"[the] world is actually healthier, wealthier, better educated, more tolerant, less violent than it has ever been."

Not in places like Afghanistan, Libya, Jemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, downtown Chicago, Detroit or Cleveland. Not in Greece. And I'm not entirely sure it's a better place for the hundreds of millions of Chinese who left their rural areas to become work nomads. Also not sure about the all the millions of people in Africa whose livelihood gets crushed by subsidised produce/corn from the West. Not sure about all the Indian farmers who are driven into suicide by the monopoly powers of seed suppliers. Not sure about India as a whole, now suffering from the third year in a row of a belated monsoon and horrific drought.

"Democracy means you don't everything you want, when you want it, all the time" ... "and occasionally comprise, and stay principled, but recognise that it's a long march towards progress"

He talks the talk, but even for a center-right guy, he doesn't walk the walk. Principles went out the window in Gitmo. Principles went out the window when the drivers behind the illegal war of aggression in Iraq were not prosecuted in accordance with the Nuremberg Principles. Principles went out the window when carpet surveillance pissed all over the Constitution. Principles went out the window when US military forces aid Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria just because they oppose Assad. Even mentioning principles in the face of the gruesome, drone-driven terror campaigns in at least half a dozen countries makes me want to vomit.

And don't get me started on compromise. If you ban single-payer and drop the public option before negotiations begin, that's not compromise. That's theatre meant to mislead us plebs while you add an additional layer of "market" to an already dysfunctional market, which ends up profiting the insurance companies yet again.

Technically, a 'redneck' is any person who works outside and gets sunburnt on their neck...but it is clearly most often associated with rural farming southerners.
The American Cancer Society had a great campaign for a while in the south with a picture of a man from behind with a sunburnt neck and cowboy hat and a caption "rednecks can be hazardous to your health".

@eric3579 Thanks for the quality!

My mom is president of a district school board in Kansas, so the "education" parts of the cuts have hit really close to home for her (and by extension me, even though I'm not living there). Very very tight budgets. Most music programs got drastic cuts years ago, and are effectively gone now. AP programs for college credit? Gone. Good teachers for academic subjects? Usually bail for greener pastures very quickly.

...But, being rural Kansas, plenty of money gets spent on bus / coach / equipment / facilities for the football team. To be fair, a good chunk of that comes from booster clubs rather than gov't. Still shows where the priorities are.

As someone who works almost daily with refugees and IDPs, as well as the rural poor and generally impoverished, I would like to commend John for his accurate and powerful portrayal of the humanity of these Syrian refugees.

Often, for people in the West, it is hard to understand that these people have agency. They are not helpless victims, they are not mere pawns in someone else's war; they have rich, meaningful lives filled with the same hopes that we all have. And, yes, they are in much more direct contact with the fears that most of us can only imagine. They face harder, tougher situations and decisions than anyone ever should.

They don't need or want your pity. They will take your help, if you give it openly and honestly. But they will also struggle and fight in their own ways, without you or your aid; they will make their lives and the lives of their children as full of love and purpose as any other person.

However tenable their situation, their humanity will remain. You have only to respect that, admire it, stand in awe of it, to have your heart and consciousness expanded.

Reminds me of this afternoon ;-)

Living and working in rural southeast Asia for so long takes the shine off of all this a little bit. I'm now much more envious of well-maintained roads, having four seasons instead of three, and clean national parks.

Yes it is important the field you work in. You are going to spend something like 40% of your waking hours doing it. If you think doubleshifting manual labour under scorching sun and whips is somehow equivalent to 8 hours in an office environment where you answer phones or w/e, you've lost the thread.

You're right that not everyone can change jobs. You grossly exaggerate what is required to do so, however. Yes, changing between highly skilled careers that required a significant amount of specialized knowledge isn't available to all that many people. But you can't even see the miseries of slave labour from the desk of your first career, they're so far away.

You haven't thought too much about infrastructure and what it would mean to have it removed, have you? Of course infrastructure is a benefit to employers, but that's not relevant to how beneficial it is to the 'slaves'. I expect casual access to electricity, water, and world wide communication would have done a lot for slaves, to name just a few of the elements of infrastructure. I'm honestly starting to doubt your sincerity now.

