@kir_mokum has a point.this is dennis prager,from the illustrious (sarcasm) prager university.

you are not entirely incorrect when you state that this appears to be "fact-based",and it is..up to a point,because those 'facts' have been carefully cherry-picked to lead you to a pre-determined conclusion.

this video,in a nutshell,is propaganda.

he uses the word 'evil" as if somehow it is representative of communism.this is a canard,communism is not "evil",those who wielded power in their respective communist systems,perpetrated those "evil" acts.

communism itself,is not inherently evil.
failed and ultimately destructive and oppressive,but not inherently evil.

we can apply pragers logic to our own economic system of capitalism and come to the exact same conclusion that he did with communism.capitalism also causes immense hardship and suffering,and also death.deaths by the tens of thousands.

is capitalism "evil"?
of course not.

he also states without evidence,or supporting sources,that the "liberal" intelligencia from our higher educational system refuse to admonish communism as "evil".of course they don't,because communism is not inherently "evil",but stalin and moa WERE despotic tyrants,who were responsible for perpetrating immense hardship,suffering and death.a.k.a=evil.

i find it interesting how prager will state,and with zero sense of irony,how communism is "evil" and yet ignore how capitalism,and america's neoliberalsm policies across the globe kill millions.how even here in america,we have cities and towns laid waste by these policies of capitalism.they are called "sacrifice zones",and they look like beruit more than an american city.

i mean,if you are going to blame an economic system for being "evil",at least be philosophically consistent.

but no mention of that at all.
because prager is an ideologue who prays at the altar of neoliberalism and capitalism.he has an agenda,and manipulates facts to fit his own narrative to convince you that his argument is righteous.

it is not.
it is propaganda.

EDIT: Expecting a uniform measured response from 100% of a terrorized, decimated, displaced people who've lived a living hell for years, some growing up in it, to a plan that seems to remove any hope of escape to a place where they might live a normal life, an escape they've worked towards for years at great expense and hardship, and in some cases escaping certain death due to helping America....no culture or people on earth are going to live up to that. American's certainly don't. We go off half cocked over 1% of that hardship and fly planes into federal buildings.

...Says the person advocating blaming and ruining the lives of innocent people for the acts of those that attacked and displaced them. Destroying the lives of random innocent people will never make the situation better, it will create more hatred for the US. That's the behavior I'd expect from a racist or Nazi because they're seeing everyone with a certain demographic as terroristic. We don't need more people with intolerant and inflexible attitudes.

I think it's the racism and xenophobia they already had coupled with a sudden influx of "others" that are now in their daily lives that turns them to extremism, because they've been primed to do so by the far right. If it was only a matter of "my feels got hurt" and nothing else, we wouldn't have international outrage at our horribly thought out, disastrously implemented, clearly racially and theologically motivated travel ban, but it hurts far more than feelings, it will kill some people.

HA!!!! All those groups have been labeled terrorists at one time, and all of them have committed terroristic acts. Every. Single. One. You just pulled a Bob and used an example that totally destroys your point.

Read some history, Christian extremism puts Islamic extremism to shame.

and what angle would that be?
YOU said mike ward was "rightly sued" for basically calling a kid ugly,and i asked for you to explain how this is a legal matter.

or is it your contention that because mike ward "punched down" instead of "punching up" IS the legal precedent?

what if he spoke on how ugly patton oswald is?
or ridiculed michael j fox's parkinsons?

would THAT be acceptable?
or would that be acceptable,but just in poor taste?

and you still haven't addressed how this young boys reputation has been ruined.from what i have been reading it was not his reputation,but how mike wards joke had become semi-popular and the kids in his school started busting this young boys balls to a degree where school was becoming an anxiety riddled event for the young man.

why aren't his school mates also being fined?
i mean,if we are going to bring in the state to handle every and all social issues..let us at least be fair.

and what about the people in the audiences that found the joke funny?
aren't they contributing to the continuation of this young mans suffering in school?

see,i think you are viewing this as a bullying situation (my assumption),and you are viewing this young man as a victim.a victim to bad jokes done in poor taste,and maybe you are correct,but jokes are subjective..NOT objective..and there is no tangible evidence that this young mans reputation has been affected.

