so i have been watching this argument over the "ban" all over my facebook.people really like their little "memes" that offer no real criticism,nor any context,they simply display that persons particular bias.the discussion over this "ban" was not my issue.my issue was with the utter lack of depth of understanding.the evident laziness of those who got up on their little soapbox and sanctimoniously,and self-righteously moralized over a situation that they maybe..maaaybe..spent a total of five minutes on.

until finally my head exploded,and i went into hulk-mode.this was my rant,that i now share with you all:

jesus fucking christ...am i reading these comments correctly?

ok,lets put a little clarity into the mix,shall we?

first of all its not actually a "ban" but an extension to vette refugees further.

sounds reasonable right?

but what is NOT mentioned is that the majority of these refugees have already BEEN vetted,and the process has taken up to two years already.

so stop wetting your pants over brown people who happen to be muslim.

secondly,
let us take a look at the countries whose refugees are being "banned".

notice anything?

each and every one of those countries the american military is deployed in.the CIA has been fighting a proxy war in syria for five fucking YEARS.obama expanded operations into:sudan,somolia,yemen,syria and jordan (another proxy war executed by our radical saudi arabia buddies,who just happen to hate america and promote the most radical of muslim interpretations:wahhabism.they spend BILLIONS of their oil money to open madrasas across the region to light the match of radical islam)

so we,along with russia,turkey and other nations,are bombing the SHIT out of these countries,therefore creating the refugee crisis in the first place,and then we turn around an slap a "ban" on them.

oh,i'm sorry,not really a ban,just an extension to vette them further,because god knows we need more than two years to find out if someone is radicalized.

hypocrisy much america?

thirdly,
and this should make us all VERY nervous,but corporate media has YET to address this little turd nugget.a federal court slapped an injunction on this "ban",because it was not done through the proper channels,but rather through executive order.

and DHS ignored the injunction.
IGNORED it,because who needs "checks and balances" right?
who needs an institution,which was put in place to uphold the law and to restrict a sitting president from over-stepping his authority?
right?

and the fact that the DHS,which is under the DoD,outright ignored a direct order from a federal judge to cease and desist,because trump had overstepped his authority by attempting to use executive orders to circumvent the law.,and this was just an injunction,which really just means "stop!until we further review"...the DHS ignored the injunction.

lets ignore the fact that trump gutted the very agency that would have been the first to challenge his executive order "banning" these refugees.trump literally gutted all the high ranking officials at the state dept.

his press secretary said,and this is fucking laughable..they resigned..ALL of them?
all of them just stood up and resigned?

so it came down to a judge to hold trump accountable,which he did by injunction and an entire dept ignored that federal judges ruling.

now let us look at the countries left off that list.

notice anything?

well well well...would you look at that.
not only do they all purchase large amounts of weapons and military apparatus from us.not only do have they have large reserves of oil that our american companies make a shit ton of money from,but lookie here..trump has business in every singly one of those countries.

coincidence?

oh,and lets not overlook the fact that by executive order trump opened the door to have steve bannon on the national security council!
an unqualified,and with zero experience white nationalist is now on the national security council.

this is unprecedented!

but who cares right?
who needs those protocols,or checks and balances right?

trump is slowly creating his own tiny cabal of extreme loyalists and you people are wetting your pants over some brown people who lost everything,and have spent TWO FUCKING YEARS to find refuge?

this isnt the behavior of a president.
this is the behavior of a king.

yes,other presidents have implemented bans.
this is not a new thing.
what IS new,and some of you nimrods are either willingly,or unwittingly ignoring,is that THOSE bans were in direct response to the US being threatened by a particular group,and THOSE bans had the approval of congress..not a fucking piece of paper that king trump signed.

does america need to reform it's immigration policies?
yes,most certainly.

do we need to have an system in place to help assimilate refugees from syria beyond vetting?

of course,all we have to do is look at germany and see what happens when you allow refugees into your country without proper preparation and a system in place to see just how horrible it can get.

does this mean that every muslim refugee is somehow a terrorist?

