as others have stated, this is a demonstration of patriarchy rather than a refutation of it.
the response driving a male to "protect" an abused female is itself a controlling response. men will step in under the hopes that they can take control of a submissive female. there's no such drive to protect a male (that is competition) from a dominant female.
the error underlying the experiment is the assumption that people are stepping in to "help" out of altruism, rather than to further their own aims.
the guy they picked was a little scrawny - small enough that he could be easily beat down and "his" girl could be "stolen" from him with little effort. do it again with a bigger, more alpha dude and you'll see a different response.
i got a third coat in today, then ran out of caulk. it *looks* like it could use another coat, but, putting my hand up against it, i no longer feel a draft. so i'm content to leave it like that, but the truth is that i don't really know if it's enough. i'll check again tonight when the temperature comes down a bit, but it really seems tight. clearly, the gap was pretty deep to need three coats and still look like it needs more. but i think you can take your caulking gun back when you want.
j
Sunday, September 28, 2014
the pacific ring of fire is very active right now. earthquakes. volcanoes. there's every reason to think it's just about to explode. i'd stay away from it if you can...
that's the area up the west coast, around alaska and down the east coast of asia, through japan and indonesia.
i know i came off as unbelievably nerdy sometimes, but i did a project on plate tectonics in high school...
we know the ring of fire is connected. when stuff starts to move in one place, the whole thing shifts. an earthquake in alaska could erupt a volcano in japan, sort of thing (which appears to have just happened).
but there's been some very deep earthquakes and some volcanic activity recently in some dead volcanoes, indicating that the activity is pretty substantial and could produce some very large shocks - both in terms of the ground moving and in terms of volcanoes coming up. so, not a good place to be right now...
not only is that a bad tackle, it's an illegal tackle. way too high. that's 15 yards...
deathtokoalas
this is fake, that dog's been trained. even if it was used to having the door closed when it appeared at it, it would have pawed.
that's what the treat on the floor is for...
xwinger15
are you an alien?
deathtokoalas
hard to say. sort of, but it's not quite the language i'd use.
Thiwakorn F.
It seems the dog has been trained. Not for playing fake door, I think. But for it to wait until someone give permission to enter the house.
deathtokoalas
it was given permission to enter the house - it's being called. the little spin around stuff indicates there's more than that going on.
dogs do tend to spin around like that and look up towards the handle when somebody comes to the door. but i remain convinced this is not spontaneous, and rather the result of weeks of training.
EvilWiffles
If you look closely at 1:02 you can clearly see Illuminati trying to communicate to doggy.
deathtokoalas
dogs are pretty smart. this wouldn't be difficult...
Zakk
Mmmmm yes I saw that. Good eye...maybe to good...ILLUMINATI!
RedcapCreations
Holy crap your profile picture scares me! D: Looks like you were half way through an exorcism! D: D: D:
deathtokoalas
i was a little hungover, and not drinking nearly enough for it to be an exorcism...
Rebekah
The dog was trained to ignore the command to come?
deathtokoalas
until he waved his wand, yeah.
it didn't go to the person calling, it picked up the treat and walked off.
Cheesy Ben
IRRUMINATI HAS TRAINED DOGS
deathtokoalas
if this was an illuminati dog, it would have triangulated rather than circled.
Cheesy Ben
ze irruminati is everywhere
deathtokoalas
perhaps, but it is easy to identify. this dog can't even talk, it's clearly not possessed...
again: that's obviously a syrian military installation...
who are these people, and why should i care?
this is a different angle i hadn't previously heard articulated, but it's a good reminder about class. but, you'll note that the israelis were more interested in dumping the chicken in gaza than in using gaza to produce the chicken. that's simply not a system of apartheid. reducing crop yields like that isn't about competition, either, it's about starvation.
i think the reason people have such a hard time understanding that the israeli policy is extermination is due to how ghastly it is. even with so much evidence directly in front of so many experts, few seem to be willing to take that leap and see it for what it really is.
i've been pushing this point for a while - what's happening there is a slow motion genocide, and there are time frames involved in stopping it that are starting to run out.
i'm not going to suggest that he doesn't get it because his statements suggest he clearly does, but there seems to be a level of cognitive dissonance and sort of wilful blindness in how he's interpreting the situation. he clearly realizes that we're in a fight with the bacteria, but he seems to want to think it's a fight we can win.
the bacteria is going to evolve. the question is how fast it's going to evolve. there's a sort of logical error attached to the idea that more antibiotic use creates more resistant bacteria. in fact, the mutations are going to be random. reducing use certainly isn't going to stop the bacteria from evolving altogether, and it's really questionable that it's going to reduce it's rate of evolution. it's about random mutations, not lamarckian adjustments. i'm not accusing him of lamarckianism exactly (and somebody will throw the epigenetics at me, anyways), but the point is valid - it's not really established that reducing use is actually going to help.
now, how do you create antibiotics for bacteria that hasn't evolved to be resistant yet? it's impossible.
fighting bacteria is a dynamic problem, and we're going to have to constantly adjust for it for....ever, basically. the bacteria will win a few rounds, too. such is life in a constantly changing, evolutionary system.
i'll say this, though: i'd rather see a war against bacteria than a war against drugs (eek.) or a war against terrorism.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
see, what you don't realize is that they're trying to avoid being photographed in the "seig heil" position...
deathtokoalas
he should really have to pay twice the busfare if he's going to take up twice the space.
as it is, he paid for one seat and is consequently required to give the seat up to whomever requests it.
it's a nice try, but it's ultimately just yet another mra fail...
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
it's first come, first serve. she paid, so she's entitled to the seat - so long as somebody else hasn't claimed it first.
there are a lot of larger people on the bus that are going to require multiple seats, and they should be paying for as many seats as they take up, as well. i don't really see what difference it makes if it's somebody's baggage or somebody's ass.
nor do i think the "social upheaval" here warrants any kind of punishment other than a stern talking to. it's clear that the guy doesn't at all understand that she is in fact entitled to a seat - and not due to her gender but because she paid for one.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
i wouldn't expect a judge to accept that argument. sorry.
Art V
As a 5'1 368 lb Strong Beautiful Woman, I find it highly offensive that you feel someone should pay twice as much if they take up twice the space. I am sick and tired of the media and "skinny is beautiful" lobbyists who feel the need to spread their fatphobic logic and hatred online by saying things like this...
