Thursday, December 15, 2016
it's really amazing to watch all these brainwashed democrats instantly
warm to cia news outlets once they started broadcasting propaganda they
agree with.
when you find yourself in agreement with shep smith, you might want to take a step back and wonder if you're being played. because that guy just reads memos straight from head office.
when you find yourself in agreement with shep smith, you might want to take a step back and wonder if you're being played. because that guy just reads memos straight from head office.
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
some nerds actually prefer the company of jocks to the company of geeks. i might categorize myself that way, although i don't really enjoy the company of either. i mean, it depends. some (most?) jocks are just impossibly stupid. but, your average geek is fucking shallow and flaky. on average, i think that the negative qualities of jocks are easier to deal with than the negative qualities of geeks.
of course, nerds are preferable. but there aren't a lot of us out there.
trump will find a nerd or two that will hang out with him.
of course, nerds are preferable. but there aren't a lot of us out there.
trump will find a nerd or two that will hang out with him.
i intended
this release to be a short single to house a vocal mix of this track,
the reconstructed album mix and all of the historical versions. but, it
really came back to life on me when i started mixing it. as i was mixing
the track, i was cognizant of the fact that it is both the last release
in this string of reconstructed singles and the oldest song that i have
a recording of. i felt myself coming full circle.
something that i think is actually unique to this track is that i wrote it while i was still living with my mom. that dates the track to when i was in grade 7, that is to 1993 or 1994. i was twelve or thirteen years old at the time and the lyrics very much reflect it. above all else, i felt it imperative that i maintain the innocence of the track.
the track documents a routine that was actually very formative on how i perceive the world around me. when i was even younger, around ten or so, there was a nightly routine around sunset where my mom would yell at me to go lock the door before the boogeyman came in to get us. but, she'd be a little dramatic about it. kind of a...
mom: shhh. do you hear that?
me: it's getting dark, maybe it's...
mom: it's the boogeyman! go run and lock the door before he comes in and gets us!
so, i'd get up and run to the front door and lock it, peering out to make sure there was nobody there.
i don't think i ever thought a boogeyman existed, but i didn't grow up in an affluent neighbourhood and i was well aware of the dangers of straying too far from home after night. i didn't understand much about drugs or gangs at the time, i just knew that sometimes people died of gunshot wounds outside and didn't want to be stuck in the wrong place at the wrong time. it was legitimately important to block off entrance points.
the run had a bit of a rush of adrenaline-based fear to it, because the hallway was dark. getting to the door and back could at times be a little scary.
the fear was very real; i can still feel it, if i remember back to it. it would not begin to rise until i exited the living room, but would then escalate slowly until i got to the door - at which point it would suddenly spike. this would give me an extra boost of adrenaline to get back into the living room with. it was *always* the run back into the living room that was the scariest, because you never knew if they beat you to the door, and were just waiting for you to lock yourself in and then jump on you when you're cornered.
i think that this daily experience probably underlies my heightened level of caution towards risk. i don't reject risk; i've taken a lot of risks over my life. but, i assess it pretty brutally. i seek out worst case scenarios; i plan around assumptions of failure, to ensure necessities are never interrupted for. what it taught me is that risk must be a consequence of security, and not in antagonism with it.
the original demo version, recorded in 1996, is really the only track from the first cassette that can be salvaged without alteration, however accidentally. i was trying to create an eerie lullabye, a kind of banshee song. through the cumulative process of endless modifications over many months, it ended up sounding like an unfinished progressive rock song - or perhaps a campfire song for existential nihilists. but, what i captured without realizing it at the time was that i sound like the child that i was. for that reason, i consider this version of the track to capture it's essence more accurately than the 1998 or 1999 versions did. i wanted to recapture that essence and re-apply it to the final version.
perhaps what happened with the initial recreation is understandable, in the context of what i've discovered about the track, in hindsight. at the end of 1997, i got a new four-track recorder for christmas. i had spent the entire fall programming on an ry30 that i was given to compensate for the loss of the drum kit. when you get new gear, it's first use is always experimental; i used this track as my training wheels in breaking in the new setup, and largely discarded the outcome.
the track got dropped because i'd come to hate it because i thought of it as cutesy and childish. isn't that what happens when we enter our late teens? if i look back on the initial recording and claim it's essence is intrinsically connected with my age at the time of it's recording, does it not follow that i must have despised it as i sought to define myself in opposition to my child-self?
indeed, it specifically was the vocals that i hated. so, i resolved to ruin them through deadpan and atonality and guitar effects. but, once i had done so, i did not like the outcome and rejected the track for the first record. when i recorded the vocals a second time in early 1999 to complete it for my second record, i merely toned down the concept of annihilating the cutesiness in the vocal delivery, leaving a result that is no more engaged and only arguably preferable.
