i actually really like this...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article90545862.html

j reacts to bloomberg as reaction to giuliani (hillary is a neo-con....)

i would highly advise that the clinton campaign requests that bloomberg not publicly endorse clinton.

i know she's running on the right and everything. but, bloomberg doesn't excite anybody she needs to swing. he just irritates progressive voters. it's one thing to focus on trying to win missouri, it's another to go out of your way to poke northeastern liberals in the eye like that.

new york is not in play. well, unless she bleeds dramatically to stein. which is what something like this facilitates.

my guess is it's some kind of reaction to giuliani or something.

nobody cares what rudy giuliani thinks, says or does. he's widely seen as a fringe idiot.

she's better off ignoring him.

that's what everybody else does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B--WKtgngBg
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/bloombergs-poll-shows-people-hate-michael-bloomberg

wait.

did she want giuliani?

ugh. just point me to the nearest fucking wall...

you know what it is, though? it's all this neo-con bullshit out of 9/11, this idea that america needs an enemy to fight against. it's right out of fucking leo strauss. so, because she buys into all that nonsense, she sees the giuliani endorsement as a threat.

 there's no other rational reason why she should care what giuliani thinks at all. the state is not in play. he's not actually particularly popular, or well regarded by anybody beside the lunatic fringe on the right. it's just the narrative that came out after 9/11 about how he was some kind of leader. when? between spraying the city with malathion and pushing racial profiling from city hall? nobody actually thinks that. it was just some bullshit floated on fox news.

in fact, he's been eaten alive by somebody with some actual influence on popular opinion: jon stewart. stewart destroyed the guy. he couldn't get elected dog catcher after the hatchet job stewart did on him.

but, she doesn't have any kind of meaningful connection to popular opinion. she just gets her perspectives from these shielded right-wing think tanks, and they never really dropped the bullshit.

ok, ok - it's very deductive of me to conclude that she's bringing in bloomberg to counteract giuliani. but, i mean, do you have a better explanation? both as to why she would want to be seen in public with bloomberg, and why she would think what giuliani thinks is at all important, if the connection is actually accurate?

it's consistent, anyways. and hillary is in fact consistent - both when she's lying and when she isn't.

but, note something else: she's reacting. she's not leading. again.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/25/michael-bloomberg-no-chance-of-being-president-third-party-candidate-alienate-voters

j reacts to bernie sanders' reaction to tim kaine

"He is a very nice guy." - bernie sanders on tim kaine

but, bernie. what do you think about his policies?

"He is a very nice guy."

hey, i had a mom too. i get it.

trey parker called. he wants his show back.

what you're describing is kind of not what christianity is about, actually. at least not the american/calvinist variety.

part of the problem here is that "christianity" is impossibly vague. the different denominations are drastically different. you can't just throw "christianity" out there like it has some encompassing meaning. you've gotta be a lot more specific.

it's really just a buzz word. and people will assign just about whatever they want to it.

that's not recent, either. it's not just post-reformation. they had heretics all over the place from day one. it took them several centuries just to come up with a basic creed, and that didn't even really stick. nobody's really ever been sure what the term means.

jessica
either they got hacked, or somebody pulled funding.

i mean, if this isn't a hack, it really opens up some questions about who is running this channel. this is right-wing trash.

Giuliana Rexic
Right-wing trash? It's factual. Thousands of women are being maimed by these implants.

jessica
it's just slut-shaming bullshit.

Giuliana Rexic
WTF are you talking about?

jessica
this shit has been going on for fifty years. it's just the latest iteration of the 'contraception is unsafe' meme that the right has been pushing since the pill was patented.

Giuliana Rexic
I see. I'll let the Essure victims know that!

jessica
these people made an informed choice regarding a statistically safe means of contraception and unfortunately had to deal with an obscure defect. they're not victims of anything except bad luck. again: this right-wing catholic propaganda to make contraception seem unsafe is very longstanding.

Giuliana Rexic
They couldn't have made an informed choice when they weren't given the true risks of the product. You're all over the place.

jessica
again: this is a safe product. there's some chance you're going to get hit by lightning, but that doesn't mean you refuse to leave the house. you're dealing with the same kind of probabilities that you get with vaccination, or, in fact, with the birth control pill.

that information is available - and it's the consumer's responsibility to do that research, once the risks have been published. says who? says five hundred years of british legal jurisprudence.

so, why are they pushing this? again: it's the same bullshit that's been going on for fifty years.

what i'm pointing out is that the video is pushing a right-wing, catholic conspiracy theory. it is the same right-wing conspiracy theory you hear from people like alex jones: population control. eugenics. and, when i see that rfk, jr works for this channel, that is very suspicious.

j reacts to how dangerous and radical (right...) that picking tim kaine actually is

i just want to reject this idea that tim kaine is a "safe" pick. if that argument is directed anywhere, it's at the left of the democratic party. what tim kaine suggests to me is that clinton is going to be aggressively pursuing republicans. this isn't about playing defense, it's about positioning herself in such a way that she can credibly convince conservatives that she's more aligned with them.

this is what a two party system does. if you're going to uphold a two-party system, this is what you're going to get. the democrats are never going to fight on their left because they're never going to be threatened on the left. there has to be another party there.

the reason this is so predictable is because the system necessitates it. in a two-party system, all elections are fought in the center and the nominee of the party is obligated to focus her efforts on winning votes on the other side of the aisle. that's how the system works.

again: don't keep upholding this system, then expect it to do something it's not designed to do. if you want the democrats to swing left, you have absolutely no choice but to create a party on the left for it to compete with.

08. the summer of final reconstructions, pt 1 (inri000-inri011) (dvd 8)

23-07-2016: closing inri011, working through may/98 and defining inri012

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/nope-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/i-think-i-feel-much-better-now

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/slipping-away
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/weedin-the-yard
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/wish-r2d2-mix
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-phantom-of-the-washing-machine

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

finalizing nope (inri011)

it's often remarked that there's a fine line between genius and idiocy. it's less often remarked that there's an equally fine line between wisdom and depression.

in early 1998, i was generating quite a bit of concern about my mental well being. ironically, i think this actually coincided with a period of very rapid mental development and maturation. i kind of just went to sleep one night as an immature teen and woke up the next morning as an overmature young adult. i can't really assign any kind of catalyst to it, either. while i haven't looked into this at all, i suspect it's a less uncommon phenomenon than might be imagined.

i should maybe give my parents, which at this point in time means my father and step-mother but primarily my father, a little bit of credit for at least being aware that my character underwent a sudden, dramatic shift from being a hyperactive kid to being a quiet and withdrawn teen. the immediate interpretation of such a shift is inevitably going to be that it is at least consistent with the onset of some kind of depression. so, i ended up dealing with the spanish inquisition for a while, regarding my shift in demeanor. was i alright? if i wasn't, would i tell him? would i agree to talk to somebody?

i did agree to talk to somebody, mostly to ease his own concerns. i mean, i just didn't see the need for him to be worrying about me like this.

the reality of the situation was that i had simply matured a little bit. sure: there were some real life concerns happening around me. life at 17 is not childhood any longer; it can be stressful. maybe that had affected me a little bit. but, depression? i didn't feel that i was suffering from anything. i just felt that my personality was asserting itself as something that was kind of stoic. i don't want to call myself a sociopath, exactly: stoicism gets the point across better. what's the point of getting irritable? what does it solve?