Shane
Skinny is not beautiful but neither is fat. Are you healthy? Does the doctor say your are in good health? Honestly? You can be whatever weight you want and I hope you are happy but you cannot say that being 368lbs is healthy.
deathtokoalas
it's not a question of media images, it's just a fact that you need two seats.
can you provide me with a rational argument as to why you shouldn't pay for two seats if you actually require two seats?
fwiw, your offense is of no concern to me and will not have any effect on my opinions or the way i express them. if you're just going to complain that you're offended, and that's the extent of your argument, then you can kindly fuck off.
i just want to give an update on the roach situation because it's the end of the summer and proper communication on the subject is a lease obligation on my behalf.
i guess it would have been the end of may or the beginning of june that i blocked the holes up and did a significant amount of spraying around areas that i thought they might be considering nesting. as mentioned, i didn't ever get the impression the nest was in the apartment, but that they were coming through holes in the wall from somewhere else. the concern was to stop them from nesting. i have not seen an adult roach in the apartment since the beginning of june, so this has been mostly successful.
i think what i did eliminated everything except any possible egg populations, which i couldn't get at (there may have been some deep under the sink) and which the spray would not be effective against. so, the concern was that they would repopulate as they hatch,
however, that doesn't seem to have happened. i've seen a handful of baby roaches in odd places that probably were hatched in the apartment, but they've mostly been found dead.
i also noticed a spike in the centipede population after i sprayed, but this is probably a function of them coming out looking for food. when you see a lot of centipedes, it means you probably have roaches near by; certainly, there is a source of insects for them to eat. that also indicates that the roach population was dwindling or gone. note that the centipedes will also eat the egg sacs. based on what i can observe, it seems like they may have gotten almost all of them.
the next thing i noticed was that the spiders started disappearing. i'd rather have a few spiders near the windows than flies floating around, so i prefer not to kill them, but the centipedes must have been eating the spiders. now i've got more flies than i'd like, but hopefully the spiders come back...
the centipedes then mostly disappeared altogether, indicating the food source had been exhausted.
it's still too early to declare them gone. i think they must be around somewhere, not too far from here, but they don't seem to be present in the apartment right now.
we'll find out in the next few weeks if they have another entry point, as the temperature begins to fall and they seek refuge indoors for the winter.
j
another staged attack will not work. it will immediately produce a violent backlash.
in fact, an *actual* attack would probably be rejected as staged at this point.
not only is this not necessary, it's going to be ineffective. a total waste...
the state needs to be working on ways to regain the trust of the population, at this point.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Rebekah Summa
For anybody disagreeing with abortion...a child is a CHILD from the day it is conceived. A heartbeat can be seen within THREE weeks of the child being conceived. For saying the child is "not really a child" is false. Because it is. Finish this sentence.."it is okay to kill a baby in the womb when....." Ya there is no answer. For anybody saying "what about rape". Why would you punish an unborn child because of one mans fault? The rapist already hurt the mother and if you have an abortion you are hurting another human too (the child conceived) abortion needs to be thought about and changed. It should not be "a woman's right" to kill a child.
Jimmy P
i dont think you meant to type what you did about the rape thing.. oh? you did? well then some people are just dumb :p
deathtokoalas
it is okay to kill a baby in the womb when the mother decides she doesn't want it in her body anymore.
easy.
Helena Jade
But shouldn't a woman be able to decide what she wants to do with HER BODY? If she doesn't have the money to support, or the baby is causing complications with her body, or the baby is cause by rape, she should be able to make her own decision considering it will be her body the baby will be growing in for the next 9 months. Whether to terminate or not? No one should decide something like that for you. That is a personal matter between the parents and most importantly the woman carrying.
gianna bruno
deathtokolas you are wrong. Everyone is agrees with abortion is wrong
TheNicoleDB
no...not everyone agrees that abortion is wrong because it isn't lmao
deathtokoalas
wrong in what sense, exactly? i don't think it's wrong at all, so you're going to have to make your case for me.
i'll even give you a humongous concession: i'll agree that life begins at the point of conception. now, this isn't a religious argument, it's to do with dna. if we acknowledge that what we are, biologically, as individuals is our unique genetic make-up, it follows that we begin our existence at the point that a new genetic combination is determined. so, sure life begins at conception: it's at that precise point that we become distinct individuals.
however, getting from that point to the point that abortion is "wrong" requires a lot of leaps that rely on some level of faith.
so, go for it. lay it out. explain to me why abortion is wrong. let's see how far you can get before i stop jumping with you and reject an opinion....
it's about being a front for data collection. if you don't use your real name, it's very difficult for intelligence services to cross-link your files together.
deathtokoalas
no, this is bullshit. he went into the car to get his license on request, gets shot, then the cop says he told him to get out of the car. this is just a dumb cop that needs to find a new career.
datapro007
How about inmate?
deathtokoalas
i think it's stupidity, not malice.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
he's more of a menace to society being taken care of for 50K/year in a for-profit prison than he is struggling to pay his rent by flipping burgers at mcdonalds...
he should be banned from operating firearms, i'd argue permanently. if an underlying condition can be established, it would probably also require that his license be revoked. that's likely enough to prevent him from harming people as a consequence of his stupidity in the future.
(deleted responses)
deathtokoalas
i'm getting some weird responses, so i just want to clarify my position.
the problem with coming down on him really hard is that it doesn't accomplish anything except make you feel better about yourself. it doesn't make anybody safer. it doesn't deter future behaviour. it doesn't rehabilitate the offender. it's just an act of vengeance - nothing more.
the law reacts differently when the person shooting is a cop compared to when the person being shot is one. that's an easily explained consequence of a hierarchical system. the solution is not to clamp down on the cops, but to ease up on the hierarchy.
you can't get to fairness and freedom by constructing deeper systems of tyranny. it's just the wrong approach.
with this guy, particularly? he's not evil, he's just stupid.
in terms of liability, he should clearly be responsible for medical costs. there's no logical connection between his action and any other punishment.
it's just barbarism to carry out acts of vengeance like that.
Marques
I hear you, but I definitely disagree. You can't say that putting him in jail would not deter future shootings by police. That might be an opinion, but I'm sure there is no empirical evidence to back that claim up. And like it or not, our entire judicial system is based on "vengeance ". Otherwise, why have any consequences at all? now I still see some logic in what you think should happen, I just also think it should be in tandem with Penal consequences.
If you truly in your heart believe that this police officer should not serve any time over shooting and damn near killing this man, then I'd like to know what you think is a "jailable "offense? If a man walked down the street next to you right now and opened your head up with a crowbar, would you be okay with him just paying for your medical expenses? Or would you expect him to have to suffer some sort of consequences for negatively impacting your life?
deathtokoalas
i don't think the community has the right to impose "punishments" on people as a "consequence" of their behaviour. that's a type of moral absolutism that i'd consider to be very primitive thinking and should be abolished along with the religions that it comes from. part of being an atheist is rejecting moral absolutism.
i do think that the community has the right to protect itself. somebody randomly bashing me with a crowbar - cop or not - is an indication of mental illness. really, that's the dominant characteristic - i think we have the right to remove crazy people from society so they can't hurt us.
but, i don't get the impression that the cop in the video is a threat to repeat, and i consequently don't see any reason he needs to be removed for protective purposes.
else3573
Are you insane? By the way, yes, he had 5 prior complaints against him. But you think people should just be allowed to shoot someone and not serve time for it? Wow, I guarantee if it was your mother, father, brother, etc shot you'd feel different.
deathtokoalas
i know it's difficult to get beyond the idea of thinking that society has the right to punish people. but, it's a function of statist, hierarchical thinking and the religious brainwashing that upholds that system. once you're able to remove yourself from the mental limitations of religious type thinking, you'll understand that neither you, nor society, nor a church, nor any other institution acting on behalf of any other imaginary entity or contrived moral system has any prerogative whatsoever to impose punishments on any other living creature. there's just no way to arrive at this point without reconstructing the religion.
however, as mentioned, i do believe that society has a right to protect itself. if this individual has five prior issues, that is valid information to be used in determining his mental health. and, if it's determined that he's not of sound mental health then society has a right to institutionalize him for it's protection.
that's not the same thing as punishing him.
i might clarify that mental health issues are generally not resolvable, and consequently ought to come with a life sentence rather than a prison term.
however, it's also a medical condition and consequently ought to come with a level of humane treatment.
