you have to wonder if there's a psychological complex at play, as if liberals are subconsciously wired to perceive of conservatives as the establishment and consequently react less in opposition to and more in subversion of. the liberal purpose seems to be to conquer the conservative establishment, right? otherwise, you're not a liberal. you're an anarchist. this is what drives the liberal - the will to overwhelm the conservative. and, you have to wonder if the conservative understand this, at least well enough to feign super powers. this ultimately puts the conservative in the superior bargaining position, due to what is really a liberal inferiority complex to overwhelm the so-called conservative establishment. liberals are hardwired to concessions due to their will to overcome this feigned battle that exists in their minds. the state is consequently inherently conservative, and truly libertarian ideas must be sought outside of it.

if i'm forced to choose in the end, i'll pick horvath over brown because at least you can maybe pressure her from the left. that would probably ultimately be a step sideways, but it could set up a step forwards.

let's just hope that ontario does not choose to take a step backwards by re-electing the conservatives.

and, let's be mindful of splitting the vote: which may in the end mean abandoning the liberals.

if they get decimated and end up in third place, maybe they'll learn the lesson, this time?

but i repeat: if you're concerned about protecting public resources, the ndp are far preferable to the conservatives.

yes: kathleen wynne is extremely unpopular. but, it's because she's pushing through free market reforms that voters typically associate with the conservatives. so, it does not necessarily follow that the conservatives will benefit from her unpopularity. and, if they do, it will likely be because the vote splits.

it took quite a few years and a change of premier, but the liberals in ontario have finally made the error that is the death knell of liberal governments everywhere: they geared policy around trying to appeal to conservatives.

the same thing happens every single time the liberals try this foolish tactic: the vote splits. this is partly a consequence of the conservative press taking advantage of them, like they're patsies, and partly a consequence of liberal strategists fundamentally misunderstanding conservative priorities.

what happened this time is that kathleen wynne decided that, because the debt was a liability with right-leaning voters, she would sell off the hydro grid. this would raise money to pay off the debt. that would in turn make her more popular with conservative voters and she'd win a sweeping victory.

but, it turns out that conservative voters actually oppose privatization measures and that the party always carried through with them without popular support. that's why the conservatives lost their dynasty - because while the media and the banks and the other branches of the conservative party establishment all supported privatization, it was incredibly unpopular amongst voters. if we rewind back to the day of old tory dynasty in ontario, that is before reagan-thatcher, they always supported public utilities. they built most of them! oops? yeah. this is an error that was foreseeable and should be pinned directly on the premier. this is a political error that she should not have made and that many pundits - myself included - saw coming.

but, is she cooked? is this done? not yet.

"Patrick Brown scores the highest of the party leaders at being Premier, with just one quarter of the vote (26%), and he is almost tied with “none of the above” (24%). Then comes Andrea Horwath, with a fifth of the vote (19%) and Kathleen Wynne with about one tenth (12%). One fifth don’t offer an opinion (19%)."

what the polling is saying is that voters hate privatization. they do not like it. they do not like it in a boat. they do not like it in a moat. they do not like privatization, no ma'am!

but they don't like conservatives, either.

there's been a huge swing from "liberal, i guess" to "they're all fucking terrible".

the election is very much in play. i think andrea horwath is a conservative-in-socialist's clothing. she won't stand up and argue against the market, she'll just promise tax rebates. but, watch out for the ndp. because, in the end, if we've decided that the liberals must be replaced, it's not going to be because we think they're spending too much.

my preferred outcome is that wynne gets the message, realizes her error and reverses course with enough time left to save the government. this wasn't ideological, it was pragmatic. and she should really be relieved to realize she was wrong.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2640/pcs-continue-to-lead-strongly-in-ontario/

you know, i've been assuming all this time it was a he. sure, it could have been a she. and, it could have been a gender non-conforming individual, too. i really don't remember at all. at all. but i'll continue to make the basic heteronormative assumption of it being a he, anyways.

there's an incubation period. it's a few months. rough? sure. but it's not immediate, and usually later than sooner.

so, if i got it at the lab, i wouldn't already be feeling it. and, if i got it in the blackout, i'd be feeling it right about now. ugh.

that's actually teachable. the symptoms were correlated with the blood work, but could not have been caused by it.

i hope he enjoyed it. i don't remember it. and i hope i fight this off.

what are the polls at nowadays, anyways?

november average:

liberals 47
conservatives 28
ndp 14
greens 6
bloc 4

the liberals got about 39% in the election last year. they seem to have picked up extra support from both the conservatives and the ndp. the green party is very hard to poll and we should be very careful drawing conclusions, but i think that substantial bleed from the ndp to the greens right now makes a lot of sense.

the greens, for example, have been consistent in their opposition to nafta. and for the right reasons.

but, has the country fallen head over heels for this guy, or what? don't jump to conclusions. i'll tell you what the average voter sees when they look at the options.

1) the prime minister. cool guy. legalizing pot!
2) some lady that took stephen harper's job. but she's a temp worker.
3) that weird guy with the beard that got fired and won't leave.
4) that old lady that seems reasonable, but she'll never win, right?
5) separatists!

it's a process of elimination, guys. there's nobody on the ballot. of course he's polling at 50%.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2016/12/november-2016-federal-polling-averages.html

my actual opinion - and i have stated this repeatedly - is that i do not believe that either of these measures will reduce emissions, that the government knows it and that this is something between political theatre and a policy for wealth redistribution.

i'm consequently neither opposed nor in favour of it. although i'll take the check in the mail that is no doubt coming, thanks. very kind of you.

but, that does not mean that emissions targets cannot be met.

let's not lose sight of the infrastructure funding. that's something that can make a real difference, and something that my vote is more contingent on.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-climate-deal-1.3888244

it's very strange.

i was not experiencing symptoms of hep b before i got my blood taken. but, i have certainly been tired since then. and it is documented here - before i had any results.

it may be psychological, but i'm getting pains in my abdomen. and my eyes have picked up a yellow hue.

i am very seriously concerned that i picked up hepatitis at the blood lab.

you could say that i'm exasperated by people that continue to insist on perpetuating superstition. i'll eat that. but, it's not hate. it's scorn. it's disdain. and it's dismay.

i don't hate christmas. but, i'm saddened that people keep celebrating it.

i mean, how exactly do you expect me to celebrate christmas? i'm an atheist, and an anti-capitalist. do you expect me to sing songs to a god i don't believe in? do you expect me to make an exception for the contradictions because it's the end of the calendar?

"i know that capitalism is full of contradictions. but it's the end of the year. we'll pretend it makes sense. for the children. because ignoring the contradictions in capitalism, and perpetuating the oppression, is exactly what will benefit the children, in the long run."

and, you know, i'm not even going to go out there and poke your eyes. if you want to sing your silly songs to your imaginary friends, have fun. i don't fucking care. why would i? just keep it out of my face...

i don't "hate christmas"....

it's the wrong way to conceptualize it.

what if i were to ask you why you don't celebrate lemuria?

here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuria_%28festival%29

so, why don't you celebrate lemuria? if you don't celebrate lemuria, you must hate lemuria, right? you must be anti-lemuria!

it's absurd. i don't celebrate christmas because i consider christianity to be medieval, and it's adherents to be primitives. i live in a modern, secular society and i simply don't have time for your dark age nonsense.

this gets the basic idea right.

https://www.desmog.ca/2016/05/20/who-really-benefits-pipelines-kinder-morgan-trans-mountain-anyways

this article also understands the basic point.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304356604577339972995473802

oil geopolitics in north america

so, on the eve of a new administration that is not bound by lip service to environmentalism, let's ask a blunt question: what are american interests regarding canadian energy exports?

you need to take two major factors into consideration. the first is the need for america to control the supply of energy. the second is the reality that america wants to be an exporter, and is now in competition with other exporters.

canada's major energy export market is china - a market that american exporters may be interested in. so, is helping canada get it's resources to market (in china) something that sounds consistent with the goals of a trump administration?

let's rewind back to keystone.

