Tuesday, January 31, 2017
february is shaping up to have a lot of shows, actually. i just hope the weather co-operates.
i may sneak a show in on sunday....
i've pointed out repeatedly that i'm not a fan of metal, and particularly have a real hate on for metal culture, but this isn't really metal. unfortunately, we appear to be in a metal moment. when we go through these phases, i'm going to exist on the fringes rather than dive into the middle. so, i'm going to seek out what could be referred to as alternative metal.
i went over this once before: i usually identify as punk, but what i'm trying to articulate is a certain kind of alternative counter-cultural vision. punk is really probably actually dead this time. but, that alternative counter-culture is older than punk is - it is the same alternative counter-culture that the hippies and the beatniks articulated, and the same alternative counter-culture that ravers and cyberpunks have articulated since. don't misunderstand me: rock culture is dying. but, if the mainstream rock counter-culture of the era is metal, it will necessarily produce an alternative counter-culture in a concept of alternative metal and this is what i'm going to be attracted to, if i'm going to be attracted to anything from the period at all.
see, i might not like metal, but i like hardcore punk and i like shoegaze and i like dream pop and i like jazz and i like grunge and i like post rock and i like math rock. metal is really the exception; i like most rock period genres. and, the actual reason that metal is the exception is that it's so fucking cock driven. what you could say is that i can't fucking stand cock rock, and therefore can't fucking stand most metal, because it defines itself that way. but, what that means is that i can get into these alt-metal hybrids if they get outside of the cock rock...
i haven't decided yet. this is a vocal style that i can turn sour on very quickly after repeated listens. but i think that the wall of guitars and reverberated vocals will be a good head cave, so it's leaning this way.
i may sneak a show in on sunday....
i've pointed out repeatedly that i'm not a fan of metal, and particularly have a real hate on for metal culture, but this isn't really metal. unfortunately, we appear to be in a metal moment. when we go through these phases, i'm going to exist on the fringes rather than dive into the middle. so, i'm going to seek out what could be referred to as alternative metal.
i went over this once before: i usually identify as punk, but what i'm trying to articulate is a certain kind of alternative counter-cultural vision. punk is really probably actually dead this time. but, that alternative counter-culture is older than punk is - it is the same alternative counter-culture that the hippies and the beatniks articulated, and the same alternative counter-culture that ravers and cyberpunks have articulated since. don't misunderstand me: rock culture is dying. but, if the mainstream rock counter-culture of the era is metal, it will necessarily produce an alternative counter-culture in a concept of alternative metal and this is what i'm going to be attracted to, if i'm going to be attracted to anything from the period at all.
see, i might not like metal, but i like hardcore punk and i like shoegaze and i like dream pop and i like jazz and i like grunge and i like post rock and i like math rock. metal is really the exception; i like most rock period genres. and, the actual reason that metal is the exception is that it's so fucking cock driven. what you could say is that i can't fucking stand cock rock, and therefore can't fucking stand most metal, because it defines itself that way. but, what that means is that i can get into these alt-metal hybrids if they get outside of the cock rock...
i haven't decided yet. this is a vocal style that i can turn sour on very quickly after repeated listens. but i think that the wall of guitars and reverberated vocals will be a good head cave, so it's leaning this way.
i actually don't oppose this - so long as the funds are reinvested into services for natural born citizens. i mean, i don't want to see the money disappear from public funds as tax cuts. i suspect that it will...
now, that said, i think that the numbers may, in the end, determine that the problem is not so large as some people might suspect. my understanding is that the united states has a functioning immigration system, and you're looking at a fraction of immigrants that just end up on welfare. but, so long as we live in a capitalist system that pushes down artificial scarcity, there are economic realities around immigration that need to be dealt with - and one of them is that we shouldn't want to bring in people and then park them on welfare. that is a net drain of common resources.
again: we need to know our left from our right, here. leftists are concerned about the efficient management of collective resources, whereas conservatives feel the obligation to help the needy for whatever religious or chivalric reason. it follows that leftists should seek to minimize entry to parasitic migrants, whereas conservatives are going to want to show off how righteous they are as a badge of honour.
where i disagree with trump is on the scope of the problem and on where to redirect the public resources.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14457678/trump-order-immigrants-welfare
now, that said, i think that the numbers may, in the end, determine that the problem is not so large as some people might suspect. my understanding is that the united states has a functioning immigration system, and you're looking at a fraction of immigrants that just end up on welfare. but, so long as we live in a capitalist system that pushes down artificial scarcity, there are economic realities around immigration that need to be dealt with - and one of them is that we shouldn't want to bring in people and then park them on welfare. that is a net drain of common resources.
again: we need to know our left from our right, here. leftists are concerned about the efficient management of collective resources, whereas conservatives feel the obligation to help the needy for whatever religious or chivalric reason. it follows that leftists should seek to minimize entry to parasitic migrants, whereas conservatives are going to want to show off how righteous they are as a badge of honour.
where i disagree with trump is on the scope of the problem and on where to redirect the public resources.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14457678/trump-order-immigrants-welfare
it's been no secret from day one that justin trudeau's role is to place a friendly face upon fascism. he's a salesperson for global capitalism, and all of the rights abuses and enforced social hierarchies that come with it. what he does is present a marketing facade over these rights abuses that washes them away in a sea of platitudes. and, it's always been blatantly transparent...
the thing is that the other options are at least no better. the 2015 election offered the worst choices in my lifetime, anyways. there wasn't even really a lesser evil.
what trudeau provided was a handful of positive policies to go along with the list of terrible policies that they all shared. for example - they were all in favour of pipelines, but the liberal platform had a green infrastructure bank in it. given that there wasn't an option to stop the pipelines, the infrastructure bank was at least something. but, we may be waiting forever for this....
i'm actually going to do what is probably the worst thing i can do: i'm going to drop the mic. i'm not even analyzing this anymore. i'm just going to let him drown. it's clear at this point that the upside was a mirage, and all we're going to get is a continued spokesperson for the worst rights abusers on the planet.
ignore the media, they're clueless.
the thing is that the other options are at least no better. the 2015 election offered the worst choices in my lifetime, anyways. there wasn't even really a lesser evil.
what trudeau provided was a handful of positive policies to go along with the list of terrible policies that they all shared. for example - they were all in favour of pipelines, but the liberal platform had a green infrastructure bank in it. given that there wasn't an option to stop the pipelines, the infrastructure bank was at least something. but, we may be waiting forever for this....
i'm actually going to do what is probably the worst thing i can do: i'm going to drop the mic. i'm not even analyzing this anymore. i'm just going to let him drown. it's clear at this point that the upside was a mirage, and all we're going to get is a continued spokesperson for the worst rights abusers on the planet.
ignore the media, they're clueless.
so, apparently, nafta is now about embracing diversity; i suppose that the next step is accusing opponents of being racists.
i grasp that there's a certain level of political theatre here, and i'm not really opposed to this in principle, but this is not a smart strategy and it's going to badly backfire.
but, i mean, i think it's kind of too late. justin trudeau has aligned himself with the crumbling neo-liberal order, and appears to be too stupid to figure out what's happening around him. his government is going to fall as a consequence of his stubbornness.
the only solution at this point is a caucus revolt.
i grasp that there's a certain level of political theatre here, and i'm not really opposed to this in principle, but this is not a smart strategy and it's going to badly backfire.
but, i mean, i think it's kind of too late. justin trudeau has aligned himself with the crumbling neo-liberal order, and appears to be too stupid to figure out what's happening around him. his government is going to fall as a consequence of his stubbornness.
the only solution at this point is a caucus revolt.
Monday, January 30, 2017
when you talk to pacifists, it actually usually doesn't generally come down to self-interest - or at least not anymore. conscription isn't a serious threat, and hasn't been through the course of most peoples' lives.
maybe that's the disconnect. maybe people are still interpreting pacifism through the lens of conscription. and, i guess you see a 75 year old protestor from time to time, right?
but, my experience with pacifists is that it's derived from the philosophical position that change is impossible. this has strong eastern roots in most pacifists i've spoken to, even if they don't really understand it entirely. but, you see it in native american philosophy, as well - and it has a kind of lost lineage in greek philosophy through the eleatics (parmenides and zeno), too. but, if you start talking to them, what becomes obvious is how conservative their pacifism really is. and, if it's a consequence of the idea that change is impossible, as it so often is, then what could be more conservative than that?
maybe that's the disconnect. maybe people are still interpreting pacifism through the lens of conscription. and, i guess you see a 75 year old protestor from time to time, right?
but, my experience with pacifists is that it's derived from the philosophical position that change is impossible. this has strong eastern roots in most pacifists i've spoken to, even if they don't really understand it entirely. but, you see it in native american philosophy, as well - and it has a kind of lost lineage in greek philosophy through the eleatics (parmenides and zeno), too. but, if you start talking to them, what becomes obvious is how conservative their pacifism really is. and, if it's a consequence of the idea that change is impossible, as it so often is, then what could be more conservative than that?
and, to clarify a point that is underlying my critique, but that i haven't made in this space, or at all for a while: what is driving the refugee push is not left-wing. it's noblesse oblige; it's the white man's burden. it's charity. it's faith through works. all of this is not described using terms like liberalism, socialism or even progressivism but encapsulated perfectly in the term toryism.
let's go back to the basic human nature question. if you believe that human nature is fixed, which is the condition that defines conservatism, then you would look at these wars in the middle east as an unending quagmire. you may acknowledge the role of imperialism in the abstract, but you would deny it the defining role. you would instead argue that war is endemic to the region, it will never end and you just have to get people out - because "human nature". all of the things about charity and nobless oblige would then follow from the inherent superiority of western culture, and the obligation to do something to help the lesser peoples.
but, all of this thinking is foreign to leftists. to begin with, leftists believe in self-determination as a corollary of the flexibility of human nature. it then follows that leftists reject the concept of charity in favour of wealth redistribution, because we demand self-determination. this insistence on the human condition as malleable also implies an inherent concept of revolutionary insurrection, or at the least reformism if the situation is already not so bad.
the end result is that while conservatives will support resettlement programs, liberals and socialists will actually support arming the refugees and telling them to take control of their own fate. it's a fundamental difference between the left and the right.
now, the situation on the ground is a mess, and you can't take the media narrative at face value. but, the reality stands. the leftist approach to syria is to support the insurrection; insisting on resettling refugees as a kind of benevolent charity is inherently right-wing.
what the contemporary right, personified by trump, is doing is just irresponsible. and, we can see that neither liberals nor conservatives support it. rather, his base is described by this apolitical nihilism...
my own view is that some aid should flow into the region, particularly for children caught in the mess. but, at the end of the day, the syrian people are going to have to win the fight and that's what the foreign policy should be centered around.
let's go back to the basic human nature question. if you believe that human nature is fixed, which is the condition that defines conservatism, then you would look at these wars in the middle east as an unending quagmire. you may acknowledge the role of imperialism in the abstract, but you would deny it the defining role. you would instead argue that war is endemic to the region, it will never end and you just have to get people out - because "human nature". all of the things about charity and nobless oblige would then follow from the inherent superiority of western culture, and the obligation to do something to help the lesser peoples.
but, all of this thinking is foreign to leftists. to begin with, leftists believe in self-determination as a corollary of the flexibility of human nature. it then follows that leftists reject the concept of charity in favour of wealth redistribution, because we demand self-determination. this insistence on the human condition as malleable also implies an inherent concept of revolutionary insurrection, or at the least reformism if the situation is already not so bad.
the end result is that while conservatives will support resettlement programs, liberals and socialists will actually support arming the refugees and telling them to take control of their own fate. it's a fundamental difference between the left and the right.
now, the situation on the ground is a mess, and you can't take the media narrative at face value. but, the reality stands. the leftist approach to syria is to support the insurrection; insisting on resettling refugees as a kind of benevolent charity is inherently right-wing.
what the contemporary right, personified by trump, is doing is just irresponsible. and, we can see that neither liberals nor conservatives support it. rather, his base is described by this apolitical nihilism...
my own view is that some aid should flow into the region, particularly for children caught in the mess. but, at the end of the day, the syrian people are going to have to win the fight and that's what the foreign policy should be centered around.
you just have to understand that "religious tolerance" means something very different to a militant atheist than it is does to a theistic multiculturalist; what it means is tolerating those fucking idiot ignorant savage religious buffoons until they can pull their heads out of their asses and enter the 21st century. if you want to call me a supremacist of some sort, it's like arguing that i'm a newtonian supremacist for arguing for the abolition of aristotle - it's true and everything, but you're missing the basic point that atheism is, in actuality, an advancement and step forward beyond religion. you can believe in progress without being a racist. you might even then call yourself a progressive.
i would do no such thing. i'm an anarchist. religion is oppression, so muslims are the oppressors. and, if you disagree then you're the oppressor, too. and, if you think that's absurd then tell me when the last time you saw a female imam was, or when you saw a gay marriage in a mosque. these aren't even in the stage of debate. we need to start to have these discussions before i can see your religion as something that should be accepted and respected, rather than merely fucking tolerated...so long as you do it by yourself and don't force it on anyone. and, yes - christians are the oppressors, too.
and, you can yell and scream and get mad and break stuff and stomp your feet around in circles if you want, but it doesn't make you less wrong.
that said, don't misunderstand me - i'm not going to get in your way. i support the bill of rights. i believe in the rule of law. i hope the constitution upholds itself - in a court of law, mind you, rather than through the intimidation of ochlocracy. just, don't expect me to stand up for a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic bigots - and don't expect me to react to the hypocrisy of your anger at me for calling a spade a spade.
i would do no such thing. i'm an anarchist. religion is oppression, so muslims are the oppressors. and, if you disagree then you're the oppressor, too. and, if you think that's absurd then tell me when the last time you saw a female imam was, or when you saw a gay marriage in a mosque. these aren't even in the stage of debate. we need to start to have these discussions before i can see your religion as something that should be accepted and respected, rather than merely fucking tolerated...so long as you do it by yourself and don't force it on anyone. and, yes - christians are the oppressors, too.
and, you can yell and scream and get mad and break stuff and stomp your feet around in circles if you want, but it doesn't make you less wrong.
that said, don't misunderstand me - i'm not going to get in your way. i support the bill of rights. i believe in the rule of law. i hope the constitution upholds itself - in a court of law, mind you, rather than through the intimidation of ochlocracy. just, don't expect me to stand up for a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic bigots - and don't expect me to react to the hypocrisy of your anger at me for calling a spade a spade.
it would do the opposition well to realize that this is the substantive policy that you're not supposed to notice when you're distracted by the racism.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-signs-executive-order-to-slash-federal-regulations/article33824754/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-signs-executive-order-to-slash-federal-regulations/article33824754/
Sunday, January 29, 2017
the rabit reconstruction closed quickly after i finished 9:46 in mid-november.
first, i should point out that i republished the rabit is wolf demo on november 8th. this was done over the course of the morning, and was really just a process of combining together several existing demos. the material wasn't remixed.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
the next two releases were also very fast. the time single was built over nov 17-19,
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/time
...whereas the imaginary tour demo was created in the afternoon of the 19th:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-imaginary-tour-demo-ep
the end of november and beginning of december was then spent finalizing the trepanation nation for the last time.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/trepanation-nation
first, i should point out that i republished the rabit is wolf demo on november 8th. this was done over the course of the morning, and was really just a process of combining together several existing demos. the material wasn't remixed.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
the next two releases were also very fast. the time single was built over nov 17-19,
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/time
...whereas the imaginary tour demo was created in the afternoon of the 19th:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-imaginary-tour-demo-ep
the end of november and beginning of december was then spent finalizing the trepanation nation for the last time.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/trepanation-nation
here's the thing: there aren't a lot of people operating in the same musical space as me. so, it's like finding a unicorn at the mall.