it is the INTENT of the joke that should be scrutinized,and that is something that is also subjective and an issue we all deal with on an individual basis.the legal system should NEVER be used to decide such arbitrary and subjective material,because now you setting precedent and punishment based on "feelings",and this tactic can be easily abused.

so you may "feel" mike wards jokes are offensive and damaging,and that in your country mike ward should be executed for his crimes (fascist much?).

but remember...that pandoras box door swings BOTH ways,and the abuse can come from a direction that you,and i for that matter,would be appalled in its application.

and to even suggest that this is not a free speech issue is incredibly naive'.
if you think being charged in a civil case,and having to show in court multiple times to defend "joke" with the possibility of even MORE financial hardship,will not affect how a comedian approaches his routine and the jokes he writes,you are simply NOT thinking this whole situation through and the unintended consequences of situations such as these.

this is most certainly a free speech issue.

let me give you a hypothetical,but using the same parameters.

the wesboro baptist church goes to protest an abortion clinic,and are met with counter protesters.

the counter protesters begin to chastise and berate the westboro people.ridicule their stance on abortion and their religion.so much so that one of the younger westboro children becomes distraught,and anxious and begins to cry.someone films the exchange and posts to youtube,and it goes viral.

now the young westboro kid is being harassed in school,being picked on and being called names.the young kid is so vexed and humiliated that he avoids school at every step and is having self esteem issues.

so much so that the westboro church decides to sue the counter protesters in court.

what do you think the outcome should be?
should they even be allowed to sue?
and if so,should the young westboro kid receive damages?
or should those counter protesters receive the death penalty in your country?

do you see what i am saying?
you getting what i am laying down?

because free speech means that you are free to express yourself,but you are NOT free from offense,and offense is subjective.what offends YOU might not offend ME,and vice versa.

free speech means you are free to express every little thought that pops into your pretty little head and share with the world,and i am free to ridicule you relentlessly if i so choose.

and i will.
with gusto.

The real irony is that economic hardship hits Seattle folks quite hard. We lose 20 families a week to cost of living problems, and our homeless tent cities are near legendary by now. We have 'economic anxiety' right here in River City. Still didn't vote for a sexual predator.

Life is a road of suffering. Most things worth doing require suffering and sacrifice. If you don't learn how to overcome hardship, it's likely to overcome you.

His kung fu will be strong.....yours will not. He'll make your eagles claw look like a chicken!

I'm not a historian so i might be getting this wrong, but i'd been led to believe:

a) Germany itself was in debt after WW1, and the economic hardship forced on them in the form of reparations has been postulated as a reason why the Nazi party rose to power in the first place. When people are desperate, they look for someone to blame. Over in the UK, the government have ensured that we're blaming immigrants and anyone on welfare for these economic hardships that were caused by the rich elite and ruling classes, corrupt to the very core and no longer working in the interests of the country and its people.

b) European countries agreed to forget large portions of Germany's debts, because back then we seemed to know that is was pointless to wreck a country and cause untold misery, pain and death to the residents all in the name of profiting off them.

I am so disgusted and overwhelmed by how badly everything is being run, and how obviously it is being run for the benefit of a minority. I hope Greece sticks two fingers up to the lot of them and does an Iceland, followed by every other European country doing something similar. We can't hope to carry on like this, we can't let power hungry psychopaths control the world... we won't survive like this.

Makes perfect sense.

Spend billions of dollars helping other countries. Socialism. Something America seems violently allergic to within it's own country (just think of the social wrongs 100 bn dollars could right, right?)

Sorry, the "story" that the US is in any other country to protect it is just out and out bullshit. The US sets up bases wherever it goes just like England set up colony's when the famed claim "The sun never sets on the British Empire" was made... Because having a thumb in every pie allows it to flex it's might in subtle (or not so subtle) ways at the drop of a hat.

Remember, this is the same country that threatened multiple foreign economies with the GFC, causing destabilisation and hardship world wide. Sound like world leaders to you?

I love American's, they are awesome people and visiting your country never disappoints me at just how wonderful almost all the people I meet are. But America is a different kettle of fish. Perhaps one day Americans will finally decide to take back their country and make it like the propaganda says it is (greatest country in the world).