the media presented keystone as an environmental policy debate. in doing so, it failed to report that the decision was being made by the state department. the state department does not generally make decisions about resource management. rather, the state department makes decisions about national security. and, hence, the decision was one of national security. and, how so?

again: the media presents these different pipelines as though they're a part of a comprehensive plan to achieve a monolithic end goal. the idea that approval of one pipeline may be contingent on the approval of another is never discussed. but, this is america's basic logic: if canada is going to try and export through british columbia, it is in america's interest to coerce the oil southwards, to cushing. and, if canada is not going to try and export through british columbia, it is in america's interest to block exports altogether, and present their own preferentially.

if you were paying careful attention, you may have noticed that the decision to block keystone was made after it seemed clear that the pacific route was blocked. and, any decision to revisit keystone will likewise be dependent on the credibility of threats to export to east asia. do you see how this works, now?

i know it's easy to get lost in the bubble. but, north america is only a theatre. and, canada is a foreign country. take a look around the world and digest the lengths that america will go to to control the supply of energy. look at what america does to control pipelines. and, do not trick yourself into thinking that this country is in any way special.

it follows that threatening to build transmountain may very well be a bluff to get keystone flowing. and, that's an offer that the president can't refuse.

moving the rants over here

i have no patience for a platform that deletes post. i don't care why. so, i'm moving over here for now. and we'll see if posts get deleted or not...

i suppose it's an opportunity to finalize the pivot.

i will eventually reconstruct a journal going back as far as i can, but this is a post-discography project. for now, i just need a secure scratchpad. which is the most basic thing possible, right?

ugh.

and the reason i don't go to gay bars - ever - is that i don't want to get hit on.

think of it like this: if you ever do go to a gay bar, you're going to find a group of straight women, there. always. every time. and, if you ask them why they're in the gay bar, they'll tell you that they just want to go out and dance and have fun without getting hit on.

that's exactly why i go to straight bars: because i just want to go out and dance and have fun without getting hit on.

i was at a straight bar that night. it was a friendly atmosphere. but it was not a gay club.

and the reason i'm pretty sure that the guy i regained consciousness next to did not touch me was that he was initially unaware of my anatomical configuration. that is, he thought i was a cis-female.

so, that's another reason it doesn't add up. if i was sober, and i was going to go along with it for some reason, i would have told him immediately. before any touching at all. and i was in a primarily straight club.

that doesn't make it impossible, of course. it just makes it that much more complicated, and that much more unlikely.

ok.

according to this site, which is not the best site but good enough in context, i do not need to have had recent contact with the virus to test positive. those antibodies are always there. that's a big relief in understanding what's going on.

that means there are five possibilities.

1) i got vaccinated in the eighth grade. although i don't recall doing a three-part vaccination and would probably remember it.
2) i picked it up something like ten years ago and either fought it off and am now immune or am now a carrier. i'll at least accept this as possible. although, as mentioned, she should have been vaccinated. so, i don't think this is likely...
3) i picked it up in the blackout. that means i'd have to have instantaneously dropped years of internalized oppression around sex and i can't believe this. maybe blackouts are that powerful. i'm skeptical enough to push back.
4) i got infected at the blood lab via dirty needle or eugenics program. i am at very high risk of being targeted.
5) false positive.

i'm going to want to do more precise research before i get more blood work done. which means i want the report.

http://www.hepatitiscentral.com/hcv/hbv/hepatitis-b-basics/

this is what i'm going to do.

1) i'm going to finish the record.
2) i'm going to do a compost run some time next week.
3) on the way back from the compost run, i will pick up a photocopy of the blood test.
4) i will research from there.

i reiterate: there is no likely source of infection. and i am consequently very suspicious of the company.

and, i guess there's always the possibility of a false-positive, too. these tests are not as reliable as you think.

no. no. i think i need to better understand the immune system before i go any further.

if i had received a vaccination in the eighth grade, would there be antibodies in a random blood sample? or would i have had to have come in contact with the virus for the antibodies to be produced?

and, hence, does the presence of antibodies mean i must have been in contact with the virus?

in which case, i call bullshit immediately.

just if you're curious: anal sex for me is basically a no-go. i don't enjoy it. and i think it's kind of gross. i mean, i've stuck some things up there to poke around and it just hurts. i've refused it. yes, i lost a few hours, and i know what i said, but i still can't imagine i'd go through with it. and there were really no signs of struggle. no residue. even if it was quasi-consensual, you'd think there would be residue. something. there's nothing. it just doesn't add up. and, i'm consequently going to destroy this lab to the best of my ability if it comes back positive.

i've never identified as a gay male. i've never had a relationship with a male. i've never had "gay sex".

i identify as an asexual to heterosexual female. and i made a decision a long time ago that i would wait until after the operation.

losing four hours like that throws everything out the window. i understand this. and i've never met myself in a blackout. but i couldn't imagine things playing out as they would need to in order to come to this conclusion.

i've constructed my entire existence around abstention. my personality. my individuality. i've avoided and rejected every single person who's advanced. why would i be different in a blackout?

you'd have to accept the premise that i've spent the last ten years doing everything i can to not have sex, and then changed my mind when i was drunk. why would that be?

i mean, i've been drunk enough that i know that you lose your inhibitions a little. but you don't lose your personality. you don't become a different person.

if you don't like broccoli when you're sober, you don't like it when you're drunk, either.

and if you don't like sex when you're sober, it's hard to see why you'd want it when you're blacked out.

my mom has hep c, not hep b.

i consequently have no likely means of transmission, and must deduce that the antibodies are from a vaccination that i cannot recall having. i will be using a different lab to test. and if they tell me i have contracted the disease, i will have to take legal action against the lab that gave it to me.

i reiterate: i am not sexually active and have not been for around ten years. i could not have picked up an std, because i have not had sex.

i mean, where would i get it from? a stork?

no sex means no stds. not complicated.

it's a grim statement. but, i'm not going to lament the end of the baby boomers, or cry about it happening faster than initially projected.

go ahead, gramps. wash down that double bacon cheese burger with a bottle of wine. and follow it up with that sniffly trip to the bathroom. wink. you can always get another mortgage, right?

good riddance.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds

actually, i think this is a useful tool. my worry is more that not enough people will fill it out to build a large enough sample.

and, i don't like the way they're interpreting some of my responses. they seem to claim that i'm in favour of equality of opportunity because i don't believe in identity politics. i guess that the logic is that i think that equality of outcome is determined by political representation? that if women and minorities are represented in the parliament then they're equal in society? this is specious, and that it is specious underlies so much of the opposition to it. i don't think that a view on identity politics informs a view on wealth distribution. but, readers here know i'm a communist...

but, i think that the reaction to this is absurd. if trudeau's basic perception is that elizabeth may & nathan cullen are poor representatives of popular opinion on electoral reform and he needs better data, then he's right. and i don't see anything particularly egregious about collecting information in this manner.

https://www.mydemocracy.ca/results/97883e96-5ead-4881-aaa4-e1d464c3bf13

here's an interesting question.

suppose that, several years later, in the early 00s, i have sexual intercourse with somebody that is a few years younger than me and was vaccinated as a part of the school program. could she have donated me her antibodies?

i've only had one consensual partner. and, while i can't remember if i was vaccinated, she must have been.

again: i trust the science. i don't trust the doctors. i don't trust the markets. i don't trust capitalism. and, we know that i'm the type of person that gets targeted.

if we go through this process and i end up with a positive diagnosis, the reality is that the most likely source of this infection is the blood lab, itself.

i went in for a lyme disease test, dammit. the std test was just a precaution.

yes: there was a four-hour window that's gone. and i woke up in a stranger's car. that was the precaution. but, this isn't adding up in my head...

...and i'm very skeptical about letting this company stick anything else in my arm, until i get some more information.

i can troubleshoot this. one thing at a time. i'll sort it out.

ugh.