"dude."
"dude."
"umm..."
"dudette."
"thanks."
but, he's absurdly overrated. or, at least he is if you ignore the absurdity of the entire presentation in the first place. i'd kind of like to hear him take it to the next level, but then he'd have to change his name to "tense steve" or something.
it's passively enjoyable. but he continues to evade. it's a tease.
"dude."
"dude."
"umm..."
"dudette."
"thanks."
but, he's absurdly overrated. or, at least he is if you ignore the absurdity of the entire presentation in the first place. i'd kind of like to hear him take it to the next level, but then he'd have to change his name to "tense steve" or something.
it's passively enjoyable. but he continues to evade. it's a tease.
i don't care about the cash-for-access issue, but i'd like to see the government completely abolish the ethics commissioner, altogether, as an absurd relic of the victorian age.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-cash-for-access-fundraisers-changes/article33788333/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-cash-for-access-fundraisers-changes/article33788333/
i've been clear that i'm not an advocate of marx' teleological reasoning, and it always was despite his protests, but i will tell you that this is very much true: it is very rare for somebody to be born into the elite classes and not end up as a tory. that is something that just doesn't happen.
his father was bourgeois, but it's not comparable.
his father was bourgeois, but it's not comparable.
but, you know, it's actually another great example.
the reality is that the liberal party's historical immigration policies are very similar to what the populists say they want. if you throw caution to the wind for a moment and take ann coulter at her word, she claims she just wants to make sure that immigrants have skills, so they don't end up on welfare or in crime. and, she puts a big emphasis on language. that's exactly what the liberal party's historical immigration policy stressed. granted, the context is different. in the 60s, putting a focus on language and education was designed to open the system up to more immigrants. but, acknowledging that change in context doesn't change the basic reality that this is, in fact, rational - once you separate it from all of the racism and other nonsense that coulter and her ilk spew. why wouldn't you want your immigration system based on skills? and why would you let in hordes of people that speak foreign languages? i exaggerate to stress the point: this really isn't controversial.
so, we're in this situation where there's this populist uprising. on point after point, the populists are basically articulating historical liberal party policy. the liberals are in power. and, they are reacting by pushing down various types of toryism...!?
it boggles the mind.
why isn't trudeau doing the obvious populist pivot, given that doing so is nothing more complex than upholding pearson's legacy?
the reality is that the liberal party's historical immigration policies are very similar to what the populists say they want. if you throw caution to the wind for a moment and take ann coulter at her word, she claims she just wants to make sure that immigrants have skills, so they don't end up on welfare or in crime. and, she puts a big emphasis on language. that's exactly what the liberal party's historical immigration policy stressed. granted, the context is different. in the 60s, putting a focus on language and education was designed to open the system up to more immigrants. but, acknowledging that change in context doesn't change the basic reality that this is, in fact, rational - once you separate it from all of the racism and other nonsense that coulter and her ilk spew. why wouldn't you want your immigration system based on skills? and why would you let in hordes of people that speak foreign languages? i exaggerate to stress the point: this really isn't controversial.
so, we're in this situation where there's this populist uprising. on point after point, the populists are basically articulating historical liberal party policy. the liberals are in power. and, they are reacting by pushing down various types of toryism...!?
it boggles the mind.
why isn't trudeau doing the obvious populist pivot, given that doing so is nothing more complex than upholding pearson's legacy?
again: the canadian immigration system is actually very selective, and this is a strong legacy of the liberal party. the architect of this was lester pearson. the idea was to make issues like religion and ethnicity irrelevant and instead focus entirely on education.
this pearsonian points system has been fundamental in ensuring that immigrants to canada do not arrive at the bottom of the socio-economic system, and are able to experience strong economic mobility when they get here. and, this is actually in pretty stark contradiction to the idea that we ought to just let in any refugee that knocks on the door.
that said, we've also always had refugee programs when necessary, and i think the issue in syria is fairly pressing.
so, it's complicated. and people have subtle positions that don't fit into this cartoon narrative being pushed down right now.
this pearsonian points system has been fundamental in ensuring that immigrants to canada do not arrive at the bottom of the socio-economic system, and are able to experience strong economic mobility when they get here. and, this is actually in pretty stark contradiction to the idea that we ought to just let in any refugee that knocks on the door.
that said, we've also always had refugee programs when necessary, and i think the issue in syria is fairly pressing.
so, it's complicated. and people have subtle positions that don't fit into this cartoon narrative being pushed down right now.
stop.
how many muslim immigrants do you see at the queer rally? at the environmental rally? at the workers rallies? at the women's march?
the reality is that there's a lot of policy space in between open arms and total bans - and that i don't happen to feel a lot of solidarity with this particular group, which tends to lean very far to the right.
my position on the burka ban last year was that i'm opposed to a government operated fashion police, not that i have any intellectual or emotional investment in the idea of "religious freedom" - which i consider to be a contradiction in terms.
they have legal and constitutional rights that should be upheld. i'll agree with that statement. i can offer legal opinions, and uphold the law as it stands - and agree in an abstract, intellectual way. but, this doesn't hit me in the gut. and, i'm not going to go out of my way to stand up for them, or let it affect my voting decisions.
they're just not allies to a secular, leftist vision. i'm sorry - but they're not.
how many muslim immigrants do you see at the queer rally? at the environmental rally? at the workers rallies? at the women's march?
the reality is that there's a lot of policy space in between open arms and total bans - and that i don't happen to feel a lot of solidarity with this particular group, which tends to lean very far to the right.
my position on the burka ban last year was that i'm opposed to a government operated fashion police, not that i have any intellectual or emotional investment in the idea of "religious freedom" - which i consider to be a contradiction in terms.
they have legal and constitutional rights that should be upheld. i'll agree with that statement. i can offer legal opinions, and uphold the law as it stands - and agree in an abstract, intellectual way. but, this doesn't hit me in the gut. and, i'm not going to go out of my way to stand up for them, or let it affect my voting decisions.
they're just not allies to a secular, leftist vision. i'm sorry - but they're not.
i just want to clarify that my vote in 2015 was not determined by immigration policy, and my vote in 2019 will not be determined by immigration policy, either. the truth is that i'm somewhere between the two extremes presented by media, but i don't want to get lost in the topic because i consider it a distraction from more pressing issues, like environment and trade policies. in canada, it's an easy out for the government. and, while i might be willing to give them that out in an election, i will not give it to them in the second year of the mandate.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
immediate reaction on first listen is that i'd like to listen to it some more.
they seem to have created a bit of a split fanbase, with some people interested solely in their singles and others wishing those singles would be split off the records altogether.
i'm kind of in the middle: i find the singles eventually grow on me. but, they're still always the weak points on the discs.
they seem to have created a bit of a split fanbase, with some people interested solely in their singles and others wishing those singles would be split off the records altogether.
i'm kind of in the middle: i find the singles eventually grow on me. but, they're still always the weak points on the discs.
about that kiwi, btw...
i think this is successful. so, i'm going to be adjusting my daily smoothies to the following creation, when i do not have fresh strawberries:
- 1 banana
- 5 frozen strawberries (thawed)
- 1 kiwi
- two scoops of cherry ice cream
- vanilla soy (it's around 400 ml)
what the kiwi adds is a lot of tangy punch, plus a lot of minerals. it's actually so tangy that it almost makes it taste more like yogurt.
i am still experimenting with whether the kiwi should or should not be peeled. the peel is both edible and nutritious, and it actually blends perfectly - to my surprise. but it's a little woody. like rhubarb. i'm not sure yet.
frozen strawberries tend to be sweeter in the smoothie, so i'll have to do a further experiment the next time that fresh berries come in. i fear that the combination of kiwi and fresh berry may go beyond tang and into bitter, and that it may not be pleasant. yet, i may also be projecting. we'll have to find out.
i'll admit i'm a little surprised by just how nutritious a kiwi is, though. that's a nice little bomb of goodness to drop in the smoothie, and i may get used to it.
i think this is successful. so, i'm going to be adjusting my daily smoothies to the following creation, when i do not have fresh strawberries:
- 1 banana
- 5 frozen strawberries (thawed)
- 1 kiwi
- two scoops of cherry ice cream
- vanilla soy (it's around 400 ml)
what the kiwi adds is a lot of tangy punch, plus a lot of minerals. it's actually so tangy that it almost makes it taste more like yogurt.
i am still experimenting with whether the kiwi should or should not be peeled. the peel is both edible and nutritious, and it actually blends perfectly - to my surprise. but it's a little woody. like rhubarb. i'm not sure yet.
frozen strawberries tend to be sweeter in the smoothie, so i'll have to do a further experiment the next time that fresh berries come in. i fear that the combination of kiwi and fresh berry may go beyond tang and into bitter, and that it may not be pleasant. yet, i may also be projecting. we'll have to find out.
i'll admit i'm a little surprised by just how nutritious a kiwi is, though. that's a nice little bomb of goodness to drop in the smoothie, and i may get used to it.
i just want to be clear about what's happening, though.
the liberal party of canada was absolutely dead last to the party of neo-liberalism, and they fought it kicking and screaming the whole way. the neo-liberals were not truly ascendant in the party until 2003 - and they then promptly lost power to the conservatives, who just carried through with a lot of what the neo-liberal wing wanted to do, anyways. in the wake of defeat and abandonment for the conservatives, the neo-liberals actually lost power again from 2006 to 2008. michael ignatieff was not able to win an election, but he was able to more firmly cement the neo-liberal wing before he lost his own seat in the 2011 election. having never really done anything of any importance in life, it wasn't really clear where trudeau stood; there were plenty of signs that he was firmly on the neo-liberal wing of the party, but just as many that he represented a kind of synthesis of neo-liberalism with social liberalism, and the latter is probably closer to the truth. since he won the election, however, the neo-liberal wing has both been in firm control and taken steps to remove the social liberal wing from power. at this point, the socially liberal wing is mostly aging and largely out of the loop.
given that it took forty years for the neo-liberals to take over the party, and the generation that is coming into power has consequently spent their entire lives fighting social liberals for control, it is easy to understand why they might be a little resistant to react to events on the ground. the reality is that the liberal party of canada is stuck in the 80s. it is only now, in 2017, seeing the world with a reaganite vision. and, it doesn't want to hear that history has come back - not now that they've finally done away with it.
somehow, this needs to be smashed. the party has to realize that it's been doing the wrong thing all of these years. but, it's easier stated than accomplished.
the liberal party of canada was absolutely dead last to the party of neo-liberalism, and they fought it kicking and screaming the whole way. the neo-liberals were not truly ascendant in the party until 2003 - and they then promptly lost power to the conservatives, who just carried through with a lot of what the neo-liberal wing wanted to do, anyways. in the wake of defeat and abandonment for the conservatives, the neo-liberals actually lost power again from 2006 to 2008. michael ignatieff was not able to win an election, but he was able to more firmly cement the neo-liberal wing before he lost his own seat in the 2011 election. having never really done anything of any importance in life, it wasn't really clear where trudeau stood; there were plenty of signs that he was firmly on the neo-liberal wing of the party, but just as many that he represented a kind of synthesis of neo-liberalism with social liberalism, and the latter is probably closer to the truth. since he won the election, however, the neo-liberal wing has both been in firm control and taken steps to remove the social liberal wing from power. at this point, the socially liberal wing is mostly aging and largely out of the loop.
given that it took forty years for the neo-liberals to take over the party, and the generation that is coming into power has consequently spent their entire lives fighting social liberals for control, it is easy to understand why they might be a little resistant to react to events on the ground. the reality is that the liberal party of canada is stuck in the 80s. it is only now, in 2017, seeing the world with a reaganite vision. and, it doesn't want to hear that history has come back - not now that they've finally done away with it.
somehow, this needs to be smashed. the party has to realize that it's been doing the wrong thing all of these years. but, it's easier stated than accomplished.
i just...
when did the liberal party embrace nafta? point me to the moment. don't say 1993; that's dishonest. it was always a brutal cost-benefit analysis, and borne out of necessity.
so, what do you expect the liberal party to say to the millions of people that have been voting liberal since the 80s? are they going to pull the clintonian "our views have evolved"? good luck with that one. do you hear that giant sucking sound? it's your poll numbers crashing.
i think that, perhaps, a part of the disconnect is that trudeau has surrounded himself with these obama sycophants that think that canadian liberals are just northern democrats. if obama supported nafta, then the liberals should too, right? but, these people are completely out of touch with reality. canadian liberals are not democrats, have never been democrats and do not want to be democrats - and trudeau may very well find himself with a caucus revolt if he tries to drag the party in that direction. the liberal party of canada has it's own history and it's own traditions. one would not think it necessary to explain that to justin trudeau.
the right way for the government to think about this issue is to pick it up where they left it off in 1993. the reality is that nothing has changed - views have not evolved, concerns have not dwindled, correct analyses have not become incorrect. the end of history did not fundamentally alter the laws of arithmetic. but, if the party is insistent on this realignment, it is going to need to do the following things:
1) it will need to explain to liberal voters when it embraced nafta.
2) it will need to explain to liberal voters why it embraced nafta.
3) it will need to convince liberal voters that they are correct to embrace nafta.
if the party fails at any one of these tasks, a political realignment will take hold in canada, with the liberals shifting to the right of the conservatives. given that canada leans left 3-1 or 4-1, this is going to flip the conservatives and liberals: the conservatives will become the new governing party.
when did the liberal party embrace nafta? point me to the moment. don't say 1993; that's dishonest. it was always a brutal cost-benefit analysis, and borne out of necessity.
so, what do you expect the liberal party to say to the millions of people that have been voting liberal since the 80s? are they going to pull the clintonian "our views have evolved"? good luck with that one. do you hear that giant sucking sound? it's your poll numbers crashing.
i think that, perhaps, a part of the disconnect is that trudeau has surrounded himself with these obama sycophants that think that canadian liberals are just northern democrats. if obama supported nafta, then the liberals should too, right? but, these people are completely out of touch with reality. canadian liberals are not democrats, have never been democrats and do not want to be democrats - and trudeau may very well find himself with a caucus revolt if he tries to drag the party in that direction. the liberal party of canada has it's own history and it's own traditions. one would not think it necessary to explain that to justin trudeau.
the right way for the government to think about this issue is to pick it up where they left it off in 1993. the reality is that nothing has changed - views have not evolved, concerns have not dwindled, correct analyses have not become incorrect. the end of history did not fundamentally alter the laws of arithmetic. but, if the party is insistent on this realignment, it is going to need to do the following things:
1) it will need to explain to liberal voters when it embraced nafta.
2) it will need to explain to liberal voters why it embraced nafta.
3) it will need to convince liberal voters that they are correct to embrace nafta.
if the party fails at any one of these tasks, a political realignment will take hold in canada, with the liberals shifting to the right of the conservatives. given that canada leans left 3-1 or 4-1, this is going to flip the conservatives and liberals: the conservatives will become the new governing party.
so, about an hour ago i hear all kinds of smashing and drilling and sawing upstairs. a few minutes ago, i finally went up to see what the commotion is..
