i get the point that you're attacking an unfair caricature, but i spent a while working out of a call centre in ottawa, canada that took a lot of in calls from the southern states and i heard a lot of people with really exaggerated accents - so exaggerated that i could legitimately barely understand them. it wasn't because of a bad connection or static or whatever, it was because we were simply speaking different languages. words i'd never heard before, verb usages that didn't make any sense to me - the whole thing.
ironically, the idea at the time was that canadians were ideal call center employees for the american market because we were cheaper (due to our dollar being around $0.60 usd at the time, which has since changed drastically) and we spoke english that americans could understand - unlike asians or latin americans.
but, i have to be honest - i would personally have a much easier time with an asian accent than i would with a deep south one because, while asian accents might be broken, they're not a structurally different language. the feeling was sometimes mutual - not just "aboot. hahaha.", but "i don't understand what you said because your grammar is foreign to me".
it really surprised the hell out of me, actually. i think i learned that we're not that far from "deep south american" being a different language than "english".
you, on the other hand, just speak a bit slower than i do.
fascists are usually pretty good at lining up behind big money interests when it comes to it. the immigration rhetoric is cause for serious concern (although it's unfortunately true that the function of immigration is to decrease wages, the scorn should be placed at the capitalists that game the system for profit and not the workers trying to survive), but it ultimately serves the interests of the elite because it distracts from the root causes and keeps the violence at street level.
i know what the rhetoric on the euro is, but i think it's just that. the central bankers would be overjoyed to see her (and the far right, overall) win an election.
t's really the oldest trick in the book in europe.
the economy goes down, blame the jews/gypsies/muslims/turks. that way, the angry masses attack them instead of the church/king/parliament/bank. from their perspective, that often solves two problems at once.
but europe also has a low population growth rate, which creates a systemic problem for capitalists that always seek conditions where the number of possible workers far exceeds the number of actually employed ones. there's a lot of very good reasons why that growth rate has stayed low and why europeans should seek to keep it low. however, the people of europe cannot have it both ways without abolishing capitalism - either they need to increase their growth rate, or they need to accept immigration, or they need to seize the means of production for themselves.
---
IamMANnumber1
Germany has brought Europe to its knees 3 times in the last century.
deathtokoalas
"germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years.
chocomalk
Wow do you people ever learn history? Most of Europe's historical woes are attributed elsewhere.
deathtokoalas
dude, it's just like when the visigoths invaded spain, it's just on a different level of abstraction.
chocomalk
Dude it's like saying Europe is not Norway, Sweden, England, France, the Netherlands, Austria etc...all descendants of Germanic tribes. It's like saying Western Germany is Eastern France or vice versa. You are looking at an orgy and finding a few parts you don't like without recognizing the attaching parts. Meanwhile the Romans, the Turks, , The Brits, The Russians, THE GREAT GAME, the(insert name)....
deathtokoalas
i'm not sure you can even make sense of that, so i'm not going to try to.
let's try again.
"germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years.
now, think it through and understand the truth in it.
chocomalk
"Europe" is a relatively new concept, not one to be assigned 2000 years of existence. "Germany" was "Germania". the majority of what we call Europe today, the rest was Rome. So what is your point? That most of the original Germanic tribes that went on to become present day Europe because of a migration somehow tried to conquer itself? Technically the Visigoths would be attacking Rome not Europe. And technically Rome was the biggest aggressor. "Germania" was fairly consistent for about 1500 years regardless of it's name. The rest was Rome, or what was left of it after they fell and "other". The East is another matter. Anyway, you are still missing how everyone was trying to conquer everything..."everything" meaning what used to be Rome/Germania.
deathtokoalas
your understanding of history is a little bit confused, but it doesn't really matter because very little of what you're saying is in any way relevant (and the junkers that built the modern german state were actually not germans but prussians).
however,
1) europe is a geographic area and has existed as it does since roughly the end of the last ice age.
2) eastern europe was in fact largely built by east germans. as i feel you may be confused by a reference to the former soviet state, i need to separate between the east germans (who lived in modern day poland and ukraine and included groups like goths and lombards), the north germans (of scandinavia) and the west germans (of what we now call germany, france and england)
3) germans are not indigenous to the area we now call germany. rather, they moved south near the beginning of the historical period and conquered and displaced indigenous celts.
4) the continuum of tribes in europe were migratory and did not really respect national boundaries. at any given point, you would find not just germans in the area now known as germany but also celts, slavs, iranians and people from much further east, including huns and turkish-speaking people.
5) you'll note i put "germany" in quotes, which was to note that it did not exist as a nation-state 2500 years ago. however, the idea of a german nation united by language, religion and culture is not a new idea. our word for german comes from a greek association of odin with hermes. the germans were those who worshipped hermes. today, we think more in terms of linguistic groupings, of which i mentioned in (1).
6) my point is that "germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years.
chocomalk
Prussian = Germanic, not sure where you are going with that lol.
1. Your vision of this "Europe" as a geological location does not take into account the artificial borders that exclude Russia/Asia etc. We are discussing pre civilized Europe during a time known as the great migration. A time when Europe did not exist as a set location and people came from all over. Sure, same rocks, but it's a whole lot bigger if you add all the stuff it is attached too without those convenient borders.
2. Germanic tribes, is there a point? And at what point are they not "Germanic" even though they hail from the same stock? You mention Goths as if they are not Germanic.
3. Yes they moved south as the Celts moved west, neither were "indigenous. And you quoted a 2000 year timeline, the Celts, what we know of them, predate that and were mainly affected by Rome. They were pushed, Germanic tribes were pushed, Slavic tribes were pushed... they all did pushing as well.
4. This is subject to a very long timeline, but it is pretty safe to say that regardless of who was ruling who, the lines have remained consistent for at least 1000 years give or take and were pretty much formed prior to that.
5. Funny we are communicating in German? No in English...why is that? Because there are other players in this you are not addressing. So the next language most likely for us to speak in would be German?...no it would be French. Although influenced by German, we consider many European languages to be "Latin" based. How could that be? You say this as if it is uniquely German.
6. Your point ignores everyone else, this makes you a bigot. In the same boat as Germany would be every tribe/culture you mention and some you have not. So is there a point? Besides being a bigot and pointing out one guilty party among many? deathtokoalas
i don't feel you're following me, and i'm a little bored with your continued responses. i'm not seeking to build any sort of comparison or produce any kind of normative statements, i'm simply pointing out that "germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years. and the prussians, now extinct, were balts.
chocomalk
No, I follow you, you are a bigot. And "Prussian" ≠ "Old Prussian".
deathtokoalas
now that i've blocked that idiot, i want to reiterate my point: that "germany" has been in the process of conquering europe, in various levels of severity, for over two thousand years.
i'm not sure what's going on outside. when i was out there, it
sounded like a race track around the corner. air show? several lawn
mowers? don't know. but, sitting inside, the waveforms of the different
motors are expanding and overlapping with each other and harmonizing,
and it sounds like an ambient noise festival.
maybe i just wish i was at an ambient noise festival.
it's nice out.
hurry up, customs.
the russians are talking tough about retaliation for escalation in the east; yet, poroshenko reacted to the airport seizure in strongman fashion. whatever the law says, it's a show of force, and there's little doubt that it was directed at russia. poroshenko is of course a new entity at this level, and i don't claim to understand him well, but i can't believe he would be foolish enough to mean the show of force to be a challenge. rather, it's a message that he will defend himself if provoked.