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/LearningAndDevelopment/Events/Documents/School-based_Vaccination_Opportunities_Challenges_2012.pdf

but, i mean, why didn't they vaccinate everybody?

i'm going to guess it was costs. ugh. fuck your economy.

i probably got a hep b shot in grade school. i just don't remember exactly what shots i got, when. that was a long time ago, though. and, why are they flagging me if it's routine?

i'm just...

i trust the science behind vaccines. i really do. but, i don't trust the doctors so much. not the government. not the market. there's too many motives, there's too much historical precedent.

as far as i can tell, i should be expected to have hep b antibodies from the school vaccination. and, they should have done all of the tests at once.

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/immunization/static/immunization_tool.html

this says that they initially targeted grade 7 students in 94/95 but that grade 8 students were eligible.

i was in grade 8, that year.

there's no way i'm going to remember if they got me or not. i think i sort of remember getting a vaccine at frank ryan. but it's not solid.

i got my blood test results today and all of the indicators suggest i'm in pristine health, except for one thing: the presence of hep b antibodies.

i'm not surprised that all of the other indicators are as excellent as they are. i take good care of myself. but, hep b? what?

well, the presence of antibodies does not necessarily mean i have hep b. rather, there's three possibilities here:

1) i got vaccinated for it at some point. and, i think that's probably the right answer, although it's been a long time.
2) i came into contact with it at some point and, because my immune system is so strong, i beat it.
3) or i've got an infection and i'm fighting it.

i've never injected anything. ever. or at least i don't remember it. and, i don't blackout very often. but, did i catch hep b in september on the blackout night? i have absolutely no memory.

but, there is another, obscure possibility. and i need to call my mom for it.

they want another blood test for surface antibodies. i don't know why. they should have been able to test for that. is it just about billing me a second time? fuck, man, my arm only has so much blood in it...

....but, i'll take it at the beginning of january....once i've done a little research.....


"hold still.

one. ahahaha.
two. ahahaha."

democracy is a corrupt system of government. that's the trade-off: you get democracy in exchange for corruption. you cannot have democracy without corruption. this has been understand for centuries. read plato. let's have an adult discussion about policy, not childish finger-pointing about corruption, k?

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/12/another-short-night-tonight.html

this was the last new mix that i posted, back at the end of may, 2015.

note: i know that was a lot all at once. i will be posting liner notes here as they complete. on closer inspection, it will actually likely take me at least two months to catch back up. so, it will be presented here, slowly, in a more digestible manner....

this is a humongous discography update. but realize that what i actually did was republish the updates i completed over 2014 and 2015, which was material initially recorded from 2000-2003.

i have a lot of liner notes to write. but, when this is done, i'll get back to recording, with material written over a cross-country trip in mid 2003.

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/12/i-initially-unpublished-everything.html

slow start of the day...

after i ate last night, i sat down to figure out which version i wanted to use for the vocal mix and i ended up falling asleep. i slept a long time, too. i dunno.

but, i'm up now and i've decided that i need to mix it to the album mix for timing reasons and then experiment by listening. only way to find out.

but, i've also republished my discography in full. and i'll need a new post for that...

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/music

i hate winter :(.

i have an appointment tomorrow so i'll pick up some groceries on the way home. hopefully, we get a few nice days where i can go out and forage. otherwise, i'm not likely to be seen outside pretty much at all until the thaw hits.

hey, i didn't pick this country.

i can't explain why my ancestors didn't stay in italy, but i sure wish that they did...

it's just another example of how he doesn't understand how government finance works. he thinks that he's "saving taxpayer money". and, he thinks that if he reduces government expenditures then he can cut taxes.

no. they print it. it doesn't make a difference on taxes. and, if you spend less, you just send the economy into recession.

but, here's the thing: his ignorance is a reflection of mass ignorance. because while donald trump is a wealthy elitist, he doesn't seem to have the intelligence level to match his balance sheet. he doesn't get his news from elite sources. he reads the same news sources that his voters read. he gets the same bad information. and he draws the same bad conclusions.

so, people will cheer this. they will repeat the same basic economic misunderstanding of government being just like a business. the media will reinforce the error. and, they will think they're winning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/politics/trump-air-force-one-boeing.html

the blind leading the blind...

this was at one point in time considered a "conspiracy theory". not any more.

if you don't notice immediately, i'm linking to cia.gov.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america.html

prior to 1964.

you think you fought a war over this? you didn't.

https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html

http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/

this is now totally updated.

the vocal mix is coming, still. and there's a final alternate mix that i'm playing with. then it's done.

political parties favour whatever voting system they think favours them.

i think that the biggest winner from the proposal that the liberals are pushing is the ndp, and that the liberals are best off with the status quo.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/12/05/lessons-from-justin-trudeaus-electoral-reform-fiasco-walkom.html

if you give people the ability to vote ndp without having to worry about the conservatives winning, don't be surprised when they take it more frequently.

but that relies on the assumption that the ndp eventually saves itself from the mulcairs of the world and doesn't collapse into toryism.

there seems to be this push back against the idea of personal vlogging in favour of what could be called spectacle vlogging. frankly, i think the reason for this is that vlogging is pretty male-dominated, and personal expression is kind of perceived as an exclusively female space. that is, there's this idea floating around that vlogging about feelings and ideas is boring; people want action. this is just because dudes are holding all of the cameras. it's not actually true.

i find spectacle vlogging to be a waste of time. boring. i want a vlogger to develop a personal relationship with the audience and open up and be real and share feelings. but, i don't exist, because i'm ignored by this exclusively male chain of logic that thinks this is effeminate or "gay".

i've been over this a bunch of times. it's just a question of different demographics. to suggest that women don't watch youtube - or that they're not interested in anything besides product placement for beauty products - is just really kind of stupid. there's a gigantic market on tv for drama. teen drama. soap operas. these shows are huge. and, while i'm not particularly salacious, or interested in becoming that way, it doesn't discount the idea that a personal narrative can be compelling if the character is.

so, if you're bored, that's ok. there's lot of content designed for people with short attention spans and that are easily distracted by flashing lights. this isn't for you. but, if you can help me market it a little, that'd be swell.

...although, i bet this is true: if you were to study who these cable scragglers are, these people that still pay out to watch tv, i think you'd find far more women than men. and, the reason for that is that youtube isn't meeting that demand. which is the biggest market on the planet. because heteropatriarchy....

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/12/frustrating-day.html

be careful with pipeline politics. they're tricky. and, sometimes don't make sense on first glance.

keystone, for example. it was good that it got blocked. but, did the state department really want to help canadian oil get to market in china?

when it was considering exports of it's own?

a number of things just happened.

1) canada approved some pipelines. one of them increasing capacity to cushing.
2) opec cut supply (thereby increasing prices).

again: it's always nice to see a pipeline halted. just, be careful about understanding why. it might not be what you think.

i actually consider islam to be firmly within the bounds of western culture, and think that you're just wrong if you're arguing otherwise.

"the west" is greece, basically.

so, "the west" includes all of the areas that have been defined by greek culture: europe, russia, the middle east, north africa and iran.

"the east" is buddhism, basically.

so, "the east" includes all of the areas that have been defined by buddhism: india, central asia, china, southeast asia.

a good dividing line between east and west is the indus river. that's where alexander stopped.

there's no shame in being wrong, not if you have a good argument. it's not about whether your deductions are correct, it's about whether your argument is sound and you can find your flawed assumptions when the results of the experiment exposes them.

there is something shameful about taking credit for being right when you did not have a rigorous argument to back up your claim.

it is better to be rigorous and wrong than it is to be correct by chance.

knowledge is not a battle of egos. it is a collaborative pursuit. and, debates over who is right and wrong just get in the way of finding a closer approximation of truth.

the reduction of epistemology to a battle of egos is one of the most profound ways that capitalism is destroying our culture.