"what are you guys doing?"
"tearing the ceiling down."
"can i ask why you're tearing the ceiling down?"
"there's a leak upstairs."
"can i..."
"there's a leak upstairs. it needs to be fixed. would you like to help?"
"i'm not going to be of much help to you...."
it's not my fault. i was born with this.
"what are you guys doing?"
"tearing the ceiling down."
"can i ask why you're tearing the ceiling down?"
"there's a leak upstairs."
"can i..."
"there's a leak upstairs. it needs to be fixed. would you like to help?"
"i'm not going to be of much help to you...."
it's not my fault. i was born with this.
you know who was right about nafta?
pierre trudeau, jean chretien, john turner, ed broadbent....
it's scandalous how the contemporary canadian left has completely swallowed itself on this issue. they were right in the 80s and the 90s. history has proven this, clearly. they should be gloating about how right they were, and jumping at the opportunity to fix the errors of the mulroney government. instead, they've both embraced the legacy of the progressive conservative party.
if the conservatives are able to realign on this, justin trudeau and the liberals (and mulcair and the ndp) will have nobody to blame but themselves. they were right all along. all they have to do is remind people of it, and start acting like it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-ambrose-renegotiation-caucus-friday-1.3955714
pierre trudeau, jean chretien, john turner, ed broadbent....
it's scandalous how the contemporary canadian left has completely swallowed itself on this issue. they were right in the 80s and the 90s. history has proven this, clearly. they should be gloating about how right they were, and jumping at the opportunity to fix the errors of the mulroney government. instead, they've both embraced the legacy of the progressive conservative party.
if the conservatives are able to realign on this, justin trudeau and the liberals (and mulcair and the ndp) will have nobody to blame but themselves. they were right all along. all they have to do is remind people of it, and start acting like it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-ambrose-renegotiation-caucus-friday-1.3955714
actually, i think that the media should take note of this. in it's perpetual drive to frame the narrative in terms friendly to fiscal conservatives, it continually misses what is actually important to canadians. then, they scratch their head and wonder why nobody buys their papers.
"People at the town halls seemed unconcerned about two recent controversies involving the prime minister, namely accusations around cash-for-access fundraisers and his Christmas vacation to the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas.
Only one question, from a woman in London, Ont., touched on the subject of ethics."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-town-halls-analysis-1.3954970
"People at the town halls seemed unconcerned about two recent controversies involving the prime minister, namely accusations around cash-for-access fundraisers and his Christmas vacation to the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas.
Only one question, from a woman in London, Ont., touched on the subject of ethics."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-town-halls-analysis-1.3954970
i just want to clarify that i'm waiting this guy out.
he's dangerously obese, and in his 60s. he should die any day, now. heart attack. diabetes. he could fall and be unable to get up.
i'd kind of like to sit the new property owner down and explain this to him. i'm not sure what the exact relationship is, now. the previous owner was the guy's brother; i think that the new one is an in-law. he may be a little unclear about the reality of the situation, which is that i'm his long term tenant. the fat moron upstairs has five years, max. the heavy smokers two flights up are no doubt going to leave when their son moves out, which should be in a year or two; otherwise, they've had health issues, themselves. there's another tenant upstairs that is also old and in visibly poor health.
i am thirty years younger, and in excellent health. i won't just be here longer than any of the other tenants, i'll probably be here longer than the existing property owner owns the building for.
so, i'd kind of like to sit him down and level with him. he should be concerned about what i want, first and foremost - because i'm the one he's going to have to be dealing with, years down the road.
he's dangerously obese, and in his 60s. he should die any day, now. heart attack. diabetes. he could fall and be unable to get up.
i'd kind of like to sit the new property owner down and explain this to him. i'm not sure what the exact relationship is, now. the previous owner was the guy's brother; i think that the new one is an in-law. he may be a little unclear about the reality of the situation, which is that i'm his long term tenant. the fat moron upstairs has five years, max. the heavy smokers two flights up are no doubt going to leave when their son moves out, which should be in a year or two; otherwise, they've had health issues, themselves. there's another tenant upstairs that is also old and in visibly poor health.
i am thirty years younger, and in excellent health. i won't just be here longer than any of the other tenants, i'll probably be here longer than the existing property owner owns the building for.
so, i'd kind of like to sit him down and level with him. he should be concerned about what i want, first and foremost - because i'm the one he's going to have to be dealing with, years down the road.
so, that's two saturday mornings in a row that this smell has wafted downstairs and started to affect my head.
here's another thought: i don't have the slightest clue what crack-cocaine smells like. could somebody in the building be smoking crack? i wouldn't be able to identify it - i'd just notice something smells bad and complain about a headache.
windows are open until it passes....
i got up until the end of october done yesterday, which is much less than i'd like. but, hopefully, i can get that extra push today.
here's another thought: i don't have the slightest clue what crack-cocaine smells like. could somebody in the building be smoking crack? i wouldn't be able to identify it - i'd just notice something smells bad and complain about a headache.
windows are open until it passes....
i got up until the end of october done yesterday, which is much less than i'd like. but, hopefully, i can get that extra push today.
Friday, January 27, 2017
well, ok, just this one...
oct 23, 2014
paul smith
Fact: genetically black Africans are more distant from white Europeans than polar bears are from brown bears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on0mT8MQ-Wg&google_comment_id=z13xxvq4rvuzwzhjm04cjvi55zygvrfpm5s
Friedrich Nietzsche
Let me tell you why that's bullshit, because you obviously are retarded, Ok now use your big boy words because I don't want your head to hurt too much (I'm being condescending for a reason) ok buddy, Brown Bear known as Ursus arctos is a completely different species of animal than a polar bear which is known as Ursus maritimus, ok so a white person is known as a Homo sapiens sapiens, and now a black person is known as a homo sapiens sapiens, do you know why that is? BECAUSE WE ARE THE SAME FUCKING SPECIES YOU FUCKING MONGOLOID IGNORANT AND JUST PLAIN STUPID RACIST FUCKTARD!
paul Smith
Its based on the last common ancestor . Source: Research carried out by Alywyn Scalley and Richard Durbin from the University of Cambridge which puts the out of Africa migration event at between 100 - 120 thousand years ago whereas polar bears split from brown bears 343,000 to 479 ,000 years ago. Non Africans also have some Neanderthal add-mixture which means European also have neanderthal ancestry which means their last common ancestor with Africans must be the last neanderthal - Africans common ancestor at 700,000 to 1,000000 years ago.
TheLaLa
fact: genetically, light colored cocker spaniels are more distant from dark colored cocker spaniels than black Africans are from white Europeans.
Isaac Mercado
Don't like the use of the word Mongoloid there, but well done none the less.
jessica
the actual fact is that you can't even define the terms "genetically black africans" or "white europeans". almost everybody in europe is a mix of asian and african; almost everybody in africa has experienced genetic backflow from back migration. there's even areas of black africa with r1b as dominant. race has no biological meaning.
google quickly informs me that scalley & durbin have published some papers discussing the mutation rate in humans and arguing that the assumptions underlying the mutation rate are flawed. that's a valid academic discussion that exists in multiple conversations. while i haven't read these papers, i've read enough to state clearly that the idea that anything related to mutation rates is a "fact" is simply wrong. mutation rates are very fragile estimates. it seems that the crux of their argument is how fragile the estimates are, not how "factual" they are.
further, if the implication is that you can determine how different groups are from their common ancestor by taking a fixed rate and dividing for age then the answer is "no". emphatically. it's absurd. crocodiles and sharks have been virtually identical over that period, while dozens of species of birds have radiated quickly on islands. i can't believe they would publish something like that. so, are you drawing these conclusions yourself or is somebody lying to you? if the latter, who is it?
paul Smith
Starting with the outlandish lie that most Europeans are African - Asian hybrids really pulls the rug out from under you're credibility. Race is a taxonomy term, By saying a taxonomy term has no biological meaning is painting yourself as a loon. I partially accept you're criticism of mutation rates. Evidently changing environmental conditions is the catalyst for rapid evolution and accelerated mutations rates. In this regard humans and polar bears share obvious parallels.
jessica
actually, there's a great deal of admixture in both.
1) while the sahara has acted as a mild geographic boundary, it hasn't prevented gene flow around it, specifically up the nile and around the arabian peninsula, as well as through what is now called morocco. this is something you can measure in the y dna. the most obvious way to make sense of it is to look at the semitic language group, which is thought to have originated in modern somalia and worked it's way up through the middle east. that is to say the jews and arabs speak a language that developed amongst dark skinned people in eastern africa - and you can trace the gene flow along with it through the spread of farming and right into central europe.
2) the r1* type probably originated in central asia and simultaneously moved south and west along with the indo-european language group. this movement of asian peoples into europe with r1* went as far west as you can go - right into ireland. the original carriers of r1*, which dominates in europe, were probably not pasty white.
3) there's also been large amounts of genetic movement from the far east of asia - and this can be measured in historical terms with movements of turkic and mongolian peoples. again, it's right into central europe.
if there was an "indigenous european genetic type", it's primarily tied to what are today the basque people. there's some further remnants in the british isles. for the most part, though, the genetics of europe are defined by those two gradients from the east and the south - which are from asia and africa, respectively - and not through a process of isolation or stasis.
further, the idea that race is a sociological concept with absolutely no biological basis is the consensus view today. i'm sorry if you've been led astray, but that's what virtually any scientific-minded person will tell you about it. what i'm telling you is the reason why. you simply cannot connect skin colour to any genetic trait other than skin colour. there's been far too much gene flow across phenotypic barriers to allow for it to make sense.
you can even find examples of white people born to two very black parents, or black people born to two very white parents.
now, with the mutation rates, the argument that the rate changes as a result of the environment is what is called orthogenesis. that requires a supernatural cause as a mechanism to explain it. it's bollocks. you may see selection act more strongly as a result of climate changes, but that doesn't imply a faster mutation rate.
the entire idea of a "mutation rate" is really deeply flawed. you could measure something statistically if you had enough data, but it's a totally abstract and largely imaginary idea.
mutations are random. the rate doesn't increase or decrease. how fast they happen isn't even important. what's important is the selective pressure.
i'm going to carefully agree that europeans are going to have different selective pressures than africans. but, as i've mentioned, there's been a lot of gene flow.
with humans, the truth is that our selective pressures are largely sexual rather than environmental. with the twerking craze, we're seeing attention drawn to the asses of women of colour. that's not environmental. it's sexual. similarly, blond hair colour amongst white people seems to be driven by sexual selection.
TheLaLa
"painting yourself as a loon"? most leading anthropologists and geneticists these days all say that race is not a biological term.. the same scientists that write the papers you read.. so are they loons?
paul Smith
A persons race can be determined with just about 100% accuracy by analysing their DNA. A persons race can also be identified using bone morphology. If its measurable then it is biologically real. Saying race is a social construct is simply political correctness imposed on biological reality. In view of the morphological and genetic differences among human populations, how can such differences be "constructs"
"All say race is a not a biological term" So you have spoken to all of them then?
African or Asian admixture is basically at trace levels and is mostly restricted to southern Europe. Its also does not negate the integrity of human races or subspecies. For example polar bears on occasion interbreed with brown bears producing hybrid offspring and Coyotes are known to interbreed with Grey wolves. Every organism on this planet shares at the very least 60 genes with any other. A blue whale shares some of its genes with bacteria. Biology is fuzzy borders, hence the species problem. You're add mixture argument is meaningless.
Lastly. I will concede you're point on mutations.
jessica
the entire r1* "white gene" is asian in origin. what we today call celts were living in afghanistan and practicing something closely resembling hinduism a few thousand years ago, living as one with ancestors of modern indians. it's not that i'm arguing that europeans aren't "pure", and more that i'm arguing that the entire idea of "racial purity" is impossible to define. you've got the finns. they're bottlenecked. otherwise, european populations are defined by immigration into the region, not by stasis since the ice age. it consequently just doesn't make any sense to try and say "this is white, this is black" regarding anything other than the skin colour itself.
the old cranial type typology regarding bone morphology has been thoroughly debunked. it's been demonstrated that human bone structure is defined by plasticity, not genetics. you can expect that europeans in california will demonstrate convergent evolution in their bone structures and melanin levels and eventually look similarly to the indigenous people of the region. another example of convergence is to compare people in the amazon with people from polynesia. they're very difficult to distinguish from each other in terms of morphology, but share almost no gene flow (amazonians descending from siberia over the bering land bridge, with polynesians coming relatively recently from "indochina"). the typology you're referencing is incomplete, overlaps with itself and is unreliable in characterizing what it wishes to typify. in short, it's useless at doing what it claims to be able to do.
the dna thing is also a weird argument. there's been tons of european r1* admixture into north america since colonization. substantial numbers of people living on reserves have european patrilineal lineages, with indigenous genes everywhere else on the family tree. so, are these people indigenous or european? again: the problem is that you can't define what this means.
antred11
Maybe they are. Now explain why that should matter.
jessica
they aren't. this idea of separate, equal races is just as wrong as racism is...
paul Smith
" A persons geographical background can be determined rather than race/subspecies" As with any other divergent subspecies of animal, both geographical ancestry and race or subspecies can be determined from genetic markers. Geographical isolation is part of the set criteria for determining if a populations is a divergent subspecies or not. Morphologically distinguishable populations that arise from geographically isolated populations are generally categorized as subspecies. Human subspecies / races meet the scientific criteria for subspecies therefore are just as valid or invalid as any other subspecies of animal.
Species / races concept is Darwinian in origins. Race denial is the corruption of science for political purposes.
As I have previously stated that there is continuous gene flow between polar bears and brown bears and also Grey Wolves and coyotes to name just two examples. If you want to persist with the add mixture argument then to be consistent you would also have to label the taxonomy category of species meaningless on precisely the same grounds.
Anthropologist in crime labs across the United States are still using skeletal features to identify a persons race.
jessica
i've already corrected the points, there's no use in continuing - i'm not trying to convince "paul smith" so much as i'm trying to moderate his youtube graffiti.
the only other thing i want to point out is that "the legal system does it" is about the worst argument possible, given the legal system routinely ignores science in favour of ideology. they may very well be using these ideas, but they shouldn't be.
again: the defining factor for bone structure is not genetics, and trying to use bone structure to determine origin is going to produce unreliable results, at best.
further studies have deduced that population variation has reduced what you're talking about to an unreliable marker. that is, it may be the case that 75% of germans (many of whom have yiddish, turkish or roman ancestry) and 25% of spaniards (many of whom descend from german visigoths, and many of whom are part arabic - and many of whom are both) have some trait. that reduces testing for the trait to a statement involving a probability.
as you're dealing with populations that demonstrate variability rather than homogeneity, you can never known with any certainty whether an individual is of "northern european" or "mediterranean" background by looking at their bones - you can merely produce statements like "60% chance of north germanic ancestry".
paul Smith
Anthropologist analyse skeletal remains for racial pointers because it yields pretty reliable results.
No one is claiming that Northern and Southern Europeans are different races.
As I have already pointed out, some add mixture does not even invalidate species status never mind subspecies or race. Some add mixture. So what,
Its markers, And I doubt that population variation has reduced by any meaningful extent in ten years.