i may have been experimenting with the gear when i recorded the parts, but the tapes digitized very well for the reconstruction project in 2015. there's enough space in the track to allow the modern guitar & bass & synth plugins to function almost on a clean recording. the remix process allowed me to rediscover the eerie, psychedelic nature of the track and take it closer to it's intended conclusion of constructing a feeling of empty dread and uncertainty.
on sequencing the instrumental remaster of the second record in late 2016, i decided that there was an excess of silence at the beginning of the track that needed to be cut off in order to place it into the proper flow of the record. so, i opened it up in cubase and cut the appropriate section of silence out. i was then distracted by something, and returned to the project unable to remember if i had actually cut the silence or not. in order to check, i re-imported the file. the logic is that if they are out of phase then the cut was made. this was the case, but i immediately made the connection, on playback, to the echo being representative of coming footsteps and sought to expand the idea further.
this resulted in a series of remixes that take the track increasingly out of phase, along with increasing adornments, and then climax in manipulating the speed of the tape as a supplementary effect to increase the disorientation. these were arranged into a sequence of increasing, and then decreasing, complexity.
before i went off on this tangent, i was planning on reconstructing a vocal mix with the reconstruction from tape as the base soundscape. but, all of a sudden, i now had a dozen versions to pick from. i decided that the best thing to do was to experiment. this led to me mixing several of the remixes together, which is the final instrumental out for the record.
the vocal recordings i had from 1997 were unusable, so i had to redo them. but, this was an opportunity to regain the essence of the track by reintroducing a sense of innocence to the oppressive electronics and elusive guitars. my initial plan was to use a solitary voice, but i found that it did not mix well into the same frequency range as the interlock of stereo-spectrum guitars, so i instead recorded the track multiple times and set each recording to a different space in the spectrum. this creates a natural "chorus" effect on playback that blurs the frequency and better allows the vocals to compete with the guitars. i then thickened the chorus further by pitch-shifting it up an octave, which brought in the child-like innocence that i sought for the vocals.
as i was redoing the vocal part, i rejected the track a final time. at 35, why was i singing vocals i wrote when i was 12? is this clinical? but, i followed through with it to close the circle. inri is forever done.
initially written in 1993. first full recording in 1996. recreated in dec, 1997 and again in jan, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 2, 2015. remixed on july 15, 2015. reconceptualized & remixed repeatedly over november & december, 2016. finalized on dec 13, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched-box-set
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 (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2015, 2016).
*download only
something that i think is actually unique to this track is that i wrote it while i was still living with my mom. that dates the track to when i was in grade 7, that is to 1993 or 1994. i was twelve or thirteen years old at the time and the lyrics very much reflect it. above all else, i felt it imperative that i maintain the innocence of the track.
the track documents a routine that was actually very formative on how i perceive the world around me. when i was even younger, around ten or so, there was a nightly routine around sunset where my mom would yell at me to go lock the door before the boogeyman came in to get us. but, she'd be a little dramatic about it. kind of a...
mom: shhh. do you hear that?
me: it's getting dark, maybe it's...
mom: it's the boogeyman! go run and lock the door before he comes in and gets us!
so, i'd get up and run to the front door and lock it, peering out to make sure there was nobody there.
i don't think i ever thought a boogeyman existed, but i didn't grow up in an affluent neighbourhood and i was well aware of the dangers of straying too far from home after night. i didn't understand much about drugs or gangs at the time, i just knew that sometimes people died of gunshot wounds outside and didn't want to be stuck in the wrong place at the wrong time. it was legitimately important to block off entrance points.
the run had a bit of a rush of adrenaline-based fear to it, because the hallway was dark. getting to the door and back could at times be a little scary.
the fear was very real; i can still feel it, if i remember back to it. it would not begin to rise until i exited the living room, but would then escalate slowly until i got to the door - at which point it would suddenly spike. this would give me an extra boost of adrenaline to get back into the living room with. it was *always* the run back into the living room that was the scariest, because you never knew if they beat you to the door, and were just waiting for you to lock yourself in and then jump on you when you're cornered.
i think that this daily experience probably underlies my heightened level of caution towards risk. i don't reject risk; i've taken a lot of risks over my life. but, i assess it pretty brutally. i seek out worst case scenarios; i plan around assumptions of failure, to ensure necessities are never interrupted for. what it taught me is that risk must be a consequence of security, and not in antagonism with it.
the original demo version, recorded in 1996, is really the only track from the first cassette that can be salvaged without alteration, however accidentally. i was trying to create an eerie lullabye, a kind of banshee song. through the cumulative process of endless modifications over many months, it ended up sounding like an unfinished progressive rock song - or perhaps a campfire song for existential nihilists. but, what i captured without realizing it at the time was that i sound like the child that i was. for that reason, i consider this version of the track to capture it's essence more accurately than the 1998 or 1999 versions did. i wanted to recapture that essence and re-apply it to the final version.