LOLO Tom Cat
I'd like to know what is protocol when pulling over someone who has clearly existed their vehicle before police has made a complete stop. I don't hear any siren or any reflections from the police lights so I'm assuming he may have just been trailing him into that gas station without actually stopping him or pulling him over. Instead of asking him for his Driver's License to run in the computer, he should have told him to not to move and tried to establish some sort of dialogue which hopefully would have put both parties on the same page. Not openly shoot at someone for going into their car at this point, it seems like your gun is already out and ready to fire once he existed his car. Why not then tell him to FREEZE?
it looks like a game on the surface, but it's really a struggle for placement in the school's social hierarchy.
deathtokoalas
hrmmmn.
maybe you shouldn't sell guns at walmart?
the cops overreacted, but this is the kind of thing you use to argue we shouldn't have cops at all (which i'd argue) rather than the kind of thing you use to argue for more training. that's a judgement call. it's a bad judgement call, but it's not a training issue and it can't really be dealt with without pumping cops full of hormones. had that one cop called in sick that day or something, things would have turned out entirely differently.
it's really difficult for me to try and get my head around the open carry argument. i don't tend to have much empathy for cops, but policing in an open carry state's gotta be a very stressful job. this is one of those points where i need to step back and say "i'm canadian. i just don't get this.".
but putting the guns behind a counter or something, where they're watched and controlled, would eliminate this sort of ambiguity - you'd know when customers have store guns and you'd know when somebody doesn't have a store gun.
Ron Allen
Well yes, for REAL guns, they are sold from BEHIND the counter & a clerk has to unlock them from the case, but most every where I have shopped, BB or AIR rifles/guns are usually out of the shelf & can be carried to the counter to buy. They usually have 1 or 2 open for DISPLAY, so all the boxes won't be opened.
deathtokoalas
yeah. so, that's not a very good idea, is it?
the reasoning is the big brother intelligence services, and it is frightening. how can they cross-link your facebook, google, security and tax files if they don't know your government name?
it's about being a front for data collection. if you don't use your real name, it's very difficult for intelligence services to cross-link your files together.
deathtokoalas
you can't stop them. if the court stops them, they won't stop. if you vote them out, they won't stop. if we have a revolution, the new government will continue. so long as we have governments and we have technology, government will use that technology to spy on you.
that doesn't mean you should be complacent, or feel safe in the understanding that you're not carrying out crimes. what it means is that you should be vigilant in ensuring your privacy by taking personal action to protect it.
this idea that you can trust the government is pure idiocy. the laws have never been respected, they're just meaningless abstractions. so, stop being naive in thinking that the laws of the country mean anything at all and start taking greater control over your data.
the legal literature refers to this ridiculous idea that the government cares about it's own laws as "the rule of law" and claims our society is rooted in it.
an empirical analysis of western/european history since at least the industrial revolution suggests the exact opposite. our governments seem to have no respect for the "rule of law" at all, and essentially do whatever they want.
the idea that we have or can gain oversight over the state - and especially the deep state - is a lie. you can continue to believe these lies that keep the state in place, or you can reject them and adjust your existence to the reality - which is that the intelligence agencies in our culture are not subject to meaningful regulation or oversight.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
what you can do is force them to be more secretive about how they do things.
running through these comments, i'm led to believe that people are a little bit confused. a common response seems to be:
"well, he made a few moves on her, and she said no. what's wrong with that? she can't just say she was harassed."
it's the making the moves part that is the harassment.
most of you don't seem to even understand that.
you need to ask somebody before you go grabbing their body parts or grabbing their hands at all, let alone move them to a part on your own body. if you don't ask, that's called harassment.
now, when you know somebody a really long time, those formalities might be a little less entrenched. that's when trust and intent become more important than formal requests.
but the idea that you can just grab somebody that you've known for a mere couple of hours without asking is entirely preposterous. this is the underlying patriarchal entitlement that feminists speak of, and it's all going directly over your heads without so much as a phantasmic smidgeon of evidence that it's remotely grasped.
it's a cropped, generated background - this could have been filmed anywhere. but, given that the guy has a british accent, it's reasonable to guess that it was filmed in london.
that's obviously a syrian government outpost. the building looks at least 100 years old - it was clearly not recently erected by isis fighters, but was taken over by them. so, this is merely evidence that the united states is, in fact, targeting syrian military targets.
today is a listening day and i heard something i didn't like.
these songs were created in mono, and i didn't see any reason to convert them to stereo; i actually thought the mono sound added a bit of a charm to it. they played through both channels in cool edit, on youtube and on bandcamp, but i just got the annoying left-ear thing through the downloaded flac, so i converted them to stereo for the upload.
it won't sound any different through the streaming. maybe there's a slight loss of character in moving from the original to the mono, but i think the ability to play it on modern equipment is more important.
i want to see how much of the main track of inri030 that i can salvage for the j-squared part, but i believe the vocals are inseparable from the bass, permanently placing the track in rabit. i may have a trick or two.
the next project is that choir.
i don't expect a track to cost me as much time as this did for quit a ways, looking forward. the pace of uploads is going to increase quite a bit.
--
this track represents somewhat of a refocus, but it never found itself to fruition in the way it was meant to.
over the summer of 2001, a friend of a friend decided he wanted to start
a band and asked me to play bass. now, we didn't really have a lot in
common besides both being musicians. i was spiralling out into obscure
independent music, and he was into all the mainstream rock bands. 2001
was the point where grunge was losing it's last bit of mainstream
potential, and giving way to nu metal and various watered down,
corporatized offshoots of hardcore. so, i was sitting around listening
to tortoise and writing jazz compositions and he was sitting around
listening to limp bizkit and writing mtv/radio rock. how could this
legitimately work?
there was a small amount of overlap, centred mostly around tool. it so
happened to be that tool had just released a new record, we were both
listening to it and neither of us really had anybody else to talk to
about it. so, something formed out of that.
now, when you're an isolated twenty year old that's never been lucky
enough to meet another musician you can start a band with, you take what
you can get. it seemed implausible that it was going anywhere, but
wasn't that the case for every other band that ever went anywhere when
they first started off? i don't think either of us thought we were
natural creative partners, but we had a set of common goals and if we
could put aside our differences...
see, the thing is i knew that the only way anything was going to happen
is if i sat down and recorded a bunch of stuff. but, i also knew that
this is a guy that defines himself in terms of his oversized ego and
that the whole purpose of it from his perspective was to give himself a
way to explore it. that's not the worst trait to have if you want to
start a band, either. my overwhelmingly shy introversion hasn't exactly
got me filling stadiums, has it? nor is it ever going to, and i realized
it even at that stage. so, a natural role would be for me to play the
producer (along with the bass guitar) while he throws some stuff at me.
if that meant i'd be doing 90% of the actual recording, that would be
ok, but i realized i had to let him provide the actual song structures
or he'd storm off and pout about it.
so, i waited for him to provide some material. and waited. eventually it
became clear that he didn't actually have any serious songs. we did a
few demos, but he could barely play what he was trying to demo and the
tracks were not of a gigging quality level.
in the mean time, he'd recruited a guitarist. he kept saying he was
talking to a drummer (no drummer ever appeared), and he also recruited
another friend of a friend as a singer. so, we had what seemed like a
full band, if you include the imaginary drummer. what i saw was an
opportunity. if he wasn't going to write some songs, i guess i'd have
to...
