It's not surprising. 50 years ago all these god-fearing congressman and senators would have been Klansmen. This is the heritage of modern conservatism.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I honestly don't get the racism and sexism of conservatism. Where does it come from? Does it come from brain chemistry? Is it somehow ideological?

^ Will a poem do?

The standard model of particles, founded 50 years ago,
By abdus salam, steve weinberg and sheldon glashow.

They theorised three new forces, through which we used to find.
That gravity isn't the only all pervading influence of its kind.

The strong force exchanges gluons, of nuclear design.
Forgive the sense of humour, science needs a focused mind.

Before that comes the weak force, which must be overcome,
To fuse elements together and create a heavier one.

E-M forces follow; with yet a greater range,
"Quantum electrodynamics" uses photons to exchange.

Gravity we discovered first, Newton lead the way.
Applying it to the planets to map the celestial ballet.

From the smallest to the largest, we arrive at the present day.
The "Theory of Almost Everything"; so close yet so far away.

(Needs a bit of work!)

As much as I want to hate this guy I see this as a non-event. It was 50 years ago, hearsay and of little to no relevance to an candidate. Saying that it is indicative of much is reading too much of it. There's so much more important failings of this man to focus on. Start with how he see gay people today. Maddow did a good bit on it. He has no principles. He'll just say or do whatever is popular.

>> ^legacy0100:

promote fail commercial


As others have pointed out, this isn't really a fail. If someone tried this today, then sure, but 50 years ago this was reality. These are things women were conditioned to care about and these are things they would have been trained to be knowledgeable about.

Also, this is a salesman training video, not a commercial so I'm yanking it from there, too.

*nochannel *femme *howto *vintage *wheels

I've done biomedical research on animal subjects...it takes a huge emotional toll.

The idea that these animals are tended to by 'heartless scientists' is usually quite fallacious in modern times. There are some famous cases done more than 50 years ago, at a time where science really was cruel and heartless to human and animal subjects alike.

In academic settings and in modern protocols, the animals are required to be treated as ethically as possible, and third parties are usually present to enforce the ethical treatment. First, it's just not possible to do research on an animal that is not used to human interaction. They need to be as comfortable as they can be with humans; they need to respond well to being handled, or else people can't realistically perform tests on them. Long periods of time are initially spent just handling and playing with the animals.

Human ethics have really come a long way from the time when hippies really did have something to complain about with animal cruelty.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Anyone else reminded of the last scene in The Birds?
Thanks for the Spoiler!


It came out nearly 50 years ago! Besides, it actually doesn't matter. Watch it and you'll see

I don't get it. How can the money just disappear in the housing market? Houses were built by housing construction companies. Those companies were paid by the banks at some point. 10 years ago, 20, or 50 years ago. The banks then lend the house to a borrower through a 30 year mortgage. Banks buy and sell houses in a cycle. Housing price bubble grows and grows over years, and pops. Home values plummet. How did the system as a whole lose any money because of its popping though? I can see how the banks got burned badly, which in turn burned home buyers. But how does this hurt one of the first actors, the housing construction companies or the home sellers who filled up the bank's home inventories?

Did the banks buy too many houses for too high a price from the construction companies? If so, then isn't the money with the housing companies or whoever previously owned these homes?

For example, before the Recession, my grandma owned a house worth at least $700,000 in San Francisco. Let's say she had sold the house to the bank for $700k, then the bank tries to sell the house for $1.4 million over 30 years (including 5.25% interest).. but isn't able to find anyone willing to buy at that price. Before they realized this, they buy a LOT of houses from people like my grandma (who may as well be a housing construction company), all for $700k. They have no one to sell to and have to lower the prices of their home inventories. Now they realize they've made a huge error buying all these $700k homes when they should've bought them for $500k (which is what my grandma's house is worth about now). So what's the big deal? The $700k is in my grandma's account, no? So how did the overall system lose any money? My grandma has to spend that money or give it to someone eventually, so it's not like it just vanished into the air.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Child slavery". There's just no debating this kind of hysterical hyperbole, which is the only thing the left is good at (the actual results of their good intentions are easily debatable).
And the mental patient who wrote that article is wrong in the very first paragraph, conveniently "forgetting" more Rs voted for the original Civil Rights Act than Ds.