perhaps what happened with the initial recreation is understandable, in the context of what i've discovered about the track, in hindsight. at the end of 1997, i got a new four-track recorder for christmas. i had spent the entire fall programming on an ry30 that i was given to compensate for the loss of the drum kit. when you get new gear, it's first use is always experimental; i used this track as my training wheels in breaking in the new setup, and largely discarded the outcome.
the track got dropped because i'd come to hate it because i thought of it as cutesy and childish. isn't that what happens when we enter our late teens? if i look back on the initial recording and claim it's essence is intrinsically connected with my age at the time of it's recording, does it not follow that i must have despised it as i sought to define myself in opposition to my child-self?
indeed, it specifically was the vocals that i hated. so, i resolved to ruin them through deadpan and atonality and guitar effects. but, once i had done so, i did not like the outcome and rejected the track for the first record. when i recorded the vocals a second time in early 1999 to complete it for my second record, i merely toned down the concept of annihilating the cutesiness in the vocal delivery, leaving a result that is no more engaged and only arguably preferable.
i may have been experimenting with the gear when i recorded the parts, but the tapes digitized very well for the reconstruction project in 2015. there's enough space in the track to allow the modern guitar & bass & synth plugins to function almost on a clean recording. the remix process allowed me to rediscover the eerie, psychedelic nature of the track and take it closer to it's intended conclusion of constructing a feeling of empty dread and uncertainty.
on sequencing the instrumental remaster of the second record in late 2016, i decided that there was an excess of silence at the beginning of the track that needed to be cut off in order to place it into the proper flow of the record. so, i opened it up in cubase and cut the appropriate section of silence out. i was then distracted by something, and returned to the project unable to remember if i had actually cut the silence or not. in order to check, i re-imported the file. the logic is that if they are out of phase then the cut was made. this was the case, but i immediately made the connection, on playback, to the echo being representative of coming footsteps and sought to expand the idea further.
this resulted in a series of remixes that take the track increasingly out of phase, along with increasing adornments, and then climax in manipulating the speed of the tape as a supplementary effect to increase the disorientation. these were arranged into a sequence of increasing, and then decreasing, complexity.
before i went off on this tangent, i was planning on reconstructing a vocal mix with the reconstruction from tape as the base soundscape. but, all of a sudden, i now had a dozen versions to pick from. i decided that the best thing to do was to experiment. this led to me mixing several of the remixes together, which is the final instrumental out for the record.
the vocal recordings i had from 1997 were unusable, so i had to redo them. but, this was an opportunity to regain the essence of the track by reintroducing a sense of innocence to the oppressive electronics and elusive guitars. my initial plan was to use a solitary voice, but i found that it did not mix well into the same frequency range as the interlock of stereo-spectrum guitars, so i instead recorded the track multiple times and set each recording to a different space in the spectrum. this creates a natural "chorus" effect on playback that blurs the frequency and better allows the vocals to compete with the guitars. i then thickened the chorus further by pitch-shifting it up an octave, which brought in the child-like innocence that i sought for the vocals.
as i was redoing the vocal part, i rejected the track a final time. at 35, why was i singing vocals i wrote when i was 12? is this clinical? but, i followed through with it to close the circle. inri is forever done.
initially written in 1993. first full recording in 1996. recreated in dec, 1997 and again in jan, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 2, 2015. remixed on july 15, 2015. reconceptualized & remixed repeatedly over november & december, 2016. finalized on dec 13, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched-box-set
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 (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2015, 2016).
*download only
credits
released January 15, 1999
j - guitars, effects, bass, pick scrapes, drum kit, drum programming, digital wave editing, vocals, vocal relics, production
j - guitars, effects, bass, pick scrapes, drum kit, drum programming, digital wave editing, vocals, vocal relics, production
publishing inri020
i intended this release to be a short single to house a vocal mix of this track, the reconstructed album mix and all of the historical versions. but, it really came back to life on me when i started mixing it. as i was mixing the track, i was cognizant of the fact that it is both the last release in this string of reconstructed singles and the oldest song that i have a recording of. i felt myself coming full circle.
something that i think is actually unique to this track is that i wrote it while i was still living with my mom. that dates the track to when i was in grade 7, that is to 1993 or 1994. i was twelve or thirteen years old at the time and the lyrics very much reflect it. above all else, i felt it imperative that i maintain the innocence of the track.
the track documents a routine that was actually very formative on how i perceive the world around me. when i was even younger, around ten or so, there was a nightly routine around sunset where my mom would yell at me to go lock the door before the boogeyman came in to get us. but, she'd be a little dramatic about it. kind of a...
mom: shhh. do you hear that?
me: it's getting dark, maybe it's...
mom: it's the boogeyman! go run and lock the door before he comes in and gets us!
so, i'd get up and run to the front door and lock it, peering out to make sure there was nobody there.
i don't think i ever thought a boogeyman existed, but i didn't grow up in an affluent neighbourhood and i was well aware of the dangers of straying too far from home after night. i didn't understand much about drugs or gangs at the time, i just knew that sometimes people died of gunshot wounds outside and didn't want to be stuck in the wrong place at the wrong time. it was legitimately important to block off entrance points.
