@bobknight33
how the holy FUCK did you see this as a democrat fucking over blacks issue?

this is about classism,this is about racism,this is about rich vs poor.

now 50 or 60 years ago,maybe you could have made that case..ah..who am i kidding,republicans were racist as FUCK back than,and they had no shame about it!

though they do like to trot out lincoln,and the little party that could,that DID pass some legislation that any american can look back and go "yeah,remember when republicans were principled and fought for individual rights".

but come on,let's have a little bit of honesty here shall we?

trying to claim republicans are the party of lincoln NOW,is like me saying that i am part of the german nobility,because my great great great ../takes a breath..great grandfather was a baron.

70 years ago,around the time of this mans childhood,if you were a southern democrat.you were most likely a racist,and if you were a southern republican?
you were most likely a racist.

have,and ARE the democrats fucking over the black folk?
yes..yes they are.
have,and ARE the republicans fucking over the black folk?
yes..yes they are.

because you see bob,and i don't think you have fully comprehended the shift that has been going on in america for the past 40 years,but the american people are starting to understand...the reality has slowly crept into their psyche..and they are starting to "get it".took some time,but they are finally beginning to understand.

we saw the first rumblings with the tea party.
then we saw a nation become swept up in obama's 'hope and change" to only get "more of the same".
we saw it with the occupy movement.
and we saw it with the election of this countries most talented used car saleman,who can weave bullshit into gold.

you see bob,
back in the day,when we were younger,black folk were the poor and lived on the other side of town.
and while liberals would do their hand-wringing over the plight of the black folk,they sure didn't want those black folk in their neighborhood.
and conservatives would complain that the black man was lazy,and needed to get a job..but NOT here..no no no..you can get your work,you know..over there.

and now here we are in 2017,and the people of america who have been told for decades that they are the middle class.they are the heart that beats the blood of this nation,the backbone by which america attains her greatness.you know....white people.

but these very same americans,who are patriotic,and love their country.they have believed in the ideals of america all their lives.well...they started to really examine their lives and their supposed place as the "middle class",and they realized that they weren't middle class.

they were poor.
working poor,but still poor.

and they finally understood something the black folk have known for pretty much our entire history.

it was never black vs white.
nor republican vs democrat.
it wasn't even liberal vs conservative.

it was rich vs poor,and those hard working,blue collar workers,people of modest means,finally realized that they had gotten their clock cleaned by an ultra rich elite,and they never even saw it coming.

too busy watching american idol,and keeping up with the kardashians,and dazzled by their new Iphone,while playing farmville on facebook.

you want to still delude yourself that this is the land of opportunity?
have it man...doesn't make it true.
you want to still believe that the middle class in this country are the backbone of this nation?
go ahead,some still believe as you do,but the rest of us?
we finally realized the middle class is dead.they are gone.
you want to believe that rich folk respect you for your hard work,and tenacity to forge a life for yourself?

i worked for multi-millionaires,and i can tell you what they think of you.
to them you are an idiot.
you are not worth their time,nor attention and most certainly not worth giving any respect,but they will demand respect from you.

because in their mind bob,they are better than you,they will ALWAYS be better than you.

and many americans finally got that very important lesson.

the people who own,and run pretty much everything that has any actual value.do not give a FUCK about you.

but they won't actually come out and say that,and they certainly do not want americans talking about inequality,class or elitism.

which is why they pay their little shill whores handsomely to divert the conversation away from classism,and focus on things like:racism,republican vs democrat,or liberal vs conservative.

but the real issue is classism.
your basic feudalism going back to the dark ages.
at least the black folk KNEW they were slaves,peasants but people like you bob?
you thought you were part of the club didn't ya?

it really is impressive just how long america's poltical and wealthy elite were able to convince such a large portion of the population (mostly white of course,gullible fucks that we are) that somehow they mattered,they were part of the club,and when things got a little squirelly?

well,they just blamed the immigrants,of course.

but the simple,and hard truth is this bob.
you are part of the peasant class,just like the rest of us.

and the sooner you come to this very simple truth,the sooner you can stop cheerleading for rich,billionaire motherfuckers who do not give a rats ass about you,or your family bob.

welcome to the family bob.
and i am sorry for your loss.

neighbors
no one loves you like He loves you
and no one cares like He cares
neighbors
let us join today in the holy love of god and Money
because neighbors
no one loves you like He loves you
and what better way to show your love than to dig deep into your pockets
dig real deep until it hurts
alleviate your guilt
free yourself once again
because he gave to you brothers and sisters
please give a 10 25 or 50 dollar tax deductible donation
and i assure you your modest pledge will be used to censor tv and radio
ban questionable books and contribute to many other godly services
no longer will young christian Americans hedonisticly indulge in masochistic submission to rhythmic music
for with your monetary support there is no end to what we can achieve in this country

That's BS.

