I usually assume most of humanity is full of many people that are incapable of compassion and more importantly empathy. Not only does it explain why women date assholes (most people are anyway, to some degree--unless as stated they have empathy), but also why women might also be "bitches" (or assholes). Simply put nobody gives a fuck about anybody else's feelings, really, unless their action can create direct repercussions that affect them or something they do care about. Empathy, unfortunately, seems to be learned by most people the hard way (and this of course affects the entirety of the "Human Experience", not just relationships): you get a very painful disease/syndrome/ailment/injury and have to LIVE with it. People just do not have high level empathy unless terrible things have happened to them (I'm sure there is the few exceptions).

Basically, women will date assholes because the majority of the population are. Men that are the stereotypical built-up, juiced, arrogant, confident, and usually ignorant bull-pup are what we are thinking about in these scenarios. Most of them, on their worse day, had a broken finger or did poorly in school. They lack the empathy needed to NOT be an asshole. It has nothing to do with anything else. Assholes are simply people that don't understand, people!

As I said age is most likely going to change that as they become withered and old. As they get diseases or finally have their genetic misfires take hold, like MS, Cancer, or AIDS. Or deal with their Type II Diabetes that forces them to eventually go in for dialysis and even later the removal of limbs to stave the finality of its ultimate toll on their life. Or those that can no longer pass the duty of hardships onto others, and must help their mother as she slowly dies with much needed around the clock help--requiring baths, medicine, feeding, clothing, 24/7 diligence--due to their degenerative "syndrome/disease" that will ultimately kill them and irrevocably change their son or daughter forever.

That is how empathy is gained and it is also how assholes become good members of the community. It's also the best way not to marry, date, or be in a relationship with one. Merely find out if they have had hardships in their life that have directly affected them (not others around them, it MUST happen to them). Ask them some simple questions, like: what has that event taught them about others and how did they think beforehand? If they can give you a solid answer--they are not an asshole.

Case closed.

Oh Littlefoot, you go through so much hardship!! :'(
>> ^G-bar:

Gosh... I don't wanna see what will happen once they tell them Bambi's mom died...

>> ^artician:

"He's a man-child"
I heard an interview with Tracy Morgan on NPR where he described the time he came home and found his bed-ridden father on the ground floor of their apartment building, in winter, with bare feet, and Tracy Morgan had to carry him like a child up 6 flights of stairs to their apartment, because his father was senile and too confused to know what was going on.
After telling that story on air, he broke down in tears because it was too much for him to talk about.
Some people have to be more of an adult than all of us put together before they can have the luxury of becoming children.


Quite true of all comedians in general. They tend to have a great insight into humanity, politicians, social issues, and even the biggest of questions such as religion, love, and almost all philosophical domains.

It stems in almost every case from the hardships they have had pressed upon them and their underlying conditions that allow an understanding that binds the perceptions of reality upon their mind an already learned, or easily empathized, lesson that can easily be learned and overcome. As to why they become masters of laughter due to their doomed pasts, I'm not entirely sure. (I know they would be able to empathize a great deal better than others; perhaps due to their depressive states their minds have given them easily attained "happy comebacks" to depressive thoughts in their own minds--partial guess only though...)

Comedians tend to offer a quick way to look at an issue with contrast, so much so that it may make you uncomfortable. But, the key thing a comedian does is that they give you a phrase (the punchline) that allows your mind to mentally take control of the topic of discussion allowing you to beat it, easily.

From there, psychologically it's still a little shady, but it seems to stay in line with what I said. Of course there are other ways to make us laugh, but it typically tends to lend credence to the fact that you have mastered or conquered something, mentally, which has a profound affect over us. Fear is also another area where this crops up and maybe for the same reason.

Great comedians one and all seem to all have a dark past or hardships; but their ability to empathize seems to be a strong core attribute. If anyone knows of a good book on the topic: comedians and their past versus the psychological reasoning as to why they are so good at what they do; please, leave a comment with a link to the book or the name of it.