the run had a bit of a rush of adrenaline-based fear to it, because the hallway was dark. getting to the door and back could at times be a little scary.
the fear was very real; i can still feel it, if i remember back to it. it would not begin to rise until i exited the living room, but would then escalate slowly until i got to the door - at which point it would suddenly spike. this would give me an extra boost of adrenaline to get back into the living room with. it was *always* the run back into the living room that was the scariest, because you never knew if they beat you to the door, and were just waiting for you to lock yourself in and then jump on you when you're cornered.
i think that this daily experience probably underlies my heightened level of caution towards risk. i don't reject risk; i've taken a lot of risks over my life. but, i assess it pretty brutally. i seek out worst case scenarios; i plan around assumptions of failure, to ensure necessities are never interrupted for. what it taught me is that risk must be a consequence of security, and not in antagonism with it.
the original demo version, recorded in 1996, is really the only track from the first cassette that can be salvaged without alteration, however accidentally. i was trying to create an eerie lullabye, a kind of banshee song. through the cumulative process of endless modifications over many months, it ended up sounding like an unfinished progressive rock song - or perhaps a campfire song for existential nihilists. but, what i captured without realizing it at the time was that i sound like the child that i was. for that reason, i consider this version of the track to capture it's essence more accurately than the 1998 or 1999 versions did. i wanted to recapture that essence and re-apply it to the final version.
perhaps what happened with the initial recreation is understandable, in the context of what i've discovered about the track, in hindsight. at the end of 1997, i got a new four-track recorder for christmas. i had spent the entire fall programming on an ry30 that i was given to compensate for the loss of the drum kit. when you get new gear, it's first use is always experimental; i used this track as my training wheels in breaking in the new setup, and largely discarded the outcome.
the track got dropped because i'd come to hate it because i thought of it as cutesy and childish. isn't that what happens when we enter our late teens? if i look back on the initial recording and claim it's essence is intrinsically connected with my age at the time of it's recording, does it not follow that i must have despised it as i sought to define myself in opposition to my child-self?
indeed, it specifically was the vocals that i hated. so, i resolved to ruin them through deadpan and atonality and guitar effects. but, once i had done so, i did not like the outcome and rejected the track for the first record. when i recorded the vocals a second time in early 1999 to complete it for my second record, i merely toned down the concept of annihilating the cutesiness in the vocal delivery, leaving a result that is no more engaged and only arguably preferable.
i may have been experimenting with the gear when i recorded the parts, but the tapes digitized very well for the reconstruction project in 2015. there's enough space in the track to allow the modern guitar & bass & synth plugins to function almost on a clean recording. the remix process allowed me to rediscover the eerie, psychedelic nature of the track and take it closer to it's intended conclusion of constructing a feeling of empty dread and uncertainty.
on sequencing the instrumental remaster of the second record in late 2016, i decided that there was an excess of silence at the beginning of the track that needed to be cut off in order to place it into the proper flow of the record. so, i opened it up in cubase and cut the appropriate section of silence out. i was then distracted by something, and returned to the project unable to remember if i had actually cut the silence or not. in order to check, i re-imported the file. the logic is that if they are out of phase then the cut was made. this was the case, but i immediately made the connection, on playback, to the echo being representative of coming footsteps and sought to expand the idea further.
this resulted in a series of remixes that take the track increasingly out of phase, along with increasing adornments, and then climax in manipulating the speed of the tape as a supplementary effect to increase the disorientation. these were arranged into a sequence of increasing, and then decreasing, complexity.
before i went off on this tangent, i was planning on reconstructing a vocal mix with the reconstruction from tape as the base soundscape. but, all of a sudden, i now had a dozen versions to pick from. i decided that the best thing to do was to experiment. this led to me mixing several of the remixes together, which is the final instrumental out for the record.
the vocal recordings i had from 1997 were unusable, so i had to redo them. but, this was an opportunity to regain the essence of the track by reintroducing a sense of innocence to the oppressive electronics and elusive guitars. my initial plan was to use a solitary voice, but i found that it did not mix well into the same frequency range as the interlock of stereo-spectrum guitars, so i instead recorded the track multiple times and set each recording to a different space in the spectrum. this creates a natural "chorus" effect on playback that blurs the frequency and better allows the vocals to compete with the guitars. i then thickened the chorus further by pitch-shifting it up an octave, which brought in the child-like innocence that i sought for the vocals.
as i was redoing the vocal part, i rejected the track a final time. at 35, why was i singing vocals i wrote when i was 12? is this clinical? but, i followed through with it to close the circle. inri is forever done.
initially written in 1993. first full recording in 1996. recreated in dec, 1997 and again in jan, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 2, 2015. remixed on july 15, 2015. reconceptualized & remixed repeatedly over november & december, 2016. finalized on dec 13, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched-box-set
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 (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2015, 2016).
