ottawa "terrorist attack" is probably a false flag to justify a larger canadian presence in the escalating syrian war.
however, there is significant local opposition to the stationing of guards in front of this memorial. i'm opposed to it, myself. it may have been a kook that was "fighting the police state". if so, he really didn't help his cause.
....but probably not.
it's pretty obvious.... On Tuesday, Canada sent six warplanes to the Middle East to participate in U.S.-led air strikes against Islamic State militants who have taken over parts of Iraq.
great...
Harper pledged to speed up a plan already under way to bolster Canadian laws and police powers in the areas of "surveillance, detention and arrest".
this is a messy folk punk first run through of the second incarnation of
this track, which was initially meant to be an industrial/punk song. it
would be nice to have another take of this, but i don't have one, so
it's better if you interpret this as a bonus track. there are completed
versions of this, but they're not like this...
hrmmn. i'm actually thinking i'm going to need to squeeze another single in to explore time as a techno/hip-hop "thing".
i think this is a good quirky early 00s pop song in the style of garbage or the smashing pumpkins, but the mix never resolved itself and the vocals are, in hindsight, somewhat of a noose around it...
listening to each part separately through headphones is just reminding me how thick it is and how poorly i got the thickness across.
written & recorded in late 2001 and early 2002 and mixed in early 2002.
right, so what you need to do is throw out the model of cladistics - the "tree of life". the model keeps shifting, but it's unworkable. you need to think of it more like a complex graph of genetic interplay...
there would have likely been a handful of related primate species around a few million years ago that could have interbred with each other. so, you would have had the genes flowing around in a complicated web of flow that went through various transitional stages and ended with the three species.
there is not one common ancestor that the three species shares. there are several, and they've left us their genes in a complicated, non-linear way.
this'll get them going: in a crude sense, it is probably true that a distant human ancestor was created through the hybridization of gorilla and chimpanzee ancestors.
this was actually the first thing that crossed my mind when this shit erupted. you'll see it if you scroll down a bit.
"He went on to say Ukraine is an artificial country and that Lwow is a Polish city and why don’t we just sort it out together."
not poland, exactly. but nato. poland here is a euphemism for nato; poland does not have an independent foreign policy, as it is not a sovereign state.
poles are moving up in the world though, eh?
they're not atheists and, as an atheist, i really refuse to treat them differently than any other theist. it's some kind of weird combination of pseudo-scientific magical disney-like thinking and blatant nihilism. like, at least you can construct the bulk of humanism out of christianity due to the shared roots in natural law. these guys don't even have that kind of basic grounding in rationalism. not only can you consequently not get anything at all worthwhile out of it, merely a set of ridiculous delusions, but it's decidedly more dangerous than the rest of them. so, satanism needs to be killed. with fire...
a real atheist would consider that ritual to be a stupid waste of time.
the concept of a "public place" doesn't negate the harassment. the courts don't operate like computers, they demonstrate a lot of flexibility. most of the time, they use that flexibility to screw over poor people, but once in a while they use it to clarify the laws.
you can use some common sense to come up with the right decision.
legal: casually flying over a topless tanner and coincidentally getting footage of it.
harassment: swerving in and out of a topless tanner's personal space, trying to get a good shot.
it's not really a question of establishing the legality of drones, it's more a question of establishing a level of etiquette in using them.
i hear you should invest in high tech stocks. what? it didn't work out last time? shut up, they weren't born yet...
Kazikox
Aren't they all atheists?
deathtokoalas
atheism is faith that the deity does not exist. agnosticism is a lack of belief.
satanists believe in magic. there must be a supernatural force that has the ability to produce the magic. therefore, satanists are not atheists.
PRHILL9696
Satanism is a subset of atheism. Satanists are elite atheists it is that simple
deathtokoalas
just because you believe something is true doesn't mean it actually is.
do you accept that you believe in magic? then you're not an atheist. deal with it.
further, there's nothing "elite" about satanism. you're a bunch of fucking delusional dipshits, as far as i can see. if it's elite, it's elite in the same way that certain classes are for the "special" kids.
