yeah, my sheets are ok.
that's good. i got it in time...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
i'm going to post another update on the smell before i take a shower, which i'm hoping helps quite a bit. we'll have to see if i want to launder my sheets tonight or not, but i'm leaning towards it. i didn't get to doing this yesterday, as i was getting ready to go out to the show - the review is coming soon.
i got back on sunday close to noon and spent much of the next 36 hours tossing and turning, but i was also trying to pinpoint the exact location of the ammonia smell. i have an old cabinet in front of my bed that is turned sideways, and is useful to put a monitor on (my laptop has a burnt out screen lamp in it). so, when i'm typing, my nose is a foot from the cabinet, because my bed is pushed right up to it. the amp, which is covered in 30-40 year old carpet, was previously keeping the cabinet (which is broken) in place. the stink was landing on the amp, and taking the amp out mostly fixed it, but it was always clear that it wasn't the actual cause of anything.
when the smell came back without the amp, the place the smell was landing wasn't clear. so, i lysoled around the cabinet a few times, over the floor, around the bedframe, etc - which helped me eventually figure out that the smell was coming from a combination of the boxspring, and the underside of the mattress.
so, i dismantled the bed yesterday afternoon and went over the whole area with a lot of lemon-smelling dish soap. i left it dismantled when i went out, and put it back together when i got home this morning at about 4:00. and, that seemed to work before the p-trap dried back out and released some more gas; i might need to do this again.
for now, what i've done in here is make coffee. if i can't blow the hydrogen sulfide around, maybe i can overpower it. we'll see how that works...
so, what happened? why does the boxspring smell now, when it was the amp before?
well, it could be because somebody came in here. i need to keep pointing this possibility out, but the absolute depravity of this is getting beyond baffling.
but, an ammonia smell would be the expected result of hydrogen sulfide exposure. so, there could be sewer gas in the boxspring. i suppose that some moisture, combined with a lack of air circulation, could have brought it back out. or, there could have been some gas leakage when i was gone...
i need to understand what's happening before i can figure out how to fix it, and how to react, otherwise. i have a naturalistic explanation, and if it's correct then there should be a reasonable way to fix it, so long as i can keep the gas from coming out, or get to it as soon as it starts.
for now, the next thing to do is clean a little in the other room and take a shower. i'll get back to the show review in a bit.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
i got back on sunday close to noon and spent much of the next 36 hours tossing and turning, but i was also trying to pinpoint the exact location of the ammonia smell. i have an old cabinet in front of my bed that is turned sideways, and is useful to put a monitor on (my laptop has a burnt out screen lamp in it). so, when i'm typing, my nose is a foot from the cabinet, because my bed is pushed right up to it. the amp, which is covered in 30-40 year old carpet, was previously keeping the cabinet (which is broken) in place. the stink was landing on the amp, and taking the amp out mostly fixed it, but it was always clear that it wasn't the actual cause of anything.
when the smell came back without the amp, the place the smell was landing wasn't clear. so, i lysoled around the cabinet a few times, over the floor, around the bedframe, etc - which helped me eventually figure out that the smell was coming from a combination of the boxspring, and the underside of the mattress.
so, i dismantled the bed yesterday afternoon and went over the whole area with a lot of lemon-smelling dish soap. i left it dismantled when i went out, and put it back together when i got home this morning at about 4:00. and, that seemed to work before the p-trap dried back out and released some more gas; i might need to do this again.
for now, what i've done in here is make coffee. if i can't blow the hydrogen sulfide around, maybe i can overpower it. we'll see how that works...
so, what happened? why does the boxspring smell now, when it was the amp before?
well, it could be because somebody came in here. i need to keep pointing this possibility out, but the absolute depravity of this is getting beyond baffling.
but, an ammonia smell would be the expected result of hydrogen sulfide exposure. so, there could be sewer gas in the boxspring. i suppose that some moisture, combined with a lack of air circulation, could have brought it back out. or, there could have been some gas leakage when i was gone...
i need to understand what's happening before i can figure out how to fix it, and how to react, otherwise. i have a naturalistic explanation, and if it's correct then there should be a reasonable way to fix it, so long as i can keep the gas from coming out, or get to it as soon as it starts.
for now, the next thing to do is clean a little in the other room and take a shower. i'll get back to the show review in a bit.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
i blew the day, but i've got some writing coming...
the gas leak came back this evening around 18:00, so i had to fill the p-trap back up with water and dish soap before sealing the cleanout back up. i've blocked the leak, but not before it sent a bunch more shit into the air. i'm not going to get the fan back in here for another day or two, so it might get kind of rank.
i guess i'll have to do laundry again.....
there's a temperature gradient around the cleanout that may be contributing to the problem. i don't how normal that is, though - it goes right to the underground sewer, right? you'd kind of expect it to be a little cooler down there.
but, i suspect the bigger culprit is the dehumidifier upstairs.
i'm going to send him an email asking him to make sure that he's running water through the sinks and flushing toilets periodically, that he's not letting anything dry out.
as it is, i was up in the afternoon around 15:00-ish and haven't done much yet besides eat. lots of stuff to do, though.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
the gas leak came back this evening around 18:00, so i had to fill the p-trap back up with water and dish soap before sealing the cleanout back up. i've blocked the leak, but not before it sent a bunch more shit into the air. i'm not going to get the fan back in here for another day or two, so it might get kind of rank.
i guess i'll have to do laundry again.....
there's a temperature gradient around the cleanout that may be contributing to the problem. i don't how normal that is, though - it goes right to the underground sewer, right? you'd kind of expect it to be a little cooler down there.
but, i suspect the bigger culprit is the dehumidifier upstairs.
i'm going to send him an email asking him to make sure that he's running water through the sinks and flushing toilets periodically, that he's not letting anything dry out.
as it is, i was up in the afternoon around 15:00-ish and haven't done much yet besides eat. lots of stuff to do, though.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
nobody cares.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/09/25/green-partys-fully-costed-platform-gets-a-failing-grade-from-former-parliamentary-budget-officer.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/09/25/green-partys-fully-costed-platform-gets-a-failing-grade-from-former-parliamentary-budget-officer.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
the homeowner needs to be a reasonable person, it is true, but you also expect the court to be reasonable.
you could imagine a situation where a homeowner exits his house and chases the trespasser down, or doesn't give him a fair chance to leave before he shoots, or any other such aggressive behaviour. i think that most people would see something wrong with this, because our concepts of property are not absolute; the difference between you and i on this point is probably just that i'm willing to admit it, and you're not. a part of this comes in recognizing that trespassing can't be seen as an absolute wrong - he could have been in a car crash and looking for somebody to help his injured wife, or he could have been out hiking and convinced he was being hunted by a cougar, or he could be mentally ill and trying to find the end of the rainbow. you can't just assume that the motives of the trespasser are nefarious, and because you can't assume that, an over-reaction can't be justified by exposing the motives as nefarious, if they are, either. it's the homeowner's responsibility to try and establish the actual facts before acting, and they're consequently responsible for the consequences of failing to do so.
but, the court being reasonable means recognizing the limitations and stress that the homeowner is under.
i'd have to look at the exact facts fairly closely to make an informed analysis, and i'm not going to do that, but the trespasser has a hard case to make here.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-landowner-sued-by-injured-trespasser-precedent-lawyer-1.5296804
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
you could imagine a situation where a homeowner exits his house and chases the trespasser down, or doesn't give him a fair chance to leave before he shoots, or any other such aggressive behaviour. i think that most people would see something wrong with this, because our concepts of property are not absolute; the difference between you and i on this point is probably just that i'm willing to admit it, and you're not. a part of this comes in recognizing that trespassing can't be seen as an absolute wrong - he could have been in a car crash and looking for somebody to help his injured wife, or he could have been out hiking and convinced he was being hunted by a cougar, or he could be mentally ill and trying to find the end of the rainbow. you can't just assume that the motives of the trespasser are nefarious, and because you can't assume that, an over-reaction can't be justified by exposing the motives as nefarious, if they are, either. it's the homeowner's responsibility to try and establish the actual facts before acting, and they're consequently responsible for the consequences of failing to do so.
but, the court being reasonable means recognizing the limitations and stress that the homeowner is under.
i'd have to look at the exact facts fairly closely to make an informed analysis, and i'm not going to do that, but the trespasser has a hard case to make here.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-landowner-sued-by-injured-trespasser-precedent-lawyer-1.5296804
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
so, the liberals are very clear on how they see emissions reductions: it's your fault, and you have to pay to fix it. you need to pull your carbon footprints down by your own bootstraps.
they are insisting - through their policies - that this is essentially a consumption problem, and it needs to be resolved via changes in consumer behaviour. thoroughly right-wing, to the core.
we need a government that understands that this is a problem that was largely created by government and will need to be largely fixed by government, that incentives to consumers and tweaks to consumption will do very little so long as we maintain the system. the problem is not individual, not atomized, but systemic in nature.
so, this is a perfect example of the kind of policy that will not work, and should not be proposed, and should not be supported.
the greens have a better plan, here. and, this is the hard truth we need to face: if we want to fix this, we need to pay for it through public spending.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-climate-change-plan-home-retrofits-1.5296400
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
they are insisting - through their policies - that this is essentially a consumption problem, and it needs to be resolved via changes in consumer behaviour. thoroughly right-wing, to the core.
we need a government that understands that this is a problem that was largely created by government and will need to be largely fixed by government, that incentives to consumers and tweaks to consumption will do very little so long as we maintain the system. the problem is not individual, not atomized, but systemic in nature.
so, this is a perfect example of the kind of policy that will not work, and should not be proposed, and should not be supported.
the greens have a better plan, here. and, this is the hard truth we need to face: if we want to fix this, we need to pay for it through public spending.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-climate-change-plan-home-retrofits-1.5296400
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
In August 2018, Baird appeared on Saudi-owned TV station Al Arabiya to comment on the diplomatic dispute between Canada and Saudi Arabia and urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to fly to Riyadh to apologize in person to the Saudi royal family.[156] NDP MP Charlie Angus called the appearance "stunning" and suggested that the Ethics Commissioner should investigate the incident.[157]
yup.
this is the guy that broke off relations with the syrians. and, he'd better be careful in saudia arabia, too. i've said this before: don't lose your head on the peninsula, baird.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
yup.
this is the guy that broke off relations with the syrians. and, he'd better be careful in saudia arabia, too. i've said this before: don't lose your head on the peninsula, baird.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
so, will we take the lead on this as a force for multilateralism, tolerance and peace?
or will we remain shackled to the demented legacy of john baird - one of the most mindless, belligerent idiots that we've ever elected, in this country?
we made a mistake.
we're long overdue in reversing it...
so, i will repeat my call for the liberal government to take the lead in restoring international relations with the assad regime, in an attempt to move beyond the past.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/12/28/bashar-al-assad-was-diplomatic-outcast-now-former-arab-adversaries-are-restoring-ties/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
or will we remain shackled to the demented legacy of john baird - one of the most mindless, belligerent idiots that we've ever elected, in this country?
we made a mistake.
we're long overdue in reversing it...
so, i will repeat my call for the liberal government to take the lead in restoring international relations with the assad regime, in an attempt to move beyond the past.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/12/28/bashar-al-assad-was-diplomatic-outcast-now-former-arab-adversaries-are-restoring-ties/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
the process of reintegration has already started.
we're falling behind. we need to catch up...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201812/29/WS5c26cd92a310d912140519bc.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
we're falling behind. we need to catch up...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201812/29/WS5c26cd92a310d912140519bc.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
as usual, freeland is completely wrong, and totally out to lunch. she's completely incompetent and should have been removed from her post months ago. that she hasn't been is a reflection of the incompetence of the prime minister.
the need to reestablish relations in syria is something that's been predictable for a long time now. we made a mistake; stephen harper made a mistake. a big part of the sitting foreign minister's responsibility over the last two years should have been to write a policy around re-establishing relations, and it should have been put in motion after the recent american withdrawal, at the very latest.
freeland's response to the situation is an admission that she does not have a policy for reintegration.
and, that is a failure of her post, and a failure of the government, at the highest level.
this article was last year - she should have seen this coming, and it should be dealt with by now.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-when-assad-wins-syrias-civil-war-canada-faces-a-dilemma/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
the need to reestablish relations in syria is something that's been predictable for a long time now. we made a mistake; stephen harper made a mistake. a big part of the sitting foreign minister's responsibility over the last two years should have been to write a policy around re-establishing relations, and it should have been put in motion after the recent american withdrawal, at the very latest.
freeland's response to the situation is an admission that she does not have a policy for reintegration.
and, that is a failure of her post, and a failure of the government, at the highest level.
this article was last year - she should have seen this coming, and it should be dealt with by now.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-when-assad-wins-syrias-civil-war-canada-faces-a-dilemma/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
in all seriousness...
it should be clear at this point, now that we know that there was no actual civil war in syria and the conflict was being driven entirely by foreign terrorist organizations, largely propped up by saudi financing, that canada made a terrible mistake in severing diplomatic relations with the assad government, whom it should have been supporting in it's fight against international terrorism.
it is long overdue that canada re-establish official channels with assad and work within the channels of the united nations to restore the rule of law in a reconstituted syria with a new constitution.
i would call on the liberal party to take the lead on that issue.
unfortunately...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
it should be clear at this point, now that we know that there was no actual civil war in syria and the conflict was being driven entirely by foreign terrorist organizations, largely propped up by saudi financing, that canada made a terrible mistake in severing diplomatic relations with the assad government, whom it should have been supporting in it's fight against international terrorism.
it is long overdue that canada re-establish official channels with assad and work within the channels of the united nations to restore the rule of law in a reconstituted syria with a new constitution.
i would call on the liberal party to take the lead on that issue.
unfortunately...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
the liberals bought a pipeline, but they bought it as a gift for the oil queen of the alberta ndp, remember.
neither party has any credibility, at all, whatsoever, on emissions reductions.
none.
