This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).

Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.

If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).

This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.

BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).

Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.

What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...

/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

>> ^shinyblurry:

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?


It is impossible to look at Hitchens' life and accuse him of believing "all propositions equally valid". The singularly most defining aspect of his very public life was his vehemence in debating the merits and superiority of numerous propositions over others. Whether one agreed with his conclusions or not, you could hardly accuse him of not taking a stand, nor being willing to put his own stands to the test, personally.

He embarrassed Charleton Heston during the first Gulf war by famously asking him to name a country neighbouring the state he was so eager to attack, Heston couldn't name one. It was one of the most championed victories of the anti-war movement, and Hitchens was bearing the standard. He then promptly went to Iraq and lived among it's Kurdish people, who thoroughly persuaded him he had been wrong, and he came back as one of the strongest supporters for Saddam's removal.

Hitchens' single biggest life goal was the deconstruction of religion hoping to in essence rid the world of it's evils. Despite this goal, he deliberately took his own children to be taught about religions by their respective leaders and representatives, to avoid poisoning their opinions with his own bias. Still wanting them to be able to make a personal, honest and well informed decision of their own.

The man is an example to us all, no matter how much we may disagree with his conclusions his loss will be a loss to us all. Very few are left in the public sphere with his breadth of knowledge and willingness to vehemently promote and defend what they believe to be true and right.

Since Cenk talks a fair bit about the inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning in the above TYT video, I'm going to touch on that briefly. To start, he is being held in a military prison and has had military charges brought against him. Having signed on the dotted line when he entered the service, he is subject to the military code of conduct and the entire judicial process of that system. It would take an inordinate amount of government pressure to have his living conditions changed. Seeing as how Obama doesn't exactly approve of his actions, this is not going to happen. Liberal human rights groups can complain all they want, but I guarantee you not a damn thing will change before his pretrial hearing. From a legal standpoint, the military's actions thus far fall well within the breadth of the law. Whether or not these actions are justifiable from an ethical standpoint is debatable, but I wouldn't waste your breath. Strong moral values and military doctrine are mutually exclusive.

We can haggle about the exact definition, but I see a good interview as something that confronts someone's views from a critical view and reveals opinions previously undisclosed, or elucidated a view more precisely. What I saw there and in fact in many MSNBC inteviews and segments where they have sympathetic guests on is than Cenk basically let Julian talk at length, often dwelving into topics far removed from the initial question. Like I said, that's not necessarily bad, but by my definition, that doesn't make a good interview. The interview that Frost did for example, was far superior to this.

I never made overall positive or negative judgement about what he does. For the record I tentatively agree that his releases do good, but that doesn't change the fact that with the breadth or extent of information he releases, he has the very real possibility of causing harm to someone unintentionally - even with the most studious, judicious and well intentioned care taken by him and his team.>> ^Raaagh:

>> ^RedSky:
I wouldn't really call this an interview, more of an rebuttal opinion piece, but I think it's well worth listening to anyway.
My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions. His staff simply cannot have the breadth of knowledge and foresight to definitively know whether releasing a portion of information may implicitly implicate an innocent person and put them at risk.
promote

"An interview is a conversation between two people (the interviewer and the interviewee) where questions are asked by the interviewer to obtain information from the interviewee."
He doesnt know the breath and extent? sure. But NOW, I can give so a shit ton of empirical fucking evidence, including footage of children getting shot up with a mother fucking 30mm cannon by chuckling apache pilots, of the REAL and KNOWN costs of the lies...Mate.
TL;DR? You sir, are a silly billy.

>> ^RedSky:

I wouldn't really call this an interview, more of an rebuttal opinion piece, but I think it's well worth listening to anyway.
My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions. His staff simply cannot have the breadth of knowledge and foresight to definitively know whether releasing a portion of information may implicitly implicate an innocent person and put them at risk.
promote


"An interview is a conversation between two people (the interviewer and the interviewee) where questions are asked by the interviewer to obtain information from the interviewee."

He doesnt know the breath and extent? sure. But NOW, I can give so a shit ton of empirical fucking evidence, including footage of children getting shot up with a mother fucking 30mm cannon by chuckling apache pilots, of the REAL and KNOWN costs of the lies...Mate.

TL;DR? You sir, are a silly billy.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
I wouldn't really call this an interview, more of an rebuttal opinion piece, but I think it's well worth listening to anyway.

My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions. His staff simply cannot have the breadth of knowledge and foresight to definitively know whether releasing a portion of information may implicitly implicate an innocent person and put them at risk.

*promote

Thanks for the promote

I wouldn't really call this an interview, more of an rebuttal opinion piece, but I think it's well worth listening to anyway.

My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions. His staff simply cannot have the breadth of knowledge and foresight to definitively know whether releasing a portion of information may implicitly implicate an innocent person and put them at risk.

*promote

>> ^tedbater:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
You do know that the bible calls for similar things right?
All religion is bad.

Really? Where?
Please back statements like this up.


Are you even slightly serious?

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

This is just a sampling, should I go on?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.
It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values? I'm not aware of any prominent gay rights advocates who oppose people's right to dissent from such actions or conscientiously decline to involve themselves in such ceremonies. Churches can't even be forced to perform interracial marriages, if the members of the church are opposed.