PRHILL9696
you talk like a small child. I am trying to have an adult talk here can you try and do the same. I am giving facts and you are not it is that simple
deathtokoalas
the fact is that if you believe in magic then you are not an atheist and no amount of magical thinking will change that fact - no matter how elite you claim to be.
this is what you need to do when you find a satanist - throw it in their face. contradict their solipsism. prove them wrong in front of their own eyes. break the delusion. destroy the cult.
Painless1992
Nah, if you believe in Satan, it means you also believe in God, because Lucifer is part(character) of the bible and stands for the exact opposite of what God will stand for and "provide" you with. So this guy saying that they don't believe in afterlife, isn'tsatanist of it's essence, for them "hell" should be the afterlife but not from the point of view as Christians see it or the concept of it. For me it looks like he doesn't even know what he stands for. If he was "satanist in his belief", he would worship Satan as his lord and that there is some sort of different existence after this life. But if he believes there's no spiritual connection with anything and that there isn't any sort of other life besides the one you're living, he should be Atheist and shouldn't worship anything, because he doesn't believe in anything of the cult.
PRHILL9696
Satanists are not christians they are elite atheists who love life and deny the supernatural which is why so many atheistic groups embrace them
Painless1992
I never said satanists were christians, all I said is if you believe in satan as unholy force, you also believe in god. Don't mix atheists with satanists, because as I explained before, atheists don't believe in any of the religious cults, while satanists are opposite force to christians and "fight", represent the opposite of what christians stand for.
PRHILL9696
But satanism is a subset of atheism they are atheists, atheism is one of the components of the Satanic philosophy which is why many atheistic groups support them
deathtokoalas
pr hill sure seems rather.....
....brainwashed...
....doesn't he...?
like he's under the control of a cult, or something.
it's almost as though he's been influenced by a religion...
hey, mr "elite atheist", can you tell us something that differs from what you've been brainwashed with? can you think for yourself?
let me guess. you're going to respond by stating the dogma a 27th time.
PRHILL9696
Satanists are elitists who think for themselves which is something your cult is against as they want to control people. I am just happy more and more people are getting out of that shit and now lead happy normal lives as they should as they are good people
deathtokoalas
mmhhhmm
Painless1992
Buddy, no offence, but you sound hilarious.
PRHILL9696
no offense taken because I know I am stating facts and there is nothing funny about that
paul
Fact: genetically black Africans are more distant from white Europeans than polar bears are from brown bears.
Vlad I
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
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.
TheLaLa1
fact: genetically, light colored cocker spaniels are more distant from dark colored cocker spaniels than black Africans are from white Europeans.
Isaac
Don't like the use of the word Mongoloid there, but well done none the less.
deathtokoalas
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
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
TheLaLa1
"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
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
deathtokoalas
they aren't. this idea of separate, equal races is just as wrong as racism is...
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
i'm not sure if this person decided not to read what i wrote, or if this person was unable to follow what i wrote. laziness or stupidity? even when it seems obvious, it's never really entirely clear...
(deleted response)
paul
" 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.
deathtokoalas
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 know 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
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.
deathtokoalas
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
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.
deathtokoalas
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
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
John
So your point is?
He has no point because there isn't one. Nothing to see here but a dolt.
Jen
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
LudeMasta991
Gotta love the socialist progressive blowing a gasket.
deathtokoalas
there's nothing progressive about leninism. dude's a fascist and pretty clearly demonstrated it.
paul
So I am a fascist and every anthropologist in America is seeing things. You need sanctioning.
deathtokoalas
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
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.
Vlad I
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
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.
ALEX
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"
Vlad I
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
so, 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.