the other guitarist almost immediately dropped out, and the whole
project really fell apart rather quickly when the guy that initiated the
whole thing stopped showing up to practice. it was several weeks in a
row that only the singer and i showed up. i had a few songs i had
written, so we started working on those instead and that became rabit is
wolf. predictably, there was much pouting.
that leaves this particular song in an isolated limbo. when it was reworked for rabit is wolf (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-day-i-saw-you-cry
), it took on the epic and experimental nature i was exploring at the
time and lost the crux of itself as a stadium rock song. i feel
something valuable was lost in this process, if for no other reason that
this is so dramatically different than anything else i was doing at the
time.
thankfully, i still have the original drum files, and i remember how to
play the guitar part, so it's simply a process of recreating it. the raw
mix sounds exactly as the track did in 2001. the complete mix takes it
to it's final conclusion.
written in the summer of 2001. remembered over july, 2014. completed august-september, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
credits
j - drum programming, orchestral sequencing,
guitars, effects, synths, electric bass guitar, digital wave editing,
sampling, loops, equalization, vocals (5), production
the rendered electronic orchestra includes tuba, saxophone, flute,
clarinet, orchestra hit, piano, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and
various full string sections.
so, what's the problem with feminism, then? why is it so unpopular?
i think it's partly a branding issue that cuts to something in the core of the word. it's an "ism". all the "isms" are bad, because all the "isms" are bad. so, what is the way this ism is bad? well, it's femin-ism, so it therefore must unfairly promote "femin" at the expense of it's opposite, which is....hey, wait a minute! i'm all for equality, but what's with this "ism" against it? and who supports that ism? we should stop them before it spreads...
as asinine as this deconstruction is, it's comedy is in it's rough accuracy.
maybe, it's actually not such a bad point. i mean, you don't speak of "black-ism" when you want to speak of racial equality, and for good reason - that would scare some people. maybe the valid point is that the language is less than ideal; maybe re-branding feminism as gender equality would be a good move in continuing progress on the underlying ideals. it's what feminism actually argues for, anyway.
i think it's partly a cultural issue, but this speaks of something broader in the continuing divide between urban and rural cultures in north america. i think it's important to have a healthy level of respect for those cultural differences, up to the point of reaching out to people limited by restrictions put in place by cultural requirements. i'm trying to avoid making that point, actually - it's cursory. the point is there's a need to minimize the fear that comes with great change and foster more organic points of development through cultural sharing. you can't force cultural change on resistant populations - this is well-established. and, there are resistant populations. you have to slowly convince them that the cultural change is worthwhile. carefully. pushing them too hard in the wrong way may produce a reaction against the proposed change. i think this is a factor in the existing resistance.
most people in modern urban environments do want legitimate equality, though. maybe it's time to cede a few trivial points in order to not lose track of the more important ones.
first things first, let's get the factories automated.
deathtokoalas
they're not articulating themselves well, but there is a strain of environmental politics that argues that reconstructing the hierarchical relationships of ownership to a more local-based command structure is the most promising approach in reducing the harmful effects of industry in general, not just reducing carbon emissions. the logic is that the people that live in the community will have a greater level of interest (and, wait, is this basically a property rights argument? from me? never....) in maintaining the health of the community than some disconnected board hundreds or thousands of miles away. it sure sounds like a more effective idea than carbon trading to me...
ultimately, i guess the important thing to realize is that these people aren't idiots in any reflective sense of their politics, but in the reflective sense of their nationality. this is the face of america today, regardless of where the meeting is on the political spectrum.
ukraine can't seriously fight with the russians. but, if the fighting goes on long enough, that's going to happen. then, you've got russian tanks in kiev and a really serious problem.
it's a late embrace of sanity in what was truly a reckless and outright criminal policy. if ukraine does not stop provoking it's much more powerful neighbour, it will soon cease to exist. what sort of delusion underlies the desire to keep fighting because the russians have invaded? that's a level of self-righteousness that's really hard to grasp. if this holds (and i do not think it will), it merely exposes how insane the idea of using force was in the first place.
was it pointless?
yes.
it was idiotic.
actually, she gets it in ways that a long of younger feminists seem not to. she's drawing attention to the structural concerns regarding the origins of the culture. "when men don't feel the need to control anymore...". meaning when men aren't taught to control anymore. that's the money statement, what you want to hear out of a speech like this.
easier analyzed than corrected, mind you, and it's not clear if the campaign's initiatives are working on that level. but this is a bit refreshing to hear in the sea of confused messaging...
dunno what's up with that edmund burke quote, though, she could have picked somebody else to express the sentiment. not sure i'm approving of that.
see, i'm actually kind of partial to the observers > actors argument. it's an old argument, and not particularly aligned with the culture we live in, but it just makes it more important to argue for it. i'm not going to argue against participating if you really insist, but i have my reasons for preferring to sit back, watch and analyze.
so, part 2 ended up being a bit more minimalist than i was initially thinking, but i think it's the better way to get the idea across. the busier piano part didn't really segue well, it just sounded kind of hokey. maybe it's 'cause i'm sick right now, but this really feels like the right way to end it.
the reprise is quite large and may take a few days, but it's actually very much rooted in a monotonous sort of minimalism so it's not going to be nearly as ridiculous to build up. i spent two months on this. if you take a flip through the page, you'll see it was actually quite a struggle: broken guitars, fighting with headphones, sequencing strings, etc. but it's done...
bandcamp offers high quality downloads (not yet for this track, after the reprise - i don't do single tracks, full album dls only) but compresses a little on playback. try to boost the bass just a tad to compensate.
written in the summer of 2001. remembered over july, 2014. completed august-september, 2014.
deathtokoalas
"if guys worried about the things that sexist guys incorrectly perceive that women worry about."
this might apply very loosely to very badly sheltered 12-13 year olds in two or three counties in the bible belt...
these videos do more to perpetuate really, really bad stereotypes than they do to function as some kind of role reversal.
it's just another example of how blatant sexist idiocy routinely masquerades as feminism nowadays.
most young women do not talk to each other as though they're mindless puppets of enforced systemic patriarchy, and the male-projected fantasy that they do is precisely the sexist bullshit that upholds that patriarchy.
i would encourage buzzfeed to hire some female writers and correct this skit to properly reflect the kind of modern, emancipated discussions that women actually have with each other on this topic - not a script written by some balding 50 year-old university prof that thinks he understands women from analyzing freud.
MelancholicRomance
You go girl! :)
Privacy Pl0x
hahaha! well said. xD I think these videos are over exaggerated on purpose in order to be more entertaining and offensive. anything that's annoying draws attention somehow, otherwise how could it be annoying?
don't listen to the dog fascists. i watched my sister try and "train" a dog like that, and by the end of it the dog completely ignored her - because all she ever did was yell at it. it was a very affectionate, friendly lab that learned quickly and always listened to everybody else. it didn't need discipline, it simply needed positive reinforcement.
your dog is a companion, not a slave. you don't want it to be obedient, you want it to be empathetic. it will respond far better to affection than to discipline...
now, that dog, right there, is actually telling it's cohabitant that it doesn't want to go home at all. it wants to make the creek it's new home. as an independently thinking entity, it has every right to express that desire and should not be punished or disciplined for it. to the contrary, it's the dog's cohabitant that has the responsibility to convince the dog to come home - and leave it if it insists on staying.
a little walk towards the car would have brought the dog running....
well, we don't know what she was doing there, she could have fucked up and corrected it. not proof.
but, of course it was rigged. i'll tell you the mistake they made, though: they made the numbers too obvious. 55% is unbelievably high, given recent polling. when they rigged the quebec vote in canada, they made it a lot closer. most people didn't even suspect it. that's the way you have to do it if you want to get away with it...
i don't expect scots to put on their tartans and warpaint and head down from the highlands for battle. in fact, i'd argue they're much better off in the uk...