zilch.
nada....
i wouldn't even be surprised if a scheer government had better results, despite openly not giving a fuck, because he's likely to crash the economy. that's the only way we've ever seen emissions reductions to this point, conservative economic mismanagement, and probably the only foreseeable way to see them in the future, right now.
so, if you're looking at the three major parties and trying to figure out which one is most credible, keep that in mind: conservative incompetence is not just a valid option in terms of emissions reductions strategies, it's probably the most substantive one.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
neither party has any credibility, at all, whatsoever, on emissions reductions.
none.
zilch.
nada....
i wouldn't even be surprised if a scheer government had better results, despite openly not giving a fuck, because he's likely to crash the economy. that's the only way we've ever seen emissions reductions to this point, conservative economic mismanagement, and probably the only foreseeable way to see them in the future, right now.
so, if you're looking at the three major parties and trying to figure out which one is most credible, keep that in mind: conservative incompetence is not just a valid option in terms of emissions reductions strategies, it's probably the most substantive one.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
i'm not supporting any of the parties, but i want trudeau out yesterday, so i'm willing to help do that, at least.
and, there's a good internet campaign here, with this jihadi justin that is pro-isis.
it's a perfectly sound logical deduction. if you're anti-assad, you're in support of the groups fighting assad, which are a mish-mash of al qaeda and isis groups. so, being anti-assad necessarily implies being pro-isis. clearly.
a lot of voters are likely to be convincingly swayed by arguments such as these, too. you just need to get the information out to them.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
and, there's a good internet campaign here, with this jihadi justin that is pro-isis.
it's a perfectly sound logical deduction. if you're anti-assad, you're in support of the groups fighting assad, which are a mish-mash of al qaeda and isis groups. so, being anti-assad necessarily implies being pro-isis. clearly.
a lot of voters are likely to be convincingly swayed by arguments such as these, too. you just need to get the information out to them.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
i hope they get this dealt with sooner than later, so they can clear what's left of these idiot islamists out and get back to rebuilding the country.
and, if assad stands for re-election, you should expect him to win.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/guterres-announces-formation-syria-constitutional-committee-190923144730234.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
and, if assad stands for re-election, you should expect him to win.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/guterres-announces-formation-syria-constitutional-committee-190923144730234.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
and, if you don't realize that:
1) assad won the syrian war years ago, now and
2) the reason that assad won was that he had overwhelming internal support, meaning
3) despite being a flawed protagonist, assad is quite obviously the good guy in syria,
...then you don't know what's going on, or you're perfectly willing to lie about it to appease the americans, which is probably closer to the truth.
i mean, is trudeau trying to broadcast that he's pro-isis? because if you're not supporting assad, you're supporting isis.
you expect this kind of thing from the conservatives, but the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
1) assad won the syrian war years ago, now and
2) the reason that assad won was that he had overwhelming internal support, meaning
3) despite being a flawed protagonist, assad is quite obviously the good guy in syria,
...then you don't know what's going on, or you're perfectly willing to lie about it to appease the americans, which is probably closer to the truth.
i mean, is trudeau trying to broadcast that he's pro-isis? because if you're not supporting assad, you're supporting isis.
you expect this kind of thing from the conservatives, but the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
a few last points about the federal election.
- the conservatives are unelectable under this village idiot, andy scheer. he should be working as a bank teller or an accountant or something; this is not the kind of person you want making broad decisions about the future of the country.
- the liberals may promise things, and they may sound good, but i wouldn't believe them. what did bush say? "fool me once......shame on...fool me twice, then, won't get fooled again!". well, we met the new boss and he was the same as the old boss. if you get fooled again, shame on you.
- the liberals lie about the big picture, while the ndp are notoriously dishonest when it comes to the most basic bullshit, and it's been that way for years. i have this sneaking suspicion that layton was really strict about it, because olivia chow would string entire sentences full of lies together, and this is what has taken over the party since he died. mulcair was the most cynical, day-to-day liar i've ever seen. and, people are already wondering if singh is too dishonest to state his opponents' positions properly, or too stupid to understand them. all politicians are dishonest, but the ndp are particularly awful in the post-layton era, so please be particularly careful about what they say. i was an ndp voter through much of the 00s; the primary reason i started taking the liberals seriously again in the first place is that the ndp were just so fundamentally disingenuous all of a sudden. so, careful.
- the greens are tempting, but they have no real fundamental core ideology, so it's impossible to know what you're getting. this is ironic, because may is also the only leader that you can really easily pin down. this could help them - it's arguably what got trudeau elected, along with both obama and trump, this ability to project your own fantasy on to the candidate, because they have no beliefs of their own. but, this is dangerous, because the only thing we can say with any certainty is that she will be gone soon, and the party will change dramatically when she is. i've been saying for years that i won't be able to take the party seriously until she's gone, and ultimately upheld that position this cycle. i've also been saying that they won't breakthrough seriously until she's gone, and hope that they don't miss their chance. but, if they can get her out and clean up her mess before the next election, watch out.
- i kind of wish i could vote for the bloc, actually. my dad used to tell me that - he thought the best candidate was always duceppe, and wanted him to run for the liberals. i never quite agreed with him. but, in this dearth of serious options, they're looking appealing, and i hope they bounce back.
- maxime bernier will probably lose his seat. their economics suck. don't bother.
- the conservatives are unelectable under this village idiot, andy scheer. he should be working as a bank teller or an accountant or something; this is not the kind of person you want making broad decisions about the future of the country.
- the liberals may promise things, and they may sound good, but i wouldn't believe them. what did bush say? "fool me once......shame on...fool me twice, then, won't get fooled again!". well, we met the new boss and he was the same as the old boss. if you get fooled again, shame on you.
- the liberals lie about the big picture, while the ndp are notoriously dishonest when it comes to the most basic bullshit, and it's been that way for years. i have this sneaking suspicion that layton was really strict about it, because olivia chow would string entire sentences full of lies together, and this is what has taken over the party since he died. mulcair was the most cynical, day-to-day liar i've ever seen. and, people are already wondering if singh is too dishonest to state his opponents' positions properly, or too stupid to understand them. all politicians are dishonest, but the ndp are particularly awful in the post-layton era, so please be particularly careful about what they say. i was an ndp voter through much of the 00s; the primary reason i started taking the liberals seriously again in the first place is that the ndp were just so fundamentally disingenuous all of a sudden. so, careful.
- the greens are tempting, but they have no real fundamental core ideology, so it's impossible to know what you're getting. this is ironic, because may is also the only leader that you can really easily pin down. this could help them - it's arguably what got trudeau elected, along with both obama and trump, this ability to project your own fantasy on to the candidate, because they have no beliefs of their own. but, this is dangerous, because the only thing we can say with any certainty is that she will be gone soon, and the party will change dramatically when she is. i've been saying for years that i won't be able to take the party seriously until she's gone, and ultimately upheld that position this cycle. i've also been saying that they won't breakthrough seriously until she's gone, and hope that they don't miss their chance. but, if they can get her out and clean up her mess before the next election, watch out.
- i kind of wish i could vote for the bloc, actually. my dad used to tell me that - he thought the best candidate was always duceppe, and wanted him to run for the liberals. i never quite agreed with him. but, in this dearth of serious options, they're looking appealing, and i hope they bounce back.
- maxime bernier will probably lose his seat. their economics suck. don't bother.
yeah, the undecideds went down a little bit. so, the liberals are winning again.
say what you want about the movement back and forth from the other parties, but conservative support is clearly flat. they've received a net zero increase in support; it hasn't been enough to give the other parties a bounce, either.
this is largely playing out as a decision in the liberal base to vote for the fuckers or to just not to vote at all. i've already told you what i'm doing. but, i'm not in an important riding, either.
the bloc are trending up, which is perhaps the more valuable observation, but be careful with that.
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-September-23-2019.pdf
say what you want about the movement back and forth from the other parties, but conservative support is clearly flat. they've received a net zero increase in support; it hasn't been enough to give the other parties a bounce, either.
this is largely playing out as a decision in the liberal base to vote for the fuckers or to just not to vote at all. i've already told you what i'm doing. but, i'm not in an important riding, either.
the bloc are trending up, which is perhaps the more valuable observation, but be careful with that.
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-September-23-2019.pdf
i was thinking about it, and...
i posted that kmfdm song the other day, and it actually wasn't intended to be about me, although it could be why i got so many questions the other night.
i'm going to post this for completeness sake; it's about an mdma overdose, and is maybe more real. i didn't take mdma either night (and, don't. it's a question of purity; i don't want to even do trace amounts of meth.), but it would have been a real choice track during the shettler set.
i posted that kmfdm song the other day, and it actually wasn't intended to be about me, although it could be why i got so many questions the other night.
i'm going to post this for completeness sake; it's about an mdma overdose, and is maybe more real. i didn't take mdma either night (and, don't. it's a question of purity; i don't want to even do trace amounts of meth.), but it would have been a real choice track during the shettler set.
so, typing that form up was relatively quick, but i need the information services unit at the windsor police department to acknowledge service over email before i can file it.
it's been sent.
if i get a response before this afternoon, i should be able to file the two forms today. otherwise, i'll need to actually drop the form off at the cop shop this afternoon, which means i won't be able to file until tomorrow.
it's been sent.
if i get a response before this afternoon, i should be able to file the two forms today. otherwise, i'll need to actually drop the form off at the cop shop this afternoon, which means i won't be able to file until tomorrow.
Monday, September 23, 2019
so, this is my shortlist for the next six weeks, which is really just a peruse through.
24: fly pan am @ meteor (windsor)
27: blanck mass @ ufo
oct
02: joy formidable @ loving touch ----> defeater @ sanctuary.
03: melvins @ el club.
06: legendary pink dots @ el club.
09: caravan palace @ garden theatre
last weekend:
25: chelsea wolfe @ senate theatre
27: swervedriver @ el club
i wouldn't mind seeing the lpd, but i doubt i'll be able to afford it. rather, that joy formidable / defeater sequence may be it until the end of the month, and that's fine, as it's a more normal month. i mean, i don't normally go out 5-6 times a month like this. it's usually once or twice.
so, i think i'm more treating the show next tuesday as the end of september and then keying in on the last weekend of october. let's hope it's at least pleasant out.
i could find more stuff.
but, i want to plan around getting to toronto to file, remember. that's likely to be in november....
if it's a quiet month, that means i should also be able to do things like catch up on groceries (which i've been sparse about this month.), buy that fan and get that crack filler for the baseboards.
i don't multitask well. let's get those documents done...
24: fly pan am @ meteor (windsor)
27: blanck mass @ ufo
oct
02: joy formidable @ loving touch ----> defeater @ sanctuary.
06: legendary pink dots @ el club.
09: caravan palace @ garden theatre
last weekend:
25: chelsea wolfe @ senate theatre
27: swervedriver @ el club
i wouldn't mind seeing the lpd, but i doubt i'll be able to afford it. rather, that joy formidable / defeater sequence may be it until the end of the month, and that's fine, as it's a more normal month. i mean, i don't normally go out 5-6 times a month like this. it's usually once or twice.
so, i think i'm more treating the show next tuesday as the end of september and then keying in on the last weekend of october. let's hope it's at least pleasant out.
i could find more stuff.
but, i want to plan around getting to toronto to file, remember. that's likely to be in november....
if it's a quiet month, that means i should also be able to do things like catch up on groceries (which i've been sparse about this month.), buy that fan and get that crack filler for the baseboards.
i don't multitask well. let's get those documents done...
just to state the point in clearer detail using simple language...
i was essentially charged with stalking somebody, but i've never met that person - i don't know their address, and i don't know their phone number. you can't stalk somebody like that, so the charges were dropped. now, i want to file a human rights complaint against them for falsely charging me with stalking them, but i don't know their phone or address, so i can't do that. so, i'm going to ask the police to provide the address (it says in the report that they went to her house.) via an access to information request, and enforce it through the human rights tribunal.
there is a fundamental principle of justice that an accused be able to face their accuser, and i don't have enough information in front of me to be able to actually do that.
so, i think they have an obligation to provide the information.
i was essentially charged with stalking somebody, but i've never met that person - i don't know their address, and i don't know their phone number. you can't stalk somebody like that, so the charges were dropped. now, i want to file a human rights complaint against them for falsely charging me with stalking them, but i don't know their phone or address, so i can't do that. so, i'm going to ask the police to provide the address (it says in the report that they went to her house.) via an access to information request, and enforce it through the human rights tribunal.
there is a fundamental principle of justice that an accused be able to face their accuser, and i don't have enough information in front of me to be able to actually do that.
so, i think they have an obligation to provide the information.
so, what am i doing tonight?
when i filled out the human rights complaint against this "caroline chevalier", i had to come to terms with the fact that i didn't know her address and didn't know how to find it. i can't do this unless i know her address. so, what to do?
the only safe way for me to do this is to file an access to information request. yes, i'm going to file an access to information request to attempt to determine the identity of the person that charged me with harassment, because i know nothing about them. such is the level of absurdity underlying the charges.
but, i'd rather get them to do it, and the reason is that i can maybe avoid learning certain details that way. listen: i don't care about this person. at all. but, she manufactured this stupid situation where she thinks i do, or pretends to think i do, or...i can't psychoanalyze somebody that i've never met. the point is that this is a kind of a good faith gimmick - by asking the tribunal to get the information in confidence, i'm avoiding the delusional appearance that have any interest in tracking her down.
how, though?
i decided that i would file the complaint and then communicate with the tribunal as to how to proceed further, given that there's no obvious answer. i talked to somebody on friday, who is suggesting that i can file a request for an order from the windsor police.
so, i would essentially be asking the access to information group at the windsor police to file an affidavit with the person's address on it. i need this address to file a human rights complaint against this person for having me arrested. and, i'm not going to be able to contact the person that accused me of harassing them directly, because i don't know how to.
what i'm hoping is that the absurdity of the situation helps me in the long run. but that means i need to milk it - if i have choice between two options, i need to pick the more absurd one, at all times.
this is about as absurd as the system gets, though.
when i filled out the human rights complaint against this "caroline chevalier", i had to come to terms with the fact that i didn't know her address and didn't know how to find it. i can't do this unless i know her address. so, what to do?
the only safe way for me to do this is to file an access to information request. yes, i'm going to file an access to information request to attempt to determine the identity of the person that charged me with harassment, because i know nothing about them. such is the level of absurdity underlying the charges.
but, i'd rather get them to do it, and the reason is that i can maybe avoid learning certain details that way. listen: i don't care about this person. at all. but, she manufactured this stupid situation where she thinks i do, or pretends to think i do, or...i can't psychoanalyze somebody that i've never met. the point is that this is a kind of a good faith gimmick - by asking the tribunal to get the information in confidence, i'm avoiding the delusional appearance that have any interest in tracking her down.
how, though?
i decided that i would file the complaint and then communicate with the tribunal as to how to proceed further, given that there's no obvious answer. i talked to somebody on friday, who is suggesting that i can file a request for an order from the windsor police.
so, i would essentially be asking the access to information group at the windsor police to file an affidavit with the person's address on it. i need this address to file a human rights complaint against this person for having me arrested. and, i'm not going to be able to contact the person that accused me of harassing them directly, because i don't know how to.
what i'm hoping is that the absurdity of the situation helps me in the long run. but that means i need to milk it - if i have choice between two options, i need to pick the more absurd one, at all times.
this is about as absurd as the system gets, though.
and, what's the update on the smell?
the sewer gas leak is plugged. totally. i get a whiff of something once in a while, but it's not coming from the cleanout. so, that's fixed.
when i left on friday night, it had been cool and dry for most of the last two weeks (but hot for a few days), and the fan was running. there was no smell in the basement at all.
when i came back, the fan was off and there was an ammonia smell in the same corner i had dealt with weeks ago - and always when i was gone. i already knew that it wasn't the amp that was the cause of the smell, but having it come back when....