that doesn't negate the russian threats, and they ought to be taken seriously. they have repeatedly warned that the kind of escalation poroshenko put down will be responded to harshly, for the precise reason that they do not want a full war. for all poroshenko's intent to send a message of territorial integrity and whatnot, the russians have made it clear that they are going to control the area for the foreseeable future. they've also made it clear that they want it done peacefully.
so, they're not going to invade. that would be foolish, and everybody outside of the western press can see that. maybe they can, too, and it's just dramatic television.
they're not going to cut off gas supplies, either. that's a punitive attack on the ukrainian people, not on the ukrainian government. putin understands the difference.
he's not stalin.
rather, he's a pussy cat, as i keep saying. he wants to bully his way forward, but he doesn't want to actually hurt anybody.
however. and this is a big however.
i think it exceedingly unlikely that the russians are just going to sit there for the next ten years shooting down helicopters amidst heavy casualties. as the clear aim is to minimize casualties, they are going to respond somehow. and, the pattern is through a show of force, and the use of the *threat* of that force (rather than it's actualization) to seize control of what it wants.
so, how does putin find a way to bully ukraine into grounding it's planes under the threat of severe consequence? i can think of a few things. they are drastic. i would prefer not to give anybody any ideas.
but note the threat of serious consequence, and that it should be taken seriously.
i don't trust internet polls. the sampling simply isn't random. worse, there's an age bias that directly contradicts known voting patterns (older people are far more likely to vote).
i'm not expecting significantly different results than the last election - liberals and conservatives around 35 (+/-) and the ndp in the low 20s. it's going to be about turnout.
i'm not voting. i don't know the riding well enough. but it's probably clear that i'm supporting the liberals over the ndp.
most politicians are a little loopy, but i'm strongly convinced that horwath is a clinical psychopath.
hey, i'm in dwight duncan's old seat.
it's a liberal-ndp race, here, which just stresses the need to understand local issues, which i don't. well, in most circumstances, that's how i'd look at it, anyways.
see, i'm not happy about an ndp candidate attacking the green energy act. yes, electricity has gone up, and people are upset, but it's a boneheaded analysis to blame it on the decision to shut down coal plants, rather than these off the wall market-based electricity policies. i expect the ndp to present an articulate solution that argues for public ownership of utilities (and explicitly against running utilities for private profit), not some hamfisted, cursory nonsense. for the armchair accountants in the audience, how about an argument that improving air quality offsets health costs? if there's no longer any idea of sharing social burdens in the ndp's outlook, if it's just self interest and lowering costs, what's their purpose in the existing political spectrum?
....and i like the idea of high speed rail heading out to toronto. it would make it feasible to spend the day there to catch a festival show.
i don't really care about what they say about jobs, because i understand that the existing political reality is that the government cannot create jobs. it's a neat trick they've pulled off to put the responsibility in the hands of the private sector (we're knee deep in the neo-liberal era, folks), thereby eliminating any control they have over the issue, then run election platforms on it, as though they didn't relinquish control. just once i'd like to see a current politician take the podium and state:
"the era where government policy could create jobs ended in the 90s. we campaigned on it. you voted us in to cut the links. we did it. now, you're on your own. sorry. "
beyond that, the structural realities of mass job creation not just here but in a thousand mile radius are just not feasible. the idea that we can create all these jobs for all these people isn't realistic, so we need to adjust how we think; voters need to get it through their heads that the choice is between having some people on welfare and some people working full time and having everybody working part time and also living on welfare. which is actually what socialism is *really* all about. so, it's socialism or welfare and we have to deal with it. a thousand sun readers just had their brain explode. i'm ok with that being a choice, too, so long as the income differential is meaningful. well, it's a choice, right? better than being sent to the walmart under threat of starvation. the choice is simple: do you want more money than you have time or do you want more time than you have money? and, knowing full well that demanding employment is going to hurt somebody else that needs the money more than me, i'll happily choose time over money.
so, it's mostly meh. the ndp will support the rail plan. and the liberals are simply better on the environment right now.
it's a shame. the province needs to reclaim it's resources. it's going to happen sooner or later. the ndp is really missing the boat on articulating a vision of social democracy at precisely the time that it's needed, and at precisely the time it may actually be embraced.
because people really *are* pissed about rising costs, they're just being misled about the causes, and the ndp are not helping them understand them.
also, it's a shame the liberals couldn't find a mccoy.
yeah. it's the point. she can't beat the liberals straight up. she knows it. her sole purpose is power, so it makes sense for her to help the conservatives win in the short run, in the hopes that it sets up a direct ndp-conservative battle.
russia's more of a market economy than most of europe is, steve. also, vlad would probably dig your new monument. i think he's put a few like it up, himself.
in truth, harper's latest dumb comments are incredibly insensitive to the millions of russians who look to putin to keep the communists out of power. 'cause that's vlad's real competition, after all - not these kleptocratic fascist "liberal" billionaires that the west wants to let back into yeltsin's liquor cabinet.
steve and vlad are actually very similar, kindred spirits of a sort. if steve ever decides to pull his head out of his ass and gain some kind of grasp on reality, he'd see his ideological brethren across the arctic ocean.
but, he'd rather hit the bunker and play with his plasticine soldiers, and send them off to fight his imagined boogeyman. do it for the gipper, steve-o.
i actually think it's fully plausible that steve has been left in the dark and fed propaganda and doesn't really have the slightest idea of what is going on on the ground in ukraine.
nice walk yesterday, although it knocked me out. i guess i needed a
good night's worth of sleep. it's been a long time since i can remember a
good 9 hours in one stretch.
those cheap shoes aren't
working out. i suppose i shouldn't be surprised, although i also think
i'm abusing them. they probably would have lasted the summer if i didn't
take them on these periodic six or eight hour walks. as it is, they're
already softening up on the bottom. i did pick up a pair of skate shoes a
few months ago, but wanted to save them until the spring rains stopped.
the whole purpose of the cheap shoes was really to wear in spring and
fall. so, i guess it's time to switch over. the cheapies were two for
one, so i guess i have another pair for the fall. looking at them now,
it's pretty obvious they weren't really made for walking.
i
got this rare craving for a burger last night. it's something that hits
every few months. raw meat is not allowed in the house, so it's not
something that's in my regular diet. the few times a year i want a
burger, i go buy one. i remembered seeing a local burger place, so i
took a walk around the corner....