*download only
something that i think is actually unique to this track is that i wrote it while i was still living with my mom. that dates the track to when i was in grade 7, that is to 1993 or 1994. i was twelve or thirteen years old at the time and the lyrics very much reflect it. above all else, i felt it imperative that i maintain the innocence of the track.
the track documents a routine that was actually very formative on how i perceive the world around me. when i was even younger, around ten or so, there was a nightly routine around sunset where my mom would yell at me to go lock the door before the boogeyman came in to get us. but, she'd be a little dramatic about it. kind of a...
mom: shhh. do you hear that?
me: it's getting dark, maybe it's...
mom: it's the boogeyman! go run and lock the door before he comes in and gets us!
so, i'd get up and run to the front door and lock it, peering out to make sure there was nobody there.
i don't think i ever thought a boogeyman existed, but i didn't grow up in an affluent neighbourhood and i was well aware of the dangers of straying too far from home after night. i didn't understand much about drugs or gangs at the time, i just knew that sometimes people died of gunshot wounds outside and didn't want to be stuck in the wrong place at the wrong time. it was legitimately important to block off entrance points.
the run had a bit of a rush of adrenaline-based fear to it, because the hallway was dark. getting to the door and back could at times be a little scary.
the fear was very real; i can still feel it, if i remember back to it. it would not begin to rise until i exited the living room, but would then escalate slowly until i got to the door - at which point it would suddenly spike. this would give me an extra boost of adrenaline to get back into the living room with. it was *always* the run back into the living room that was the scariest, because you never knew if they beat you to the door, and were just waiting for you to lock yourself in and then jump on you when you're cornered.
i think that this daily experience probably underlies my heightened level of caution towards risk. i don't reject risk; i've taken a lot of risks over my life. but, i assess it pretty brutally. i seek out worst case scenarios; i plan around assumptions of failure, to ensure necessities are never interrupted for. what it taught me is that risk must be a consequence of security, and not in antagonism with it.
the original demo version, recorded in 1996, is really the only track from the first cassette that can be salvaged without alteration, however accidentally. i was trying to create an eerie lullabye, a kind of banshee song. through the cumulative process of endless modifications over many months, it ended up sounding like an unfinished progressive rock song - or perhaps a campfire song for existential nihilists. but, what i captured without realizing it at the time was that i sound like the child that i was. for that reason, i consider this version of the track to capture it's essence more accurately than the 1998 or 1999 versions did. i wanted to recapture that essence and re-apply it to the final version.
perhaps what happened with the initial recreation is understandable, in the context of what i've discovered about the track, in hindsight. at the end of 1997, i got a new four-track recorder for christmas. i had spent the entire fall programming on an ry30 that i was given to compensate for the loss of the drum kit. when you get new gear, it's first use is always experimental; i used this track as my training wheels in breaking in the new setup, and largely discarded the outcome.
the track got dropped because i'd come to hate it because i thought of it as cutesy and childish. isn't that what happens when we enter our late teens? if i look back on the initial recording and claim it's essence is intrinsically connected with my age at the time of it's recording, does it not follow that i must have despised it as i sought to define myself in opposition to my child-self?
indeed, it specifically was the vocals that i hated. so, i resolved to ruin them through deadpan and atonality and guitar effects. but, once i had done so, i did not like the outcome and rejected the track for the first record. when i recorded the vocals a second time in early 1999 to complete it for my second record, i merely toned down the concept of annihilating the cutesiness in the vocal delivery, leaving a result that is no more engaged and only arguably preferable.
i may have been experimenting with the gear when i recorded the parts, but the tapes digitized very well for the reconstruction project in 2015. there's enough space in the track to allow the modern guitar & bass & synth plugins to function almost on a clean recording. the remix process allowed me to rediscover the eerie, psychedelic nature of the track and take it closer to it's intended conclusion of constructing a feeling of empty dread and uncertainty.
on sequencing the instrumental remaster of the second record in late 2016, i decided that there was an excess of silence at the beginning of the track that needed to be cut off in order to place it into the proper flow of the record. so, i opened it up in cubase and cut the appropriate section of silence out. i was then distracted by something, and returned to the project unable to remember if i had actually cut the silence or not. in order to check, i re-imported the file. the logic is that if they are out of phase then the cut was made. this was the case, but i immediately made the connection, on playback, to the echo being representative of coming footsteps and sought to expand the idea further.
this resulted in a series of remixes that take the track increasingly out of phase, along with increasing adornments, and then climax in manipulating the speed of the tape as a supplementary effect to increase the disorientation. these were arranged into a sequence of increasing, and then decreasing, complexity.
before i went off on this tangent, i was planning on reconstructing a vocal mix with the reconstruction from tape as the base soundscape. but, all of a sudden, i now had a dozen versions to pick from. i decided that the best thing to do was to experiment. this led to me mixing several of the remixes together, which is the final instrumental out for the record.