Vlad I
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
Vlad I
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
deathtokoalas
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.
deathtokoalas
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...
gantzisballs
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.
deathtokoalas
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 finally got around to watching (listening) to this and it is in fact a quite insightful and forward thinking analysis of the situation, as spoken from the mid 70s. i just really wish that he didn't throw the word socialism around like he does...
you have to wonder if he's even trying to take advantage of the cold war propaganda in speaking of the identified enemy. if you actually read his books, you'll learn that the "socialists" he speaks of are high finance bankers and ultra capitalists that are perverting marxist theory for their own goals, in order to "capture foreign markets". he manages to call them socialists, then describe them as hegemonic globalist capitalists. he makes this clear on repeated occasions - he doesn't actually think they're actually socialists, he knows it's all a cynical ploy. further, the system he often references - and there are strong parallels in the three types of collectivism - has nothing to do with workers running their own factories...
the problem is that it makes it hard to recommend his work. you have to read it very critically. but it's very much worth exploring.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
history is useful when you can tie it into current events.
what sutton is saying here is important in understanding how the european (and some american) elites are likely to react to continuing american sanctions against russia. you hear these mumblings that europe isn't happy about it; it's not like the eu has much of a choice to disobey american dictates right now. but, what you see in official policy is rarely what happens behind the scenes.
2) this is a little messy, but such is the charm of acoustic demos. this
was recorded live through a tascam four-track into cool edit (running on
a PIII), with sean on the right channel and myself on the left channel
and then mixed into stereo afterwards. unfortunately, you can hear the
hard drive recorder skip at a few points; i ended up working it into the
composition, but it wasn't initially intentional.
this was meant to purely be a demo, but i ended up just building the mix on top of it.
written and recorded in early 2002. track released feb 5, 2002.
cigarettes are gone, i'm feeling calm, and i'm ready to make the best of what i've got left to do.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
it looks like i've got six months left to live. that might change,
but it's how i'm going to be acting for the foreseeable future. so, i
need to pick up the pace.
i'm not going to compromise
on the product, i'm just going to stop focusing on promotion. it will be
a roughly weekly ritual from this point until i figure out how much
longer i've really got.
so, they decided to make the forms due on my birthday. aren't they sweet....
if i wait until the very last minute, i should hopefully get another month or two while it's being processed.
i then get a three month grace period from the time a decision is made to figure something out.
i can also appeal. so, i could stretch this out to close to a year.
i'm
thinking i should go in to see my worker within a few days to ask if
she has any recs for doctors, because it's what it comes down to. all
i've had here so far is grief (excluding that one er doctor). i'm
actually even considering hitching back to ottawa to go back to the same
doctor that signed off on me initially.
kind of cold to hitch, though.
no, really. there's inevitably sleeping outside involved.
i'm
obviously crazy. you only need to follow my facebook feed for a few
days to get that. but i come off as rather deceptively sane, both on
paper and in person. this is why i wanted to get some serious shrink
time in. my insanity may not be obvious in a ten minute conversation,
which is how these things seem to work, but you can't miss it after
you've known me for a few weeks.
like, i was so sane on
first impression that the shrink i went to wouldn't even talk to me. if
you've been following this for any length of time, you realize how
surreal that is.
i suppose i can try another shrink, but....
i think the best diagnosis is just "mad".
"she's a mad hatter" kind of thing.
i'm calmed down, now. my threats aren't idle but i'm relaxed. i wish i didn't buy those cigarettes...
she's in tuesday mornings...
guess i'll have to wait until next week. gives me time to think...
i'm just going to have to level with them.
i
needed the doctor to play along, but what got me a huge slice of
empathy from ontario works was a letter i wrote them where i just
explained the reality of my existence in the most cold, dour way
possible.
the truth is nothing has changed. i didn't
choose to exist in this society, and i would have decided pretty
squarely against it if i had the opportunity to make the choice. but,
i'm here, and this is the only way i'm going to exist with any
contentment. i can at least state that i've been considerate enough not
to breed. signing me off into misery (which i will not accept. i will
choose death.) isn't making anything better for anybody.
in the end, i have to convince them to choose compassion over calvinism.