well,just look at dearborn michigan.the largest muslim community in america and tell me how many terrorist came from that city? how many muslims were radicalized in dearborn?

is radicalized islam a problem?
yes,of course,who would deny this?

but the causes of radicalization are well understood,and have been well documented,and it is NOT only muslims who engage in terrorism.

really folks,before you start making declarations of certitude without having even the most basic knowledge how our government functions,you need to shut the fuck up.

and for FUCK sakes pick up a book once in awhile,and stop being a gaggle of fucking bed wetters.
jesus...you little fags piss yourselves every time a muslim is even mentioned in conversation.

oh,and before one of you tough guys even think about talking shit to me.
1.i am ex military.so go fuck yourself.
2.my JOB is to debunk bullshit stories and research politics and offer analysis.

so you better think twice before you go off half cocked,because my comment hurt your wittle feewings.your comments are ignorant and they are so lacking in the basic understanding of how this government operates that the only feeling you should having right now is:SHAME.

*edit:this is not directed towards anyone in particular here,but this single focus on trumps ill-thought "ban",and how he did so in such a broad,and general wave of a pen stroke that affected even those HAD gone through the process to get their green cards,visas etc etc is simply buying into the corporate narrative.

and then NOT consider the implications of a gutted state department,the loss of the attorney general and the defiant,disobedience of the DHS in regards to a federal judges injunction.

is unforgivable in it's ignorance.

the implications ALONE should make us all worried.
very very worried.
because it appears trump is reshaping our government into his own little fiefdom of loyalists,willing to defy the everyday governmental operations of checks and balances.

trump is consolidating and concentrating his power by creating his own little cabal of loyalists.that motherfucker has ALREADY put his candidacy on the ballot for 2020.now accepting donations to the highest bidder! feel free to purchase your own piece of the american presidency!

on sale NOW! so act fast! positions are limited!
*prices may vary according to your status and where you reside on the class scale.poor people can simply fuck off.

i realize this speculation on my part,
and i could be wrong.
god..please let me be wrong.

@bcglorf
i have no issue with disagreement.
i have read many of hedges books,and to see his evolution over the years really should not surprise anyone.

we all have an evolution of sorts when we continue to investigate,and challenge our own preconceptions.the intelligent man or woman,will accept this new information,and change their conclusions accordingly.the hyper-partisan and/or rigid fundamentalist,will dismiss this new information because it conflicts with their dearly held preconceptions.

some people struggle with a changing landscape,and prefer to reside in their own comfort zones.

i like hedges because he challenges and criticizes power,but he also tends to speak in apocalyptic verbiage.

i also respect hedges because he does back up his opinions with actual sources.now we can disagree with his conclusions,but how he came to those conclusions,he is quite clear.

on a side note:i cannot watch or read hedges for extended periods due to the fact that what he is pointing out is so damn depressing.

but he is incredibly consistent in regards to criticizing power.

which,in my opinion,is so very vital in these times,because we see the majority of corporate media revealing a reverence and fealty to corporate power.

chris hedges has earned my respect.
but i do not demand that everyone read or listen to him.

and speaking only for myself,i refuse to dismiss a viewpoint simply because it may be on a venue of questionable intent.
i read the american conservative,though this is a website funded by pat buchanon.i do so because the american conservative produces some damn fine content,with journalists who source their material.

i may disagree with their conclusions,but i cannot ignore the quality of their work.

this is the same reason why i no longer do work for crooks and liars and the young turks and good god..SLATE.does this mean that everything they produce is utter shit?

no..of course not,but they all have taken a book out of the FOX model, and became hyper-partisan,faux outrage machines.

now let us take this video,which so happens to be on RT.
what is it that hedges is saying that is WRONG? or false? or a lie?

i have no issue with disagreement,nor skepticism,but is anything he is saying really that controversial?
what is he saying that should be dismissed?
should his words simply be dismissed due to him being on RT?

if we refuse to accept the words,or conclusions from any public personality,simply because of the media that they happen to be on,then..in my opinion..we relegate ourselves to a handful of outlets,and it diminishes the conversation.