the doctor keyed in on some of the music i was listening to. now, it's the late 90s: right after grunge. people are still reeling from, like, kurt cobain copycat suicides. i was in a bit of a different musical head space than that, one defined mostly by nine inch nails (and including influences on nin and offshoots from it). that's actually considerably worse, on first glance, although i was aware of the fact that reznor was writing from the perspective of a character rather than from personal experience. the point is that i understood where the concern was coming from and was able to effectively articulate that point to the doctor. we agreed that i didn't necessarily need to be put on anti-depressants right away, but that i should accept a prescription and fill it at some point if i get overwhelmed.

so, i came home with a prescription and immediately hit the internet to research it. i didn't like what i found. i had explicitly told the doctor that i was experiencing a lack of emotional instability, not an excess of it. so, i didn't need to turn my emotions off; if anything, i would have benefited more from something that amplified my emotions more. the idea that i was depressed was just a misperception. nonetheless, the mere *idea* of taking drugs that would suppress my emotions and may have long term or permanent effects scared the hell out of me. the xfiles sample that appears on the original mix was something that i had put aside for future pro-atheist use but, after doing this research, became very relevant in a completely different context.

so, i wasn't keen on taking these drugs that were going to at best turn me into a zombie and at worst turn me into a mass murderer. nope. no thanks...

my dad pushed the point for quite a while, though. in his mind, i came home with a prescription and ought to fill it. this song is a reaction to his insistence, which i always knew was coming from a good place. in fact, he never really dropped the argument.

the doctor and i also talked a little bit about my own music, and how it was an outlet for various frustrations. i made the argument that, while i didn't feel depressed, i was nonetheless better off working out issues of the sort through art than i was taking pills. so, this song also exists on that kind of meta level.

in hindsight, i don't want to give off the impression that i reject psychology or the medicalization of depression. that is simply untrue. the honest truth is that i simply did not feel that i was suffering from any kind of depression. yet, i've also always been very uncomfortable with the way that this process unfolded. we talked for less than an hour, and i walked out with a prescription for a mind-altering substance that could have dramatically damaged me. why is there not more oversight in this process? one would think that i should have been given a blood test to determine if i actually had an imbalance or not. no doctor can determine an imbalance through intuition. that is flat out quackery! an imbalance must be measured. if it can be determined empirically, it ought to be reacted to. yet, i was never even tested.

as an artist, i'm glad that i had the presence of mind to reject the drugs at this age. i simply don't know what they would have done to me, or who i would be today had i taken them.

originally created in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 4, 2015. remixed july 15, 2015. vocals added jan 6, 2016. finalized on july 23, 2016. as always, please use headphones.  

the album version of this track appears on my first record, inri (inri015): jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3 

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1998, 2013, 2015, 2016).

credits:
j - guitars, effects, synth bass, synths, drum programming, sequencing, vocals, sampling, digital wave editing, production

released april 29, 1998

i'm not a russian spy, but i know the russians are spying on me.

so, i'm actually going to dedicate this track to sergei lavrov.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/nope-2

it's ok if you don't get it.

Doug N
Carter caused huge inflation and unemployment. I agree with Bob that Republicans probably made a deal but I doubt Reagan was personally involved. After the huge inflation and unemployment Carter caused I'm glad the Republicans got him out.

deathtokoalas
the inflation was a consequence of the oil embargo. it had nothing to do with carter, except in the sense that he was an ally of israel. the person you should be blaming is henry kissinger.

rick0857
If that picture is your true picture YOU are not even OLD ENOUGH to know who jimmah Karter is, let alone comment on the history of the time. IF you know anything about it at all about that time, it was spoon fed to you by some MARXIST LEFTIST SCHOOL HOUSE/INDOCTRINATION CENTER with a definite leftward slant!

deathtokoalas
i actually don't have much of a rebuttal to this, other than to point out that the schools i've attended have been right-leaning, and i've sought marxist analyses on my own initiative.

what i'm presenting, though, is a very centrist keynesian/liberal analysis, and not a marxist one.

Martha Bartha
Proper names should be Capitalized.

deathtokoalas
but, i'm an anti-capitalist.

Martha Bartha
Oh OK. Is that a thing?

deathtokoalas
i don't know if it's a thing. i know i've been an anti-capitalist, alphabetical egalitarian and general grammar anti-authoritarian since the 90s. one could say it's a running gag, at least.

Doug N
What did Henry Kissinger have to do with it or being an ally of Israel? I guess you'd blame being an ally of Israel on the terrorist attacks too. Nothing to do with Islam and Arab oil producers.

deathtokoalas
assigning blame in complex situations is often foolhardy, and this is a good example of this. as i'm sure you know, however, the embargo was a consequence of us support for israeli policies. it does consequently follow that the architect of this us support shoulders a great deal of the responsibility for the embargo.

Doug N
You have a point about the reason not being Carter but I'll blame it on the ones who made it, the oil Muslims as there is nothing wrong with Israel being who and what it is.

deathtokoalas
you'll notice that i'm assigning the majority of the blame to kissinger, not to the israeli state. i will agree that you can't fault israel for aggressively pursuing it's self-interest.

Doug N
However you assign blame I don't see wrong in US policy with Israel. I see wrong with the Islamic countries unprovoked continuous actions of attempted genocide and smearing of Israel. I don't see Kissinger at fault for good policy that benefits both countries.

deathtokoalas
this is a moral argument, not a logical one. kissinger should have been able to see the consequences of his policies, and bears responsibility for them.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/new-dnc-email-leak-is-the-final-nail-in-the-party.html

"a new national poll reveals that 42 percent of Americans wrongly attribute Marx’s famous communist slogan, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” to one of the country’s Founding documents. Nearly one in five Americans believe this phrase can be found in the Bill of Rights, of all places. You can take some solace in knowing that among young adults, only six percent made this mistake, though 30 percent of them believe Marx’s statement can be found in either the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution."

j reacts to the irrelevance of the dnc leak on the upcoming election

i don't think this matters. not because it isn't a story, but because there's no new information. we already knew that the dnc was in clinton's pocket. we've all already decided whether it's going to affect how we react.

i'm an issues voter. and i'm a socialist. sanders himself has indicated that he understood what he was walking into, and what the democratic party is. what would be shocking is if this didn't happen.

so, those that speak of "party unity" are misunderstanding the situation. we were never democrats and we were never going to back clinton anyways...

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/new-dnc-email-leak-is-the-final-nail-in-the-party.html

jessica
i'm having a really time grappling with the idea that anybody at tyt approved this. it's not even political; this is the kind of anti-science bullshit that they're usually highly critical of. the day tyt does naturalnews exposes...

like, you want to know why your channel only has 30,000 subscribers? this video is why your channel only has 30,000 subscribers.

where's the vaccines cause autism video?

Top Dog
I mean TYT has talked shit about gmos before, misreported about zika before. They're not really scientifically literate.

jessica
i think that they may give themselves too much credit, but evidence-based research is a key aspect of their messaging.

if this isn't a hack, somebody pulled funding or got up and went home or something.

there's something seriously askew, here.

what if it's an inside job, though?

7/24 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

------

Miranda N
"Johnson & Johnson" is such a silly anachronistic awkward name.