90% of that is going to be determined by who i end up talking to....
i need to point out that *this* is really going to be the final
cynicide/rabit release, that takes the best material out of the period
and puts it together into a single record. go ahead and listen to the
first two tracks. it's already epic. an elephant in the womb, indeed....
the core
loops involved in clarity were initially created in the late summer of
2001, with the intent of being the opening sequence in a new inri
project (with the long kicked-around working title of 'trinri'). while i
had fairly firmly put the inri moniker down around my 19th birthday
(late 1999), i was also coming out of a lengthy "serious music" phase
and was getting a desire to write in a more structured, synth-pop type
direction, as i had for years previously. this urge was happening about
the same as i was being coerced into starting a rock band with some high
school acquaintances.
around october, i started working on a separate noise project that was
meant to splice harsh electronic noise with anarchist politics. this
produced two tracks at the time, which are now available as a short
single as inri032. at the time, it wasn't clear to me where those ideas
would lead.
by november it was clear that the rock band wasn't happening, but it
turned out the singer had tastes that correlated reasonably well with
what i was thinking about creating for the trinri project. these two
projects consequently merged into rabit is wolf, and the material i was
kicking around for use in trinri ended up becoming the core of what
rabit is wolf became.
as i was recording parts for clarity, i ended up reusing ideas from the
noise project. i further reused those ideas in constructing a 2004 noise
collage for inclusion on the record that finally came out of the noise
project. both noise collages are present in order to comprehensively
explore the ideas existing within clarity.
zen was recorded with sean over december, 2001. i have chosen not to
complete a version of the wave (inri034) that was also being discussed
at the time, but would have fit into this release well, conceptually.
clarity was completed (with vocals) over january, 2002. the nature of
rabit (along with the songs i had written for it) took a sharp turn
towards folk almost immediately. this collection is consequently quite
different than the official rabit demo, which is much more
song-oriented. over the years, i've always wanted to have a rabit
release that was darker, noisier and more chaotic and am glad to have it
in the form of this ep-single, which could be viewed as a secondary
demo. put another way, this is the comprehensive representation of the
second (electro/noise/industrial) incarnation of rabit is wolf.
however, there are two factors complicating clarity as a solely rabit is
wolf production. the first is that sean was never really happy with the
result - a shame as i consider his vocal performance and lyrics to be
the best of the songs we did together. the second is that i always felt
the track was "mine" and should have had an instrumental mix. that is,
i've always regretted not saving an instrumental mix.
for these reasons, i've revisited the track as an instrumental and left
two snapshots - 11/2001 and 01/2002. this second snapshot (which is to
be considered a final mix) will also appear on my upcoming 6th record,
dated to the end of 2002.
recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. track 6 was constructed in may,
2004 out of files recorded 1999-2001. tracks 1-4 were reconstructed over
october, 2014. final mixes were finished on october 18, 2014. as
always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - guitars (electric, acoustic, nylon), mandolin,
sequencers, synthesizers, drum & melodic programming, electric air
reed organ, digital piano, flute, drum kit, sampling, digital and analog
effects processing, digital wave editing, sound design (loops, granular
synthesis, noise generators), production
so, i got my letter of doom today. it's a package of forms to fill out.
considering
the experiences i've had with doctors here, i'm expecting to be
rejected, so i'm going to leave it to the last minute with the
expectation that i'll have to launch an appeal. that means i have
roughly six months left to live before i commit suicide. i'm planning
something grizzly outside the odsp offices (or outside of a doctor's
office) as a political statement. the purpose is to draw attention to
the fact that the system has failed me, and hopefully to produce
consequences for the people responsible for that.
the
flip side of this is that i don't want to waste the last six months of
my life fighting disability. so, i'm NOT going to try really hard to
find a doctor to fill this out - i'm going to make sure i get as much
music recorded as i can in the next six months, then go out in a truly
spectacular mess...
if you have any really good suicide ideas, please post them here, maybe i can work them into the action.
see, then i wonder why i keep going back to smoking. what's the use of quitting, when there's no future?
i've
been to doctors, they tell me i'm healthy. i guess i'll have to prove
them wrong. maybe they'll be less stupid about it after they have to
peel a severed arm off their front door.
