1) Yes, Königsberg, where a sizeable branch of my family had to escape from in '44.

2) Too late for that. Gorbachev only supported the Two Plus Four Agreement because he was given assurances that NATO would not be expanded eastward beyond a reunified Germany. Even Germany's membership in NATO was up for discussion. Looking at a map, I see 12 countries to the east of us that subsequently joined NATO.

And that's not even touching on the application of the shock doctrine on both Poland and Russia by Jeffrey Sachs and his boys in the wake of the collapse of the USSR.

As far as I am concerned, I'd like to see Putin's administration replaced by less militaristic, authoritarian and nationalistic folks, but that's for the Russians to decide, not me. And after all the shit they were put through, a desire to have a strong figure in charge should not come as a surprise to anyone.

As for Ukraine: I'm not touching that.

i have watched a few of this guys videos,and while he has great energy,passion and a penchant for sly humor,but he tends to impose his understandings as somehow being more valid and accurate.

just take his example of the role of government.
he makes a valid point,and then solidifies his position by implying his view is set in this countries original documents.

which is fair,but only to a point...he literally ignores the federalist papers,which he actually references,and it was these 200+ papers and/or arguments that debated the actual role of the federal government vs the role of state government.

@MonkeySpank he is actually right.america is not a true direct democracy but rather a democratically elected representative republic.

after he makes some valid,if fairly biased points,he devolves into the gospel of capitalism and how it is a natural extension of our democratic republic.

really dude?
name ONE corporation that is democratic in any fashion?
you can't?
maybe that is due to the very obvious and plain fact that corporations are tyrannical by their very design.

this semi-educated man is just preaching the gospel of his religion:capitalism.

and referencing lenin like 20 times?
dude...read a fucking book on the history of the soviet union.

oh jesus..now he defending trickle down economics.....
sighs..how the zealots adore their doctrine of their holy texts,even if those texts are just figments of some economists wet dreams and has been proven to be an utter and glorious failure.

sanders is a democratic socialist,not like a denmark flavor but more of a FDR flavor.you know...the most popular president in this countries history and ushered in the most prosperous era in this countries history.

i could do a play by play on this man all day,and make him cry like a pretty little thailand ladyboy who cant afford his life-changing surgery into a actual woman.

well..he does have that douchebag hair.so he may already be looking for a surgeon.

yeah..im with @MonkeySpank,this dude just needs a good cock punch.

Presumably you are able to recognise that Ofcom's pronouncements carry the weight of statutory force.

It is impossible to conceive of a free-speech doctrine that includes government agencies issuing rulings on whether a comedian's jokes are funny or not.

The BBC is obliged to take account of Ofcom's broadcasting code, including its worthless stipulations on supposed offensive material, or suffer sanctions which include fines; they have indeed been fined for violations of the very section upon which Carr is accused of trespassing, in the trivial Andrew Sachs answerphone affair for example.

Frankly I would prefer Jimmy Carr skin a dwarf and wear its shrunken hide as a scarf in his next appearance on The One Show than have our treasured public service broadcaster at the mercy of PC crybullies and the government guns that back them.

That's just plain wrong. Black people can ABSOLUTELY be racist, they can even be racist against black people.
http://videosift.com/video/Chappelle-Black-white-supremacist
Black people can even perpetrate institutional racism...just see 'blackpeoplemeet.com' who's policy is to exclude non-black people as proof they can do it.

Please note the actual definition of the word below, and that your limited definition is the secondary one, not primary. The primary definition describes the most common usage, the secondary one describes institutional racism, which is a side effect of the those in power holding to the primary.

Racism: noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

It wasnt al-Ghazalis fault that muslim society adopted his idea that math is evil and made it doctrine. He was long gone by the 16th century.

It was the fault of the muslim religous authorities, but you cant say that in one sentence, if you are a muslim, even today. You have to go on and on for half an hour, naming all the muslim famous scientists, just like you would have to name all the famous russian scientists if you were a russian professor talking to a russian audience.

Even if 17th century muslim society had a Newton or Leibniz or Kopernik or Kepler and they managed to publish, what impact would their discoveries have had if they could not be used in practice for religious reasons?

It hardly matters who invented the lightbulb, if you have to keep using candles for religious reasons.