I was simply trying to point out that we all pay for stuff we don't use. I obviously didn't communicate that well.

I do think you might be missing the point of paid maternity leave, though. It is not (in the country at least) to encourage population growth. It is to improve the family situations of those who have kids.

While it's true that childbearing is usually a choice, and that people ought to save money or wait until they are financially secure, the fact is that this just doesn't always happen. There's a parallel argument for public pensions, which would not be necessary if people would just put aside 20% of their paychecks every year.

Given that people are going to have kids, and that they aren't always going to be financially secure, the question is: is there a material or moral benefit in giving those families more time to nurture their children and more time to bond without the stress of trying to navigate financial hardship? What is that worth to society in dollar term?

I don't claim to be smart enough to know the answer.

@newtboy
Granted the advice isn't applicable to all situations, take the details of Digitalfiend's case for example, hence I didn't comment on that case (I had no advice, and I did consider it for a while. "Teach your dog not to play" wasn't a notion I was willing to back).
In light of the new info provided I state a disclaimer, the preparation you can do is limited by your circumstances.
Seems you've done well enough, and the occurrences for concern have locational limitations with positively influential perpetrators.
If I had had that, I wouldn't have gotten my 2nd awesome happy dog.

We weren't experienced trainers, however we did have an advantage and took the opportunity to start the training the day we got him as a pup, oppose to having got him later in his life.

As for the level of training, he came when called if he wanted, he stopped barking when he wanted, and he tried eating my cat, because he wanted.
With exception to my teasing kitty, he didn't eat without a command and he was incredibly road smart, as these 2 things were necessary for his survival and the maintenance of his high quality of life.

@robbersdog49
Yes there's assumptions, as I don't know newtboy or the respective living conditions and hardships (but my knowledge has marginally increased today).
Any assumptions of normalcy brought forth from a lack of advised uncommon details, is merely reviewing the situation as it has been described. Would you argue that I should have imagined some unstated details and responded to those?

We all make upwards of 100,000's of assumptions a day. The seat your sitting in, did you check it for poisonous spiders before sitting? why not? Is it because there wasn't any last time and you had no reason to suspect otherwise?
Our brains are smarter than we commonly realise and they use cheat sheets (commonly manifested as assumptions) to get us through every moment of our lives.
Holding humans to their likelihood driven assumptions is a frail thing as it's often met with "oh, i didn't know".

Victim blaming? No, not quite.
Fact: you have a greater chance of controlling your pets, then you do strangers.
The point is little more than to focus on the area's that you can more greatly and reliably influence. To simplify it, it's to aim for the greatest reward with minimal resource (in this case, effort).

The rest of your comment is idealistic. You get no argument from me as I agree, and no realistically debatable point has been made. We don't live in a utopia and those whom acknowledge this while aiming for something, stand a better chance of gaining a modicum of their interests.

"it would be good if people were good". Yes. Would. If. One day

This is so misleading. It makes me sad. Of course "The Answer" is hogwash, but to say that "Positive Thinking" and the so called "Law of Attraction" are the same thing is a lie.

The Answer, by John Assaraf and The Secret, by Rhonda Byrne (whom Ehrenreich references) are not representations of what most people consider positive thinking, nor does it have much to do with the idiocy of firing those that warned about the dangers of out-of-control sub-prime mortgage loans.

In other words, this video confuses many separate philosophies and psychological principles, some of which are real, and some of which are false.

There have been numerous studies on positive thinking, meditation, and mental practice that point to positive gains in actual performance. Retorhic and references to George W Bush, don't make this video accurate, though they do garner applause, as evidenced by the number of votes and promotes this video has earned.

Research points to the following benefits of positive thinking:
Increased life span
Lower rates of depression
Lower levels of distress
Greater resistance to the common cold
Better psychological and physical well-being
Reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease
Better coping skills during hardships and times of stress

Positive thinking SHOULD NOT be confused with blinding yourself to realities and dangerous actions, as in the George Bush example given, nor should it be confused with "The Law of Attraction," as in the numerous references she gives to people getting things simply by thinking them.