I am aware that some opposed to the legalization of gay marriage have claimed that churches conscientiously opposed to gay marriages would be forced to perform them, but such claims do not have legal justification, and misrepresent the goals of gay rights advocates. We don't want to force people by law to accept us--we just want to be able to live our lives with the same freedoms and privileges everyone else has.

Further, it must be noted that there is no shortage of churches actively supportive of gay marriage. There are plenty of them even right here in Oklahoma, in the middle of the Bible Belt. Surely, if freedom of religion is that important to you, you would want to defend the rights of these churches to affirm same-sex unions as marriage.

>> ^dannym3141:

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin.....


Short answer: Being born that way.

Long answer: Sexuality's complicated sometimes. I like girls enough that, if I met just the right one, I might be interested in making a go of it. But not enough that, generally speaking, I'm terribly interested in more than appreciating a woman's good looks sometimes. I sort of fall between the cracks between "bisexual" and "gay."

Things such as "gay marriage being accepted by the church" isn't radical, it's just asking for equal treatment.

Simple, basic rulings that say gays can visit relatives in hospitals and such are fine. These things deal with secular rights. I've never met a single person opposed to these kinds of issues. But gay 'marriage' as a concept is inherently tied to the marriage ritual, which is a sectarian ordinance that confers secular benefits. That's where the radicalism enters in...

Human society developed in such a way that Churches are where marriages tend to be performed, while secular laws were passed to promote marriage because the nuclear family unit was beneficial to society. So on the one hand if you want marriage you (as often as not) are going to a religious organization. But when you want the societal benefits of marriage, you are talking about secular rules.

So if you tell the gay community they can get 'married', then they are going to go to churches and demand the sectarian ritual to obtain the secular benefits. But many churches are highly opposed to homosexuality as a moral violation. To ask them to perform such a ritual for a gay couple would be highly offensive - the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.

So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism. Most gay couples just want the secular benefits. Most religions have no problem with that. But when marriage laws are proposed, they MUST contain concrete language protecting the rights of those who oppose the lifestyle on a sectarian level. Without that language, the proposal is radical because it violates 1st Ammendment protections - no matter how many 'sensible' things it may confer. This is what the bruhaha over Prop-8 was all about.

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.

It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Then you can attempt to tackle the argument of forcing a religion to change its core values

The fact that there are people IN AMERICA saying these kinds of things is why religious groups are so sensitive on the subject. "Forcing a religion to change its core values" is the language of a totalitarian regime, not the USA. I know it's hard to tell with Obama in office, but it's still a free country...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing wrong with this. If the gay movement stuck to sensible steps like this then they'd find people much more amenable to their agenda. Sadly, they tend to tie far too many radical agenda items in with too few good ones, and act all surprised when there is opposition. It is a problem with agenda groups on all sides.


Now maybe--being kinda gay myself--my perspective is just a bit skewed, but I don't know what you're talking about here. Most of the gay activism in my area is concerned with things like funding for a new health clinic to help deal with LGBT concerns, or putting laws on the books against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation--in half of all states in the US, you can be fired simply for being gay. Heck, until a couple years ago, school administrators could discriminate against LGBT kids in the OKC metro area without any consequences. Fully half of all homeless teenagers in my state are gay, bisexual, or transgendered, and suicide is the leading cause of death among LGBT teenagers. These are the things gay activism is overwhelmingly concerned with in most areas of the US. I hardly think that working to alleviate these problems is radical.

The American public is overwhelmingly in favor of allowing gay and bisexual folk to serve openly in the military. So that's not too radical, either.

About the only "radical" agenda item that's really pushed is gay marriage--which is given a disproportionate amount of press when compared to other LGBT issues. But the reasons for pushing for marriage instead of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are quite practical rather than merely ideological. What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.>> ^choggie:

Oh and gay marriage?? Many more homosexuals who have been in monogamous relationships with their partners for years prior to all the activism associated with changing the marriage laws of states, would rather things stay they way they are-You don't need sanctions to live/love together, and the tax breaks are insignificant.


Many more? Really? To the contrary, in my experience. Do you have studies that say otherwise? Or are you perhaps better linked in with the gay community than I--a gay man--am? I must confess my doubts.

For everyone crying about videos like this not getting votes from the 'left'. I remember the exact same cries when Bush was in power about them not getting votes from the 'right'. The problem isn't just blindness from the left or the right. The entire NWO and military industrial complex conspiracy is just as blind. I'm sorry to be the first to tell you, but our world is unfortunately just much more complicated than all of the above combined.

Videos editing together carefully selected clips to try and simplify global geo-politics into something as simple as military industry, or an NWO run by an elite few don't get votes because thankfully most people just don't buy it. People on both the left and the right don't buy it. People who've studied things in greater depth and breadth see right through it, leaving not very many people left.

I like Morgan Freeman because he's always a wise and empathetic character in films. He doesn't have the breadth that some of the others do, but he can nail a role so perfectly that it's hard to imagine any other actor playing that role. I'm thinking Driving Miss Daisy, the Shawshank Redemption, Lucky Number Slevin, and (my favourite) Lean On Me.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'monster, honesty is needed, its always them' to 'monster, honesty is needed, its always them, height, breadth, depth' - edited by calvados

>> ^EndAll:
As endearing as this was, it was kinda weird how they were all outta their seats and cheering madly the second she started. I think they were getting impatient for another Paul Potts type.


Perhaps it's because the audience has the emotional and mental breadth and depth of a thimble.