@ChaosEngine

So yeah, there's a lot of common ground. Of course there is: values can overlap ideologies; something that, let's say, 'the kind of feminism I dislike' refuses to allow. Everything that says women should be treated reasonably is feminism, which gives us the credibility to declare that anyone who opposes any aspect of feminist doctrine hates women.

I think the concept you're talking about is a part of the makeup of any rational person's mind, and indeed advocacy on its behalf is still necessary. I don't think the particular movement that grew around that advocacy in the latter half of the 20th century is still useful, and I say that it was flawed from the first, even as those flaws were mitigated in the short term by what it accomplished.

It's important to maintain that distinction, and I would strongly prefer that this basic concept wasn't referred to as 'feminism'. Dictionaries describe usage rather than determining reality, and in this case as in so many others I think the majority have got it horribly wrong.

edit: Something of an academic and unnecessary addendum, but I've heard Hitchens say that a few times and I always winced when he did. It's a little trite. The kind of cure he's talking about, birth control, could just as easily be effected by forcibly sterilising women after their first or second child. What he might have said, somewhat less snappily, was, "The empowerment of women, an excellent goal in itself, also handily has the effect of countering explosive population growth and adding more skilled workers to the economy."

In a way Bob is right, even if the facts are not. But then everything has been used as an excuse to rape, pillage and burn. I mean Christians kept blacks as slaves not out of religious doctrine or moral beliefs--but out of cold hard cash. The excuses were otherwise, but the bottom line is extremism is a problem right now. It just so happens that the poverty and ridicule we had for the middle east has made it a stewing pot for hundreds of years.

there many forms of enslavement,to wit most people are wholly unaware,either unwittingly or unwillingly.

"none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" van goethe.

consider this my friends:
if you accept currency for your labors,where you toil for anothers financial gain.you are literally renting yourself.trading your time,creativity and labors for coin.you are a wage slave and a hundred years ago our ancestors were very aware of this and found it detestable.they literally saw it as a form of slavery.

now as @Lawdeedaw pointed out,there are some protections put forth by our government,along with other governments,but those were not just handed out.they had to be fought for,and many died for those protections.by whom? wage slaves,but in those days they KNEW thats what they were,and proceeded from that premise.

the philosophy of the matrix even addressed this very idea of slavery (yep,i went there).that the majority of the people had become so entrenched and immersed in the system,that to even question the system would illicit a violent and defensive response.they would fight to remain in the system.

just look at our friend @Barbar 's reaction.
even the term "slave" was enough for a visceral reaction.

i am reminded of a doug stanhope routine in where he states " at least i KNOW i am a slave,YOU,however..remain clueless".

so let us take the term "slave" off the table and instead use the dynamic of "power vs powerlessness".

the current systems of power have the majority of people running on hamster wheel of desperation.may it be "pay check to paycheck" or "mortgage and credit cards" or the subtle doctrine of "conform and obey".this could also be "all of the above".

the real question is this:
do you consider yourself free?
because a comfortable slave.....is still a slave.
the term may be dramatic,but it is accurate.

I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

Um...sorry, but, directly from dictionary.com
feminism:
noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

I think your argument here is derived from you both having different definitions of 'feminism', so I posted the commonly agreed on definition.
I think you are thinking of 'The Feminist Movement of the 60's', (definition 2)which is not all encompassing of 'feminism' as the word is defined.

The suffragettes weren't feminists. If you want to honour the beginnings of the modern push for sex equality, then you owe your allegiance to such thinkers as John Locke, Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill - none of whom was a feminist. The entire first wave of feminism is a revisionist fiction.

This is on a par with the hideous christian impulse to annex and purloin all good behaviour into itself - "christian driver", "do the christian thing", "christian decency". So too, feminism appropriates every historical social advance in order to declare that, axiomatically, all female freedom ultimately derives from its doctrine, without which women would be slaves of the constantly threatening patriarchy.

In reality feminism is a phenomenon of the sixties - that's the nineteen sixties - with roots stretching back no more than a decade or two; which did a substantial amount of useful work in spite of its many aesthetic and ideological flaws, and which has now essentially petered out to be supplanted by, god help us, the advent of the filthy third wave and its hordes of ranting SJWs.