I agree that it comes off as a little hysterical. The slippery slope: "Is this the start of?..." is never a good argument. I don't really think of 16-year-olds as being "children". And I think they should have a say in determining their own hours (because I have plenty of friends who's pathetic parents made their having a job in high school necessary).

But I will never support the lowering of minimum wage in any situation.

FYI: "Republicans were different 50 years ago" is not an effective way to support any position. Remembering your history doesn't mean "selectively." The right has done more than enough in the last 50 years to show their ever-changing position on labor.

I upvoted this because I believe this is part of the future of science. It is easy to dismiss these concepts as new age touchy-feely stuff and poo-poo it out of hand.

But it is similar to something discussed in this vid http://videosift.com/video/Dark-Energy

70% of the universe is unexplained and for "placeholder" purposes, it is now called Dark Energy, until scientists can figure it out. This wasn't even a question 50 years ago, now our brightest minds are looking into it.

"Gaia consciousness" could well be the Dark Energy of the future.

Until then, whether it exists or not, it is fact that we are seriously screwing with the ecosystems of this planet. So whether there is "collective intelligence" or not, we had better get on to seriously changing our behavior.

>> ^criticalthud:

They're still engaged in a primitive debate.
Conceptually, we can't even get passed the notion that god is a singular "being" like us, rather than a vast intellectual complexity - that only becomes more complex as evolution continues. and we are all part of that process. recycled energy in an infinite process.
we're just so fucking self-centered that we miss the the intelligence that is all around us, and just how interdependent we are on the biodiversity we are mindlessly destroying.
we miss the fact that there is a collective intelligence of this planet, without which, we would be nothing. and instead of nurturing it, we're jerking off.

i can't prove my idea, but i don't think we had this many security guards 40-50 years ago.

I suppose government and corporations really need to keep the little people out (or down) but it really looks like every single building has a security team.

it would take a small army of ruffians to hit everywhere at once

This guy spends the whole video telling us what the symptoms are but ignores what got us here and how to fix it. No surprise the anti-free market (anti-freedom) people are oblivious to it.

Government and bankers have been running a ponzi scheme for most of the last century: Economic central planning and fractional reserve banking. Bankers have been stealing more and more from us every year through money manipulation and taxes.

Inflation is not some magical or natural occurrence. It is baked into the system. It is direct theft. A gallon of milk has pretty much the same value as it did 50 years ago, yet the price has changed, why? And for those that say, well prices have gone up but so have wages so it evens out. Not true. In the arbitrage between the two, you're always going to be on the losing side. And that ignores the theft of savings, and ignores how bankers exploit that arbitrage. That is why we have booms and busts. Bubbles are purposely induced through collusion and fraud to financially rape the people.

Without the fraud and collusion, there wouldn't be trillions of debt. And tax rates would probably be at the highest 10%. Income tax needs to eventually be abolished. In a free world, you trade your labor for wages. The government has no claim to your labor, so why does it have a claim to the wages you traded it for? Taxing consumption above the poverty level makes the most sense. But that can never be implemented without first eliminating the tax on income. You tax things you want less of, you bailout things you more of. The government taxes productivity (income), and rewards fraud (bank bailouts).