People started categorizing people into races when they started to encounter different peoples in the middle ages. Later the ideas featured in Darwin,s Origin Of species shaped how people viewed the natural world with its endless variation of organisms including humans. Calling Darwinian,s of the period " Haters " is ignorant.
Ethiopians aren't that hard to distinguish from Southern Indians. Given that Ethiopians have considerable caucasian add mixture similarities between the two populations reflects this. I note you didn't hold up Congo pygmies and Norwegians as examples or even Aborigines and Eskimos.
Obviously from you're comment you're denial of race is politically motivated.
jessica
the variation was always there. you're going to find caucasoid-types in east asia and africoid-types in scandinavia, they're just at lower percentages of the population.
paul Smith
Before the insanity of open borders what percentage of africoid types were present in Scandinavia prior to the war. Give a percentage and a reliable source.
jessica
that question is not articulated well. you're dealing with combinations of skull shape, nose size, etc. so, you've got various combinations of "dolicephalic" or "brachycephalic" shapes in both populations. none of these characteristics are unique to any population, but you will see them differ in terms of proportions.
so, you'll end up with bones in scandinavian graveyards that have "negroid" types but in fact belonged to white people that may have had blonde hair and blue eyes; conversely, you'll end up with "caucasoid" bone structures in the middle of africa that came from people that were black.
now, if you're going to do an archaeological dig in these regions, you can make reasonable guesses about what these people looked like based on what we know about the historical population dynamics in the region. but, if you're going to unearth a recent graveyard in north carolina (for example) and you don't know the physical characteristics of the individual involved, the best you can come up with is a probability or an estimate of likelihood - because anything "negroid" has a minority variance in the "caucasoid" population and vice versa.
so, you're asking me for statistics about something that doesn't actually exist. somebody might have tried to compile them anyways (x% of scandinavians are doli or y% are brachy) but i'm not going looking for them.
stated clearly and simply: the typology is false, and at best unreliable.
paul Smith
Anthropologist claim 85% accuracy in determining race which is extremely impressive considering South America and North America have large hybrid populations. I suspect a direct comparison between a Europeans Skull and a sub Saharan Africans skull would yield even higher accuracy. Considering the skulls of subspecies of tigers are indistinguishable from each other, and lions and tigers skulls are quite difficult to tell apart, the accuracy claimed by anthropologist is profound.
jessica
well, i don't know where the number 85% came from, but i think that's a proper place to stop as it's an implicit concession of what i'm getting across.
Jen Tuesday
Hmm.....so I am a light skinned African American whose parents are Haitian American & with a great grandfather who is white.......what does that make me? If you want to be racist, be a racist, whatever, you're still the minority so bask in your own racist bullshit in your own mind...good for you.......but the fact that you are using bullshit "facts" to support your own racism and bigotry is simply cowardly and pathetic. Come out of the racist closet & accept your racism for what it is, hatred, not logic, so stop trying to mask it as something that it is not. Good day my fellow bear. LOL
LudeMasta99
Gotta love the socialist progressive blowing a gasket.
jessica
there's nothing progressive about leninism. dude's a fascist and pretty clearly demonstrated it.
paul Smith
So I am a fascist and every anthropologist in America is seeing things. You need sanctioning.
jessica
i didn't previously claim you were a fascist, but i'm currently questioning your skills in reading comprehension.
we've been through this - populations exhibit variation in terms of skull size and skull shape.
alex h
I love how you fail to provide any type of scientific evidence to actually prove him wrong.
You bitch and rant about him being a racist then call him a "mongoloid". That's pretty ironic. Since you are obviously ignorant as to why it is I'll tell you that "mongoloid" is actually a racial slur.
His comment wasn't even racist. It was a interesting bit of knowledge that your "white knight" mind immediately interpreted as racist. Lol fuck off Vladdy.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Well actually you pretentious ass I did, I basically stated that science refers to us as one species while they are two different bear species, if black people were that genetically different from white people they would not be Homo sapiens sapiens they would be different, and mongoloid has two differing definitions one the Asian facial features they other would be referring to mentally slow individuals which I was referring to, ans was being used as if someone would use the word retarded.
Oh and it was racist he was implying in genetic standpoints that whites and blacks are as distant from each other as a bonobo is to an orangutan which is plain insulting.
jessica
you know, vlad, it seems to me that you were probably partially tatar, yourself.
can you piece together why equating "mongoloid" with "retard" is racist?
the biggest problem with communism is communists. sad truth.
i'm just going to leave this here, and remove myself from the thread:
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/human-skulls-boas-head-shape/
the connection between race and skull size/shape was debunked decades ago, but the science continues to be ignored by people with ulterior motives in determining "biological race". it's not the only area of biology where people just refuse to get it, but it's one of the more frustrating examples of it because this idea of racial categorization is just so engrained, despite being so wrong.
generally, you get these sorts of arguments from older people, and i'm consequently going to guess that paul smith is probably older than 50. he may have even learned this in an accredited educational institution when he was younger. but it's completely out of date.
you know, and it's not like you can say "they're still uncovering it, they're still working on it".
to the contrary, just about everything has been tried, because a biological racial categorization is what so many people want, and nothing works. it can't be done with any level of certainty or rigour...
you can make probabilistic statements, based on genes and environment. but it's variation that dominates, not characteristics that can be put into boxes and labelled.
you could also read this...
http://physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/
ALEX H
Mongoloid is a racist slur period. What you are doing is basically calling someone a nigger then saying "oh no I meant the other kind of nigger"
Lol you fucking hypocritical racist shit sack.
You didn't prove anything. If you want to provide a link to a legitimate scientist or intuitive who has done research on this and can prove the OP wrong then please do.
Your simple lines of reasoning due not constitute valid scientific proof. The burden also rests with you as you are the only attempting to dispute the claim.
Grow up mate provide scientific evidence or go away.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Actually the Merriam Websters has two definitions for mongoloid which are both mentioned, and the physical characteristics associated with the Asian people is not considered a pejorative term it is simply a phenotype the same as one would say someone from a Native American would have the traditional characteristics of darker skin, higher cheek bones and jet black hair. Now you would know this if you knew what a homonym was, because the word has two modern meanings the same as faggot in America and faggot in England, I don't think you would get on a Brit's case for using fag would you? I simply was meaning to scold the idiot OP as he is a disgrace to the human race, for his backwardness and plain assholery. I'm sure the moron also believes in Phrenology as well.
jessica
the usage of the word "mongoloid" as an insult stems from it's use as a racial slur. the idea was that mongoloid types were of inferior intelligence. it's not a coincidence, it's a question of the etymology of the word.
a faggot is a bundle of sticks, which developed independently in two different directions. cigarettes and homosexuals are both things that are sometimes lit on fire, as bundles of sticks are.
"nigger" is the better comparison. the word has a meaning as a "slave" or "ignorant person", but it has a racial context that is not separable from it's use as an insult.
as an aside: you could always try not insulting people.
it's actually kind of topical, ironically, because the insult stems from a misperception that the mongoloid skull shape (it's an archaic anthropological term) indicated an affinity with mental retardation. that is, that the facial features of north asians were connected to the facial features of people with autism or down syndrome, and this was presented as an explanation for their inferior intellect. his insult is based on precisely what he's arguing against.
the reality is that he probably didn't understand what he was saying. the correct thing to do is to acknowledge the error and adjust his vocabulary.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I know what mongoloid means (Trust me I know both definitions beforehand, I didn't look it up I just happen to have a pretty good vocabulary), and I have heard it many times in my life, hell we learned both meanings one week for a vocabulary test in English, and I have never heard it once used as a pejorative phrase for someone of Asian descent. My English teachers would use it all the time to point out the dullards in class. I have heard many people use it, never once to an Asian person, but as a basically a synonym for the word retard. When most people use the word retard they do not mean it as insult to the mentally handicapped, they mean to use it as an advanced form of idiocy. Most people I know use words like these not out of hate or dislike for another group, but simply as an adjective for stupidity. Mongoloid may have it's roots in a racist term but it's modern definition has changed from that, I assume you probably say the word retard every now and then, which is considered an insult to the mentally ill, but you are simply referring to someone as a stupid person, because for the most part the societal definition of the word has changed.
jessica
personally, i'm sensitive enough to avoid the word "retard".
listen: this has been explained to you. the world can't stop you from being an asshole, but don't be surprised when people react badly when you talk like that.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You're being a little judgemental, what about this makes me an asshole, you're just more sensitive to a certain subject than I am, I personally don't believe in bad words, they are just a way to express an emotion such as my anger and disbelief considering OP's just plain stupid comment, what he said was basically equivocating that there is essentially a species gap between two races of people. Ignorant comments like his feed other peoples racism that they have within them when they see that other people believe the stupid shit they believe, they tend to wholeheartedly feel that their racism is ok then. As an individual with a staunch hate of racism his comment enraged me causing me to use unflattering words to characterize him, and I stand behind my decision to use them, because ignorant bigotry such as his is why there is such a gap in living conditions still today between the white experience and the black experience in America, leading to an unfair advantage to caucasians in life.
jessica
i need to be honest that i don't understand how you can express yourself so hypocritically, other than reducing it the pride of youth. you've let on that you're a young person. your teacher was using a word inappropriately, and you've copied it. your teacher is as much to blame as you are. if you really believe what you're saying, you should thank the posters here for correcting you and confront your teacher on the language. i somehow doubt your teacher didn't understand the language; it's not language that should be used in a classroom.
gantzisballs
Do you even know what the definition of a species is? When Polar bears and Brown bears breed, they produce hybrids, like when lions and tigers breed or when horses and donkeys breed. Hybrids are sterile and don't produce offspring because different species BY DEFINITION, can't create viable offspring. When black and white humans have children, those children are NOT sterile, because black and white humans belong to the same species. A less completely idiotic argument you could make is that different races are different sub-species, but it goes against the quota that generally defines a subspecies. Two separate populations that don't intermix are considered sub-species when at least 15% of species genetic diversity is between those 2 groups. With humans, the most distant genetic distance is between Africans and native Americans and even that is roughly 10% and thusly under the quota for a sub-species. The best argument you could make is that different races look different and therefore can be considered morphological sub-species despite the genetic similarity, since in biology some sub-species were divided based on looks over genes. I believe that Homo-Neanderthalis and Homo-Denisova were the last actual sub-species. Genetic evidence suggests these groups likely bred with homo sapiens and therefore were not separate species, but the last homo-sapien sub-species. They are currently dead (besides Ben Roethelisberger) and only Homo Sapiens Sapiens remains. I honestly don't know why I bothered to post this. Racists are usually far too stupid to comprehend basic biology and generally lack the attention span or reading comprehension to tackle long paragraphs.
jessica
i have to point out that the species definition is actually considered outdated at this point. it came from a combination of noah's ark and aristotlian classification, culminating in the linnaean classification. all of this happened way, way before we understood the idea of common descent. this system was rooted in the underlying assumption that, because god created each species separately, they could not mix with each other.
we know today that none of the assumptions underlying the aristotlian classification are true, but the idea hasn't died yet. aristotle needs to die hard, but just refuses to! so, we still look at species as independent units rather than existing in a shared tree of life.
if you take a course in biology today, they don't present the old classification anymore. instead, they use a system called cladistics that organizes descent in terms of common ancestors. it's a step forward in breaking free from aristotle's system, but it's not "there yet".
there's also the question of plant biology, which is far more complex. it's common to find plants that are actually hybrids of several species!
a proper system would look more like a directed graph, with all kinds of crossings. "species" would meet in the graph as often as they branch from each other.
it is true that hybrids are sometimes sterile. however, they are often viable and sometimes actually superior. there's a concept in evolutionary biology called hybrid vigour that describes the widespread phenomenon of hybrids outcompeting their ancestor species.
there's a plethora of examples of this happening in front of our faces, but i'm going to point to two examples that are in the news. one of them is the "killer bees" that have moved north from brazil into the united states, decimating local bee populations. the killer bee is a hybrid of african and european species. but, you might argue that these were artificially selected. a natural hybrid that's been occurring recently in the eastern part of north america is between coyotes and wolves, producing the coywolf. these animals are replacing both coyotes and wolves in their respective niches.
the conclusion to draw is actually that the species concept is too simplistic to be useful. one could turn around and define a species as a group of animals that are able to interbreed with each other, but if one were to do this then the entire aristotlian hierarchy would collapse.
it's known that grizzlies and polar bears can in fact produce viable offspring. using the definition of species presented, you'd end up arguing that bears are one species rather than that humans are multiple species.
but, that would be missing the point that we share a common descent and the only way to figure out if animals that look sort of similar can breed or not is to try it - on the individual level, rather than the species level.
gantzisballs
You are correct that that the Ernst Mayr definition of species that I was using is considered outdated by many in current evolutionary biology. Mayr's definition was created in the late 1940s when molecular genetics didn't exist yet and genetics in general was still in its "infancy" so to speak. Unfortunately, this definition is still widely used in US colleges for undergraduate biology courses. The more detailed, accurate, and modern methods are only taught at graduate level biology courses. I was a chemistry major and I am currently in medical school, so I have never had a graduate level course in evolutionary biology or species taxonomy. I was trying to correct Paul on what I felt was an idiotic statement, but I don't wish to debate you, deathtokoalas, since I am clearly outmatched in this topic.
jessica
fwiw, my academic background is in mathematics. i've never bothered to take any kind of science (except physics) beyond the 100 level because i find the lab work to be a tremendous waste of time, given that i don't have any aspirations to work in an actual lab. that said, i would have certainly taken higher level bio courses when i was in school if i didn't have to do the lab work. it's a topic of interest to me. but i'm in no way an authority on the topic, i'm just a typical math geek that's widely read up on this particular topic for the purposes of my own amusement.
hybridization, in particular, is something that was looked at very negatively for a long time. it was almost viewed as something subversive, in the way that it undercuts the species concept and the religious and philosophical aspects of it. but it's now widely established as a common way for species to form. and i may hypothesize (from the point of view of a mathematician-philosopher) that it may even have something to do with solving the gould-dawkins debate.
gantzisballs
The thing is with the Gould/Dawkins debate is that both are extremely dogmatic and inflexible. One is genes =everything and often completly ignores the effects of the environment on turning genes on or off (epigenetics). The other is a classical darwinist who is almost all environmental selection and ignores the effects of random mutation, or considers mutations too rare or insignificant. Both are right in some areas, but short sighted and wrong in other areas. Both are popular science writers that are actually better at writing books and making political statements than either are as actual scientists. The only thing Dawkins ever really contributed to science was the "meme" concept, which he himself largely ignores because it isn't genetic in nature. Gould created punctuated equalibrium, which was an important step, but his extreme dislike of eugenics led him to be highly skeptical of any gene centered models of evolution. In the end, the nature vs nurture debate is largely idiotic because both forces work together and one effects the other.
jessica
it's really a question of what causes the "punctuated equilibrium" that you see in the fossil record. as i pointed out above, the idea that the environment has an effect on mutation rates is orthogenesis. it can have an effect on the speed of selection, but that's not the same thing. so, any suggestion that the environment causes mutation rates to increase or decrease cannot be taken seriously (unless the cause is radiation).
rather, changes in climate should often have the opposite effect of the allopatric model. if species are to split in half when a mountain splits their range, it follows that they should recombine when erosion tears the mountain down - presuming they are still able to mate.
