Oops this turned into a semi rant. But I am legitimately open to discussion here, and am curious to get your thoughts on a few points Bob. That is, IF you're willing to actually think about them beyond the level of repeating talking points.

I find it interesting how divergent the two overall "sides" are in this country, in terms of where they focus. None of the issues brought up in this video are really on the radar of most progressives, beyond being aware some on the right are talking about them. And I'm guessing a lot of the concerns progressives discuss rarely come up in your chosen media landscape. A lot of the issues in the video are largely off of my radar, and I have to wonder how you feel they should be addressed - like, actual proposed solutions rather than just complaining about / worrying about them.

We only dedicate one day to remember our fallen soldiers

How many should there be? Arguably we have more than one already: there's Memorial Day and Veterans Day, and it seems that Sept 11th is often used for the purpose as well.

I'd argue we should spend more time acknowledging and understanding the principals behind WHY our soldiers died in the various conflicts which caused them to fall in the first place. Let's make sure our citizenry appreciates what we collectively rejected in the Revolutionary war. Why it was important that we kept the country together rather than allowing the south to split off in the mid-1800s. Why we chose to honor our diplomatic agreements and support our allies in WW1. Why we fought against the countries and governments we did in WW2. What our goals were in Korea and Vietnam, and what lessons we learned from those conflicts and from the Cold War in general. Commemorating and remembering those we've lost absolutely matters, but if we're ONLY doing that while forgetting why they fought OR ignoring what we learned then we're doing them an equal or greater disservice. Remember that America was built on the idea of forming "a more perfect union" - not a perfect one, a MORE perfect one - a work in progress. We're striving towards an ideal, not assuming we're already there. Learning from our past successes, failures, and our struggles around both outcomes is vital. If our self-analysis is no deeper than hero worship we'll never make real progress towards that theoretical perfect union.

The only mask that's gonna save us is duct tape on their mouths

Yeah, sound medical advice and evidence-based science is terrifying. Better to shut up those whose words we dislike, because we're reactionary authoritarian babymen. I truly do not understand being more afraid of reasonable safety measures than of a virus which has been shown to cause serious harm in the short and long terms. The only reason this "masks = liberal / maskless = conservative" crap came about is because politics has devolved to the level of team sports in the US, and one party has chosen "the opposite of whatever our political opponents say" as their entire governing philosophy. (And yes, ONE party - research and understand the GOP's 2020 platform if you want to argue the point.) This video even seems to reach a reasonable conclusion at the end, while coming up just short of that final logical leap to "maybe I should question what the public faces of MY side have been claiming in this Us vs Them madness." Seriously - keep going friend, you're almost there! George Washington was 100% right in wanting to avoid political parties being a force in the US, and it makes me immensely sad that his fears came true.

Big oil runs the world / the only wars to get fought are with the countries who have natural resources they want

Solid point here, no sarcasm. The US military has long been a tool of our profit-driven form of "free market" imperialism. A really great way to combat this, specifically with an eye to ending Big Oil's goddamn death grip on our foreign policy goals, would be an aggressive implementation of renewable energy projects. Remember the space race? America can be an absolute beast at clever engineering solutions when we dedicate ourselves to it. Fuck the petrostates, we have the available land and resources to absolutely kick ass in the realms of solar and wind power, and be leaders in the the post-hydrocarbon reality. We can certainly agree on that, right Bob? Left / Right nonsense fully aside, I think any reasonable American can agree on at least two points: let's stop sending heaps of cash to buy oil off of the Saudis (etc), and Fuck Cancer.

But if a white man acts too white he's white trash / he's a racist he's a bigot he's a monster

What the fuck is this horseshit? What does "acting too white" even fucking look like? Watching NASCAR on a sailboat while listening to polka? Typically when I see racism from white people it's in the form of denying that brown-hued people deal with any additional difficulties in life due to their skin tone, or denying that there have been structural obstacles for them through history, or lamenting that their white children are being burdened with a broader lens on culture or with (gasp! shock!) an accurate accounting of actual US history, including the ugly bits that we shouldn't be proud of (but MUST learn from). I'm progressive / lefty as fuck and there is no aspect of "white culture" or "acting white" which upsets me in the slightest. UNLESS one counts "denying racism exists / has ever existed" as a fundamental value of being white. Which... why would anyone want to claim that nonsense? If you want to listen to classic country music in a rusty pickup truck while driving to an evangelical church, then discuss hockey over Buds after 18 holes with the rest of your tractor pull team, then absolutely go nuts my fellow caucusoid! Just recognize and understand that your life experiences may not be the same as those of others. Further, if we care about trying to avoid unnecessary, avoidable unfairness in life (recognizing that life will never truly be fair, for anyone), then it might be reasonable for some governmental / legal / structural recognition in furtherance of that notion. There is absolutely room for legitimate policy disagreement here without being accused of racism. It's denial of others' reality which tends to garner the label of racist (sexist etc) - steer clear of denying the lived experiences of other people, allow for the possibility they may have encountered difficulties you haven't / won't, and we've room for further discussion.