...when it's hot? no. it was fine when the fan was running, so, when the fan is off? or, when i'm gone, really?
i'm starting to wonder if it isn't dog urine...
i've cleaned in there a few times today already by running lysol around it, but i don't want to dismantle the whole unit to get underneath it, and i suspect i might have to.
on friday, i will need to get the fan, and i will need to prioritize sealing those cracks relatively soon, too. what's the october concert schedule like? we'll do that, soon, too.
the sewer gas leak is plugged. totally. i get a whiff of something once in a while, but it's not coming from the cleanout. so, that's fixed.
when i left on friday night, it had been cool and dry for most of the last two weeks (but hot for a few days), and the fan was running. there was no smell in the basement at all.
when i came back, the fan was off and there was an ammonia smell in the same corner i had dealt with weeks ago - and always when i was gone. i already knew that it wasn't the amp that was the cause of the smell, but having it come back when....
...when it's hot? no. it was fine when the fan was running, so, when the fan is off? or, when i'm gone, really?
i'm starting to wonder if it isn't dog urine...
i've cleaned in there a few times today already by running lysol around it, but i don't want to dismantle the whole unit to get underneath it, and i suspect i might have to.
on friday, i will need to get the fan, and i will need to prioritize sealing those cracks relatively soon, too. what's the october concert schedule like? we'll do that, soon, too.
listen, pick your favourite axiom.
here's one: do as ye will, harme none.
selling drugs harms people. fatally. therefore, you can't do it, in a free society - you'd need to be expelled or killed for it.
decriminalizing drugs means, at some point along the way, you've decided that the profit motive trumps everything else. you've said "yes, people are making a profit from killing people, but..". and, you can come up with whatever set of excuses you want, but at the end of it they're necessarily bullshit rationalizations: you're buying into the neo-liberal paradigm and accepting their set of rationalizations.
here's one: do as ye will, harme none.
selling drugs harms people. fatally. therefore, you can't do it, in a free society - you'd need to be expelled or killed for it.
decriminalizing drugs means, at some point along the way, you've decided that the profit motive trumps everything else. you've said "yes, people are making a profit from killing people, but..". and, you can come up with whatever set of excuses you want, but at the end of it they're necessarily bullshit rationalizations: you're buying into the neo-liberal paradigm and accepting their set of rationalizations.
again: in an anarchist society, we wouldn't exactly have drug laws. rather, the community would mobilize to keep drugs out with extreme force. dealers would know that if they were to get caught, they'd get lynched, and that should be the normal state of affairs, in a free society. in this case, anarchy means that nobody protects the drug dealers from harm, and freedom means a lack of restraint in enacting justice against them.
if you want a society where drugs are just another commodity on the market, what you're looking for is unrestrained capitalism, which is what we already have. it's a status quo process tied into advancing neo-liberalism, and which any resistance party needs to try to prevent.
socialists don't like drugs. we never have, and we never will.
if you want a society where drugs are just another commodity on the market, what you're looking for is unrestrained capitalism, which is what we already have. it's a status quo process tied into advancing neo-liberalism, and which any resistance party needs to try to prevent.
socialists don't like drugs. we never have, and we never will.
that hot air in the atlantic (which is climate change) is holding steady, and, if we're just that lucky, we might fluke out and get one more weekend out.
but, that cold air coming down from the jet stream (which is the sun, and not climate change) is looking pretty ominous.
i suggested a fast, brutal changeover to winter, and i'm going to avoid it for now, but much of the country isn't, and we might not be so lucky the next time.
i'm hoping that the sun is coming back; early signs appear to be that it won't be until next year.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/classic-clash-of-the-seasons-between-western-and-eastern-canada-with-both-august-and-november-like-weather-ahead
but, that cold air coming down from the jet stream (which is the sun, and not climate change) is looking pretty ominous.
i suggested a fast, brutal changeover to winter, and i'm going to avoid it for now, but much of the country isn't, and we might not be so lucky the next time.
i'm hoping that the sun is coming back; early signs appear to be that it won't be until next year.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/classic-clash-of-the-seasons-between-western-and-eastern-canada-with-both-august-and-november-like-weather-ahead
ok, i'm not voting for them, either.
good luck, guys. i'm sitting this one out.
my official endorsement for the 2019 canadian election is to spoil your ballot. don't vote.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-election-decriminalize-drug-possession-1.5292817
good luck, guys. i'm sitting this one out.
my official endorsement for the 2019 canadian election is to spoil your ballot. don't vote.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-election-decriminalize-drug-possession-1.5292817
yeah, i'm withdrawing my support for bernie sanders at this point.
he may claim that he needs to build a multiracial movement to win, but if doing that means morphing into the same neo-liberal candidate that he was presented as an antidote to, then there's not a lot of point in him winning.
i'm concerned about how his views on a number of social positions appear to be "evolving", and it's not for the better. i suspect he's converted to islam and hasn't told anybody; he's a stupid old man.
i'm not endorsing anybody else. and, flatly i'm not likely to even pay much attention.
he needed to attract voters like me in order to win. by doing almost the exact opposite of what he needed to do more or less across the board, he's failed to do so, and he will be lucky to finish third when it's over with.
we're all better off looking for a third party with a good health care policy. that is probably the greens, and it's better to get started now than to keep wasting time on bernie.
he may claim that he needs to build a multiracial movement to win, but if doing that means morphing into the same neo-liberal candidate that he was presented as an antidote to, then there's not a lot of point in him winning.
i'm concerned about how his views on a number of social positions appear to be "evolving", and it's not for the better. i suspect he's converted to islam and hasn't told anybody; he's a stupid old man.
i'm not endorsing anybody else. and, flatly i'm not likely to even pay much attention.
he needed to attract voters like me in order to win. by doing almost the exact opposite of what he needed to do more or less across the board, he's failed to do so, and he will be lucky to finish third when it's over with.
we're all better off looking for a third party with a good health care policy. that is probably the greens, and it's better to get started now than to keep wasting time on bernie.
i repeat: i'm not spending $50/month on electricity to run a dehumidifier to reverse the damage being caused by his a/c, and dry out all the p-traps at the same time, while making myself miserable.
it's his a/c, it's his foundation and it's ultimately his problem if his a/c ruins his foundation. i just want the smell dealt with.
all he has to do is turn the a/c off. really. it's that simple.
it's his a/c, it's his foundation and it's ultimately his problem if his a/c ruins his foundation. i just want the smell dealt with.
all he has to do is turn the a/c off. really. it's that simple.
yeah, so, if the issue with the fan is hair in the motor - the only thing that makes sense, without concluding it was vandalized - then i'm not getting it out with scissors or tweezers or anything else. in order to disassemble these fans, you need an obscure kind of screwdriver that i don't have.
the only way i'm going to fix this is to try and spin it out, which means i'll need to run it in the bathtub repeatedly to try and pass it through. the hope is that if i spin the blades strenuously enough then whatever is overpowering the motor will reverse.
in the mean time, it is absolutely gross in here, but it's also too cold to open the window, so i'm just running the hot water all day instead and hoping it clears the shit out from the pipes. so, i guess we'll have to run the hot water non-stop for the next week. i can get the laundry going overnight, too, which should help.
hey, if he wants to be an asshole and break my $20 fan, we can give him a $300 water bill in retaliation. the guy's a complete waste of oxygen. i hope it forces him to sell his car.
and, i had made a lot of progress in cleaning this place up a bit, but i guess we'll have to wait until the end of the week and start again.
and, there is no possibility at all, whatsoever, that i'm going to turn the dehumidifier on. the problem down here is that it's too dry, not that it's too damp. and, if he'd just turn off the air conditioner, there wouldn't be a problem with condensation under the floor at all.
the only way i'm going to fix this is to try and spin it out, which means i'll need to run it in the bathtub repeatedly to try and pass it through. the hope is that if i spin the blades strenuously enough then whatever is overpowering the motor will reverse.
in the mean time, it is absolutely gross in here, but it's also too cold to open the window, so i'm just running the hot water all day instead and hoping it clears the shit out from the pipes. so, i guess we'll have to run the hot water non-stop for the next week. i can get the laundry going overnight, too, which should help.
hey, if he wants to be an asshole and break my $20 fan, we can give him a $300 water bill in retaliation. the guy's a complete waste of oxygen. i hope it forces him to sell his car.
and, i had made a lot of progress in cleaning this place up a bit, but i guess we'll have to wait until the end of the week and start again.
and, there is no possibility at all, whatsoever, that i'm going to turn the dehumidifier on. the problem down here is that it's too dry, not that it's too damp. and, if he'd just turn off the air conditioner, there wouldn't be a problem with condensation under the floor at all.
so, is he going to get away with this?
the most truthful response is that he wasn't doing that well in the first place, and if it only costs him 2%, that 2% could be his majority. so, don't be glib on the numbers - it seems to only be affecting a small number of people, but if they vote (or don't vote), it could still hurt him.
are canadians racist, then? do we need to look in the mirror.
no.
listen, i think that everybody needs to stop interpreting canada through an american filter, and that's the real takeaway from this. i posted my logic: the make-up itself isn't racist, it's only racist if accompanied by the stereotypes, the brutal performance. and, the video might have been what i'm describing, but it's not clear and nobody seems to want to imagine it that way. that's more or less what people are saying: it's not racist. why do you think it's racist, it's just make-up. are you racist?
and the answer is supposed to be, "but, it's the history."
to which the canadian would say "in america? i'm not a fucking yankee, that means nothing to me. that's not my history. so, stop americanizing everything and put the thing in a canadian context, in the context of canadian history. that's what they teach us to do in school, right? did we have that here? so, i don't know what you're talking about."
the canadian is not done yet, she just paused. she continues..
"so, maybe if we were in the united states it might be racist, but we're not. so, i guess i don't get it, sort of; i'm not american, so it doesn't bug me. maybe if i was american...but i'm not..."
you might argue we're ignorant of history, but my imaginary canadian is actually right: whose history? it's not ours...that's not our context.
so, you could argue that we don't care, and be right.
but, maybe we're actually on to something, up here, about what we should and shouldn't care about?
trudeau's embrace of democratic-party style political correctness and identity politics might come naturally to him, because he's a member of the upper class elite. but, he's an alien in this country - impossible for the average canadian to relate to on the most basic level, and entirely irreflective of the average voter. the hypocrisy that is striking so many people as so profound is being misinterpreted because there was a general misunderstanding that we mostly agreed with him about all of these things in the first place. as a result, the number of people that are surprised by this seems to be quite small - the majority of canadians either already hated him for the hyper-pc everything, or they could already see through the hypocrisy of it, and didn't care.
again: don't think it won't cost him. it might, where it matters, still.
but, don't expect a mass movement to erupt based on a mis-step in the context of american history. most canadians don't see us in that way, and that should be the real takeaway: we're a foreign country, with a parallel history, and we will interpret things in the context of our own history, thank you.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/how-did-canadians-react-to-trudeaus-blackface-images-with-a-big-meh-polls-suggest
the most truthful response is that he wasn't doing that well in the first place, and if it only costs him 2%, that 2% could be his majority. so, don't be glib on the numbers - it seems to only be affecting a small number of people, but if they vote (or don't vote), it could still hurt him.
are canadians racist, then? do we need to look in the mirror.
no.
listen, i think that everybody needs to stop interpreting canada through an american filter, and that's the real takeaway from this. i posted my logic: the make-up itself isn't racist, it's only racist if accompanied by the stereotypes, the brutal performance. and, the video might have been what i'm describing, but it's not clear and nobody seems to want to imagine it that way. that's more or less what people are saying: it's not racist. why do you think it's racist, it's just make-up. are you racist?
and the answer is supposed to be, "but, it's the history."
to which the canadian would say "in america? i'm not a fucking yankee, that means nothing to me. that's not my history. so, stop americanizing everything and put the thing in a canadian context, in the context of canadian history. that's what they teach us to do in school, right? did we have that here? so, i don't know what you're talking about."
the canadian is not done yet, she just paused. she continues..