"motor burger". well,
i'm in detroit. sounds like a good place for what i imagine a local
detroit burger should be: greasy and messy, with a side of transmission
fluid, but that's kind of what i wanted.
it turns out
it was actually a sort of bourgeois gourmet burger palace, which makes
these weird upper class burgers out of goat cheese and gluten-free buns,
then charges upwards of $15 for them. i was tired, and jonesing hard,
so i forked out the $22 for a bacon cheeseburger and a non-hydrogenated,
baked, organically grown poutine.
deathtokoalas
again: i love that vice is doing this, because it provides some hard evidence to back up the reports coming out of the region and this just isn't coming from elsewhere in the western media. yet, i feel this video requires some context. the basic explanation is that what you're seeing here is turkish-backed militias fighting with saudi-backed militias for control over a post-assad syria. but, let me explain further.
whatever the causes of the initial uprising, the situation was taken advantage of by outside forces looking to advance their geostrategic interests, as also occurred in libya and, at a higher level, in egypt. this led to an influx of saudi-backed fighters looking to expand saudi influence in the region. something that's very interesting is that, before all of this happened, assad was actually on the path to relinquish power to a civilian government. i believe that the overriding interest of the saudi monarchy is to prevent this transfer of power, and install a saudi-style theocratic government instead.
unlike his father, the assad that is in power now did not seize control through a military coup. he inherited power in a way that is more or less monarchistic. but, something that the western media has completely ignored is the reality that he hasn't ever seemed to actually be interested in ruling. if a prince is interested in ruling, does he move to britain to study optometry? how does that help him in learning how to rule a nation? rather, it's been clear for years that the younger assad is more or less an empty figurehead in a state that is run by a junta of military generals, and that he basically wants to step down and focus on his life outside of government. western media rarely reflects anything approximating truth, but it's treatment of assad the individual (rather than the regime that uses him as a figurehead) is a really extreme example of outlandish messaging.
if you've been following syrian politics behind the mess, what you actually see is a state this is trying to democratize by modifying it's constitution to allow for strengthened democratic institutions. one could suggest they're following the "turkish model" in a slow democratization that could take many years. but, ignoring hillary clinton's scoffing reaction, that seemed to be the path the syrian state was heading down.
now, if you think it through, elections in syria might not be what the west really wants. for example, it could allow hezbollah into power, or it could lead to a strongly anti-zionist government. certainly, it would lead to instability. the west always prefers a strong dictatorship that it understands over the uncertainty of popular opinion. so, it initially backed the saudis in their attempt to take control of the region before a democracy could be established.
however, over time it became clear that such a theocratic state would not have popular support in syria, which has been a secular (if not particularly free) society for many decades now. when given the opportunity to support assad or support the saudi rebels, the syrian people chose to support assad. so, the entire thing backfired.
realizing this, a coalition of american allies that includes turkey and qatar have broken with the saudis. there has been a wide realization that the tactics the saudis want to use will not be successful in taking stable control of syria, but will merely lead to decades of war. in order for western interests to take control of syria with popular backing, they need to present themselves as a more moderate force.
so, this is what you're seeing, here: it's all about putting a softer image on the rebels, to make them seem more moderate, in order to generate support for them. but, the interests driving the conflict have not at all diverged.
there's potential for a wider conflict developing amongst nato-aligned nations, which threatens to severely damage american influence over the region. the americans have long been following a british-inherited policy of divide and conquer, where they simultaneously build up each of the major players in the region (turkey, egypt, israel, saudis, iran) and play them off against each other. this asserts their own hegemony while eliminating any local hegemony. should one country threaten to become too powerful (as the saudis have threatened to recently), you can expect the americans to throw their weight behind their competitor (which would be iran). but, the most important strategic ally always has been and remains turkey.
so, the key thing to understand is that the saudis are not only advancing western interests, they also have their own interests, which also includes toppling the shia ("heretic") government in iraq. isis is operating over a wide swath of territory. the boundary between iraq and syria does not truly exist at the moment. and, this is both the cause and the effect of obama's attempt to soften his approach towards the heretics in tehran, too.
it's not widely understood in the west that there remains a great deal of animosity between turks and arabs over control of the levant, where arabs are still bitter over a millenium of turkish imperialism and the turks remain leery about allowing saudi-backed fundamentalists to set up bases too close to their borders.
so, while the general conflict between nato and russia is driving the big picture, and the saudi-iran conflict is driving the civil war, what is driving the actual fighting on the ground is a turkish-arab conflict over the post-assad space.
and i just want to add that the purpose of this message control is to facilitate an upcoming nato bombing campaign, which is now possible due to the russians being distracted in ukraine.
Bman Chu
You make some pretty outrageous, sweeping claims about the west without providing a shred of evidence in support. The west is not one single entity united in conspiracy against the middle east and russia. The west has many different faces and desires as well as many free and informed voices.
deathtokoalas
kinda, but not really. if i was unclear, i was really referring to the nato alliance, which is (excluding minor squabbles) under the unitary command of the united states.
SilverRadiant
oh boy that was the longest explaination I've evr seen :O
deathtokoalas
are books really that far out of the public consciousness at this point?
that wouldn't meet the length requirements of most undergraduate essays, and some high school essays.
===
Doğan Kutbay
So ISIS is Russian backed up?
The Global Excursion
Chechen
Höri
No. The Assad gov is Russian backed. ISIS are a band off opportunistic islamist brigands trying to take advantage and accumulate wealth amid the chaos.
The Russian speakers are the remnants of the Chechen rebels, that fought and lost against Russia and now looking for a new home.
Adam Nohcho
Iranian
deathtokoalas
as is stated in the video, isis is saudi-backed. the russian speaking aspect of this is curious, but if it's true they would likely be chechens.
in the larger scheme of things, isis and russia are not on the same side of the conflict.
Che DESIGNER
Lost against russians? You are talking bullshit here. This is not a game it is a war, no one wins when people die. Don't talk about the things that you know nothing about.
James seeker
No Russia supports Assad
deathtokoalas
that's a half-truth. the russians are supporting the existing government, but support a peaceful transition of power and have been putting pressure on assad to put the process of that transition in motion (and, in truth, he has been). what the russians really support is a russian geo-strategic presence in syria. they're not tied to any specific incarnation of that.
TheGiantKiller8
The 'existing' government is a minoritarian mafia regime that was installed by the French COlonial powers today allied with Russia ie BASHAR. These skum bags were going to be overthrown inevitably like all the British/French./Russian puppets in the region from sadam, Mubarak, ghadhafi and so on.
No matter how much people hate the rebels they are the popular movement in region
deathtokoalas
the baath party wasn't put in place by the french, the whole "arab socialism" thing was mostly an indigenous movement, but received a lot of support from the soviets. syria spent most of the cold war aligned with the soviets, no different than eastern europe really, which is what this is really all about - cleaning up the post-soviet satellite states (libya and syria) and aligning them with nato. the russians, of course, have other ideas.
there's no evidence that the rebels, whether the "moderate" ones under the former fsa or the saudi-backed loonies, represent anybody except their handlers. syria had some problems with freedom of expression, but people were hardly starving on the streets. despite the propaganda, revolutions are rarely about political rights and usually about basic economics. the circumstances for a mass uprising in syria simply weren't in place. there wasn't one. at best, it was a fringe movement of the usual leftists, and at worst it was essentially a foreign invasion.