So, basically his idea is that these people don't know actual work or hardship and that these poor humble corporations (as if they're actual people) are the saviors of our modern world. What bullshit.

Here is my response.

Even if you work one or two jobs, it wont make much of a difference because workers' wages are at an all time low and corporate profits are at an all time high. That destroys his "work hard and win" argument right there for the majority of Americans.

Since 1980, corporations have started to take their profits and reinvest them and buy out competition instead of increasing the pay for their workers (that's in the link too). Basically, screw over the working class and benefit the upper class.

http://videosift.com/video/Herman-Cains-9-9-9-plan-Occupy-Wall-Street

@~1:15 "If you take a look at a wealthy person, ALL of the money that is earned... is ultimately going to be spent."

This trickles down how? Be either spending/investing in consumer goods or publicly traded ventures/securities? That's such a weak correlation and yet he makes it sound like it's a foregone conclusion. What about overseas tax shelters and foreign investments? What about the knee-jerk reaction of Wall Street investors to see stock and hold onto cash when the market dips? He does not provide a complete explanation.

. . .


@~2:30 "That money is used to grow the economy, to produce goods, to provide services, to create jobs... they're not using it to benefit themselves, they're using it to benefit society."

Sarcasm -> So when rich people buy things, they aren't doing enjoying it. That's why we say "money can't buy happiness." When they buy that 12th sports car, they're taking on that hardship for their country. Weep. <- end sarcasm. The rest of us need to buy stuff too, and as wages for the middle and lower income majority stagnate or worse, the top tier has enjoyed a boom.
. . .

@~4:10 "Any money that is diverted from savings [read as equities and bond investments in the domestic market] to government is money that would have been used to produce private sector jobs and grow the economy and instead the money goes to the government."

He states that liberals miss the bigger picture when they argue that the top should pay more taxes. He goes on here to describe the government is a black hole, where all taxes are simply wasted. What about social security, medicare and the damn debt? Honestly, it astounds me that he doesn't make the connection between the generally accepted idea that the debt needs to be paid but instead of taxing from more from the most successful individuals, he seems to side with the Republican fiscal policy of accomplishing this through budget cuts alone. This is a contributing factor to global perception America's quality of life: it doesn't even make the top 10 anymore in the Nation Ranking Quality of Life Index.

. . .

@~10:30 "The protesters [OWS] should be protesting the White House. Capital Hill... That's what's failed them. It's not Captialism, but the lack of Capitalism."

So the government is too big, and we need to cut spending and stop over regulating so Capitalism can frolic freely in the forest. Sounds so me like hasty Obama blaming. I think the mortgage-backed securities practices and resulting global crisis are a perfect example of unfettered Capitalism at work. Republicans can't have it both ways, no matter how matter-of-fact you say it. This fallacy is a major sticking point for me and a major contributor to my personal ideological opposition to the Republican viewpoint. All allegations of racism aside, ignoring the shocking gun toting and violent rhetoric of hard-line Tea Party demonstrators, saving all the ridiculous comments made by the GOP candidates recently, I just see the party trying to hide their allegiance to corporations. They do this by forming ludicrous allusions to "the State-run death camps" and distracting people from the real issue of wealth disparity by talking about inflammatory topics like "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

I don't even blindly follow the Democratic dogma. They can't come out of this squeaky clean either. I'd wager they're just about as pampered and subsequently influenced by lobbyists as their Republican counterparts, although they seem to maintain their "just and true, pro-underdog" image to a large extent. I hope OWS results in the end of this corporate crony-ism.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.


Now imagine if one of your family desperately needed medical attention.

Canada= you're okay.
USA= you're fucked.

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.


Low-income Canadians = a family earnings less than $20,000 with two children. -wiki

Oopsie doopsie, looks like you were actually middle class that whole time...