"you're holding us up with a gun!"
it's
reciprocating society's ultimatum of work or starve. it's incredibly
aggressive, but we're born with these knives over our heads that give us
no option but to sell our labour to survive. if rejecting this means
producing a violent outburst, it's a reflection of my lack of options to
live in real freedom. the desperate nature of slavery *justifies* this
sort of response.
so, yes, i'm turning the gun back on society. and, rather than feel bad about this, i'd encourage others to do the same.
i
need to finish inri035. yes, i'm smoking tonight. at least, i am NOW.
then i need to eat. then i need to carefully read through the thing and
see what i can do.
but i'm not wasting large amounts of
time on this, only to be rejected in the end. i'm at peace with ending
my existence in the short term, just so long as i can get the work done.
i need to pick up the pace a bit...
i've been quiet on
the activist front since i came down here. well, i got what i want.
and, i'm aware that it's *why* we have assistance set up. if you set up a
society that is structurally unequal (and then expect people to fight
over the wealth), you're going to end up with disaffected masses that
don't want to play the game and will fight back instead. the way to
control those masses is to feed and shelter them. i'm willing to play
along. but you pull that out from under me, and i'm back to fighting for
principles.
it's martyr thinking, granted, but it's
calculated for maximum effect. i've constructed my life goals with the
intent of completing them within a year or two. once i get there,
there's not much else to live for. so, i'm now in a race against time.
if things work out, i get a lot done. if they don't, i can at least go out knowing i got as much done as i could...
i
mean, i've got over 24 hours worth of music completed, remastered and
reconstructed over the last year and a bit. that's something to be proud
of. at the least, i need to have *some* kind of way to present what's
left.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
"Airstrikes in Syria shifted from the besieged city of Kobani toward the oil facilities that fund Islamic State fighters"
oh, really? and, who is buying that oil?
two points:
(1) cut supply. keep prices high. again.
(2) if the oilfields are in syria, it is syria that loses the infrastructure when they are destroyed - regardless of who or what temporarily controls them.
they're destroying the syrian infrastructure. i don't need a patrick cockburn or robert fisk article to explain that, it's clear as day.
what i'm seeing here doesn't strike me as much different than playing fetch with a dog. the dolphin's digging it.
the question of captivity is sort of complicated in the way it intersects with intelligence. humans don't live in our natural environments either, but it doesn't imply we're unhappy. dogs can be happy creatures as pets. drawing that line in the sand is really negating their intelligence level. you want to work a concept of choice in, but it's not easy.
the dolphin seems happy. it's not being aggressive. it's making "happy dolphin" sounds. that pool almost certainly connects to a bigger area. but, again, do you define your happiness in terms of how big your house is?
fuck this.
i want a war against ebola, with weekly presidential drone strikes.
on top of that, the ‘e-bowler’ app inventor has been denied contracts due to the name. how ridiculous is that? it almost sounds like a joke. the scaremongering just never ends...
typical right-wing logic. first, you cut funding to essential services to the point that they can't perform their basic tasks. then, you blame them for their "incompetency" and accuse them of "wasting tax money" when they tell you they can't afford to do what they should be doing.
should there be a travel ban? sure. but, conservatives (in both parties) need to take responsibility for creating agencies that are unable to respond to crises. otherwise, you need to come to terms with the fact that this is the society you wanted and this is the society you got.
government is the problem; it's your responsibility to protect yourself from infection.
don't like that? then get a grip on reality: you can't have services if you don't want to pay for them.
yeah, i'm not comfortable in upholding the implied hierarchy in the student-teacher relationship underlying the argument that the teacher should have reacted differently because she's a teacher. the reality is that the teacher was assaulted, and i feel she had the right to assert herself - not in a professional capacity, but in a personal one. i can't criticize her for her reaction, but i think the student should be expelled.
i think that means we have the right to call cops over with kissing sounds and shoot them in the face when they get close.
so, it's kind of like...disaster capitalism...
haven't read this yet, but she's brought out the thesis slowly and it's clear what she's getting at. and she's right. but she's running up against a brick wall almost immediately: part of the social darwinism of neo-liberalism is the idea that what we call capitalism today is a law of nature. the "free market" isn't this thing that we create, but this thing that exists in the wild.
also, a lot of this is based on the false idea that the approval has been delayed. in fact, the pipeline has already been approved, and it's even already pumping....
Saturday, October 18, 2014
fuck. every time i look into the precise nature of these squabbles, i'm just appalled by how idiotic they always are.
it took me five minutes to learn that the site is neither the tomb of david nor the site of the last supper. it was a byzantine church. they found a tomb in it during renovations and decided for no compelling reason that the tomb must be david's. nobody's ever opened it to find out what's in there. so, you're dealing with two entirely contrived narratives...