Amine
Actually there is a point of view that says that they are a creation of the Iranian secret service to create disorder in the region deathtokoalas
that's hilarious.
because iran wants to create disorder.
the propaganda is thick though, people will believe that.
the evidence isn't debatable. that isis is a saudi front carrying out american geostrategic aims is a factual statement.
ugh. this new "facebook for iphone" shit is just horrific. it was bad
enough losing 50% of the page to ads, now we just lost another 25% to a
sneaky ploy by facebook to get pages to prominently display likes as
ads along the sides.
i think this is sort of facebook
admitting that people don't actually click on likes, meaning the medium
really isn't useful to advertisers, meaning their entire reason to exist
is up in the air. the increasingly aggressive nature of facebook
advertising is a function of the inefficacy of advertising on social
media. but, facebook seems to be run by legitimate Corporate Idiots, and
it's consequently likely to get worse. i do predict that the ads are
going to be what turns facebook into a ghost site in the end. if it's
not already halfway there.
i like the rss capabilities.
i repeat that it was the rss, not the people, that dragged me in - and
late at that, not until 2010. and, so long as "content generators"
(which in my case mostly means show promoters in the detroit/windsor
area) continue to use facebook, i'll continue to use it as well. the
corollary of that is that so long as people go looking for these sorts
of sites, i feel i should maintain it.
but, cutting me
down to 25% of the screen for my actual content is too much. to me, that
makes the site unusable. i'm going to be converting this page (and the
rest of my facebook pages, too) into an rss dump over the next few
weeks, by emulating the timeline page at my appspot site.
there's
another benefit to getting off these scripted sites, which is that they
badly waste hardware resources. i shouldn't need 500 mb of ram to fully
load this page back to 1981. it can be easily reproduced with an html
table and an iframe in a way that could be loaded easily on a 386.
i'm
going to leave the rss dump because people are going to keep checking
the site for these sorts of things for the near future, but also because
facebook could still turn things around. but, for right now, the future
of facebook seems to be a dead zone of advertising scripts, where
corporate servers communicate to each other across a barren landscape.
don't
look for a replacement, either. the era of a centralized internet was
thankfully short lived. the initial nature of the internet as
decentralized and targeted to specific interests seems to be reasserting
itself. that's something to be excited about.
for me,
as a musician, that means the replacement ought to be something like
spotify. it's not clear yet which network is going to win out. but note
that there's a paywall there, which means i'm not interested. soundcloud
is awful. so, i'd like to see bandcamp increase it's networking aspect.
however it stabilizes, that's where the future is. and, likewise,
expect a gamer network and a fashion network and a ...
the
model to look towards is something like youtube, which will probably
not be supplanted as the video networking site (unless it fucks up like
facebook has). in the end, i think google did get it right, but not the
way it meant to.
so, i'm not signing off, but i'm
mutating outwards; i'm realizing this host is dead, discarding the
exoskeleton and growing into a new one.
this is the next 2001 period piece i'll be working on, hopefully starting early next week. my memory is blurry; yet, i have a vivid recollection of playing parts of it for my guitar teacher on a sunny day, where there was still snow on the ground.
it's funny how we remember seemingly irrelevant details, but i guess the atmosphere of the performance is important because the performance is. that would date it to roughly march, 2001.
i switched the piece from classical guitar to piano halfway through writing it, and vaguely remember thinking that an impossible interval had something to do with it. yet, that doesn't change the fact that it's guitar music. the counterpoint is very guitar.
i'll have to analyse the score and determine whether it's actually playable or not, or if i can get it close enough. but this one is an open palette right now in the sense that it needs to be filled out, so the early instrumentation choices are really just a suggestion.
one possible idea is that i may split it into a guitar piece to start and a piano piece to finish. i'm thinking of adding sequenced drums and a more defined, squelchy bass part.
for now, this is what the track sounded like as i was writing it. i've been careful to use the same scorewriter and same soundcard as i was using at the time of writing.
written in early 2001. rendered may 29, 2014.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
great headline, jones. yeesh.
and, i've been convinced you're a russian plant since climategate, along with the rest of the neo-birchites, including paul. there's really a lot of irony in the whole discussion, as alex jones is the guy that'll be orchestrating the marches for the kremlin should some state capitol get stormed maidan-like. and, his audience is every bit as white nationalist, too.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
the russian leadership is very pragmatic and no doubt willing to work with poroshenko, but i'm not convinced it still controls the army.
deathokoalas
o'reilly is legitimately standing at the end of a long line of human thought, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with religion. the crux of what o'reilly is saying is that people won't behave properly unless they have a fear of consequence. because o'reilly also wants small government, he pushes it off to a higher power to enforce the threat of consequence. but, there's a lot of problems with the whole approach.
to begin with, just because bill wants the bad guys to believe they're going to have to deal with god doesn't mean they're going to. because religion is so counter-intuitive, in order for it to really work as a disincentive it needs to be enforced from the top - by government, maybe, as was done by various christian churches in the past and is still enforced in islamic theocracies, or maybe by media, as is done more viably in the united states. so, it's just a hobbesian argument, in the end - and nothing to do with religion, itself.
but, what's worse is that a really moral person doesn't require the consequence. if you're only behaving because of the threat of consequence, you're not truly moral. his ends really don't follow from his strategy.
dawkins seems to generally realize that he's often debating with social engineers, rather than legitimately religious people. whatever sort of self-constraints he imposes on himself tend to neutralize his arguments. i wish he'd engage his opponents on the level they truly exist on, rather than the level they pretend they exist on.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
i lost a few days due to a nasty neck ache that required a lot of
sleeping. i'm still not really clear on what happened, but i've narrowed
it down to either:
a) i picked up a virus from not
using soap to wash my hands while making eggs. we all do this, because
we're all lazy. i need to be more careful.
b) multiple
sclerosis. this isn't random. i've been hearing about being high risk
since i was a toddler, and i do get weird facial tics and random muscle
spasms rather regularly. where the pain is (where my spine meets my
brain) could very well be a lesion. but, if true, existing medical
science couldn't actually do anything about it except waste a lot of my
time. so, whatever. it's mostly gone away. good enough for now....
i'm feeling alert enough at this point to get back to it tonight. i think i'm still on course to finish the track by the first.
you know, something else that happened right before my back went up
in flames was that i switched from folgers to maxwell house. and i drink
around a pot of extremely strong coffee a day, so it's not outside the
realm of possibility. pot two is coming up, we'll have to see how that
works out...
but, what i wanted to post was this:
<phil hartman>
MAXWELL HOUSE! COFFEE SO STRONG, IT WILL MAKE YOUR NECK HURT SO BADLY, THAT YOU'LL BE COMPLETELY CONVINCED YOU HAVE M.S.
</phil hartman>
also, why isn't there a "bill clinton killed phil hartman" conspiracy theory?
Monday, May 26, 2014
what i'd say about the video is that it's really, unbearably cheesy - and perhaps a little bit trivializing.
...and that producing controversial videos is a time-tested way to distract from the fact that your music is regurgitated, unoriginal garbage.
that being said, i'll give them a C for effort. i'd prefer to see this message articulated than it's opposite one.
mmhhmm.
coincidentally, as space-based weapons drive a new cold war and arms race, a number of "asteroids" that are "as powerful as nuclear bombs" have "appeared out of nowhere".
further, the presented solution is to spend more money on space-based weapons systems.
we have absolutely no idea what our governments are doing.
yeah. i'll be ok. hopefully it goes away soon, though.
it hasn't really improved, but i've gotten used to it. also, i'm
developing a sore throat, which leads me to conclude that i've picked up
a virus. this is pretty intense for the flu, though....