>> ^robbersdog49:

This guy, however much you may hate fox pundits, is making a simple point that's uncomfortable but actually true. There are two different definitions of poor, the one that applies to first world countries, and the one that applies to third world countries, and they are about as different as different can be.
I think he's wrong about the spirit thing, there are plenty of reasons some people have more money than others and it rarely has much to do with the person's 'spirit'. However, it's undeniably true that the 'poor' of America and the UK and so on are very, very much better off than the 'poor' of India or Africa.
JiggaJonson, while your life may be harder than that of others around you it's a whole world apart from the poor of Africa. How far do you and your kids have to walk each day to collect enough contaminated water to survive? What? You get clean water piped right to your house? Yeah. Poor. I see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be helping those less fortunate than ourselves in our own societies, but I also think those people should appreciate quite how lucky they were to be born where they were born...


Shame of shames! You people and your hyper relativistic moral compass. What a load of shit, I mean seriously!

You do realize that one can treat any matter of justice and equity with the extreme relativism that you just have? For instance, I could kill your family and respond to your concerns, "Hey, lets be reasonable, I could have bombed a nursery, It's not so bad in comparison...You've actually got it pretty good."

Do you understand why you do a disservice to the norms of justice and equity by way of your extreme moral relativism? (I qualify it with extreme because of course our physical reality and method of interpreting it demands that we compare or engage in relativism to a basic degree.)


You probably don't, anyhow, I urge to seek the truth regarding how our current economic and political structures are simply, unarguably, morally perverse.

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "
~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
~ Mahatma Ghandi

[As a last point, I must add that I do not support in any way, the hyper-consumptive society, or the society stricken with affluenza, but such a phenomena is in no way an argument against a more just and equal society, but is in and of itself another issue all together.]

While I agree with you entirely, I doubt that's the point this pundit is making, especially when fitted in the larger picture, i.e. "lets tax the poor more, they aren't really poor, but don't touch the top 1%'s tax cuts".

As for "richness of spirit", it seems it's this pundit's go-to for disregarding people's claims (either that or he thinks the poor need more religion?):

http://videosift.com/video/Faux-News-versus-Dave-Silverman-Preparing-For-A-Crisis

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").

I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.

It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.

While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.

@spoco2

It's a strange idea that's emerged exclusively in Western countries in the late 20th century: humans are tiny delicate flowers with no backbones --the only creatures in nature that must be pampered from birth or they're permanently ruined.

Go to a country outside of the pampered West, and people work real jobs from a young age, experiencing hardship that virtually none of the rioters have experienced.

Thank you peggedbea--that's exactly the kind of quality post I wanted in the comments! I can only learn to sympathize by hearing about the hardships other people have face. Sorry it happened, but glad you shared it.

I bet it is not rare to avoid hiring single mothers. It is also not rare to have a breast pumping policy (Which, I am an avid supporter of women's right to breastfeed and pump milk at the workplace.)

>> ^peggedbea:

if you're looking for anecdotes of women passing up opportunities to take care of kids... or being fucked because they kids or a vagina... i got both.
I passed up a seemingly lucrative middle-management position in healthcare so that i could stay home during the week with my kids when they were both too young for school. I opted instead for the 40 hours in 2.5 days overnight on the weekend shift. Granted, I had no desire to be anyone's manager ever. But it would have been more money and improved job stability.
Also, at the exact same company... I was eventually promoted into CT scan... where I was systematically treated like horse shit. Mostly for having a young child-bearing vagina. All 3 single dads in my department were given 20% wage increases at some point or another because they had to "pay child support" ... as if, as a single mom, 100% of my fucking wages didn't go to the care of my children. And then, the CT department held monthly team meetings during the week. I had to miss one because my youngest, asthmatic child had pneumonia. My slag of a boss attempts to write me up for missing a meeting. and then I find out that one of my coworkers (a man) never ever has to attend meetings because he works nights and is home with his children during meeting hours. Well, so was I. When I brought this up to my boss, she tore up my write up. AND THEN, when my regular coworker would take a night off work, I'd always be scheduled to work with this one creep who would do creep things like... pin me up against the wall and tell me how he likes to be touched, talk about my tits, touch my ass every time i leaned across a counter and try to fuck me in break room when we didn't have any patients. He wouldn't quit so I finally told my boss if she scheduled him with me again, I was going to call in sick.... so that cunt calls me 2 weeks later and threatens me ... i recorded that phone call and turned it over to her bosses... then i found out that the creepy guy was pulling the same shit on the $9/hr file clerks and my boss also ignored their complaints. I brought this to the director of the department's attention... I was fired 3 weeks later. After 8 years with 0 write-ups, I was fired for insubordination.
guess who works my shift full time now?????

