@bcglorf
this video is from larken rose,a seriously devout libertarian.
he views statism as a form a religion,and that if a state is given too much power it will always lead to a form of tyranny.

i didn't post this as some kind of statement,or that the content reflects my own philosophy or ideals,but i try to understand all points of view to the best of my ability,even if i disagree.

so i am not making the case for when it is ok to shoot a cop,but i find larken's arguments compelling on a philosophical level.

because he does have a point in regards to america's hyper-militarized policing over the past decade.that is something that should concern us all.

anyways,for me it is just hearing a viewpoint from a different camp other than my own,and i thought his argument interesting.

I agree with all of that, and there definitely are reasonable limits to completely "free" speech -- like the fire in a crowded theater staple example.

"Harm" seems like a good place to start when defining those limits. It works in the "fire in a theater" base case really well; by making that out of bounds you avoid trample / stampede injuries.

But what about "trauma or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual", as you suggest? I'd agree that cases like that can exist. But to me, the question then becomes "how easily can you avoid those words?"

Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something you see/hear on TV? Very easily solved -- change the channel. Publish "trigger warnings" recommending like-minded individuals also avoid that channel/program/whatever if you like; people who do not agree can also easily avoid those.


Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something your professor said in a University? A bit harder to avoid. Someone in that situation can drop the class and try to take it with a different professor (which may not be possible), avoid taking the class entirely (although it may be a requirement for graduation), or contemplate moving to a different university (which is likely an uneconomical overreaction).

There are arguably better options available for such a person. I'd encourage them to reflect on the phrase "choose your battles wisely", and decide if this particular "harm" (giving all benefit of the doubt that it does actually exist) is worth escalating.


Offended / "harmed" by something your boss says at work? "Choose your battles" still applies, but perhaps also consider asking people who have had a job and who have had to work for a living for advice. When (trigger warning) 99.9% of them say something like "welcome to the real world", maybe -- just maybe -- it is time to look within and re-evaluate your own offense / "harm" threshold.

Yeah, at this point in his speech (after the thanks) last year, Obama was quoting scripture.
"And on this occasion, I always enjoy reflecting on a piece of scripture that’s been meaningful to me or otherwise sustained me throughout the year. And lately, I’ve been thinking and praying on a verse from Second Timothy: “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind."

Trump then goes on talking how he'll destroy the Johnson amendment, passed by a Republican congress and President, that limits the ability of non-profits from endorsing candidates, so that preachers can more freely endorse candidates... not that the law has stopped them yet anyhow, and the government never seems to enforce that rule.

Then Trump goes on about the typical Republican love of war... which of course in contrary to the teachings of Jesus, but the crowd loved it. Nothing makes modern right wing Christians happier than murdering and killing non-white, non-Christians, but they're "pro-life"... blah... anyhow, yeah.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

Is it that hard to agree with me?

Your just rewording exactly what I said. Your just rewording exactly what Bill Burr said. Trump didn't win by bringing out a whole bunch of brand new racist voters that stayed home when Obama was running. It was Hillary's failures, and her party's failures that were the difference in Trumps win.

I know that leads to a more uncomfortable reality were we don't have the black and white ability to blame everything on the evil racists who voted Trump in, but it is the reality. Clinton and her party LOST the votes of too many people, the numbers on the Republican side show pretty clearly it wasn't extra votes Trump gained by courting racists that turned the election.

That reality though demands a lot of self reflection from the Democratic party about how they failed and why, and they have to do it at the time when the country needs them as a counter balance the most. The trick is, if they don't get back the voters they lost they can't be a counter balance.

Here's part of the problem: people blaming Trumps win on racists voting for him, or choosing to believe that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. That's just not the reality that is confronting you guys in the US. Most voters in this election, like all the past elections, voted their party ticket as they and their grandpa always have. That's the one of the biggest influences on how folks vote. Surveys also show that given the choice between a ideals and jobs, people choose jobs. The democratic party was promising carbon taxation at the same time as Trump was promising to bring back coal and oil jobs. Now all the counties that rely on coal or oil have a very different reason to vote for Trump outside of his racist remarks.

Oh, and check out Bill Clinton's remarks on Robert Byrd. Does that association to the KKK make it hard for racists to choose between Trump and Clinton?

People don't trust politicians in general and assume them all to be evil, corrupt and untrustworthy so dismissing some of Trumps worse parts came a bit easier for many.

No, I don't deny that intelligence reports have been misused repeatedly by dems and reps historically, and horrifically.

No sir...the Bush administration edited multiple reports to lie about what the intelligence community had reported.

I know little about the lies about Vietnam, but would not be surprised to find the same MO by different parties. Please keep in mind that the appointed leaders of these organizations are often at odds with the politically diverse communities they oversee, and often rewrite official reports to reflect their bias...which I gather is what is being implied with this report without seeing the full classified version that allegedly contains the missing proof. It's a bit odd to make that conclusion, though, considering how firmly right wing the head of the FBI has proven himself to be, you would think he would not sign off if it weren't undeniable.

Well, the public report was compiled from 17 different agencies without dissent, and made clear that there is classified evidence to back up their assertions. That sure sounds like "multiple intelligence sources".

What does "actively hacked our election" mean? Only hacking voting machines and counting machines? It seems they tried, but failed or decided against it. If hacking the DNC and Clinton counts, it's not certain beyond doubt, but is certain beyond reasonable doubt with zero evidence to the contrary, imo.

Yes, but have we seen such public statements from so many agencies combined without dissent? Governments lie, intelligence reports lie, news lies, pundits lie, but usually not en masse with such consistency.