Edit / final point: I voted the video back up to 0 from the -1 where I found it. Because while I disagree with a lot of the positions taken by the performer, they may have reached them through no fault of their own and with no true malice. Misinformation / disinformation is a devious shit of a motherfucker, and the rot it causes can run deep. It is painful to abandon deeply-held beliefs, on a fundamental level. If nothing else, the video gives us room to discuss some specific viewpoints held by people who think of themselves as good, but which can lead to harm.

Actually, that's not right, Interior does handle management of natural resources & public land, but the forest service specifically is handled by the Dept of Agriculture.

By Joel Clement July 19 at 4:10 PM

Joel Clement was director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the U.S. Interior Department until last week. He is now a senior adviser at the department’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue.

I am not a member of the deep state. I am not big government.

I am a scientist, a policy expert, a civil servant and a worried citizen. Reluctantly, as of today, I am also a whistleblower on an administration that chooses silence over science.

Nearly seven years ago, I came to work for the Interior Department, where, among other things, I’ve helped endangered communities in Alaska prepare for and adapt to a changing climate. But on June 15, I was one of about 50 senior department employees who received letters informing us of involuntary reassignments. Citing a need to “improve talent development, mission delivery and collaboration,” the letter informed me that I was reassigned to an unrelated job in the accounting office that collects royalty checks from fossil fuel companies.

@newtboy
i like the 'failing liver" analogy.
appropriate and easily understood.

and i can understand where milkmandan is coming from,but my perspective is more aligned with yours newt.

what consistently baffles me,is how so many people are willing to simply accept this short term strategy from our politicians.

there is no surprise when corporations push for this,they are just focusing on their own interests and bottom line,which is short term profit.

or the politicians who bow to their neoliberal masters to receive those tasty campaign contributions.

or even the banks,who again focus on their short term gains.

these players are all behaving as they always have:for their own self interest.so there should be no shock or surprise when they act exactly as they have always acted.

but when i see everyday,normal people defend the behavior and actions of oliticians,financial institutions and multi-national corporations.it baffles me as to why they would choose to do such a thing.

we can understand why those players seek to retain a system which benefits them,their shareholders and their bottom line,but that system no longer serves the interests of the people,community and society as a whole.

so why make arguments defending it?

it is,quite frankly,killing us slowly as a species.

look at germany.
that country has slowly been recruiting,educating and now poised to corner the market in:new energy,renewable energy and are leading the world in breakthrough technologies in all energy fields.

germany has long played the long game.
they now dominate the entire EU in finance,and are now focusing on dominating the globe with new energy technology.

and what are we doing here in america?
pushing through more and more neoliberal policies that immiserate the working poor,both here and abroad.desperately continuing our destruction of entire ecosystems to exploit our natural resources for:oil and gas.military conflicts,which only make this country less safe,all to exploit other nations and extract THEIR oil and gas,and the cost in human lives is absolutely indefensible.

all of it.
every single bit of it for short term gains for an extremely small minority.

and here we are,with trump opening the flood gates to further exploit and destroy our natural resources with no thought or plan for the future.no investment in our communities,nor our society as a whole.

and for those who wish to make an argument that hillary would be better.i will only concede that on a domestic level this may have been true,but hillary is a neoliberal corporatist,and she would have pushed for even MORE military intervention in the middle east.MORE sanctions against countries unwilling to play ball,in order to politically squeeze them out,and even MORE of this countries policy of "regime change" to exploit and extract from those countries their precious resources.

i strongly suspect Iran would have been next on her agenda.

so when are some of these people going to step up,and realize that both trump AND clinton are (or would have been) disasterous for us as a community,a nation and as a species?

because they both only offer short term solutions to long term problems.and those short term solutions only benefit a minority of the population.

we could turn this ship around TODAY,right now,if we so choose.
we need more politicians like elizabeth warren and tulsi gabbard.we need more integrity in our media and journalists willing to do their job and criticize power,not bow to it just for access.we need the people to become engaged and confront their representatives,and make them uncomfortable,not treat them as celebrities.

and we need to reject the system where rich people choose who we get to vote for,and begin to dismantle this two party duopoly.

because trump vs hillary?
this election cycle has just revealed that both these candidates are not the disease,but rather the symptom of a very broken,and dysfunctional political system.

we need to begin to invest in the future.
and reject the status quo as no longer being viable for the continued existence of the human species.

and with the newly energized american public,who are growing in numbers daily,and is a direct response to the unmitigated disaster that is trump.there may be hope for us yet.

because if we stay on this trajectory,we are fucking doomed.

