Ugark first doubts the wisdom of bringing children to a peaceful protest inferring safety concerns maybe, and then show Mr. 'nice cop', 'for the children' cop, 'being taped and covered by media ' cop, with some lead-in to whatever clap-trap so predictable as to nauseate follows. No doubt, it's the 'bad cop' version of what cops are NOT supposed to be like. Fuck you.

All cops are felons, therefore.....What? They get a pass and the common-folk don't? Fuck you Cenk, and your alternative diatribe circle-jerk.

Sorry Timmy, they're are less 'good' cops than Lot and his old lady could find in the twin cities before they turned that bitch into salt!

What do you think we can infer from the fact that it took 4 years for this video to sift?

Appreciated-This happens not infrequently when colloquial euphemisms are used to make a point-That point lost in translation for some whose itchy-trigger-fingers twitch at the very odour of being able to scream RACISM! from the high tower of moral superiority and cultural sensitivity.

Hey babymech, your comment was popular, eh? You can't "hear" the written word by the way, you "read" it. The word "nigger" rang in the head like a church bell, and a predictable knee-jerk reaction followed at the sight of a combination of keystrokes, choosing not to address the meat of my comment, but fixated instead on some inferred or assumed character flaw? It's a diversionary tactic not uncommon with so-called 'news' and political organizations not unlike my conscious decision to use an inflammatory euphemism to invoke a predictable reaction.

In a sane world, men who rape women would be shot at sunrise and people who cry racism when they read a single printed word are in desperate need of continuing education.

Danke, braschlosan-This has happened here before when I've intentionally pushed the "OMG racism!" button.

Her answer near the end is basically "Congress has passed a law saying that my job is to enforce the ban on drugs that are banned." Which I infer to also mean: I am answering according to my job, based on the law. If you want a different answer, change the law and I will answer according to that.

Yes, probably in that case you would not be intuiting, but inferring. That is perhaps one of the funny things about intuition. Once you do understand those concepts, have you 'lost' your ability to intuit about such things?

That may account for why so many people (dare I say) fear science. As you say though, looked at another way, by learning and deeply internalizing the previously unintuitive concepts, you develop a more complex and Truer form of intuition. A person, however, who cannot or will not put forth the effort to internalize unintuitive concepts is condemned to live in a world governed by strange principles they do not understand. I can see how that may be a disturbing and frightening way to live.

The easy way out, of course, is to say, "it is god's will that the world works this way, and god's will is unknowable." I can see the comfort that can be found in that, and even a glimmer of wisdom there, so I should make the disclaimer that I don't believe this is a bad thing *when applied with intelligence and thoughtfulness.*

Naturally, it doesn't have to be 'god' either. It could simply be an acceptance that some things are beyond what can be truly understood in a single lifetime. Personally, I try to find some sort of a balance--particularly because I'm an engineer and sometimes I just have to accept that something works without really understanding how. For instance, I rely a good deal on quantum mechanical phenomena that I only understand in the crudest sense, and I just have to be satisfied that I can, without any genuine intuitive understanding, mechanically manipulate symbols on a page and create something that nevertheless works. Attempting to intuit on that level (though it may be fun as an exercise), is beyond me personally, and properly in the realm of academia. It's why I have so much respect for this guy and his silly spinning wheel.

As for things like existential questions of the soul and free will and all that? Well, I'm already way too far off topic, and I only got this far because of the couple glasses of wine I had with dinner.

In response to a question posed above about this being number 1, there is something about watching people who are very good at their jobs working that I find appealing. I'm not sure why, really. Another example would be the Spanish bricklayer video a week or so back.

Whether you accept it as an explanation or not, it's an undeniable fact that a common design indicates a common designer. When you see something like this in nature you don't make the inference because of your belief in evolution from universal common descent, but it is a valid inference to make. You explain it with convergent evolution, but it can also indicate a common designer.

All Chomsky ever does is rehash his worn out platitudes; "Don't interfere, stay in your own back yard, and terrorism will stop." Nonsense, of course the west has, in many instances, exacerbated the problem, but to infer that terrorism, and its myriad causes, are ALL the Wests fault is disingenuous. And comparing Irish terrorists with Jihadi terrorists!? Ridiculous..