...but of course it was rigged. they're all rigged...
deathtokoalas
more cynical politicking from the obama administration....
expect a lot of empty statements and stale rhetoric - with absolutely no meaningful action.
i hope he proves me wrong, though.
in fact, i dare him to.
convince me there's something to this...
yeah. i just took a look at the report and it's focusing on four things.
1) ending "extreme behaviour". i'm going to sidestep the debate: abstinence-based approaches are usually unsuccessful. but there's an analog to "safe(r) sex" that should be pushed hard through public education. it has to be stated though that this is kind of making the error of connecting rape to drinking, which is a false one. and, despite the rhetoric, it's dangerously close to the right-wing perspective. kids are going to get drunk, but, before they do, they should know things they need to do to be safe when they're drunk.
2) bystander prevention. this is messy. the supreme court has continually rejected this kind of thinking. when it's possible, sure, but it's going to be difficult to shift the legal system to assign that kind of responsibility to people - because it's been explicitly rejected. repeatedly. it's also ignoring the facts, which are that rapes usually happen in situations of trust without bystanders. this is really just rhetoric.
3) the psas. these strike me as useless for any purpose other than party messaging.
4) increased funding for crisis centres - which is needed, and probably the most substantial part of this. but it doesn't address the problem or take steps to prevent it.
i don't really know what the white house can do, besides aggressively push the "safe drinking" perspective and try to foster a level of peer pressure coercion against rape. i could argue it's not a total solution, but who would ever think that it is? there's such a complex interplay between defining culture from the top down and erecting it from the bottom up that it's hard to predict how successful it could or might be.
i'm skeptical. but i think it has to be stated that it has to be tried to determine if it's mostly successful and requires minor adjustments (which will become more clear if it is mostly successful), partially successful and require major adjustments or not successful at all. but i'm leaning towards the middle option as a best case.
we'll have to see how the money gets spent when it's in the hands of university administrators. that's probably going to be a defining point. so, if you're in a university, here's your chance to get involved and make sure they don't fuck it up....
the culture of male dominance is something that starts in the home, when boys are very young. often, mothers do as much to foster it as fathers do. every aspect of our culture enforces, upholds and shapes it. you get all this warped thinking about entitlement and ownership in men, and equally warped thinking about submission to dominance in women. that's really at the root of the problem. these are all band-aid solutions rooted in a confused understanding of the issue, and a bit of warped logic regarding what drives people...
i should note the "extreme behaviour" part wasn't in the report, but was an approach suggested by a third party. i initially misread that.
V Whitaker
Exactly!
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
i don't delete all of the comments that disagree with me, and the ones i do delete are not deleted due to disagreement. i merely expect a respectful level of discourse, and a moderate level of understanding of the topic at hand. note that a lot of the missing comments in threads i'm involved with are actually removed due to account deletion, as when a participant shuts down their account, their responses disappear. of the posts i have deleted, they fit one or more of the following characteristics:
1) a personal insult. even if you provide a long argument, an insult will get you blocked. i have a zero tolerance policy. if you will not conform to that, i am not interested in debating with you.
2) oppressive bullshit. again, i don't care about the rest of the argument. if there's racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit in there, it's gone. i won't tolerate this.
3) stupidity. it happens a lot, actually. i don't suffer idiots well, i'm sorry, and i don't feel obligated to reply to or engage with everybody that decides to reply to one of my comments. i've blocked people that agree with me because they're using bad technique. that just comes down to a personal choice to avoid certain people.
i'm not a politician, i'm a reclusive artist. i hate almost everybody. i have no prerogative towards or interest in building coalitions of people. it's really of no concern to me if you're blocked or not.
but if you don't want me to block you, simply don't insult me or reply to my posts with oppressive bullshit.....and try not to sound like you flunked out of grade school.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
you know, i didn't know that the building in odessa was a labour building.
that was not reported. anywhere.
deathtokoalas
it's not a happy reality, but we don't live in the kind of judeo-christian fantasy reality projected by the garden of eden or in disney cartoons. cougars are not our friends. they want to eat us. that puts us in a mortal struggle with them, one that must end with either their demise or ours.
with cougars - and lions and tigers and crocodiles - the only interaction that we can have with them is "kill or be killed". there is no possibility of peaceful co-existence. we will consequently drive them to extinction. this is natural and unavoidable.
Terri
I don't get this "pop culture" thing with the "mortal struggle"? What? Judeo-Christianity "fantasy"? From what I have gleaned: that puts us at the top of the food chain where we have "dominion" over everything, which seems to be what you are saying. Ends with our demise or theirs? What? No possibility of peaceful co-existence? Natural and unavoidable? Uuuuuh: No. Of course nature does right itself -- always -- and it seems to me there is in fact, a possibility: humans have a frontal lobe and should be using it to coexist with nature.
deathtokoalas
no. the struggle does not put as at the top of any chain, it puts us in competition with other creatures aspiring to be at the top of the food chain. systems have predators that compete with each other for dominance, and that competition ends when one creature drives the other to extinction. this is the history of evolution - dominant species eliminate less dominant species.
we can maintain this fantasy that we ought to be holding on to reserves to protect things that eat us for a small amount of time, but it's ultimately impossible to be anything more than an illusion. that's the dominion you think of - this idea that we are their protectors. but, we are not their protectors. we are their competitors.
eventually the reality asserts itself: humans and species that eat humans cannot co-exist. we must eliminate them, and we will.
there's no use in being slave to a system of morals about it. it's evolution.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
well, i stated that it's not a happy reality. i don't enjoy the idea of eliminating species. but large cats, specifically, interpret us as prey - forcing us to kill them or become their next meal. excluding the large cats, the only other species that treats us specifically as prey would be crocodiles.
cougars are shy animals, and are not as threatening to us as tigers or lions. but you have to get a grip on the amount of people that tigers and lions consume in an average year. there are large areas of india and bangladesh where humans are actually a primary prey source. it's not because we're invading their habitat, or because we're killing their natural prey - we are their natural prey, and they have evolved to eat us. it's common in some regions of africa for lions to literally walk into a village, knock the door on the hut down, grab the person inside and drag them out. deaths due to lion and tiger predation regularly run into the thousands.
it's easy to come up with other ideas, but they're rooted in a level of naivete. the governments in the areas have tried to create reserves for tigers and lions, but it doesn't have the effect of keeping them away from humans, it just gives them a safe haven in which they can prey on us. there's a real political discussion in some areas of africa right now about how the reserves are causing increases in predation, and this is only going to continue as the protection increases - if it does increase, which i must suggest it cannot.
nor can we speak of drawing these lines in the sand, a la "i love lucy" and telling the lions to stay on the other side. they will expand. they will colonize. and they will eat us...
