt i had lost something by removing the vocals - or at least some of them. in the context of the improved master, i felt an edited vocal take could actually elevate the symphony to a different and surreal level, if presented in the right context. this context could not be on the record, though, which had to be fully instrumental. instead, i decided to place the vocal reconstruction as a standalone single, with the instrumental as a flip side to it.
this is an incredibly dense piece of music that i'm proud to finally place in the serious part of my discography.
written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan 6-7, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. released jan 7, 2016. this is my first symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one: initially written & recorded in 1997. re-recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016.
section two: initially written in 1994. first full recording in 1996. recreated in mar, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 18, 2015. sequenced jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section three: initially written by andrew lloyd webber. recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016.
section four: originally created in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 5, 2015. expanded on jan 3, 2016 & sequenced on jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section five: written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. rearranged again at the end of may, 2015. remastered from the 2014 & 2015 sources on jan 6, 2016.
section six: initially written in 1997. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 5, 2015. remixed july 12, 2015. vocals and electronics added on july 16, 2015. sequenced on jan 6, 2016.
credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, vocals, drum programming, orchestral & other sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, found sounds (washing machine), metronome, digital wave editing, production
the rendered electronic orchestra includes piano, electric guitar, orchestra hit, pizzicato strings, synth pads, violin, viola, cello, contrabass, electric bass, tubular bells and flute.
released june 6, 1998
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence
1) written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan 6-7, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence-2
2) this is also the opening sequence (the first six tracks) of my first official record. written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan 6, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence-instrumental
3) deleted 2013 remaster of the opening sequence of the first record. written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence-2013-remaster-of-1998-cd-mix-2
4) deleted original 1998 opening sequence of the first record. written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence-original-1998-cd-mix-2
i'll be permanently resequencing the first record next, but i need to get groceries this afternoon while it's nice, first.
==
this was not initially constructed as a standalone work, but it became one almost the moment that it was constructed. there was always an intent to combine the sexuality themed tracks together at the front of my first record, but the initial idea was something more like frontloading the disc than building a cohesive work. it just happened to build itself up that way, and was truly apparent as such on the very first listen. even the phantom of the opera cover in the middle of the track became topical in a sort of subversive way.
i first broke the piece off into a standalone file in the spring of 2014 as a mirror image to the sequence that ends my second record, which actually *was* consciously written as a single work all the way back in 1996 (and appears that way at the end of the very first demo tape). i thought that if the second record was going to have an epic then the first should as well. as the first six tracks had long been a subset in my mind, this was a natural thing to do. the title of the track was first published as an upload to youtube in mar, 2014 on the deathtokoalas channel, which is now deleted.
i did not initially number these tracks as symphonies due to their incorporation of childish vocals, although i had planned to include them on any symphonic compilation discs, nonetheless. i saw them more as proto-symphonies - or just as beginner epics, where i was finding my feet but ultimately still working out ideas.
it wasn't until i finished reclaiming my 1998 demos from tape at the end of 2015 that i realized that i could resequence my first two records from scratch and republish them as instrumental works. the ability to reclaim these two epics as instrumental works, and consequently as full symphonies, followed as a corollary of this. it was consequently not until january, 2016 that i finally elevated the instrumental reconstruction of this recording to the level of my first official symphony, which is where it will now exist into perpetuity: eternally, finally.
the focus in reconstruction was to erect a final version rather than conform to the original mix, so later versions were prioritized over earlier ones. the first through fourth sections are very similar to the original album mix, whereas the fifth and sixth sections have been replaced with expanded mixes.
once the instrumental version had been constructed for the record, i felt i had lost something by removing the vocals - or at least some of them. in the context of the improved master, i felt an edited vocal take could actually elevate the symphony to a different and surreal level, if presented in the right context. this context could not be on the record, though, which had to be fully instrumental. instead, i decided to place the vocal reconstruction as a standalone single, with the instrumental as a flip side to it.
this is an incredibly dense piece of music that i'm proud to finally place in the serious part of my discography.
written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan 6-7, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. released jan 7, 2016. this is my first symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one: initially written & recorded in 1997. re-recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016.
section two: initially written in 1994. first full recording in 1996. recreated in mar, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 18, 2015. sequenced jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section three: initially written by andrew lloyd webber. recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016.
section four: originally created in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 5, 2015. expanded on jan 3, 2016 & sequenced on jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section five: written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. rearranged again at the end of may, 2015. remastered from the 2014 & 2015 sources on jan 6, 2016.
section six: initially written in 1997. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 5, 2015. remixed july 12, 2015. vocals and electronics added on july 16, 2015. sequenced on jan 6, 2016.
credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, vocals, drum programming, orchestral & other sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, found sounds (washing machine), metronome, digital wave editing, production
the rendered electronic orchestra includes piano, electric guitar, orchestra hit, pizzicato strings, synth pads, violin, viola, cello, contrabass, electric bass, tubular bells and flute.
released june 6, 1998
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence
1) written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan 6-7, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence-2
2) this is also the opening sequence (the first six tracks) of my first official record. written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan 6, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence-instrumental
3) deleted 2013 remaster of the opening sequence of the first record. written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence-2013-remaster-of-1998-cd-mix-2
4) deleted original 1998 opening sequence of the first record. written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/on-sexual-confusion-in-adolescence-original-1998-cd-mix-2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)