The one thing that I don't like about the One Ring explanation:

It turns you invisible, unless you are the one person for whom it was actually designed (Sauron).

To me, it seems like the rings of power and especially the one ring should grant a more consistent actual power than that. The three elven rings made by Celebrimbor outside the influence of the one are much better examples.

Narya is the "ring of fire", and in the timeline of LoTR it is held by Gandalf. Which makes sense, because he does a lot of fire-related stuff with his magic. Nenya is the "ring of water" held by Galadriel, and Vilya the "ring of air" held by Elrond. These are used less consistently in the books (or movies), but one movie example is the flood that helped save Frodo and get him to Rivendell. In the movie, the flood is shown as being made of water with horse shapes surging through it, which suggest the magical influence of both Nenya and Vilya (water and air) working together. Anyway, those 3 rings have a consistent and fairly well established list of powers associated with their "elemental" attachments, fire, water, and air.

But the one ring lacks that consistency. It is supposed to help Sauron with his urge to dominate, but it doesn't really explain how that works. It doesn't make him invisible; only others who wear it. Also, it helps him to control or at least influence the wearers of the other rings. That is probably the best, most established power of the one ring, but it is also a bit shaky because wearers other than Sauron don't get those abilities. It seems to make other wearers just more susceptible to corruption, greed, and lust for power.

To me, I think it would be more interesting if the one ring actually granted a more specific power, unique to the psychological state of the wearer. The consistently presented thing about the one ring is that it corrupts, and nothing corrupts more than power. So basically, I think that the one ring should be analyzing whoever wears it, and granting them a unique power that is specifically designed to provide them with their greatest source of temptation to abuse that power.

The invisibility power actually makes a lot of sense for hobbits. As presented in the video here, they generally aren't very ambitious. BUT, hobbits are established as being stealthy beings by default, so granting them invisibility is a good source of temptation to turn that stealthiness into more nefarious purpose. So, I don't mind that the three main hobbit (or hobbit-like) wearers (Gollum/Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo) all consistently get the invisibility power out of the ring.

Human wearers like Isildur would have less consistent powers granted by the rings, because they have more diverse motivations than hobbits. Just as an example, I'd think that Isildur would be motivated by martial prowess and leadership after watching his father killed by Sauron and the human/elven armies decimated at the end of the second age. So, the ring could perceive that about him and grant him physical power and charisma to lead -- both of which would be very easily turned to corruption. Invisibility just doesn't logically provide the same level of temptation for someone like Isildur.

Finally we come to Sauron himself. He is already an exception to the "ring grants invisibility" concept. But for him, the ring should (and arguably does) represent power and control. Sauron had to put on a false face and play the role of deceiver to get Celebrimbor and the other elves to accept him and create the other rings. Having to stoop to that rather than simply crushing them made him despise that sort of approach; after creating the one ring he cast that aside and became all about sheer power and domination, rather than trickery and deception. So, I see the ring's powers granted to Sauron himself as being sort of a conversion of those cunning/deceptive abilities into might, self preservation, and overwhelming mental dominance that allows him to control his orc armies.


Sorry for the length of that -- I have just always felt that the established powers of the one ring would be a bit more interesting if they led to corruption through real power granted to the wearers, rather than "it makes them invisible, but not Sauron, and in general corrupts them, just because".

Unfortunatly, it's not just Merkel and her cabinet. It's the press, it's the economics departments at universities, it's politicians at all levels. Call it an economic nationalism, hell-bent to defend what they know to be the moral way of doing business. Everything left of this special flavour of market fundamentalism has been systematically attacked and suppressed for at least 30 years.

For instance, our socialist party, still referred to as the fringe of what is acceptable, runs on what is basically a carbon-copy of social-democrat programmes from the '70s. Similar to the British Green Party and Labour. Krugman, Stiglitz, Baker, Wolff, DeLong -- they'd all be on the fringe in Germany. Even the likes of Simon Johnson (IMF) or Willem Buiters (City Group).

If you speak out in favour of higher inflation (wage growth) to ease the pressure on our brothers and sisters in southern Europe, you'll be charged with waging a war against German saver. "You want to devalue what little savings a nurse can accrue? Don't you support blue collar workers?"