@radx and @enoch

radx said:
Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive.

enoch said:
i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

All of the outlets and authors listed above have been very thorough or exhaustive in documenting the evils of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). The length, depth and detail they have all given and time spent documenting any and every instance is almost breath taking. For a long time, I sort of sat closer to you both by looking at the merits of each instance and case weeding through which stories were accurate, which ones were complete, which ones were misleading or fair. Lots and lots of the coverage from those groups and individuals were very accurate.

Here's the counter balance though, how much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to any positive outcomes of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). How much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to the evils of any alternatives or opposing forces that would or did fill the voids were America isn't involved? It's crickets all around.

Chomsky's work alone could fill a library with the thorough documenting of America's evil corporate execution of class war on the workers of the world. How many books and documentaries can we count form the entire group that attempt anything similar for China, Russia, Middle Eastern nations, heck, the rest of the world combined?

I don't draw attention to this to point out that anything they have all observed is even wrong or incorrect. I draw attention to the glaring omission of similar documentation of alternatives. As it stands, a country like Russia couldn't dream of a better and more effective propaganda coup than the work of these groups and individuals. That doesn't in anyway say any of them are in allegiance with Russia, or even like anything about Russia. It still stands that even if Russia set out to discredit and smear America and leave itself looking clean, it couldn't pay people to do a better job of it. That's something worth considering and the deep, deep absence of balance and perspective that the listed sources represent is DAMAGING when taken in isolation.

Perhaps more pointedly, is the problem with Breitbart merely with it's fact checking department? They are, in as close as investigated them both, about on a Howard Zinn level for accuracy/honesty. None the less, it's the facts they willingly and knowingly leave out that makes them so damaging. The fact they fall right wing instead of left wing doesn't make their damage so much more appalling to me.

Screw them. The grammar and spelling mistakes may be the only indicator of the intelligence and education level of the person expressing the idea, which in some cases may be the only indicator of the ideas validity.
For instance, they would have ruined the best graffiti I've ever seen, on a building in Berkeley...."No More Boritons", which I thought adequately reflected the I.Q. of the artist/speaker. Changing it to read "no more abortions" would have ruined it, and changing it to "no, more abortions" both ruins it and reverses the message.
Just paint over them, guys, don't be grammar Nazi vandals.

@newtboy
can you show me where hedges promoted russian propaganda?
i ask this sincerely,because i have not seen any evidence of what you are accusing him of.

i get that we disagree,but hedges has earned my respect for his journalistic veracity.

you have earned my respect for being a decent human being,who i happen to agree with more often than not,but in this case i will not simply disregard hedges stellar work because you accuse him of being a propagandist.

i have read his books.
watched his lectures.
and sifted through his sources.

you have openly admitted you have done none of these things,yet..you have formed an opinion on his work by the venue he has chosen.you have even gone as far as to presume his intent on WHY he is on that venue.

now..you are free to speculate all you wish in regards to hedges motivations,and even be skeptical of his work due to him being on RT atm (he was also on Telesur,and al jazeera english).


i do not find this skepticism unwarranted nor unreasonable.i understand why you may feel this way.

but i am the captain of my own ship.
i do consider hedges respectable and worthy of consideration,because i have considered his words,read his books and watched his lectures.

i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

does this equate to everything that they postulate the unerring word of GOD?

of course not.
i can disagree with someone and still respect them for their views.

example:@bcglorf

i really do not see an issue here.
i also do not understand why i am being put in a position to defend why i may respect a reporter/journalist for the good works they have produced.

i am sure there are authors/journalists/academics that you admire and trust their work,because they have earned that trust by being consistent with their methodology.

so i do not see a rub at all.
i see you making conflations and comparisons based loosely on associations,and not tangible and concrete evidence.

if you have evidence,and i am simply being biased and residing in my own bubble.then by all means..pop that bubble...i am human after all,and just as prone to confirmation bias as the next person.

Powerful...who are you fooling?
You're caught in a complex cataclysm of your own inadequacies
And pitiful weaknesses
Your soul secretes insecurity
So you live on the reflection side of the mirror
You're terrified of true power

you fear me

I am constantly flummoxed by folks' lack of understanding as to the 'why' of the electoral college. Its meant to prevent what's called the 'tyranny of the majority'. Has to become so lop sided that it should be recalibrated? Certainly. Population count increases and decreases should be reflected in the number of electoral college votes, while preserving the initial intent; making sure smaller states have at least some influence and power.

That bit about the shrimp able to reflect a photon of light with rotating polarity is wrong I think. They were probably trying to say reflecting polarized light and also able to vary the angle of polarization. So for one photon, no matter how far away you are when you detect it, it will always have the same polarization. And the photon .1sec later will have a different angle.

Saw the movie last night, this scene is amazing and anything but 'hokey and cheap' I assure you. Mind your seeing this out of context as well.

**very minor spoiler**

One of the myriad dimensions displayed in the movie, the MIrror Dimension is a place that 'reflects' reality and cannot cause harm to our dimension. It is also highly susceptible to magical manipulation and is connected to the Dark Dimension which gives the villain here a very good amount of control over it. Thus he is able to warp New York city not in reality, but in this Mirror Dimension. This is why at the beginning of the video Mordo says 'this isn't a good idea, it's suicide' after Dr. Strange shifts everyone over to the Mirror Dimension to protect the normal world.

Over-all the movie is a trippy, highly unusual experience with CG unlike ever seen before. It is relatively formulaic in that many Marvel movies but because it goes places and does things never seen before you hardly notice. It's a fantastic experience.

I only listened to that last 3 minutes because of ^, and because i generaly can't stomach Bill.

I have a hard time buying into the idea that people can't tell them apart. You don't have to do much/any study to see that they are incredibly different. Just because you don't like either of them doesn't in any way say that you think they are equal. I hate them both for completely different reasons. And although i dislike them both I would rather one of them be president over the other. My vote however will not reflect who that is.