With a 5 round maximum capacity you're going to be reloading a lot and there's no reasonable argument why anyone needs more for hunting (and home defence is a red herring).

I think the whole law/culture issue addressed above is actually linked. Take the example of the Autobahn which is very much a parallel. Germans made a law saying you can drive as fast as you want on certain stretches of highway, a culture of high-speed driving developed, people die. The majority in Germany wants to do away with them, but the 10% who want to drive recklessly in their BMWs and Mercedes along with the manufacturers fight new legislation every time.

The law created the culture, and now the culture is preventing the laws from being changed. Just as in the US, the cycle has to break somewhere. Government can't legislate the culture, but they can change the laws and if the US ever gets to a point where guns aren't in the hands of whoever wants one then the argument for needing a 'home security' weapon drops. People feel safer, there are fewer shootings and the whole situation de-escalates.

I'm not saying barring suspected terrorists from owning firearms will accomplish that, but it would be a (very) modest start in the right direction.

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

this is offensive on so many levels.
let me guess bob,because a black man posted this,it must,therefore NOT be racist?

this is incredibly racist,because this man is basically saying that black folk are too stupid to make up their own minds.that they are chumps and sell-outs for simply always voting democrat.

because republicans have ALWAYS been a voice of reason and championed the underclass! right bob?

we could use the same logic and apply it to the mind-numbing meth-head hillbillies who get cock hard at the voice of trump.who are convinced that the republicans represent freedom,liberty and the constitution.

while those very same republicans consistently rob these people,of modest means mind you,to pay their buddies in wall street.who pass legislation to poison their water,dumb down their kids,create food deserts,incarcerate them (while giving their CEO buddies a pass and a slap on the wrist).continue to allow tax breaks and subsidies for their donors.passing laws allowing big corporations to send jobs to china and utilizing prison labor (slaves) and then BLAMING the people!

yeah bob,that coin turns both ways.

so the black man who blindly votes democrat can be criticized for his lack of foresight,but so can the aging white racist who consistently votes republican.

because neither the republican nor the democratic party give a flying fuck about either of you.

you both are sell-outs,chumps and uncle toms to a system that threw you both overboard 40 years ago.

fuck this video,and fuck you bob.

Let's ignore for the moment what led to this current mess within the Eurozone. You point out, correctly, that Greece is too poor to service its debt. And yes, for the German government to do whatever is required to get back their loans is to be expected. However, Greece was incapable of servicing its debt five years ago. Yet the subsequent programs, all supported or even demanded by the German government, reduced Greece's ability to pay back at least portions of its debt. At the end of the day, goods and services are what it's all about. And by dismantling the Greek economy, nevermind the Greek society, they actively undermined what they publicly claimed to be working for: a self-reliant Greek economy, capable of financing the needs of Greece. And capable of paying back what is owed.

The question inescapably poses itself: was it done intentionally or are they blinded by ideology?

One doesn't have to be as far left as I am to see that it didn't work, doesn't work, and never could have worked. Even the likes of Krugman and Stiglitz are perfectly clear about it.

Varoufakis, as you note, has been just as clear about this at least since late 2010, when he published the first draft of his Modest Proposal with Stuart Holland. There was a very good discussion about it in Austin in 10/2013 under the topic "Can the Eurozone be saved?" Participants included Varoufakis, Tsipras, Flassbeck, Holland and Galbraith, amongst others. I submitted a short clip back then.

His argument that Germany won't see a dime when Greece is shoved off a cliff, as correct as it is, never had any bite to begin with. The German government, and large parts of parliament, are operating in a parallel universe, economically. Over here, mercantilism is the road to success. Monetarism works. Surplus good, deficit bad. Saving good, spending bad. Everyone should have a current account surplus.

It's horseshit by the gallons, and it's the official economic policy of the largest economy in the EU.

And we're not even getting into the political aspects of it. Throwing a member of the EU into debt bondage, suspending its democracy to please the gods of the market... that's a travesty and a half. Yet it's also inevitable if they insist on going down the road of neoliberalism.

Worst of all, Greece is just the canary in the coal mine, as Varoufakis likes to point out. Greece had plenty of issues before they joined the EZ, but when they chose to adapt the same currency as a much larger economy hell bent on competitiveness, which is the favorite euphemism for Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour policies, they were doomed to be crushed. The rest of the PIIGS are next in line, unless this whole mess explodes beforehand. Maybe Rajoy's Franco-esque repression techniques fail, maybe le Pen wins in 2017, who knows. Maybe Schäuble finds the 100k of bribes that he conveniently forgot about back in the '90s and chokes on them.