the vocal recordings i had from 1997 were unusable, so i had to redo them. but, this was an opportunity to regain the essence of the track by reintroducing a sense of innocence to the oppressive electronics and elusive guitars. my initial plan was to use a solitary voice, but i found that it did not mix well into the same frequency range as the interlock of stereo-spectrum guitars, so i instead recorded the track multiple times and set each recording to a different space in the spectrum. this creates a natural "chorus" effect on playback that blurs the frequency and better allows the vocals to compete with the guitars. i then thickened the chorus further by pitch-shifting it up an octave, which brought in the child-like innocence that i sought for the vocals.
as i was redoing the vocal part, i rejected the track a final time. at 35, why was i singing vocals i wrote when i was 12? is this clinical? but, i followed through with it to close the circle. inri is forever done.
initially written in 1993. first full recording in 1996. recreated in dec, 1997 and again in jan, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 2, 2015. remixed on july 15, 2015. reconceptualized & remixed repeatedly over november & december, 2016. finalized on dec 13, 2016. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched-box-set
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 (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2015, 2016).
*download only
credits
released January 15, 1999
j - guitars, effects, bass, pick scrapes, drum kit, drum programming, digital wave editing, vocals, vocal relics, production
j - guitars, effects, bass, pick scrapes, drum kit, drum programming, digital wave editing, vocals, vocal relics, production
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
i was unaware of this event when i wrote my write-up on wynne's prospects in the next election. i see that her office had already made the same calculations, several weeks ago. that's reassuring. surprisingly so.
but, she's facing the need to make a choice. if she goes into the new year as leader, she's attaching herself to the party in 2018. do her and her team think that this is the most strategic choice? she is running out of time to step down.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/19/wynne-calls-high-electricity-prices-her-mistake_n_13095776.html
but, she's facing the need to make a choice. if she goes into the new year as leader, she's attaching herself to the party in 2018. do her and her team think that this is the most strategic choice? she is running out of time to step down.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/19/wynne-calls-high-electricity-prices-her-mistake_n_13095776.html
i don't usually pay attention to corruption scandals. i make the basic assumption that all parties are corrupt, and judge them by their policies and track records. some money will disappear. that's a given.
but, i just want to draw attention here to the scope of the issue. the issue was a very real concern in the most recent american cycle, where the most popular (however tenuously...) candidate for the entire election cycle had taken extremely large sums from banking institutions for no discernible reason. she took hundreds of thousands per speech, and one estimate suggests it added up to $22 million. that's a lot of cash, and a lot of cash buys access. it's blatant.
trudeau, here, is being accused of accepting a $1500 personal contribution after discussing an issue of some sort with that person. i'm sure the party appreciates it. but, that doesn't buy access.
or at least i hope it doesn't.
no, it doesn't. it doesn't. but what if...?
no. that's not enough. obviously.
you can never be sure.
but, then he'd have to have a meandering policy vision, that dodders about, unfocused, in every which way, which projects minimal confidence in any direction. hrmmn.
naw.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/12/13/trudeau-fundraisers-middle-class-ambrose-mulcair_n_13611432.html
but, i just want to draw attention here to the scope of the issue. the issue was a very real concern in the most recent american cycle, where the most popular (however tenuously...) candidate for the entire election cycle had taken extremely large sums from banking institutions for no discernible reason. she took hundreds of thousands per speech, and one estimate suggests it added up to $22 million. that's a lot of cash, and a lot of cash buys access. it's blatant.
trudeau, here, is being accused of accepting a $1500 personal contribution after discussing an issue of some sort with that person. i'm sure the party appreciates it. but, that doesn't buy access.
or at least i hope it doesn't.
no, it doesn't. it doesn't. but what if...?
no. that's not enough. obviously.
you can never be sure.
but, then he'd have to have a meandering policy vision, that dodders about, unfocused, in every which way, which projects minimal confidence in any direction. hrmmn.
naw.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/12/13/trudeau-fundraisers-middle-class-ambrose-mulcair_n_13611432.html
see, this is a smarter way to channel xenophobia, because this really is a practice that shouldn't be tolerated. i don't care if you wear a scarf. i do care if you perform surgical operations on your children by non-licensed practitioners in order to satisfy a superstition. if your rights scheme allows this, it stinks. these kids need protection. i don't want to hear it.
but, of course, it's really a policy for integration - and that appears to be necessary in the uk. the racism is at the point where it needs a social policy to address it. this is a way to acknowledge that without giving in to it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-38290888
but, of course, it's really a policy for integration - and that appears to be necessary in the uk. the racism is at the point where it needs a social policy to address it. this is a way to acknowledge that without giving in to it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-38290888
Monday, December 12, 2016
this would be epic.
"i come forward to represent the interests of rationality and science against the dark forces of magical thinking. i bring forth realism; i champion data. we shall always follow the evidence."
meanwhile, trump gets to play high school bully to his most advanced desires.