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/12/and-we-need-another-update-i-think.html

today was actually a little bit rough on me. i got really flustered doing grocery shopping, of all things. i just wasn't in a state of mind to be surrounded by people - people that were moving through the aisles slowly, people that were taking their time in the line, etc. that's the social anxiety part of social anxiety disorder.

i don't tend to get scared, i tend to get angry. i'm more likely to start yelling at strangers than i am to go cower in the corner.

and, resolving it is just as simple as getting home and centering.

when i'm stuck in it, though, you want to stay out of my way.

the second ear doctor (the initial appointment...) echoed what the other one said, but upheld my logic, independently: i need to see a dentist about tmj.

the japanese appear to be expecting trump to flip-flop on the tpp.

http://www.thetelegram.com/business/2016/11/27/japan-waits-to-deal-direct-with-canada-o-4694243.html

see, this is the problem. and why we have to be patient in lowering our expectations for diversification as a best approach in the short run.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/12/01/news/canadas-stagnant-slipping-national-wealth-overly-reliant-oil-and-gas-study

but, he's a "master negotiator", bernie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/bernie-sanders-carrier-just-showed-corporations-how-to-beat-donald-trump/

do i think this is right? in some abstract way, maybe. in reality, businesses don't make decisions based on tax incentives in the first place. i know that because they tell us it when we ask them: tax policies have almost no effect on whether a business stays or leaves. that is because you basically can't cut taxes low enough to offset the benefits of offshoring. you'd have to resort to corporate welfare - which happens for the big players, but can't be the actual norm.

so, this is a bit of a bait and switch. the issue is labour costs. and, bernie is being tricked into responding on the wrong terms.

to be clear: even if you were to cut the corporate tax rate to 0%, it would still be cheaper to move to mexico in almost all cases where the issue exists. you would have to actually give them handouts to convince them to stay.

the idea that the issue is taxes is the lie that bernie should be taking down.

so, why is it so much cheaper to manufacture in mexico? it's a lot of reasons.

1) poor worker's rights, and subsequent low wages.
2) more regulation over all kinds of economic rents. that is, a much less "free" economy. this leads to a lower cost of living because the costs of rent are much lower.
3) greater centralization of resources. the state-owned oil sector is especially key in keeping energy prices low, but it's more general than this.
4) insufficient environmental and labour regulations, and poor enforcement of the ones that exist.

the solution is to reverse these problems:

1) we need greater solidarity with mexican labour unions. we need to help mexican workers organize and fight for their rights.
2) we need to go after the rentier class.
3) we need to nationalize our resources.
4) we need to enforce nafta and demand that mexico regulate it's industries.

but, the political class tells us that we need more open markets. they tell us that because they benefit from this, while the rest of us suffer.

it has nothing to do with taxes. and, tariffs will only lead to inflation.

-

"It’s not clear if organized labor will play a role in Trump’s efforts to save Midwest manufacturing jobs. Chuck Jones, the president of the United Steelworkers in Indiana — the union that represents workers at the Carrier and Rexnord plants — went to the Carrier event today to speak with Trump officials. Jones and the union were not briefed on the deal ahead of time.

Jones said he was checked by Secret Service and placed in a holding room to await Trump while the president-elect toured the plant. Jones said he was eventually told Trump’s schedule was too tight for a meeting; Trump left without speaking to him."

https://news.vice.com/story/donald-trump-threatens-u-s-companies-that-would-send-jobs-overseas

i didn't think of the pay cut slant. it's possible.

but, it's obviously not about workers, is it?

while i support the irv, i would actually prefer to keep fptp than move to a proportional system. that was another reason i voted for the liberals and not the ndp.

irv > fptp >>>>> pr.

if you put a proportional system up to a vote, i would vote against it.

i don't want fringe voices in parliament.

but, i'm disappointed that they're not ramming through a preferential ballot, too. they have a very strong mandate for this.

the other reason that pr is a bad idea is that it will increase gridlock.

and, i think that the minister's reaction is basically right: the committee is being obstructionist. now, let's hope the government reacts by ramming the preferential ballot through.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879

i just want to point out that this is ignoring the effects of the infrastructure rollout, which are going to be substantial in the long term - and are absolutely necessary, if we're serious about doing anything at all. this is stuff like expanding the grid.

that's not to argue that the net effects of his policies are positive. they aren't. but, all of the major parties were going to approve at least some of the lines. it's the least bad option out of three terrible choices.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/sites/nationalobserver.com/files/styles/body_img/public/img/2016/11/30/trudeau-bait-and-switch-on-climate-v2.jpg?itok=2V2Kydeb

just keep fighting this on the ground.

you were going to have to fight it under all possible outcomes.

one of the things that is going to hurt trump the most is this perception that nothing matters except winning, and his inability to understand the consequences of deploying negative tactics to do so.

he is not going to immediately understand why muslim leaders are going to react cooly to him. he's not going to understand why his rhetoric about mexicans is going to harm american interests in latin america.

he did it to win. he won. doesn't that justify everything he said? in his mind, it does.

principles matter. i don't want to argue over whether the ends justify the means. that's not my point. my point is that there's a day after, and the means have consequences on that day, and all following ones.

by 70 years old, most people have learned this lesson. if he hasn't yet, there is no reason to think he ever will. and, it will destroy him in the end, as his enemies grow in number.

the americans had driven down the price of oil primarily to hurt the russians, and also to hurt the iranians. so, is this a reset in relations? is this trump giving putin a hand? i doubt it. more likely is that opec is giving trump the finger. this was always a possibility (i suggested trump would keep oil prices low, unless he pisses off opec), but i didn't think it would actually happen - and certainly not this fast.

this benefits the canadian dollar, which means it hurts exports, too. although we'll see how that pans out with nafta. it could be a net benefit.

it benefits other oil exporters, of course - including russia.

it harms america, mostly.

the deep state fucked up.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/30/oil-price-opec-cut-in-output-saudi-arabia-deal-market

i mean, the guy runs a campaign based on hating on muslims and latin-speakers because he thinks they're weak and despised and inferior. but, newsflash: it's muslims and latin-speakers that control the primary lever in the economy, which is energy prices. and, now he's got some 'splainin' to do.

they fucked up.

also, the shale oil theory is bunk. the saudis know that shale oil supplies are very limited, that their own supplies are much greater and that they'd be better off letting the americans run through what they have as quickly as possible. there's just a concerted effort in the american press to distract from any exploration of the geopolitical explanations of things. americans are supposed to believe that america is the unquestioned hegemon, and everybody else just does what it says.

consider the iran deal, for example.

look as hard as you may, you will not find any source in the american press that explains that russia and america have competing interests in iran. the entire narrative is that iran is subservient to american demands, and can either do what america says or face the consequences. the idea that iran may prefer to deal with russia instead, or that america may lose iran to russian influence, does not exist, anywhere.

there was a lot of literature about "who lost china". nobody asks who lost iran. because the premise that it could be lost is not admitted.

the result is that the business press usually bases it's reporting on false premises, and people end up with skewed concepts of what is happening.

the reason that oil prices went down in 2014 was to punish russia for it's invasion of crimea. it was a part of the sanctions regime. and, that sanctions regime relied on a very careful network of alliances that is apparently unraveling very quickly.

there was a series on the bbc a few years ago.

i think it may be sort of prophetic. bush II was in a lot of ways a replay of reagan, whereas obama was indeed somewhat like carter in the sense that he was kind of a republican front. and, now nixon has returned in the embodiment of trump.

can mike pence chew gum and walk at the same time?

maybe there's an upside. maybe there's a civil rights battle coming.

or, maybe civil rights are set to reverse in the next cycle...

it's not surprising. let's take a step back.

when trudeau was running for prime minister, he made it clear that he saw the purpose of the review process as a means to rubber stamp industry initiatives. his concern was that the process had been overly politicized by a conservative government that had openly ridiculed the premise of looking to science for evidence. in his view, that created a backlash that was slowing down growth. the problem wasn't whether the government was really consulting evidence or not - this did not matter - but the perception that they were anti-science, which abolished their credibility on the topic. the solution is for the government to pay greater lip service to science, so that canadians would not offer such resistance to industry.

trudeau seems to have actually believed that the protests would stop if people had more trust in the government. then, industry would have a free hand.

