What parallel is she trying to draw between sex and relationships? Is she saying that gay sex is icky but we should not think about that but think about the relationship side of the equation?

Its a commendable speech but I get the feeling that she needed the in your face experience to see the light and this experience is hard to come by. Surely the logic of the argument is enough?

@marbles, the most powerful psychological weapon being deployed on us right now is the simplistic idea that you can classify an entire category as universally "bad" or "good".

Signing statements are not all bad, nor are they all good.

Similarly, "targeted killing" is a pretty icky concept. But Obama's trying to emphasize that as an alternative to the full scale war the Bushites preferred. I'm not sure where you come down on war these days, but IMO I'd have preferred just drone strikes on Al Qaeda's hideouts to the full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wish both would stop, and moreover I wish that military force was never necessary in the first place, but since this is still the real world, I'm willing to settle for our military reaction to national security threats returning to being somewhat proportional to the actual threat being presented.

Where we fit this into our concepts of rights and laws is an important question, but the present law passed by our duly-elected representatives in 2001 in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is what codified this as being a "war" where the President could kill people whenever the fuck he felt like it, in accordance with the Constitution's definition of war.

Keeping people in prison is a similar matter. Technically, the people in Gitmo are "prisoners of war" and not really charged with any sort of crime, beyond being combatants for the other side in this "war".

Now, to your specific comments about "section 1031" -- that section (in the original Senate draft of the bill) is titled "DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO". Originally it specifically excluded U.S. Citizens from being legally classified a detainee at Guantanamo.

Now, IANAL, but I looked at the rest of the bill for references to "individuals detained at Guantanamo", and it doesn't say anything about how people become detainees at Gitmo, just a long list of restrictions on the President's ability to release those detainees (like, you can't turn them over to non-military personnel, you can't move them onto U.S. soil, you can't let them go to their country of origin, and there's a list of conditions countries must meet before they can receive custody of them).

But the God's honest truth is that ever since Bush insisted on this being legally defined as a war, it hasn't mattered what the fucking laws say, because in a war there isn't any real rule of law. There's the Geneva conventions, but that's international law, and seriously, which country out there is gonna try to enforce those against us?

I don't think Obama likes any of this. It's another fucking mess the Bush administration made, and Congress is definitely not helping him out in trying to fix things. Moreover, Congress is responsible for passing the AUMF, and allowing something like Gitmo to exist (and now essentially refusing to give Obama any legal avenue to close it down, either), and now apparently they want to make sure to enshrine in law the legality of keeping something like Gitmo in operation indefinitely.

Nothing about what Obama's done makes me think he's changed his mind about this all being awful. But I think he's trying to do the best he can given that there seems to be no appetite in Congress for repealing the AUMF, or even allowing the detainees at Gitmo trials in Federal court.

As with many things, I think Obama could and should be making a big principled stand on the issue, but as I've come to accept, Obama just doesn't do that kind of thing. I think that's a pretty big flaw, and ultimately it's the only reason why he's not gonna cake-walk to re-election, but I don't think that's the same thing as actively supporting the things Congress is foisting on him.

He has a point unless...they are not upset because there exists a nativity scene--it's probably because it is on public property.
There are non-xtians who pay taxes for the property who do not want the area used for proselytism. Not because it makes anyone "feel icky."

There are people of the type he is describing (drive me nuts too)--but we don't know the full story about the case that started him off.

So you're saying that if it wasn't for religion humans would find some other aspect of human nature to exploit? Not really profound, but it really does make sense. For example, religion is being used as a means to deny gays the same rights the rest of us have. However, when it comes down to it, some people just feel that homosexuality is icky. And you know what? As ignorant as that is, it's just as natural for somebody to be repulsed by certain sexual behaviors as it is to be attracted to some sexual behaviors. As long as people disagree there will be conflict. The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power. Furthermore, if somebody doesn't agree with something that's ok. And since there is no god, therefore no word of god, our differences are merely individual preference.>> ^peggedbea:

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:
whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.

We missed Thanksgiving, but a good friend brought over a Thankgiving dinner from the market Sunday, so it turned out OK. Hopefully yours turned out OK too!

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
I hope you guys got over the ickies and had some good turkey.
:

I hope you guys got over the ickies and had some good turkey.

I feel very sad for you.

But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

I don't have anything against gay people. It isn't as if homosexuality is so much worse than any other sin, although all the baggage that comes with it can cause a society to become totally degenerate. Take the greeks for example.

I don't label it sin because I am afraid of it, or for a feeling of superiority. I don't think I am superior to any other human being. I call it sin because that is what God said it is. It's immoral and goes against Gods design, and nature itself. You call me intolerant but you aren't tolerant of my beliefs, so I don't think you have anything to say about tolerance.