that's what happening with coywolves, and may also happen with grizzlies and polar bears. as the ice melts in the arctic, polar bears will move south; as the temperature warms, grizzlies will move north. the end result will be a hybrid species in the north of the range, and maybe some genetic isolation in the south.
when you look at the fossil record fifty thousand years from now, you're going to see these sudden morphological shifts that are correlated with changes in climate. we can see the cause of this in front of us, but we're still just not willing to let aristotle go...
gantzisball
If I am not mistaken, Gould argues for Sympatric speciation at least as much if not more than allopatric speciation. the environment effects selection pressure, but few would argue that it directly effects the rate at which mutations happen. My point in bringing up epigenetics was a bit of a tangent and was not referring to the process of speciation, but in terms of undertanding human behavior and health for a single generation, which Gould and Dawkins would often argue over. Actually, the Dawkins fued was just "inherited" so to speak from Gould's fued with Dawkin's mentor EO Wilson. However, each viewed the other with at least some level of professional respect. The truly nasty and bitter fueds that Gould had were against psychologists like Jenson, Lynn, Rushton, and all of those guys that attempted to use IQ tests to prove the genetic superiority of East Asians and Northern Europeans (Nordics). Jenson was himself trained by a guy named Hans Eysenk, who was an ex member of the Gestapo and was once punched in the face after calling a Jewish protestor an Untermenschen. Gould was Jewish and did not enjoy being called "sub-human" vermin by a guy that was trained by an unrepentent Nazi war criminal. Unfortunately for the field of psychology, Eysenk switched sides after 1943 when he fled to Britain after it was obvious Germany was going to lose. He was like a real life version of Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds. The field of psychology was swayed during the late 1980s and early 1990s by Eysenk and Jenson's more math based approach (albeit with massive experimental design problems) as opposed to the "touchy, feely" hippy crap that dominated psychology during the 1960s and 1970s under the leadership of Abraham Maslow.
jessica
yeah. i was referring specifically to the question of the gaps in the fossil record: is it "incomplete" as those who would align with dawkins would say, or is it fairly complete and there are simply spurts within it? i agree that both dawkins and gould were both primarily working under sympatric assumptions, and pointing this out is necessary context for the debate to actually make sense, but i would argue that the solution to the problem may be in abandoning sympatric assumptions in favour of a sort of "reverse allopatric model". that is, the "gaps in the fossil record" are neither the result of it being incomplete (in general - maybe sometimes) nor evidence of mutation rates adjusting to the environment (although i wouldn't deny that selection rates might, sometimes), but actually evidence of hybridization's dominant role in evolution. if you take this view, the debate resolves itself in realizing that the wrong model is being applied.
something you'll see if you sort carefully through the palaeontological literature is this pattern that i need to do in point form to articulate clearly:
- you have two related species. let's say one is bigger, one is smaller.
- you can track micro changes in both species over a decent period of time. let's say the smaller is getting a little bigger.
- a rapid evolution takes place in one (let's say the smaller gets bigger all of a sudden), which is correlated with the geological record to suggest changes in climate.
- the other species disappears.
this has generally been interpreted by both sides (who are both assuming sympatric models) as the smaller species evolving to out compete the larger. the debate then comes into how that works, exactly. but, this is a pattern that you see over and over again. a reverse allopatric model would argue that the populations are actually merging due to climate shifts, and neither competition nor extinction are truly happening.
again, that's a change in model, so it's bound to be resisted. now, i'm not the first person to point this out, but the (rather persistent) suggestions that hybridization may be a dominant factor in evolution have historically been rejected under the arguments you presented, which i believe are primarily excuses to uphold the aristotlian conception, which nobody really wants to abandon.
part of the problem is that bones are very ambiguous. dna is a better way to sort this out, and the computing power to do it has only been available to us for a few years. they did a study a few months ago that deduced that there wasn't a linear way to organize chimps, gorillas and humans. there's dna that only humans and chimps share, only humans and gorillas share and only chimps and gorillas share. you can't really make sense of this by using cladistics and competition, unless you start talking about things being deleted, and the timescales are too short for that. rather, you have to bring in a "species complex" that produced multiple hybrids that evolved in different directions. that is, all three of these primate species must have emerged from separate hybridization events of the same common ancestors. so, you get crossings in the tree - a significant point of complication.
again: we're not really "there yet" in terms of the academic establishment embracing the role of hybridization, or reverse allopatrism as a mechanism for it. but i think it's the direction the field is heading in.
to go back to the initial point, i believe the initial question is an empirical one. bears can breed, and should be viewed as the same species if that is the metric; humans can breed, as well. so, the question of which has a greater genetic distance is one to phrase in the form of a hypothesis and carry out research to determine. there's nothing particularly wrong with the question, itself. what is the genetic difference between breeds of dogs? between subspecies of squirrels? are they greater or less than the difference between humans? well, get the data and work it out...
rather, i responded because i do not believe that the op understood the research he was citing, nor do i think that the research suggests what he suggested it suggests (and he conceded most of these points). first, i think the evidence demonstrates that gene flow amongst humans has been too dramatic through the entire historical period at least (i think there's some evidence that it may have been less during the last ice age), and probably at least since the domestication of the horse, to even be able to phrase the question in a way that it can be investigated. the idea that europeans and africans "separated" at some point in the past seems to be entirely wrong. second, his dates were absurd. he separated "europeans" with the neanderthals, ignoring the out-of-africa fact. in actuality, the out-of-africa migration is more recent than when we would currently split polar bears off from brown bears, which negates the basis of his argument. third, he had to make assumptions about rates of change that are not consistent with the paper he cited, and seemed to actually be the opposite of the ideas expressed in it. even if it were true that polar bears separated more recently than out of africa, it wouldn't necessarily imply anything about genetic distance.
just as an aside: we know that dogs separated from wolves relatively recently, certainly more recently than out of africa.
that doesn't necessarily mean that dogs are closer to wolves than native americans are to africans (and there's arguably enough of a block in gene flow there, or was before colonization, to have the idea make sense). dogs have been through intense amounts of artificial selection. but, it's a valid empirical question that i don't know the answer to.
oct 23, 2014
paul smith
Fact: genetically black Africans are more distant from white Europeans than polar bears are from brown bears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on0mT8MQ-Wg&google_comment_id=z13xxvq4rvuzwzhjm04cjvi55zygvrfpm5s
Friedrich Nietzsche
Let me tell you why that's bullshit, because you obviously are retarded, Ok now use your big boy words because I don't want your head to hurt too much (I'm being condescending for a reason) ok buddy, Brown Bear known as Ursus arctos is a completely different species of animal than a polar bear which is known as Ursus maritimus, ok so a white person is known as a Homo sapiens sapiens, and now a black person is known as a homo sapiens sapiens, do you know why that is? BECAUSE WE ARE THE SAME FUCKING SPECIES YOU FUCKING MONGOLOID IGNORANT AND JUST PLAIN STUPID RACIST FUCKTARD!
paul Smith
Its based on the last common ancestor . Source: Research carried out by Alywyn Scalley and Richard Durbin from the University of Cambridge which puts the out of Africa migration event at between 100 - 120 thousand years ago whereas polar bears split from brown bears 343,000 to 479 ,000 years ago. Non Africans also have some Neanderthal add-mixture which means European also have neanderthal ancestry which means their last common ancestor with Africans must be the last neanderthal - Africans common ancestor at 700,000 to 1,000000 years ago.
TheLaLa
fact: genetically, light colored cocker spaniels are more distant from dark colored cocker spaniels than black Africans are from white Europeans.
Isaac Mercado
Don't like the use of the word Mongoloid there, but well done none the less.
jessica
the actual fact is that you can't even define the terms "genetically black africans" or "white europeans". almost everybody in europe is a mix of asian and african; almost everybody in africa has experienced genetic backflow from back migration. there's even areas of black africa with r1b as dominant. race has no biological meaning.
google quickly informs me that scalley & durbin have published some papers discussing the mutation rate in humans and arguing that the assumptions underlying the mutation rate are flawed. that's a valid academic discussion that exists in multiple conversations. while i haven't read these papers, i've read enough to state clearly that the idea that anything related to mutation rates is a "fact" is simply wrong. mutation rates are very fragile estimates. it seems that the crux of their argument is how fragile the estimates are, not how "factual" they are.
further, if the implication is that you can determine how different groups are from their common ancestor by taking a fixed rate and dividing for age then the answer is "no". emphatically. it's absurd. crocodiles and sharks have been virtually identical over that period, while dozens of species of birds have radiated quickly on islands. i can't believe they would publish something like that. so, are you drawing these conclusions yourself or is somebody lying to you? if the latter, who is it?
paul Smith
Starting with the outlandish lie that most Europeans are African - Asian hybrids really pulls the rug out from under you're credibility. Race is a taxonomy term, By saying a taxonomy term has no biological meaning is painting yourself as a loon. I partially accept you're criticism of mutation rates. Evidently changing environmental conditions is the catalyst for rapid evolution and accelerated mutations rates. In this regard humans and polar bears share obvious parallels.
jessica
actually, there's a great deal of admixture in both.
1) while the sahara has acted as a mild geographic boundary, it hasn't prevented gene flow around it, specifically up the nile and around the arabian peninsula, as well as through what is now called morocco. this is something you can measure in the y dna. the most obvious way to make sense of it is to look at the semitic language group, which is thought to have originated in modern somalia and worked it's way up through the middle east. that is to say the jews and arabs speak a language that developed amongst dark skinned people in eastern africa - and you can trace the gene flow along with it through the spread of farming and right into central europe.
2) the r1* type probably originated in central asia and simultaneously moved south and west along with the indo-european language group. this movement of asian peoples into europe with r1* went as far west as you can go - right into ireland. the original carriers of r1*, which dominates in europe, were probably not pasty white.
3) there's also been large amounts of genetic movement from the far east of asia - and this can be measured in historical terms with movements of turkic and mongolian peoples. again, it's right into central europe.
if there was an "indigenous european genetic type", it's primarily tied to what are today the basque people. there's some further remnants in the british isles. for the most part, though, the genetics of europe are defined by those two gradients from the east and the south - which are from asia and africa, respectively - and not through a process of isolation or stasis.
further, the idea that race is a sociological concept with absolutely no biological basis is the consensus view today. i'm sorry if you've been led astray, but that's what virtually any scientific-minded person will tell you about it. what i'm telling you is the reason why. you simply cannot connect skin colour to any genetic trait other than skin colour. there's been far too much gene flow across phenotypic barriers to allow for it to make sense.
you can even find examples of white people born to two very black parents, or black people born to two very white parents.
now, with the mutation rates, the argument that the rate changes as a result of the environment is what is called orthogenesis. that requires a supernatural cause as a mechanism to explain it. it's bollocks. you may see selection act more strongly as a result of climate changes, but that doesn't imply a faster mutation rate.
the entire idea of a "mutation rate" is really deeply flawed. you could measure something statistically if you had enough data, but it's a totally abstract and largely imaginary idea.
mutations are random. the rate doesn't increase or decrease. how fast they happen isn't even important. what's important is the selective pressure.
i'm going to carefully agree that europeans are going to have different selective pressures than africans. but, as i've mentioned, there's been a lot of gene flow.
with humans, the truth is that our selective pressures are largely sexual rather than environmental. with the twerking craze, we're seeing attention drawn to the asses of women of colour. that's not environmental. it's sexual. similarly, blond hair colour amongst white people seems to be driven by sexual selection.
TheLaLa
"painting yourself as a loon"? most leading anthropologists and geneticists these days all say that race is not a biological term.. the same scientists that write the papers you read.. so are they loons?
paul Smith
A persons race can be determined with just about 100% accuracy by analysing their DNA. A persons race can also be identified using bone morphology. If its measurable then it is biologically real. Saying race is a social construct is simply political correctness imposed on biological reality. In view of the morphological and genetic differences among human populations, how can such differences be "constructs"
"All say race is a not a biological term" So you have spoken to all of them then?
African or Asian admixture is basically at trace levels and is mostly restricted to southern Europe. Its also does not negate the integrity of human races or subspecies. For example polar bears on occasion interbreed with brown bears producing hybrid offspring and Coyotes are known to interbreed with Grey wolves. Every organism on this planet shares at the very least 60 genes with any other. A blue whale shares some of its genes with bacteria. Biology is fuzzy borders, hence the species problem. You're add mixture argument is meaningless.
Lastly. I will concede you're point on mutations.
jessica
the entire r1* "white gene" is asian in origin. what we today call celts were living in afghanistan and practicing something closely resembling hinduism a few thousand years ago, living as one with ancestors of modern indians. it's not that i'm arguing that europeans aren't "pure", and more that i'm arguing that the entire idea of "racial purity" is impossible to define. you've got the finns. they're bottlenecked. otherwise, european populations are defined by immigration into the region, not by stasis since the ice age. it consequently just doesn't make any sense to try and say "this is white, this is black" regarding anything other than the skin colour itself.
the old cranial type typology regarding bone morphology has been thoroughly debunked. it's been demonstrated that human bone structure is defined by plasticity, not genetics. you can expect that europeans in california will demonstrate convergent evolution in their bone structures and melanin levels and eventually look similarly to the indigenous people of the region. another example of convergence is to compare people in the amazon with people from polynesia. they're very difficult to distinguish from each other in terms of morphology, but share almost no gene flow (amazonians descending from siberia over the bering land bridge, with polynesians coming relatively recently from "indochina"). the typology you're referencing is incomplete, overlaps with itself and is unreliable in characterizing what it wishes to typify. in short, it's useless at doing what it claims to be able to do.
the dna thing is also a weird argument. there's been tons of european r1* admixture into north america since colonization. substantial numbers of people living on reserves have european patrilineal lineages, with indigenous genes everywhere else on the family tree. so, are these people indigenous or european? again: the problem is that you can't define what this means.
antred11
Maybe they are. Now explain why that should matter.
jessica
they aren't. this idea of separate, equal races is just as wrong as racism is...
paul Smith
" A persons geographical background can be determined rather than race/subspecies" As with any other divergent subspecies of animal, both geographical ancestry and race or subspecies can be determined from genetic markers. Geographical isolation is part of the set criteria for determining if a populations is a divergent subspecies or not. Morphologically distinguishable populations that arise from geographically isolated populations are generally categorized as subspecies. Human subspecies / races meet the scientific criteria for subspecies therefore are just as valid or invalid as any other subspecies of animal.
Species / races concept is Darwinian in origins. Race denial is the corruption of science for political purposes.
As I have previously stated that there is continuous gene flow between polar bears and brown bears and also Grey Wolves and coyotes to name just two examples. If you want to persist with the add mixture argument then to be consistent you would also have to label the taxonomy category of species meaningless on precisely the same grounds.
Anthropologist in crime labs across the United States are still using skeletal features to identify a persons race.
jessica
i've already corrected the points, there's no use in continuing - i'm not trying to convince "paul smith" so much as i'm trying to moderate his youtube graffiti.
the only other thing i want to point out is that "the legal system does it" is about the worst argument possible, given the legal system routinely ignores science in favour of ideology. they may very well be using these ideas, but they shouldn't be.
again: the defining factor for bone structure is not genetics, and trying to use bone structure to determine origin is going to produce unreliable results, at best.
further studies have deduced that population variation has reduced what you're talking about to an unreliable marker. that is, it may be the case that 75% of germans (many of whom have yiddish, turkish or roman ancestry) and 25% of spaniards (many of whom descend from german visigoths, and many of whom are part arabic - and many of whom are both) have some trait. that reduces testing for the trait to a statement involving a probability.
as you're dealing with populations that demonstrate variability rather than homogeneity, you can never known with any certainty whether an individual is of "northern european" or "mediterranean" background by looking at their bones - you can merely produce statements like "60% chance of north germanic ancestry".
paul Smith
Anthropologist analyse skeletal remains for racial pointers because it yields pretty reliable results.