...and the truth is the only vector i can conceive of over the last week would be those eggs. so, bird flu? maybe....
i'll see what i feel like when the sun comes up.
my neck needs rest, but my brain is wide awake. so, read.
i'm
finding myself in far greater agreement with hobbes than i ever thought
i would be, and am actually seeing him produce a lot of the same sorts
of arguments i'm always throwing at ancaps. hobbes would agree that a
society based around markets and contracts would require a state to
enforce those markets and contracts, rendering the vision of classical
liberalism (today pushed by anarcho-capitalists) a sort of contradiction
in terms - precisely agreeing with myself and other anarchists, who
don't think anarchy and capitalism are compatible with each other.
of
course, hobbes would not conclude that markets and contracts (and
property and currency) should be abolished, as i would. instead, he'd
argue in favour of a totalitarian state that forces actors to carry out
their promises.
but i'm a little surprised how much
i'm actually identifying with somebody that's always been presented to
me as the exact opposite of everything i've ever believed in or stood
for.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
lol.
does friedman know what "inelastic demand" means?
ouch.
neck is very stiff. has me paranoid about
paralysis. but i'm hoping i just leaned on it the wrong way. will give
it a few hours to heal before i freak out.
i took a
break from mixing this morning to make some eggs, which gave me some
heartburn and forced me to lie down. i woke up a few hours later barely
able to move, with difficulty swallowing & etc.
see,
it's been suggested to me more than once that i'm high risk for
developing MS. i've had these periodic facial tics for as long as i can
remember, but it's on the other side of the neck. i'm a little worried
that something "broke" on the other side.
for now, i'm going to try to breathe slowly and just basically not move for a few hours.
so, i've become convinced that i will eventually snap my own sternum
in the process of stretching, the blood splinters will travel to my
heart and i'll die on the floor in a pool of my own blood. things are
constantly snapping in there. it's just a matter of time.
but i can't just not stretch. no, really. try it some time. nobody can accomplish this task.
so, i've resigned myself to my own frailty, and patiently await the outcome.
hey, i always said i wouldn't make it to 25.
i was shocked when i made it to 30.
i suppose my track record on this prediction is not good, but i consider it exceedingly unlikely that i'll get to 40.
in
some imaginary state of nature that never actually existed, i would
have been eaten by lions before i turned ten. no, really, i would have.
so, i'm already way ahead, thanks to the technology.
better to quit when i'm ahead. wait.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
there are a lot of positives to treating corporations like people. rather than fight against the idea, the focus should be on using it to the general public's advantage.
you may have seen something about the civil war, but it's nonsense. the idea is british in origin and older than that. stated simply, a corporation cannot appear as a defendant in a lawsuit unless it is legally treated as though it is a person. abolishing legal personhood would also make it impossible to sue corporations. you'd have to sue individual people that work at a corporation instead - and good luck demonstrating liability. that's the whole point in the first place - to make it easier to establish liability...
here's another example of the way the idea could be used to the general public's advantage: if corporations are people, should they not be taxed as though they are people? if you follow the logic through, it's really blatantly unconstitutional (in canada, at least) to give corporations specialized tax cuts. at the earnings levels they have, they should be putting 90%+ of their profits into public spending. so, why doesn't somebody force them to...?
----
BrotherWoody1
Do you think the Holocaust survivors or even the Weisenthal Institute could look into both Ford + IBM for their active support of the Third Reich & their active participation in the Holocaust itself. It's entirely natural to Ford & IBM to move from one Nazified state to another Nazified state. I hope that the Court also makes them accountable for their actions before 1945 as well as after.
deathtokoalas
it's known that ibm & ford were both actively involved in the third reich. however, the biggest criminal enterprise in the holocaust was the standard oil, through it's agreements with ig farben. ig farben was the company that made the gas. it was interlocked with the rockefeller concerns, at the time.
you have to understand that the united states did not enter world war two until 1941, and was not particularly hostile to german plans to attack the soviet union. if you look at the situation carefully, it becomes clear that the american concern was damage control to reverse hitler's botched invasion (which they seemed to support until it failed) and save western europe from stalinism.
ig farben was dismantled after the war. it's major successor company was bayer. smaller successors include hoechst, agfa-ansco and basf.
to an extent, he's right - it's about class. but, what nader is missing is that his idea of "left" is pretty right-wing. what he's describing is a process of moderate right-wingers in the two parties coming together and (representing a dominant popular consensus) working against the existing political consensus, which is to the extreme right. and, these are absolutely exciting developments if you're a reformist liberal (that is, a centrist on any non-american political spectrum) that wants to focus on incrementally fixing little aspects of the system, rather than tearing it all down.
it follows that what he's describing is a resurgence of the center. and, i'll take it. but, that's not the same thing as left & right coming together.
if you actually take the time to hang out at some street protests in north america, you might be shocked to find out that the people that call themselves leftists are mostly actually center-right liberals that react violently to most left-wing ideas. the spectrum has just shifted so violently that mills is considered far left nowadays.
there really isn't a left to speak of to begin with.
google > raytheon.
i mean, if it's one or the other i'd rather the former.
i think this video is confusing correlation with causality in several places, and in the end trying to pull a valid point out of a giant mess of meaningless correlations. religious societies are generally less free, because you get killed when you disobey the book in the most trivial way. i don't doubt the correlation, but is the lower level of crime a result of a higher level of morality, a more stringent level of enforcement or even a lack of proper statistics brought on by a conspiracy of silence stemming from the fact that virtually everybody could be taken behind the mosque and shot in the forehead?
& etc.
to answer the question, which is what baited me into watching it: not all religious people are stupid, but most stupid people are religious.
this is the guitar run through of the first movement of the proverbs symphony, as it was initially written (and demoed in early 2007). note that this version is less than seven minutes and is written to be performed live, whereas the completed movement is over seventeen minutes and would be impossible to reproduce without an orchestra of guitarists.
when finally completed, the trivial group sequence will consist of a 2-cd arranged in four thematically linked "symphonies", of which two are currently complete and one is partly complete. this is a live play through of the second half of the third piece and the entirety of the fourth.
this was written over 2004 and yet has not been recorded in any significant form. i went through a long period from '04 to '07 where i was convinced this piece (and some others i was writing at the time) required a drummer and refused to record until i could find one. i couldn't find one, which put me into a fit of depression and led to writers block & etc. eventually, i just bought an electronic kit with the goal of playing it myself.
however, i then skipped over it because i was bored with the relationship it was a relic of and decided it was time to move on. i'll be recording this (finally) over the upcoming months. for now, here's an unfinished demo of it.
i just watched a little report on the national about how the robocall scandal never happened, and it was just blown out of proportion by the media. this was filmed after the government came out with a report indicating that they couldn't find evidence of the claims.
well, that's government investigating government, and i have reason to believe it's being covered up. how much of an effect it actually had is a more complicated question that i can't begin to try and answer.
however, i was working for one of the robocall firms on election day. it was a small office out of a tall building on elgin street in ottawa. i initially started working there doing opinion surveys as a student, but i found myself going back there between jobs because they were happy to have me back. i happen to have been rather good at getting people to answer the surveys (i guess it's a combination of being interesting enough to not hang up on and being a good troll), which is an obscure and sought after talent.
anyways, the nature of the firm changed over the five or so years i was in and out of it. they were initially doing overflow for ekos or doing a lot of government of canada surveys. over time, they started doing more and more surveys for conservative political candidates. for the last several months leading up to the election, they were pretty much campaigning for the conservative party.
some of the polls were pretty straight forward - which candidate in your riding do you support, followed by some demographics about age and income. some of them were a little less straight forward, and i had caught on that something was not right by the end of it.
for example, they were polling in helena guergis' riding, but they weren't refreshing the numbers. so, you'd have people calling the same numbers over and over again, supposedly on behalf of helena guergis. that's a good way to piss people off so that they don't want to vote for helena guergis, which is what the cpc wanted at the time.