"so, maybe if we were in the united states it might be racist, but we're not. so, i guess i don't get it, sort of; i'm not american, so it doesn't bug me. maybe if i was american...but i'm not..."
you might argue we're ignorant of history, but my imaginary canadian is actually right: whose history? it's not ours...that's not our context.
so, you could argue that we don't care, and be right.
but, maybe we're actually on to something, up here, about what we should and shouldn't care about?
trudeau's embrace of democratic-party style political correctness and identity politics might come naturally to him, because he's a member of the upper class elite. but, he's an alien in this country - impossible for the average canadian to relate to on the most basic level, and entirely irreflective of the average voter. the hypocrisy that is striking so many people as so profound is being misinterpreted because there was a general misunderstanding that we mostly agreed with him about all of these things in the first place. as a result, the number of people that are surprised by this seems to be quite small - the majority of canadians either already hated him for the hyper-pc everything, or they could already see through the hypocrisy of it, and didn't care.
again: don't think it won't cost him. it might, where it matters, still.
but, don't expect a mass movement to erupt based on a mis-step in the context of american history. most canadians don't see us in that way, and that should be the real takeaway: we're a foreign country, with a parallel history, and we will interpret things in the context of our own history, thank you.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/how-did-canadians-react-to-trudeaus-blackface-images-with-a-big-meh-polls-suggest
how was the weekend?
i'll write a review, maybe, some other day. tunic were nice and loud, which is what i wanted. i stopped at the trumbullplex for an hour or two and commandeered somebody's bottle of wine (i asked politely, actually), before ending up at the park for a bit, where i ended up with somebody's unwanted remnant 12 of beer, which was two cans. so, it was that kind of night. then, i left the park as it cleared, and went to marble for a bit, and then went back to the park with some of the post-marble crowd.
i hope the windsorite that i met on the way in and caught back up with at marble made it back to canada safely. i did suggest the park, but she wanted to go home.
i never do balloons, but somebody handed me one and i knew i was out for the night, regardless. result: i couldn't walk for like two hours, which meant i got to enjoy the fire fizzling out. by myself. this park is a swell spot and stuff, but i've been uneasy about the way people leave fires going there on more than one occasion; on this night, it worked out relatively well.
so, i didn't get to the diner until 9:00, which meant i didn't have any time to blow in the late morning.
i ended up at a house party, next. i was initially intending to finish my coffee there and get some drinks in the afternoon, but, as it happened to be, a local brewery dropped off 250 free tall cans of beers. well, hey. right place, right time. i think i had five (it may have been six) before i left to go back to marble. i also found some marijuana edibles at some point that afternoon, and it started to hit me a little bit by the end of the night.
this house party had a lot of local djs at it, in a sense it was a who's who of underground detroit djs, and people were pretty much just hanging out and eating and stuff. i don't think i got a chance to thank anybody before i left...
i don't want to say i was messy at marble, because that's the wrong idea. closer to the truth is that i just kept nodding off and coming back; less messy, and more useless. i remember it; i wasn't blacked out or drunk, if anything was hitting me it was the edibles, but i was exceedingly tired and seeking a third wind that never really came.
so, i got a lot of people asking me if i was ok, and i may have gotten a little bit grumpy after the seventeenth time. i think i was well behaved, but i apologize if i was brusque with anybody. it just got a little annoying. there are exceptions to every rule but, generally, when somebody is sitting it out at a club, you shouldn't keep bothering them by asking them if they're ok, you should just leave them alone and let them figure it out. unless they're overdosing on something, which should be obvious when it's happening, whatever they're processing will pass, and there isn't ever going to be much that your glass of water can really actually do.
i can't blame the edibles with 100% certainty, but what i experienced is roughly consistent with other edibles experiences that i've had and i'm willing to suggest that they were probably the dominant factor, overall. they tend to make me extremely tired, or even knock me right out, but it's different than an alcohol black out because you mostly remember it..
so, i was tired, but the night isn't blurry. i remember it quite clearly, actually,
i was predominantly there to see vibert, and mostly just curious about the other sets. i really felt like being outside on this night, as well. i caught a part of his set and remembered thinking he sounded like everybody else, so i went for a smoke, and then he was doing some more warp-y kinds of stuff when i got back. but, then i started nodding and i had to sit down for a bit. so, i didn't get as much out of the set as i hoped for.
however, there was an ambient set outside by dave shettler right about then, which was actually more of what i needed at the time and something i greatly enjoyed. a lot of what he played was actually sort of similar to the experimental side of the stuff that i recently published, the cycles per second and the trivial group stuff. i can't tell you what drug was dominant, right then - the large amounts of alcohol i'd had over the last 33-35 hours, the smoked marijuana, the eaten marijuana - but it was a good combination, and the highlight of the weekend.
i was able to recover after 7:00 for two more beers and a bit more dancing, before finally getting out of there close to 10:00.
so, were the edibles a bad idea? i'm not reacting well to them, but i have no dosage guidelines, i'm not creating controls and my experiments have consequently been a little unfocused. so, i dunno. it seemed to be a little strong on this night...
i'll write a review, maybe, some other day. tunic were nice and loud, which is what i wanted. i stopped at the trumbullplex for an hour or two and commandeered somebody's bottle of wine (i asked politely, actually), before ending up at the park for a bit, where i ended up with somebody's unwanted remnant 12 of beer, which was two cans. so, it was that kind of night. then, i left the park as it cleared, and went to marble for a bit, and then went back to the park with some of the post-marble crowd.
i hope the windsorite that i met on the way in and caught back up with at marble made it back to canada safely. i did suggest the park, but she wanted to go home.
i never do balloons, but somebody handed me one and i knew i was out for the night, regardless. result: i couldn't walk for like two hours, which meant i got to enjoy the fire fizzling out. by myself. this park is a swell spot and stuff, but i've been uneasy about the way people leave fires going there on more than one occasion; on this night, it worked out relatively well.
so, i didn't get to the diner until 9:00, which meant i didn't have any time to blow in the late morning.
i ended up at a house party, next. i was initially intending to finish my coffee there and get some drinks in the afternoon, but, as it happened to be, a local brewery dropped off 250 free tall cans of beers. well, hey. right place, right time. i think i had five (it may have been six) before i left to go back to marble. i also found some marijuana edibles at some point that afternoon, and it started to hit me a little bit by the end of the night.
this house party had a lot of local djs at it, in a sense it was a who's who of underground detroit djs, and people were pretty much just hanging out and eating and stuff. i don't think i got a chance to thank anybody before i left...
i don't want to say i was messy at marble, because that's the wrong idea. closer to the truth is that i just kept nodding off and coming back; less messy, and more useless. i remember it; i wasn't blacked out or drunk, if anything was hitting me it was the edibles, but i was exceedingly tired and seeking a third wind that never really came.
so, i got a lot of people asking me if i was ok, and i may have gotten a little bit grumpy after the seventeenth time. i think i was well behaved, but i apologize if i was brusque with anybody. it just got a little annoying. there are exceptions to every rule but, generally, when somebody is sitting it out at a club, you shouldn't keep bothering them by asking them if they're ok, you should just leave them alone and let them figure it out. unless they're overdosing on something, which should be obvious when it's happening, whatever they're processing will pass, and there isn't ever going to be much that your glass of water can really actually do.
i can't blame the edibles with 100% certainty, but what i experienced is roughly consistent with other edibles experiences that i've had and i'm willing to suggest that they were probably the dominant factor, overall. they tend to make me extremely tired, or even knock me right out, but it's different than an alcohol black out because you mostly remember it..
so, i was tired, but the night isn't blurry. i remember it quite clearly, actually,
i was predominantly there to see vibert, and mostly just curious about the other sets. i really felt like being outside on this night, as well. i caught a part of his set and remembered thinking he sounded like everybody else, so i went for a smoke, and then he was doing some more warp-y kinds of stuff when i got back. but, then i started nodding and i had to sit down for a bit. so, i didn't get as much out of the set as i hoped for.
however, there was an ambient set outside by dave shettler right about then, which was actually more of what i needed at the time and something i greatly enjoyed. a lot of what he played was actually sort of similar to the experimental side of the stuff that i recently published, the cycles per second and the trivial group stuff. i can't tell you what drug was dominant, right then - the large amounts of alcohol i'd had over the last 33-35 hours, the smoked marijuana, the eaten marijuana - but it was a good combination, and the highlight of the weekend.
i was able to recover after 7:00 for two more beers and a bit more dancing, before finally getting out of there close to 10:00.
so, were the edibles a bad idea? i'm not reacting well to them, but i have no dosage guidelines, i'm not creating controls and my experiments have consequently been a little unfocused. so, i dunno. it seemed to be a little strong on this night...
there's no obvious cause, and i have no interest at all in figuring it out.
it was sitting in one spot for a long period, so the cord is not likely to be damaged. and, there's no logic in thinking something exploded.
there was a lot of hair in it, and i've got most of it out as best as i can. but, it doesn't seem like that's the right answer.
there's other signs of somebody being in here, though.
i don't know....i know that i can't deal with the dry air all week.
it was sitting in one spot for a long period, so the cord is not likely to be damaged. and, there's no logic in thinking something exploded.
there was a lot of hair in it, and i've got most of it out as best as i can. but, it doesn't seem like that's the right answer.
there's other signs of somebody being in here, though.
i don't know....i know that i can't deal with the dry air all week.
i'm going to give the fan a chance to completely dry out and try again this afternoon.
i neither have the know-how, nor the tools, nor the interest to actually fix the device. i'll just buy a new one.
but, i can't handle living in the a/c all week. i'll need to open one of the windows, somehow, to undo the a/c.
i neither have the know-how, nor the tools, nor the interest to actually fix the device. i'll just buy a new one.
but, i can't handle living in the a/c all week. i'll need to open one of the windows, somehow, to undo the a/c.
there's no visible stress point on the fan, no signs that anybody tried to dismantle it, no signs of a cut wire, etc.
it seems like there's no power. it's on the same surge protector as my laptop, and that's fine.
i keep thinking that it must be the hair that's stuck around the spindle, which is proving difficult to get off. but, as the weight in hair and dirt and dust that is slowing down the vibration is slowly done away with, i'm not getting any more evidence that i'm on the right track.
but, how do you break a fan in a way that's not obvious?
a magnet?
it seems like there's no power. it's on the same surge protector as my laptop, and that's fine.
i keep thinking that it must be the hair that's stuck around the spindle, which is proving difficult to get off. but, as the weight in hair and dirt and dust that is slowing down the vibration is slowly done away with, i'm not getting any more evidence that i'm on the right track.
but, how do you break a fan in a way that's not obvious?
a magnet?
the fan refuses to turn back on...
should i be able to hear it trying? i can hear it when it's on, but i think it's mostly the blaades.
and, it's getting cold in here from the air, now, too (.
if i can't get the fan to work this week, i may have to open one of the windows, and improvise some kind of a screen for it.
should i be able to hear it trying? i can hear it when it's on, but i think it's mostly the blaades.
and, it's getting cold in here from the air, now, too (.
if i can't get the fan to work this week, i may have to open one of the windows, and improvise some kind of a screen for it.
i still don't see where she can win. this is a projection; the numbers aren't there.
but, if the media somehow gets it's way and anoints warren, and the country lets them do it, you're all going to find yourselves incredibly disappointed by what she actually does, which is unlikely to be substantively different from the obama administration.
but, if the media somehow gets it's way and anoints warren, and the country lets them do it, you're all going to find yourselves incredibly disappointed by what she actually does, which is unlikely to be substantively different from the obama administration.
so, he hires a guy named 'faiz shakir' to be the face of his campaign, turns into a msm talking head (while they beat him up on air over and over), refuses to show up to any kind of queer event and then wonders why he can't get half the country to give him the time of day any more.
bernie does appear to have changed.
i hope he plans on running for re-election in georgia or something, because his days are numbered in vermont. and, that's the saddest part about this - they won't care when he's gone. no memorial. no plaque. no watch. he'll be pushed out without a second thought....
it's either the worst run campaign in primary history, an example of absolutely startling ineptitude, or it's planted with ops, and designed to fail.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-has-a-problem-her-name-is-elizabeth-warren/2019/09/22/1223d6a6-dd57-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
bernie does appear to have changed.
i hope he plans on running for re-election in georgia or something, because his days are numbered in vermont. and, that's the saddest part about this - they won't care when he's gone. no memorial. no plaque. no watch. he'll be pushed out without a second thought....
it's either the worst run campaign in primary history, an example of absolutely startling ineptitude, or it's planted with ops, and designed to fail.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-has-a-problem-her-name-is-elizabeth-warren/2019/09/22/1223d6a6-dd57-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
the reality that actually existing capitalism has come face-to-face with, and that to an extent is neoliberalism, is one where it's come to terms with a basic, fundamental flaw in the very fabric of it's own existence: competition is unnatural.
you have to teach kids to be competitive, they don't do it on their own. you have to create regulatory bodies to try to force firms into competing, because they won't do it on their own (at best, they might try to undercut to gain market share, but then they're in the cartel in no time. a stable market should have tiers, anyways, so that's usually harder than the simple math in the textbooks allows for.). it turns out that you need so much government to make a free market work, that you'd might as well just redistribute everything, anyways - and that the best approximation to a free market has to be almost the total opposite of the initial abstraction.
so, you don't really have this debate between governments and markets, because markets are just statist constructions that essentially give you back what you gave them (if you're lucky...). what you should have is merely an understanding of the importance of government.
and, a little wisdom should tell you that all of this energy that is created and spent on designing and enforcing markets could be better utilized elsewhere.
you have to teach kids to be competitive, they don't do it on their own. you have to create regulatory bodies to try to force firms into competing, because they won't do it on their own (at best, they might try to undercut to gain market share, but then they're in the cartel in no time. a stable market should have tiers, anyways, so that's usually harder than the simple math in the textbooks allows for.). it turns out that you need so much government to make a free market work, that you'd might as well just redistribute everything, anyways - and that the best approximation to a free market has to be almost the total opposite of the initial abstraction.
so, you don't really have this debate between governments and markets, because markets are just statist constructions that essentially give you back what you gave them (if you're lucky...). what you should have is merely an understanding of the importance of government.
and, a little wisdom should tell you that all of this energy that is created and spent on designing and enforcing markets could be better utilized elsewhere.
maybe we should have a little talk about the historical arguments that classical economics used to advance, why they're wrong and how modern economics corrects for those mistakes. i have a feeling that this is what this cycle is going to be about for me - that i'm going to end up in a lot of arguments with democrats and liberals about market theory.
you may have been told that competition reduces prices because each of the competitors wants to find ways to get the business of the consumer. when this happens, firm a and firm b get into a bidding war (essentially, a race to the bottom.) in order to save the sale. as a demanding and self-interest driven consumer, i bet that sounds like the best idea for you, because everybody wins, right? well, so long as by "everybody" you mean me, then everybody wins, and everybody...else...loses. what i'm trying to get across is that the premise is absurd on it's face: we don't live in an economic reality where the rules ensure that the consumer wins and everybody else loses.
let's have a little common sense here in understanding what actually happens. the firms don't say "competition is bad for us and good for consumers, so let's do lots of it! fuck our shareholders!". rather, what the firms say is "wait a second, you want us to compete? for you? yeah. right. we've got out our own self-interests here, and it's not you, consumer. sorry. rather, us firms are going to get together and set the prices at whatever we want it set at, and fuck you for complaining about it. and, so long as we stand together, what are you going to do, consumer? huh?"
and, i'll tell you what the consumers need to actually do, which is take control of the firm, but consumers lack revolutionary potential, so they never actually say that. rather, what they do is go crying to the government...