PantsStatusZero
No. When Johnson come together, THAT'S when the magic happens!

jessica
well, he said he supports gay marriage.

j reacts to a type of creeeping right-wing revisionism around the holocaust

the nazis actually gassed leftists.

this line from the right isn't just ignorance. it's offensive.

it's as egregious as holocaust denial.

to an extent, it is holocaust denial: it's a denial of the nazis' mass slaughter of communists, socialists and liberals.

whether you want to raise it to that level or not, and whether you think it's arbitrary or not, it's the worst kind of historical revisionism. i can rarely handle another word from somebody when i hear that line. i just want to run them other with a bulldozer.

j finally (tersely) reacts to pokemon go

you have a supercomputer communications device in your pocket that you could use to start a revolution, and you've decided to chase cartoon monsters around parking lots, instead.

it's worse than infinite human stupidity. it's mass schizophrenia, brought on by the trauma of modern existence.

i want to see some footage of kids playing pokemon go beside footage of kids sniffing glue. i think it would be illuminating. which seems like it kills more brain cells?

22-07-2016: inri010.

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/why
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

seems like the bankers are safe for another generation.

i disagree. i mean, i don't like the pick, don't get me wrong. but, i think the silent majority has at least one more election in it, and kaine/clinton is exactly what that silent majority wants: quiet, stable status quo. in game theory terms, it completely dominates trump in the centre.

consider abortion. trump made a huge error in listening to special interest groups on abortion, and the pence thing sends the message that they're going to get right-wing justices. but, do most republicans want to end funding? of course they don't. most republicans have a middle-of-the-road position on this that is closer to where tim kaine stands. they dominate the center on this issue, and will appeal more to the wide swath of voters on both sides of the spectrum as a consequence of it.

or, you could look at foreign policy. do most republicans want to pull out of nato or cut funding? not at all. they're going to lean closer to where hillary stands. do most republicans oppose the tpp? not at all. & etc.

this could bump stein up to 10% over night, but it won't matter if she makes it up by winning moderate republicans. forget about virginia. why isn't missouri in play? arkansas? those are the kinds of states she should be going after, and that she can win by fighting the election on the center-right.

publishing why (inri010)

audio permanently closed for inri010.

===

here's the biting, satirical, misanthropic anarchist jessica that you know and love! finally...

this is the first thing that shows up that's explicitly political in more than a social sense. the lyrics are clear, obvious and mixed very much to the front. here's the story on that: i'm emulating a beat-box situation. i'm a politician, tongue-in-cheek, with a sound system in the back. the paper crumpling sound in the middle is meant to represent me spoiling a ballot.

in hindsight, i suppose that the idea that i'm trying to get across is largely gramscian. in the language of modern memes, the track simply tells us to keep calm and vote for the status quo. but, you'll note that i'm focusing a lot on the deficit of discourse. this could be interpreted a few ways. you could think about how the function of advertising is to suppress thought, for example. however, what i was thinking at the time intersects most cleanly with the idea of the state functioning as the modern church. in this system, which does not only exist on the right, the politician is also a priest and enforces the same role of thought suppression that the church did in the middle ages. the politician herds the sheep into the polls to uphold the status quo; democracy consequently leads to stasis, and prevents any kind of real change. what i had actually read at this age was not gramsci or chomsky but orwell. yet, what's actually driving me is something closer to what we would today associate with dawkins - largely through asimov.

you'll note that i'm not particularly hopeful about the process, either - i don't have a lot of faith in humans to transcend this process of control. it's a deep form of misanthropy, with little way out. yet, my idea of human nature is that we are very malleable, not that we are fixed in perpetual assholery. even at this age, i realize that we are not doomed....

....we're just very poorly equipped to get our shit together.

initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 12, 2015. vocals added july 15, 2015. sequenced, released and finalized on july 22, 2016. as always, please use headphones.

credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, drum programming, drum kit, synthesizers, found sound (paper crumpling), pick scrapes, tapes, noise generators, cool edit synthesis, sampling, vocals, digital wave editing, production

released april 19, 1998

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/why


1) when i reclaimed this track in the summer of 2015, i output a vocal version for the fun of it and then left it to sit for several months. no single was constructed on the initial run through in early 2016 because i had made the decision to not release vocal mixes. however, with the creation of the epic "on sexual confusion in adolescence", i have reversed that decision and decided to release select vocal tracks as singles. this track makes the cut. initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 12, 2015. vocals added july 15, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-3


2) this version has been edited and sequenced for inclusion on my second record, inriched (inri021). initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 12, 2015. sequenced and finalized on july 22, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-album-version


3) version reconstructed in 2015 from tape. initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 12, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-2015-reconstruction-from-1998-source-tapes


4) this is a glitchy, instrumental remix of the track that i only vaguely recall putting together. initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. converted to stereo on sept 24, 2014.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-wtf-mix-2


5) from inricycled. initially written in 1996. remastered in 2013. dated dec 11, 2013.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/phased-out-a-robots-lament-2


6) deleted 2013 remaster of the 1998 demo, which would later appear on my second record, inriched (inri021). initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. dated dec 24, 2013.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-2013-remaster-of-1998-demo


7) deleted 1998 edit, which would later appear on my second record, inriched (inri021). initially written in 1996. recreated and edited in april, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-original-1999-album-edit


8) 2013 remaster of 1996 demo cassette. initially written in 1996. remastered in 2013. dated oct 12, 2013.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-2013-remaster-of-1996-demo-mix-2

9) deleted 1998 original, unsequenced mix. initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. dated april 19, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-full-1998-mix-2

10) deleted original 1996 mix. initially written in 1996. dated oct 20, 1996.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/end-sequence-of-side-a-of-the-1996-demo-tape-2

j reacts to the kaine pick being official

announcing on a friday night...

i think this took exactly twelve seconds to get published, but i've said my bit on this. yes: it will piss off the left. but, this election is going to be fought on the center-right, which in the united states means the solid right just about everywhere else.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/22/12244762/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-vice-president-running-mate-announcement

i'm not the only person wondering this.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/donald-trump-working-for-russia.html

it gets complex because it intersects with what the clinton campaign is pushing. but, there's a real question, here, that requires some real research and a real answer.

why (album mix)

this version has been edited and sequenced for inclusion on my second record, inriched (inri021).  initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 12, 2015. sequenced and finalized on july 22, 2016.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-album-version

21-07-2016: fixing inri007, closing inri009, working through april/98 and defining inri010

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/i-did-your-mom-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/i-think-i-feel-much-better-now
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/convoy
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/wish
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/why
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

you know, i get the feeling that mother jones would have been the first person to point out that america was never great to start off with. i mean, where was it's initial point of greatness? the slave trade or the indigenous genocide?

i'd be happier with "let's repair the harm america has done to the world".

i can do this the long way or the short way, but i'm going to do it the short way: i'm actually convinced (and have been since "climategate") that alex jones is actually working for the russians. i watch a ton of russian media designed for english audiences, and you can pick out a lot of overlap. his core message is john birch society, which says 'koch brothers'. and, he has admitted to taking money and influence from them. but, there was some kind of break at some point during the bush administration with a lot of these jbs-type conservatives turning against the party, accusing it of being in league with the united nations and taking this pro-putin perspective, instead. the idea is that the russians are a serious counterweight to the nwo. newt gingrich is another person that seems to have fractured along these lines. and, it maybe strains credulity to suggest that the fact that these groups are all aligning around trump is some kind of coincidence.

i've quietly pointed towards this for a few months now, actually. it's silly to suggest trump is working for the clintons. but, the idea that he may have some kind of agreement with the russians? my intuition - all circumstantial - suggests that there's something very real to this, although it's unclear what that actually means.