humans are going to populate the earth. we're not going to check our population in order to allow the cats to thrive, and as we do so we are going to have no choice but to eliminate them from areas that we are inhabiting - because they will eat us if we do not.
we should not shed tears for the crocodiles, as they will only respond by eating us.
deathtokoalas
ugh. what happened to the separation of church and state?
this is absolutely terrifying.
the first amendment in the united states constitution was intended to build a "wall" between church and state. it's written the way that it is because the concern at the time was that one religion would use the state to oppress another. that is, the intent was to prevent one sect of christianity from forcing itself on another. that might seem a little alien today, but that's because it was relatively successful. the underlying idea was that the state should reflect the values of no single religious institution. as mentioned, what that meant at the time was largely in relation to different sects of christianity, but it's meaning has been correctly interpreted since then to apply equally as well to different religions. if you're writing a constitutional amendment to separate church from state for the purposes of preventing anglicans from oppressing catholics, it follows that you don't want the state to act as a vehicle for christians to oppress jews or atheists, either. there are various morons that have tried to interpret the amendment differently, but they are just that - morons - and should not be listened to. there's absolutely no ambiguity in the historical record if you read the words of the people that wrote the constitution (most of whom were deists or atheists) that the first amendment was meant to separate church and state and honest, educated christians will agree with you on that point. there's no value in entertaining arguments to the contrary, as they are necessarily disingenuous.
now, the reason this is concerning is because it is attaching a religious component to what should be a religiously neutral institution. i'm not commenting on this in a vacuum, either. the state has been carefully nurturing religious sentiment in the military since at least the second bush administration, for the purposes of creating an us v them mentality.
the end result is a lot of self-righteous people with guns, who think they're acting out god's will of manifest destiny in "american exceptionalism". it's dark age, byzantine nonsense.
toantanya
I'm sure this was done on their own time and not forced.
deathtokoalas
the military is fostering it. "forced" is not the right word to use. "coerced" is more like it.
Newb55
what are you afraid of? Marines are atheist, agnostic, etc.....if they did not want to participate, believe me they wouldn't.
deathtokoalas
religion is a very powerful tool of control that states have historically used for horrific military purposes.
(deleted reply)
deathtokoalas
again, i don't see a use in this discussion. people want to talk about jefferson's writings as though they were just some isolated, irrelevant musings. well, he's the guy that wrote the damned thing. if you want to know what he meant, you need to look at what he said. i know that religious people want to look at things in strict, literal interpretations and when you're dealing with ancient texts that come down to us with little if any commentary there may be some justification for that - i mean, what else are you going to do besides discard it as archaic? but, we have a wealth of literature from the founders, and it's not ambiguous on the topic.
if you want to get into it, you should look into the writings of some british preachers like richard price, who argued for the separation on the grounds that it would keep the church pure from statist corruption. they weren't as far removed from the reformation at the time, and understood the papal lesson of integrating the state too closely with the religion. they would have also been working on roughly lockean principles in their understanding of power as a corrupting force. all that stuff about the separation of powers is kind of meaningless if you're going to fuse the church and the executive, or the church and the military, right afterwards.
there's just absolutely no meaningful argument for this, and i'm not interested in giving space to demagogues that want to push it. so, you'd might as well just drop it.
(deleted reply) deathtokoalas
i'm more worried about them destroying everybody else. these are people that want to see the apocalypse, you have to continually remember.
"yay! it's the end of world! i'll be judged and separated from the wicked and spend eternity with god! yay!"
there's one thing i'll agree with them on: it's really hard to get them out of public life. i'm not particularly threatened by somebody hanging out in a church and talking to an imaginary friend, but that's not really what religion is.
Edward
dumb bitch. I remember when we had one of those in Bootcamp and we all participated just to get the fuck away from the Drill Instructors and im an atheist that gives no shit about god. So stop spreading your stupid bs about the government trying to fuck all of us.
deathtokoalas
no, but this is what i'm
talking about - it's not a spontaneous display of religious fervour
(from people that kill for a living), but something that's very
organized with specific brainwashing purposes. they didn't send you
there to get away from the drill sergeant, they sent you there to steal
your mind.
Michael
Fear not, Jesus loves you too!
deathtokoalas
yeah, well, if jesus loves me, maybe he can do something about his followers for me, 'cause they have a habit of freaking me the fuck out.
Terry
Zen Training at Fort Benning, Buddhist Chaplain Part:2 here you go. Enjoy your freedom. -Merica'
deathtokoalas
yeah. that's meant to eliminate empathy. equally terrifying.
(deleted reply)
yeah. so, as i've stated repeatedly, the first amendment was built on lockean principles (as articulated by jefferson) with the purpose of separating the institutions from each other. somehow, you idiots seem to think that the purpose of the american revolution was to create a monolithic british state. no. that's what was being avoided. the singular, driving purpose of the american constitution is the separation of powers into executive, judicial and legislative branches. in addition to this separation is the separation of the military, the church, banks, etc. that is the foundation your country is built upon.
you can deny that if you want, but if you want to live in a country where the military is interconnected with the religion, your best bet is israel - and second best bet is saudi arabia. in the united states, it's not constitutional for the military to conduct prayer services. what you're seeing in this video should not be happening and will hopefully be stopped shortly. hopefully, somebody gets the information and launches the proper court battles.
thread closed. replies to new threads will be blocked.
(deleted reply)
again - as i've stated repeatedly - the issue here is not voluntary exercise of religion or accommodation of services but hierarchical enforcement of engaging in religion as a mandated experience.
this is a good start to learn about some of the recent issues surrounding the military forcing religious services on it's officers.
you know, it really seems clear that our religious narratives are largely confused stories of contacts with extra-terrestrial beings. and, when you see something like this, it makes it easier to understand how we may have become confused.
deathtokoalas
b12 is in fact really the only thing that you need to seriously worry about...
...other than that she looks twice her age. 25? i thought she was an expressive, girlishly immature 45 year-old hippie. she sounds like 25. she doesn't look like 25...
the lack of animal fat and abundance of indigestible cellulose has got her skin sagging. going vegan is healthy for your internal organs, but it will physically age you at twice or thrice the rate. she's going to be full of wrinkles and look like an old lady by the time she's thirty-five.
there's some research indicating that vegans have some difficulty with absorption, which isn't going to come out in these results. all the stuff is in the blood. can it all get out of the blood? there's a lot of suggestions that some of it can't - particularly the iron. that's not quite anemia, but it's something like it. it's thought that it may have some effect on calcium and vitamin absorption as well.
the flip side is that a high fat diet is demonstrably shown to be exceedingly unhealthy. no meat at all is incomparably better than large amounts of meat. but there's a bit of a caveat to this, in terms of bulk consumption.
i've spent a lot of time as a pseudo-vegetarian (i've never considered giving up cheese or eggs or fish) for broader health reasons related to keeping the stuff away from me in it's raw form. i won't handle raw meat of any type under any circumstance. the path it takes from the farm through the factory and the store to my kitchen is not a path that i would argue creates something that is safe to handle without taking biohazard precautions. bacteria. viruses. i'm not touching the stuff. but, i'll eat the odd burger or chicken breast at a restaurant, and pick up a bit of salami or sliced chicken from time to time. what that means is that my meat consumption occurs, but infrequently. despite having other issues with unhealthy substances, i've always been tested as being in perfect health...