is it any wonder or surprise that those academics that are critical of power are NEVER seen on corporate media?
that those brave and courageous journalists and academics are forced to the fringes in order to get their messages out.

we can disagree with their messages and conclusions,but for us to even have the OPTION to disagree.they need a media outlet in order to even put the word out.

do you see what i am saying?

i am probably wording this wrong,and producing more confusion than clarity,but when the corporate media controls who and what gets to be discussed,debated and argued.then THEY are the ones who set the agenda.they are the ones who set the lines of discussion and the parameters of that discussion.

and people like hedges have not been invited to the table for decades.

it appears that any journalist,or academic that is critical of power are relegated to the fringes.

you will never see noam chomsky on FOX,or MSNBC,or CNN.

but you will see them on independent media.
such as democracy now,or the real news and yes...venues like RT and aljazeera english.

i probably totally messed my point up,but it is in there somewhere.
i am just gonna stop right here,because now i am just rambling.

And there are plenty of white people stuck in terrible situations who don't take the "bus."

There is a concept out there in pedagogy land about the importance of "grit." A teacher noticed who made it out -- those who had grit.

So there has been some movement to teach kids to have "grit."

Turns out it isn't that easy.

Full disclosure -- I do NOT have "grit." I get knocked down, I stay down. I am leveled by some of the smallest events.

I DO have tremendous luck. Born with good health, good brains, an addiction to food and not to something that wipes out my brain like some drugs, Depression-era parents who were frugal and determined that their children would not suffer what they suffered, easy access to college in the early 70s when tuition and rents weren't hugely expensive.

I wouldn't be sitting in relative ease right now if I hadn't had that string of luck. Because had I had to climb over serious obstacles, I am 99% sure I would not have done it. No grit, you see. Just luck.

Frosts my beehind that this racist tool who criticizes social justice advocates with that first clip of Freeman saying "stop talking about race" don't have the intellectual and emotional intelligence to understand what he is saying. It is clear as a bell -- but this tool is tone deaf. As is the sifter who posted this (I say that with clarity, based on years of reading his posts before I started ignoring him as a lost cause.)

The pies came to $42 and change, maybe. Possibly quoted the actual price wrong in the first place.

Still, how narcissistic do the sales staff have to be to feel posting this sort of shit THEMSELVES is a good idea?

(Edited for clarity)

@newtboy

If you are only growing twice what you can eat yourself, you are describing a large garden, not a farm.

More over, what you class as 'industrial' farming is in fact the entirety of all grain farming. If there is a place in farming for wheat, corn, soy, canola and so on, 99% of it is done on what you class 'industrial' farming.

Your typical family farm is over a thousand acres today. If I go out and start naming the family farms of just friends and family I know, I can come up with 30-40+. They all farm over a thousand acres, they use tractors and combines and they make a fair bit more food than twice what they can eat. They aren't the ultra rich land barons that your 'industrial' moniker would imply either, at most they have a singular hired hand to help out with the work. The ones with children interested in taking over often don't need to hire anyone at all.

If you want to abandon that agricultural production and the methods used you mean raising the cost of production more than 100 times over. I can't even fathom the cost of weeding a thousand acres of wheat by hand, let alone removing grasshoppers from a corn crop that way. I'm sorry, but what works for your garden doesn't scale to grain crops.

Oh, and the conflation of herbicide and pesticide was done by the fear monger crowd. Listing round-up as a chemical that only kills plants and not insects and animals didn't fit their agenda so now everything is supposed to be called a pesticide across the board. Maybe that's just a Canadian thing, but the bottom line is that if you had a crop completely over run with insects you could spray it once a day with stupidly high concentrations of round-up and the water in the sprayer would do about the same damage to the insects as would the round up.


As for the video's other claims, I stand by my characterisation. You can't honestly tell me the video is trying to put forward on open and honest picture of Monsanto's actions and history. For example, the Manhattan Project, here's a transcription for clarity:
"Monsanto head Charles Allen Thomas was called to the pentagon not only asked to join the Manhattan project, but to lead it as it's co-director. Thomas put Monsanto's central research department hard to work building the atomic bomb.Fully aware of the implications of the task the budding empire sealed it's relationship with the inner cicrcles of washington with two fateful days in Japan.
"
- queue clip of nuclear blasts-

I think I stand by my summation.