@VoodooV
dont be too harsh on our boy @blankfist at least he has us talking about some pretty important issues.

if we do not discuss the hard issues and deal with truths and only hold onto our own biased ideology,then nothing gets accomplished.

i do not subscribe to blankies capitalistic unrestricted free market position.
i have been learning much about the free market and it does have some substantial strengths in many regards.

the problems arise,in my opinion,in regards to societal responsibility.
unrestricted capitalism makes everything a commodity.
and some things should NEVER be considered a commodity.

so i am against the privatization of schools and commodifying children.
and for those of you who wish to berate me for my position allow me to point to our current prison system:prisoners=commodity

now by me saying this does NOT automatically mean i am in support of our current education system.
i am not.

the system we have now is a bloated and stagnating beast which does little to educate and everything to indocrinate and create obedient workers.

and who is blamed for all this?
the teachers!
of course!
bind their hands,gag their mouths,stifle their creativity and crush their imagination.

and THEN turn around and say "there...theres your problem.the teachers".

so @ blankfist is not entirely off the mark when he infers or implies that it is government that is at fault.

because they are.

the real question is why?
now i am wading into postulation waters here but this is what i suspect.
1.the american government nor corporations wish to have a truly educated and informed citizenry with critical thinking skills and the ability to consume data and form rational conclusions.
people with those abilities will always challenge power.

they would rather have a docile and submissive public that does not question authority.
best get em while they are young.

so it doesnt matter if the schools are privatized or publicly funded.
they BOTH seek the same results and will BOTH be/are equally corrupt.

and most likely BOTH will blame the teachers for a perceived failure.

because BOTH will ignore,either knowingly or unknowingly,the systematic failure of HOW they teach children.

no longer is art taught.
nor civics (at least not where i live),
nor the humanities.
they are teaching these kids to be systems managers,not free-thinkers.

i believe that education all the way up and through to higher education should be a public responsibility.the investment will pay dividends greater than anything put IN to the system.
i am not going to list them all,just think about what a well educated citizen can bring to table.
see:finland

because at its heart,its essence,is not society a collective practice in community?
there are some things that should never be socialized.
education is not one of them.

money is not the problem.
teachers are not the problem.
its the SYSTEM and how it teaches,that is the problem.

remove the politicians and the special interest from the equation and allow the actual educators to do their jobs.

instead we have turned teachers into baby-sitters and schools into factories of the banal.

what a disgrace.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

well thank god i visited your page!
oooo../claps hands
what a delight to read your response!

i agree with almost everything you expressed.
oh thank you my friend!

economics has never been my strong suit.i know..shocker.
but i AM quite literate in history and government and of course politics.
while you are correct that a socialist state can become a fascist one,so too can a democracy.
it is really the forces of ideology which can push a state to either a fascist or swing despotic.
but i get your point.

i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to economics,so i rely on my history and governmental knowledge to fill in the gaps.
your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was having during this conversation.

i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
and we are.

1.the banks need to held accountable.
check.
2,which by inference means the governments role should be as fraud detector and protector of the consumer.
check.
3,you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a person and therefore shall be removed from the political landscape.
check.
4.this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is diseased at the moment).
5.which will return this country to a more level playing field and equate to=more liberty.
6.this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices.

how am i doing so far?

now.
since we have to talk about politics when we talk about markets.
my old professor dr paul (great man,miss him very much).
he reduced politics down to one simple question:
"what should we do"?
or in terms that we have been discussing:
"what is governments role"?

thats it.
now people like to make it more complicated,especially people getting paid good money to postulate on sunday morning tv shows,but thats it.

being an anarchist is not one dimensional.
the anarchism YOU are speaking of is the extreme.
i am more the libertarian socialism flavor.(yes..you didnt convert me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
the anarchist may see a form of government that no longer works.that is weighed down by its own hubris,greed and corruption.
the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that government to build a new one.

and why not?
if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of it and try another.

now you wanted to know why i feared and unrestricted free market.
(which is how i was talking your previous post and confused me greatly).i see now i may have misinterpreted your commentary so my next point may be a moot one.
if so..i apologize.

if we put everything on the table as an unrestricted free market.we would be going back to feudalism.
the flaw in capitalism is not just the boom and bust but the exploitation of the common man,or worker if you like.

not only would the most vulnerable of us be exploited but it would make the class structure even WORSE than it is now (which by comparison is not too bad when compared to,say..somolia).

we see pockets of this happening now here in the US:
http://youtu.be/GVz_yJAxVd4

imagine having to pay for any road you drove on.ALL of them.all owned by different companies and subsidiaries.every one of them a toll road.
the market would dictate what burden could be held sufficiently in order to turn a profit.
what percentage would be prevented from driving those roads due to lack of funds?

see what im saying?