Last week when they, again, threatened us with nuclear missiles. Granted, there wasn't much about the conditions, but they were mentioned. I hear about them at least once a month, usually more, but I watch a lot of news.

I can't believe I'm arguing that average Americans are informed, even just a little bit. Did I wake up in bizarro world?

Edit: They don't have much oil or natural resources, and they do have nukes, you can be certain the west won't find the will to stop the atrocities, that's not how we roll.

I hate my country specifically because it intrudes on other peoples countries. Fuck countries. The American "way of life" is dependent on invading and taking natural resources from other countries. The US has alternatives to killing, but they dismiss them because it's inconvenient.

You can't claim that people are free to stick to their own country when your own country invades, kills and tries to control theirs.
That is why people fly planes into your buildings.

That's rather the point of the video, isn't it? BP are the ones who were all "¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ... sorry".

This event and others like it happened because someone thought it was worth the risk for money.

Actually a lot of people did; the company, whose major decision-makers will only be concerned if it affects the value of their beach properties, and even then may not notice.

The government, which for various reasons allows the exploitation of natural resources like this. Those reasons range from direct cash deposits in offshore accounts, to the general notions of what's "good for the economy" held by our corporate-entertained politicians.

Environmental risk management should be done with zero regard to the likelihood of said risk; assume it *will* happen and work from there.

But no, that's sandal-wearing, beard-and-vegetable-growing lib*/greenie/hippy talk.

Japan was supposed to buy us out too at one point, don't get your hopes up.

I am not saying that the US is a great place vs the rest of the world, I am just saying that you don't get the 'utopia' that people claim Norway to be without huge sacrifices by the people and also being a net exporter of natural resources.

Norway has one of the highest tax rates and one of the highest VAT rates in the world. They are net exporters of Oil, Natural Gas, and Seafood, almost all profits of which are nationalized by the government and rerouted into pension funds.

They are one of the highest cost of living places in the world and that is not factoring the taxes, but goods and services. If you take your family out to eat and spend 100 dollars, you are going to pay an additional 25 in just taxes.

The society is conditioned to believe in Jante's Law, so this suits them because everyone is 'equal'. However, with the immigration rates rising from poorer EU countries, there are cracks appearing in the laissez faire attitude. Protests and even a mass atttack have happened once people realized that they are now supporting people that are lower than them.

The point is, you can't simply point to the nordic socialist countries and say "Oh, what a wonderful place, if only everyone was so enlightened!" because it won't work without a specific set of circumstances. Most countries don't have those circumstances and must forge ahead in their own path. Additionally, almost no other country has the unique set of challenges that the US faces due to our position as the supposed world leader. Personally, I've long wished we would back off and let the rest of you all figure out stuff on your own. I think, however, that it wouldn't be long before one or more countries would come bitching to us to fix something.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

Wow, these people went a long way to see penguins...that's why we have zoos people!
I know there's international agreement that no nation will 'invade' and try to take control of Antarctica, but I often wonder why no private group has 'annexed' at least part of it and started a new country. There's plenty of 'free' land, and natural resources galore in both minerals and a large percentage of the worlds fresh water. There must be some reason I'm just not getting.

Even if that is what he meant, he's still just as wrong. It doesn't matter what he meant, he made up his 'data' and believes that because most Faux viewers will agree with him, his made up 'data' is therefore just as valid as actual data.
He claims to speak for 'academia', while he seems to have not taken a basic high school science class. He makes completely ridiculous statements, then falsely claims 'no one will disagree' as if that validates his insanity.
Jumping on the hate train and pushing the throttle to MAX. Idiots like this need ridiculing and lambasting, or apologists will confuse the issue and leave his insanely wrong statements as 'facts' in his constituents minds, massively contributing to the dumbing down of America and making actual discussion of facts impossible. Worse, he's on the committee for natural resources and the environment while exhibiting a complete lack of knowledge about either, and has a 'following' of constituents that will quote him, giving credence to his argument in their minds, then he'll quote them, further solidifying his position and pretending they 'corroborate' his insanity.

Hate-a-hate-a-hate-a-hate-a, hate-a-hate-a-hate-a-hate-a-, hate-a-hate-a-hate-a-hate-a-, HATE HATE!

@RedSky

20 billion was just an arbitrarily large number I chose to demonstrate that I think that the world would survive significant population growth beyond what we'll be dealing with in the near future.