oh an that same boss would tell me things like "i had 4 days a week to be a mother" when i had to call in an on call tech ONE TIME IN 8 YEARS because my kid had pneumonia.
also, it is extremely rare for a company to provide child care... your wife is very fortunate. it is not at all rare on the other hand for companies to avoid hiring single mothers.

>> ^RFlagg:

One would hope this deal would cause a backlash against the government, but it won't. The American people are too pacified to care and will continue to let the government and the rich that control it run them down. Too pacified by the fact that the upcoming episode of Hell's Kitchen (or whatever show) is going to be the most shocking ever! Too pacified by a new map pack for CoD that needs dominated. Too pacified by a religion that says the party that is most responsible for handing power over to the corporations and the rich are the moral choice because they are the ones who say they care for the unborn, and ignore the ass fuck you are receiving from the rich because who matters more? The unborn or your ass comfort? Too pacified by a right wing agenda media that lies and manipulates their public into ignoring logic and thinking this is a good deal. Too pacified by a so called "liberal media" that is in the end, corporate controlled and still presents the view that is best represents the immediate short term profit needs of the corporation. Too pacified by an education system that has failed them. Failed to teach even a basic understanding of science or just as if not more importantly, critical thinking...


I have to say I agree with almost all of what you're saying.

Where I disagree is that I think this will indeed cause a backlash against "the government", but will result in people stupidly voting for candidates who're making government suck but say "I think government sucks, elect me!" or result in people just getting disillusioned and not bothering to vote.

I also think a lot of American culture emphasizes individualism to a fault -- people who face hardship almost universally blame themselves for it. They've been told since they were a child that we're all equal, and that adult life is essentially meritocratic. If you're poor, it's because you aren't working hard enough, or made bad choices, and if you're well off it's because you're a hard working, entrepreneurial individual who did it all on your own.

We're encouraged to stay divided on lines of race, class, religion, ideology, sexual orientation, state, urbanization, school district, sports team, etc. to make sure we never build up large blocs of solidarity. The old sources of broad-based solidarity like churches, unions, and schools have been systematically corrupted or destroyed.

It's divide and conquer masquerading as "individualism".

It's not that people in America are content -- far from it! It's that we all feel isolated and powerless, and have no experience with using collective action to empower ourselves.

I don't know how we get the fire lit in people to join hands together and fight, but we're just gonna keep getting screwed as long as we refuse to work together against our oligarchs.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

if there's all this recent commotion about financial trouble due to not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on payments & losing the AAA bond rating causing more financial panic and hardship, then how in the world can shutting down the federal reserve be good?. and what do we use in its place?. Gold?, do we go back to bartering goods & services?.
Ron Paul seems to be the idealistic choice, but even so either he won't get what he wants put into action (like Obama), or he may not see the ramifications if they are.


That mirrors my take on Ron Paul. I can't figure if he honestly believes his ideas on the reserve and gold standards, or if he is just saying it to get votes from people who are upset with the status quo. In either case he's a dangerous choice. He's either dangerously ignorant of how the reserve works and it's importance, or he understands it and is just willing to ignore/lie about it and just do what's popular anyways.

if there's all this recent commotion about financial trouble due to not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on payments & losing the AAA bond rating causing more financial panic and hardship, then how in the world can shutting down the federal reserve be good?. and what do we use in its place?. Gold?, do we go back to bartering goods & services?.

Ron Paul seems to be the idealistic choice, but even so either he won't get what he wants put into action (like Obama), or he may not see the ramifications if they are.