I believe mole rat jesus died on the 31st year, raised on the 33rd year, so it's more of a tradition of mole rat self sacrifice. Like seppuku or Harry Carry -- someone correct me on the written versus spoken forms of this Japanese tradition (in need of revival).

But you may wonder, "Aren't there any mole rats that don't believe in the tradition of self sacrifice?" And I would tell you, Yes. Yes, there are plenty that don't follow these traditions.

And you'd think in reply, "Well, that's odd. If these," let's called them "'alternative' mole rats broke away from the traditions of self sacrifice, why aren't there more older mole rats today?"

Well, it's a sad but simple truth, Timmy, but usually the jesus worshipping mole rats kill the nontraditional, alternative mole rats (who have the ability to live forever) -- and, really, any type of worshipper of something can fulfill this role of antagonizer: mole rats who worship pagan mole gods, power, money, the God of molterial possessions, AIDS. And these mole rats murder the alternative mole rats. Or drive them into suicide, fulfilling their ritualistic traditions of self sacrifice for their sun mole god. Or some type of mole rat god. There are many others...

One day the mole rat society will have a scientific term for the process by which a restrictive institution innately develops out of a fearful mass of moles, becoming normative mole rat behavior. One day we will understand how these fearful, normative moles inadvertently MURDER their fellow mole simply through their ignorance and their evil, sinful desires for power and dominance over their world, their fellow mole rat. (Is it a form of subconscious sociopathy? With hidden sociopaths leading the charge?)

They turn love into hate, declaring their moral mole rat codes as ethical, in order to profit and/or maintain their sense of safety, their illogical, SELFISH mole rat world order, to save their own asses and the asses of their mole rat children from mole rat hell. Sell. Fish. Mote. Eee. Vations.

It's a simple process of societal entropy within the mole rat community. An 'us versus them' mentality that just sits hidden between the conscious and subconscious mole rat mind. It's fucking not going to be "THEM" because those mole rats don't practice the ritual of self sacrifice to maintain the mole rat average life expectancy.

TL;DR: MOLE RATS DIE KNOWINGLY AND UNKNOWINGLY IN THE NAMES OF THE SUN GODS. Mole rat God bless mole rat America.

Yes, I am bit racist - as I said - toward Jamaican people.

Yes, I am prejudiced against cops - of any ethnicity.

A better word would be - wary, cautious, fearful

Again, you Lantern - as a old white cop - NEVER have to worry about being mistaken for a - thug or savage.

I do. Simply because I'm brown.

You can't complain about that Allen West isn't considered "black enough".

When you're making the argument that Obama isn't "American enough".

Barack Obama has lived his ENTIRE LIFE - expect 4 years between age 6 to 10 - in America.

So what if the Pastor at his church said racist stuff against white people?

That doesn't make Obama racist by association.

If that does, EVERY WHITE PERSON IS RACIST because.. the KKK.

Also -
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Bush's financed the Nazis. National Socialists.

You support the Bushes, therefore you're clearly a racist AND a Nazi.

You see. I could make the same weak arguments as you Lantern.

Stop being a weak politically-correct coward and just admit you're a racist jingoist Nazi-sympathizer.

I've never watched this guy before, but I really wanted to march in and nail him down to one side of the table or the other, sit still damn you! Otherwise interesting video, I never really thought life expectancy stats that way before.

Here, take as long as you want. All the info and sources are exactly where he says they are, in the YouTube description. I've copied them here for you. If he hadn't provided all of these I might be inclined to agree with you. But he did provide the evidence, so you don't just have to believe the buzz words, you can actually check it out for yourself.

SOURCES

On average, black men's prison sentences are 20% longer than white men's for comparable crimes: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142...

Black people and white people use illegal drugs at similar rates, but black people are far more likely to be arrested for drug use: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/w...

African Americans are far more likely to be stopped and searched (although the contraband hit rate is higher among white people) in California: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/...

And in New York (where the data isn't quite as good but appears to be comparable to CA): http://www.nyclu.org/content/nypd-qua...

Those wrongfully convicted and later exonerated by DNA are disproportionately African American: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Conte...

Black kids are far more likely to be tried as adults and more likely to receive life sentences: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/...

Black former convicts get fewer employer callbacks than white former convicts: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/...

Emily and Brendan are more hirable than Lakisha and Jamal: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/...

On that front, this study is also interesting: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/9... and similar results have been found in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2009... and also in Australia: http://ftp.iza.org/dp4947.pdf

Also, this news story has some great analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/bus...