i was taken off the phone on election day to do data entry, but i do distinctly recall the *owner* of the firm periodically repeating - and it was of the utmost importance to him - to NOT tell people there was a change in the riding, because the information was false. i didn't put it together at the time, but it seems like he was actually NOT wanting to commit voter fraud, no doubt to try and protect his business' reputation.
holinshed closed it's doors almost immediately after the election and has not resurfaced since.
the people on the phone were not robots, although they may have sounded like robots from time to time.
ontarians are generally pretty no-bullshit when it comes to elections. we're also generally pretty down to earth when it comes to politics. we had a red tory government in place for something like 30 years, and the truth is that the province has never really moved away from those values. sure, it's a good idea to be reasonable with spending, but not at a cost to social services, which are more important in the end.
so, that works against both the turkeys running against her. horwath is just too transparent, and it's nice to see people turn on her for the power grab. and, the kind of conservatism that hudak represents is just not popular here, outside of the rural heartland. the 905ers want some moderate tax cuts, not an unregulated market-based society (or, worse, having the system sold off to the party's wealthy buddies).
so, this was obvious. and, there's not going to be a change of power here unless:
a) the conservatives go back to their red tory roots, and actually try and outspend the liberals. which will revolt that rural base, as it does everywhere.
or
b) the ndp cut out the transparent power politics, which means a drastic change in leadership. the reality is that the ontario ndp can't even rely on union support, so they end up competing with conservatives for low information voters.
but, it also helps that hudak is a cartoon character. a million jobs, tim? by government policy? is that a four year plan or a five year plan?
it bothers me that i tend to align with the right on speech issues, and not because i feel a conservative twinge within me but because of the motives i end up forced to align with, due to the left being so authoritarian. i don't want to be supporting people that want the right to publish hate literature, but i can't be supporting this type of authoritarian statism that wants to police people's thoughts, either.
the reason to oppose these laws is that they don't work. rather, they provide fresh fuel for stale hate propaganda. if you shut down the nazi newspaper, don't be surprised when they use it as evidence to prove that the jews control the media - and when people are dumb enough to believe it.
further, when you attach consequences to opinions, what you do is just drive them underground. people learn what they can say in public and can't, but they don't actually change what they think. this fuels the resentment. it leads to groups of people yelling "i can't say what i want because of THEM". one would have to expect a long term policy of this sort to eventually lead to a violent backlash, as it isn't eliminating the hate but bottling it up for eventual explosive release.
there are various approaches to dealing with racism, but they generally have to do with working it out through integration and dialogue, not threatening people to shut up or else.
that doesn't mean i think hate speech should be without consequence, but i think it should be treated as a tort and come with some very heavy burden on the person launching the suit. it's ultimately a type of defamation when you work it out; if i say something disparaging about all people of a certain characteristic, the crux of the problem is ultimately that it simply isn't true. yet, the law doesn't challenge just any false statement, it challenges false statements that are shown to cause harm. if somebody's racist tirade has a demonstrable consequence, the person that wrote it should be held responsible for it and forced to make the situation whole.
otherwise, they're just a moron running their mouth off and should be treated as such - which generally means just ignoring them.
i'm hoping he keeps it going, by calling his detractors jewish nazi pedophiles.
i have to admit it would be fun to storm a police station and make the pigs squeal. yet, that's just a twisted fantasy.
it's not clear to me where the people in between stand, but these are police state tactics that have the potential to completely undermine the government in kiev. it doesn't really matter what the law says.
....and that remains the only message that vice is succeeding in getting across: the conversion of ukraine from a failed democracy to a militarized police state.
this is so anti-american. how are they supposed to celebrate their culture without showdowns and other gun fights? this isn't america any more it's fascist communism! the big money elitist globalist corporate scum must be stopped.....!
if you're not able to understand something, it's because the person explaining it to you is too stupid to conform to your preconceptions.
basically, no.
there were repeated iranian invasions of greece over thousands of years from the area now called ukraine, where anachronistic buddhist statues have been found. the buddhist beliefs are, of course, of ultimate iranian origin in central asia, and not of indian origin in the south of the subcontinent. pythagoreanism was actually mostly derived from orphism, which was connected to the indigenous religions of the remnants of these iranian invasions in the areas around thrace and up the side of the black sea.
the similarities between greek and indian religion are consequently derived from the same common root of derivation as the similarities between greek and indian language - a common origin in the iranian tribes of central asia and southern russia.
it's overly simplistic to point entirely at climate change. and, in fact this is a revisionist understanding of things with a huge political motive underlying it. certain academics find the idea of tribes fighting each other to extinction to be distasteful - despite overwhelming evidence in the historical period.
i predict that a thousand years from now the same sort of academics will argue that the native americans were destroyed by climate change because they don't like the idea of genocide. it's too divisive. racist, even.
the reality is that genocide is a constant in recorded history, and to deny it existed in pre-history is nothing short of delusional.
further, climate change often works better together with genocide than it does as a contrary hypothesis to it. the southern movements of tribes in the historical period often had to do with the weather changing. there are clear destruction horizons in the indus valley that almost certainly had to do with iranian tribes moving southward, which brought their language and their religion into india and iran. this seems to have to do with the temperatures decreasing around the caspian.
the civilizations of the fertile crescent sucked at doing irrigation, and that remains a gigantic problem in the region to this day.
there are documented migrations from central asia into greece during the period that the minoans disappeared, including the replacement of the indigenous language with the greek one.
greenland is a good example, but it also had to do with the country's extreme isolation.
but the takeaway is the climate change leads to migration, rather than collapse, and that migration has historically had incredibly disruptive consequences. we may like to think we're beyond that, or that our guns are big enough to counteract it. but maybe that's a little naive, too.
what a lot of the studies you'll see about this will do is build up this strawman about race, knock it down and then claim it proves something.
you don't need to talk about prehistoric migrations to get an understanding of gene flow between the middle east and central asia, or between india and china. there have been huge trade networks across these region for as long as time has existed, and slave trades working in all directions. it only makes sense to say "we didn't find evidence of a racial marker" if you begin with the argument that races exist in the first place; if you acknowledge that races actually don't exist, and almost all markers exist in almost all populations at different frequencies, none of the evidence is relevant to the question.
what follows is that you cannot use genetic evidence to demonstrate anything other than that there's no such thing as race in the first place.
now, as for various mutations, finding high frequencies indicates migration paths, yes. but it's beyond specious to try and connect those ideas to this archaic fabrication of a concept that is race.
that means that it's entirely consistent to pull most genetic diversity in india from an indigenous root AND accept the invasion hypothesis, and that proving the local nature of that diversity does NOT disprove the idea of a southern invasion.
if you look at the historical period, we can see invasions that have had dominant effects on the genetic and cultural make-up of the population (arab invasion of north africa), that have led to mixed peoples with mixed cultures (turkish invasion of anatolia) or that have left a culture with little genetic influence (bolivia is a good example, as would be most of colonized africa).
i mean, do you take a genetic sample of french-speaking, christian central africans and use it to disprove french colonialism?
i'd hazard an educated guess that there's more african dna in europe than there is european dna in africa.
this hippie whitewashing of history will be reversed, along with everything else they've fucked up. it's just unfortunate to have to live in this period, where truth is a constant casualty to orwell.
the alley cats on my porch have spawned themselves into alley kittens.