I'd be more worried about the guys who kill 1,600 people and aren't emotionally traumatized... The fact he's ridiculed by his former pilot mates is disturbing, that they can so distance themselves from killing is scary... of course we have a nation full of people who claim to be pro-life on one hand, yet fully support the preemptive killing of people who haven't done anything to us yet, and indeed may have never participated in any direct or indirect attacks on US soil, let alone against US citizens abroad. It's one thing to target and kill people who were involved in 9/11 or other attacks against US facilities, but preemptively killing people we suspect may become involved is creating a far bigger problem than it solves. This is why we need people like Bernie Sanders rather than any of the other candidates on either side of the aisle, all of whom (besides perhaps Rand Paul, who's fairly heartless towards America's working poor as the rest of his party) will continue the Bush doctrine of shoot and kill first, ask questions later, and never have any regret...

If we take for granted the need for cost cutting, it would be only logical, if not an outright neccessity in a democracy, to leave the details up to the local representatives. Payment of X Euros expected by mm/dd/yy, figure it out yourselves.

Why do it any other way?

Well, you know the three most discussed possibilities as well as I do: shock doctrine, an attempt to force Syriza to commit political suicide, and bureaucratic automatisms.

During the first stages of this facade, I would have put my money square on shock doctrine. The measures are just too damn beneficial to the "there is no society" kind of thinking. It's horseshit, economically, and tremendously damaging, socially.

Replacing Syriza with the Old Guard seems quite appealing, given the behind-the-scenes deals with the nepotistic elite as a means to facilitate a smoother transitition once those pesky commies are out of the picture. The vitriol against Varoufakis is just staggering in this regard. News of the World got nothing compared to what our respectable media has hurled at Varoufakis and Tsipras.

My take on the automatisms on the other hand is rooted in how our politicians and our public has been arguing this entire time. Neoliberalism is the gospel, dissent is heresy. Privatisation is good, cutting wages is good, flexible labour market is good, taxation of wealth is bad, deficit is bad, surplus is good. They drank the kool aid, they are in it hook, line and sinker.

And as a result, the diagnosis is always the same, and so is the treatment. And fuck me for using this ass of a metaphor, given how the language used is the most subtle means of manipulation. "Rescue" the Greeks, "drowning" in debt, "tighten your belt". How about: food only on five days a week, grandma gets to croak on diabetes and your baby boy dies of diphtheria.

Yes, I had a fucked up day. The discussion in parliament about the "Greek problem" was a disgrace and high treason of the humanistic ideas that are supposed to be the foundation of the European Union.

Now we're arguing semantics. Yummy.

racism:"noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement"
See, the keyword here is achievement. There are no achievements without any form of judgement. Think of it in the most simple terms, X Box or Steam achievements. Let's say you play Call Of Duty 18 and get the "Used a gun!" achievement for firing the very first shot in the game. You got this because the game's code made a judgement. Did the player fire a shot? Yes or no. Sure, it's easy to judge that, the facts are very clear and easy to read. Are you worthy of this achievement? Are you as much worth as I am, the guy who finished the game and got the achievement?
And what about the guy who never got that achievement because he played the entire game only using a knife? Think about it, playing any Call Of Duty single player campaign using only melee weapons and throwing knives. Who's worthy know? Who achieved more?
Achievement depends entirely on the definition and who's making them. The knife guy played the way harder game and got no recognition but the guy who got the "Used A Gun!" and the "1000 Headshots!" achievement is the one bragging online about his achievements and medals next to his name.
Who has achieved more, the ethnic group that developed many different technologies (like, say, guns) or the ethnic group that still runs naked through the jungle and considers knives high-tech? "Those naked dudes are clearly stupid and less developed than I am because I got guns!" said the white man in Africa.
One of the biggest racist prejudices black americans hear is that they are lazy because they achieve so much less than white folk. They guys with the titles and medals and guns.
Achievements are the acknowledgements that you gained skills, positions, posessions, knowledge or reputation. That can only be acknowledged becaused somebody judged you. Like the test or dissertation I have to write to become a Professor of Physics. This achievement will cause other to have prejudices about me, like "He's a professor, he must be smart!"
The definition of racism you posted says this:
"racism is the belief that depending on your race you can develop in a certain way or to a certain level"
This is a modern definition based on racist expirience. It says that racists think you can not achieve more than they can based on the achievements your ancestors had compared to theirs. "Once a slave, always a slave. If black people weren't so lazy, they wouldn't need a good whipping!" That train of thought.
All that of course underplays the emotional component of hatred, the driving force of racism in its worst forms.
Now my fingers hurt.