How come the more I live here instead of asking questions like, "Which president will I vote for this cycle, as they--the presidents we elect--will assuredly help us, Americans, find a way to strive to that collectively wanted future of harmony and hope; with social issues solved and our highest money NOW spent in scientific and education areas of our system--truly making us the greatest country to have ever existed no matter how it may eventually end (human civilization wise, like a meteor, etc...)." or "Perhaps if I write my congressmen today and give him a guided and easy to understand letter that shows the inevitable, logical, conclusion that we should follow as a state and perhaps to be heard on the subject by other senators--perhaps creating a greater understanding reaching across states through a simple letter appealing to just simple basic logic: we could finally begin a path onto a new firmament, one that might try to appease our greatest of needs and stop our useless doctrines of the past.", instead...

I find myself asking slowly, but more often: Where am I going to have to move to?

Sad, but true. My government scares me a little more each day. The citizens, quite frankly, make me scratch my head in awestruck befuddlement.

superior? bah!

whether the impetus for survival be cooperative or competitive, native cultures around the world and throughout history have been made extinct through attrition, disease and assimilation

to me, the question of why must be added to the what, who and how

h. sapiens of that time also knew how to live in harmony with nature... you see, the population of the entire earth, until the advent of agriculture, didn't break 1 million souls

if you don't like the implied speciesism, we can fast-forward a couple of decamillenium and look at what happened to europe's 'white indians' - do we mourn aspects of lost cultures and societies like those of the belgics, franks, jutes, picts, celts, angles, saxons, frisians, etc?

what happened to them? who did it? why did it happen?

did native american tribes engage in the same sort of behavior? yes, of course they did - they knew war, they knew rape, they knew genocide -- we can play a game if you like: name a common era tribal culture, and i'll do my best to discover which less successful tribes they dominated to extinction or complete assimilation

>> ^Diogenes:

this made me so sad that i immediately went looking for a video showing the gradual extinction of neanderthals in europe due to the encroachment of h. sapiens...
still looking


if you are suggesting that we are a superior species of human, consider that as a collective, socialized as gluttons, we are consuming the host. How superior is that? At least the native americans knew how to live in harmony with nature.
but ehh...there are bargains to be had at walmart.

also, it is just as likely that neanderthals bred with non-neanderthals. George W., for instance, is a fine example of neanderthal bloodline.

What happened to Harmony? Does she get scalped or burnt to death?

I'd say that's more an indictment of the schooling he's received than a statement of his abilities as a composer. (Symphony No. 5, to me at least, is more or less indistinguishable from some of the symphonies written by the "great" composers of the last century or so.)

Sadly, the classically harmonious qualities (including the "progression," the "building of emotion," the storytelling) that many of us appreciate in, say, Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin are no longer in vogue (and haven't been for quite some time). Contemporary composition—and the same could be said of most contemporary painting, sculpture, writing, et cetera—aims more for fragmentation, disruption, and discord. The audience isn't meant to feel harmony; we're meant to be dislodged.

This could become a pretty serious rant, I guess, but I'll hold back. I will say, though, that the brief clips of his early compositions (5:52–6:12) sounded quite pleasing to me, if a little imitative. And the part where he inverted the Beethoven sonata was pretty darn cool. (It reminded me, in a roundabout way, of the scene in Amadeus where Mozart plays the piano while lying upside down.)
>> ^TheFreak:
Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.
It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.

For eons the Invid lived in peaceful harmony. Their way of life simple, almost mindless. Then, on one fateful day, a race of beings known as the Robotech masters came to the Invid world...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'call your girlfriend, robyn, erato' to 'call your girlfriend, robyn, erato, a cappella, singing, harmony' - edited by calvados

>> ^Duckman33:

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.
And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.
As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?



Your gonna go with 'people change'? Tell me, your study of Awlaki, did it include where he was and what he was doing when he died? Seems as though his past and present were still in harmony, no?

I'm all for asking Obama tough questions. Unfortunately the 'tough' questions being asked here are banal, obvious and easy to ask. It's the underlying problems that are hard. Instead of asking about the legalities and controversy around killing a mass murder in Yemen, maybe they could probe something both tougher and more helpful. Like what's his position on supporting a dictator in Yemen opposed by Al-Qaida dominated rebels? But it's more politically beneficial to ask the flashy and sexy questions about one dead bad guy.