Slaves had good healthcare? Holy shit. I never expected to hear something like that. I don't need to make a counter point here, as you've ridiculed yourself. American healthcare is shitty -- COMPARED with other developed countries. It is light years ahead of anything that has existed outside the jurisdiction of a government.

Yes, the influential have an advantage. Nobody is disputing that. It doesn't utterly negate your rights across the board. You can still travel. You can still educate yourself. You can still own property. You can still address many grievances by wielding your rights. This list goes on and on. ALL things a slave couldn't ever hope to do. I think the rest of your paragraph should have been moved to the protection from hostility section so I'll address it there.

I was addressing hostility from other slaves. You are probably right in that the tribalism it fosters can be very dangerous where countries clash. In a system without government, spats would result in undending blood feuds, all across the territory ruled by the anarchy, whereas under a state, if they happen across borders they can erupt into something far worse.

I don't agree with the way the US has handled the extremist muslim situation that they mid-wifed in the middle east. But are you going to tell me that you're less safe, now, even after all the alluded too transgressions, than some rural farmer in South Sudan, who is effectively living without any guaranteed rights?

I'm definitely for more compassion and socialism than seen in modern US policy, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to claim that policies on slave plantations were more generous towards the slaves than our current policies are towards us?

Let's just say that I'm loathe to accept an unsourced opinion than medieval peasantry lead better lives than the average government-laden citizen nowadays. I'm sure there are some points on which they did better. Superstition, sickness, famine, war, flooding. We honestly don't have anything that even compares to these in the modern world. If you could link it or something though, I'd love to read it. It sounds interesting.

These posts are getting too long.

Since you brought up unusual punishments, let's take stoning people for adultery (which exists in both the Koran and the Bible). When was the last time someone was stoned to death by a group in the U.S., U.K., Australia, or even Malaysia for adultery? Hundreds of millions of Muslims and Christians around the world seem perfectly fine ignoring that part of their holy texts. Just because something that we find distasteful today is written in the holy text doesn't automatically make the religion evil nor does it suddenly force the practioners to behave like savages.

You need to look at the specifics. Take a look at the countries where stoning actually does still occasionally happen and who actually carries it out: Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Invariably when it does occur it happens in rural areas where there are people who still actually live like it is the middle ages, with extreme poverty and little education to speak of (other than religious). Sure, the book gave them the idea but it wasn't the only factor in play and to ignore these other factors or the fact that honor killings are in fact common across a wide number of cultures with varying religious backgrounds (even the Romans did it) is what would be truly intellectually dishonest.

As for extremists--they exist in all religions including Christianity. It wasn't a mob of Muslims who attacked Charlie Hedbo--it was two deranged individuals. And while some Muslims might have applauded the attack others denounced it, such as the hunderds of thousands of Chechen protestors who who were upset with the cartoons but didn't think violence was the right response (see article here).

Again, it's a complex issue that can't be boiled down to "Islam = Good/Bad." Islam as practiced by ISIS or Boko Haram? Yeah, there's some dark shit going on there. Islam as practiced by average citizens in Kuala Lumpur or Boston? Not so much.

But again, moderate statements based on reason and facts are not what sell books, generate online clicks, or fill lecture halls to capacity.

Attacking the religious text is a strawman in my opinion.

There's all sorts of outrageous (by modern standards) stuff in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and other major religious texts. How could there not be? They were written hundreds to thousands of years ago at a time when reading and writing was limited to the wealthy or elite (i.e. priest classes). Much of that stuff is outright ignored or at the very least acknowledged by deemed less important by practitioners of those religions in modern societies.

All literature is open to interpretation and this includes religious texts. The fact that there are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity with differing opinions about what it means to be Christian and how to behave as one gives testament to this. While there aren't as many named denominations in Islam, if you actually look at how it is practiced locally in say urban Malaysia (i.e. no Bhurka for women) compared with rural Afghanistan (i.e. full body covering required) you can see there's huge diversity there as well.