Last but not least, 208 billion Euros – that's the projected current account surplus of Germany this year. That's 208 billion Euros of debt foreign economies have to accumulate, so that the German public and private sector can run a combined surplus of €208b. That's the elephant in the room. Systematic undercutting of the inflation target through suppression of unit labour costs and a dysfunctional focus on exports.

Onto a secondary topic, it includes the "media frenzy" and the contract clauses that force players, coaches, and others to appear before the media... Plus the media in general, when it comes to the Superbowl (but, this has to do with our country; or at the least certain segments and populations of our country). But, really it's about the general stupidity and levels we have turned this ONE event into!

Only a few interviews are worth looking at typically and they tend to be AFTER a game, not before it (as that amounts to "what ifs", "probably might", "we sure can try", and "if I win, I'll go to 'insert Measleland or another place here' with my wife/kid/family/parrot"). I absolutely hate the fourteen hour pre-game show that the NFL and the channel hosting this *thing* that apparently people watch, that is quite like a: "super-fabulous-orgasmic-serotonin ovulating-dopamine excreting-heroine junkie nerve conduction transfer-fourteen people high at a rave experimenting in an orgy with all the holes and toys available"... OK, so maybe that is a bit too far, but still...! It really is the most "grandiose" setups for a game, that doesn't need such a grandiose setup.

The should just make it a damned national holiday already--everyone already stays home or is basically forced to, since one half of their family is probably glued to the TV for quite awhile.. Although I know we always "had" these interviews on the TV, but we never really listened to them, because they bring out 40 people who essentially ALL say the same thing (the only difference is if it is a different team and or if they are extremely religious--they will then tell you how their team will win, "...no matter what...", and then if they are religious proceed to randomly give you the, "God is on our side...", mantra...which always made me laugh--literally, out-loud).

Then they cut back to the ex-coach's and arm-chair quarterbacks who have been given a one day opportunity to tell the world what they think, and how he game will go (and it never does).

Needless to say, I HATE, with a passion, the "pre-game show" (which didn't exist in it's ridiculous form for a VERY longtime until the late 80's and early 90's). I'd rather them move all of their prime-time TV shows that will not be shown that night, due to the game, to that period of the day and let us watch that instead before the game (then they can give us a modest 45-30 minute pre-game; not this 5-hour marathon of ads and marketing, with a bunch of talking faces trying as hard as they can to make a name for themselves in that time-span).

Only people like "Beast Mode" can save that time allotment and make it worthwhile (if you think it is "entertaining", you REALLY need to stay away a bit from Football, and I'm saying that as a concerned friend...)--because right now, although a lot of people flip their TV over to the channel with it on...it is a massive waste of money and time--that somehow generates massive amounts of money (talk about "very careful" and "orchestrated" money setups and schemes; but luckily they have idiotic companies paying them gigantic sums of money for their commercials to air...even before the game comes on...). And, I wish people wouldn't just flip over to it, to have it on in the background (as most of the time I've noticed, whether it's a game at my house, someone else's OR an actual Superbowl party--no one watches that crap, it just sits on that channel...making them "think" they are getting ratings, but they actually aren't. It's kind of like saying that people go to Tailgate parties to park cars and see how neat the cement is...

Yes, I'm deeply biased in favour of Greece and have been a fan of Varoufakis' work since one of the first drafts of his "Modest Proposal" back in 2010.

That said, look at the report used as an introduction to this interview. The doublespeak behind structural reform alone is enough to discard any claims of objectivity or impartiality.

George Monbiot had a piece on it just last week: Our ‘impartial’ broadcasters have become mouthpieces of the elite.

About 15 months ago, at a conference in Austin aptly titled "Can the Eurozone be saved?", my favorite Greek mathematician/economist Yanis Varoufakis made center stage with his "Modest Proposal".

Now that he's in charge of Greece's finances, the media is firing broadside after broadside at him, trying their best to discredit the man. Doesn't even wear a tie, shaves his head, wears biker jackets, has a temper... the usual ad hominem bullshit. Yet it only took him three days to give the debate a new direction. Calling the austerity program "fiscal waterboarding" was a stroke of genius.

Him and Tsipras created the first crack in this bubble of lunacy that we call Eurozone. Someone might even realize that the Emperor is, in fact, naked.

Oh, and my personal word of the week: Stahlhelmökonom

(lit.: steel helmet economist, as in "a level of denial and ignorance made famous by the German military on the Eastern front" applied to economics)

Then slow down with theories of our impending demise, the IPCC doesn't support it. You want to talk about not denying the science, then you don't get to preach gloom and doom. Don't claim a large percentage of farmland is going to be lost to sea level rise by 2100. Don't claim coastlines are going to be pushed back 10 miles by a worst case 1 foot rise of sea level by 2100.