....but it's religion. nobody expects it to actually be true. it's symbolic in both cases. so, why hold so ridiculously to the symbols?
then, you listen to the explanations and they're just astounding. what kind of remarkable doublethink is this, where jews are banned from entering a place of idolatry in order to pray to an idol? for what is praying at the tomb of david, that is only a symbol, if not idolatry in the first place?
i can't help but question the premise. if your religion is so intolerant that you can't enter the same building as people of other faiths, your religion needs to evolve. and, if your religion will not evolve, it must be eradicated - because that kind of extremism is a threat to others.
but look at what they fight over: competing false claims. i've seen more worthwhile arguments in a kindergarten class....
i'm
going to need to run the final version through some buses and eqs to
get it to really come out, but this is a reasonable approximation of how
i would have wanted the instrumental mix to sound in early '02.
i've
added the two ftaa tracks to the clarity single because they're playing
around with a similar guitar riff. it's an idea that got recycled, so
there's a thematic unity tying it together. i guess it gives the
"single" (it's 62 minutes) a little bit of extra variation and
playability, as well.
strung out was done about the
same time as i was playing with clarity. it was the initial source of
the riff, which i then used in clarity, thinking strung out was just
going to sit on my computer. i constructed "through the looking glass"
out of files from 00-02 in 04 for the ftaa disc; that is, all the
original files existed when clarity was being written, but i didn't
actually put the collage from those files together for a few years.
tacking it on here is thematic, if slightly anachronistic....
recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. reconstruction date is oct 18, 2014.
in 2004, i found myself tasked with compiling some ideas i had into a
collection of end products. one of the ideas i had had kicking around
since late 2001 was that of combining harsh noise with anarchist
politics, which i wanted to complete under the name "fuel true anarchy
in the americas" (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa).
i had just about enough for a full length concept record, but went
looking through my hard drive to see how else i could fill the cd up to
80 minutes.
at the time, though, i perceived of the suite as completely dead. so, i
pulled the end section out and did some things to it in a wave editor,
which included taking a guitar part out of the track strung out and
looping it through the track. the same guitar part was also used in the
bridge of clarity. strung out and through the looking glass can
consequently be thought of as remixes of clarity, so their inclusion
here is necessary to explore the thought in full.
initially created in the spring of 2000. expanded in the spring of 2004.
so, the pun here is that it's a lot of guitars going off out of tune,
representing how the government is stringing us out to dry by taking
away our rights in the (not so) chaotic aftermath of 9/11. there are
versions of the track with thematic samples, but i've removed them for
this release.
the reason i'm including the file as a lead-in to the clarity single is
that there is a guitar riff with an ultimately celtic sort of sailor
folk theme running through this track that i ended up reusing in the
bridge of clarity (and a third time in "through the looking glass").
this track was completed first, but the ftaa project (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa)
that it was connected to didn't have release dates or anything. i
really considered it mostly disposable at the time. yet, it's a
necessary inclusion if i wish to comprehensively explore clarity as an
idea.
created in the fall of 2001. the file was edited into this form on october 18, 2014
it seems like people are looking for my twitter account.
@deathtokoalas
on twitter is NOT me. that person appears to be into anime, online rpgs
and defending the fascist state of israel. i'm not interested in any of
those things. i'd like to see a one state solution, but under the
auspices of a democratic, secular "israel" that does not have religious
or nationalist concepts written into it's constitution. i'd also like to
see some land redistribution, but i recognize that this is a very
delicate process. if you were to sit me down and really have me analyze
it, i'd have to come to the conclusion that the only way to "set things
right" is to temporarily abolish the state and have it run by an
international body like the un for a period of 50 years or something,
then have it transferred to a secular, pluralist governing body.
i
simply don't use twitter. however, for the sake of clarifying the
situation, i'll point you to this sarcastic profile as the only twitter
profile that i've ever set up.
i
know that deathtokoalas comes off as a unique marker, but it seems like
it isn't. as far as i can tell, this other person stole my name, but i
can't prove that.
that brings up another point, though.
the handle i'm using there is @dgkfgjklgjkgjka. i'm all over the
internet with variations of this. it was chosen to be impossible to
search for, as it's picked uniquely each time, but easy to identify when
it's found.
i'm very open about my politics. if you
see some right-wing ranting under a similar moniker, and it's not
sarcastic, it's not me. but if you see variations of the sort with a
lower case d, a random string of mashed characters of no fixed length
and a lower class a such as...