mulcair and the ndp said all of the same things, and often times in much clearer language - because mulcair is the policy wonk, and trudeau is the pr front.

this is of course the broader truth in the trudeau government - that everything is image, that truth is subjective, that it doesn't matter what the facts are so much as it matters how people perceive them. it's a softer kind of neo-liberalism. but, it's the same hogwash, under the surface.

and, when i saw him pick jim carr, i knew this was coming. he was sent for exactly this reason.

the thing is that they're still a lesser evil. i've pointed out repeatedly that it was clear that this was coming, and that it's unfortunate and that it needs to be fought on the ground. but, they're still the only one of the three major parties with a transition strategy.

the reason this is important to the federal government is that it pulls in a huge amount of tax revenue on oil exports. it is the difference between whether they can balance a budget or not. and, so long as we send the message that budgets should be balanced, they will support oil exports.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/11/30/news/scientists-dont-know-what-evidence-trudeau-used-approve-pipelines

i'm trying an experiment with the heat down here.

i like this place. i really do. but all the pros come with the massive con that the heating is really awful.

it's the winter. i want the heat 'on'. i think that's reasonable. but, instead of just having a switch that i can turn on and off, i have one of these electronic temperature control devices that tries to turn the heat up and down to fit a desired temperature. of course, it doesn't work right. first, it's localized to one side of the room, so it's uneven - but i can deal with that. it's not the problem. the problem is that it gets stuck, and won't come 'on' by turning itself up past the heat i dial in and then never getting back down again. maybe this is supposed to be a power saving mechanism, but i have clean electricity here and i consequently don't have an environmental incentive to save energy.

so, what's been happening is that i just keep turning the heat up higher and higher. i set it to 23, and it turns off. so, i set it to 23.5 and it turns off. so, i set it to 24 and it turns off. listen: it's cold out. i don't care what the temperature on the thermostat says. i don't want it to set a temperature, have it shoot out a blast for a few seconds and then have it turn off. i just want it to stay 'on'. all the time. constant.

so, this cycle takes the temperature up higher and higher. but, then i eventually get to the point where i need to set the heat to 32 to turn it on, and i get dry skin and sore throats. so, this is not sustainable.

i'm trying to force the system back down to the low 20s by keeping the window open until it gets down to around 20. and it's taking a long time. and, then it turns on for a few seconds and turns off.

the answer may be to set up an algorithm where i take it up to 30 and then let it fall back.

but it can't be that dry in here. i need it to come down. and i need to find a way for it to stay on.

i'd like to just call the landlord and have him take out the thermostat. in an ideal world, i could explain to him that it doesn't work right. reality is that i'm just going to piss him off, because he's going to think i'm wasting energy. but it doesn't work right, and he'll save money taking them out.

right now, the windows are open. and i'm cold. but it's almost to the point that i can close them.

indeed. this article gives a lot away. the ndp are falling all over themselves to be indiscernible from the conservatives, and now the conservatives are realizing that they're running against themselves. i suppose this is a victory for capital. but, it's a sad day for alberta, and a sad day for dippers.

https://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/30/trudeau-notley-and-trans-mountain-in-your-face-mr-kenney/

the way out of this is that you refrain from voting next time, let the conservatives back in and rebuild. that sends the message to the ndp that they can't hold their base if they're going to govern like conservatives

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-effect-increases-hate

you know, sometimes i wonder if churchill really existed, or was just drawn in afterwards by a cartoon artist.

they couldn't find him a big kid's chair, or what?

actually, i have far more fun with the paid stooges after their party is in power, when they're trying to build the cult of personality. that's when they get really comical. it's then the election afterwards, when they try to apply all of the nonsense, that we can really have some fun.

see, in tearing down the cult of personality, i get to be an anarchist and demonstrate that conservatives are basically stalinists in disguise: the cult of personality is a statist phenomenon. conservatives do it. liberals do it. but, whereas conservatives kind of yearn for it deep down, it's the liberals (wherever they are on the spectrum) that can't stand it.

so, i'm actually being trans-partisan. not post. i'd like to keep parties, actually. and even have more of them. and not bi. as though we're in kahoots, right? no. trans-partisan. and, the language is entirely coincidental.

this is when i'm most entertaining. and, attempts to semi-deify trump are an easy target - because he is himself an easy target. so, keep an eye out for it.

also, if you're curious - the alter-reality has not stopped, it's just been paused. i will catch up when i am finished inri021. i've done this before. it's not ideal, but it's where my head needs to be. it also seems like i'll need to stop to read the grapes of wrath pretty much all of the way through. barring further delays, that should be the first week of december.

i'm going to do a recitation for the first time in two weeks and plan to time them, in the future, when my sd card fills up.

that's going to be about twice a month. roughly.

“There will be a multiyear transition into the replacement,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.). “This is a failed piece of legislation and it is coming apart at the seams, but it is going to take us awhile to make that transition from the repeal to actually replacing it.”

mmhmm.

when he said on day one, he meant in terms of a biblical analogy. because the lord is working through him, and he is carrying out god's plans. so, day one really means his first term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/30/getting-rid-of-obamacare-may-take-longer-than-trump-plans/?tid=ss_twm&utm_term=.de660945dc22

you don't have to care about my stupid music.

...but realize that i don't care about your stupid economy, either.

reciprocity? well, your stupid economy puts me at a disadvantage. the ideal is if we put property in common. then i'm not forced into slavery.

but, i don't ask for you to change your goals, i ask for you to back off and let me accomplish mine. i am lucky. i have this option. and, i may be best off to just be quiet and enjoy it, as i know that workers are brainwashed by religion to be subservient and reject "laziness". i'm targeting myself. but, i feel everybody should have this option - and that the world around me would be more vibrant if everybody did.

i feel that giving people more time to spend making art by freeing them from the constraints of labour is in my self-interest.

but, this isn't even slacktivism. this is an online journal. it's just an idea, man. like, my opinion, and stuff. and, yes - i know i have hundreds of daily readers. but i have not cultivated them. and i don't know who they are or what they want.

walkom is one of the few writers in canada that isn't an old tory.

he's right about pierre. and, he's right about canadians. canada's admiration for castro is less about who castro was or what he did and more about the symbolism of being a pain in the side of the empire. and, our solidarity with the trudeaus is symbolic on that level. it's some good old-fashioned anti-americanism.

you could say something about justin living in a different era, about him not sharing these anti-american instincts. or, at least not yet. i mean, a great society must be a just one, right? lbj may have famously roughed up pearson a little. but, it took a nixon for pierre to really look the other way.

but, insofar as the different era is concerned, i think we're all missing the obvious: justin trudeau had no relationship with fidel castro. and, he snubbed him on the only chance he had to meet him.

i'm not sure correlation implies causality, here, regarding the media smackdown. why would he have gone in the first place?

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/11/30/justin-trudeau-loses-his-nerve-skips-fidel-castros-funeral-walkom.html

"i've been called worse things by better people." - pierre trudeau reacting to reports that richard nixon called him an asshole.

i'm not sure that nixon was ever seen as diplomatic. but, this is likely a fairly quaint precursor to trump, who is certainly not.

nixon and pet were pretty far apart on the spectrum. trump and justin are pretty much the same dynamic, but with the elastic pulled right out of shape...

it was exasperation with nixon that had trudeau flirting with the non-aligned movement.

why isn't there an html5-blocker for firefox?

it's the autoplay. whatever you want it to do, it doesn't work. it's just annoying.

i mean, do you want a slew of two second "watches" distorting your stats? no? then, ditch autoplay.

this gets flashblock working again:

media.audio_data.enabled;false
media.autoplay.enabled;false
media.ogg.enabled;false
media.webaudio.enabled;false
media.webm.enabled;false

in the midst of continuing stories about foreign hacking and computer faud, i just want to clarify what i'm thinking regarding how this whole election fraud thing works. no, i can't prove it. nobody else will ever prove it, either. but, how do they do that? there's lots of ways, of course. but, let's tell a little story that i think gets the main idea across...

this is jonah. jonah willis. he had his picture taken for a uk site, but he lives in north carolina, and he's going to vote for clinton.