High schools with mostly African American and Latino students are less likely to offer courses in Algebra II or Chemistry than high schools with mostly white students: https://www.documentcloud.org/documen...

This article explores many of the other ways that increasingly segregated schools have negatively affected African American students: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/sun...

And this story discusses the fact that African American students are more than twice as likely to be suspended as white students--even in preschool. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2...

The ACP report on racial disparities in U.S. health care: http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/cur...
This (dated) study is also damning: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36... and there's lot of good info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and...

More info on increasing disparities in life expectancy between black and white people in the US: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...

The most recent polls show fewer white people thinking racism is not a problem than the ones I used in this video (although still a huge divide): http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politic... and http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic... and http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/12...

Racial wealth disparity and the role that inheritance plays: http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/...
Related wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_i...

The widening of the wealth gap: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/...

Nonvideo recommendations: I really like Roxane Gay's work in Slate and The Butter; this story in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/bus... Chris Rock's recent interview at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news..., and Ashley Ford's commentary and analysis: https://twitter.com/ismashfizzle. Also Kiese Laymon's wriitng is great, including http://gawker.com/my-vassar-college-faculty-id-makes-everything-ok-1664133077

Definitely one of those moments where he probably questioned his projected life expectancy. That was frightening. Glad he got out.

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

"it just sounds like a return to feudalism."

How so specifically? An agrarian culture based on farmland ownership?

It sounds to me that your imagination is getting the best of you. Creative, but not at all what I am describing. Somalia is a failed state, and a socialist failed state at that. However, as you know, things from medical services to life expectancy to infrastructure to child mortality to crime all dropped in the 20 years in which Somalia had no functioning government. Things got better not worse. Why do you think that is?

Saying a free market would be like Somalia is like saying that a government-regulated market would be like North Korea. There are other issues to consider.

Libertarianism does not posit that a free market automatically means a perfect or even a great society. But it does posit that a free market system will ease poverty, increase wealth, and ensure peace at a faster pace than a statist one. At whatever level a culture/society starts at, they will improve and be better off in a free market rather than under state rule. Somalia started off in a mess, caused by its failed state circumstances. You cannot seriously expect to go from one day to the next, eliminate the state, and expect that overnight all that damage will sort itself out just because now -- a day later -- there's no state. You have to rebuild and accumulate wealth over time. And Somalia did remarkably well considering the mess it started from.

A society like the US, which is much better off (for the time-being!), would improve even more, rather than deteriorate, with less or even no government. But of course, if a meteorite wipes out DC overnight, that does not mean overnight improvement. After all, the government has wiped out many private institutions that would need to be in place to take over from the government in providing the services they put out of business.

On the other hand, the road towards more state control (which you, strangely continue to support and defend) leads to more deterioration of the society/culture. The US is doing better because of all the capital it accumulated during the century in which it functioned under little government intervention with regards to its economic matters. That wealth has been badly squandered, and now Americans are living off what remains, slowly but surely bankrupting the country though more government interventions, currency inflations, needless war, bailouts, surveillance, ad infinitum.

But make no mistake: whatever wealth the US as a nation has came about though free exchange in commerce, and was not the result of government regulation. The more government interferes, the slower the growth, until now it has reached the point where there is no growth, only debt. (The Treasury should be renamed the Department of Debt, because it has no money, only debt -- just like a majority of Americans.)

In sum: Somalis are improving. Americans are not. Whoever you are, I assure you, you started off in a much better place than the average Somali did. But look at their rate of change!


EDIT: Somalia also did not have a "free market" when it came to warlord gangs. Unless people had a choice as to which warlord to hire for protection or not, then that is not a free market when it comes to protection services. If allegiance to a particular warlord was voluntary, then you could more honestly make the claim that they had a "free market." Still, the situation is improving. And I think it would have improved faster had there not been the (UN-fueled) expectation of a future centralized government, had the UN not been financing groups towards this end, and had they not been incentivizing gangs to fight each other for position in a future "government."

There is nothing "free market" about forced conscription. I don't know why you would even say that.

It's not revelational, it's powerful.

That said, I think I'm too much of a realist and still believe leaders like her require people protecting them with the force required to stop people like the Taliban. Benazir Bhutto was in many ways a grown version of many of Malala's own ideals, and she is now dead at the hands of the same militant fanatics that tried to kill Malala. Female politicians in Pakistan have a regrettably short life expectancy, much like any male politicians who support them or anything remotely secular. For example the two politicians assassinated in the last year and a bit for asking to lift the death penalty for the crime of blasphemy.