they still keep their distance, although they've mostly stopped scattering. it's weird, because i'm generally a magnet for house pets. alley cats aren't house pets, of course. but alley cats aren't usually porch cats, either.
i don't want to freak the mother out, but maybe the kitties will be more friendly if i hang out outside from time to time.
this was never meant to be released as it is, although i had some ideas about putting together an acoustic ep of tour material. neither touring nor the accompanying ep followed. but this is hanging out on the old hard drive, and it has some fucking charm to it, if i might say so myself. so, it gets to be the first up to my little lo-fi side site.
at the time (early 2002), i was working on some psychedelic pop demos with a friend of mine. i was loading the tracks up with all kinds of overdubs and effects and other fun things, but the possibility of performing the material live with just the two of us (without stooping to the level of backing tapes or, worse, those fucking horrid loop pedals that make everything sound like steve reich after a fucking lobotomy), was pretty much completely impossible. these songs were solid - they could hold their own on an acoustic. i also realized that acoustic music was on it's way up, so doing a little tour as a two-person harmonized folk duo was the way to go. this track, however, was written in a bit of a post-punk style and needed to be rearranged for acoustic guitar in order to have that idea work itself out.
so, i just demoed this up for the other guy (the vocals are just there to drive the track along; the other guy wrote them, not me) to get the point across. he didn't like any of this - not the touring as an acoustic folk duo idea, not the rearrangement on the track, nothing. in 2002. oops? it's the story of my musical career....
the track is full of messy playing, because i'm trying to sing at the same time and the vocals are rhythmically contrasted against the guitars - but mostly because nobody was supposed to hear this. i'll be re-recording this over the next few months, as i clean up my writing from the period.
now that the russians are occupied in ukraine, they're ramping up the syria rhetoric again.
and this isn't going to be a quick bomb-and-invade operation. to begin with, they've got hezbollah on the ground. second, the russians have been selling anti-aircraft for years. third, the iranians are a real question mark, as russia and the united states are in a pretty open multi-theatre proxy war at this point. which has the possibility for further escalation in iraq, as well.
i just watched the rest of this (i'm a little behind).
it's true that the situation in syria doesn't really allow for a serious election (but apparently the situation in ukraine does). the thing is that's not an accident. the saudi-american aim is to prevent democracy in syria. the rhetoric is one thing, but the anglo-american imperial policy (which the saudis have supported for a long time) has always been to do everything possible to prevent any kind of self-determination across the region. assad wanted to be a doctor, and only inherited his position by accident. he's been trying to step down since he became president, but wants to do so in a way that is a responsible shift of power. the saudis are trying to prevent that...
the only reason he's not a sanctioned dictator is that he's not our guy, he's in cahoots with the russians. the saudis have other motives, but that's what's driving the state department.
the second thing is that when he talks about not wanting aid to go through damascus, it's a political thing. people living through this kind of nightmare are going to put their political aspirations and sympathies aside and align with the force that feeds them, whatever it is - dictatorial state, looney jihadists, alien life, whatever. so, if the government is getting the aid in, people will support the government. but, for fuck's sake, isn't that what a government does? sitting there in washington and trying to scheme ways up that are going to get the aid distributed by looney jihadists instead of the legitimate state power overseeing the area isn't going to go over anybody's heads in the country. if the government isn't doing what the government ought to do, people are going to ask what's stopping them. when it gets explained that the imperial power is using the aid as a ploy to try and turn them against the government.....that's when these things start blowing back....
i mean, i'm all for realpolitik if it's smart and careful, but that's just boneheaded in it's lack of basic respect for the intelligence of the average syrian.
sadly, hrw and other organizations of the sort are fronts for the state department. it's pretty documented.
now that the russians are occupied in ukraine, they're ramping up the syria rhetoric again.
and this isn't going to be a quick bomb-and-invade operation. to begin with, they've got hezbollah on the ground. second, the russians have been selling anti-aircraft for years. third, the iranians are a real question mark, as russia and the united states are in a pretty open multi-theatre proxy war at this point. which has the possibility for further escalation in iraq, as well.
i want to get it out front that i think you get the logic right, but that it only really applies starkly to the hyperfeminine extreme of the transfemale spectrum. if you begin with the grey area part of this and extrapolate it, i think you'll see that it sort of contradicts what you're getting at. if you acknowledge that a lot of transwomen are a little more in the centre in the sense that they have bigendered and androgynous traits, you'll have to conclude that they may have a few traits that may be attractive to some gay men. i mean, what you're saying is true, but only in that limited range of transwomen. so, you should have stuck with the whole grey area theme :)
personally? i'm the super shy, dresses down, tanktop 'n' jeans, bookish-librarian type rather than the big hair, stiletto heels & makeup everywhere type (no judging, it's just not me). while i don't get much attention from gay men for the reasons you're suggesting, and others, i do get a little bit, and i think there's some good reasons for it. a gay male may notice that we might share some tastes in art, for example, especially music, and think that this is something to build a relationship on top of. and, because i have a small-breasted, thin and athletic type of physique rather than a really curvy one, he may see something sufficiently sexy in it. conversely, a lot of straight men will interpret me as overly challenging or "unfeminine" for the same reasons they're afraid of assertive feminists. the ones that are attracted to me are attracted to me for the same reasons they're attracted to tomboys - or to challenging feminists.
it's about breaking down those media strereotypes of hyperfeminity in transgendered women, but it's also about those grey areas. transgendered people inhabit a lot of them, and because of that they're going to generate a lot of interest within them as well.
looks like somebody fell for the propaganda. you repeat it so many times....
they're privatizing everything. education. social security. even welfare is being offloaded to the church. and it has nothing to do with government revenue streams and everything to do with increasing profit.
i think one had to always look at affirmative action as a temporary solution, until some of the root causes could be addressed. have they been addressed? no. but, maybe the position was becoming too entrenched and the more substantial reforms were being ignored. maybe turning the focus back to the root causes is the enlightened way to respond.
Friday, May 16, 2014
if you accept all (or some) of the reasons that states are inherently corrupt and driven by the interests of those that control them (capital, today), how can you be so naive as to think that international law will ever be upheld for any reason?
fucking liberals.
can somebody give me ONE example where an empire said "gee, we shouldn't invade this area and steal it's resources. it's written here in international law."
one?
no?
didn't think so.
law requires enforcement. that's how it is. and who polices the police?
so, instead of flailing around these worthless pieces of paper, i propose that we collectively grasp the situation, realize this order has failed us, throw the laws nobody follows out the window and start building a new order instead.
"it may seem strange to some man...that nature should thus dissociate, and render men apt to invade and destroy one another...but neither of us accuse man's nature in it."
well, he's right. but the second option is the good option. it's 2014, and we're still supporting unitary, ethno-religious nation states that are opposed to pluralism? two of 'em, even. across the peninsula from each other.
salmons to the head of all of them.
from now on? lol. what year is it? 1997?
stop analyzing and be deterred.
BE DETERRED.
even if the indignation is sincere, it's just politics. you can expect the same thing from the next republican administration. this is a cia tactic that goes back decades.
he's not lying. it legitimately is in russia's interests to do what the americans tell them to. sort of like how it's in the interests of a hostage to do what their assailant tells them. and it's really not in russia's interests to take this independent stand outside of the international community.
nothing funny about the statement, it's just that, as usual, you're just not getting the context.
who is he even talking to? the israeli right knows he's full of shit as much as the global left does. american-israeli donors are educated people. it's an act without an audience. he should just come out with a rocket launcher on his shoulder, arnold style, and drop the fucking bullshit.