No one is claiming that Northern and Southern Europeans are different races.
As I have already pointed out, some add mixture does not even invalidate species status never mind subspecies or race. Some add mixture. So what,
Its markers, And I doubt that population variation has reduced by any meaningful extent in ten years.
People started categorizing people into races when they started to encounter different peoples in the middle ages. Later the ideas featured in Darwin,s Origin Of species shaped how people viewed the natural world with its endless variation of organisms including humans. Calling Darwinian,s of the period " Haters " is ignorant.
Ethiopians aren't that hard to distinguish from Southern Indians. Given that Ethiopians have considerable caucasian add mixture similarities between the two populations reflects this. I note you didn't hold up Congo pygmies and Norwegians as examples or even Aborigines and Eskimos.
Obviously from you're comment you're denial of race is politically motivated.
jessica
the variation was always there. you're going to find caucasoid-types in east asia and africoid-types in scandinavia, they're just at lower percentages of the population.
paul Smith
Before the insanity of open borders what percentage of africoid types were present in Scandinavia prior to the war. Give a percentage and a reliable source.
jessica
that question is not articulated well. you're dealing with combinations of skull shape, nose size, etc. so, you've got various combinations of "dolicephalic" or "brachycephalic" shapes in both populations. none of these characteristics are unique to any population, but you will see them differ in terms of proportions.
so, you'll end up with bones in scandinavian graveyards that have "negroid" types but in fact belonged to white people that may have had blonde hair and blue eyes; conversely, you'll end up with "caucasoid" bone structures in the middle of africa that came from people that were black.
now, if you're going to do an archaeological dig in these regions, you can make reasonable guesses about what these people looked like based on what we know about the historical population dynamics in the region. but, if you're going to unearth a recent graveyard in north carolina (for example) and you don't know the physical characteristics of the individual involved, the best you can come up with is a probability or an estimate of likelihood - because anything "negroid" has a minority variance in the "caucasoid" population and vice versa.
so, you're asking me for statistics about something that doesn't actually exist. somebody might have tried to compile them anyways (x% of scandinavians are doli or y% are brachy) but i'm not going looking for them.
stated clearly and simply: the typology is false, and at best unreliable.
paul Smith
Anthropologist claim 85% accuracy in determining race which is extremely impressive considering South America and North America have large hybrid populations. I suspect a direct comparison between a Europeans Skull and a sub Saharan Africans skull would yield even higher accuracy. Considering the skulls of subspecies of tigers are indistinguishable from each other, and lions and tigers skulls are quite difficult to tell apart, the accuracy claimed by anthropologist is profound.
jessica
well, i don't know where the number 85% came from, but i think that's a proper place to stop as it's an implicit concession of what i'm getting across.
Jen Tuesday
Hmm.....so I am a light skinned African American whose parents are Haitian American & with a great grandfather who is white.......what does that make me? If you want to be racist, be a racist, whatever, you're still the minority so bask in your own racist bullshit in your own mind...good for you.......but the fact that you are using bullshit "facts" to support your own racism and bigotry is simply cowardly and pathetic. Come out of the racist closet & accept your racism for what it is, hatred, not logic, so stop trying to mask it as something that it is not. Good day my fellow bear. LOL
LudeMasta99
Gotta love the socialist progressive blowing a gasket.
jessica
there's nothing progressive about leninism. dude's a fascist and pretty clearly demonstrated it.
paul Smith
So I am a fascist and every anthropologist in America is seeing things. You need sanctioning.
jessica
i didn't previously claim you were a fascist, but i'm currently questioning your skills in reading comprehension.
we've been through this - populations exhibit variation in terms of skull size and skull shape.
alex h
I love how you fail to provide any type of scientific evidence to actually prove him wrong.
You bitch and rant about him being a racist then call him a "mongoloid". That's pretty ironic. Since you are obviously ignorant as to why it is I'll tell you that "mongoloid" is actually a racial slur.
His comment wasn't even racist. It was a interesting bit of knowledge that your "white knight" mind immediately interpreted as racist. Lol fuck off Vladdy.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Well actually you pretentious ass I did, I basically stated that science refers to us as one species while they are two different bear species, if black people were that genetically different from white people they would not be Homo sapiens sapiens they would be different, and mongoloid has two differing definitions one the Asian facial features they other would be referring to mentally slow individuals which I was referring to, ans was being used as if someone would use the word retarded.
Oh and it was racist he was implying in genetic standpoints that whites and blacks are as distant from each other as a bonobo is to an orangutan which is plain insulting.
jessica
you know, vlad, it seems to me that you were probably partially tatar, yourself.
can you piece together why equating "mongoloid" with "retard" is racist?
the biggest problem with communism is communists. sad truth.
i'm just going to leave this here, and remove myself from the thread:
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/human-skulls-boas-head-shape/
the connection between race and skull size/shape was debunked decades ago, but the science continues to be ignored by people with ulterior motives in determining "biological race". it's not the only area of biology where people just refuse to get it, but it's one of the more frustrating examples of it because this idea of racial categorization is just so engrained, despite being so wrong.
generally, you get these sorts of arguments from older people, and i'm consequently going to guess that paul smith is probably older than 50. he may have even learned this in an accredited educational institution when he was younger. but it's completely out of date.
you know, and it's not like you can say "they're still uncovering it, they're still working on it".
to the contrary, just about everything has been tried, because a biological racial categorization is what so many people want, and nothing works. it can't be done with any level of certainty or rigour...
you can make probabilistic statements, based on genes and environment. but it's variation that dominates, not characteristics that can be put into boxes and labelled.
you could also read this...
http://physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/
ALEX H
Mongoloid is a racist slur period. What you are doing is basically calling someone a nigger then saying "oh no I meant the other kind of nigger"
Lol you fucking hypocritical racist shit sack.
You didn't prove anything. If you want to provide a link to a legitimate scientist or intuitive who has done research on this and can prove the OP wrong then please do.
Your simple lines of reasoning due not constitute valid scientific proof. The burden also rests with you as you are the only attempting to dispute the claim.
Grow up mate provide scientific evidence or go away.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Actually the Merriam Websters has two definitions for mongoloid which are both mentioned, and the physical characteristics associated with the Asian people is not considered a pejorative term it is simply a phenotype the same as one would say someone from a Native American would have the traditional characteristics of darker skin, higher cheek bones and jet black hair. Now you would know this if you knew what a homonym was, because the word has two modern meanings the same as faggot in America and faggot in England, I don't think you would get on a Brit's case for using fag would you? I simply was meaning to scold the idiot OP as he is a disgrace to the human race, for his backwardness and plain assholery. I'm sure the moron also believes in Phrenology as well.
jessica
the usage of the word "mongoloid" as an insult stems from it's use as a racial slur. the idea was that mongoloid types were of inferior intelligence. it's not a coincidence, it's a question of the etymology of the word.
a faggot is a bundle of sticks, which developed independently in two different directions. cigarettes and homosexuals are both things that are sometimes lit on fire, as bundles of sticks are.
"nigger" is the better comparison. the word has a meaning as a "slave" or "ignorant person", but it has a racial context that is not separable from it's use as an insult.
as an aside: you could always try not insulting people.
it's actually kind of topical, ironically, because the insult stems from a misperception that the mongoloid skull shape (it's an archaic anthropological term) indicated an affinity with mental retardation. that is, that the facial features of north asians were connected to the facial features of people with autism or down syndrome, and this was presented as an explanation for their inferior intellect. his insult is based on precisely what he's arguing against.
the reality is that he probably didn't understand what he was saying. the correct thing to do is to acknowledge the error and adjust his vocabulary.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I know what mongoloid means (Trust me I know both definitions beforehand, I didn't look it up I just happen to have a pretty good vocabulary), and I have heard it many times in my life, hell we learned both meanings one week for a vocabulary test in English, and I have never heard it once used as a pejorative phrase for someone of Asian descent. My English teachers would use it all the time to point out the dullards in class. I have heard many people use it, never once to an Asian person, but as a basically a synonym for the word retard. When most people use the word retard they do not mean it as insult to the mentally handicapped, they mean to use it as an advanced form of idiocy. Most people I know use words like these not out of hate or dislike for another group, but simply as an adjective for stupidity. Mongoloid may have it's roots in a racist term but it's modern definition has changed from that, I assume you probably say the word retard every now and then, which is considered an insult to the mentally ill, but you are simply referring to someone as a stupid person, because for the most part the societal definition of the word has changed.
jessica
personally, i'm sensitive enough to avoid the word "retard".
listen: this has been explained to you. the world can't stop you from being an asshole, but don't be surprised when people react badly when you talk like that.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You're being a little judgemental, what about this makes me an asshole, you're just more sensitive to a certain subject than I am, I personally don't believe in bad words, they are just a way to express an emotion such as my anger and disbelief considering OP's just plain stupid comment, what he said was basically equivocating that there is essentially a species gap between two races of people. Ignorant comments like his feed other peoples racism that they have within them when they see that other people believe the stupid shit they believe, they tend to wholeheartedly feel that their racism is ok then. As an individual with a staunch hate of racism his comment enraged me causing me to use unflattering words to characterize him, and I stand behind my decision to use them, because ignorant bigotry such as his is why there is such a gap in living conditions still today between the white experience and the black experience in America, leading to an unfair advantage to caucasians in life.
jessica
i need to be honest that i don't understand how you can express yourself so hypocritically, other than reducing it the pride of youth. you've let on that you're a young person. your teacher was using a word inappropriately, and you've copied it. your teacher is as much to blame as you are. if you really believe what you're saying, you should thank the posters here for correcting you and confront your teacher on the language. i somehow doubt your teacher didn't understand the language; it's not language that should be used in a classroom.
gantzisballs
Do you even know what the definition of a species is? When Polar bears and Brown bears breed, they produce hybrids, like when lions and tigers breed or when horses and donkeys breed. Hybrids are sterile and don't produce offspring because different species BY DEFINITION, can't create viable offspring. When black and white humans have children, those children are NOT sterile, because black and white humans belong to the same species. A less completely idiotic argument you could make is that different races are different sub-species, but it goes against the quota that generally defines a subspecies. Two separate populations that don't intermix are considered sub-species when at least 15% of species genetic diversity is between those 2 groups. With humans, the most distant genetic distance is between Africans and native Americans and even that is roughly 10% and thusly under the quota for a sub-species. The best argument you could make is that different races look different and therefore can be considered morphological sub-species despite the genetic similarity, since in biology some sub-species were divided based on looks over genes. I believe that Homo-Neanderthalis and Homo-Denisova were the last actual sub-species. Genetic evidence suggests these groups likely bred with homo sapiens and therefore were not separate species, but the last homo-sapien sub-species. They are currently dead (besides Ben Roethelisberger) and only Homo Sapiens Sapiens remains. I honestly don't know why I bothered to post this. Racists are usually far too stupid to comprehend basic biology and generally lack the attention span or reading comprehension to tackle long paragraphs.
jessica
i have to point out that the species definition is actually considered outdated at this point. it came from a combination of noah's ark and aristotlian classification, culminating in the linnaean classification. all of this happened way, way before we understood the idea of common descent. this system was rooted in the underlying assumption that, because god created each species separately, they could not mix with each other.
we know today that none of the assumptions underlying the aristotlian classification are true, but the idea hasn't died yet. aristotle needs to die hard, but just refuses to! so, we still look at species as independent units rather than existing in a shared tree of life.
if you take a course in biology today, they don't present the old classification anymore. instead, they use a system called cladistics that organizes descent in terms of common ancestors. it's a step forward in breaking free from aristotle's system, but it's not "there yet".
there's also the question of plant biology, which is far more complex. it's common to find plants that are actually hybrids of several species!
a proper system would look more like a directed graph, with all kinds of crossings. "species" would meet in the graph as often as they branch from each other.
it is true that hybrids are sometimes sterile. however, they are often viable and sometimes actually superior. there's a concept in evolutionary biology called hybrid vigour that describes the widespread phenomenon of hybrids outcompeting their ancestor species.
there's a plethora of examples of this happening in front of our faces, but i'm going to point to two examples that are in the news. one of them is the "killer bees" that have moved north from brazil into the united states, decimating local bee populations. the killer bee is a hybrid of african and european species. but, you might argue that these were artificially selected. a natural hybrid that's been occurring recently in the eastern part of north america is between coyotes and wolves, producing the coywolf. these animals are replacing both coyotes and wolves in their respective niches.
the conclusion to draw is actually that the species concept is too simplistic to be useful. one could turn around and define a species as a group of animals that are able to interbreed with each other, but if one were to do this then the entire aristotlian hierarchy would collapse.
it's known that grizzlies and polar bears can in fact produce viable offspring. using the definition of species presented, you'd end up arguing that bears are one species rather than that humans are multiple species.
but, that would be missing the point that we share a common descent and the only way to figure out if animals that look sort of similar can breed or not is to try it - on the individual level, rather than the species level.
gantzisballs
You are correct that that the Ernst Mayr definition of species that I was using is considered outdated by many in current evolutionary biology. Mayr's definition was created in the late 1940s when molecular genetics didn't exist yet and genetics in general was still in its "infancy" so to speak. Unfortunately, this definition is still widely used in US colleges for undergraduate biology courses. The more detailed, accurate, and modern methods are only taught at graduate level biology courses. I was a chemistry major and I am currently in medical school, so I have never had a graduate level course in evolutionary biology or species taxonomy. I was trying to correct Paul on what I felt was an idiotic statement, but I don't wish to debate you, deathtokoalas, since I am clearly outmatched in this topic.
jessica
fwiw, my academic background is in mathematics. i've never bothered to take any kind of science (except physics) beyond the 100 level because i find the lab work to be a tremendous waste of time, given that i don't have any aspirations to work in an actual lab. that said, i would have certainly taken higher level bio courses when i was in school if i didn't have to do the lab work. it's a topic of interest to me. but i'm in no way an authority on the topic, i'm just a typical math geek that's widely read up on this particular topic for the purposes of my own amusement.
hybridization, in particular, is something that was looked at very negatively for a long time. it was almost viewed as something subversive, in the way that it undercuts the species concept and the religious and philosophical aspects of it. but it's now widely established as a common way for species to form. and i may hypothesize (from the point of view of a mathematician-philosopher) that it may even have something to do with solving the gould-dawkins debate.
gantzisballs
The thing is with the Gould/Dawkins debate is that both are extremely dogmatic and inflexible. One is genes =everything and often completly ignores the effects of the environment on turning genes on or off (epigenetics). The other is a classical darwinist who is almost all environmental selection and ignores the effects of random mutation, or considers mutations too rare or insignificant. Both are right in some areas, but short sighted and wrong in other areas. Both are popular science writers that are actually better at writing books and making political statements than either are as actual scientists. The only thing Dawkins ever really contributed to science was the "meme" concept, which he himself largely ignores because it isn't genetic in nature. Gould created punctuated equalibrium, which was an important step, but his extreme dislike of eugenics led him to be highly skeptical of any gene centered models of evolution. In the end, the nature vs nurture debate is largely idiotic because both forces work together and one effects the other.