----

Zach Pileggi
Turk is mad because he got OWNED last night. Watching Alex Jones troll you brought joy to my heart. You said that we are against the Suadi Arabians but Hillary is accepting donations from their government for her foundation.

jessica
what i find really ironic is that supporters of a so-called independent media personality can't get out of the two-party system. you know that cenk has spent the last ten years attacking hillary clinton from just about every angle you could imagine, right? but, the only thing these people can understand is 7(trump) = clinton.

life experiences can be defining. i've seen this kind of out of character reaction before: that's not the first bully that cenk's had to stand up to.

cenk's always leaned right. and, the truth is that his audience does, too. it's really about time that he came out of the closet.

it's been pretty obvious the whole time that what the young turks does is seek out an alternative and then try and corner the market. up until now, that's broadly been on the left. the market appears to be evaporating, so he's shifting. it's very easy to understand and very predictable if you can see between the lines.

some of the other hosts here are a little more principled. but, cenk is just following the dollar signs. there's a bigger market for johnson than there is for stein. and, he sees a vacuum to take advantage of. so, that's what the coverage is going to swing to.

if you're disappointed, you weren't really paying attention.

greenmeister18
Does Cenk understand that Gary Johnson is a libertarian. Cenk doesn't have a libertarian bone in his body, and there's a lot of body.

jessica
see, it's funny that you say that, because i'd classify cenk as a classical liberal rather than a modern one.

i think he'd have rather supported gary johnson over bernie sanders in the first place.

but, i also think he's suffering from the same lack of careful thinking that libertarians everywhere suffer from. gary johnson's policies are not how you get money out of politics, they're how you reduce politics to nothing except money.

1:50. i'd rather something other than a fucking elf, but it's good to go.

this is absurdly racist.

i've been saying for a while that trump = gadget.

it's like gta.

but, what i'm looking for is a screen shot of those swirly eyes that comes up whenever somebody gets under mind control. point me to the right episode, if you can?

Cheyenne Cook
I think you are thinking of episode 10...A Star Is Lost where Claw wants to use superstar Rick Rocker to make a record that can control minds

jessica
naw, that's not the one. but i found the screen shot i wanted in a christmas special, where they brainwashed the elves.

again: at some point the rnc will need to pull it's head out of it's ass and realize it's own voters don't even want what it's pushing. i agree that cruz probably walked in there setting himself up for the next cycle, and that's the narrative that cruz wants, that the banks want, that the koch brothers want - that this whole constellation of big money wants. but, he got booed. at the convention. it's truly absurd. rather, that may be the breaking point that the party "intellectuals" need to kick your coulter types to the curb.

the future of the republican party is not in "movement conservatism", but in right-wing libertarianism. you get all the market fundamentalism, but you drop the christianity and you drop the racism. this stuff dies with the boomers. they're going to look back at this cycle and realize they blew it. this very well might be the symbolic end of the reagan era.

dude. how many of those eight hour speeches in congress were with prompters?

i wanted to make an abstract algebra joke, but the etymology of the term got the better of me.

all black sub-groups are isomorphic, no doubt.

the indians must by cyclic.

but, i'll wait to see his decomposition before i go further.

jessica
the ceo never does any work. big bonuses, lots of golf. hey, you told us that you wanted government run like a business, right?

Jeriel Baker
<tips hat>

Screwdriva
you believe everything the media you, don't ya?

jessica
i'm pretty skeptical, actually. but, you don't need a lot of critical thinking skills to realize that trump couldn't tie his own shoes. he makes chewing gum and walking at the same time seem like a practicable skill.

refinalizing confused (inri007)

hidden track added to inri007. audio permanently closed.

===

so, how exactly does one go about being transgendered, anyways? i mean, like anything else, i guess you have to come to terms with it, first. then, what?

it was the "what next?" part that took me a very long time to grapple with before i was able to come to some kind of course of action. i don't remember exactly how old i was when i realized that i was more like a girl than a boy, but i will state that my thought process was always that i was like a girl, rather than that i was a girl. i have to be blunt: i was a precocious child. i understood the biology of sexual organs at a pretty young age. i knew which organ i had, that it was the same as the one my dad had and that it was different than my mom. i never felt as though i was in the wrong body - that's not how i'd articulate it. i knew i was male. but, all my friends were girls. i preferred to do "girl things". so, i realized at a very, very young age that i was more similar to the girls in my life than to the boys, despite being well aware that i was genetically a boy. it functioned more on the level of social inclusion and conscious choice of gender role than it did on the level of anything biological. am i really that atypical? i don't know. but, i know that i never had any difficulty at all, whatsoever, in separating between sex, gender and gender roles. so, for example: i have very early memories of asking my mom to let me wear lipstick, and of asking to get my ears pierced (3,4 years old) but i don't attach those memories to feelings of gender dysphoria. i didn't see any reason why boys couldn't wear make-up. further, nobody really "corrected" me on it. so, i grew up without any shame or second thoughts attached to being a boy that was more like a girl, and consequently without any particularly strong urges to become a girl. my very early life actually finds it's best explanation in the theories of radical feminism: because the gender binary was never enforced on me, i never felt oppressed by it. i have to argue for a very healthy early upbringing.

what screwed me up and set me back a good ten years was the school system. when i got there at the age of four and a half, i wouldn't talk to the boys. i wanted to skip rope and play hopscotch with the girls. well, all my friends were girls. i didn't know how to play with the boys. what's a marble? i just didn't know. i got stuck with a fossil of a kindergarten teacher that actually flat out banned me from skipping rope. worse, she banned me from reading books. my absolutely docile and clinically rational temperament at that age probably worked against me. but, i had two choices: i could play with the trucks with the boys in the corner or i could go to sleep.

in fact, i slept a lot.

but, gradually, the system socialized me as a male. or, at least it seemed like it did.

my path through elementary school didn't really ease up on the gender segregation until the seventh grade, at which point it was essentially too late. the system had successfully prevented me from socializing with girls, but had never taught me how to socialize with boys. so, i had spent the last twelve years of school in social isolation, usually without any friends at all. i'd lost the opportunity to have all the gendered experiences one associates with childhood - which means i was deeply socially stunted. i was still pretty smart, academically speaking. however, i was operating at the social level of a much younger child because the school system had arrested my social development through segregating me into a gender role that i didn't understand how to fulfill.

by the time i got around to writing this song at the age of 16, i'd just become entirely stoic about the whole thing. i knew i was more like a girl, but what exactly was i going to do about it? i guess i had the perspective, at 16, that life was largely about managing misfortune and you just have to deal with shit, whether you like it or not.

rational? perhaps, from a certain perspective. it gnawed at me, though. the trauma underlying the track was the realization that i was a good part of the way through puberty, without ever having signed up for it. this was by no means unexpected, either, and i didn't ultimately feel that i had any recourse of action in preventing it. but, i felt like i'd been cheated out of something and was being forced into something i didn't remotely want.

as with the rest of the early tracks, the lyrics here are at their core the exploration of a morbid fantasy. i'm taking things too far, i'm taking any excuse i can to keep taking things too far and i'm enjoying watching you squirm when i do it. in one sense, it's a sarcastic allegory on the question of thinking with one's cock, which is a bio-chemical problem that all testosterone producers are forced to come to terms with at some point. in another sense, it's a transgendered teenager carrying out a sort of morbid fantasy and desperately looking for a way to prevent the masculinization of my body.

it took me another five years or so of internal struggle before i could get to the point where i saw hormone therapy as a realistic option, rather than a kind of utopian fantasy that would be perpetually out of reach until i finally expired.

this is the only period 1 piece that was further expanded through the addition of some bass and piano sequencing near the start of the piece. the vocals were also brought back in without redaction. so, this ep starts off with a full reconstruction of the piece that is only available on this single. the ep further comprehensively documents all other released versions of the track.
    