The same blue collar workers have been stripped of their savings by 15 years of wage suppression, the same blue collar workers are looking at poverty when they retire, because the PAYGO pension system was turned into a capital-based system that only works to your benefit if you never lose your job, always pay your dues and reach at least age 95. The previous system survived two world wars without a problem, yet was deemed flawed when they realized how much money could be channeled into the financial system – only to disappear at the first sight of a crisis, eg every five to ten years.

Similarly, you could point out that a focus on trade surpluses might not be the greatest of ideas, given the dependence it creates on foreign demand, a weak currency and restricted wage growth domestically. But they'll call you a looney. "The trade surplus is a result of just how industrious our workers, how creative our scientists and how skilled our engineers are. It's all innovation, mate! Are you saying we force the others to buy our stuff? That's madness."

You simply cannot have an open discussion about macroeconomics in Germany. Do I have to mention how schizophrenic it makes me feel to read contradictory descriptions of reality every day? It's bonkers and everyone's better off NOT reading both German and international sources on these matters.


Any compromise would have to work with this in mind. They'd have to package in a way that doesn't smell like debt relief of any kind. People know that stretching the payment out over 100 years equals debt relief, but it might just be enough of a lie to get beyond the level of self-deception that is simply part of politics. If they manage to paint Varoufakis' idea of growth-based levels of payment as the best way to get German funds back, people might go for it. Not sure if our government would, but you could sell it to the public. And with enough pressure from Greece, Spain, Italy, and France most of all, maybe Merkel could be "persuaded" to agree to a deal.

As for Syriza's domestic problems: it's a one-way ticket to hell. Undoing decades of nepotism under external pressure, with insolvency knocking on your door? Best of luck.

Italy is hard on Greece's heels in terms of institutional corruption. Southern Italy, in particular, is an absolute mess. Given the size of the Italian economy, Syriza better succeed, so their work can be used as a blueprint. Otherwise we're going to need a whole lot of popcorn in the next decade...


Edit: Case in point, German position paper, as described by Reuters. As if the elections in Greece never took place.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

You're 100% spot on, and that along with systemic corruption from top to bottom of politics and business (..but i repeat myself..) is going to be the legacy of this era - the Age of Deception. We MUST look good, we CANNOT afford to admit wrong.. these are phrases that should be anathema to politicians and public services, but they are words that literally define the modern statesman.

And as the supposed greatest amongst us, people flock to their example and are rewarded for doing so. We need both a psychological revolution, so we stop the rot of our civilisation, but also a physical one, because those in power are absolutely not going to relinquish it or even reduce their grip.

Why on Earth should we allow people who show themselves to be incompetent continue to hold the reins? We need a way to hold these people to account for their words and actions.

@bobknight33

Please tell me what your experience is with the scientific community. Do not waffle or sidestep the issue but answer exactly what the extent of your experience with scientific research is, and if necessary how that positions you to judge scientific material.

Please also provide three examples from three separate (and recent) peer reviewed (and published, i.e. forming part of the scientific argument) scientific research papers from approximately the last 4 years (since 2010) that provides something illogical as a foundation argument or any particular conclusion. (You realise of course that even 3,5,10, 100 out of 10 thousand is meaningless, but i know that you can't even understand the layout of a scientific paper, nevermind find 3 examples of an illogical statement in a scientific paper.... even my professors would struggle with that.)

I'm not going out of my way to be a dick here @bobknight33 .. but if you tried to give people medical advice (chemotherapy is illogical propaganda!) then you would be expected to have an expertise in medicine. So don't run away from your responsibility.

This shouldn't be a difficult challenge for you, being as you are so certain and so correct that the science is illogical propaganda. I've had to accept things that ran completely counter to my intuition, so if climate change science is bull then as soon as you prove it, i'm on board.

So go ahead, explain to me simply and clearly what makes it bullshit science, or you're going to have to admit that you don't even have the first clue what you're talking about (as i strongly suspect).