"reeeeegulaaaaaaaatoooooooors. these firms won't compete! it's not fair! make them compete. it's good for consumers, like me.". unfortunately, the regulators work for the firms, and they're actually there to prevent the government from forcing them to.
and, that's where we're at - this silly game where the government tries to pretend it can "spur innovation" and "incentivize competition". but, the firms don't want to compete, and the government can't actually make them. what the firms want to do is collude.
meanwhile, prices come up and down based on all other kinds of things, including the costs of mass production. socializing production is efficient. that's why firms socialize as much as they can, internally.
you may have been told that competition reduces prices because each of the competitors wants to find ways to get the business of the consumer. when this happens, firm a and firm b get into a bidding war (essentially, a race to the bottom.) in order to save the sale. as a demanding and self-interest driven consumer, i bet that sounds like the best idea for you, because everybody wins, right? well, so long as by "everybody" you mean me, then everybody wins, and everybody...else...loses. what i'm trying to get across is that the premise is absurd on it's face: we don't live in an economic reality where the rules ensure that the consumer wins and everybody else loses.
let's have a little common sense here in understanding what actually happens. the firms don't say "competition is bad for us and good for consumers, so let's do lots of it! fuck our shareholders!". rather, what the firms say is "wait a second, you want us to compete? for you? yeah. right. we've got out our own self-interests here, and it's not you, consumer. sorry. rather, us firms are going to get together and set the prices at whatever we want it set at, and fuck you for complaining about it. and, so long as we stand together, what are you going to do, consumer? huh?"
and, i'll tell you what the consumers need to actually do, which is take control of the firm, but consumers lack revolutionary potential, so they never actually say that. rather, what they do is go crying to the government...
"reeeeegulaaaaaaaatoooooooors. these firms won't compete! it's not fair! make them compete. it's good for consumers, like me.". unfortunately, the regulators work for the firms, and they're actually there to prevent the government from forcing them to.
and, that's where we're at - this silly game where the government tries to pretend it can "spur innovation" and "incentivize competition". but, the firms don't want to compete, and the government can't actually make them. what the firms want to do is collude.
meanwhile, prices come up and down based on all other kinds of things, including the costs of mass production. socializing production is efficient. that's why firms socialize as much as they can, internally.
so, i came home this morning and noticed my fan was no longer running.
it's odd, to say the least. it's not a powerful motor, so i guess there's some chance that some hair is stopping it from spinning, so i'm trying to clean it, but it's not currently helping.
i couldn't imagine that the motor blew. they're designed to be on all of the time.
so, is there some chance that somebody from upstairs came down and ruined my fan? well, if he doesn't want to listen to the fan, he can listen to me cough instead - and he's going to get a lot of it, because the difference with it off is dramatic.
and, it's ultimately pointless, because i'm going to buy another one at the first opportunity, which would be friday.
entering a tenant's apartment is considered an indictable offense in canda. it's trespassing, harassment and vandalism. there's no context where it's permissible.
we'll see if we can get the hair out of there or not. if i can't, it's going to be a long and frustrating week for everybody, as i struggle to fight against the dehumidifier and the smoke.
it's odd, to say the least. it's not a powerful motor, so i guess there's some chance that some hair is stopping it from spinning, so i'm trying to clean it, but it's not currently helping.
i couldn't imagine that the motor blew. they're designed to be on all of the time.
so, is there some chance that somebody from upstairs came down and ruined my fan? well, if he doesn't want to listen to the fan, he can listen to me cough instead - and he's going to get a lot of it, because the difference with it off is dramatic.
and, it's ultimately pointless, because i'm going to buy another one at the first opportunity, which would be friday.
entering a tenant's apartment is considered an indictable offense in canda. it's trespassing, harassment and vandalism. there's no context where it's permissible.
we'll see if we can get the hair out of there or not. if i can't, it's going to be a long and frustrating week for everybody, as i struggle to fight against the dehumidifier and the smoke.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
you might be expecting a discussion about internet costs in canada to be another opportunity for me to completely debunk market theory, but it's more complex than that.
first, anybody arguing that increasing competition will decrease prices should be laughed out of the room. that's not a serious economic position, and nobody arguing as much should be taken seriously. politicians that say things like this need to stop insulting everybody's intelligence and stop wasting everybody's time and go back to school and learn about actual economics, not a long debunked mathematical model from hundreds of years ago. but, it's not as easy as arguing that you need to get the profit motive out of it - although that's at the root of the problem and what needs to be addressed eventually.
i think you should look at data transmission lines the same way you look at roads and waterways, and that the absolute beginning point of any price reduction strategy needs to be in nationalizing the lines. if you let these private companies continue to build their own networks, and you continue to allow them to profit from transmitting data (which is rentier capitalism at it's worst), you'll never solve the basic structural root of the problem here, which is that the private companies have too much power to set the rates.
but, the real reason that the prices are so high is simply that the executives that work in these companies are greedy. they've essentially grabbed you by the pussy and said "pay up, bitch". there's not some nice little tweak that we can find to fix that at the back of the textbook, and it's not drawn out by any kind of scarcity model, you just have to smash their property rights up and put the ownership in the hands of the people.
so, that ought to be the central plank of any serious left-of-centre party in terms of what to do to get costs down. which parties realize this?
*crickets*
so, i mean, i want to come out swinging against the liberal proposal. remember when they told you that privatizing electricity would reduce costs? markets just make things more expensive...
but the other parties suck, too. and, this is a good example of the dead-end we've come to in terns of the policy desert we exist in: this is obviously a situation where we need more government to reign in the greed that markets incentivize, but all we've got across the board is a bunch of debunked neo-liberal nonsense that the smart people know doesn't work. and i want my old, more intelligent liberal party back.
i said it wasn't that simple....
canada is a very big, sparsely populated country, which means that it's going to be expensive to do things like string along transmission lines (or set up cell towers). while the primary reason for high costs might be greed, the costs to maintain the network are at least a good excuse to keep prices artificially high, and this is going to be more of a reality here than in smaller, less geographically diverse areas. that's one of the reasons that nationalizing the lines is a good idea - it'll allow for a socialization of infrastructure costs. we don't normally let private businesses build infrastructure like this, and we need to start understanding what happened as a failed experiment. but, in the mean-time, if you're insisting on a market system, and you want to take costs down, you're going to have to introduce a subsidy. prices may be high across the board due to greed, but they're especially high in hard to get places because the infrastructure is so challenging. the only way to completely undo this is to socialize it...
...but marx himself would have said that you ought to let the capitalists build the lines, and then appropriate them. so, the real question is whether they've build enough infrastructure to nationalize, yet - or if it's best to keep waiting it out.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5908780/canada-election-cellphone-internet-prices/
first, anybody arguing that increasing competition will decrease prices should be laughed out of the room. that's not a serious economic position, and nobody arguing as much should be taken seriously. politicians that say things like this need to stop insulting everybody's intelligence and stop wasting everybody's time and go back to school and learn about actual economics, not a long debunked mathematical model from hundreds of years ago. but, it's not as easy as arguing that you need to get the profit motive out of it - although that's at the root of the problem and what needs to be addressed eventually.
i think you should look at data transmission lines the same way you look at roads and waterways, and that the absolute beginning point of any price reduction strategy needs to be in nationalizing the lines. if you let these private companies continue to build their own networks, and you continue to allow them to profit from transmitting data (which is rentier capitalism at it's worst), you'll never solve the basic structural root of the problem here, which is that the private companies have too much power to set the rates.
but, the real reason that the prices are so high is simply that the executives that work in these companies are greedy. they've essentially grabbed you by the pussy and said "pay up, bitch". there's not some nice little tweak that we can find to fix that at the back of the textbook, and it's not drawn out by any kind of scarcity model, you just have to smash their property rights up and put the ownership in the hands of the people.
so, that ought to be the central plank of any serious left-of-centre party in terms of what to do to get costs down. which parties realize this?
*crickets*
so, i mean, i want to come out swinging against the liberal proposal. remember when they told you that privatizing electricity would reduce costs? markets just make things more expensive...
but the other parties suck, too. and, this is a good example of the dead-end we've come to in terns of the policy desert we exist in: this is obviously a situation where we need more government to reign in the greed that markets incentivize, but all we've got across the board is a bunch of debunked neo-liberal nonsense that the smart people know doesn't work. and i want my old, more intelligent liberal party back.
i said it wasn't that simple....
canada is a very big, sparsely populated country, which means that it's going to be expensive to do things like string along transmission lines (or set up cell towers). while the primary reason for high costs might be greed, the costs to maintain the network are at least a good excuse to keep prices artificially high, and this is going to be more of a reality here than in smaller, less geographically diverse areas. that's one of the reasons that nationalizing the lines is a good idea - it'll allow for a socialization of infrastructure costs. we don't normally let private businesses build infrastructure like this, and we need to start understanding what happened as a failed experiment. but, in the mean-time, if you're insisting on a market system, and you want to take costs down, you're going to have to introduce a subsidy. prices may be high across the board due to greed, but they're especially high in hard to get places because the infrastructure is so challenging. the only way to completely undo this is to socialize it...
...but marx himself would have said that you ought to let the capitalists build the lines, and then appropriate them. so, the real question is whether they've build enough infrastructure to nationalize, yet - or if it's best to keep waiting it out.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5908780/canada-election-cellphone-internet-prices/
Friday, September 20, 2019
well, i don't think she's going to save the world.
but, i'm not holding my breath on a zombie jesus, either.
he's dead. deal with it.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-de-souza-elizabeth-may-and-the-rise-of-messianic-politics
but, i'm not holding my breath on a zombie jesus, either.
he's dead. deal with it.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-de-souza-elizabeth-may-and-the-rise-of-messianic-politics
so, trudeau wants to meet singh to apologize.
if he accepts the apology, he broadcasts a willingness to move past it, and needs to shut up. if he refuses it, he can keep nailing him on it, but he looks bitter and small-minded while doing it.
a master tactical decision by trudeau? hardly - it's a cynical ploy that singh was dumb enough to walk into by overblowing the thing in the first place.
what we have here is dumb and dumber; don't let dumber make dumb look smart..
if he accepts the apology, he broadcasts a willingness to move past it, and needs to shut up. if he refuses it, he can keep nailing him on it, but he looks bitter and small-minded while doing it.
a master tactical decision by trudeau? hardly - it's a cynical ploy that singh was dumb enough to walk into by overblowing the thing in the first place.
what we have here is dumb and dumber; don't let dumber make dumb look smart..
and, just, if you're curious....what is my take on these black history types that think everybody was black?
they're half right.
the initial egyptians were black, but the racial mixing started happening deep into pre-history, and by the time the historical records appear they were pretty mixed.
the sumerians, it is clear, were white. and, they weren't semites, either - they were probably more like modern day georgians or armenians.
the elamites probably looked like dark-skinned indians, and probably migrated into the middle east rather than out of it. the movement of trade seems to be in that direction, and they seem to have been seen by the broader mesopotamians as outsiders. so, they were probably dark-skinned, but not exactly african.
the various semitic language group seems to have had black origins, but most of the assyrians and babylonians and jews were probably white.
the persians and historical indians were white.
the "old europeans" of gimbutas, the danube civilizations, were probably mixed, and may have been initially black, like the egyptians.
they're half right.
the initial egyptians were black, but the racial mixing started happening deep into pre-history, and by the time the historical records appear they were pretty mixed.
the sumerians, it is clear, were white. and, they weren't semites, either - they were probably more like modern day georgians or armenians.
the elamites probably looked like dark-skinned indians, and probably migrated into the middle east rather than out of it. the movement of trade seems to be in that direction, and they seem to have been seen by the broader mesopotamians as outsiders. so, they were probably dark-skinned, but not exactly african.
the various semitic language group seems to have had black origins, but most of the assyrians and babylonians and jews were probably white.
the persians and historical indians were white.
the "old europeans" of gimbutas, the danube civilizations, were probably mixed, and may have been initially black, like the egyptians.
so, i had to force myself to sleep this morning in order to do this weekend. eveyrthing's set.
i made some calls, at least, and have everything in order to get to the next stage. early next week...
there's no deadline, and, considering that i'm going to have to actually go to toronto, i'm looking at probably november at the earliest, anyways. i don't want to miss shows over this...
i need to eat and get ready to go.
i made some calls, at least, and have everything in order to get to the next stage. early next week...
there's no deadline, and, considering that i'm going to have to actually go to toronto, i'm looking at probably november at the earliest, anyways. i don't want to miss shows over this...
i need to eat and get ready to go.
actually, it's a valid question - was aladdin even black? i saw the disney film when i was a kid, but i wouldn't look to disney to get this right. wiki suggests that...