Actually, he's said clearly and repeatedly that wages are too HIGH in the US and should go down, so any inkling that he thinks we should raise them in any way is a 180 switch. It's also a total cop out that he could use for any topic....'I'll just leave it all to the states....so I don't have to do a damn thing as president and nothing I say makes any difference.'
It should be no surprise to anyone. He's written about how he operates, and not keeping your word and changing your position by the moment while insisting everyone else follows along with his 'new deals' is a large part of that methodology....as is lying about facts and threatening anyone that contradicts him with lawsuits or just 'taking his ball and going home' (which doesn't work when you are in business or government) etc.
The whole 'self funding' thing was a fraud from the beginning....and a clear one. He LOANED his campaign money, he didn't spend his own money. He ALWAYS planned to pay himself back with private donations, and you can be sure he's paying himself an enormous interest and massive 'fees' on those 'loans', which means he's actually MAKING money on the campaign, not spending a dime of his own. You can be certain he'll get every dime back and then some....no question.

Also....you should note, this is not a news program (not that they're better) so should not be subject to the requirements of fact, honesty, and clarity we SHOULD (but don't) insist on with 'news' organizations.

My thing is -- would you be so admiring of this behavior if you liked the person being yelled at?

Because sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

She could have SPOKEN to power. She chose to YELL to power.

And I agree with everything she said. I just don't think it helps our society to disagree with each other like this.

It certainly isn't going to win over hearts and minds. This is like shock and awe by George W. Feels good, feels like you have power. But you aren't doing anything to change things. In fact, it can make things worse, drive us further apart.

If she had just spoken with clarity. Cut him to ribbons with clarity.

@SDGundamX

it is all good mate.
you vote however you wish,for whatever reasons you deem pertinent.

i do not identify so strongly with a video that it somehow represents me,or everything i stand for,and i have no issue if someone disagrees.though i always do respect when someone states WHY they downvoted.

which you did,and mad respect my man.

as i stated earlier i was fairly ignorant to a lot of this new flavor of social justice warrior.gamergate included.in fact,i still do find gamergate really that important in the larger context,though i am sure there are gamers who would disagree with me.

i found this video interesting in that it was addressing how the more radical and extreme elements were attempting to hijack public spaces by controlling language,and therefore dominate the conversation.

since i was not familiar with this particular youtubers stance on gamergate,nor followed his videos,i harbored zero bias on his conclusions.

in my opinion,this mans stance or political leanings in regards to gamergate is not enough of a valid reason to dismiss what he is laying down in this video.

what you are suggesting (and if i am reading your position wrong,please let me know),is that because this youtuber held a certain position on a related subject,devalues and dismisses his position on radical social justice warriors.

a good analogy is me pointing to the sky and stating "the sky is blue" and having my statement dismissed because you may disagree with my politics,religion or philosophy.

but that would not make my statement any less true.

i agree with you that it does not matter of someone is a narcissist or a special snowflake.it is the argument that matters.the IDEAS that should be examined for their veracity and clarity.

and yes,this youtuber makes certain assumptions that are not only irrelevant but extremely biased.

which brings me back to my main point.
freedom of speech and how these radicals attempt to impose their own selective bias by controlling the language we use to express ourselves and those very ideas that you and i find to important.

so while the radical right attempts to legislate morality and impose THEIR own narrow and subjective understandings on all of us.

the radical left is attempting to silence dissent and dialogue by controlling language by using this weird orwellian doublethink.

