What I think he means with "stop talking about it" to end racism means stop talking about (and focusing on) race, not stop talking about racism....all of us, not just the victims of racism. If we ALL ignored race, clearly racism would evaporate....but racists don't do that, instead they focus on it. What the video implied IMO with the smiling Trump is that we should just stop talking about racism but continue to apply it, problem solved. Trump himself often divides and labels people based on race, unapologetically and gleefully, he certainly does not approve of the idea that he should 'stop talking about race and dividing people based on race', which is what I'm sure Morgan was saying.

I was mostly with him until he said anyone can pull themselves up by their boot straps. That's bullshit. He had immense talent (he won a state wide drama competition at 12), drive, opportunities, supportive family, education, and just as important, luck. Assuming that anyone without those abilities and support can do the same is ridiculous. Circumstance and natural ability mean most people don't have a chance to take advantage of opportunity that might present itself if they're lucky enough to have one appear. There's something wrong with him to think that anyone can do what he did, clearly almost no one can as very few have.

Yes, Mr Freeman, the bus runs every day....but you have to have the fare and be willing to abandon your family, job, home, and community for a lottery ticket elsewhere. For some, there's nothing to lose looking for greener pastures, but most who get on that bus are not successful, and many take their families down with them. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't look for better options and take them, but it's not as easy or simple as just getting on the bus.

I'm not seeing where the water becomes "safe and clean".

Pathogens survive in the air by being in the water drops this machine condenses. Most of the water is coming from the evaporating puddles this video says is bad.

Bad water in = bad water out.

No, I did not know that...but it further supports my point that Palestine was the wrong place for them to go. If the locals were already doing their utmost legally to halt the invasion in the 30's, it was clear the immigrants were not welcome...except by the 11%. My Texas-California comparison stands, and the theory they were trying to 'escape' the anti-Jewish sentiment of Europe also evaporates if it existed in Palestine too, more so if it existed there before the Nazis began their war against the Jews, which you seem to indicate it did.
Edit: they were right to be worried. How about a settlement where Israel pays Palestine for the stolen territory now?
It makes sense that they would do that...and again you're wrong about the immigration numbers, they were rising precipitously in the 20's and 30's. I would not be surprised to find that this set of rules was in response to the massive immigration already occurring, or that it only applied to immigrants. That would be perfectly reasonable, and is the case today in many countries....in fact, isn't that the case in Israel today, but reversed? The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians has consistently been exponentially worse than the treatment they receive from Palestinians. As I understand it, non Jewish people can't vote in Israel, among many other rights lost.
Thank you for coming around to the fact that they were immigrants, not refugees. It's an important distinction....not that any nation is REQUIRED to accept refugees, but none of them accept uncontrolled massive illegal immigration.

These problems would evaporate if only juries could be relied upon to find not guilty in murder trials where the victim clearly deserved to die.

There are hundreds/thousands of farms in my area. I don't think a single one is >1000 acres. Hundreds of families support themselves relatively well on the income they make from the smaller farms. True, you probably can't send 3 children to college on that money, but hardly anyone could these days...that's around $150k a year for 4+ years JUST for their base education. Be real, mom and pop store owners can't afford that either.

EDIT: Oh, I see, the AVERAGE is about 1000 acres....but that includes the 1000000 acre industrial farms. What is the average acreage for a "family farm" (by which I mean it's owned by the single family that lives and works on the land and supports itself on the product of that work)?

EDIT: Actually, there are thousands of 'family farms' in my area that produce more than enough product to send 3 kids to college on >5 acres with no industrialization at all (and many many more that do over use chemicals and have destroyed many of our watersheds with their toxic runoff)....I live in Humboldt county, it's easy to make a ton of money on a tiny 'farm' here...for now.

My idea of what's sustainable or good practice is based on long term personal (>33 years personally growing vegetables using both chemical and natural fertilizers) and multiple multi generational familial experiences (both mine and neighbors) AND all literature on the subject which is unequivocal that over use of chemical fertilizers damages the land and watersheds and requires more and more chemicals and excess water every year to mitigate that compounding soil damage, or leaving the field fallow long enough to wash it clean of excess salts (which then end up in the watershed).
Fertilizers carry salts. With excessive use, salts build up. Salt buildup harms crops and beneficial bacteria. Bacteria are necessary for healthy plant growth. If you and yours don't know that and act accordingly, it's astonishing your family can still farm the same land at all, you've been incredibly lucky. You either don't over use the normal salt laden chemical fertilizers on that land, or you're lying. There's simply no other option.

EDIT: It is possible that you are getting better yields for numerous reasons...."better" crop genes (both larger crops and more resistant to insects, drought, disease, etc.), better/more fertilizers, better/more pesticides, and seeing as you're in Canada, climate change. Warmer weather would absolutely give YOU better yields of almost any crop, that's not true farther South. Better yields does not mean you aren't destroying the land, BTW. It is possible to use chemicals and insane amounts of water to grow on land that's "dead", but it takes more and more chemicals and water to do, and those chemicals don't evaporate into nothing, they run off.
If you are getting better yields every year using the same methods and amounts of additives and growing the exact same crops, I'm incredibly interested in how you pull that off.

Clearcoating this stuff would remove its blacker-than-black properties. It would then start to reflect light. At which point, why would you favor this expensive shit over regular paint? I haven't seen details on how the sprayable Vantablack is applied, but if it were mixed into a liquid for application, it would have the same problem, unless, somehow, the surface of the hardened material were burnt away, evaporated off, or chemically reduced so that the carbon material could protrude from the substrate, that may allow the light absorption properties to persist. But I don't know how they accomplish that, other than they say it's a complex process that requires a specialist. I still wouldn't try brushing up against it, just like I wouldn't try sitting there inhaling paint fumes after painting a car. There's a reason precautions are taken in that process as well. I just know that something small and damaging enough to burst cell membranes sounds like something I wouldn't want in a product I'm handling with direct contact with my skin, or with any remote possibility of it rubbing off and getting into the air.