Aladdin is an impoverished young ne'er-do-well, dwelling in "one of the cities of China".
that might suggest that aladdin would have been some mix of iranic and turkic, similar to a contemporary uighur around the xinjiang area, and consequently probably actually pretty white. i guess disney got it right after all.
the arabs proper appear to have migrated originally from ethiopia, so the initial muslim invasions in the 7th century (and they weren't migrations. they were invasions.) would have been directed by pretty dark skinned people, and that is upheld via both pictorial and descriptive historical data. i'm not going to find an exact quote, but it's well understood by the historians of the time that the arabs were very, very dark-skinned, if not flat out african. but, contrary to the popular palestinian origins myth, the middle east at the time was overwhelmingly white, after years of inflows from persians, greeks and romans. there would have been very little migration from what was then the roman and persian empires into the arabian peninsula, although this increased dramatically after the muslim conquests, which is why you see so many white arabs nowadays, and particularly so many upper class white arabs - they're really mostly persian, genetically. you only really see black arabs in the southernmost parts of the peninsula, and on the far western coast of africa (for different reasons). the arabs proper were a very small group, so the migrations that revisionists want to talk about largely didn't even happen at all - it was more of a process of mass conversion.
i guess it's not surprising that trudeau would get something like that completely wrong, but i don't think it really changes the situation, much.
Aladdin is an impoverished young ne'er-do-well, dwelling in "one of the cities of China".
that might suggest that aladdin would have been some mix of iranic and turkic, similar to a contemporary uighur around the xinjiang area, and consequently probably actually pretty white. i guess disney got it right after all.
the arabs proper appear to have migrated originally from ethiopia, so the initial muslim invasions in the 7th century (and they weren't migrations. they were invasions.) would have been directed by pretty dark skinned people, and that is upheld via both pictorial and descriptive historical data. i'm not going to find an exact quote, but it's well understood by the historians of the time that the arabs were very, very dark-skinned, if not flat out african. but, contrary to the popular palestinian origins myth, the middle east at the time was overwhelmingly white, after years of inflows from persians, greeks and romans. there would have been very little migration from what was then the roman and persian empires into the arabian peninsula, although this increased dramatically after the muslim conquests, which is why you see so many white arabs nowadays, and particularly so many upper class white arabs - they're really mostly persian, genetically. you only really see black arabs in the southernmost parts of the peninsula, and on the far western coast of africa (for different reasons). the arabs proper were a very small group, so the migrations that revisionists want to talk about largely didn't even happen at all - it was more of a process of mass conversion.
i guess it's not surprising that trudeau would get something like that completely wrong, but i don't think it really changes the situation, much.
yeah, this is uncharacteristic of sanders, and consistent with the continuing concern that his campaign is being directed by religionists, particularly muslims. it's this strange string of occurrences that make you wonder who's making decisions behind the scenes, and something that i think is at the ultimate root cause of his inability to gain traction this cycle.
was bernie asked about this?
'cause, it's a pretty egregious tactical error.
and, i'm curious to hear what he has to say about it, when confronted directly - and somebody should do that.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/09/bernie-sanders-democratic-frontrunner-will-skip-lgbtq-debates/
was bernie asked about this?
'cause, it's a pretty egregious tactical error.
and, i'm curious to hear what he has to say about it, when confronted directly - and somebody should do that.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/09/bernie-sanders-democratic-frontrunner-will-skip-lgbtq-debates/
so, i'm in a tough spot, because both of the pseudo-left parties are in a religious orientation, at the moment. i want climate to be at the centre of my voting choice, but i don't want to vote for either of them.
i think singh is done, regardless.
but, is it going to be easier to push may out if the party elects a few more mps?
also, brian masse is a giant douche bag. i'll have to see if i like the local green better or not...
i think singh is done, regardless.
but, is it going to be easier to push may out if the party elects a few more mps?
also, brian masse is a giant douche bag. i'll have to see if i like the local green better or not...
a rights based society is something we can tweak because rights are human creations, and there's no such thing as god. so, i'll argue for more rights to fresh air and clean water, and less rights to religious beliefs or property. this is ultimately all arbitrary, and subject merely to the shifting popular consensus, and who can get an idea legislated or not; natural rights theory is complete bullshit.
but, one of the very few rights that everybody agrees with is voting rights, which are also a conscience right. what that means is that we all have the right to vote for whatever and whoever we want for whatever reasons we want, and it's not up to anybody at all to second guess that - that is a conscience right, and it's absolute.
now, you can tell me my support for environmental rights is in conflict with your support for property rights, and we can fight over that - it's a legitimate conflict of rights. i think sustainability is more important than property. you can be wrong and disagree, if you want. let's fight. that's politics.
but, voting rights vs religious rights is not an actual rights conflict in the same way, or really at all, because your so-called religious rights are designed with the purpose of infringing on the rights of others.
i'm an atheist, and i don't want to vote for a religious person, and i'm not going to, and that's a rights issue because it's an issue of conscience. the opposite argument - that not voting for somebody because they're religious is some kind of rights violation - would be to erect the right to be voted for, which is ridiculous. that's not a right, that's an entitlement, and one that can only be entertained in a society where the balance towards religious rights is too great, and needs to be pulled back on. i mean, the premise that this is even an issue that is up for debate is preposterous.
so, i'm not going to be brow beaten on this.
i don't believe in god, and i don't want to vote for people that do, and you have no say in the matter - that is an issue of conscience, and an absolute right on my behalf.
but, one of the very few rights that everybody agrees with is voting rights, which are also a conscience right. what that means is that we all have the right to vote for whatever and whoever we want for whatever reasons we want, and it's not up to anybody at all to second guess that - that is a conscience right, and it's absolute.
now, you can tell me my support for environmental rights is in conflict with your support for property rights, and we can fight over that - it's a legitimate conflict of rights. i think sustainability is more important than property. you can be wrong and disagree, if you want. let's fight. that's politics.
but, voting rights vs religious rights is not an actual rights conflict in the same way, or really at all, because your so-called religious rights are designed with the purpose of infringing on the rights of others.
i'm an atheist, and i don't want to vote for a religious person, and i'm not going to, and that's a rights issue because it's an issue of conscience. the opposite argument - that not voting for somebody because they're religious is some kind of rights violation - would be to erect the right to be voted for, which is ridiculous. that's not a right, that's an entitlement, and one that can only be entertained in a society where the balance towards religious rights is too great, and needs to be pulled back on. i mean, the premise that this is even an issue that is up for debate is preposterous.
so, i'm not going to be brow beaten on this.
i don't believe in god, and i don't want to vote for people that do, and you have no say in the matter - that is an issue of conscience, and an absolute right on my behalf.
so, what am i doing this weekend?
21:00-1:00 - tunic/reverend/teener @ pj's
(note that there is a severed heads show at city club, but...i always found ellard's work to be kind of dull.
it might not be very fun. and, i want to be outside on the last weekend of the summer!)
01:30-8:00 - ???. i don't want to go to marble on friday, it's a false solution for too many reasons. i mean, i wouldn't get there until 2:00, and the show's done at 4:00. i'd rather find an underground show that goes until 7:00 or 8:00, but right now i can't. so, i'm going to be seeking out some known outside spots looking for an outside party.
08:00-10:00 - eat.
11:00-19:00 - house/yard party. local djs.
20:00-21:00 - grlwood (magic stick) <-----maybe. or stay at house party.
21:00-22:30 - man man (magic stick)<------maybe. or stay at house party. it's $20...
23:00-00:00 - terrence dixon (marble)
00:00-02:00 - prefuse 73 (marble)
02:00-04:00 - luke vibert (marble)
04:00-06:00 - dave shettler (marble)
06:00-07:00 - soundmurderer (marble)
07:00-09:00 - local djs (marble)
21:00-1:00 - tunic/reverend/teener @ pj's
(note that there is a severed heads show at city club, but...i always found ellard's work to be kind of dull.
it might not be very fun. and, i want to be outside on the last weekend of the summer!)
01:30-8:00 - ???. i don't want to go to marble on friday, it's a false solution for too many reasons. i mean, i wouldn't get there until 2:00, and the show's done at 4:00. i'd rather find an underground show that goes until 7:00 or 8:00, but right now i can't. so, i'm going to be seeking out some known outside spots looking for an outside party.
08:00-10:00 - eat.
11:00-19:00 - house/yard party. local djs.
20:00-21:00 - grlwood (magic stick) <-----maybe. or stay at house party.
21:00-22:30 - man man (magic stick)<------maybe. or stay at house party. it's $20...
23:00-00:00 - terrence dixon (marble)
00:00-02:00 - prefuse 73 (marble)
02:00-04:00 - luke vibert (marble)
04:00-06:00 - dave shettler (marble)
06:00-07:00 - soundmurderer (marble)
07:00-09:00 - local djs (marble)
well.
calling somebody a slave for upholding capitalism from the bottom is called having an analysis. it's not racist, unless you have no historical understanding of slavery.
i mean, it's right out of marx. it's just standard leftist agitation.
and, i'd spin it around - establishment attempts to attack valid class analyses as "racist" are just status quo propaganda.
calling somebody a slave for upholding capitalism from the bottom is called having an analysis. it's not racist, unless you have no historical understanding of slavery.
i mean, it's right out of marx. it's just standard leftist agitation.
and, i'd spin it around - establishment attempts to attack valid class analyses as "racist" are just status quo propaganda.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
listen, i supported kathleen wynne in ontario (for a while), and i might support elizabeth may federally, this time around. i've voted for female mps when they're aligned with the parties in front of me, which hasn't always been the case. that's what i've had in front of me.
i supported hillary clinton over barack obama, but pulled support largely after i saw what she did as secretary of state, which was horrific.
and, i'll remind you that i identify as female.
but, warren is a bad candidate, if you're an ideological leftist.
i actually think i've kept my criticisms pretty grounded and policy oriented, i certainly haven't called anybody any names besides maybe 'neo-liberal', and if anybody's being emotional and absurd, it's you, not me.
but, i ultimately don't care what you think. and, i will continue to rip apart her policies as i come across them, as i feel is reasonable, so long as i don't get bored and tune out.
i supported hillary clinton over barack obama, but pulled support largely after i saw what she did as secretary of state, which was horrific.
and, i'll remind you that i identify as female.
but, warren is a bad candidate, if you're an ideological leftist.
i actually think i've kept my criticisms pretty grounded and policy oriented, i certainly haven't called anybody any names besides maybe 'neo-liberal', and if anybody's being emotional and absurd, it's you, not me.
but, i ultimately don't care what you think. and, i will continue to rip apart her policies as i come across them, as i feel is reasonable, so long as i don't get bored and tune out.
the letter's a shot from the bow, and bernie's campaign needs to realize what's coming next - an organized smear campaign right out of the clinton playbook.
they caught him off guard, clearly - he wasn't expecting this. but, he has to adjust. fast. or get out, and let his movement go to a third party to take her on.
they caught him off guard, clearly - he wasn't expecting this. but, he has to adjust. fast. or get out, and let his movement go to a third party to take her on.
are they willing to publish any specific examples?
it's kind of hard to take seriously, and strikes me more as a bullshit smear against the sanders campaign.
https://splinternews.com/black-leaders-condemn-attacks-by-sanders-supporters-ami-1838259737
it's kind of hard to take seriously, and strikes me more as a bullshit smear against the sanders campaign.
https://splinternews.com/black-leaders-condemn-attacks-by-sanders-supporters-ami-1838259737
what a horrible ruling.
i hope the crown appeals and holds these idiots accountable for what they did to their child.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/david-collet-stephan-ezekiel-trial-decision-1.5288343
i hope the crown appeals and holds these idiots accountable for what they did to their child.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/david-collet-stephan-ezekiel-trial-decision-1.5288343
i know that there's this dominant christian perspective in the united states that life is "sacred" or something.
and, we're struggling to get past that here, too.
but, this is a taste of how the rest of the world sees the issue:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/eastern-townships-assisted-dying-1.4822787
and, we're struggling to get past that here, too.
but, this is a taste of how the rest of the world sees the issue:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/eastern-townships-assisted-dying-1.4822787
the best way to understand the language in the ruling, and why the philpot-jwr legislation was so inhumane and flat out terrible, is to ask yourself the following question:
if you suffer from a "grievous and irremediable medical condition", is your suffering likely to be greater or lesser if you can't demonstrate that your death is reasonably foreseeable?
it is the people that can't demonstrate the imminence of their death that are precisely those that need assisted suicide the most!
if you reduce the legislation to saving a few bucks in avoiding keeping people alive longer than necessary, which is essentially what they did, you're essentially putting aside the ruling; you're missing the point.
if you suffer from a "grievous and irremediable medical condition", is your suffering likely to be greater or lesser if you can't demonstrate that your death is reasonably foreseeable?
it is the people that can't demonstrate the imminence of their death that are precisely those that need assisted suicide the most!
if you reduce the legislation to saving a few bucks in avoiding keeping people alive longer than necessary, which is essentially what they did, you're essentially putting aside the ruling; you're missing the point.
i may not have explained this entirely.