NPR IS FREE MARKET RUSSIAN COMMUNIST SPIES.
but, dammit russia, can you realize you're being decoyed?
yup. now that the russians are distracted in ukraine...
#glitterbomb
that's a lot of optimism for syriza that isn't shared by a lot of other sources i keep up with, which have them pegged as establishment lackeys. we've seen this over and over again in europe recently, where socialists act like fascists on election.
i simply don't know how they think they're going to get out of this while sticking with the euro gold standard. none of the solutions here are possible without having sovereignty over their money supply.
"what we're really trying to do is co-opt the environmental movement to vote for the democratic party in the next presidential election, while the party continues to support anti-environmental policies. i know it sounds outlandish and insulting, but it worked in the last cycle with the anti-war movement so why not try it again? the kind of soft-lefty liberal centrists that go for the democrats are PERFECT for doublethink! they've been trained for it their whole lives! so, we're focusing on building a feel-good community where people can get together and smoke giant blunts (next cycle? they've been saying that for forty years...), rather than on building a counter-economy that may actually reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. and, who would criticize the solution? in the end, everybody is happy. self-censorship leading to ignorance is truly bliss."
deathtokoalas
it's really pretty sad just what level of effort people perceive is being put into this. the writing in this profile is largely stream of consciousness. i'll go back to correct spelling or modify sentence structures to eliminate underlying assumptions in the writing that only make sense to me, but what you're reading here is otherwise completely raw.
so, how do you approach somebody accusing you of using a thesaurus? this is shit i'm pumping out in a few minutes per post. so, when the false assumptions are stripped out, that must be a suggestion that i have an advanced vocabulary, which i actually think is not at all true - i think it's obvious that i graduated high school and have read a few books since but i wouldn't suggest that much beyond that stands out in what i'm presenting here. nor would i want it to. i fucking hate pretentious blowhards. here's a startling fact: over the approximately ten years that i spent in university i went to zero parties and made zero friends that i stayed in contact with outside of the scholastic context. the hate was really mutual, actually. it wasn't somewhere i fit into. at all.
for the first few years, i greatly preferred hanging out in the projects near my parents house, with dropouts and hustlers. then i spent a few years hanging out with street artists and ravers, followed by a few years of complete lonerism and then a few years with occupy kids before i went back to being a complete loner. i've never been or ever wanted to be the elitist educated kid. that's really a very bad way to interpret this. yet, it is also unfortunately a very bad reflection of the public education system when somebody of no meaningfully advanced education that is just scrawling out thoughts as they come up is viewed as writing carefully presented essays and agonizing over every word in them...
i always knew i would be fucking miserable in the life of an academic, but i was balancing it off against other ways to be fucking miserable. in hindsight? i regret wasting my time with it. but, i can't say i ever had a lot of choice: the alternative that was presented to me was pretty shitty, too.
there were several years when taking student loan money was literally the only way that i could pay my rent, because i wasn't able to get a job in a coffee shop or fast food restaurant.
"so, why did you go to graduate school?"
"because mcdonald's wouldn't call me back. white, unfortunately."
"oh."
"the rent just keeps coming, y'know? every fucking month. never stops. the student loans are a steady pay check for somebody that can't find work."
"why not just try welfare?"
"well, that would be better. i could do what i want instead of studying shit i don't care about. but, welfare is something like half of student loan money. it's not enough to pay the bastards. if it was, i'd go for it."
"oh. disability?"
"well, i don't have one, far as i can tell."
today, i do live on disability. but the diagnosis is pretty weak. it's something i have to do this summer, actually - get a better diagnosis. i don't know what fits best. schizophrenia. bi polar. something like that....
TheVanillatech
Why? I know 4 months but why?
deathtokoalas
this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted.
TheVanillatech
Still, why..... XD
deathtokoalas
i've been posting a lot to google over the last few months. i guess i have an internet addiction; before i was posting to google, i was posting to facebook, and before that i was all over the cbc (canadian state run media), and before that i was all over mailing lists and newsgroups...
but i've moved to youtube in an attempt to promote the music i've been spending more time with over the last few months.
i'm constantly being accused of being one of them no good book lerners. i've had dozens of people accuse me of sitting in front of my laptop with thesaurus.com open.
it's ridiculous. and false. but interesting. just reflecting.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
deathtokoalas
so tired.
enough of this. been going on too long,
now. need a manic episode, please. five, six days without sleeping.
that's the good stuff....
Monday, May 12, 2014
patriarchy.
it might at first seem rather remarkable that the word appears nowhere in the show, but then why would it in a panel on sexism composed of four men and one completely drowned out woman?
(although i should add that there is an attractive european woman invited to every panel i've ever seen this show put on, and she is always ignored and belittled by the host, so that's very much expected on the stream)
the mansplainers collectively display great difficulty grappling with why women are presented one way and men are not, unable to parse it through their concepts of egalitarianism. the sole female was given a brief chance to get to it, but was cut off before she could finish her thought.
to be fair, it's more reasonable to speak of the remnants of patriarchy. but, the remnants of patriarchy is the answer nonetheless. where women were once sold by their fathers to their husbands with little say in the matter, today they are given almost full autonomy over the process. yet, the market relationship between buyer and seller has not been abolished. the idea we have in our head is objectification, but the more accurate idea is commodification. the market is designed so that men are buyers and women are sellers. buyers do not need to advertise a product that they do not sell; sellers must advertise to be successful.
this is clearly an unequal situation, but it's roots are not in the media. what the marketing guy was trying to explain is that it's all about tapping into desire. the media may uphold the status quo, but it's the underlying culture that enforces the market relation.
true egalitarianism will not come when women stop selling, it will come when women start buying, which will be a function of their economic power.
so, be patient with this.
why do so many people have so much difficulty in confusing maturity with conformity?
i suspect it's a lack of maturity, actually.
but there's a lot of pressures coming down from the top, too.
i don't really want to come down particularly hard on conformists, whether it's genuine or strategic. i recognize the value of conformity as a survival tactic. i always have...
...but let's not confuse that with maturity. k?
"while generally regarded as a text on political philosophy, leviathan is also a treatise on the natural sciences that was written before newton, einstein, freud, jung, darwin and gauss. further, while hobbes may have been friends with bacon, he shows no interest in the scientific method, preferring to emulate the synthetic philosophy of geometers past. worse, he builds his politics out of his understanding of the natural sciences using a method then referred to as materialism (which is related to but quite different than what we think of as materialism today). the result can only be described as a lot of nonsense, written from a point of extreme ignorance."
from time to time, hobbes surprises but these surprises are a function of my own ignorance rather than hobbes' insight. the most important thing i've learned reading hobbes is that a number of ideas that i thought were attributable to newton are in fact older (and mostly attributable to galileo).
they need to stop interviewing kissinger. he's completely out of touch. clinton bombed him into history.
unfortunately, i suspect the rebels are pulling out to facilitate an air attack.
i'm very staunchly pro-choice, but this is not smart politics. the issue splits strongly along urban/rural lines, meaning it's an issue in currently liberal-held ridings where the ndp is often uncompetitive.
if he stays strict on it, it could be as much as +10 for the conservatives. if he's serious, it's more important to get back in power and regain an influence over the courts.