>> ^spoco2:
Damnit SB... come here and fucking rain on a damn beautiful video.
I got into work this morning and saw the email from GetUp (the advocacy group who created this), and thought I'd give the video a watch, having no idea what it was about. I could tell there was a twist at the end... but, I guess I just don't even consider a gay relationship to be a 'twist', that it wasn't something that crossed my mind. (probably should have been, if I'd been thinking about it I would have thought what the hot topics in Australia are currently around relationships).
But really well done, really great.
It's so very sad that anyone can watch this and feel anything but joy for this 'couple' (I only put couple like that as they're actors, not real). @shinyblurry, you are filled with hate born from fear. You fear gay people because you fear anything different from your little world. You label it 'sin' to make yourself feel righteous about condemning it, but it comes down to you feeling 'icky' about two men lovin' it up because you haven't been exposed to it...
I feel very sad for you. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

Damnit SB... come here and fucking rain on a damn beautiful video.

I got into work this morning and saw the email from GetUp (the advocacy group who created this), and thought I'd give the video a watch, having no idea what it was about. I could tell there was a twist at the end... but, I guess I just don't even consider a gay relationship to be a 'twist', that it wasn't something that crossed my mind. (probably should have been, if I'd been thinking about it I would have thought what the hot topics in Australia are currently around relationships).

But really well done, really great.

It's so very sad that anyone can watch this and feel anything but joy for this 'couple' (I only put couple like that as they're actors, not real). @shinyblurry, you are filled with hate born from fear. You fear gay people because you fear anything different from your little world. You label it 'sin' to make yourself feel righteous about condemning it, but it comes down to you feeling 'icky' about two men lovin' it up because you haven't been exposed to it...

I feel very sad for you.

But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^Hanover_Phist:
I've seen better videos of Michele Machmann making a fool of herself. Although she clearly opposes vaccinations for some reason, I believe her "official" stance in this video is to oppose the mandatory distribution of vaccinations. Which kind of makes sense. Making them widely available and forcing people to take them are two different things.

Actually, this is a pretty good point and reminds me of a really interesting thing way back. I did residential work back in the day and I remember my first year I had a Christian Scientist who did not have any inoculations. His roommate totally freaked out and we ended up consulting the health services to find out what they thought about the situation and basically they said that it really wasn't a big deal because literally everyone around him was inoculated, so it wasn't like he was going to spontaneously generate plague from nowhere.
I suppose it would still be icky had he had traveled while on vacation and become exposed to something virulent, but given that everyone else had been inoculated, it probably wouldn't mean a total pandemic...


I was raised a Christian Scientist (not anymore) I never got any vaccinations. I've been to 4 continents in some of the worst...dankest places you could imagine. I'm fine, because people overreact about this sort of thing. There's a chance I could've died but there's also a chance I could get hit by a bus. I'm sick of people being such fucking pussies. Our bodies are pretty resilient, if we let them be.

>> ^Hanover_Phist:

I've seen better videos of Michele Machmann making a fool of herself. Although she clearly opposes vaccinations for some reason, I believe her "official" stance in this video is to oppose the mandatory distribution of vaccinations. Which kind of makes sense. Making them widely available and forcing people to take them are two different things.


Actually, this is a pretty good point and reminds me of a really interesting thing way back. I did residential work back in the day and I remember my first year I had a Christian Scientist who did not have any inoculations. His roommate totally freaked out and we ended up consulting the health services to find out what they thought about the situation and basically they said that it really wasn't a big deal because literally everyone around him was inoculated, so it wasn't like he was going to spontaneously generate plague from nowhere.

I suppose it would still be icky had he had traveled while on vacation and become exposed to something virulent, but given that everyone else had been inoculated, it probably wouldn't mean a total pandemic...

it's true, but doesn't that mean it ISN'T the end of the story?
how can you live and think you are a decent person when the theory you pronounce to follow with everything you have isn't actually what you live by, but an excuse for preaching what you want?
>> ^VoodooV:
to be fair...trying to argue that the bible is ok with homosexuality is rather silly. Conservatives and whackjobs like the WBC don't care what the bible says, they just think homosexuality is icky and work backwards from that...end of story.

to be fair...trying to argue that the bible is ok with homosexuality is rather silly.

Conservatives and whackjobs like the WBC don't care what the bible says, they just think homosexuality is icky and work backwards from that...end of story.

No offense - but boo freaking hoo.

Through all history, art (and by extension, advertising) has idealized the human physical form to represent the societally desired standard of beauty. Some folks (vid chick especially) needs to spend a bit less time whingeing about things that are absolutely, unequivocally, 100% unchangeable. What are you going to do, toots? Pass a law that forces people to only portray human figures in a way that you personally approve? Get over it.

By the way, males get the same treatment too. Avertising, movies, TV, and pretty much all forms of media portray the male figure in an exaggerated fashion. Males are shown in two ways... 1. They are shaped like tent-pegs, tall, muscle-bound, and have physically impossible abs. 2. They are the icky "metro-sexual" waif-like douche with a shirt half open, popped collar, and an expression like he is about to commit suicide. So don't give me this bullcrap that men are not also objectified, idealized, cut up, and treated like meat in ads & the media. Of course they are.

But you don't hear stupid moronic men giving speeches about how it this trend 'damages' boys because it doesn't. Why? Because boys have the ability to not care squat about how the male body is portrayed in media. The only area men tend to be insecure about body image is (A) going bald and (B) the size of thier junk.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'vagina, icky' to 'vagina, icky, confidence and respect, other side, like aughh' - edited by calvados