"impossible"
is an exaggeration. but searching all possible combinations is time
consuming. it requires some scripting, at least.
there's lots of smart ways to circumvent the fuckers, if you know a little about the technology they use....
obviously, i don't want it to be hard to find my youtube account.
but the fact that deathtokoala starts with a d and ends with an a is no coincidence:)
i am somewhat of a bond villain.
it doesn't matter any more, i don't use the technique.
(you'll
note that before you can script the trawl, you need to figure out the
trick, and i don't get the impression anybody even got that far)
i mean sum (35 C i), 3<i<20 is a very big number.
avoids newfie joke
remember: if there's a hurricane, don't go out for supper. get delivery instead.
deathtokoalas
judging from the slur in his voice, my best guess is he was late because he was snorting cocaine in the bathroom.
Pat
He was waiting for a stimulant to kick in perhaps, the slur in his voice is from alcohol intoxication. Correcting the effects of alcohol intoxication on the speech centers is nearly impossible, no matter what drugs might be employed to do so. And he's just tumbling all over his words, nearly an incoherent speech pattern, certainly under the influence of something.
Philip
Because cocaine is notorious for making people slur their words....
deathtokoalas
it's a very common side effect, actually.
Philip
I've heard of it with people who did huge amounts of cocaine at once, so I guess I've just never met a serious coke-head.
deathtokoalas
i've never tried it, but i've been around it. the immediate high - especially if it's a big line, or you haven't done much - is like a train slamming the side of your head. it's very disorienting. it doesn't last long, but you get most of the effects associated with inebriation for a short period.
most of the stereotypes of being jittery, paranoid, etc come from taking small dosages regularly. in that context, it's simply a strong stimulant.
it's possible that he may have taken a big hit knowing he was going on the debate, had it backfire and had to wait until he came down a little. cocaine is only a 10-20 minute high.
Philip
Which is why you should always stick with nature's wonder-drug: dextroamphetamine.
deathtokoalas
i'll stick with coffee, thanks.
Philip
Coffee is a joke compared to amphetamine. I hardly even consider caffeine a stimulant.
deathtokoalas
i suspect you're very stressful to spend time with, then.
Pat
When one has been stone cold sober for 20 years, spotting these kinds of things at age 50 is like saying ... "That's red, that is a circle it's round, that's a stick, it's made of wood, that's dirty, don't touch it ... the stove is hot ... etc ..." It really is totally obvioius he's whacked. The speech centers in the brain and body are a major function of conscious intelligence and it takes an awful lot to screw them up, heavy drugs, like alcohol or big time pharmaceuticals. Valium maybe, some type of downer perhaps as that is commonly taken before a high stress public appearance, especially for those that sweat a lot at public events.
deathtokoalas
i know you're pushing the downers thing, but, due to the fact that he's a republican, you're looking at two serious options: cocaine or oxycontin. but politicians tend to lean towards the coke. coke gives you that invincibility, that confidence. it's more what you want in a public speaking scenario than something that's going to knock you out or make you walk wobbly.
like i say, i'm convinced he took too hefty a line and had to sit down for a few minutes.
as people that know know, the "war on drugs" is just an absurd way to round up american blacks. the cocaine industry in the united states is basically interlocked with the republican party.
Pat
Bill Clinton ran billions of cocaine through Mena Arkansas for the CIA and the drug Cartel lords working together. Drug profits are so incredibly large the two major parties in the U.S. have to share the profits, or they would start a war, a civil war, there's just far, far too much money in the illegal drug trade for any one group to control it, they share. Like a pendulum swinging back and forth and they've been doing this for hundreds of years and it started with the Dutch East Indies company, opium, and cannabis.