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. compiled on jan 4, 2016. sequenced on jan 6-8, 2016. finalized on july 10, 2016. hidden track added and refinalized on july 21, 2016. as always, please use headphones.

credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, vocals, synthesizers, drum programming, drum kit, sequencing, sampling, digital wave editing, production

released february 6, 1998

j reacts to the laughable notion of trump as authoritarian

regarding trump making decisions...

would you listen to a word he says?

he has no leadership ability, because he doesn't command any respect. even if he wanted to tell people what to do, nobody would listen.

j reacts to the 2016 cycle being a battle for yesterday

some themes are starting to develop from this cycle.

i think that what people are going to determine from this cycle in the long run is that it's the last gasp of the baby boomer generation. the republicans are stuck in the lalaland of the reagan era, and the democrats are stuck in the cold war.

well, both of the candidates are 70 years old. they should be retired, not vying to run the world. they're both out of touch. they both live in a world that doesn't exist anymore.

it kind of ties into the broader narrative of american decline. this is american democracy? this election belongs some time in the 70s.

whoever wins is going to be worse than a lame duck. they're going to be irrelevant before they're even sworn in. the country is going to be looking beyond either one of them before there's even a vote to be held. and, nothing either of them pass will last more than a few years.

it seems like i've been waiting my whole life for the boomers to just go away already. it's clear that they're not going to. but, whatever the outcome, this is their last gasp.

i don't feel like this is republican v democrat, or right v left. this is old v young. it's past v future. and, as it has been for most of their lives, the boomers have already won due to sheer numbers without any serious debate. but this has to be the end...

i'm already looking at 2020. and, i really hope we see some generational overturn all around. they won't survive another boomer. america may not survive this one, whoever it is.

j reacts to hillary clinton's insistence on turning the clocks back to the cold war

is this the election?

what year is it?

i miss jon stewart. what a fucking joke.

i don't care what vladimir putin does in europe. i want my american brothers and sisters to have access to universal healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/clinton-trump-putin-nato/492332/

no. listen.

zero fucks.

zero.

is it a conscious formula for voter suppression? i don't think so. i think she's really attached to running on her "foreign policy experience

it's the economy, you fucking dipshit.

yeah. that's right.

and, don't forget health care.

20-07-2016: clean-up on inri005 and inri009

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/skaters
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/i-did-your-mom-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

finalizing i did your mom (inri009)

audio permanently closed for inri009.

===

this is the final version of something i'd been playing with since about '94 or so, and by this time the track had become something that was beyond absurd. in a way, this is the culmination of everything i did in this period. it's the central track of my inri years: it's both the first thing i spent any time seriously writing and the ultimate realization of the musical ideas i was exploring. it's the longest track on the first demo. the drum programming is deep, there's an orchestration through sequencing, synth parts in the background, lead guitar work coming to the forefront - it's everything thrown together at a coherent level, really for the first time.

that this is the central track of this period maybe demonstrates how ridiculous i was and how ridiculous my musical vision was. maybe it also demonstrates just how young i was.

the remaining tracks in this period sort of pivot after this.

i should be clear: this is pretty much the most terrible song that you could possibly imagine existing, and that was kind of the intent. the shock value is entirely up front. but at the same time, it's just so terrible that it's kind of funny, and that was entirely intended as well.

you could maybe say something about how somebody like alice cooper ripping live chicken heads off in the middle of a performance is just about the most tyrannical thing you could imagine somebody getting away with on stage. it's just *so* ridiculous, that you can't help but laugh - even as you're horrified.

it's a phase a lot of teenagers go through. i guess the difference between me and a hundred thousand other kids is that i was exploring it through composition.

-

now that i'm an adult, this isn't something i would write or promote. yet, i sort of am by uploading it. the interest here is to document the existence of a troubled child. well, and to document myself - i was that troubled child.

the history of the track is perhaps a little less obnoxious than may be suspected. i was actually being taunted by somebody in the eighth grade. that person had never met and never would meet my mother. it's just a remark that young boys make. freudian analyses aside, i don't think there's really that much conscious thought put into it.

my decision to write a song about it was half a joke and half a response to being teased. i listened to and feigned laughter at a lot of oppressive jokes when i was younger; to an extent, i regret not speaking up, but i can state with honesty that i never felt comfortable taking part (now, self-deprecating humour, often of a sexual nature, is another thing). this reaction, on that "fuck you" level, shouldn't provide for any specific discomfort.

however, the fact that i explored the topic in a deeper level of depth than my taunters did perhaps might, and perhaps should. i need to bring you back to my aims in recording this early demo: i was trying to be as disturbing and shocking as i possibly could be. my taunters provided me with a particularly disturbing subject matter to explore, and i took full advantage of that.

this track is certainly disturbing and certainly shocking. success? well, i guess. looking back, i've always been torn between regret and satisfaction. i still am...

initially written in 1994. first full recording in 1996. recreated in mar, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed & remixed on july 18, 2015. released jan 7, 2016. sequenced jan 6-8, 2016. finalized on july 20, 2016. as always, please use headphones.

the album version of this track appears on my first record, inri (inri015): jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1998, 2013, 2015, 2016).

credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, vocals, drum programming, drum kit, synths, sequencers, sampling, digital wave editing, production

released march 20, 1998

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/i-did-your-mom-2

refinalizing skaters (inri005)

lead track added to inri005. audio permanently closed.

===

this is maybe a little hard to understand, if you weren't a teenager in a very specific period - about '91-'99, the 90s i guess, when the nu metal shift "corrected" things and tough guys went backing to being metalheads.

that period overlaps with a period when punk fashion moved from subculture to dominant culture. as with any other failed social revolution, the period is more defined by certain subculture traits being co-opted than it was by any meaningful change in social attitudes, even if it did correspond with a move towards liberalizing social attitudes in the older members of gen x.

i remember playing this for my aunt, who was a teenager in the 80s, and she was just confused by it. in her day, the skaters were the skinny punk kids that got picked on by the meathead jock metal heads. as mentioned, i think people that were teenagers in the 00s may more readily associate with this as well.

but the 90s were weird in this sense. skater culture in the 90s was defined by a sort of thuggish machismo gang mentality that overlapped more into gangster rap than punk rock. what you had where i grew up was a lot of upper middle class white kids skating because it was advertised to them as the "cool thing to do" and in the process co-opting this sort of survivalist 'hood mentality into a tool of oppression that they used to bully and intimidate the kids that, a decade before, would have identified as skateboarders. those kids may have maintained an interest in punk rock, but weren't generally accepted into the skater clique - which was essentially the "in group".

the culmination may seem a little surreal nowadays, if for no other reason than that it's been forgotten. but i remember sneaking through back alleys, evading skateboarding gangs made up of kids into slayer, while i had socal punk music blasting through my headphones. and i'm sure you'll get similar stories if you ask around - or maybe you were also that kid.

on one hand, this track was constructed to be sort of precious, and i think that it is. it's a pretty catchy pop song, really. on the other hand, i think i was trying to be a bit tougher than i actually was. i wasn't one to back down from confrontation - i'm still not. while i think it's true that i could have taken most of these brats one-on-one, i probably would have mostly chosen not to. see, the fear was always more that they'd convert the boards into weapons and then jump you. in canada, guns aren't much of a concern, but knives are.