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/september-2019/parliament-should-not-wait-to-act-on-assisted-dying-ruling/
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/september-2019/parliament-should-not-wait-to-act-on-assisted-dying-ruling/
this is such a complicated mess, and it's particularly weird due to the fact that the greens apparently rejected them.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/jody-wilson-raybould-elizabeth-may-jane-philpott_ca_5d832ca8e4b0957256b15a5e
the reality is that she was an awful ag, and there's not one but several of her laws that are in the process of being struck down, right now. it was these two clowns that were primarily responsible for writing the botched assisted suicide legislation that got struck down last week, for example.
what is elizabeth may's position on assisted suicide? a strange one for an ordained minister, actually:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/dwdcanada/pages/142/attachments/original/1444845232/DyingWithDignityCanada_-_September_20th.pdf?1444845232
that is the correct position, fwiw. i don't think that either of the independent members truly agree, though.
so, if this endorsement isn't about the quality of her legislation, what's it about?
rightly or wrongly, and i would say wrongly, she's seen as a leader in the indigenous community. and, this outreach is crucial to the future of environmental politics in this country.
let's just hope that the greens can co-opt jwr before jwr co-opts them.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/jody-wilson-raybould-elizabeth-may-jane-philpott_ca_5d832ca8e4b0957256b15a5e
the reality is that she was an awful ag, and there's not one but several of her laws that are in the process of being struck down, right now. it was these two clowns that were primarily responsible for writing the botched assisted suicide legislation that got struck down last week, for example.
what is elizabeth may's position on assisted suicide? a strange one for an ordained minister, actually:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/dwdcanada/pages/142/attachments/original/1444845232/DyingWithDignityCanada_-_September_20th.pdf?1444845232
that is the correct position, fwiw. i don't think that either of the independent members truly agree, though.
so, if this endorsement isn't about the quality of her legislation, what's it about?
rightly or wrongly, and i would say wrongly, she's seen as a leader in the indigenous community. and, this outreach is crucial to the future of environmental politics in this country.
let's just hope that the greens can co-opt jwr before jwr co-opts them.
i'm not defending trudeau, exactly. i don't want to give him another false majority. and, i understand that this is how a logician thinks, and it's not how most people think. they've done studies that demonstrate that homo economicus is essentially only applicable to economics students; maybe there's a similar idea for homo mathematicus that only applies to logicians.
but, careful thinking is important, too.
the aladdin thing doesn't bother me at all - it was over the top, but you need to ask the woman in the photo. maybe she even thought it was hot. i dunno.
the dancing thing is more questionable, but i'd have to see it to know if it was racist. it's an open question. i'm leaning towards it probably not being so good.
but, that just demonstrates the point - it's about the context of the situation, not the action itself. again, maybe i'm just being eurocentric in insisting on mens rea, but i'm not going to change, and i don't want to.
so, if we have a situation where it's harmless and a situation where it's hurtful, let's take this to it's logical conclusion and try a thought experiment. imagine this...
suppose that we have a film where a white actor portrays martin luther king, and that actor does a phenomenal, over the top job. in fact, let's even say it's the best character actor of our time - let's say it's jim carrey. in order to do the job, he would have to wear blackface, right? let's ignore questions about affirmative action here, for brevity. now, if the portrayal is heart-wrenching and brilliant and absolutely respectful, is that racist? or is it just good acting?
i'm just throwing it out there.
again - i suspect the dancing video was probably pretty crude. but, can we all be subtle thinkers, here, and recognize that the racism isn't in the wardrobe, exactly?
but, careful thinking is important, too.
the aladdin thing doesn't bother me at all - it was over the top, but you need to ask the woman in the photo. maybe she even thought it was hot. i dunno.
the dancing thing is more questionable, but i'd have to see it to know if it was racist. it's an open question. i'm leaning towards it probably not being so good.
but, that just demonstrates the point - it's about the context of the situation, not the action itself. again, maybe i'm just being eurocentric in insisting on mens rea, but i'm not going to change, and i don't want to.
so, if we have a situation where it's harmless and a situation where it's hurtful, let's take this to it's logical conclusion and try a thought experiment. imagine this...
suppose that we have a film where a white actor portrays martin luther king, and that actor does a phenomenal, over the top job. in fact, let's even say it's the best character actor of our time - let's say it's jim carrey. in order to do the job, he would have to wear blackface, right? let's ignore questions about affirmative action here, for brevity. now, if the portrayal is heart-wrenching and brilliant and absolutely respectful, is that racist? or is it just good acting?
i'm just throwing it out there.
again - i suspect the dancing video was probably pretty crude. but, can we all be subtle thinkers, here, and recognize that the racism isn't in the wardrobe, exactly?
but, do i think he should resign, anyways?
this is where the fact that canada has very different demographics fits in. if a governor in a southern state like georgia or, was it virginia?, did that then he'd be pissing off a substantive minority of the population. it's like 30-40% in some places, right?
downtown detroit is about 80% black. you wouldn't want to do something like that there...
but, canada, overall is less than 5% black - i often say 2%, but i think that's an old number. nowadays, it's more like 3-4%. there are some areas, like toronto and montreal, where the numbers are bigger, and something like this may be a bigger issue. but, the actual reality is that there just aren't enough black people in canada for it to really matter.
what about white voters? there may be a general dislike of it in certain circles, but i expect the general reaction to be a shrug.
the usual suspects on twitter, etc will no doubt be in fits, but if this moves the election, you should only expect it to be in the margins, and it might just end up splitting the vote in a handful of key ridings in the 416.
if one of the parties can really take control of the issue, that might change. but, i wouldn't expect this to be the kind of issue in canada that it would be in the united states, because the demographics to make it one just don't exist.
this is where the fact that canada has very different demographics fits in. if a governor in a southern state like georgia or, was it virginia?, did that then he'd be pissing off a substantive minority of the population. it's like 30-40% in some places, right?
downtown detroit is about 80% black. you wouldn't want to do something like that there...
but, canada, overall is less than 5% black - i often say 2%, but i think that's an old number. nowadays, it's more like 3-4%. there are some areas, like toronto and montreal, where the numbers are bigger, and something like this may be a bigger issue. but, the actual reality is that there just aren't enough black people in canada for it to really matter.
what about white voters? there may be a general dislike of it in certain circles, but i expect the general reaction to be a shrug.
the usual suspects on twitter, etc will no doubt be in fits, but if this moves the election, you should only expect it to be in the margins, and it might just end up splitting the vote in a handful of key ridings in the 416.
if one of the parties can really take control of the issue, that might change. but, i wouldn't expect this to be the kind of issue in canada that it would be in the united states, because the demographics to make it one just don't exist.
what about polling?
here's the actual most recent nanos data:
as per usual, the media ignores the undecideds, which is wrong in canada.
once you bring the undecideds back in, it's easy to see that the movement over the last few days is well within the margin of error. while the undecideds have not increased (an immediate assumption when conservative numbers go up), the conservative numbers have actually barely moved, relatively to the margin - the distortion comes in the exaggerated swing by removing that ~15% undecided. so, a 2 point swing, which is in the margin, gets inflated to a 6 point one, which looks like real movement, when it actually isn't.
rather, i might suggest that nanos has been overshooting ndp numbers - he has had them higher than anybody else - and that the real movement in his numbers is a correction of something he was overshooting. it's only a few points, but he was an outlier on that. he was also maybe lowballing the conservatives, by putting them in the high 20s. so, i think this is a polling correction rather than any actual movement.
but, you know how the tory media works with this stuff - it's conditioning, it's not reporting.
if turnout is low, expect the conservatives to benefit from it. that's how they win. but, you're otherwise looking at the same basic reality we've had for a long time, which is that the liberals are mostly in a fight against voter apathy, which means they're largely running against their own record.
here's the actual most recent nanos data:
as per usual, the media ignores the undecideds, which is wrong in canada.
once you bring the undecideds back in, it's easy to see that the movement over the last few days is well within the margin of error. while the undecideds have not increased (an immediate assumption when conservative numbers go up), the conservative numbers have actually barely moved, relatively to the margin - the distortion comes in the exaggerated swing by removing that ~15% undecided. so, a 2 point swing, which is in the margin, gets inflated to a 6 point one, which looks like real movement, when it actually isn't.
rather, i might suggest that nanos has been overshooting ndp numbers - he has had them higher than anybody else - and that the real movement in his numbers is a correction of something he was overshooting. it's only a few points, but he was an outlier on that. he was also maybe lowballing the conservatives, by putting them in the high 20s. so, i think this is a polling correction rather than any actual movement.
but, you know how the tory media works with this stuff - it's conditioning, it's not reporting.
if turnout is low, expect the conservatives to benefit from it. that's how they win. but, you're otherwise looking at the same basic reality we've had for a long time, which is that the liberals are mostly in a fight against voter apathy, which means they're largely running against their own record.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
i'm going to line up on the side of people arguing that trudeau walking around in indian robes (do indians even dress like this any more?) is akin to some kind of black face.
as is the case with so much of what trudeau does, this isn't just ham-fisted. it's blatantly racist.
as is the case with so much of what trudeau does, this isn't just ham-fisted. it's blatantly racist.
and, i should point out the following as well....
the vast majority of black canadians - i mean like 99% - would actually reject the idea that they have any cultural connection to american history, and thereby reject black history month along with it. that is actually kind of a big deal in canada, rather than black history month, itself. because, the best way to piss off a black canadian is to suggest their ancestors were slaves.
because it's usually not true. and, they want you to know it's not true, so you don't think it is. it's not just an ego thing; black canadians overwhelming expect that you won't treat them as the descendant of slaves. because they aren't. and they'll put you in your place if you suggest that they are.
it follows that trudeau is diving head first into instant death if he thinks that pushing black history month is a way to win votes from black voters. not only is the african american narrative not something that black canadians identify with, it's something that they vehemently reject. it's an insult to them.
trudeau is going to get his teflon suit full of eggs if he thinks he's going to talk about this kind of thing with black canadians and get anything more than a guffaw.
"excuse me. sir, are you implying that my ancestors, and the ancestors of the other people in this room, were slaves? because, if you are, i'm appalled."
and, see, a canadian pr team would know that, too. but, when you go and hire all these american strategists (that may have been born in canada, but are culturally american), they miss things like this.
and, that's the irony, right?
"african-americans, black canadians....they're all the same, right?"
no.
one group descends from chattel slavery and has roots in the united states since the fifteenth century. the other is highly educated, mostly middle-classed and has arrived in canada almost entirely since 1970, either from the caribbean or directly from africa, and largely via scholarship grants.
and, the implication that there is any commonality at all is, in fact, brutally racist, which is what trudeau will be told, when it comes to it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the vast majority of black canadians - i mean like 99% - would actually reject the idea that they have any cultural connection to american history, and thereby reject black history month along with it. that is actually kind of a big deal in canada, rather than black history month, itself. because, the best way to piss off a black canadian is to suggest their ancestors were slaves.
because it's usually not true. and, they want you to know it's not true, so you don't think it is. it's not just an ego thing; black canadians overwhelming expect that you won't treat them as the descendant of slaves. because they aren't. and they'll put you in your place if you suggest that they are.
it follows that trudeau is diving head first into instant death if he thinks that pushing black history month is a way to win votes from black voters. not only is the african american narrative not something that black canadians identify with, it's something that they vehemently reject. it's an insult to them.
trudeau is going to get his teflon suit full of eggs if he thinks he's going to talk about this kind of thing with black canadians and get anything more than a guffaw.
"excuse me. sir, are you implying that my ancestors, and the ancestors of the other people in this room, were slaves? because, if you are, i'm appalled."
and, see, a canadian pr team would know that, too. but, when you go and hire all these american strategists (that may have been born in canada, but are culturally american), they miss things like this.
and, that's the irony, right?
"african-americans, black canadians....they're all the same, right?"
no.
one group descends from chattel slavery and has roots in the united states since the fifteenth century. the other is highly educated, mostly middle-classed and has arrived in canada almost entirely since 1970, either from the caribbean or directly from africa, and largely via scholarship grants.
and, the implication that there is any commonality at all is, in fact, brutally racist, which is what trudeau will be told, when it comes to it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
and, just to be clear: justin trudeau and jason kenney are both racists,
but justin trudeau is way more racist than jason kenney is.
jason kenney is actually the architect of the immigration policies that trudeau likes to take credit for. so, if they want to make the election about "diversity", which is such a ridiculously clinical and racist way to take about immigration from the start, it's the language you hear in a $500/plate fundraiser with a bunch of upper-class old money white people that are trying very hard to hide their racism, i'm going to go out of my way to throw that in their faces.
immigration levels are historically higher under conservative governments, who have been using the process as a way to shift the population to the right and solidify their own voting base, and recent immigrants to canada should support kenney over trudeau - they agree with him more on core governing issues, and kenney likes them better than trudeau does, too.
jason kenney is actually the architect of the immigration policies that trudeau likes to take credit for. so, if they want to make the election about "diversity", which is such a ridiculously clinical and racist way to take about immigration from the start, it's the language you hear in a $500/plate fundraiser with a bunch of upper-class old money white people that are trying very hard to hide their racism, i'm going to go out of my way to throw that in their faces.
immigration levels are historically higher under conservative governments, who have been using the process as a way to shift the population to the right and solidify their own voting base, and recent immigrants to canada should support kenney over trudeau - they agree with him more on core governing issues, and kenney likes them better than trudeau does, too.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
kenney has problems with the gays, but his racism is actually quite
subtle, as he fully realizes that the kind of socially conservative
immigrant that he wants comes from the religious societies in asia and
africa, and not the liberal countries of europe or south america. he may
be unlikely to accept a coalition with non-white leadership, but he's
more open to the ideas that immigrants bring in with them, because
they're not very different from his own ideas. so, kenney sees the
immigrant as an ally in his quest for a more conservative world, even if
he wishes to retain power for himself and his own kind - it's racism lite, a subtler way to be white.