"look at him. he's a fucking loser. he's got four-eyes glasses. maybe we could hire him to run our email servers, or something? i hear he's good at that. loser. i bet i know what's microsoft about him."
he would then proceed to place an L over his head, and walk menacingly towards him.
and, you could imagine the speech you'd get from gates.
"i've been called a loser my whole life. and, yet look at what i've accomplished?"
i'm not sure the nerds will win, in the end. but, i'd still like to watch the game.
"i come forward to represent the interests of rationality and science against the dark forces of magical thinking. i bring forth realism; i champion data. we shall always follow the evidence."
meanwhile, trump gets to play high school bully to his most advanced desires.
"look at him. he's a fucking loser. he's got four-eyes glasses. maybe we could hire him to run our email servers, or something? i hear he's good at that. loser. i bet i know what's microsoft about him."
he would then proceed to place an L over his head, and walk menacingly towards him.
and, you could imagine the speech you'd get from gates.
"i've been called a loser my whole life. and, yet look at what i've accomplished?"
i'm not sure the nerds will win, in the end. but, i'd still like to watch the game.
something's been brewing for a while, though: the fear propaganda about terrorism is being replaced by a return to what is essentially cold war propaganda. i think there's very valid concerns about putting the ceo of a fossil fuel company with deep intelligence connections in the united states in as secretary of state. maybe we should talk about this. but, instead the so-called liberal media is insisting on branding him as a red. it appears that they'll have a senate committee on unamerican hearings to investigate, too.
see, it's not some accident; it's not some rash act. the supposed war on terrorism has been converted into a proxy war between major powers, and making way for a dangerous conflict with russia and china. it initially collapsed into a series of complex, overlapping proxy wars. but, order generated. alliances formed into a hierarchy, and the most meta struggles took over: iran v greece, rome v persia, catholic v orthodox, britain v russia - the cold war. the ancient, ancient cold war. it always dominates.
and, in the long run, that was just a minor uprising. to be forgotten. we're back to the ancient struggle. east v west.
see, it's not some accident; it's not some rash act. the supposed war on terrorism has been converted into a proxy war between major powers, and making way for a dangerous conflict with russia and china. it initially collapsed into a series of complex, overlapping proxy wars. but, order generated. alliances formed into a hierarchy, and the most meta struggles took over: iran v greece, rome v persia, catholic v orthodox, britain v russia - the cold war. the ancient, ancient cold war. it always dominates.
and, in the long run, that was just a minor uprising. to be forgotten. we're back to the ancient struggle. east v west.
so, the chinese claim this taiwan thing is a big deal. is this serious?
my understanding is that the chinese see this as a case of epic shit-disturbing by the taiwanese - but that they are also incredibly concerned by the flaws it exposes in donald trump's competency. it's serious, but not like you think.
let's begin with the following question: why hasn't this happened before? this one-china policy thing is almost fifty years old, now. is it the case that taiwanese leaders don't usually call? or is it the case that the calls aren't usually taken?
if the leaders don't normally call, then why did this one do so? is it because she realized that trump didn't know any better? because she was just curious as to what would happen? you can't escape the deduction that the taiwanese have a very poor regard for mr. trump's intelligence, if they thought they could play him off against the mainland so easily. is this a taste of the next four years: the president being mocked by the leaders of his own client states?
if the calls are usually made and not taken, what it broadcasts to beijing is the immense level of cluelessness in the incoming administration.
in both cases, we're left with the disturbing conclusion that he did not know not to do this and did not have anybody around him that did and could tell him. and, that is why the chinese are on high alert: a dangerous and aggressive buffoon is about to be given the launch codes.
my understanding is that the chinese see this as a case of epic shit-disturbing by the taiwanese - but that they are also incredibly concerned by the flaws it exposes in donald trump's competency. it's serious, but not like you think.
let's begin with the following question: why hasn't this happened before? this one-china policy thing is almost fifty years old, now. is it the case that taiwanese leaders don't usually call? or is it the case that the calls aren't usually taken?
if the leaders don't normally call, then why did this one do so? is it because she realized that trump didn't know any better? because she was just curious as to what would happen? you can't escape the deduction that the taiwanese have a very poor regard for mr. trump's intelligence, if they thought they could play him off against the mainland so easily. is this a taste of the next four years: the president being mocked by the leaders of his own client states?
if the calls are usually made and not taken, what it broadcasts to beijing is the immense level of cluelessness in the incoming administration.
in both cases, we're left with the disturbing conclusion that he did not know not to do this and did not have anybody around him that did and could tell him. and, that is why the chinese are on high alert: a dangerous and aggressive buffoon is about to be given the launch codes.
but, the keystone bit. yeah. i just said that.
canada is now credibly threatening to increase exports to china, so trump is trying to reroute south with the keystone. america needs to control the supply of oil. obama would have been pressured to do the same thing. and, note that trudeau's announcement was timed carefully to be between the election and inauguration, too.
you should always be suspicious when capital claims environmental reasons for policies, especially when they have geopolitical implications.
canada is now credibly threatening to increase exports to china, so trump is trying to reroute south with the keystone. america needs to control the supply of oil. obama would have been pressured to do the same thing. and, note that trudeau's announcement was timed carefully to be between the election and inauguration, too.
you should always be suspicious when capital claims environmental reasons for policies, especially when they have geopolitical implications.