We are talking about advancements solving problems like a maximum sea level rise of a foot in the next 100 years, with best guesses being lower than that. I think it's modest to suggest our children's children will have figured out how to raise the dikes around places like New Orleans by a foot in the next 100 years.
The concord and moon trips are no longer happening because they are expensive. We can do them if we needed to, and more easily than the first time around. Finding out people aren't willing to pay the premium to shave an hour off their flight doesn't mean the technology no longer exists. Just because America no longer needs to prove they can lift massive quantities of nuclear warheads into orbit doesn't mean we couldn't still go to the moon again if it was needed. There's just no reason to do it, the tech exists still none the less.
Yes, there are social problems that confound the use of new technology. You fail to notice that is also the problem with feeding everybody. Food production isn't the problem, but rather the men with guns that control distribution. Stalin's mass starvation of millions was a social problem, not climate change or technology. Mao's was the same. North Koreas the same. All over Africa is the same. We have more than enough food, and plenty of charities work hard to send food over to places like Africa. Once the food gets there though the men with guns take most of it and people still starve. The reason Africa has so many crop failures is the violent displacement of the farmers. Exactly the same problem that saw millions starve in Russia, China and North Korea.
You are right that a changing climate could compound Africa's ag industry a bit, but it's a small hit compared to the violent displacement problem. Also, don't neglect to consider to impact of meaningful CO2 emission restrictions around the globe. A large scale global economic downturn probably means a lot more war, bloodshed, and starvation. If you do not reduce emissions enough to trigger that downturn and instead just 'marginally', you get stuck with both because Africa is still going to see virtually the same climate changes through the next hundred years.

And if you are worried about losing the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2100 there is very good reason to believe that's gonna be alright:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S41/39/84Q12/index.xml?section=topstories

I was referencing the ensemble models the IPCC used in their latest report. I'm largely assuming it includes the latest knowledge on the subject. To me the more encouraging thing is direct measurement of energy imbalance being available to measure models against. The truest measure of the overall greenhouse effect is just this. With it, so long as models accurately track and predict trends in the energy imbalance we can be confident they more or less have things right. That said, the IPCC notes there has been no trend in instrumental data since 2000. Models have been universally projecting a modest upward trend. This again gives hope and reason to believe the lower end projections are the more likely to be accurate. This correlates well with how the original 1990 projections have mapped to actual temp over the last 25 years too. All that is to say that scientifically those saying we should panic need as much slapping into place as those insisting nothing is happening at all.

Seconding Artician. The brain evolved by natural selection, just like the rest of the body. It has built in biases and modules that vary genetically. Look at the wide variety of personalities in dog breeds, for example. In humans, the big five personality traits are estimated to be about 50% heritable based on twin studies.

Gattaca is a good movie and Brave New World is a good book, but they should not be taken as the ends of some slippery slope that any eugenic policy inevitably leads to. I think it's unfortunate that so much fear of eugenics is propagated by dystopian fictions like those. Eugenics can be done in a humane way that respects all individual rights. For instance:

1. a system of incentives for highly successful people to have more children or donate to sperm banks.

2. Universal single-payer healthcare, providing among other things free condoms and birth control pills to all, so that the use of contraception will not be so much inversely correlated with income as it has been from 1850 to the present when the poor often couldn't afford it (and it's a demonstrable fact that on average the poor tend to have lower intelligence partly due to genetics)

Even such modest, individual rights respecting policies, if phrased in terms of benefiting the gene pool, are political suicide because people are still afraid of imaginary slippery slopes leading to Hitler. Most of the US is still in denial of the implications of biological science, for reasons that speak well of them, but it's time to grow up and get over that habit of Godwinizing any attempt to improve the gene pool regardless of whether it infringes individual rights.

Or maybe lots of people people don't actually believe that, but are reluctant to say otherwise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0W9sSqeJnA

So he claims to have somewhere between 111k and 278k, so modest.

Popularity be damned and at pennies on the dollar, the site has once again been wrested by a cabal of regular back-and-forthers, none particularly clever or interesting, whose banal commentary could fill a modest tome printed on onion skins, bound with viscous expectorates, and disposed of at one's next convenient expurgate repose the lucky hoarder having been thankful to have kept it for a fresher feeling behind after schnapps.

The "Modest Proposal" by Yanis Varoufakis and others led me to the recordings of this conference. Interesting stuff, at least from the perspective of a radical European like me.

But I came across one short talk by Thomas Ferguson in which he sums up rather nicely what Europe is facing right now (dur. ~10min). Thought you might be interested...

Edit: I forgot to include the time index, it's fixed now.