The sheer arrogance and stupidity of this guy, and his inflammatory rhetoric, perpetuates this ridiculous situation. Claiming that his imaginary god, acting as some sort of celestial real estate broker thousands of years ago, gave HIS "people" the land, and HE "came back and claimed it," is ignorant, bronze age nonsense. If it were palestinians building next door, and he was happy to live in harmony with them, as a fellow human being should, that would be true "progress my friend."

What I find interesting is, whether we find this naturally "scary" or is it because we associate the sounds with feelings we may have felt when we heard them, ie during a scary movie. Does it work the same way symmetry does for your eyes? Meaning, the more symmetrical a person is the more beautiful they're known to be. So, I wonder if these sounds have some harmonic properties that just naturally are perceived as scary? I know that minor chords in music give off that vibe, but I wonder if there're a string of notes, or harmonies in particular that we just hear and think DUN DUN DUNNN!

Hmm...I see what is happening here. That's actually their Dad on the sofa. It's a trick camera angle that makes him look smaller that he actually is. They also ran the audio through a process that skews the harmony and alters the tone. Kinda like auto-tune...only in reverse.

Wait until you get to the tower of bable story (Genesis 11:1-9), funny stuff. Humanity, all speaking the same language decide to work together to build a tower to the heavens. God has none of this co-operation and harmony business, kicks everyone to various parts of the earth and makes them speak in tongues... which is how different languages were created.

"That is not what Christianity is about, it's about love and peace and harmony or some such bullshit. It's totally not about oppressing, shunning and alienating people outside the circle."

Feminism needs to call itself something different to differentiate itself from all the assholes.
>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

>> ^sme4r:

That isn't actually proving your point. Blankfist is neither bigger nor stronger than you, he has just contributed enough within the site. Those contributions did well within the community and thus his opinions (more importantly his negative opinions) are trusted, and you ended up with a downvote.
On the other hand, I upvoted your comment because I happen to agree with it. But when you compare how much I have contributed to the site versus how much Blankfist has, it almost seems unfair to let me upvote.
If this proves anything, it's that the "weak" have more power because I (or you for that matter) don't need Blankfist's reputation just to upvote.
Long story short: The sift wins.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Proves my point.
If you have the ability to downvote my comments--and I can't downvote yours--you can smack me around for not agreeing with you. I have no recourse.
Who wins?

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Without some form of state it would only be the strongest oppressing the weaker.
I was interested in anarchy so I read Kropotkin's "Memoirs of a Revolutionist". It's just a dream (but a very good read). Everyone living in cooperative harmony will only work until someone stronger, and better armed, wants what you have--then you might want a state (in some form) to protect and serve you and yours.
Our state needs to be readjusted to focus on the middle class, but no-state is stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin



Okay. He just pissed me off and I used an inept analogy.

Thanks sme4r.

That isn't actually proving your point. Blankfist is neither bigger nor stronger than you, he has just contributed enough within the site. Those contributions did well within the community and thus his opinions (more importantly his negative opinions) are trusted, and you ended up with a downvote.

On the other hand, I upvoted your comment because I happen to agree with it. But when you compare how much I have contributed to the site versus how much Blankfist has, it almost seems unfair to let me upvote.

If this proves anything, it's that the "weak" have more power because I (or you for that matter) don't need Blankfist's reputation just to upvote.

Long story short: The sift wins.



>> ^Boise_Lib:

Proves my point.
If you have the ability to downvote my comments--and I can't downvote yours--you can smack me around for not agreeing with you. I have no recourse.
Who wins?


>> ^Boise_Lib:

Without some form of state it would only be the strongest oppressing the weaker.
I was interested in anarchy so I read Kropotkin's "Memoirs of a Revolutionist". It's just a dream (but a very good read). Everyone living in cooperative harmony will only work until someone stronger, and better armed, wants what you have--then you might want a state (in some form) to protect and serve you and yours.
Our state needs to be readjusted to focus on the middle class, but no-state is stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin