open

originally created in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 4, 2015. remixed july 15, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/open

why (vocal mix)

initially written in 1996. recreated in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 12, 2015. vocals added july 15, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/why-4

ogyanemob

initially written in 1993. first full recording in 1996. recreated in dec, 1997 and again in jan, 1999. reclaimed on july 2, 2015. remixed on july 15, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/ogyanemob

dohgye

initially programmed in 1997. digitally modified in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. remixed july 15, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/dohgye

werso smidits

originally written in 1996. recorded in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 28, 2015. remixed july 15, 2015.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/werso-smidits

ants followup

hi.

i haven't really looked into it much, but i don't think i can prove that it's the plants - just because ants and plants are both everywhere. even if the plants did attract them, i have little faith that removing them will take them away. and, honestly, that wasn't really what i was thinking. if it was roaches, i'd be a bit more concerned about the plants, but not ants...

my hypothesis is that it's related to the weather. it's been an unusually cold and wet summer. ants like it warm and dry. so, the cold and wet soil has led them to migrate, and they ended up in the house. it's less a pull hypothesis and more a push hypothesis - it's less that something is attracting them to the house and more that the weather is forcing them to explore, and they happened to stumble upon the house.

that said, something else that's recently changed is the barbeque in the front. and, i don't think i need an article to prove that ants are going to want to be around where there's a barbeque, as anything that gets dropped will become food. further, you can clean a barbeque, but you can't *really* clean a barbeque. maybe you could ask if they've seen ants around it and keep an eye on it.

but, again, i don't think that's the reason. i think it's the weather.

there's a study here, but there's lots of more info on the topic out there:
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/01/ants45.html

i think the only option is barricading them out. and hoping it warms up soon...

j

i don't have an issue with donating tissue for medical research, regardless of the cause of death. but, a profit motive worked into the process is absolutely a problem, regardless of the age of the person donating. a firm making a profit from people donating body parts from car crashes is not less of a problem. nor (i would argue) is a profit motive in health care, in general. now, this video is in the process of being publicly vetted, so we'll have to see what the outcome of that process is, but, if it turns out that the sale of body parts is an ongoing issue, i would argue that the solution is not to modify abortion laws, but to modify regulatory practices so that nobody is making money from the donation process. this may suggest a larger role for government and institutions like universities in stem cell research - which should not be allowed in the private sector for other reasons, as well. as a canadian, this strikes me as a problem that is unique to the american for-profit health system.

stated tersely, i wouldn't designate abortion as the problem, here (if there is a problem, here). i'd designate capitalism as the problem, here.

fwanksajerk7
+deathtokoalas Oh spare me. Without being able to make money somehow, planned parenthood would become a net drain and eventually shut down, dragging the tax paying supporters along with it. In america the 99% are already overburdened, you want them to pay even more? Just regulate it so that certain parts can only cost $X amount and nothing over.

deathtokoalas
+fwanksajerk in canada, abortion is viewed largely as a medical procedure. the vast majority are carried out in hospitals and funded by the public health care system. this is in fact the most efficient way to approach abortion. further, public polling in the united states has long upheld single payer as the preferred option.

if you're going to tax somebody, i'd rather tax the bank. but, it's not really the point. the point is more that market economies are inseparable from corruption. if you want an open health care economy, and most americans don't, but, in the abstract, if you do, then you need to make a choice:

1) you can regulate it to death, and then regulate the regulators. this is expensive, inefficient and often ineffective due to regulatory capture. further, it defeats the point. it's a no-win scenario. if you're going to regulate it to this extreme, you'd might as well nationalize it - it's far more efficient.

2) you have to accept that there is corruption in markets.

in the end, this doesn't really have a lot to do with planned parenthood. i'm staunchly pro-choice. but, i realize that for-profit institutions are inherently evil because they're driven by the motive to profit at the expense of everything else. i don't find the idea of a corrupt abortion corporation particularly surprising; it's just the corporation part that needs a reaction, not the abortion part.