jessica
it's really a question of what causes the "punctuated equilibrium" that you see in the fossil record. as i pointed out above, the idea that the environment has an effect on mutation rates is orthogenesis. it can have an effect on the speed of selection, but that's not the same thing. so, any suggestion that the environment causes mutation rates to increase or decrease cannot be taken seriously (unless the cause is radiation).
rather, changes in climate should often have the opposite effect of the allopatric model. if species are to split in half when a mountain splits their range, it follows that they should recombine when erosion tears the mountain down - presuming they are still able to mate.
that's what happening with coywolves, and may also happen with grizzlies and polar bears. as the ice melts in the arctic, polar bears will move south; as the temperature warms, grizzlies will move north. the end result will be a hybrid species in the north of the range, and maybe some genetic isolation in the south.
when you look at the fossil record fifty thousand years from now, you're going to see these sudden morphological shifts that are correlated with changes in climate. we can see the cause of this in front of us, but we're still just not willing to let aristotle go...
gantzisball
If I am not mistaken, Gould argues for Sympatric speciation at least as much if not more than allopatric speciation. the environment effects selection pressure, but few would argue that it directly effects the rate at which mutations happen. My point in bringing up epigenetics was a bit of a tangent and was not referring to the process of speciation, but in terms of undertanding human behavior and health for a single generation, which Gould and Dawkins would often argue over. Actually, the Dawkins fued was just "inherited" so to speak from Gould's fued with Dawkin's mentor EO Wilson. However, each viewed the other with at least some level of professional respect. The truly nasty and bitter fueds that Gould had were against psychologists like Jenson, Lynn, Rushton, and all of those guys that attempted to use IQ tests to prove the genetic superiority of East Asians and Northern Europeans (Nordics). Jenson was himself trained by a guy named Hans Eysenk, who was an ex member of the Gestapo and was once punched in the face after calling a Jewish protestor an Untermenschen. Gould was Jewish and did not enjoy being called "sub-human" vermin by a guy that was trained by an unrepentent Nazi war criminal. Unfortunately for the field of psychology, Eysenk switched sides after 1943 when he fled to Britain after it was obvious Germany was going to lose. He was like a real life version of Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds. The field of psychology was swayed during the late 1980s and early 1990s by Eysenk and Jenson's more math based approach (albeit with massive experimental design problems) as opposed to the "touchy, feely" hippy crap that dominated psychology during the 1960s and 1970s under the leadership of Abraham Maslow.
jessica
yeah. i was referring specifically to the question of the gaps in the fossil record: is it "incomplete" as those who would align with dawkins would say, or is it fairly complete and there are simply spurts within it? i agree that both dawkins and gould were both primarily working under sympatric assumptions, and pointing this out is necessary context for the debate to actually make sense, but i would argue that the solution to the problem may be in abandoning sympatric assumptions in favour of a sort of "reverse allopatric model". that is, the "gaps in the fossil record" are neither the result of it being incomplete (in general - maybe sometimes) nor evidence of mutation rates adjusting to the environment (although i wouldn't deny that selection rates might, sometimes), but actually evidence of hybridization's dominant role in evolution. if you take this view, the debate resolves itself in realizing that the wrong model is being applied.
something you'll see if you sort carefully through the palaeontological literature is this pattern that i need to do in point form to articulate clearly:
- you have two related species. let's say one is bigger, one is smaller.
- you can track micro changes in both species over a decent period of time. let's say the smaller is getting a little bigger.
- a rapid evolution takes place in one (let's say the smaller gets bigger all of a sudden), which is correlated with the geological record to suggest changes in climate.
- the other species disappears.
this has generally been interpreted by both sides (who are both assuming sympatric models) as the smaller species evolving to out compete the larger. the debate then comes into how that works, exactly. but, this is a pattern that you see over and over again. a reverse allopatric model would argue that the populations are actually merging due to climate shifts, and neither competition nor extinction are truly happening.
again, that's a change in model, so it's bound to be resisted. now, i'm not the first person to point this out, but the (rather persistent) suggestions that hybridization may be a dominant factor in evolution have historically been rejected under the arguments you presented, which i believe are primarily excuses to uphold the aristotlian conception, which nobody really wants to abandon.
part of the problem is that bones are very ambiguous. dna is a better way to sort this out, and the computing power to do it has only been available to us for a few years. they did a study a few months ago that deduced that there wasn't a linear way to organize chimps, gorillas and humans. there's dna that only humans and chimps share, only humans and gorillas share and only chimps and gorillas share. you can't really make sense of this by using cladistics and competition, unless you start talking about things being deleted, and the timescales are too short for that. rather, you have to bring in a "species complex" that produced multiple hybrids that evolved in different directions. that is, all three of these primate species must have emerged from separate hybridization events of the same common ancestors. so, you get crossings in the tree - a significant point of complication.
again: we're not really "there yet" in terms of the academic establishment embracing the role of hybridization, or reverse allopatrism as a mechanism for it. but i think it's the direction the field is heading in.
to go back to the initial point, i believe the initial question is an empirical one. bears can breed, and should be viewed as the same species if that is the metric; humans can breed, as well. so, the question of which has a greater genetic distance is one to phrase in the form of a hypothesis and carry out research to determine. there's nothing particularly wrong with the question, itself. what is the genetic difference between breeds of dogs? between subspecies of squirrels? are they greater or less than the difference between humans? well, get the data and work it out...
rather, i responded because i do not believe that the op understood the research he was citing, nor do i think that the research suggests what he suggested it suggests (and he conceded most of these points). first, i think the evidence demonstrates that gene flow amongst humans has been too dramatic through the entire historical period at least (i think there's some evidence that it may have been less during the last ice age), and probably at least since the domestication of the horse, to even be able to phrase the question in a way that it can be investigated. the idea that europeans and africans "separated" at some point in the past seems to be entirely wrong. second, his dates were absurd. he separated "europeans" with the neanderthals, ignoring the out-of-africa fact. in actuality, the out-of-africa migration is more recent than when we would currently split polar bears off from brown bears, which negates the basis of his argument. third, he had to make assumptions about rates of change that are not consistent with the paper he cited, and seemed to actually be the opposite of the ideas expressed in it. even if it were true that polar bears separated more recently than out of africa, it wouldn't necessarily imply anything about genetic distance.
just as an aside: we know that dogs separated from wolves relatively recently, certainly more recently than out of africa.
that doesn't necessarily mean that dogs are closer to wolves than native americans are to africans (and there's arguably enough of a block in gene flow there, or was before colonization, to have the idea make sense). dogs have been through intense amounts of artificial selection. but, it's a valid empirical question that i don't know the answer to.
i'm a little disappointed, actually. i was hoping he was going to go and burn the wto down out of a zealous, ignorant self-righteousness and refusal to have information enter his bubble.
but, it turns out that it's just a pr ploy - and that the media ran with it the way they were supposed to. ok. this is more along the lines of what i was expecting...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/26/trump_is_not_actually_planning_to_pay_for_his_wall_the_wall_with_a_20_tax.html
but, it turns out that it's just a pr ploy - and that the media ran with it the way they were supposed to. ok. this is more along the lines of what i was expecting...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/26/trump_is_not_actually_planning_to_pay_for_his_wall_the_wall_with_a_20_tax.html
to clarify...
if these institutions operate the way they're supposed to, the way that the border tax fiasco will play out is like this:
1) trump puts his tax down.
2) mexico sues the united states through the wto (and perhaps through nafta)
3) this very, very open and shut case ends with a clear ruling for mexico
4) the united states reverses the tariff and pays mexico back every dime it charged, plus costs, plus damages.
now, i'll acknowledge off the bat that this is naive. there's a lot of things that could go wrong, here. but, they all lead to a fundamental collapse of the trade order that the american empire has built in the post-war space.
it could very well be that the americans stack the system with a crony judge that rules in their favour. this has two terrible consequences for the neo-liberal order. first, it destroys what little credibility these tribunals have. second, it sets a precedent that essentially unravels the institution.
the other likely outcome is that the americans don't enforce the ruling, but this would also unravel the system.
so, i mean.....do they want to unravel this order? am i missing something? well, clearly, i am missing something. but, that realization isn't clarifying anything. why would the hegemon want to unravel the system that keeps them in control? sure, that's unpredictable. but it's also incomprehensibly stupid...
so, i legitimately don't understand what they're thinking, other than concluding that they aren't thinking at all. and, i'm kind of resigning myself to the fact that i'm not going to be able to understand much of what they're going to be doing over the next four years, because very little of it is going to make any sense.
but, again: i never liked the wto, anyways. i'll drink to it's imminent demise. two tequilas and a corona, please...
if these institutions operate the way they're supposed to, the way that the border tax fiasco will play out is like this:
1) trump puts his tax down.
2) mexico sues the united states through the wto (and perhaps through nafta)
3) this very, very open and shut case ends with a clear ruling for mexico
4) the united states reverses the tariff and pays mexico back every dime it charged, plus costs, plus damages.
now, i'll acknowledge off the bat that this is naive. there's a lot of things that could go wrong, here. but, they all lead to a fundamental collapse of the trade order that the american empire has built in the post-war space.
it could very well be that the americans stack the system with a crony judge that rules in their favour. this has two terrible consequences for the neo-liberal order. first, it destroys what little credibility these tribunals have. second, it sets a precedent that essentially unravels the institution.
the other likely outcome is that the americans don't enforce the ruling, but this would also unravel the system.
so, i mean.....do they want to unravel this order? am i missing something? well, clearly, i am missing something. but, that realization isn't clarifying anything. why would the hegemon want to unravel the system that keeps them in control? sure, that's unpredictable. but it's also incomprehensibly stupid...
so, i legitimately don't understand what they're thinking, other than concluding that they aren't thinking at all. and, i'm kind of resigning myself to the fact that i'm not going to be able to understand much of what they're going to be doing over the next four years, because very little of it is going to make any sense.
but, again: i never liked the wto, anyways. i'll drink to it's imminent demise. two tequilas and a corona, please...
again: i can't imagine that we get to the point where trump pulls the united states out of the wto because it ruled against a 20% border tariff on mexico to build a border fence. you can't even analyze this, it's just utter insanity. how did we get to the point that nobody tells the president that the wto is a thing that exists? but, if the end result is that the wto implodes then the world will be better off...
i'm not even trying to understand this anymore. it's easy enough to say "well, he said he was going to do this", but that only functions if you're operating in a total vacuum of international law. and, i get that the republican party rejects the authority of many of these institutions. but, there's reasonable bounds...
if the united states is going to arbitrarily slap a 20% tariff on mexico for an internal infrastructure project, how can it enforce the rules of the wto? why should it expect anybody to listen to anything it says? how can it expect to have any global authority at all?
i have to keep pointing towards that congressional investigation into russian hacking. i still don't think that the russians were involved. but, in his first week he managed to completely undermine the entire system of american governance: the tpp, nato & the wto, now, are all under serious threat.
he's dismantling the empire. are they going to just let him go ahead and do it?
i'm not even trying to understand this anymore. it's easy enough to say "well, he said he was going to do this", but that only functions if you're operating in a total vacuum of international law. and, i get that the republican party rejects the authority of many of these institutions. but, there's reasonable bounds...
if the united states is going to arbitrarily slap a 20% tariff on mexico for an internal infrastructure project, how can it enforce the rules of the wto? why should it expect anybody to listen to anything it says? how can it expect to have any global authority at all?
i have to keep pointing towards that congressional investigation into russian hacking. i still don't think that the russians were involved. but, in his first week he managed to completely undermine the entire system of american governance: the tpp, nato & the wto, now, are all under serious threat.
he's dismantling the empire. are they going to just let him go ahead and do it?
Thursday, January 26, 2017
i'm moving far too slowly through the music journal rebuild, so i won't be posting any further rant highlights. i wanted to be done by now, for sure. i've had other things slow me down, it's not like i'm blaming the slow down on the reposts, it's just that i need to get on with it. the full journal will eventually be republished...
this is great news:
https://daily.bandcamp.com/2017/01/24/everything-is-terrific-the-bandcamp-2016-year-in-review/
i had a false start yesterday due to finding an error in the vlogs from the 19th and 20th (of january) at the last minute, requiring a re-render. and, then i had a publishing error this morning that stole about 10 gb of bandwidth...
but, i'm posting today. starting now. and, in fact, i want to get a lot done.
https://daily.bandcamp.com/2017/01/24/everything-is-terrific-the-bandcamp-2016-year-in-review/
i had a false start yesterday due to finding an error in the vlogs from the 19th and 20th (of january) at the last minute, requiring a re-render. and, then i had a publishing error this morning that stole about 10 gb of bandwidth...
but, i'm posting today. starting now. and, in fact, i want to get a lot done.
there were times in ottawa when i couldn't get street dealers to sell it to me. the conversations went something like this.
"you buying?"
"maybe. do you have any pot?"
"i have speed."
"i'm looking for pot...."
"i don't sell it."
"why not?"
"it's not addictive."
"that's why i don't do speed."
"if you don't want speed, get out of here, you're just slowing me down."
and, it's the truth.
the reality is that there's not a lot in it for gangs. anybody can grow it, so they're not controlling any kind of supply routes. that's why gangs take over, right? because they can take it past check points with bribes. there's just no need for this with pot. you get it from your uncle's basement grow-op, or your friend's friend's backyard. and, because the laws aren't enforced, nobody needs the muscle or the protection. the other reason that gangs take over is because it's a revenue source, but because they can't control a monopoly, and it isn't addictive, marijuana doesn't have the same kinds of return. people buy it sporadically, and grow out of it after a while.
the gangs want you to take speed or meth or coke. they'll turn you into an addict, that way. and that's what they want.
there was one time when i bought it in a baggie with a confederate flag. that's the one and only time i've ever been convinced it was organized. every other time - and there's been lots of times - it's been totally ad hoc.
so, this idea that they're stomping something out is completely wrong. what they're stomping out is free enterprise.
but, i don't even care. i just want to avoid the hassle and be able to walk into the store and buy the amount i want to buy when i feel like it. who gets paid, and how it's regulated, is of essentially no concern to me.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/gangs-less-involved-in-cannabis-compared-with-other-drugs-report/article33712001/
"you buying?"
"maybe. do you have any pot?"
"i have speed."
"i'm looking for pot...."
"i don't sell it."
"why not?"
"it's not addictive."
"that's why i don't do speed."