the reality is that what you eat is less important than how much of it that you eat. your body breaks all the things you eat down the same way - it doesn't really care what it was before you ate it. it then stores what it doesn't need. if you sit around and eat enough tomatoes that your body is storing it as fat, you will develop heart problems. the thing is that tomatoes are much less dense than cow when it comes to this, so you're much more likely to "eat too much" if you have a lot of cow in your diet. in the end, though, it's simply a per gram issue, worked into the form of stored fat = energy consumed - energy burnt. the more "sophisticated" arguments are generally without much real scientific basis, and built on industry propaganda - getting your head around the healthy diet is really as simple as adjusting your calorie intake to your calorie expenditure, and the best way to do that is to let your stomach guide you. where veganism can come off as more healthy is in the lightness of the foods. if you eat really dense foods, you need to eat a lot less; if you eat really light foods, you can more or less eat all day without it catching up to you. so, that makes vegans seem to have less issues with their heart and liver, but it's not the proper conclusion to make - moderate meat consumption relative to energy expenditure (enough that minimal amounts are being stored) is equally as healthy, and the theoretical idea of gorging on vegetables to the point of massive cholesterol storage is no better than eating too many burgers.
moleman was probably a vegan.
--- FullyRawKristina
For those who are asking, my triglycerides are OK. They show high but that's because eating any carbs (especially fruits after you have gone some hours without eating) makes triglycerides go up. Given my perfect cholesterol levels it is nothing to worry about. Any food that had carbs will mobilize fat. Vegans often will test high in TG but have far less risk of heart disease.
deathtokoalas
yeah. cholesterol = stored energy. it doesn't matter where the energy came from. the idea that eating animals increases your cholesterol is completely wrong. it was based on the idea that the cholesterol enters directly from your stomach, which is not a scientific idea - the cholesterol is broken down through your liver and stored the same way that plant sugars are.
if you have high tricglycerides, it doesn't mean you're not eating enough animals. it means you're eating too many plants. it's not a reason to change the contents of your diet, but it is perhaps a reason to reduce the amount being consumed. (deleted)
deathtokoalas
that's incorrect. triglycerides are made inside your liver and broken down in the process of digestion. insofar as they contribute to clogged arteries, it's to do with the way they are reconstructed by your body. this is a consequence of consuming more energy than is being burned, not a consequence of eating any specific thing. (deleted)
deathtokoalas
there's no scientific distinction between "good" and "bad" fats.
the solution is not to change diet, and is certainly not to increase nuts, but to change the factors relating to excess storage. excess fat means you're consuming more than your metabolism requires to function. there's two solutions to this: reduce the amount of energy being consumed, or increase the amount of energy being burned (ie exercise more).
i would suspect that christina, like most foodies, tends to eat when she's not hungry. that's probably the real crux of the issue.
but perhaps she could also spend a bit more time walking. i don't know her habits...
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
see, it's a funny sort of thing. the american literature takes an obese population as a starting assumption. it just discards the possibility of reducing total energy intake - and there may be some big agriculture money underlying this, who knows.
but the presumed context in all that stuff about different types of fat is that you're dealing with people that are eating way more than they need to to begin with. so, if you're going to have all kinds of fat floating around in the blood anyways you're better off with the stuff that's cleaning the bloodstream out.
arguing that you should eat more nuts to reduce the triglycerides is like arguing that you should open the windows if you're going to smoke. there's a certain logic to it, but it's pretty warped, and it will produce it's own problems. the solution to high fat is never to eat more of something and always to eat less of something.
it's mostly the carbs, yes. you eat less carbs, you do a bit more exercise, you cut the fats down... (deleted)
deathtokoalas
the idea that eating nuts will "reduce your hunger for carbs" is utter nonsense, and i wouldn't take metaphysical advice from somebody that can't spell physiospatial. i wouldn't take metaphysical advice from anybody at all, except maybe artistotle...
and i want to be clear about this: nor will increasing your hdl lower your triglyceride counts. if you have high triglyceride, it might suggest you also have low hdl, but the reverse causal relationship does not hold. triglycerides are not removed with hdl.
replacing the carb source with a protein source may reduce the total energy consumption, but it's not the actual solution to the actual problem. the actual problem is that too much energy is being consumed for this individual's lifestyle, and the actual solution is to decrease consumption.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
ugh. fucking hippies...
she had a blood test done that told her her energy intake is higher than her lifestyle requires. therefore, she needs to consume less or expend more. it seems like i'm oversimplifying, but i'm not - the misconceptions in populist literature tend to overcomplicate it, and get away with it by taking advantage of people's ignorance.
i'll state it one more time:
stored fat = consumed energy - expended energy
therefore, excess stored fat ====> consumed energy >> expended energy.
we need to have consumed > expended. what we want is to minimize stored fat, which means minimizing (consumed - expended).
this can be done by decreasing consumed, increasing expended or both. there's nothing else to add.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
he seems to be a quack that can't pass peer review.
listen, i'm not interested in continuing this.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
the triglycerides in the blood are a much smaller risk factor. what she's going to be more concerned about is what happens when her metabolism shifts and all the triglycerides in her blood get parked in her thighs.
triglycerides cannot be absorbed through the stomach or the intestine without being broken down first. in canada, that was taught in grade 11 biology class.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i want to clarify, because it's clear you're confused and/or not very well learned on the topic, and i feel my statements may be further confusing you.
so, you eat some fatty foods. your body will break the fat down so it can absorb it, then put it back together again in a slightly modified form and send it through your blood, where it will either be metabolized or stored. but the fat doesn't exist in your blood in the form of a "triglyceride", it exists in the form of a molecule that carries the triglyceride. generally, your body prefers not to burn fat but to store it..
now, you eat some carbs. your body will break the carbs down into sugar and store them in your liver. at some point, your body will shoot off some hormones that will trigger your liver into releasing the sugar in the form of triglycerides. this is the primary source of the triglycerides in your bloodstream, because your body converts the triglycerides you get from fat into storage material before it enters your bloodstream, with the intent of putting it away for later.
now, depending on your diet, your body might not put the fat away for later, but burn it right away. but a metabolism that relies on fat for energy is going to show low triglyceride levels in the bloodstream. a very thin person like myself (who, again, is an omnivore) is likely to use fat for fuel rather than store it. this is the health ideal, but is not what she's seeing in her results.
having excess triglycerides like she does basically means her liver isn't able to store the amount of energy she's consuming in the form of sugar and is dumping it all into the bloodstream. that's a vast oversimplification, but it's basically what's happening...
(deleted)
Al Pal
The point she's trying to make is that it ISN'T working for her because her HDL and trigs are crap.
deathtokoalas
the doctor was right about hdl, though. if you have low ldl, you don't need high hdl. in fact, you're better off with low counts of both. the thinking around having high hdl is "if americans are going to be grotesque pigs and eat themselves to obesity, they're better off eating absurd amounts of foods with high hdl to counteract it a little.". but this is a compromise. ideally, you want low counts of both; you're better off reducing your ldl through healthy eating and exercise than band-aiding over it with hdl. so, her low hdl is not a negative, considering she doesn't need it to band-aid her low ldl. that's a sign of being healthy...
Gracie Decker
lol well since she was pre diabetic for her early life and this lifestyle brought her back from that, I'd say its working just fine.
deathtokoalas
the results don't suggest she has reversed her risk of diabetes, which doesn't have anything to do with eating animals - it's about sugar.