...and the fear often came out of trivial reasons. talking with somebody's girlfriend. having a pair of headphones or a pair of shoes that might be worth something. basic thug shit.

in hindsight, the analysis here is a little simplistic. suggesting that these kids are going to grow up into pimps is problematic on numerous levels, although i can state with blunt honesty that a number of the people the song was about have grown up to be petty criminals with lengthy criminal records. i have to own that lack of depth and how it comes out in sometimes less than ideal statements, but i'm going to once again blame that on my age.

overall, i like this track on both a musical and thematic level. i just wish i had articulated myself a little bit better.

===

there was a specific story that influenced the track. when i was in the ninth grade, one of these skater bro types took it upon himself to start body-checking me into lockers. it was well understood that this person was older, but that just gave him more clout in the school's skater clique; he knew the older kids that they looked up to. i was never certain if he was on his second or third try at grade 9.

this wasn't the first time somebody had tried to get physical with me, but it was an escalation that i couldn't really tolerate. people flicking my ears was an annoyance, and especially so when it was a game, but it's the kind of thing one withstands. these were full on, run-at-me body checks that seemed to be designed with intent to harm.

i actually tried a few different tactics before i reacted. i tried sitting behind in class until he left, but it was visibly starting to make the female teacher uncomfortable that i was just sitting around waiting after class - and perhaps not unreasonably so. as for bringing it up with the teacher? well, this guy went out of his way to look for a teacher watching before he took a run. i couldn't be followed around by a teacher all day. i had to react on my own.

so, i tricked him into running at my open leg, which had him fall face first into the locker. he did not see the retribution in the act; he got up looking for a fight. as i was walking toward the exit, which was a staircase downwards, he took another run at me - which i dodged. that was an adrenaline filled movement, i tell you - he was full of stupid, hot rage and sidestepped like an angry bull. but, i still had to time it. there was no escape. he ended up falling down several flights of stairs and breaking his leg. consider what would have happened if i hadn't moved - even considering that i may have helped him lose his balance, a little.

from that point onwards, i lived in fear of being swarmed. rumours were floating around that i'd better stay away from certain people - which was a broadcast to me to stay low. i got the message, and spent the next several years sneaking around back passageways in and out of the school. i learned where the cuts in the fences were, how to detour across floor levels to follow the crowd, how to time the bus (we had public transit passes - and that fact alone probably spared me broken bones) to come in to class during the national anthem and other various scheduling and transiting tactics to avoid being alone at critical junctures. and, then i started to enjoy living that way, too.

i don't think that student came back the next year, so i'm not sure if he ever finished grade 9. but, part of the reason i'm telling you this story is that it helps paint a clearer demographic picture of the narrative that i'm presenting. if you remove the "skater" designation, this could be a story about gangs in schools that could be applied equally well across any other grouping. it just happened to be that the gangs at my school were populated by white skater kids, some from the welfare projects and others comfortably middle class. that might help to explain what some might see as a difficult reference point.

== =

i've presented this track in chronological ordering because i wanted to tell the story of the track itself. looking through my releases, it may be difficult to tell what is an ep from what is a single, and what is an ep from what is a record. this is an ep, and not a single. it's an ep because it's a conceptual ordering of the tracks, rather than just an exploration of a single incarnation of a specific track.

i don't deny that the lyrics are painful. and, wasn't i supposed to be getting rid of painful vocals? well, perhaps. but, note that no vocal takes of this track make it on to any of the abum-format presentations of it, excepting inricycled. the vocals are tied into the concept of the ep, which is a narration of the song as it developed.

so, chronological ordering is the only rational way to present the tracks. further, a comprehensive exploration of the track's development actually becomes necessary, in order to narrate it's entire development.

i'm not going to take this approach to every single. i just think that this track had to be preserved in this kind of way.

initially written in 1997. recreated in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 1, 2015. deconstructed dec 18, 2015. compiled on jan 4, 2016. finalized on july 6, 2016. lead track added and refinalized july 20, 2016. as always, please use headphones.

this release is compiled on inriℵ0:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/merch/inri-box-set

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 1998, 2013, 2016).

credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, drum programming, drum kit, sequencing, vocal noises, vocals, samples, production

released january 12, 1998

19-07-2016: distracted by debates with enemy ancaps and show reviews but the new inri009 is started

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/i-did-your-mom-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

Consultation: Proposed Amendments to Regulations Affecting Trusted Traveller Programs / Consultation : Modifications au règlement régissant les programmes des voyageurs dignes de confiance

the canada border services agency
English Version    *** La version française suit ***

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is conducting a public consultation regarding proposed amendments to Regulations under the Customs Act governing Trusted Traveller Programs (TTPs). The amendments will clarify the eligibility criteria that will replace the good character provision, the conditions of the authorizations, and the circumstances leading to suspension and cancellation of membership.

The CBSA website provides detailed information on the changes, as well as the rationale behind them.    

As a valued stakeholder, you can provide your feedback on these changes by replying to this email no later than 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on August 19, 2016.

Regards,

Program and Policy Management Division
Traveller Programs Directorate
Programs Branch
Canada Border Services Agency

*****************************************

Version française *** The English version precedes ***

L’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada (ASFC) mène une consultation publique concernant des modifications proposées au règlement en vertu de la Loi sur les douanes régissant les programmes des voyageurs fiables. Les modifications indiqueront clairement les critères d’admissibilité qui vont remplacer la disposition de bonne réputation, les conditions d’autorisations et les circonstances qui mènent à la suspension ou à l’annulation de l’adhésion.

Le site Web de l'ASFC fournit des renseignements détaillés sur les changements ainsi que le raisonnement qui les justifient.    

En tant qu’intervenant important, vous pouvez nous faire parvenir vos impressions sur ces changements en répondant à ce courriel d’ici le 19 août 2016 à 23 h 59 (HAE).

Salutations,

Division de la gestion des programmes et des politiques
Direction des programmes pour les voyageurs
Direction générale des programmes
Agence des services frontaliers du Canada 

jessica
if you want some consultation, my view is that cross-border travel is a right and not a privilege and that upcoming legislation should reflect that in reducing red tape for cross-border travel, not erecting further walls and barriers. the border should not be a barrier to movement in any kind of way. i was hoping that the change of government in canada would lead to less hassle at the border. so, the general crux of this movement seems disappointing.

the canada border services agency
The Canada Border Services Agency thanks you for your comments regarding the proposed changes to the Presentation of Persons (2003) Regulations. Comments received will be addressed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement published in the Canada Gazette following the completion of the public consultation period.  

Thank you.