Pakistan is in the middle of a very bloody war between the people like Malala and the people who tried to kill her. The trouble is the side we relate with is being decimated by assassinations which are either killing the moderates outright, or forcing them from the country to safety but more limited impact within Pakistan. Bhutto was similarly in exile for a long while for the same concerns, which proved out to be all to well founded.

pretty average for developed countries-
201 cases of cancer (all types) per 100K peeps in Japan compared to 300 per 100K persons in the U.S. (2008 figures)
life expectancy is 5 years higher as well....

Yet poverty and literacy rates continue to improve globally.

Infant mortality, life expectancy, access to clean water and food. All improve. Perfect? No.

But those are just facts.

There are no magic wands to fix the problems around us. It takes time and concerted effort.

"Make the United States safer". Oh, ffs. Anyone else immediately think of Ben Franklin when you hear this bullshit line? I'll trade a 9/11 and a Boston bombing every decade for the governement staying the hell out of my phone and my computer. (Omg, am I starting to sound like goptea'er?). This crap that Obama spewed the other night, roughly "you can't have both 100% security and 100% privacy", is the ol' statue-of-liberty play. He's implying that these programs provide 100% security. You can dismiss everything he says after that because his premise is FALSE. You can dismiss everything he said before that as well, but that's another rant.

And Mika, you can't demand a "yes or no" answer when you just don't want to hear the explanation. There is a very good reason why you weren't paid as much as Joe, and you should thank your lucky stars they still let you read the intros. And stop with the huffing and tsk'ing and eyerolls. You're starting to look and sound llike one of those shrill FOX "analysts".

Willie, what a dumb question. Of course there is a difference between state secrets that do not inpinge on our freedoms and rights of privacy and those that do, you knob. Some would even say the ultimate purpose of maintaining state secrets is to assist in protecting the very American freedoms and rights that are being grossly abused by these programs. The difference between Manning and Snowden is that Manning exposed warcrimes and other abuses being committed on brown people, and Snowden exposed an invasive, Orwellian-level spying and data-mining infrastructure being used on Americans by our own government. So yeah, a little different. So what? Both heroes. And it infuriates me when our government goes after them and tries to paint them as treasonists. They have committed no crimes against America because the government is not America. It's straight-up self-preservation, and has nothing to do with protecting the citizens of this country and the tenets on which this country was founded. What Manning and Snowden did, however, does.

There was once a time when democracies around the world, whether imminent, new, or struggling, could look to the US for inspiration. Now, we could learn much today from a country like Turkey. They get it. It took a few whacks with police batons, and lots and lots of tear-gas, but they get it now. They get beat down, and get smarter and angrier. We just get dumber and dumber no matter what this government says or does.

“The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other in opposite directions.”
― George Carlin

“Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!”
― Bill Hicks

i wonder what is their life expectancy, with all that shit they breath

>> ^BansheeX:

And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.



So you're saying that the glorious late-robber-barons era during which there was abject poverty for the masses, including things like child labor, and people had a life expectancy of ~35 years, as "much wealthier" than the golden era of the 50s and 60s?

>> ^bmacs27:

@scannex Dude... are you really citing a marketing campaign for weight loss pushers? I bet you I could find data that shows the effectiveness of penis enhancement pills too. If you took a few you might find you like 'em thick ;-). Try some primary literature, and I'll respond in kind.

Try to refute this claim: "Overweight or mildly obese individuals with otherwise normal bio-markers show no decrease in life expectancy from normal."

If you can't, then tell me why it is okay to berate someone about their weight knowing nothing about their health overall?


I don't what source your quote came from.
But I will happily refute it.
Here you go, from the NIH
A referenced article from Oxford
Another study
Heres the wiki for Leptin so you can understand why the release of leptin (from having too much fat) creates a vicious cycle causing you to eat more and more.
Another article on the increased risk for diabetes in the obese from you know... the journal NATURE

This is not a "jury is out" scenario. Directly and indirectly obesity causes a myriad of health complications and increased risk for debilitating and deadly diseases.

You are fighting against countless areas of research with one obscure data point from what is probably a single study that I have no source for. Even with the source its an incredibly uphill battle for you.

Being Obese is unhealthy, and except for in an EXTREME minority of genetic cases, completely modifiable.