How do we fix this:
1. Eliminate the cancer: The Federal Reserve. Eliminate the whole concept of a central bank deciding monetary policy in general. Allow free choice and freedom of currency. Force banks to disclose their reserve ratio to issue loans. The free market will probably force banks to hold close to 100% of reserves. And banking would also become more of a co-op system like credit unions.
2. Cram down all the toxic loans on the Fed's balance sheet to the fair market value of the home and renegotiate the terms for the home owner.
3. Close down the Military Industrial Complex. End all wars. Close down all foreign military bases. Focus Department of Defense on actually defending threats instead of creating them. Abolish the CIA.
4. Break the global oil cartel.
5. Probably have to break up the big banks and pass regulations similar to Glass-Steagall to keep them from getting "too big to fail". Separate banks from investment firms, insurance firms etc. Enforce real regulations that protect consumers, not the parasitic speculators. If a hedge fund makes bad bets and loses, then they lose. No bailouts.
6. Eliminate the false free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT. Stop incentivising global companies to outsource production oversees.
7. Eliminate tax on production. (Income tax)
8. Ban health insurance. (The middle man) We would probably have to fully nationalize health care. (It is anyway really) And then work towards a system of free choice and volunteerism.

Probably more solutions, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. And yes, I'm a free market idealist.

I have no problem with polygamy, however our complex society of laws might. I'm standing by as the legal chaos of gay 'marriage' begins its ascent. This is mob rule by a mob smaller than the majority.

The real danger is what these morally-questionable decisions mean in the long run. Today the defenders of gay marriage scoff at polygamy ever becoming legal when they have no moral grounds to deny polygamists anything. Beyond both of those endeavors the moral relativists will attempt to dismantle laws protecting children (put another way, they have no moral basis for opposing the decay of such laws).

Today the liberal shakes his head and laughs at such possibilities, because presently children are legally incapable of consenting to sexual relationships or marriage. But what are laws to judicial activists who circumvent them? Just 50 years ago homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder; now it's celebrated.

You'd think prostitution would be legal before gay 'marriage'. What a shortage of proper values!



>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
When will the next Grisanti come along who 'sees nothing wrong' with polygamy? Soon.
What do you see as morally wrong or problematic with polygamy?

Shakey cam. Hell. Ultra-generic "action-movie fighting". Will not watch.

I mean, the "I'm going to slowly, gently swing a wide punch, you're going to put one arm up to stop it, then punch me with the other hand" never, ever should be seen again. People made fun of Gregory Peck for having fight scenes featuring this cliche. 50 years ago. Now, it's a clear marker that you learned your "I'm an action hero!" skills from a 9th grade drama teacher. And the "I attack you from behind by draping my arm around your shoulder/neck" says "I'm the same guy who imagined scenarios for 70s women's self-defense books".

Garbage. Lazy, lazy garbage. Screw them for making this crap.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Civil war in Ivory Coast:
- Chief export: Cocoa
- US response: None
Civil war in Libya:
- Chief export: Oil
- US response: War
These are both current events, BTW. I hate regurgitating the "blood for oil" mantra, but if someone else can offer me a better explanation then I'm all ears. Or as soon as someone says "blood for cocoa" for some other war in the world, then maybe I'll shut up.


The only thing I'd mention is that it's a resource that will draw blood here if we let it destabilize too far (and yes we may cause it). Oil is used in so many things, materially and fuel wise, that it becomes easy eventually to see how there could be lives lost on our own soil due too any number of issues.

But, they won't be flashy deaths. So who cares right? My biggest issue with this so far is that ALL members on the security council have not had a hand in this. Also, remember that Libya is "supposedly" a U.N. abiding nation. Yet they're doing the opposite of what was required by the resolution.

I hate war; I know it will be for money, oil, and gaining footholds. This one I think is correct, but we've abused our leverage with the U.N. a lot. It's nice to see us actually following that resolution.

I have no idea how the congress should be involved (other than an "atta boy" or "you're a terrible Democrat, all hail the Republicans). This was voted upon 50 years ago--basically. While this follows many trends it also skips others; I think I've not fully concluded on where we should be. But, that is why we have our leaders. To make informed decisions and I dearly hope it's true here.