Program and Policy Management Division
Traveller Programs Directorate
Programs Branch
Canada Border Services Agency

season 8 pt 2 stretched

season 8 pt 2

you just don't realize you have thermoregulation privilege.

how about this- they're the same damned thing.

paul jay's a smart guy, and i get what he's saying. he's roughly twice her age. and, it kind of does show here at points. if we rewind back eight years, paul jay was loudly making the argument that obama would be better on iran than mccain. bomb bomb iran, right. that was a clear and present danger. and, was he right? well, i think he kind of lost the plot on iran, actually. he got lost in the western propaganda narrative of the issue being about hegemony, rather than about competition. and, i've yet to see him really address the whole "russia-is-stacking-iran-with-anti-aircraft-systems" thing - which was kind of key in inking something now, or losing the leverage of the sanctions forever. so, kinda.

i'm not convinced that mccain would have actually bombed iran.

likewise, is hillary less belligerent than trump? hillary's a true believer. we're not really sure what is driving trump, besides ego. i reject the narrative that trump is in control: i think he's being handled, and making very few of the decisions in the campaign. as such, i think the reagan comparison is historically useful: he's a figurehead. the party is operating behind his back and over his head. so, this argument - which is coming directly from the clinton campaign - that trump has a bad temperament is largely moot. he can throw things at the wall and stomp his feet all day, that doesn't mean he's going to get his way.

i think the same thing is basically true of hillary. look at the email scandal, for example. she avoided indictment because she had no oversight over her staff. so, you look at the issue in libya - for example - and you have to wonder how much influence she really had. there's been enough information released to conclude that she at most had an executive role. that is, she basically signed off on things that were brought to her. that's the only reason she's not going to jail.

so, if trump wins, the party will be operating behind his back. if clinton wins, the party will be operating behind her back, too. in the end, she may take a little bit greater interest in being briefed than he will. but, i think there would be very little difference.

fwiw, on the gore invading iraq issue? check out some of gore's statements while it was happening. he left very little up to imagination: he all but stated that he would have invaded iraq. further, he called for more troops repeatedly. that's right out of his own mouth. i've looked this up a dozen times already, i don't really feel like doing it again. the idea that he would have behaved differently is not grounded in the facts.

i don't think hillary likes golf. so, it's not clear what she'll be doing when she's on vacation for ten months a year.

it boggles my mind that there are people that don't understand that orwell was a left libertarian.

social media is free media.

trump had a real advantage, as his tactic needed to be to moderate - which is what he would have been expected to do anyways. all he needed to do was pick a kasich-type moderate and he'd instantly rebuild the base. clinton, on the other hand, had to find some way to balance the centre with the left.

by picking pence, he is grabbing the ball and running out of bounds. he just gave up the entire centre. that was his advantage. moderate republicans are going to flock to clinton, now.

i don't think those numbers mean anything. i suspect that they reflect ignorance more than anything else. kneejerking. or, maybe clinton's team was right all along - that a substantial amount of bernie's supporters were just frustrated men.

i'm leaning more towards kneejerking, right now.

i think it will ease up.

but, i mean, keep in mind that you're talking about small percentages, too. 2%. 3%. would i find it surprising that 2-3% of sanders supporters were just flat out, open misogynists? not really.

---

if you vote for johnson as a protest vote, it sends the message that you want more tea party policies. so, why not just write in charles koch? or ted cruz?

---

AS Deckard
There is no 'Libertarian left.' Libertarians fall on the right of the American spectrum, as we're generally more focused on the economy than social issues.

Daisy Chains
Actually, the Libertarian Party represents mostly right-wing Libertarians... Left-Libertarians, Green Libertarians, Anarchist Capitalists/Voluntaryists etc are going to vote for Jill Stein.

jessica
no libertarian left, huh. lol. bakunin? proudhon? kropotkin? malatesta? dawkins? chomsky?

thomas paine?

godwin? wollstonecraft?

(deleted)

see, i think tyt are right-wing assholes pretending to be liberals :P

the language used in american political discourse is not just confused, it's actually deeply orwellian. you can barely make sense of it. it's not some accident.

the term libertarian comes out of the french revolution and means something like anarcho-communist. libertarians completely reject the concept of market theory, and for good reason - markets are the absolute anti-thesis of any coherent concept of freedom.

the way americans use the term "libertarian" maps politically to the concept of "classical liberalism" virtually everywhere else in the english-speaking world.

the democrats and republicans are both conservative parties. they're just different variants on it.

i think the only real liberal party left standing in the anglosphere is the liberal party of canada.

---

(deleted)

"Anyone who embraces libertarian economic policies isn't liberal."

a statement like this needs to be translated for non-americans. what the poster meant to type was:

"Anyone who embraces liberal economic policies isn't a socialist."

which is true enough. but, again: the language is not confused by accident.

---

millionfish animation
What are Johnson's policies?

Just a Channel
Libertarian basics: "can we solve this problem with more freedoms? If so, we go that route". Look up Penn from Penn & Teller on YouTube describing him being a Libertarian. He covers it very well.

jessica
all you need to survive is a gun and a bunker full of canned food. get off my lawn!

it's clown-car stuff; you can't take even really take him seriously.

---

Peter Perfect
Johnson is a loon! He wants to abolish social security, medicare, medicaid and all entitlements.

jessica
or we could cut military spending, instead?

RocketmanRockyMatrix
No entitlement mentality.

jessica
yeah. and, that is very frustrating after sanders' campaign, which really reduced to an articulation of the universal declaration of universal rights. we were making progress. and then this.

i am entitled to human rights, and fuck you if you disagree.

----

Chris Teal
i support johnson because of his social issues...i care not of economics.

jessica
i think it's really hard to make that argument regarding johnson and specifically in the context of it being an american election, because his economic policies have such dramatic negative social consequences. it's not something trivial like a debate over deficit spending. it's either disingenuous or poorly thought through.

i mean, i cringed pretty hard when hillary supporters started accusing sanders of privilege. but, it kind of rings accurate when applied to johnson. you can only make that argument if you're pretty wealthy to start off.

Trent Richards
I get the feeling that issues that you call social aren't social at all. Government services are a fiscal matter, not a social one. Social matters are things like Gay Rights, Affirmative Action, and The War on Drugs. Fiscal matters are things like Taxation, Government Spending and Trade Regulation. Government services all fall under the government spending section. It would be a rare thing for someone to oppose universal health care for instance if money wasn't involved. The fiscal aspect of these services are all that ever gets debated. That is why these are called fiscal matters.

jessica
the term "socio-economic" has meaning for a reason. the point i'm making is that you can't coherently argue that you support his social positions, but oppose his fiscal opinions - unless you haven't thought through the social implications of his fiscal policy.

i may have been overheard some time last fall arguing that i didn't care about fiscal issues, but that was in the context of an election where the canadian social system was not in any serious jeopardy and the issue was really nothing more important than deficit spending. what i meant was that i don't care if the government runs a deficit or not.

that's very different than voting for legalized marijuana and shrugging off the abolition of corporate taxation. you'd have to have smoked yourself stupid...

RocketmanRockyMatrix
Libertarians are for human rights.

jessica
libertarians tend to uphold orwellian concepts of human rights, as brought to you by anti-humanist liberals like rawls. the "free market", when applied to labour particularly, is completely inconsistent with any concept of human rights. you can't tell somebody to work or starve, then tell them they have rights. rather, what you do instead is come up with these ridiculous mental gymnastics that give people the right to starve.

----

Pallas AnitaSarkeesian
Feel the Johnson and end the FED. Gary Johnson 2016!

jessica
i don't think that ending the fed would be such a good idea, actually. you'd have big bankers manipulating currency rates at a whim. the markets would crash. you wouldn't know how much bread costs on a daily basis.

i'm all for a revolution, but i don't think you guys need to make the same mistakes made during perestroika.

Sonyaliloquy
'Feel the Johnson'? Might wanna try for a different slogan.

jessica
i think it's great: vote gary johnson to get fucked over.

---

Joeybrah
His economics are pretty simple, lower taxes. I think everyone can relate...