Believe climate SCIENCE, do not believe what politicians and industry leaders tell you about climate science - ASK A FUCKING SCIENTIST. And most of all - @bobknight33 - it is NOT ok to pretend to understand science and lie to people about it, you deceptive, brain-dead parrot. Well, having said that, at least parrots have redeeming features.

Apparently there's yet another Gruber video. (There could be a Gruber Film Festival!)

("OMG!") Fox gets flack for, you know, exposing Democrats like Pelosi, but it's she who now claims that she doesn't know who Gruber is, despite invoking him many times in the campaigning for the bill's passage.

At least Gruber tells the truth about ACA just being another tax on "the people."

“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

That's the truth also about, "tax the rich," or "tax corporations." Corporations will just pass on the cost to "consumers." Tax anyone always means tax "the people." But the masses of "the American voter," like voters anywhere it seems, or at least the "progressive ones," for whatever reason don't understand that. There is no "free" government service. No "free" education. No "free" housing. Someone will pay for it and more likely than not those at the bottom will pay for it.

EDIT:
There's at least 7 Gruber videos now.

"It’s one thing for Americans to suspect that their President lies to them. It’s quite another to hear a key Obama adviser boast of it." (Videosift pundits disagree, of course.)

From the Washington Post :

"Obama also insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In a 2009 interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos pressed him on it no less than five times. He even read Obama the definition of “tax” from Webster’s dictionary. Obama was adamant: “My critics say everything is a tax increase. . . . I absolutely reject that notion.”

"Then, after Obamacare passed, his administration cynically turned around and argued before the Supreme Court that it was in fact a tax. At one point, Justice Samuel Alito asked Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, “why do you keep saying tax?,” drawing peals of laughter."

"The reason he called it a tax is because — as Jonathan Gruber now admits — members of the Obama team knew all along that it was a tax. They intentionally deceived Americans about it because if they had called it a tax, Obamacare would never have become law."

* * *

All of these videos, of course, make little difference to the partisan Democrats, not unlike partisan Republicans when they get exposed. But they do make a difference with the "independents" who decide elections: the ones who can vote one way or the other. So the Democrats can expect for this to continue until the next election.

Good things to know: The "anti- commandeering doctrine."
Know the laws of the land.

Thanks for linking the videos.
It probably wont make any headline news on the mainstream media. Sad to see him call the American people too stupid and openly say he tricked the people via deception and lies all the while Obama and the left are right there cheering him on.

Even worse the left will watch these and be too stupid to be offended .

Videosift hates it when I present stuff like this..

Here's a second video of Gruber explaining how they crafted the law in such a way that they could increase the tax on anyone whose health plan is deemed to be "too good," the so-called Cadillac tax. This would discourage people from getting good/robust health care plans that are better than whatever Obamacare is offering. If your employer or union, for example, offers you a good plan, you get taxed, so as to punish you for being "privileged" (unless, of course, you are a federal employee, in which case you can have as good a health care plan as they come, paid in full by The People).

And here's a third video expounding upon the thinking in the original posted above. Same idea, really: the "stupid" and/or "uneducated" American voters were crucial to passing the UnAffordable Care Act known as Obamacare (whose main thrust has always been, steal from the young, give to the old).

I will note though that I find it amazing this video isn't getting more attention here. I hear a lot here from people who hate the government, yet here is the smoking gun for everything they say is wrong with the government and you actually have 6 downvotes and it may not even get sifted. That is kind of incredible in my opinion and reveals a bias. This guy is someone deeply involved in the political process at the highest levels talking openly about a calculated deception pulled on the American people and some here want to bury it. I would encourage those who do to look past your particular political ideology and give it some unbiased consideration.

so you agree with me yet still downvote my comment?
i thought i was being respectful by explaining my downvote,something i am under zero compulsion to do,at all.

and yet you go off on a childish tantrum and systematically downvote about 3 hours of content in my pque...in FIVE minutes! which can lead me to only one conclusion:
emotional reflex response to a negative analysis to a useless and irrelevant video you posted.

you do not understand why this is irrelevant?
i have to admit a certain embarrassment for you that i have to point this out,but ok,take my hand and i will walk you through it so you can better understand:

1.air contains oxygen
2.water is wet
3.everybody poops
4.politicians and governments lie

you had an opportunity here to reveal just how convoluted and deceptive the process had been perverted and corrupted.how back door deals and the greased palms of certain politicians helped fascillitate the passing of obamacare.

how big pharma and the health insurance industry spent 300 million in the first week alone to kill this bill.or how those very same politicians allowed a tax on that health care bill to remain in the bill.

you could have added context to what really transpired and the mafia principle was in full effect.government gets their slice and the health industry continues to be allowed to plunder the american people treasure.

but no.
you posted a 53 second video of a politician caught in a moment of truth.
a truth WE ALREADY KNOW,with the sole purpose of "look!see! governments are bad!

no context.
no backstory.
no nuanced information to give people a clearer picture on just how badly we are all being fucked.
just a 53 second prop so you can get on your soapbox.

so yeah..the video is irrelevant.

unless of course...you think everybody around you is a stupid child and needs you to hold their hands to reveal the underlying truth.if that is the case you have failed miserably.

well,i dont need you to hold my hand.i am quite capable of coming to my own conclusions.

i am becoming quite tired of your temper tantrums.so if my words have angered your tender sensibilities then feel free to go on another targeted downvoting spree..i really dont care.

@blankfist is a die hard libertarian.thoughtful and precise in his arguments (sans the farting cats),and you sir..are no blankfist.

Aside from the deliberately deceptive comment, look at her eyes how they narrow at the end. She looks demonically possessed.

I agree with this completely, I've tried practicing this while on kayaking trips and have never been able to do it, even in calm water. The people who can do it make it look easy though, so it's somewhat deceptive. Fair point by @ChaosEngine though methinks

I understand where you're coming from, however there are a few things that might really surprise you.

1. Go to 1:23 in the video - that quote is not from the study, it is from an article about the study. You can check the study itself if you want to be sure:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251/full#joim12251-tbl-0002

Here are the actual summarised conclusions from the study:
"The results of this study provide observational evidence that avoiding sun exposure is a risk factor for all-cause mortality. Following sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24697969

These claims are in line with the results of the study. If he was to debunk the study's conclusions he would have to expose these claims as being untrue/exaggerated - which they are not. It does mention in the study something similar, but only in the results section, and it kind of has to because... those were the results. The claims made that are based on the results are appropriate.

2. He talks about how there might be confounders but fails to mention that the study has thought of that, found out the important ones, and adjusted for them. The study adjusted for: comorbidity, age, smoking habits, education level, marital status and disposable income.

3. He talks about how the study had no control group because it is not a RCT - this is a statement designed to mislead people who don't know much about study design. There are a number of different types of studies, and the reality is that many types of studies simply cannot have a control group - this is one of those types. I mean seriously, what control would you use, a group of humans that had to avoid 100% of sunlight for 20 years?? Yes please, sign me up for a 50% chance of being in that group. (edit: ok it looks like @ant will volunteer) Just because a study doesn't have a control doesn't mean the results are invalid, and if he was being less deceptive he would have admitted as much.

4. He states RCT's have shown that sunscreen prevents melanoma and skin ageing. There are also studies that show that these processes happen despite the use of sunscreen. Either way, so what? The research done in the Swedish study looks at all cause mortality - a far more important statistic - it demonstrates that there are potentially benefits of sun exposure that outweigh the risks, a pretty big deal.
A recent article about research showing that damage occurs (albiet at a reduced rate) despite sunscreen use:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/new-clues-to-skin-cancer-development-show-sunscreen-is-not-enough

Now, how about the statistical significance of the research? The 95% confidence interval for the results of the study does not cross 1 - in fact the confidence interval is well above 1. What this means is that if the same study was repeated many times, the chances of getting a different result are extremely slim.

'Fstoppers reader Matt Rennells very astutely found a link to the photo file on Shutterstock that Burger King used in the ad. Shutterstock has an excellent policy of requiring a signed model release from the photographer, and that is in play here as it clearly states that they do have one. '

Removed from YT as a violation of their policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content.

*discard

Aaaaand *gay (the deception behind the truth)