Positive Thinking is a very powerful force that can lift one into a self reliant and full life. Positive thinkers impact the world with invention, ingenuity, and an uplifting influence on their community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_visualization
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/stress-management/in-depth/positive-thinking/art-20043950
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156028/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clear/positive-thinking_b_3512202.html

Nietzche on Hardship - Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Ha

My family and community were well-intentioned but foolish. Foolishness creates costs for many people other than themselves.

I've experienced more hardships and poverty than most people.

I really wish stuff like this wasn't promoted. It's junk/pie-in-the-sky science/engineering.

Anyone who has ever been in an ocean storm or had to deal with anything man-made that's had to survive a few months in the open ocean could tell you how this idea reeks of untenability. Stuff far less fragile than this proposed contraption go to the bottom all the time. In short: the oceans are far less forgiving than this kid would have you believe.

From its durability, to the difficulties of mooring a giant sieve in ~3000ft of water, to the actual quality of the plastic being harvested, to the fragility of plankton (the centrifuge is only one hardship it would have to endure) the list of why this idea can never float goes on and on.

I think this article sums it up nicely, but there are many, many others by people who are seriously trying to tackle the problem:
http://inhabitat.com/the-fallacy-of-cleaning-the-gyres-of-plastic-with-a-floating-ocean-cleanup-array/

and the reason people do stupid things when put in a competitive situation is because competition caters to stupid.

If we were to evaluate two base instincts in the human psyche - competition and cooperation....

competition to it's furthest extreme produces division, war, and suffering.

cooperation at it's best produces peace, understanding, creation, and invention.

We have all assumed the most ridiculous of notions, -- that competition is "healthy" and good. We have even gone so far as to base our entire economic system on it, and the product is an ever increasing wealth divide, hardship for the majority, and an elitist class completely out of touch with reality. A complete lack of perspective.

The problem isn't on the surface, it's a BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL FALSE ASSUMPTION that is burned into the psyche. So basic, that no one realizes it.

If u are a competitive schmuck, you will never be happy. you will never be satisfied. that is the nature of competition. and that is the nature of stupidity.

There is only one Moral imperative observable in nature. "Nothing is true and everything is permitted"

"Nothing is true..." :

All concepts of truth are relative and dependant upon a supporting paradigm(s) to facilitate meaning and context. To say "killing is wrong" would only be meaningful within a structure that defines both A. the intended meaning of the terms used (i.e. linguistic convention) and B. the causal relationships and imperatives of the ethical code/structure under which one is operating
(e.g. Christians might say "because God will get you", or Deontologists might say "because the act is always more important than the consequence, or Consequentialists that say the opposite of the Deontologists etc.)
Either way "Truth" is just a meaningless noise leaving ones mouth unless there is at least some intellectual structure in which to define it. Ascribing "truth" to "God" is just another such intellectual structure.

"......everything is permitted":

Given all moral/ethical imperatives are by their very nature intellectual constructs and that none (as we define them) appear irrefutably to occur in nature we must conclude that the only "moral judge/authority" that provably exists in the cosmos must be our own minds (you can't even prove 100% that other minds necessarily exist). The only acts prohibited by nature are those defined by its physical laws, one cannot commit a physical action that does not have an equal and opposite reaction for instance. Thus "everything is permitted".
However as the fact that ones own mind is and can be the only moral authority it is also implicit in this "truth" (see what I did there?) that one should endeavour to not be found wanting in the eyes of this ethical arbiter. After all your own conscience is the one person you can never avoid! Thus "everything is permitted" when "truly" understood (again lol) does not encourage one to "do what you want" but rather to consider your every action with the utmost care. No one knows your true motivations & desires better than your own sub-conscious and no one could ever punish you as hard for your mistakes.

Hardened violent criminals who repent their crimes rarely do so because prison is an unpleasant environment (they are often hardened men, accustomed to physical hardship). They repent because the enforced solitude forces them to confront themselves!

Thus I assert; moral behaviour is a product of wisdom and self awareness only! Anything else is brainwashing and (often dangerous) delusion as it deprives one of the true (and complicated) reasons for why some choices/beliefs would be mistakes. (e.g. the sexual repression of Christian culture that still remains firmly in place amongst many (most) atheists).

Love is the law, Love under will.
And do what thau wilt shall be the whole of the law.