ApesAmongUs
Relate that it's stupid? Yea, I've seen a lot of stupid in my life.

jessica
well, once they implement self-regulation over academic accreditation, it should at least lower tuition. is mom smart enough to start a university? let the market decide!

home-schooling for the win!

---

Nakas Dougen
The libertarian ideas are the exact opposite of democratic socialism, it's beyond me why he has appeal with the Bernie crowd and the tyt audience

Wmarshal
Think he means his ideas on war, the handling of the middle east in general, and over all freedoms.I disagree with him on alot of things, but his thoughts on war is what won me.

Kevin Lai
he doesn't. if the a 3rd party candidate who leans republicans can take away some of would-be trump supporters, that opens the door for a 3rd party candidate for democratic-leaning 3rd party candidate (ie, jill stein)

Natalie Brown
The exact opposite of democratic socialism is fascism. Libertarian ideas intersect with liberal ideas on a social level. I'm a Liberal with Libertarian tendencies so the jump from Bernie to Gary seems quite natural to me...

Nakas Dougen
I believe from philosophical grounds that the most important thing for a human to be truly free is to secure their material conditions first.

It is not freedom neither liberty when a mother has to choose which of their 3 children they can afford to go to college.

It is not freedom or liberty when you have to 'choose' between health and disease based on your income.

It is not liberty when you can go bankrupt for getting cancer, you could not possibly know that.

Sure the world is a non Euclidean space but at the heart of everything lies class struggle, the struggle of the dispossessed be it traditional proletariat, underprivileged race or gender. The free market does not fix any of that and this is why all other western countries embraced free healthcare and a lot of them free higher education.

Libertarians would reverse labour law and make life much much harder for the average worker because he/she would lose much of what they gained through centuries of protest and fight.

I assume you are not working class, you do not work minimum wage. I know America confuses classic liberalism (based on the idea of protection of private property from state, kings etc and tolerance ) with traditional leftistsm (Stems from dialectical materialism and class struggle).

Philosophically speaking Social Democracies were created as a compensation between the capitalists (including conservatives and 'libertanians' or neoliberals) and Marxist socialism.

On almost every issue social democracy and libertanians fundamentally disagree. Non interventionism and protection of personal liberty are not necessarily features of social democracy, they just happen to coincide in American context.

Natalie Brown
Well we are in the American context, aren't we? We are also talking about people in a political race. Not philosophies and ideologies. While, yes, these 2 factors play in important role in who people decide to vote for for some people, for the majority this is not the case. Gary Johnson supports the ending of the war on drugs and allowing for recreational marijuana use, right for women to choose whether or not to have an abortion, protection of the environment, maintain the freedom of the internet, immigration reform (not just building a wall), and cutting military spending. In the modern American context these are all liberal ideas. All of these ideas i have heard get support from Bernie supporters. The jump is not as absurd as you make it seem.

jessica
i'm in agreement with you. but, i just want to point out that you're assuming certain things that right-libertarians would contest. so, you're right to point out that they would abolish minimum wage laws. but, they have this convoluted argument that, at the end, allows them to conclude that abolishing the minimum wage law will increase wages. remember the laffer curve? these are people that will stand up and look you in the eye and argue that decreasing corporate taxes will increase tax revenue. they'll come prepared with charts, too.

on the one hand, they're obviously wrong and not particularly hard to disprove. on the other hand, their voters and supporters and donors and social media advocates actually believe this stuff.

you need jobs before you can have unions to smash.

i'm not in favour of union-busting. but, america is post-industrial, and this language is anachronistic. unions are no longer a meaningful political force in the united states, because the percentage of the workforce that is unionized is insignificant.

a ubi is in fact a better answer, moving forward. we're moving into a reality where goods are made by robots, and there are very few jobs available servicing them. it's communism. ironically.

it's just that his dismantling of the financial system is going to make his ubi proposals impossible to implement. you need very strong controls on inflation for that to work. it's often promoted as a free market policy, but it can't work in an actual market. the rentiers would just steal everything.

(deleted)

jessica
again: you're talking about such a small percentage (2-3%), that there is no reason to build a theory. #berniebrosforgaryjohnson is good enough.

Chris Teal
because they are only thinking of economics...Johnson get my vote on social issues...seperation of church and state...check...end drug war...check..forgien policy...check i dont care about economics...there are rich and poor..always have..always will be

jessica
again: you can't separate these things, unless you're operating from a position of privilege.

consider abortion, for example. he wants to leave it to the states, and he wants to cut federal funding. so, you're going to end up with a decrease in access to social services as a consequence of his economic policies. you could say the same thing about his health care policies.

if you're wealthy anyways, you're not going to care. but, the vast majority of people will be far better off under hillary than johnson. and, trust me, i'm no fan of hillary - i think she should be convicted of war crimes and publicly executed. the libertarian economic/social policies are just that bad. it's barbarism.

if the choice is between corruption and barbarism, i'll pick corruption.

---

shazil888
Can't see Sanders supporters bleeding over to a Libertarian candidate. They either don't know the difference between a Progressive and a Libertarian, or they are easily swayed.

EarthianLifeForm
Because they still agree with Libertarians on 65% to 80% of the Libertarian platform and like Bernie Sanders, Libertarians are genuine, sincere, and not corrupt. Just like how Sanders is genuine, sincere, and not corrupt.

shazil888
Libertarians are Libertarians first and foremost because of their stance on limited government. That completely contradicts every major task that Sanders is trying to accomplish. Minimum Wage, Education, Healthcare, Regulation, Income Inequality.

I only see agreement on social issues, foreign policy (and that too is debatable), and drugs. In reality, that boils down to more like 15% to 30% agreement.

jessica
there is going to be some percentage of sanders supporters that are driven by conscious or unconscious misogyny, and will not support stein for the same reason they won't support clinton. an obscure minority, but it will exist. the numbers i've seen suggest that the bleed is roughly consistent with a reasonable estimate of the size of that group.

----

Twostones00
Gary Johnson won't protect the environment. Jill will. Jill has more attention than people think. Jill is a progressive much like Bernie.

TheJuranomo
We the people should protect the environment

jessica
this is another one of those twisted points, as libertarians will argue that the way to benefit the environment is not through regulation but through the enforcement of property rights. they forget to mention that this is also a license to pollute. but, hey. why should the gummamint tell me what to do on my property? it's almost like they have allodial title or something. the gummamint shouldn't have control over my fiefdom! isn't that why it's a fiefdom? wait? what?

see, if you cut the river up into pieces and sell it off then people will protect their parts of the river. because you always step into the same river, every time. it's your property, after all.

it's the same thing with the air. if you own the air over your property, then you have the right to keep the pollution out of it. because pascal's law is modifiable by an act of parliament.

we can always fine the particles, if they refuse to self-regulate.

Joe person
Yes he will, he's a huge supporter of the EPA

jessica
see, over here on the actual left, we consider the epa to be the perfect example of a captured agency. saying you support the epa as "good government" is equivalent to arguing that you're in favour of corporations buying off agencies in order to eliminate oversight - which is exactly how the epa actually operates.

so, it's kind of a trick. i know that the right hates the epa for land expropriation reasons, and that's "whatever". but, to cite the epa as an example of good functioning government is to argue in favour of open corruption and big money in politics, not to argue in favour of environmental oversight.

---

Zone gaming
For all those liberals who love Bernie, Gary Johnson is in favor of UBI something that even Bernie didn't really talk about. The fair tax is something that can easily be UBI.

jessica
but, his policies are starkly inflationary. how's $50/year sound?