trudeau's racism is more visceral, which is ever the more obvious given that he fucks up every once and again with outbursts of disdain and superiority. there's a list of pretty brutal comments, at this point. the jig is up, really. so, he hides his hate in these choreographed displays of "diversity", using clinical language out of a marketing class. his white supremacy is more absolute, in that he's happy to parade as many different-looking people around him as he can find, but he doesn't have the slightest interest in listening to a word that they actually say, or offering up any kind of position of real authority. how about the bizarre reaction to the raybould resignation/firing, which really had nothing to do with race: diversity only works when it is rooted in trust. what the actual fuck does that even mean? it may appear as incomprehensible word salad on first glance, but it really reveals a fundamentally racist world view: she really was just a token indian in cabinet. so, trudeau sees the immigrant as a voter to control at a distance within a class hierarchy with a white, liberal elite at the top. it's racism with a smile, and you just don't talk about it, because it's not polite.
while the reality is that trudeau is probably defaulting to this because he wants to create a wedge issue with minority voters and can't figure anything else out, that by vilifying kenney as a racist he's essentially acknowledging that he can't compete with him on ideas with immigrant voters and is stuck trying to scare people instead, what you're going to get out of trudeau on this is a lot of projection. most of what trudeau is going to throw out there about his opponents is going to be more true of himself than of them, and it's exactly the reason he's going to throw it out there.
and, a part of the reason that the tories tend to win the immigrant vote in canada is because immigrants can see through this clearly enough. the conservatives are actually willing to accept them for who they are and reflect their actual values; the liberals just pander to them for votes with fake appeals to togetherness, while then passing laws that they stringently oppose.
the liberals are at a dead-end with this. they've tried to build a party around cultural inclusion, only to find out that majorities in all of these different cultures would rather live in a christian society than a secular one, and that the path to multiculturalism is through the destruction of liberalism, rather than the elevation of it. in the mean time, they've alienated swaths of white voters, who are actually liberal and secular in their beliefs.
but, trudeau doesn't live in reality, he lives in a bubble that is curated by his advisors. and, he could very well spend the next six months tilting at these aforementioned windmills, slaying the monster that is the projection of his own inner, racist demons.
trudeau's racism is more visceral, which is ever the more obvious given that he fucks up every once and again with outbursts of disdain and superiority. there's a list of pretty brutal comments, at this point. the jig is up, really. so, he hides his hate in these choreographed displays of "diversity", using clinical language out of a marketing class. his white supremacy is more absolute, in that he's happy to parade as many different-looking people around him as he can find, but he doesn't have the slightest interest in listening to a word that they actually say, or offering up any kind of position of real authority. how about the bizarre reaction to the raybould resignation/firing, which really had nothing to do with race: diversity only works when it is rooted in trust. what the actual fuck does that even mean? it may appear as incomprehensible word salad on first glance, but it really reveals a fundamentally racist world view: she really was just a token indian in cabinet. so, trudeau sees the immigrant as a voter to control at a distance within a class hierarchy with a white, liberal elite at the top. it's racism with a smile, and you just don't talk about it, because it's not polite.
while the reality is that trudeau is probably defaulting to this because he wants to create a wedge issue with minority voters and can't figure anything else out, that by vilifying kenney as a racist he's essentially acknowledging that he can't compete with him on ideas with immigrant voters and is stuck trying to scare people instead, what you're going to get out of trudeau on this is a lot of projection. most of what trudeau is going to throw out there about his opponents is going to be more true of himself than of them, and it's exactly the reason he's going to throw it out there.
and, a part of the reason that the tories tend to win the immigrant vote in canada is because immigrants can see through this clearly enough. the conservatives are actually willing to accept them for who they are and reflect their actual values; the liberals just pander to them for votes with fake appeals to togetherness, while then passing laws that they stringently oppose.
the liberals are at a dead-end with this. they've tried to build a party around cultural inclusion, only to find out that majorities in all of these different cultures would rather live in a christian society than a secular one, and that the path to multiculturalism is through the destruction of liberalism, rather than the elevation of it. in the mean time, they've alienated swaths of white voters, who are actually liberal and secular in their beliefs.
but, trudeau doesn't live in reality, he lives in a bubble that is curated by his advisors. and, he could very well spend the next six months tilting at these aforementioned windmills, slaying the monster that is the projection of his own inner, racist demons.
the dancing thing is potentially worse than the gala, but it's inconclusive, and, even if you conclude that his motives were nefarious, you have to realize he was a teenager, or maybe a very young adult. who let him go on stage and do that?
again: i'm not sure this is racist, but i'm keen on hoping that the fallout helps take them down to a minority. and, no, it's not a reason to vote for a guy that thinks he has a magic beard.
i am sure, however, that there are lots of far better reasons to call trudeau and his handlers racist, and if you sort through the last four years of this blog, i point out a fair number of them.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5922861/justin-trudeau-brownface-video/
again: i'm not sure this is racist, but i'm keen on hoping that the fallout helps take them down to a minority. and, no, it's not a reason to vote for a guy that thinks he has a magic beard.
i am sure, however, that there are lots of far better reasons to call trudeau and his handlers racist, and if you sort through the last four years of this blog, i point out a fair number of them.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5922861/justin-trudeau-brownface-video/
bernie.
bernie.
listen.
call al franken - not to ask him to come back, and not to ask him for support in iowa, although it might help, but to ask him what it's like to get pushed out.
you're not a democrat, bernie. you know that. they know that. and, they dislike you so much that they'd rather pick a republican. ok?
bernie has to get the point and run for a third party before it's too late. fuck that pledge, they've been dishonest with him, and they'll screw him over at every chance.
and, if bernie can't face the facts here, his movement needs to get on with it and organize a third party movement without him.
he needed critical mass, and he's not getting it.
bernie.
listen.
call al franken - not to ask him to come back, and not to ask him for support in iowa, although it might help, but to ask him what it's like to get pushed out.
you're not a democrat, bernie. you know that. they know that. and, they dislike you so much that they'd rather pick a republican. ok?
bernie has to get the point and run for a third party before it's too late. fuck that pledge, they've been dishonest with him, and they'll screw him over at every chance.
and, if bernie can't face the facts here, his movement needs to get on with it and organize a third party movement without him.
he needed critical mass, and he's not getting it.
there's a weak, background of pot tonight. the stench isn't as strong as it was last night, but i'm feeling oozy from it, and i avoided it last night. it's partly where it is; it was on the other side of the apartment last night.
i don't want to be stoned right now. at all. i'm at home. being stoned at home by yourself is boring as fuck.
i'm going to get something to eat and finally get started on what i should have been doing this week.
i don't want to be stoned right now. at all. i'm at home. being stoned at home by yourself is boring as fuck.
i'm going to get something to eat and finally get started on what i should have been doing this week.
so, we're going to stop there at the end of period 3.
that is by no means comprehensive or exhaustive, but it's a good teaser (and a good plan) for what i've got in front of me for period 3, which was about 08/2003-03/2007.
most of it is mostly done. there's really just the lost symphony, the throatmotor fragment, the crash and the matlab project....
that is by no means comprehensive or exhaustive, but it's a good teaser (and a good plan) for what i've got in front of me for period 3, which was about 08/2003-03/2007.
most of it is mostly done. there's really just the lost symphony, the throatmotor fragment, the crash and the matlab project....
inri11x
inri091?
most of my songs begin as conventional guitar songs before they get ripped apart and demented into various abstract concoctions. that means that a lot of my pieces have two different versions. i've always deferred the raw guitar versions to eventual live performances, but i'm at a space in life where i realize that these live performances are not likely to ever materialize. so, i'm going to compile the live/guitar versions of my larger pieces here.
it's unclear to me at this point where i will space this in my discography, but it will probably be around 2008.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/genesis
most of my songs begin as conventional guitar songs before they get ripped apart and demented into various abstract concoctions. that means that a lot of my pieces have two different versions. i've always deferred the raw guitar versions to eventual live performances, but i'm at a space in life where i realize that these live performances are not likely to ever materialize. so, i'm going to compile the live/guitar versions of my larger pieces here.
it's unclear to me at this point where i will space this in my discography, but it will probably be around 2008.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/genesis
inri101
inri090?
this is the introduction of a symphony i started at the end of 2006 and have since placed on indefinite hold.
this introduction is very noisy, and i'm somewhat impressed by myself listening to at the moment.
but, the second - incomplete and unreleased - section sounds like al di meola jamming with the aphex twin, and that's a better way to describe the overall intent.
this might end up as a tetris release and is probably the end of period 3.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-crash
this is the introduction of a symphony i started at the end of 2006 and have since placed on indefinite hold.
this introduction is very noisy, and i'm somewhat impressed by myself listening to at the moment.
but, the second - incomplete and unreleased - section sounds like al di meola jamming with the aphex twin, and that's a better way to describe the overall intent.
this might end up as a tetris release and is probably the end of period 3.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-crash
inri093
inri088?
this is the upcoming ninth album. disc 1 is the first two tracks, disc two is the second two.
for now, just fast forward through the three minutes of silence. the lost symphony will be the fourth track; to an extent, xenophanes is just the introduction to it.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/e
this is the upcoming ninth album. disc 1 is the first two tracks, disc two is the second two.
for now, just fast forward through the three minutes of silence. the lost symphony will be the fourth track; to an extent, xenophanes is just the introduction to it.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/e
inri092
inri087?
this extended ep will be a comprehensive exploration of all of the versions of this recording. i've never been fully certain if this recording is done or not, but i'll have to decide sooner than later.
for now, here is the newest version that exists, which is instrumental (there are vocals.) and from early 2007.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/xenophanes
this extended ep will be a comprehensive exploration of all of the versions of this recording. i've never been fully certain if this recording is done or not, but i'll have to decide sooner than later.
for now, here is the newest version that exists, which is instrumental (there are vocals.) and from early 2007.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/xenophanes
inri097
inri086?
these are actually rock songs, albeit weird ones. i was shopping them around in the mid-00s, and nobody bit. we'll have a compilation demo up here as i found it, but i'm also going to need to actually finish them up.
i didn't want this to be a studio project, but what do you want me to tell you? i can't find anybody to jam with...and i've been looking for twenty years....
the cd-r from 2005 that i have consists of the first eight tracks, and i'm going to publish it that way, as is. i was considering adding a ninth track that i cut at some point, but decided against it - this will come up elsewhere. there is also a tenth demo in this collection that was dismantled into different tracks, and will eventually come up as a part of a similar collection dated to mid-2004.
there are two different types of tracks in this collection. some of these tracks will be worked into the trivial group or proverbs symphonies, whereas others will need to be completed as standalones in the 2004-2005 space, depending on where i think they best fit.
see, i'm tempted to label this proverbs, but don't actually want to. the tracks that weren't put aside for it don't have vocals. but, they weren't supposed to be trivial group, they were supposed to be a band project. i was using the pseudonym "whore to culture" for a little bit, but, in hindsight, i don't really like it - and i never finished anything under the label. i think that was mostly xenophanes, which is definitely trivial group, now.
on the other hand, were any of the trivial group tracks intended to be studio projects? no...they just all ended up that way...so that's less a difference and more a commonality...
and, are these tracks that different than trivial group? not in the form they're in. if i were to just play the trivial group tracks on guitar, they'd be sort of similar, wouldn't they?
in fact, i could conceivably expand this collection by isolating some of the other guitar tracks in the other trivial group stuff, but i don't want to do that, either. i mean, i could take the style way back - this isn't my first demonstration of impressionist jazz punk. i may consider creating a second companion disc that just has the guitar parts from all of the trivial group material, but i want to leave this specific disc exactly as it is, which is exactly as i found it.
these specific tracks were written at various points between 2003-2005 and performed via a line-in directly into my soundcard, with no effects, in my apartment on prince of wales in ottawa on august 21, 2005. a handful of cds were then burned, and left out randomly at various places around town where i hoped a drummer would find them. ripped back to digital on april 12, 2014. uploaded and published without further modification on sept 19, 2019. as always, please use headphones.
cover art by sarah.
these are actually rock songs, albeit weird ones. i was shopping them around in the mid-00s, and nobody bit. we'll have a compilation demo up here as i found it, but i'm also going to need to actually finish them up.
i didn't want this to be a studio project, but what do you want me to tell you? i can't find anybody to jam with...and i've been looking for twenty years....
the cd-r from 2005 that i have consists of the first eight tracks, and i'm going to publish it that way, as is. i was considering adding a ninth track that i cut at some point, but decided against it - this will come up elsewhere. there is also a tenth demo in this collection that was dismantled into different tracks, and will eventually come up as a part of a similar collection dated to mid-2004.
there are two different types of tracks in this collection. some of these tracks will be worked into the trivial group or proverbs symphonies, whereas others will need to be completed as standalones in the 2004-2005 space, depending on where i think they best fit.
see, i'm tempted to label this proverbs, but don't actually want to. the tracks that weren't put aside for it don't have vocals. but, they weren't supposed to be trivial group, they were supposed to be a band project. i was using the pseudonym "whore to culture" for a little bit, but, in hindsight, i don't really like it - and i never finished anything under the label. i think that was mostly xenophanes, which is definitely trivial group, now.
on the other hand, were any of the trivial group tracks intended to be studio projects? no...they just all ended up that way...so that's less a difference and more a commonality...
and, are these tracks that different than trivial group? not in the form they're in. if i were to just play the trivial group tracks on guitar, they'd be sort of similar, wouldn't they?
in fact, i could conceivably expand this collection by isolating some of the other guitar tracks in the other trivial group stuff, but i don't want to do that, either. i mean, i could take the style way back - this isn't my first demonstration of impressionist jazz punk. i may consider creating a second companion disc that just has the guitar parts from all of the trivial group material, but i want to leave this specific disc exactly as it is, which is exactly as i found it.
these specific tracks were written at various points between 2003-2005 and performed via a line-in directly into my soundcard, with no effects, in my apartment on prince of wales in ottawa on august 21, 2005. a handful of cds were then burned, and left out randomly at various places around town where i hoped a drummer would find them. ripped back to digital on april 12, 2014. uploaded and published without further modification on sept 19, 2019. as always, please use headphones.
cover art by sarah.
credits
released August 21, 2005
j - guitar
j - guitar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)