I don't care how wonderful this is, it still deserves a *WTF

Nope, the mainstream theory is that we don't have a clue. We're just fairly certain it didn't go down 6000 years ago and that the earth wasn't formless before there was light and that whatever process happened probably couldn't care less whether we mix fibers, etc...

Short version: Cosmology, particle physics, theoretical physics, etc... are elucidating fantastically complex aspects of our universe's beginning that we don't and probably won't ever fully understand. Some interpretations may indicate that there is some eternal process giving rise to the complexity we can observe. Therefore it's the Jewish war-diety from 3000 years ago that did it, definitely not Allah or Vishnu - that would just be crazy.

Not sure about how I feel about this newfangled form of advertising.

They're trying to hijack the fact that authentic joy and excitement caught on tape can become popular on Youtube and make millions a little happier for watching it. Instead of just making you happy, however, their goal is to just sell you Jack Links beef jerky.

Don't fall for this and let the greedy corporate bastards corrupt another beautiful form of human expression; punish them by buying a different brand of beef jerky next time you go to the grocery store and watch these videos instead:

Double Rainbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSNhk5ICTI
Cheese Doodle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC8gJ0_9o4M

Shutup and take my money!

I do understand that the purpose of Godwin's law is to reduce the worst kinds of hyperbole, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do.

Whatever you think about Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians, referring to it as extermination only shows that you haven't taken the time to understand anything about the current conflict and you are just reacting emotionally to the terrible horror of war. Extermination is the total elimination of a certain population by killing, and such an action is so far beyond the state of oppression we see in Gaza today that I just can't take your comparison seriously.

The only way you bother to support these outlandish statements is by telling me that death is death - no matter what the cause - as if that mindless tautology is enough to render two wildly different sets of circumstances and tactics equivalent.

Should we also call all murders murders and not bother to make distinctions between first degree, second degree, involuntary manslaughter, etc? Should we treat the serial killer the same as the drunken brawler who hit someone too hard in a bar fight?

Of course not. As thinking people we analyze factors such as intent, quantity, severity, remorse, and perhaps most importantly, we consider what measures can possibly be taken to correct the underlying cause. All of these elements are wildly different in the different degrees of murders, and having an honest grasp of these differences helps us understand how we as a society should react to each degree, both in terms of punishment and rehabilitation.

To similar ends, it is very important that we consider analogous distinctions in the different degrees of atrocities between nations or ethnic groups. The fact that it is obvious that I would much rather be in Gaza today than a concentration camp in 1943 is very much so relevant to this sort of analysis. The fact that there is no Israeli intent to exterminate the Palestinians is also relevant.

But if you want to leave the depth of your understanding at "dead is dead" then I guess that's your choice.

I definitely agree with you on the democracy point - my whole post was mostly an attempt to explain what I perceive to be the main factors that drive Israeli democracy toward the oppression we see over the Palestinians. The nutters on the hilltop have very little influence on this drive, but the combined forces of Jewish nationalism and protective insulation go a long way toward making these policies successful in Israel's free and democratic society.

I guess, then, in an extremely limited respect I agree with you on the 4th reich thing just because of the comparison between complacent German citizens who were only patriotic and insulated from the realities of Jewish suffering and Jews who are only patriotic and insulated from the realities of Palestinian suffering.

That being said, using the term "Fourth Reich" doesn't illuminate this sort of nuance and instead it accuses Israel of many extremes of which it is not guilty. For example Nazi Germany was guilty of a truly unprecedented campaign to methodically exterminate vast populations based on their ethnicity, and they were literally bent on world domination - I have many harsh criticisms for Israel, but if you think that Israel's conduct can be reasonably compared to that then you are delusional.

In a similar vein, while I do think that Gaza in many ways is the world's largest prison, it is not in any way comparable to Nazi concentration camps. I would much rather live in present day Gaza than be in a Nazi concentration camp, for one, and secondly I think that Israel's policy towards Gaza can better be described as one of control and marginalization, whereas the Nazi's goals with concentration camps was straight up efficient extermination.

So long story short, don't fall prey to the "reductio ad hitlerum" fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) and make a more careful comparison between Israel's and Nazi Germany's respective civilian populations and I'd be more inclined to agree with your point.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

(I feel like the traffic cone at the beginning and the drummer's facial expressions throughout the show justify the wtf tag)

*wtf

And I mean that as the highest of complements.

For what it's worth, I did some digging and the rumors that Tim Cook is gay seem to be at least partially sourced to a speech he made in 2013.

http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple-ceo-tim-cook-gives-remarkable-speech-on-gay-rights-racism/

The relevant bit is at about 3:10 when he says that "I have seen, and I have experienced many other types of discrimination, and all of them were rooted in the fear of people that were different from the majority."

The rest of the speech talks about human rights in general, whether from a perspective of disability, race or gender.

Sure, it sounds like he's hinting at discrimination he experienced as a gay man in Alabama, but it could just as easily be sloppy wording on his part. I'm leaning towards sloppy wording just because I don't think he would hint at his sexual orientation so casually. As Apple's CEO, such a move would be a lot more intentional and carefully orchestrated.

So again, the CNBC host doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and he didn't out anyone. He just spread unsubstantiated rumors.

Wait. So the guy who may or may not have actually reached out to Tim Cook personally about his sexual orientation simply (and correctly) refused to discuss any actual names, but some random talking head with no special knowledge about Tim Cook's sexual orientation claimed he was gay, and that is supposed to constitute an outing?

The title should read: "CNBC host behaves unprofessionally and spreads unconfirmed rumors." Saying that he outed Tim Cook implies that the CNBC host had some special knowledge confirming that the rumors are true, and at this point we just don't know.

The real issue here is that some guy wrote a column about gay CEOs and consistently ran into the fact that very few of them are willing to be named.

This is speculation here, but my guess is that if you've managed to become the CEO of a fortune 500 company, then on a personal level you are probably confident enough and socially stable enough to come out of the closet.

The real reason these gay CEOs (whoever they may be) aren't coming out of the closet is very likely just because the act of a CEO coming out is perceived to negatively affect share prices. I don't know whether this is just an assumption made personally by these CEOs or if the board of directors at their company actively made it clear to them that it would be a bad move, but this phenomenon is the real story and we shouldn't let all of this viral nonsense about Tim Cook being "outed" distract us from fixing it.

All the counters and stores definitely close down in most airports after, say, 2am. You'll never find yourself completely alone - there are always a few security guards, cleaning staff and other stranded travelers milling around - but if you're sharing an airport designed to process tens of thousands of travelers per day with only a few dozen people, there are plenty of places perfect for lonely music video making.

*promote

Wow.

umm... *wtf