For people who have not had their hands dirty every year in a garden plot or larger operation for sustenance or other, you'd be hard-pressed to have much "imminent" fear of the future of food crops. One of the main reasons I seek to expatriate from the the U.S. has to do with availability of fresh, healthy, unadulterated foods that are not cost-prohibitive. The corporate food-barons of the planet are fucking you, and fucking you harder than you realize. They are plugging in dangerous data to your meat, and the meat of your offspring. It's an insidious form of slavery and eugenics with a human cost never before seen in earth's history one could imagine. Maybe, in some unrecorded pre-history we fucked the planet out of healthy food before but, I seriously doubt this....

Availability of the basics to life as a mammalian birthright is now being adjusted through engineering by douchebags, and we are all complicit.
Volcanic isles provide the best natural defense against humanity's inhumanity to man meaning, there is nothing that grows in that soil that is not good for you, or near a volcanic island that doesn't swim free-Factor-in chaotic-to-amazing weather, right-livelihood, and the absence of Americans, and you have my retirement plan.

The pups do not belong to me. They are the offspring of my sister's poodle. They will be going to new homes this week.

The mother of these three as a puppy herself- previously sifted:

http://videosift.com/video/Dotdude-You-mean-UNCLE-Dotdude

http://videosift.com/video/Whining-Puppy

That square-state thing always bothered me, too-Idaho has a sexy shape, Kentuckys' totally bad-ass!

Fewer states through fusion-What would work well would be about 10-20 states broken up into chunks of punks, skunks, drunks, chumps, etc. A prison state, pick a shitty one where hardly anyone lives and make it for prisoners and those employed by the private concerns for profit (slave-labor).

One state for all the hippies.
One state for all the insects (experts at whatever it is they do)
something along these lines....let's try a NEW experiment-

Any change should start with a year of trials and executions for all the cunts who have flagrantly usurped the golden rule-(sorry atheists, adepts of Crowley, pagans.....even YOU folks live by "do unto" )-These other types of hu-man can't help it, they're broken and retarded and need not breed or teach their kind their ways....I'm talking about the 1%-They and their offspring are now OUR slaves!

But seriously, the criminals who control the planet need their dirt showcased on the telly, then and only then I might decide to watch TV.....

To be fair though, I wouldn't want to see what we looked like during Offspring gigs back in the day. Lots of headbanging, lots of moshing, lots of dafuq-is-he-doing...

Friend of mine went completely apeshit whenever they played Bad Habit -- it was not a pretty sight.

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.

Sounds fine except for ":new forms of Nuclear research-Nuclear energy should be completely mothballed or the planet should get to cracking on maybe a plan to dump the shit into that hole they're digging in Finland.

It's 2013 and we're still burning shitty fuels and are connected to the grid by ABOVE-GROUND WIRES (the latter being one of the most retarded aspects of modern life), and the worst, we're still letting assholes teach new generations of consumers how to kill their free-will and creativity through mass communications.

First thing first, drag these people keeping the world to themselves and hold public crucifixions for themselves and their heirs and offspring.

Worked a catering gig at the senior Bush's "presidential" libarry at A&M, it's a big building without books, dedicated to the cult of personality of his legacy. Also met colonel in the Kuwaiti military-She looked like Diana Verona in the remake of "The Jackal."

They needed to give the younger Bush for his Presidential tenure and legacy, a library CARD!

The Bushes' (includes all living or dead by blood and all their offspring for eternity, Amen) were perhaps the most glaring example prior to Obama of so-called leaders fucking the world in the ass without chagrin and that also without lube or permission.

So...why does it scrape upon removal, requiring a second mating session to produce offspring?

Honestly, it's not that all news is bullshit, it's that most (all?) news outlets commit the same fallacious and detrimental information practices as always will happen in any system when experience is posited as "truth".

In the business world we are almost always working to change our perspective on how data flows and how best to store and distribute info; setting our educational bias aside when need be. One particular failed practice that does NOT get enough high level analyzing due to the nature of the bias in which the problem itself creates: Information siloing.

In this case, we have the American people silo'd (and if we don't have them silo'd, we actively seek to silo these "undecided" minds) as either liberal D or conservative R. Once you're silo'd, you now have the ability to be fed limited information, based upon limited experience, as the Truth. This is called a hook. A hook is exactly what you think it means and is not bad of itself, because hooks exist in all systems for better or for worse. Otherwise birds of a feather would not flock together. (They flock together because of hooks in their code and the world aka science around them which helps facilitate that hook.)

Now that the hook is in, we have separate news organizations that cater to the data bias you signed up for. You're a human with a blank slate, so don't you dare argue that your opinion is anything but inconsistent, even after education; because you assume that the patterns of existence taught as theoretical and scientifically posited "truth" scale in a reality based upon butterfly flaps of causation. Just accept it: You are fallible and the defects are inherent at every step of our civilization. (Algorithms of usefulness to engineers are only useful if they lessen the load on the user, otherwise we'd all be typing 1s and 0s; so the logic of simplicity suggests our systems are fucked and holding to them is an anarchy unto itself, where ultimate complexity becomes entropy -- LESSEN THE COMPLEXITY. That should be a rule for all government and economy.)

Liberals claim they cater to all sides and conservatives complain that if it wasn't for Fox, there would be no objectivity in the news. This further complicates the matter, but is itself a red herring because it's an argument that essentially says "YOU MUST GET YOUR NEWS FROM A MAJOR NETWORK." If you actually believe that these media giants are the end all be all to gaining information from the "truest" perspective possible, you are a dummy and you need to WAKE UP.

If you never made a thought pattern along these lines, you also need to wake up but I'm not mad at you. Information that deviates from a human's factory defaults (early family and life experiences in the form of fear induced bias) is difficult to objectively analyze. I fault you not, but your call to awaken is noted and will be remembered at the end of all (if you believe in any sort of karmic ending, Christians included). If you don't believe this, then your inability to rule the boundaries of your mind in the present is damning enough. Fuck you. And fuck your offspring. Subjective fear consume thee as your desperate and once nurturing stride for survival is abstracted into selfish, power seeking nihilism.

Information siloing creates tribal knowledge (which is information held by a select group, and then touted as negative patterns like nationalism and corporate thuggery), and tribal knowledge creates boundaries based upon a skewed perception of what the truth is; which in turn, creates subjective and often intangible competition within a system that should be making strides to improve its process via iteration.

MUD SLING AWAY. Or join me in narrowing the argument to its lowest common denominators and then objectively analyzing the system, starting at a generic starting point and building up to a truer understanding.

Hate to break this to you but @shatterdrose seems to have read his Marx while you seem to have watched too much FOX.

A 'Government' WILL ALWAYS EXIST in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY and WILL CONSIST OF THE POWERFUL (in modern parlance read: WEALTHY). This is true of towns in deep Africa, or nations, or in the future- planets of billions.

The idea that government is, of itself, fundamentally corrupt, or has any other predefining characteristic is a point of PHILOSOPHY and NOT THE ONE YOU ARE PUSHING.

The government is REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNED NEGOTIATING WITH THE POWERFUL.

The elimination of private property is an extreme reaction predicted by Marx and others AS A RESPONSE TO THE EVER INCREASING SHARE GOING TO THE OFFSPRING OF THE WEALTHY.

In theory, chinless entitled inheritees push the situation so much the people turn to violence to reset the system. As a comic side note, this has happened regularly and bloodily in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY WE HAVE A RECORD OF including the relatively comfortable European countries shortly before they gave birth to the US. (In fact the Puritans on the Mayflower executed the English King for corruption and briefly ruled but upon taking power banned parties, christmas presents, janet jacksons nipples etc and were rapidly kicked out with the monarchy reinstated..)

The modern social philosophers were contemplating how to avoid repeating history over and over. And by modern I mean the 195 year old man whose ideas you are publicly struggling with.

The size of government is IRRELEVANT. Its success or failure in negotiating on your behalf with THE POWERFUL WHO OWN YOU is all you should be concerned with.

Either you are a smart young Rockerfeller-Rothschild type playing clever PR, or the sort of loudmouth whose narcissism and stupidity has sold his family into neo-feudal servitude. Either way you should really shut up.

yea but the forces acting on evolution currently skew to favor what some would see to be less fitness ... evolution doesnt favor the smart, or the best, just the most fit.

It seems this life and world are most fit for people who dont really care.... and survive through no effort of their own... i mean he could have really fucked up a major artery but no... and i bet he will fuck someone without protection and etc... we've all seen Idiocracy... that is pretty accurate tbh.. he will live long and so will his offspring...

Too stupid to live, and yet still able to breed. It might take a generation or two, but the Darwin Awards will catch up with his offspring (or him, if we're lucky).

Natural selection is fact, not theory.

I think as a former Creationist (old earth creationist, the idiocy of young earth creationist stunned me, for the Earth to be 6,000-10,000 years old would require God purposely setup evidence to prove it wasn't that old, which some dismiss as "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise") I can speak to the problem here is that Christian and right wing media reinforce certain key thoughts that keep a Christian from understanding or accepting even the basics of the theory. You can get them to understand evolution is why you need a new flu shot each year, or why pesticides stop working after a time, but they think that is a different type of evolution. The image painted in the mind of a creationist is that one day in the African plains an ape or monkey was having a baby, and rather than be an ape or monkey it was a human... and that somewhere nearby another ape/monkey had to have another human for them to mate and continue offspring... there is no understanding of the scale and time involved to get from A to Z... they think that the A to Z is the same as A to B and ignore B to Y in the evolutionary timeline. They also misuse the word evolution to apply to the big bang and abiogenesis ("see they use the biblical word Genesis too") as that is what is reinforced again and again. They are reinforced to misunderstand the word "theory" to think it is just a random guess... and make no mistake, the fact that the word theory doesn't mean a guess/idea and that evolution doesn't go from A to Z without going through B-Y first has been made clear to those who teach creationism, but they don't care, there is money to be made in deluding the church goers into holding onto the old ignorance, rather than embrace the truth... of course then you run the risk of some of them learning the truth and then going "I wonder what the hell else they lied to me about..." but most never will open their minds to the concept that even if God is real, perhaps the creation account and great flood are not literal events, but parables intended to teach a lesson...

It's quite difficult to get your head around the scales involved with evolution. Billions of years and many trillions of individual organisms all mutating in positive and negative ways, producing weaker and stronger offspring.

It's only absurd if you can't envision those scales, which admittedly is quite a mind bender at times.

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- 20 seconds in and my mind is already blown... Only 93% of all human beings ever are currently dead? Think about how many generations of homo sapiens there have been, and consider that at any one time an individual is pretty lucky if they themself + generations of offspring currently living + generations of ancestors currently living is greater than or equal to 4.

Considering all that plus the 93% figure from this video, I have come to the conclusion that the only explanation is that we've gotten into the real business end of an exponential population growth curve and are currently massively, desperately overpopulated.