"President-elect Donald Trump escalated a fight with the U.S.
intelligence community on Sunday by denouncing its findings of Russian
meddling in the U.S. election, setting up an extraordinary rupture between a soon-to-be president and his national-security establishment."
well, ok, then, wsj. gee, you're giving me this article for free? thanks. i appreciate your altruism.
what, am i writing the script, here?
they're jumping all over themselves, here, to convincingly explain that donald trump is not a front for the cia. i suppose i was merely mistaken. apologies.
now that i've been corrected on that point, i will no longer mention it. promise.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-blames-democrats-for-reports-of-russia-hacking-1481467907
well, ok, then, wsj. gee, you're giving me this article for free? thanks. i appreciate your altruism.
what, am i writing the script, here?
they're jumping all over themselves, here, to convincingly explain that donald trump is not a front for the cia. i suppose i was merely mistaken. apologies.
now that i've been corrected on that point, i will no longer mention it. promise.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-blames-democrats-for-reports-of-russia-hacking-1481467907
Sunday, December 11, 2016
my whole time here, i've been wondering if i should be concerned about the apparent aggressive nature of the neighbourhood cats. i wonder if it may have to do with the fact that they were at one point fed here.
we think of alley cats as domestic animals, but in any random sample that's only going to be partly true. there are feral colonies of cats in most cities now that have been wild for multiple generations. they really should be treated as wild animals.
...and the number one rule for living around wild predators is not to feed them, and to make sure they're not eating around you. that's when animals start to get more aggressive around humans.
that's something to keep in mind when you feed the alley cats.
we think of alley cats as domestic animals, but in any random sample that's only going to be partly true. there are feral colonies of cats in most cities now that have been wild for multiple generations. they really should be treated as wild animals.
...and the number one rule for living around wild predators is not to feed them, and to make sure they're not eating around you. that's when animals start to get more aggressive around humans.
that's something to keep in mind when you feed the alley cats.
“Everyone should know WikiLeaks was involved from the very beginning,” Reid continued. “They leaked the information as if it was run by one of the great political operatives in America when in fact it was run by the political operatives in Russia."
mr. reid has said a little too much here. i guess he's in the habit of just reading memos verbatim, or what?
mr. reid has said a little too much here. i guess he's in the habit of just reading memos verbatim, or what?
i think this whole russian trump plot is a distraction from the reality of a cia plot to put trump in.
i mean, it's one of those situations that is just fishy. nobody saw it coming. so, people like me put the dots together and realize "ok. trump is a puppet of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. exxon ceo for secretary of state? well, sure. that makes sense. look at all of those leaks. controlled, obviously. so, it's gotta be cia.".
they're not going to get away with denying it completely. it's too obvious. so, i guess we need to forget about the fbi shenanigans, and focus solely on the questionable evidence that triggered them? as though the russians were playing the fbi for fools, and they took the bait like buffoons? that was obviously a relay: you drop the bait, and then you react to it. almost hegelian.
but, that's the bait and switch: you blame the interference on the guys you wanted to demonize, anyways. you can't deny it. so, you just shift the blame.
i think that what's more curious to me right now is why they're so worried about it at this particular moment. seems a little paranoid. not a good sign.
i mean, it's one of those situations that is just fishy. nobody saw it coming. so, people like me put the dots together and realize "ok. trump is a puppet of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. exxon ceo for secretary of state? well, sure. that makes sense. look at all of those leaks. controlled, obviously. so, it's gotta be cia.".
they're not going to get away with denying it completely. it's too obvious. so, i guess we need to forget about the fbi shenanigans, and focus solely on the questionable evidence that triggered them? as though the russians were playing the fbi for fools, and they took the bait like buffoons? that was obviously a relay: you drop the bait, and then you react to it. almost hegelian.
but, that's the bait and switch: you blame the interference on the guys you wanted to demonize, anyways. you can't deny it. so, you just shift the blame.
i think that what's more curious to me right now is why they're so worried about it at this particular moment. seems a little paranoid. not a good sign.
Saturday, December 10, 2016
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.
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/
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/
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.
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
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
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
Friday, December 9, 2016
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
Thursday, December 8, 2016
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
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.
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.
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'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."
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?
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
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
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
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...
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...
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/
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/
Monday, December 5, 2016
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.
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....
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....
Sunday, December 4, 2016
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Friday, December 2, 2016
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.
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.
Thursday, December 1, 2016
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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
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
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
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.
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.
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
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.
...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.
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
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...
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."
...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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)