"zero tolerance for the intolerant" almost every college campus has something similar to this all over campus.

now THAT phrase is a brilliant example of orwellian doublethink.
definition of doublethink:The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

so my main point is in regards to freedom of speech and how the radical end of these social justice warriors are threatening that most basic and vital right.

did i get my point across?
well,the jury is still out,but i hope that at least i got a few people thinking and giving this situation a bit more scrutiny.

i am also attempting to address this phenom of binary thinking.
that because i post a video that criticizes the more radical elements of social justice warriors.this automatically translates to me being "anti-social justice warriors".

my recent posts on this matter have confused and troubled some sifters.because they had a certain mental image of who i was and because they may identify as a social justice warrior,my posts were offensive to them,and confusing.

now thankfully @Jinx spoke up and inquired about my reasons,because it appeared to him that i was behaving out of character.

but i am not.
i am,and always have been,about freedom,equality,fairness and justice.i apply that metric as evenly as i humanly can ( i make mistakes,of course).

bad ideas MUST be challenged and how this new batch of social justice warriors are behaving in order to further their agenda is a bad fucking idea.

does this mean trash ALL people who are socially conscious and wish to create a better world by fighting injustice,racism and bigotry?

of COURSE not!
but i do blame those well-intentioned people for not standing up this new form of bully groupthink.just because someone identifies as a social justice warrior does not mean that they get a free pass just for being part of a group.

so just like i blame the "good" cops who stand by and allow the "bad" cops to break the law,abuse their authority and behave like fascists with impunity.they are just as responsible as those cops who cross the line.

so while the intentions may be good,the execution is a horrible lovecraftian nightmare,with far reaching implications that affect us all and can be easily abused.

freedom of speech is good.
disagreement is healthy.
we cannot be so allergic to conflict that we shut down the conversation,and all reside in our own little echo chambers where everybody is agreeing and nobody is questioning.

as a society there is grave danger in that practice.

and that is really what i am talking about.
thanks for commenting my man.
as you may have figured out.this is a fairly important subject to me.
stay awesome!

I think you still misunderstand. I don't mean it would hang from above, it would balance on it's contact point. In that way, it would 'hang', but the point of contact would be pointing down in contact with the top of the 2cm cylinder and the bulk of the mass in a ring hanging below that point. To exaggerate for clarity, think of a soda can with the top cut off, turned upside down, and balanced on a pin touching the exact center of the inner can 'bottom'...then spin it.
My idea is a top EXACTLY as they made it, except the weighted ring is much lower, so the CG is below the point. Then, when set on the pedestal, it would be stable when stationary (when set on a counter, the point would not touch). I can't see why that would change when spun as long as the CG stays below the point and balanced/centered.
It would balance when stationary, no question. My only question is what might happen when you spin it, would the rotation make the CG 'want' to be above the contact point for some reason, or would nothing happen. I don't have a lathe to make one myself to try, so I thought someone well versed in rotational physics might know.

"WHAT?!?
What a racist, disgusting thought.
So, you're saying all black men and women are publicly disgusting people that need their actions hidden to be employable?!?
Er Mer Gerd! Did you REALLY just write that? Do you really think that? No wonder you're defending the racist douchebag."

I am not sure how defending minorities got turned into a racist statement...first, I said that our criminal justice system forever holds records against people (Ie., when they apply for a job, benefits, etc.) I stated I disagree with that because it's racist. This is because blacks are targeted by the law to a far greater rate than whites--even doing the same crimes.

Second, this was because you said the racist's viewpoints should be held indefinitely against him. Since we could apply "crimes" against blacks, that logic is what our system uses to be racist. It should discontinue in all forms.

Third, this was all pretty crystal clear. Often you have these fits, and blame them on my lack of clarity. (Kind of like how you blame me for assuming but never consider your assumptions as possibly incorrect.) This is obviously not the case here because there is no way I reasonable said anything close to what you read. I, therefore, assume, based on your past misconstrued responses, you simply want to start this shit.

(I find it funny, when I engage Choas, he can understand when he makes mistakes in reading my posts, and he apologizes, and he rarely does it...)

Thanks for clarity, I agree with what you said.

Most black people are not treated with respect today. This is changing as blacks enter the mainstream.

I think that this will end in a few more generations. We need to have the Al Sharptons and the whites that were born in a time when which was still being promoted pass away.


Black people still get the short end of the stick with respect to the law. Sure this is not fair.