"i'mma vote for clinton."

but, then bae comes in.

bae: but, cornel says she's a racist.
jonah: i know she's a racist, but they're both racists, and i think that other guy's a jackass, so i'mma vote for clinton. you coming?
bae: naw. i think they're all the same.
jonah: fine. i'm leaving. i'mma vote for clinton.


now, jonah knows he's black, so he knows he has to take special precautions if he wants his vote to count. that's why he has a suitcase of identification over there, which he always brings whenever he needs to vote:

the suitcase has 23 different types of identification, so there's no way they're not letting him vote.

when he shows up to the voting place, he's moved into the "black line". nobody calls it the black line. but everybody knows it's the black line. it features extra delays & extra checking and pretty much everybody ends up with a "provisional ballot" in the end.

after going through the suitcase item by item, the lady at the booth eventually rejects all of them as "insufficient" and gives jonah a "provisional ballot". she ensures jonah that all of the photocopies will be checked, and so long as at least one of them checks out then his vote will count.

jonah did actually vote for clinton. what else can he do but go home?

but, the lady at the booth put an asterisk beside jonah's name when he was in the booth. this was something she was instructed to do by the party.

at the end of the day, when everybody is gone, and while the ballots are being counted, a second operation is underway - the list that had jonah's name on it is being replaced by a list without his name on it. the new list does not have the name of any black people on it. the number of scrubbed black voters is then added up, and that number is removed from the pile of provisional ballots. these ballots are then destroyed.

in the end, there is no evidence that jonah ever showed up to vote at all.

if questioned on this procedure, the lady at the booth would no doubt be matter-of-fact:

it's tradition. we've been doing this here for generations. we let them come in and vote, but we don't actually count them. we never have. otherwise, they'd take over.

the only evidence that exists is the following strange truth: despite opinion polls implying the contrary, trump almost held his base. but, clinton was millions of votes short of all projections, specifically in the black and latino communities.

it seems like votes disappeared. and, if they did they will never be found...

and, for you people that think the democrats need to "get rid of identity politics"...

...that means what, exactly? running a candidate that says black children are super-predators, wants to deport latino children to south america and refuses to back gay equality until the last minute?

i mean, you lose because minority support is less than expected, and you want less minority voters? what?

i think what that actually means is that the democrats need to attract more white voters, and it's a kind of coded way to suggest that they should be more racist. but, i guess you weren't paying attention. because, hillary blew that dog whistle fairly often. and, unlike trump, she has a policy record to back it up.

i think there's a valid idea hidden in there, though, and that idea begins with the understanding that what the republicans have been doing with white voters is, in fact, just identity politics. the democrats have spent a lot of resources creating these minority-based identity politics. the republicans went for the mother of all demographics, and created an identity politics of the white christian. voter suppression or not, it clearly worked.

now, we're left face to face with the problem that the left has known all along: we have to change the nature of  "white identity" in america. that's basically the mission of the left anyways.

it's not impossible, either. we've largely won this fight in canada. and, back in the 90s, it sure looked like the white liberal was winning the culture war in america, too.

and, that may the ultimate conclusion, here: the culture war that so many of us thought was over actually isn't. in the end, it may be a last gasp of a dying generation. but, it's not wise to make that assumption. rather, it seems like there's still a lot of battles to be fought and won.

-

it's just, like...

i'm white. yeah. i know it. i know it affects cultural decisions. who i spend time with. etc.

but, i'm secular. that probably has a lot do with the rest of my views.

i'm not economically well-off, either - although i have no interest in competing and am happy to live in poverty in exchange for freedom from labour.

so, i'm a lower class white voter. i'm an atheist. and i'm educated. but, i'm still white and lower class.

and i simply don't have a desire to live in a culture full of other people like me. that strikes me as very boring. this insularism is foreign to me. it can't be inherent.

i don't feel attracted to other white people. it could partly be because i know that so many other white people are conservative and christian and capitalist. sure. but, that solidarity is not there.

rather, i feel that solidarity over class. i feel it over ideology. i feel it over musical taste, as silly as that may be. and, those are categories that transcend skin colour.

i don't think i'm an anomaly. i just think i'm a product of a different culture. and, i can only look to america and say "this cannot be inherent. this cannot be permanent. this cannot be static. because the rest of the world is not like this."

because cutting corporate taxes create jobs. right.

they don't believe that. don't think they do. they just think you're stupid enough to believe it. and, if the you is universal, they're right.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-treasury-secretary-our-first-priority-is-tax-cuts-2016-11

obviously, that they would invest more if they only had more money on hand? can't you see that?

http://www.businessinsider.com/record-us-corporate-cash-holdings-182-trillion-2015-6

hey donald.

hows 'bout you pass a law limiting the number of times somebody can declare bankruptcy?

if i was him, i'd like to leave my business interests behind, too. will his creditors agree, though?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests

i guarantee you he declares bankruptcy.

^ a rhetorical device. obviously, i can't guarantee anything.

so, will this wave of kneejerk "anti-liberalism" in favour of magical thinking that conservatives will act like liberals if we all think hard enough that they will take justin trudeau down?

the truth is that it already did. and, he reacted. and he won a landslide on top of it.

rewind to a year, or even a few months, before the election. trudeau was ahead in the polls. then, he started talking about balanced budgets. he screwed up badly on c-51. and, canadians turned to our systemic bernie sanders - the ndp. history may forget to record that they nearly won. and they really nearly did.

then, harper started playing the anti-islam card. you can say what you will about this, but what it comes down to is that trudeau had the brand recognition necessary to fight back against it. kellie leitch? no, we just had that election, and that tactic lost.

trudeau had the political smarts that clinton didn't have. he saw it coming and he reacted. he beat the ndp at their own game, and they're still figuring out what to do.

it was paul krugman that pointed out that canada is always ahead of the curve, that we should look to canada for a taste of the future. yet, we're constantly told to expect the effects of american elections to be felt, here. i think that certain voices in the canadian commentariat may want to adjust their analysis.

it already happened, here. and, he co-opted it. we may even get a renegotiation of nafta out of it. hey - a girl can dream.

trudeau is the anti-elite backlash.

-

but, really. you gotta wonder if you should be dusting off the pavlov in your post-mortem, here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition

thomas mulcair is attacking justin trudeau for his willingness to open up nafta.

“How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before he says anything to Canadians about what he is looking for?”

really. really...

it's a sad day in canada when the leader of the ndp champions nafta. a sad day, indeed.

after refusing to step down after voters clearly rejected his rightward shifting of the party's positions, which were in clear contempt of the party's platform, mr. mulcair was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. we are now months past his own party's rejection of his political positions, and he refuses to stand down.

mr. mulcair, the voters have spoken. the party members have spoken. your mps have spoken. it is time for you to sit down and be quiet. it is time for you to go away. it is time for you to let go of the position that you would not let go of, that has been stripped from you and that nobody has faith in you to hold.

trudeau's comments will not hurt him, politically. but, mulcair is continuing to remind us why he lost his own base.

the party of douglas has become the party of mindless obstructionism. and, if this is what it has to offer, then it is time that it merge not with the liberals but with the tories.

my sadness is only eclipsed by my disgust.

-

yeah. they took it down.

they took their platform down.

and, then they wonder why they lost their base?

this is what the ndp's donors and voters and grassroots had in their platform, before mulcair took it down.

“Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security.”

and, mulcair has been taken down, himself. he's just stuck in cache; he just refuses to go away.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-partys-website-because-it-is-not-the-platform-ndp-advisor

F5. F5. F5. fuck. work...

j reacts to the pipeline approvals in canada

this is no surprise. i fully expected that this battle would need to be fought on the ground. let's just not lose focus on the importance of fighting for positive steps towards transition, as we continue to fight this regressive feet-dragging.

putting all your focus on stopping the pipelines, and winning, doesn't leave us with much at the end of the day if the grid is in the same shape as it is now. we have to focus on transition and adaptation, too. with the election of the denier-in-chief, that's just all the more apparent. so, this is going to require a lot of hard work to stop. but, the liberals are still the lesser evil and it was still the right choice to put them in power.

we just have to make sure those infrastructure funds get released and put to use in transitioning, even as we fight the pipelines.

the ndp supported the pipelines, too. but, they had no plan for transition. indeed, their plan was to rely on taxing dirty oil to pay for social services.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/29/liberals-approve-trans-mountain-line-3-pipeline-projects.html

j reacts to the republican plan to convert medicare into obamacare (and keep obamacare)

i don't think they're going to get rid of obamacare, because it was actually what they wanted. before it was obamacare, it was romneycare. and, before that it was gingrichcare. it came right out of the heritage institute.....what more could they want?

well, ok, there's a few things in implementation. so, they may change a few minor parts of it. i could see them breaking down the state monopoly part of it, which was designed to prevent companies from sheltering in states with bad laws (they'll claim competition will reduce prices, which is always an absurd lie and should be a red flag when you hear it). then, they'll rebrand it as 'something better'. and people will largely swallow it. but they'll keep the basic idea, because it's what they always wanted.

but, could they convert medicare into obamacare? that sounds like something they'd want to do, yeah.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/11/paul-ryan-trump-privatize-medicare-000241

i would like to suggest an organized spate of flag burnings as a reaction to trump's suggestion that it should result in jail time. just as a matter of principle. and, maybe you should burn a few effigies of trump while you're at it....

i remain without vlog. what's the deal with that?

well, i'm not done the record. that's all there is to it. but, i'm also kind of digging the freedom.

i am vlogging. i just dumped a 32 gb sd card to hard drive. so, lots of data.

but i've been clear over and over - i'm not vlogging for profit. i'm vlogging partly for marketing (i do many things, but i identify as a composer) and partly for documentation.

i mean, imagine if beethoven had a vlog. he would have smashed the camera, and there would have been no more vlog. i've digressed.

what that means is that there really isn't any reason why i need to upload my vlogs in any specific frequency. so long as the data exists, it exists. it doesn't matter if it gets uploaded or edited or not. right?

well, i like the idea of a stable vlog, even if it's staggered. clearly, a week was not enough time. and, i'm not going to catch the two week target. three weeks is just weird. so, i'm moving to a month. well, four weeks. so, a little less than a month...

the vlog for nov 15th will be published at 00:30 on dec 14th, and we'll keep going from there.

hopefully, what that means is that i can restrict editing to two or three days a month.

j reacts to the ubiquity of junk economics in the mainstream press

"Trump's stated plans to cut taxes and ramp up infrastructure spending is expected to boost the U.S. economy, and the Federal Reserve is expected to boost U.S. interest rates, which could draw investors toward the U.S. greenback."

no.

rather, i'd expect that a congressional push for austerity and entitlement clawbacks is going to lead to a punishing recession, which will lead to a strong sell-off. republicans are generally terrible for the american economy, and usually create recessions. the combination of congressional austerity with a protectionist white house is likely going to be disastrous.

i agree with the rate hike, but i do not believe that rate hikes or cuts affect the value of the currency much.

the canadian dollar is traded on a market. rates are not meaningful because traders sell the currency quickly. it does not react to macroeconomic factors, either. it's value is determined by the perception of investors, not by causal economic laws. these predictions are consequently always worthless - when they are right, it is by sheer chance.

that said, i'd also expect that the sum effect of trump's policies is going to push oil lower (unless he manages to piss off opec, or something). and, because canada's dollar is perceived as a petro-currency, that remains the dominant psychological factor on the value that the canadian currency is traded at.

so, what we're going to be looking at with the loonie is finding a middle point between a worse-than-usual republican recession (which helps the loonie) and low oil prices (which doesn't). i'm not going to guess where it balances out, and don't think you should either. but, i'd bet more on stability than instability.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loonie-us-dollar-forecasts-1.3863851

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/20/trumps-turn-republican-presidents-rule-recessions/93976832/

"While we see substantial support in Congress for proposals to cut taxes and reform the tax code, our current impression is that market expectations of quick fiscal expansion may be running ahead of political and legislative realities," Goldman said.

yup.

tax cut? check.
infrastructure spending? nope.

the report also makes the "error" of assigning gdp growth to tax cuts. i say "error" because i do not believe that goldman sachs actually believes in reaganomics, so much as it is holding to the lie because it wants the tax cut.

expect a recession. and pretty quickly.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/us-recession-odds-relatively-low-but-curb-your-enthusiasm-on-trumponomics-goldman.html

don't be surprised if the recession turns into a depression, either.

didn't they actually buy a drone company for delivery?

my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.

i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.

and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.

www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891

liberals need to avoid taking the alt-right bait on a racist narrative. this can't be about white liberals standing up for brown people. that just plays into their identity politics narrative, and perpetuates further conflict, even if we win most of the battles. it has to be a teachable moment used to banish race from the discourse altogether.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed

news flash: voter suppression or not, it was the republicans that were most successful in using identity politics, this election.

the right-wing press is nailing trudeau for refraining from demonizing castro.

they don't represent popular opinion in the country. trudeau should stick by his comments, which were reflective of the broad understanding in this country that castro was not perfect but that he did far more good than he did harm.

that's the historical narrative that will stick. the tory media is, as usual, completely wrong.

trudeau did not win the election by caving to the media. and, he should not cave to the media, now.

a lot of the people in the tory press that are criticizing trudeau today for his comments on castro were no doubt supporting apartheid south africa while castro was fighting it. they were on the wrong side of history then, and they are on the wrong side of history, now.

these are the same people that declared mandela a terrorist and stuck to it.

their opinions are wrong. they have always been wrong. and, if their media parent companies had any concept of social responsibility, their microphones and pens and keyboards would have been taken away from them years ago.

you don't have to be an advocate of historical materialism to realize that you can't expect a primitive society to respect queer rights. my understanding is that the reality was less that castro was an opponent of queer rights and more that he chose not to prevent their persecution. the ultimate problem stemmed from centuries of colonial rule by the catholic church. it was something that he couldn't overturn quickly, and fighting against it too strenuously may have put the whole thing in jeopardy.

the same thing is true today in russia. putin does not care about gay people one way or another. but, he knows that standing up to the church, which is what is actually leading the persecution, would put his own position in jeopardy.

i'm not trying to whitewash putin or castro. you can call putin weak, and be right. and, you can question castro's judgement. but, let us attribute the problem, correctly - in both cases, the problem is religion. and, on the left, we know how careful we have to be about religion and striking the right balance in letting it die out slowly.

it's not that queer rights are not important. of course, they are. but, they are a second-generation concern.

there is consequently something deeply bourgeois and distressingly haughty in these upper class tories and liberals looking down on these developing societies and criticizing them for not overturning their colonial brainwashing fast enough.

queer rights are a deduction, and not a premise. a certain framework must come first.

and, in time, castro's society did become more free for queer people - once it had time to undo the effects of catholicism.

more projection. classic trump. he knows the election was rigged in his favour - that millions more votes for clinton disappeared. this is what he does to control his herd of idiots and deplorables (it was a stupid thing to say, but it was always true, and i'm going to stick with it). at some point, the sheep will react. but, they're sheep. it could be a while.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-calls-it-sad-that-clinton-joining-recount-effort/article33058826/

j reacts to the idea that pipelines can be a compromise in fighting climate change

"Mr. Trudeau has appeared willing to take that risk because it could lead to a political triumph. If he can balance a pipeline with a climate deal with premiers at a meeting Dec. 8 – and it appears a deal with all provincial premiers except Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall is likely – then he can claim the broad political middle by asserting he delivered both a pipeline to tidewater and a deal on emissions."

this is stupidity. he will do neither. he will alienate both constituencies.

there is no "political middle". it's a fantasy created by conservatives to co-opt the left.

the liberals played this game in the 90s and lost. the lesson they should have learned is that they can't balance the left and right, and that they're only deluding themselves in pretending that they can.