TheBassAckwards
as It isn't just about being anti-black.. there's TONS of money is the industrial prison complex in America. Private, for-profit prisons? Noooo, I'm sure there's no corruption going on there! Our county is going to hell.. well, it's already pretty crazy now. I really wonder where what life is going to be like here in just 20 years, let alone 50 or 100. 1/2 of Florida will probably be washed away with Republicunts still saying climate change is a lie.
well, let's take a step back. you shouldn't not be worried at all, and the political aspect might have something to do with the reaction.
what he didn't talk about was how it's spread from patient to worker. i think this is the key point that will probably calm people down: ebola is not airborne. it's less like the flu and more like aids - you have to be in close contact with bodily fluids. even if the worker was contagious on the plane, merely being on the plane with the worker is not enough to catch it. you need to be in contact with blood, feces, urine, etc. i hope that the bathroom was properly sterilized, though.
you should be careful. if you're into scatology, for example, you may want to put it off for a little while. but your death is not quite imminent; we're not at the "bring out your dead!" point quite yet.
---
RarityGamer
Why is the CDC assuming everyone onboard that flight from Cleveland to Dallas has a extremely low chance of catching it? Like, why isn't every single passenger on a 24hr call-in list? "No passengers have symptoms" ..... we don't know that, do we? Unless the CDC is in constant contact with each and every passenger....
deathtokoalas
because ebola is not spread through the air, it's spread through contact with bodily fluids.
deathtokoalas
it's not that they get away with it, it's that they expect they'll get away with it because they're taught they'll get away with it. so, perhaps they shouldn't be taught that they'll get away with it?
i'm not saying it's a good idea to shrug it off. i'm pointing out that it's well established that enforcement is not an effective prevention tactic, you need to get at root causes.
you look pretty frustrated. that's all the approach you're using is going to get you.
it's a losing battle; change your tactic.
in the broader scope of things, laci is a product of the failure of neo-liberalism. she's using very right-wing language, and i'm not entirely sure she really realizes it. it's just what she learned at school. i went through this somewhere else. all this stuff about victim rights is a product of the neo-liberal era. but, like everything else from the neo-liberal era, it's run into incredible problems in trying to reverse the decades of research that came before it on ideological rather than empirical grounds.
it's unfortunate to wake up in your late 20s or early 30s and realize everything you've been taught is bullshit. but, it's going to have to happen - and not just for laci, but for a wide cross-section of people her age that come face to face with it.
there may have been a sentence or two about weber and root cause analyses hidden in the back of your textbooks. your profs may have ridiculed it. but i'd really suggest picking up on that.
Samuel
I really don't think you can teach them "they won't get away with it" unless you actually provide a punishment for the act so they have real consequences for the act, and this wont happen unless there is a huge reform of the current system which protects and allows rapists to live free.
deathtokoalas
there's that "thinking" thing again. wrong way to try and interpret the world.
we're not rational creatures. we don't respond to incentives, and we don't respond to force. that is, enforcement has no effect on recidivism rates. it may seem logical to think that if you get "tough on crime" then the criminals will stop, but this has been proven wrong repeatedly. instead, what you get are smarter criminals. it's the most expensive, least effective approach. that's why conservatives love it so much - big contracts, no results.
yet, because the right-wing dominates the educational institutions nowadays and has since the rise of the "new right" in the thatcher-reagan neo-liberal revolution, what's being taught in schools nowadays is the kind of anti-science fundamentalist christianity that laci is articulating - without realizing it. it was presented to her as sociology, so she thinks that's what she's talking about.
but it isn't. it's christianity repackaged as science in this twisted orwellian manner. the sociological equivalent of "intelligent design".
the root of this starts when kids are young - it's the way they're raised. we need to get at the very root of the family unit, not just round people up for behaving the way the system expects them to behave. that is, when you live in a deeply stratified, hierarchical system you cannot be surprised when people treat each other poorly based on where they exist in the hierarchy or thinking that law enforcement is going to somehow abolish the hierarchy. it's only by abolishing the hierarchical system that produces the behaviour that we can expect the behaviour to cease.
again, that's not an argument for the legalization of rape. but the approach that laci (and the right, in general) is taking reduces to treating a corollary of a problem rather than treating the problem itself.
