Police have said the handgun used in the Danforth shooting was stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan years ago.

the data analysis is that most of them come up through the border.

i just wish there was a star trek episode where they found a roman colony, and they stumbled upon a crucified jesus, lung protruding from his dangling, lifeless body.

he would require a stethoscope to be sure, of course. but....

"he's dead, jim."

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 want to talk about issues this election, not moderate a schoolyard altercation.

but, yes, he should accept the apology, for what it's worth, over what it is.

- trudeau's cynical ploy should be called out for what it is.

- singh's over-reaction should, as well.

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..

the area was a melting pot, even at the dawn of history.

to an extent, it's an undefined question.

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.

again: i have no opinion on banning guns.

i don't like guns. i don't oppose it.

but, i wouldn't expect it to reduce gun violence, and would rather see the government focus on policies that are likely to actually work.

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.

no, really.

i know it's nice out, or at least it is, here.

but, it's a better idea to have some kind of a teach-in.

you kids go back to school, dammit.

if there was a measurable migration in this period, it would have been greeks and persians moving into the peninsula, not the other way around.

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.

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/

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...

if you want the growing atheist majority to vote for you, or your party, or your movement, you need to ensure that you're not putting religion at the front of it - that you're maintaining a proper separation wall.

and, there will be little debate on this, because it's not really up for discussion.

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.

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)

we're probably not going to get along this cycle.

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.