Bob,

Here's where we agree on something.

I came from amazing wealth, like total top .01%, then lost everything and ended up in absolute poverty. I taught myself a valuable skill and kept building and building on it. It started with shit jobs, but I kept learning and doing more and never stopped believing in myself or in my ability to better my circumstance. I went to college and learned how to learn more efficiently. Even now, I'm improving my skills on a daily basis. 40 years later, now I'm in the 1%.

This is America to me, one part of it: that in America, you at least have a chance -- however small, however improbable -- to better yourself through your own skills, drive and determination. It's not a 100% guarantee, but I honestly haven't seen another country that fosters this attitude.

For the nb, did I have a leg up? Definitely. I was born with an extraordinary mind into a hyper-affluent family. As a child I went to the best public schools in America during a time when education was valued above all else. By the time my mom and I were basically on the street, I had enough base knowledge to build on what I'd already learned. I also took advantage of community college when it was all but free ($50 a semester) and was able to take pretty much any class that interested me. I was also able to afford a computer when they were very expensive and complicated.

Finally, I was born a white male and caught innumerable breaks because of that. I have zero doubt that I am where I am in part to this accident of birth, because I was told by cops, teachers and employers, sometimes quite openly and sometimes in coded language, that I was preferred over non-white people.

For all America's sin -- and many be thy score -- the nucleus of true capitalism is still alive.

Using violence, torture, and the backing of the Russian military, and after numerous failed coup and assassination attempts he took and held tenuous control. Torture hardly played a huge roll or he would have been successful the first time, or the second. He retained and increased that power in the 70-80's by spending his huge amounts of oil money on the people, mostly not by torturing them (except for Kurds).

The "others in the room" we're his forces, not random people who murdered for him out of relief. He didn't hand weapons to an adversarial group he was convincing to follow his lead by having them kill those who wouldn't. I mean...WHAT?

You use fear mongering as proof torture works? Um... ok.

Since what I've been discussing is torture working to get sensitive, useful information, not the long term terrorism and brutal oppression of a population, I'll just move on.
Yes, despots can ride nations into the ground by making the populations powerless and fearful until those populations revolt. Yes, an iron hand and willingness to make your population stone aged can allow you to hold on a long time. Yes, torture can be part of that, but only one small unnecessary part, a strong military willing to murder unarmed civilians is what it takes, torture or not.

Wow, now you think the U.S. military taking out Saddam proves torture works because ...force and violence?

Strength vs weakness is what worked, not torture or terrorism, that's why he failed, brought down by a coalition of locals and Americans with his military deserting him in droves when he needed them most.

Torture is not a functional interrogation technique nor a means to foster loyalty, only fear. Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

Your video, Sutton Foster: Anything Goes rehearsal performance, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You might recognise Sutton Foster from the TV show Younger - which I not-so-secretly love.

I don't know if I'd have remained that calm. This is not a view that fosters tranquility:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eSdUWEhat3U/UB4hmX8uHNI/AAAAAAAABDg/x32xULUnIXQ/s1600/giant+pacific+octopus+beak+open+radula+closeup.jpg

1) Yes, but that's much more easily said than done, and many people disagree too. I feel that it's far cheaper to pay to educate other people's children (I have none) and have them become far more productive citizens than it is to insist (despite all evidence to the contrary) that hard work overcomes all obstacles, and everyone is capable of doing the work required for success. This theory removes responsibility to help others and puts blame squarely on those who've failed. Convenient, but just wrong.

2) In a vacuum, that makes sense, but not in real life. The refusal to acknowledge the disparities in opportunity to prepare for that singular performance is where the racism lies.
It's actually illegal to use just race over performance merit in most places as I understand it. Ethnicity/gender are usually only one small part of the equation. If they could be replaced with a numerical opportunity score, used to modify performance scores,
I would support that, but good luck figuring that one out to anyone's satisfaction.

3) Yes, people always resent being forced from a position of power. I do think it's important to constantly revisit the issue to insure policy doesn't foster inequities, particularly since that's the point of the policies, eradicating inequities.

4) Predicting the naive would be suckered by a professional con man telling them platitudes, sure, but predicting so many of the educated would go along for short sighted, purely tribal reasoning, that's tougher.

5) Certain groups of people have been claiming white men are the downtrodden powerless whipping boys since the 60's. It's getting closer to true, but we aren't near there yet, it just seems that way to those less socially powerful than their fathers. Sure, there are outliers where the white male gets the shaft due to race, but we still come out well ahead in the balance by any objective set of criteria..

Kids Channel by James Roe
Sandbox for Sift Tots. This is a realm for videos that are suitable for children to enjoy. Non-kid-friendly videos that simply happen to contain a kid do not belong here.

He is intentionally posting adult content on the channel reserved for children after repeated warnings by multiple sifters and a short hobbling for the same thing. Perhaps another longer one is in order?

And because he continuously misassigns videos about racism as war on terror......

War on Terror Channel by raven

This Channel is for the aggregation of all videos related to the "Global War on Terror"...
As defined by Wikipedia.org:
"The War on Terror (also known as the War on Terrorism) is a campaign initiated by the United States government under President George W. Bush which includes various military, political, and legal actions ostensibly taken to "curb the spread of terrorism," following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States... Both the phrase “War on Terror” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law."

This Channel aims to become a place that will foster discussion of the war, and the numerous controversies surrounding it as well as the video material coming out of it; both in the form of News Media reports, and videos shot by the soldiers themselves.

So wait....are you saying we should overlook numerous war crimes and international kidnapping because it was done in the name of fighting an enemy we created that never posed the threat we claimed he did, but was a dictatorial asshole that killed and tortured thousands (making it ok for us to emulate him), and ignore that our actions also killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized the middle east, creating Daesh, starting numerous civil wars, now disastrously effecting all Europe?