lets take this template and put it with firefighters.
would having a firehouse every couple of miles be profitable?
i mean,how many fires are there actually occurring on any given day?
so the firehouse would have 2 choices that i see.
shut down the more rural and spread the firehouses more thinly OR charge a monthly fee.
since a nominal fee would be the most likely avenue,what about those people who cant afford that fee?
does the firehouse BILL them?
"sorry for the loss of your house ..pay us".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrPa8Ps7A

and what about police?
they already have become revenue generators and protectors of the privileged.
what happens to poor folks in an unrestricted market?
police wont have a station in any inner city areas.no profit there.
no no no..wait a minute!
there would be HUUUGE profit there!
/smacks head
what was i thinking!
of course!
just like our prison system the police would be paid by the state PER arrest.
to be reimbursed on a quarterly basis!
BRILLIANT.
then poor people could be commodities!

nope nope nope.not gonna work.
that would mean the state would have to impose a tax or something to generate the revenue to pay for the arrested subjects.

hahaha im being an asshole now.forgive me.

ok.lets talk schooling.
lets privatize em!
free market baby!
based on the local population and average income we can fill those seats.
aaaand maybe get rid of NCLB and standardized testing,which i loving refer to as the giant ball of bullshit.
now this would be GREAT.

wait a minute.
what about the poor families that cant afford the tuition?
what do they do?

well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system driven by self interest and profit?

welcome back child labor!!
and the 80 hour work week!
and beatings for not making quota!
and how awesome is it that that poor family of 5 gets to live with grandma,grandpa,uncle lou and aunt sara and there 3 kids all in one 3 bedroom house.
its 1913 all over again.
happy days are here again.......

ok ok.dont get mad at me.that was mostly tongue in cheek.
i realize after your post tonight that you are not suggesting an "unrestricted" free market but a free market.

and i am ok with that.
if we can limit government intrusion.
allow companies to tank when they fail.
rewrite the corporate charter (or dissolve them completely,or as i suggested previously make them accountable and put back the phrase "for the public good").
reign in bank fraud and make the rules to keep em honest.

in my opinion the only thing we really seem to disagree on is when it is in regards to labor.

i tried a few years ago to buy my friends bar/eatery with most of the employees.
did you know what i found out?
we were not allowed.
could not get the permits.
the owner even offered to finance us all..
nope.
how about them apples.illegal to have an employee owned business.

that is changing though.
employee owned businesses and co-opts are popping up like recurring herpes.

i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how employee owned companies would threaten a free market.

but as you figured out.
economics is not my strong suit.

and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your views and even some about free markets.

thank you my friend.thank you.
namaste.

Are you suggesting that labourers lack intelligence? It certainly sounds that way. Your comment reeks of ignorance if that is indeed what you are inferring.

I fail to see the problem. She's clearly talking to an individual, and for all we know they have prearranged for her to talk to this individual in a certain way. They might even be paying for the experience.

I get the feeling that people's problem with her is that she doesn't conform to their standards of beauty and that makes it repulsive to them.

I think she's quite attractive, and her dirty talk is not entirely dissimilar to other amateur camgirls. I think it would be the height of stupidity to infer her actual opinions on race based on how she dirty talks to a client/cybersex partner of hers in the course of her sexwork/hobby time.

What I inferred from this video isn't what I think the author intended. I believe the implication was that we're lost our "economic freedom" (whatever that's a euphemism for) and that's why our country is so unstable.

What I took from it, is that the increasing disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this country are both a cause and effect of economic freedom.

Yup, it's a motion after effect. I doubt it "evolved" for a specific purpose however. Adaptation effects of this sort are thought to result from neural "fatigue." That is, the tendency for a neuron not to fire after a prolonged period of high activation. The idea that short term neural adaptation exists for some purpose other than straightforward biological constraints is appealing on the surface, but unlikely imo. You have to remember that it only works if stimuli are held perfectly still with respect to the retina for periods that are much longer than natural. In fact, there are some that argue there are special eye-movements to ensure that exactly that doesn't happen (look up Troxler fading for a similar phenomenon).

However, it's an extremely useful phenomenon empirically. The effect can be used to probe the stimuli that a distinct subpopulation of neurons (the adapted subpopulation) is responsive to. This ability to make inferences about neural mechanisms from strictly behavioral evidence rather than direct neural recordings makes it an important psychophysical tool. Behavioral arguments of this sort, where it is shown a population of neurons specifically responsive to X must exist, often precede physiological confirmation obtained later either with functional imaging studies or electrophysiological recordings in animal models.

I didn't say that YOU said it was true...that was your inference.