the reason is that nobody actually wants this compromise. there's no victory in getting pipelines built, while you address climate change. that's not something i want, or something i'll celebrate. it's just feet-dragging and weak tea.

i know it's coming. i never pretended it wasn't. i knew he was going to approve pipelines, and i knew they would need to be fought in court and on the ground. but, i'm not looking forward to it, and nobody else is, either.

that's delusional. simply. plainly.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-about-to-see-just-how-ruthless-trudeau-can-be/article33065655/

i actually really don't like the idea of posting pictures with your partner in your profile pic, whatever the site is. it broadcasts a lack of individuality. and, i'll never see the upside to that, no matter how you try and explain it. your profile is yours, it's never your partner's. and, no, you can't share it.

it's kind of like going to the bathroom with the door open. you're going to do it. and, everybody knows you're going to do it. but, it's never ok.

publishing inri019

this is the final section of the last proper inri demo, which was written as somewhat of a suite, but only in a fleeting moment, and then forgotten. it's a sort of sardonic take on the jesus story, in that it follows a persecuted person through a suicide and a resurrection, with tongue in cheek commentary.

initially, it was a song suite about being young and not listened to, culminating in a rather dramatic overreaction - that i ridiculed as counter-productive, partly by reference to kurt cobain, whose suicide is an event that hangs over the childhood of my generation. people that were adults at the time might want to think of it in the same way that they interpreted watching kennedy get his brains blown out on live tv. as i grew up (stated loosely - i was still 17/18, here), i realized this is a general condition of society that is not limited to young people. so, i generalized it to reflect the illusion of what we call "democracy", and gave it an exaggerated persecution complex. the cynicism was targeted at the clinton administration, but in a broader sense i'm sort of ridiculing the rather cartoonish perception of generation x as this kind of raelian mass of fatalist children....

my final vocal edit for viewless focused on a small part of the verse and cut the chorus out altogether. i then distributed that small part into the rest of the song by cutting into parts and pasting it in where i wanted. this drops the more general commentary, which seems like an anachronism, in favour of refocusing the listener on the direct storyline of individual persecution. for suicide, i left the vocal track largely in tact, except to remove the suicide note, which in hindsight also seems like a giant distraction from the satirical storyline. what's left is more direct.

i also want to note that there was a conscious decision to move to a more recited vocal style on the 1999 rerecording (and subsequent 2016 reconstruction), rather than the screamy style that dominates the initial 1996 demo. at the time, i considered screaming to be sort of contrived and passe. the recitation is actually a very considered reaction to something i interpreted as largely cartoonish. i was certainly still heavily influenced by the screamy stuff i grew up with, but it wasn't a characteristic of much of anything i was attracted to after about '97 or so and actually something that i really wanted to distance myself from.

i've pulled back from insisting on recited vocals in order to minimize that contrivedness, but the truth is that the vast majority of music released after about '97 that has screamed vocals very much *is* contrived. time has only cemented my rejection of falsely emotionalized vocals in punk-derived genres.

written and demoed from 1996-1999. initially constructed in this form in january, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. sequenced on nov 22-24, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. audio permanently closed on nov 24, 2016. release finalized on nov 27, 2016. this is my second symphony; as always, please use headphones.

section one ("epilag"): initially created in early 1999. remastered on nov 23, 2016.

section two ("viewless"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 19, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 29, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016. corrected to remove an errand click on nov 24, 2016.

section three ("anticipation"): background noise built in 1996. rebuilt in late 1998. edited in late 2013. remastered on nov 24, 2016.

section four ("suicide"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016.

section five ("resurrection"): initially written and recorded on january 4, 1999.

the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched

this release is compiled in the following places:

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, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).

*download only

credits

released January 13, 1999

j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, electric piano, vocals, drum kit, drum programming, sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, light-wave synthesis, noise generators, sound design, loops, tapes, digital wave editing, production

90s hardcore is just about the worst music ever created.

pot, kettle.

but, is he worried? see, i don't think he should be. i think his handlers cleaned up.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38121264

guys, listen - zizek is a troll. i mean, he calls himself a stalinist. isn't that the first clue that you shouldn't take him seriously? but, he's not actually a stalinist. he's just a smart capitalist. he knows what sells, and he says ridiculous things for profit.

this is not new, either. it's good that this is chomsky, because he's the go-to guy to expose that entire school of sophistry. but, there have always been sophists. and there have always been fools willing to give those sophists their money.

you should have listened to chomsky.

and, in the end that might be the chapter in the history book on the era of the american empire. you can imagine it in the table of contents...

the british empire.............................10063
the american empire........................26575
the new chinese empire...................26576

26575

               The American Empire

shouldda listened to chomsky.

-

i remember an old friend showing up at my place with a zizek video sometime in the mid 00s, thinking i'd enjoy it. my reaction was the standard reaction one gets from actual smart and actual educated people that are not easily hypnotized by his psycho-babble: he just rambled for an hour without actually saying anything.

rather than take my far more educated opinion on the topic seriously, he gave me the standard kneejerk, which i suspect is a part of the orientation material (no doubt sold separately, or perhaps free with orders of a certain magnitude):

"you just didn't understand it."

sure. right. went right over my head, man.

he's not a stalinist, but he does flirt with the worst tendencies on the right. and, he should not be taken seriously by anybody that is remotely left of center.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html

no, honestly, though. you might think a zizek "concert" is full of philosophy students. but, ask around. my experience is that your average zizek "fan" is actually somebody that thought they were too smart for school and may or may not have bothered to finish grade 12.

that's the ruse: he sells nonsense to idiots that spend their whole lives failing, who then get to feel superior because they understand things that the smart kids don't. and, the more that actual academics smack this nonsense down, the more elite the failures get to feel.

there's maybe something to all the reverse psychology. but, what that something is is a tactic to sell shit to the people that are buying it. nor is this particularly novel. as mentioned: there have always been sophists, and there have always been people willing to give them money.

it's just as simple as giving losers a way out of feeling inferior. that's always a good business model. they're not stupid, after all. they get the secret knowledge. they're the special ones. it's the kids that went to school that are stupid, and don't get it.

and, political movements have always had to find a way to inoculate themselves against this kind of anti-intellectualism, under threat of collapse into absurdity.

make america great again!

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/i-crashed-on-first-listen-through-but-i.html

re: the fake news. not the norm macdonald fake news, the facebook stuff.

it was late 2013 that i just got fed up and unplugged.

so, i wasn't paying attention to facebook over the election. i haven't had a feed to check in around three years.

feb 25, 2015

this somewhat ironically explains why i discarded social media and went back to traditional media.

the cat pictures were admittedly bad. the memes were worse. but what really permanently turned me off was the lack of filters, combined with a disturbing level of mass ignorance.

i was hooked up to a number of "libertarian" type political movements, most leaning towards the socialist brand of libertarianism (anarchism). occupy, idle no more, groups against tar sands development and other protest groups with similar purposes that organized large protests and generated substantial interest.

i'd guess that roughly 75% of the articles that i'd read that had gone "viral" within that political spectrum were absolute nonsense. the stuff on gmos was particularly illiterate. and, it would just get shared by dumb hippie after dumb hippie after dumb hippie. it's the perfect example of how lies can become truth if they're repeated often enough - which in this case means if they're shared over enough feeds.

i reacted, of course. you send out crap in your feed, i'm going to correct you. but, what it lead to was a lot of interpersonal tension, accusations that i wasn't on "their side" and just general close-mindedness to criticism. the meme was authoritarian truth; how dare i challenge it with my puny citations!

what i learned was that social media isn't a replacement for anything - it's merely an evolution of the mob mentality. it reminded me of how important good journalism really is, and why it can't be tossed aside as a relic of the past.

i think that free-thinking people ought to be very cautious of how social media might shape social movements in the future, mostly for the worst. it really pushes a conformist mob mentality, with little interest in fact checking.

i think we can probably blame the anti-vaccine campaign on social media.

i fear it's just the beginning.