The point of no return I was referring to is simply a point where we won't be able to get back to a place where we can sustain human population levels without significant environmental degradation and territorial disputes, among other challenges I'd prefer not to experience.

I do consider things like global warming, the fact that China is buying up land in Africa to feed its population, US foreign policy's competitive focus on securing cheap oil and the large scale destruction of rainforest to make way for single crop agriculture in Brasil to be symptoms of an imbalance in population vs. resources.

I'm not drawing the line at "everyone and stock up at the grocery store/pumps" type destruction before I take notice and preach caution. I think that defining that as a deadline would be irresponsible.

Again, I agree that we could theoretically mechanize the whole world in a way that grows the supply of resources and shares them equitably amongst an enormous human population, but that goes against the type of world I'd want to live in (excessive mechanization of natural resources) and the way human social systems typically work (equitable sharing).

There are various estimates on how much longer exponential human population growth will last, but it has certainly happened on a scale of centuries or decades - blips like baby boomers are just expected outliers within that trend.

But what's more important is that even if population levels peter off, it is consumption - which is the only statistic that really matters because it is the only negative effect of population increase - that will continue to increase exponentially as a greater proportion of the world's population begins to achieve first world living standards.

This is why free trade alone is not enough to solve problems. While it is likely to bring people out of poverty, raise education levels and increase human rights (all very good things), it will also continue to push our overall imprint on the planet in a more exponential direction than I'm comfortable with (one reason being the argument detailed in this video).

But of course I'm also uncomfortable with the prospect of any sort of forced population reduction mechanism, and I'm also uncomfortable with the notion of not raising people out of poverty.

So as I see it the only thing left to mitigate my fears is to place a primary emphasis on Education.

There's a million and one ways to do this: Everything from broad, effectual efforts like getting the Pope to get with the program and endorse contraceptives, to nearly insignificant efforts like arguing with people on the internet in hopes that you contribute some small part to a culture that places some significant emphasis on educating people about the importance of self control and restraint in every type of consumption - family size included.

People that give a fuck about the true direction of the planet who like to blabber-on ad-naseum about which news corp is their favorite and which one is full of morons, and if you like them well then you must be a moron, or (insert meaningless label here) are the most gullible, the most extremely out-of-touch with what's truly going on. They have let their minds become a sponge for distraction and illusion by the very machine that rapes the planet of human and natural resources for personal gain and consolidation of power.

The mind is a terrible thing to waste on feeding the very machine that enslaves us all.

As a simple example of just how secondary oil would be as a universal commodity you need only to look at who controls the access. If we'd gone the direction of the Bucky Fullers and Teslas that pop-into the grid in every epoch, and shared collectively in a similar mind and vision, people who pick winners and losers would be non-existent or self-aware, and the real criminals on the planet posing as so-called leaders would be raving in asylums or extinct by now.

Why won't the planet use nuclear energy correctly and righteously for example...SAFE power from the atomic components that make up the experiential world?? Because assholes and criminals run the show. Period.

Same with oil. Same with slavery through economic monopoly, same with the mind-control apparatus that force-feeds the gullible their world views based on their insidious, contrived models.

There are way better drugs out there than politics kids......Use your fucking brains?!

Oh. Well, it seems that it's the concept of ownership you don't like if I understand you. I have hippie cousins that talk that way (especially when they want something) until you ask them for money or something else they 'own', then suddenly the concept makes sense to them... momentarily. I dislike that hypocrisy far more that the concept of ownership...but that's just me.
EDIT: ...Also, I don't understand what you mean by 'laying claim to them'. If you eat it, you 'laid claim' to it, right? Japan isn't claiming they "own" all the dolphins, only the one's they catch to eat. I don't see this as different from ANY other wild caught food, do you? Can you explain?
Because something is used as a resource does not necessarily mean it's 'owned' by the user, for instance, air is a natural resource used by every person on earth (or off it), but it is not 'owned' by anyone. The same went for water until recently, it is now being claimed by those with the ability to claim it...sadly.

In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq received the vote required from the parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry, in a situation known as the Abadan Crisis. Despite British pressure, including an economic blockade, the nationalization continued.

August 19, 1953, a successful coup was headed by retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, organized by the United States (CIA) with the active support of the British (MI6) (known as Operation Ajax). The coup—with a black propaganda campaign designed to turn the population against Mossadegh—forced Mossadegh from office. Mossadegh was arrested and tried for treason. /wikipedia

Iran got trampled on and interfered with by foreign nations exploiting her natural resources--oil. I'd be pissed too.

By contrast, Iran knows what happened to her next door neighbour after Iraq changed the preferred currency for oil sales from USD to Euros late in 2000 (They switched back to dollars in 2003.)