Yes, I think you're wrong. Only a hand full of soldiers who were caught by their own stupidity of posting photos of them abusing prisoners were discharged, I don't think any high ranking officers who created and fostered the abusive practices.
https://www.salon.com/2006/03/14/prosecutions_convictions/

It wasn't a few bad apples, it was the "standard desirable practice"....a practice Bush strongly defended and Trump has said he wants to return to, and at least the 1/4 of America that brainlessly loves him agrees.
Personally, I think we should have left any American that participated in this in Iraq, especially the officers in charge...soldiers have a duty to refuse illegal or immoral orders, and ordering torture is absolutely illegal and immoral.

But it does prioritize freedom of choice...the customers. Freedom to discriminate against others based on race, sex, sexuality, age, or religion in public business is a freedom most people don't want to foster.

I do agree, there are exceptions, like the one you mentioned. Forcing a women only spa area (or any other business where group nakedness is part of the service) to allow people with a penis to enter is touchy (pun intended)....far more than allowing them in a rest room....and above my pay grade, so I won't be opening a women only spa, at least until that's well settled.

Edit: no one is forced to participate in a lifestyle, period. First, creating an object used by someone who's 'lifestyle' differs from yours is not participating in it, second, you are not forced to remain in business. If you CHOOSE to have a public business you are required to operate it according to the law and not discriminate against customers based on race, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, .... with very few specific exemptions.
Bigots got over having to make cakes for interracial couples, they'll get over this bigotry too.

Loved this whole story. After thinking about it for a while, I figured that Foster was probably going to get an NHL record for highest "career save percentage".

1) The contract that the emergency goalies sign makes them official NHL professional athletes for a day.
2) He came in and made 7 shots on 7 saves, a 100% save percentage.
3) Official player, official stats earned, yet extremely unlikely that he'll ever see another minute of ice time or shot against ... therefore, into the record books.

I looked at NHL stats page and a few other sources to try to figure out if that was correct, but everything I looked at limited "Career Save Percentage" stats to players with a high minimum number of games.

Then I saw this story:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/blackhawks-emergency-goalie-scott-foster-accountant-jets/

Confirms that YES, he'll be in the records books, but he'll be tied with 17 other guys all having a 100% save percentage (after having faced between 1-17 shots).

So even though he's tied with 17 other guys, dude is set for life for a story to tell his kids / grandkids / strangers in the bar:

"So yeah, I'm a former NHL goalie. Retired with a career save percentage better than Brodeur or Roy. Left the game literally at the top of the charts."


I think Patrick Kane and/or Jonathan Toews should give their salary from this one game to the guy since the contract he signed precludes the team from paying him... (both make $10.5 million for this season, so 1/82 of that would be a bit over $125k)

Since you asked so respectfully.....
Taken one point at a time....
1)You are not a special, beautiful, unique snowflake everyone treasures. You are just part of the all singing all dancing decaying compost heap that is humanity. Your parents lied to you.
2) IMO, children under 18 shouldn't have smart phones at all, and should only be allowed to access a highly filtered social media if any at all. Both are highly destructive when misused, and children misuse things, especially when unsupervised as most are. I'm 47 and still don't indulge in either. (Unless the sift counts)
3) I actually think impatience is good....If paired with the drive to make what you want happen yourself and the intelligence to grasp the work required to make it happen and recognize your own abilities. Being impatient while expecting handouts should get anyone nowhere fast.
4) You escape the trap of being unrecognized by your jobs and easily discarded by having skills and making yourself invaluable, not by having no skills (or ubiquitous so worthless skills), social or otherwise, and just expecting advancement for attendance like your childhood.

I agree those he describes were dealt a bad hand....I disagree that this is unique to any one generation. We all had generational issues to overcome. That so many have failed to even attempt to overcome them to better their own lives and instead think the world at large owes them happiness, is at fault for not delivering, and must change to suit them IS a fault of their own, imo, contrary to the narrator's repeated assertions. It may be a flaw their parents fostered, but it's their own personality flaw now, no one else can fix it for them.

The normal voter is "the ignorant people". As a whole, Americans are increasingly uneducated rubes.....all of us, not just one party.

It's only dems vs reps politics that allows you to put the choices as Kang vs Kodos. While dems have offered mostly far from perfect options, the reps have lined up behind the worst choices proffered to date. I think it's closer to a Nixon vs Putin....with the dems being Nixon. Sure, they're dirty, but the alternative is covered is shit and bile. I prefer corruption to sliding towards murderous totalitarian dictatorship.

Still goes to education...because education fosters critical thinking, without which you ARE under the thumbs of the "funders", being incapable of distinguishing lies and hyperbole from fact. The fact that such a majority of those with a proven ability to think choose dems is a clear indicator which is the more intelligent choice.

Granted, neither choice is usually good, but one is definitely less bad....and far more sane and rational. I try to remind people there are more than two choices, I rarely vote for a major party candidate. Don't blame me, I voted for Lrrr. (I do admit, Melania is a more attractive first lady than Ndnd)

Side note: I kept reading your last as "...beholden to the Flanders".....stupid Flanders.

Didn't watch the Ted talk, sorry. Too long to make a point for me.

I actually didn't think this was Seth's best work. I'm a big fan of his "Closer Look" segment, but I don't find him that funny with his one-liners.

Also, genuine question: why did Oprah win the Cecil B. de Mille Award? I mean, she's undoubtedly a successful person, but her filmography is pretty mediocre.

The last few winners were:
Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, Jodie Foster, Woody Allen, George Clooney, Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep.

There's no way you could argue that Oprah belongs in that company. (not really sure why Clooney is there either, TBH, also get lost Woody Allen, you creepy old fuck).

But still, upvote for the sentiment if not the execution.