Not only that, but when you suffer at the hands of cold, calculating oppression lacking entirely in humanistic compassion, when its flashing a badge and looking down on you like lesser than an enemy, but a nothing, a problem, a defect barely worth your time that simply needs handcuffs and a room without a view. The bounds of civil society begin to evaporate, because you no longer have a value to western civilization. Your pursuit of happiness ends and the collapse of your individual capitalist worth plummets.

And then nothing matters. Nothing. I fully understand why some people pick up guns and bombs and go on rampages. Even if it sickens me to consider such atrocity, i get it. Im staring into the darkness and it stares back and it makes sense.

Maybe after years of worthless surveillance, the powers that be will begin to understand this simple and very human truth. Dont devalue other humans.

Ever.

I missed this one years back.
To think, I actually thought for a moment that I might vote for him...but that thought evaporated long before he chose a VP candidate.
It was really like he had a stroke, or was replaced with a pod person part way through the election. So sad.

Yeah, that Krugman piece was pretty ridiculous.
'It wasn't the big banks that caused the crash, it was smaller banks....like Lehman Bro's' (really, smaller?), not BofA and their cohorts.....um....no. I'm sure he's technically correct, that SOME economists have said that, but not those that are impartial.

I'm also getting pretty sick of this lie that Sanders didn't have a plan and couldn't answer the question of "how do you break up the big banks". It's a lie, pure and simple, and only works on the ignorant willing to listen to edited 'interviews' where his actual answer is cut out, or willing to believe those with a clear bias against him. He had a clear plan, he explained it, it's a reasonable plan and it's well thought out. That Clinton can't 1)understand it or 2) admit it, and that her subordinates are willing to spread the lie exemplifies HER lack of qualification to be president, not his.

It's funny (sad really) that many of the 'extravagant promises' that she mentions that have taught the African-American voting block to be distrustful came from the Clintons.

Again with the 'large lead in delegates' lie.....it is 1) not large and 2) quickly evaporating. Without the (well paid for) super delegates, Clinton's lead (before losing Nevada and Missouri) was already <10%, with most states yet to vote polling heavily for Sanders (except in land line only, day time polls). In the past week, 2 states that were called for Clinton have gone to Sanders thanks to her delegates not showing up for her...even they don't really care for her enough to vote, and they're HER DELEGATES! When do we get to start saying Sanders is the clear frontrunner and that Clinton is harming the Democrats by badmouthing HIM? That day must be coming soon.

To the guilty, blame assignment is often called 'petulance' and 'self righteousness'. When one answers charges with insults against those making the charges, it's a pretty good indication that the charges are true.

I agree it's not so much a reflection of Hillary that some underlings do this, but it is a reflection of each candidate how they handle it when it comes to light. As far as I can tell, she has done nothing about this...which is the same story for almost every other candidate that's had a supporter cause a 'scandal'. Oddly, the only one I've heard publicly rebuke a supporter and fire them was Cruz, who's campaign has been one of the worst, least truthful, and most vitriolic of any besides Trump.
Things aren't looking good for us politically, the only good choice is rapidly evaporating in favor of a 'the lesser of two evils' kind of choice.

Those daeshbags really know how to video edit. Too bad they don't know how to co-exist with the other 7.3 billion of us and we'll have to evaporate them.

I can't understand why we don't take a page from the fake book of Jack Black Pershing, and bury enemy combatants with pig carcasses, or better yet, the disgusting leftovers from pig carcasses, and put pigs blood in and on all their bullets. Taint the faithful so they don't 'go to heaven', and 50-75% will run away tomorrow. Only those fighting for something other than religion will be left, and they'll have lost their best recruitment method.

If we can't bring ourselves to do that, perhaps we can move to feeding all Daesh POW's only pork. Let them starve themselves to death if they don't want it. No problem for me at all.

My favorite explosive! Completely stable when wet, but fantastically sensitive when it dries.

Pro-tip: don't store this stuff in a bottle for long periods. The liquids can evaporate right through the cap. The good side is that all that iodine definitely disinfects the cuts caused by the resulting splinters.

It would be good to see some empirical studies confirming that covering the surface of a body of water with black colored balls slows evaporation.

LA Water Manager: So, covering the surface of our reservoirs with black plastic balls will slow evaporation?

Ball Company: Yes.

LA Water Manager: Good! We'll take 100 million please.

Ball Company: Thanks!

If these are polyethylene or polypropylene, they are both highly hydrophobic in their pure form and water will not wet the surface of these materials. Given their color these are obviously not from pure polyolefin streams, so could perhaps be more hydrophilic, but it's very hard to get a PE or PP substrate to totally wet out even with high loadings of traditional fillers and reinforcements. Some folks have asked why they are black... which is indeed odd and perhaps not conducive to minimizing evaporation... and I can only imagine that the source of the polymer used to make these could be a scrap stream as they would be wanting to keep costs low, and in comingled streams the ultimate color is often dark - black, deep blue, browns etc. - when the stream is extruded and pelletized. If money was no object and they had to go with balls, then black would likely be the last choice, not the first (white - well loaded with inexpensive TiO2, or in some future universe... reflective silver!) Have fun.

I assume this has all been thought out and tested, but I'm imagining these balls with a thin coating of water adhering to their surfaces, which quickly evaporates as the black balls heat in the sunlight and then turning over to replenish their coating and repeating the process forever possibly making things worse.