"if you don't want speed, get out of here, you're just slowing me down."
and, it's the truth.
the reality is that there's not a lot in it for gangs. anybody can grow it, so they're not controlling any kind of supply routes. that's why gangs take over, right? because they can take it past check points with bribes. there's just no need for this with pot. you get it from your uncle's basement grow-op, or your friend's friend's backyard. and, because the laws aren't enforced, nobody needs the muscle or the protection. the other reason that gangs take over is because it's a revenue source, but because they can't control a monopoly, and it isn't addictive, marijuana doesn't have the same kinds of return. people buy it sporadically, and grow out of it after a while.
the gangs want you to take speed or meth or coke. they'll turn you into an addict, that way. and that's what they want.
there was one time when i bought it in a baggie with a confederate flag. that's the one and only time i've ever been convinced it was organized. every other time - and there's been lots of times - it's been totally ad hoc.
so, this idea that they're stomping something out is completely wrong. what they're stomping out is free enterprise.
but, i don't even care. i just want to avoid the hassle and be able to walk into the store and buy the amount i want to buy when i feel like it. who gets paid, and how it's regulated, is of essentially no concern to me.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/gangs-less-involved-in-cannabis-compared-with-other-drugs-report/article33712001/
i see that the naive dipshit party is going after the nanny state vote.
it's very sad what's happened to this party. they used to stand up against inequality. now, they just want to drive the news cycle for click bait.
this is going to finish them. they need to get back to important issues, and stop wasting time in parliament.
this is pure political calculation, and utter contempt for the people that voted them into power to hold the government accountable.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ndp-seeks-to-give-ethics-commissioner-more-powers-in-wake-of-trudeaus-aga-khan-controversy
it's very sad what's happened to this party. they used to stand up against inequality. now, they just want to drive the news cycle for click bait.
this is going to finish them. they need to get back to important issues, and stop wasting time in parliament.
this is pure political calculation, and utter contempt for the people that voted them into power to hold the government accountable.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ndp-seeks-to-give-ethics-commissioner-more-powers-in-wake-of-trudeaus-aga-khan-controversy
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
i haven't rejected the wall due to the cost. if anything, the higher cost would be an asset to congress; this is the kind of thing they'll pay for, because it's contracted out. this is what lobbyists do. it was politically stupid for clinton to make this a fiscal issue; the cost is of no concern to much of anybody except a couple of right-wing blowhards. and, they can yell at the wall all day - nobody cares except for their circle jerk.
the reason i claimed that the wall doesn't make any sense is that it would restrict the flow of cheap labour, which nobody wants to do. i mean, surely you don't think that these mexican peasants are outsmarting the border guards? they're allowed to pass back and forth. it's the bedrock of the border economy, and of the agricultural industry. i can actually cite aviva chomsky on this; she wrote the book on it. briefly, the migrant population replaced slave labour in the areas it exists in and the process of managing the labour fell to the state. the border patrol is like an hr agency. this is extremely dark subject material....
so, if they cut the routes, you'd get massive levels of inflation. that's insane; all of the money in the region would push back. unless, of course, they have something better....
it didn't cross my mind until now that this whole push may be about replacing migrant workers with prison labour. i'm making deductions on speculations; a real journalist would be useful, here.
i guess it never crossed my mind because i wasn't taking him seriously until the last week of the election, when it became obvious that the big money was behind him. and, i haven't really done the reanalysis on a case-by-case basis.
if you want to get out ahead of me, the themes should be obvious. i'm sure there's a number of things that need to be understood differently when you realize that trump is the big money, establishment candidate. just....it's not a panacea. there will be things that still don't make any sense.
https://consumerist.com/2017/01/25/for-profit-prisons-could-see-boost-with-trumps-executive-order-to-open-new-detention-centers/
the reason i claimed that the wall doesn't make any sense is that it would restrict the flow of cheap labour, which nobody wants to do. i mean, surely you don't think that these mexican peasants are outsmarting the border guards? they're allowed to pass back and forth. it's the bedrock of the border economy, and of the agricultural industry. i can actually cite aviva chomsky on this; she wrote the book on it. briefly, the migrant population replaced slave labour in the areas it exists in and the process of managing the labour fell to the state. the border patrol is like an hr agency. this is extremely dark subject material....
so, if they cut the routes, you'd get massive levels of inflation. that's insane; all of the money in the region would push back. unless, of course, they have something better....
it didn't cross my mind until now that this whole push may be about replacing migrant workers with prison labour. i'm making deductions on speculations; a real journalist would be useful, here.
i guess it never crossed my mind because i wasn't taking him seriously until the last week of the election, when it became obvious that the big money was behind him. and, i haven't really done the reanalysis on a case-by-case basis.
if you want to get out ahead of me, the themes should be obvious. i'm sure there's a number of things that need to be understood differently when you realize that trump is the big money, establishment candidate. just....it's not a panacea. there will be things that still don't make any sense.
https://consumerist.com/2017/01/25/for-profit-prisons-could-see-boost-with-trumps-executive-order-to-open-new-detention-centers/
and, listen, i just want to be clear, if i haven't been: i didn't follow this guy in groupthink. i was critical, even as i endorsed him. but, i'm a small-l liberal. so, i'm not going to follow the garden path that the tory media has set out for me, or parrot the reactionaries at all.
i've already laid out my lines of criticism. i think i've been clear enough. i wish the ndp was a little closer to what i'm saying, but a lot of the issues that have come up are longstanding concerns that even partially underscore my apprehension about voting ndp (like pr...). if the narrative was about health care, i'd no doubt be following party lines a lot more closely. but, i've always leaned liberal on broad governance concerns. i don't want to abolish the senate or repeal the clarity act, either. the ndp has held to a number of these positions for a very long time that are not radical, but just foolish.
it would be easier if i had a party to identify with, but i have no problem blazing a path through the wilderness, either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-approval-history-1.3950007
i've already laid out my lines of criticism. i think i've been clear enough. i wish the ndp was a little closer to what i'm saying, but a lot of the issues that have come up are longstanding concerns that even partially underscore my apprehension about voting ndp (like pr...). if the narrative was about health care, i'd no doubt be following party lines a lot more closely. but, i've always leaned liberal on broad governance concerns. i don't want to abolish the senate or repeal the clarity act, either. the ndp has held to a number of these positions for a very long time that are not radical, but just foolish.
it would be easier if i had a party to identify with, but i have no problem blazing a path through the wilderness, either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-approval-history-1.3950007
so, how much are california strawberries going to cost if field labour is $15/hr?
it's a broken system all around, no doubt. nobody wants to maintain the existing system of virtual slave labour in california agriculture. but, the idea of cutting migrant labour off is so devastating as shock therapy that it remains inconceivable.
i never thought i'd say it, but it's a good thing that we inked that deal with europe. we may need it for food security.
and, the fact that nobody is even discussing the issue as one of food security is just astounding to me. it's not even in the list of debates. i mean, i get that it's something that the broad public isn't supposed to understand. but, they're kind of going to have to understand this, now, whether the producers and the politicians like it or not.
again: it's just inconceivable. i've asked for hard numbers on this and can't get them, but the price of food is bound to go up by something like 400-500% - and that's before the shortages hit. the idea that the government could purposefully promote a policy with that kind of consequence is impossible to comprehend.
you have to expect that this wall is going to have a lot of holes in it. and, check the funding for clues on this. if (when...) it comes in at a tenth of the expected cost, you'll be able to draw the obvious conclusions.
i still think that, at the end of the day, americans will believe a wall exists. and, hopefully, that's actually a blessing in disguise.
it's a broken system all around, no doubt. nobody wants to maintain the existing system of virtual slave labour in california agriculture. but, the idea of cutting migrant labour off is so devastating as shock therapy that it remains inconceivable.
i never thought i'd say it, but it's a good thing that we inked that deal with europe. we may need it for food security.
and, the fact that nobody is even discussing the issue as one of food security is just astounding to me. it's not even in the list of debates. i mean, i get that it's something that the broad public isn't supposed to understand. but, they're kind of going to have to understand this, now, whether the producers and the politicians like it or not.
again: it's just inconceivable. i've asked for hard numbers on this and can't get them, but the price of food is bound to go up by something like 400-500% - and that's before the shortages hit. the idea that the government could purposefully promote a policy with that kind of consequence is impossible to comprehend.
you have to expect that this wall is going to have a lot of holes in it. and, check the funding for clues on this. if (when...) it comes in at a tenth of the expected cost, you'll be able to draw the obvious conclusions.
i still think that, at the end of the day, americans will believe a wall exists. and, hopefully, that's actually a blessing in disguise.
fwiw, the window was only open for about an hour this morning and i don't currently plan to re-open it. we'll have to see, but right now it seems like it's ok....
this editing process was slowed down by a number of weird factors, but i should be back to posting within an hour or so. i just need to call my gp to book an appointment, presumably with an urologist.
this editing process was slowed down by a number of weird factors, but i should be back to posting within an hour or so. i just need to call my gp to book an appointment, presumably with an urologist.
what's with people in their late 30s, or even their 40s, self-identifying as millennials, anyways? pathetic...
if you were born in the 70s, you are not a millennial, and you should neither be pretending that you are nor that you speak for the younger generation. you're just a gen xer in a midlife crisis.
yes: mid-life. you're at mid-life. deal with it.
if you were born in the 70s, you are not a millennial, and you should neither be pretending that you are nor that you speak for the younger generation. you're just a gen xer in a midlife crisis.
yes: mid-life. you're at mid-life. deal with it.
this is more or less what i've been trying to say. nice to see it get picked up in the msm.
the globe is a red tory business daily that sits near the middle of the spectrum but is widely seen as centre-right. this isn't a left-wing site, and it is influential on an important readership in the banking sector.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/should-canada-scrap-nafta-and-seek-a-new-deal-with-trump/article33700860/
the globe is a red tory business daily that sits near the middle of the spectrum but is widely seen as centre-right. this isn't a left-wing site, and it is influential on an important readership in the banking sector.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/should-canada-scrap-nafta-and-seek-a-new-deal-with-trump/article33700860/
could a tariff finally be the kick china needs to focus on internal production?
he puts the model down: offshore production and bring it back for a working class that can pay for it. sure: putting a tariff in is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money.....if they just abort the production. but, might the chinese find that a move towards fordism is in their interests? and, if so, might a tariff actually have the effect of finalizing the shift in global production that wolff has spoken of previously?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vO3h3Geh48
he puts the model down: offshore production and bring it back for a working class that can pay for it. sure: putting a tariff in is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money.....if they just abort the production. but, might the chinese find that a move towards fordism is in their interests? and, if so, might a tariff actually have the effect of finalizing the shift in global production that wolff has spoken of previously?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vO3h3Geh48
this is worth watching, feigned naivete or not. but, it's not like anybody really thought differently to begin with. the power struggles in this region are actually very bare. nobody actually thinks the americans are there "to help" - except, perhaps, for americans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIoAN8GxD7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIoAN8GxD7E
i'm a big advocate of tort law. and, i think that the solution to smokers rights v. non-smokers rights lies in shifting the burden to the smokers, themselves.
so, while i'm not really an advocate of laws that ban smoking, i am an advocate of adopting a "polluter-pays" approach to dealing with the externalities related to cigarette smoking. remember: i live in canada. so, i can support high taxes for cigarettes, but only under the argument that the money goes towards health care. what i'm talking about right now, though, is the question of what is to be done about tenant smoking, and finding ways to balance tenant rights for smokers and non-smokers.
i would both argue that smokers have the right to smoke and argue that non-smokers have the right to not smoke. the novel part of my argument is that i would argue that non-smokers should have the ability to hold smokers liable for costs incurred in smoke-proofing their buildings. for the practical example in front of me, i would argue that the smokers in the building should be held liable for the heating and electrical costs incurred as a consequence of me opening the window to neutralize their habits. if a cost is placed on their pollution, perhaps they'd think twice about causing these externalities.
so, while i'm not really an advocate of laws that ban smoking, i am an advocate of adopting a "polluter-pays" approach to dealing with the externalities related to cigarette smoking. remember: i live in canada. so, i can support high taxes for cigarettes, but only under the argument that the money goes towards health care. what i'm talking about right now, though, is the question of what is to be done about tenant smoking, and finding ways to balance tenant rights for smokers and non-smokers.
i would both argue that smokers have the right to smoke and argue that non-smokers have the right to not smoke. the novel part of my argument is that i would argue that non-smokers should have the ability to hold smokers liable for costs incurred in smoke-proofing their buildings. for the practical example in front of me, i would argue that the smokers in the building should be held liable for the heating and electrical costs incurred as a consequence of me opening the window to neutralize their habits. if a cost is placed on their pollution, perhaps they'd think twice about causing these externalities.
so, i woke up to a different smell today: cyanide & carbon monoxide. that is, the smell of cigarette smoke.
that's a smell i know well. it's dankness - the way it falls over everything like a blanket. you simply can't address this without opening the windows and letting the room air out.
i'm actually not sure if the tenant directly above me smokes or not. i think he might be a secret smoker from time to time, which is why this comes and goes. i think that the other tenant on the main floor does. the tenants two floors up are very heavy smokers and you can smell it when you walk in the front door but it doesn't usually bug me down in the basement.
this isn't the first time i've noticed this, but i don't think it's been this bad before; or, perhaps, my smell is better now than it has been since i've moved here. but, i didn't quit smoking just to deal with the second-hand smoke from upstairs. so, i'm not backing down on this point: the windows will remain open (with the heat up...) until the smell clears out.
and, the answer is to stop smoking inside.
that's a smell i know well. it's dankness - the way it falls over everything like a blanket. you simply can't address this without opening the windows and letting the room air out.
i'm actually not sure if the tenant directly above me smokes or not. i think he might be a secret smoker from time to time, which is why this comes and goes. i think that the other tenant on the main floor does. the tenants two floors up are very heavy smokers and you can smell it when you walk in the front door but it doesn't usually bug me down in the basement.
this isn't the first time i've noticed this, but i don't think it's been this bad before; or, perhaps, my smell is better now than it has been since i've moved here. but, i didn't quit smoking just to deal with the second-hand smoke from upstairs. so, i'm not backing down on this point: the windows will remain open (with the heat up...) until the smell clears out.
and, the answer is to stop smoking inside.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
kiwi v. strawberry.
i bought kiwis because there were no strawberries..i had to know...
i think it's a decent add from time to time, but not a replacement.
http://www.fruitvs.com/en/green-kiwi-vs-strawberry/comparison-47-26-999
i bought kiwis because there were no strawberries..i had to know...
i think it's a decent add from time to time, but not a replacement.
http://www.fruitvs.com/en/green-kiwi-vs-strawberry/comparison-47-26-999
i got a little behind on the music updates.
these two eps were created in early sept, 2014 out of material from the fall of 2001. the noise ep is self-contained, but the other one is going to need to be expanded with further bonus tracks. the problem is that the thing is a little bit conceptual to a violent climax and adding mixes might not make a lot of sense. i'll figure something out.
first ep:
second ep:
at the beginning of october, i spent a few days working out a choral piece by building spooky sound fonts; this was already written, and there was no performance component, just synthesized reproduction. so, it was relatively quick to actually make.
the completion of the choir was the last piece for my sixth record, which is broadly in the genre of experimental/electronic classical music - but takes in influences from everywhere:
finally, i posted this full length kosmische piece at the beginning of october:
these two eps were created in early sept, 2014 out of material from the fall of 2001. the noise ep is self-contained, but the other one is going to need to be expanded with further bonus tracks. the problem is that the thing is a little bit conceptual to a violent climax and adding mixes might not make a lot of sense. i'll figure something out.
first ep:
second ep:
at the beginning of october, i spent a few days working out a choral piece by building spooky sound fonts; this was already written, and there was no performance component, just synthesized reproduction. so, it was relatively quick to actually make.
the completion of the choir was the last piece for my sixth record, which is broadly in the genre of experimental/electronic classical music - but takes in influences from everywhere:
finally, i posted this full length kosmische piece at the beginning of october:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)