Society through media demonizes black youth to the point all people are afraid of young black males. When a cop rolls up they have this preconceived bias, fair or not it is there. How can this be changed?


As far as the white kid being captured alive statement. Just lucky I guess. But then again look where he is going. He will be wishing they shot him for years to come. The brothers will kill him, it might take a few years to get him but they will.

We are all blinded by our conceived " reality" based on life experiences. Yours are different than mine. It does not make either of us better than the other, just different.

Damn it, crazy grandpa! Every now and then you totally have a moment of clarity and say a bunch of stuff I can get behind, but tomorrow I suspect you'll be right back to supporting insanity (like Palin).

Wait, so these are not just illegal acts, but actual specifically delineated war crimes, since they continued after 2007? Can we turn over Bush and Cheney to the Hague this year?

did i say i was ok with elites perception of those lesser?i do not subscribe to a class system.so please refrain from injecting intentions i never specified. i was simply making a statement that should be obvious to any free-thinking human being.its not like they keep their disdain secret.

i just dont really care what they think of me,as i am quite sure they could care less what i thought of them.

and of course the rest of my comment is beneath you.thats exactly how those "elites" we are speaking of think.
which is basically you have no retort,no response and no argument.

because there is NO response.
you got called out...deal with it.

or do you DENY targeted downvoting my pque without watching the content?
do you DENY not adding any context nor nuance to help people understand your position better?
do you REALLY think this video has merit?
and not just knuckle-dragging "ugh..goverment bad..politicians lie"

and if so,could you please explain,with some clarity,the reasons behind this video? because,as you stated,we agree WHAT obamacare actually is.so?what are your thoughts?

and please make them your thoughts and not some copy/pasted plagiarized argument from the von mises web-page.

have a little self-respect.

Specifically, what 'references to deficiencies in your character and process' appear clear? I think you're reading into what I wrote, because I didn't mention your character, nor reference a 'process' that I know of (except a thought process of some people that believe disproven theories, like the one that claimed vaccines cause autism. If that's what you mean, be honest and say so clearly please, as you have indicated it is not the reason you are upset and that you have no clear position either way, leaving me with no explanation whatsoever).
I did re-read my post and response and can't tell what you're talking about. As I read it, it was a flat disputing of the content of the video, a question about why you found it inappropriate, and a request for clarity about your disjointed responses.
Yours however were clearly disrespectful ad hom attacks ("I have little to no respect to offer." and "I do, however, have a disdain for apparent character deficiencies") without adding to discourse or discussion of the content of the video, only rant about how nasty I am for saying it was BS (a position backed up by facts and data) or asking why you downvoted (apparently inappropriately, as you can't find an answer to "what's inappropriate or offensive")....but I'm the mean nasty guy referencing deficiencies in YOUR character and process? Huh?
I'm also unsure what you mean by "my opinion of you remains intact and as I would prefer it."...as you neglect to mention what that opinion is. The implication is that you have a low opinion of me, because you prefer it that way. Am I missing something?
I again note you have still not answered the original question that set you off, so I'll ask once again....What did you find offensive or inappropriate in my original post that caused you to downvote the comment? I'll add a second question....Why does that question make you apparently so angry and disrespectful? There was obviously something you found worthy of all this angst, but you still have not said what it was. PLEASE be clear and succinct if you care to answer.

The link selected was for its clarity of description, not for its modus operandi, but, if you like, here's additional support for the non-dichotomous (not "black and white") assertion I've made (despite your suggestions to the contrary).

Simply put, suicidality is a side-effect of anti-depressants due, in part, to the increased energy or motivation that could arise as a result of the commencement of a round of SSRIs. Someone suffering from a severe depressive episode may, within a few weeks of commencing an SSRI, avail themselves to the means for suicide (in the absence of therapeutic interventions) which, in the weeks previous, might have seemed too difficult or like too much work to pull off.

As a psychologist and clinician myself, I am trained to work closely with individuals struggling with depressive episodes with an eye on this very issue. Sadly, for whatever reason, Robin's therapist(s) were unable to intervene as quickly as was necessary, speculating as I have, that a recent round with anti-depressants was at play.