Big_Tex
Come to think of it, Kristina already meets at least 2 of the 5 criteria for metabolic syndrome (namely, HDL below 50 for a woman, and trigs above 150). If a person meets 3 of those criteria, they are considered to suffer from metabolic syndrome (roughly speaking, "pre-diabetes".) Would be interesting to know if she has it, if she were to get properly tested. The other three criteria are large waist size, high fasting glucose, and high blood pressure. Kristina obviously doesn't have a fat waist -- but there are skinny people who have metabolic syndrome and who get diabetes. We don't know from this video what's her fasting glucose and BP, unless I missed it.
And that's what this William Petersen wannabe should be talking to her about. Instead of rationalizing to her why her shitty numbers are OK, this doctor should be saying Uh-oh, you might have metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetes, come back tomorrow and we'll do a proper fasting blood draw and check your BP, and oh btw leave the camera at home. Sarah R
If the results she posted were fasting lipid levels, then I don't think a high carb diet would cause a high triglyceride level. I don't remember any of the vegan doctors (Dr McDougall, Dr Barnard, Dr Fuhrman) mentioning that high carb vegans tend to have high triglyceride levels either. I have heard that they tend to have low cholesterol levels (LDL, HDL, total). In fact, I think I remember hearing Dr McDougall say that people with high triglycerides should focus on getting their carbs from starches because eating too much fruit can cause triglycerides to go up. I don't remember the exact reason why, but I think he said it was because of the fructose or just simple sugars in general.
deathtokoalas
the triglyceride levels in her blood should not be affected by whether she's consuming simple or complex sugars because it's regulated by the hormones releasing sugar from her liver and not by her diet.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
it doesn't make a difference relative to the triglyceride content of your blood, which is hormonally regulated. there will be some simple sugar that will enter your bloodstream directly, but it's not in the form of triglycerides.
she's probably diabetic. i've provided the option of eating less or exercising more, and those are the better options, but there is a third option of better sugar regulation with hormone injections.
Sarah R
Hmmm . . . I'm pretty sure that what Cynthia Bai said is correct: - fructose is metabolized by the liver and can affect triglyceride levels - glucose that comes from the digestion of starch is not processed by the liver and does not affect triglyceride levels
deathtokoalas
no. if there's anything approaching something that's almost right, it's completely backwards.
as far as your stomach is concerned, there's two kinds of sugar: monosaccharides (including glucose and fructose, wich would be treated the same) and all the rest. some of the monosaccharides (including straight glucose) will go direct to the bloodstream (and might give you a bit of a boost of energy). the rest is broken down and stored in the liver for future use.
most of the food you eat is not going to be in the form of a monosaccharide - and starch is one of the larger chains you can digest. your stomach will break the starch down to individual glucose molecules and store them in the liver for future retrieval. your stomach (your liver, actually, but i said stomach for a reason) will convert almost all the fructose you get into glucose and store it in precisely the same way.
if there's a difference it could come in terms of how you digest it. if you're eating some candy or sugar-water, then digesting a monosaccharide (fructose or glucose or any other) will bypass the whole thing and directly boost your blood-sugar levels - until your hormones kick in to shut it down. if there's any "bypassing", it's that. this has absolutely nothing to do with triglycerides, as it goes into the blood as actual sugar. carbs are always stored first, and retrieved later.
but it ultimately matters very little if we're talking about fruit or bread because neither are going to be digested as monos - they're both going to go through the liver.
Jackeyla Carty
hi fullyraw do you take probiotic to
deathtokoalas
considering that stomach acids are going to kill the bacteria and digest them, probiotics would not be consistent with a vegan diet.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
well, i don't know her diet, but i'm not sure why she'd be so adamant about it.....
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
vegans are the zero animal product under any circumstances type. it's generally rooted in ethical concerns, or very misguided medical advice.
vegetarians come in different flavours and may or may not eat some of the following: nuts, fish, eggs, dairy depending on various perspectives.
a raw vegan would only eat uncooked fruits and vegetables.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
that depends on if you're a pythagorean or not.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
if you were a pythagorean, you'd know you're a pythagorean.
the pythagoreans were a group of mystical mathematicians in the classical age that were very strict vegetarians under metempsychosis arguments. they had a bit of a quirk that extended their belief of transmigration to beans. so, they refused to eat beans because they could prove that beans had a soul. yes, they had a mathematical proof for this.
they didn't merely believe that beans have souls, they insisted they could prove it. seriously.
so, when somebody would question them on it - guys, this beans having souls thing, i dunno about that... - they would launch into a vigorous number theoretic defense that would end in the rigorous demonstration of the existence of beans' souls, clear enough that all with sound minds can agree.
math is a funny thing. especially if you pick unusual axioms.
but, yeah, that's why beans are listed separately. we have to account for the pythagoreans, too...
it's just like how the first person shooters are actually unpaid military training, except it's for those of you that are fucking hopeless with a gun in real life.
ThiefGuard
Or maybe its just for entertainment? You ever think of that? Instead of randomly swearing for no reason? Well guess what? Your statement is invalid because you're a retard!
(note that thief guard had a phillip banks icon)
deathtokoalas
yeah, well, everybody knows what the correct come back for uncle phil is. we know why you like the game. you're just drooling over those burgers.
and i'll swear as i see fit. we're not all fucking bourgeois bastards from bel-air, you know.
Bread Man
You seem like a wonderful bucket of sunshine.
deathtokoalas
i get my tan from standing in the english rain...
Yargle Barg
You look like a female Professor Snape.
deathtokoalas
you know, i was in that precise age group that harry potter didn't appeal to, as i was just a little too old to read children's books seriously and not quite old enough to read them ironically. i don't know the characters very well.
i agree with the people that are expressing outrage, but there's a bit of privilege in the argument and it's producing a touch of circular logic. "why not wait to have children?". for most military families, the military is the only option they have to generate enough income to raise a family. it's the only way they can afford a house and the only way they can afford to go to school. now, it's true that, by the time they're done training, they're stripped of compassion and converted into subhuman monsters that cannot be deconditioned properly and ought to not be anywhere near children in the first place, but what drives somebody to stand up and consciously make this decision, to stand in front of their families and state "i aspire to murder in cold blood", is generally the level of desperation that is brought on by the extreme levels of poverty and inequality that exist in america.
america's leaders are bloodthirsty tyrants, the bulk of whom deserve to be strung from lampposts and spit upon like the fascist scum that they are. but, the soldiers are mostly victims of a system that creates them and gives them few other options to live a life of prosperity.
that doesn't mean they should be allowed to reintegrate. that child should have been taken away from these lunatics, placed in protective services and put up for adoption. mom should be banished to an island...
i've included the raw mix to document what the track sounded like in 2001. so, i've included an overdub only mix as a counter to it to document what was added in 2014. paste the two on top of each other to get the cubase output of the track.
created over august and september, 2014 to augment track written late in the summer of 2001.
see, i've been through a referendum or two and here's the thing...
they're only not rigged when the state expects the result they want. remember: the uk is a "democracy", not a democracy.
lucien bouchard blamed it on "money and the ethnic vote". he was half right, but it's a good thing for the country i live in that he was more racist than rational. if he had figured out what *actually* happened, there could have been a real mess on the streets of montreal.
salmond has quit, indicating he's no less naive.
and, you have another victory for "democracy" at the expense of democracy. but, in this case it is really truly for the better.