So if you want to judge the religion, then you actually have to take the time to make an informed opinion by looking at who does what and why they do it. And when you do that, you tend to find that there's this complex inter-relationship between religious teachings, economics, politics, ethnicity, history and so on which make it difficult to assign full blame to any one "thing" such as religion. The female genital mutilation example I used above makes this pretty clear.

Sticking solely with criticising the religious text puts a critic on very unsure footing, as at the end of the day all the critic is really doing is criticizing a specific interpretation of the text (i.e. their own understanding). That's why, as I said, it's something of a strawman argument since you're really arguing against an interpretation you yourself have created.

It is much better, in my opinion, to look at how specific groups are interpreting and enacting the text, and then criticizing their actions (or the effects of their actions) in the event that there is a negative effect. But in doing so I think it quickly becomes apparent that those actions are almost always enacted locally as opposed to globally. In other words, they are the actions of a specific group of people in a specific place at a specific time who have been influenced by all the factors (history, economics, etc.) I mentioned above.

And when you reach that conclusion you realize you're not criticizing Islam anymore, you're criticizing one groups' interpretation and enactment of Islam in specific context.

On the other hand, if you ask which type of criticism gets you more views on TV or more headlines in newspapers...

This video is a bit misleading. Very few kids here in Japan travel completely alone to school unless they live in very rural areas (and even then, they probably go with older siblings). As you see later in the clip, most kids go to school together with friends in small groups, at a minimum a pair but sometimes in huge groups. In my neighborhood, at around 8:45 in the morning, you can see virtually the entire local elementary school walking together towards the public school. They might not be under direct adult supervision, but they are rarely alone and there is always an adult nearby because people are usually commuting to work on the same roads/trains that the kids are using to get to school.

And like they said, the reason this can happen is that violent crimes against children such as kidnapping are almost non-existent here. Adults are far more likely to end up missing/dead here. Contrast that with Western countries like the U.S. or Australia and it quickly becomes apparent why people are escorting or bussing their kids to school in those countries.

I will say that there is a negative side to the "independence" they are touting in this video, which is that these same children often run completely free after school with zero adult supervision. Some of them can get a little wild (throwing rocks at passing cars and stuff or making way too much noise in a crowded residential area) but the cultural attitude here is that it's just "kids being kids," although I sometimes suspect that's code for "we don't want to actually have to parent our kids unless someone forces us to."

Sweet Bastard Zombie Jesus!
This guy claims that global warming is happening because the core is hotter that it used to be, not because of anything people did or the atmosphere at all, then he goes on to contradict himself by saying this bit of cranial rectosis inspired insanity....

Climate Myth VS What the Science Says
"the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."

30 March 2012 (Source)
Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.

What a brain dead tool, followed only by others of his ilk.

I agree the story in your link is overkill, but I called the cops in a similar situation just last year. Two little girls walking down a busy (15-20 cars per minute) rural road, obviously nowhere near home, neither one over 4 or 5 years. Freaked me right out. I wasn't in it to embarrass anyone like the bitch portrayed in your link, but sincerely worried about the kids. When making assumptions in children's welfare, you're never truly wrong dropping to the lowest denominator.

I am between (closer to no). Ever since I moved last year, I can't get all the local broadcast channels OTA with all types of antenna. My rural nest is blocked by trees, small mountains, giant hills, etc. Basically, it is on the wrong side to get transmitters' feeds compared to my previous nest. So, my family had to get cable.

As for online Netflix, it doesn't have everything like the new episodes, sports, etc. and I don't watch many (movie/film)s (prefer on demand payments to rent). Hulu bugs me with their repeating commercial breaks (even as Plus members!). I hate ad(vertisement)s hence why I block, skip (record!), etc. ~22 minutes out of 30 minute episodes and ~42 minutes out of an hour episodes! That's a lot. Also as a chair (no couch) potato, I watch a lot of stuff including Internet's like on VS (VS is my tube too) and am in control!

Region blockages suck, but we have Internet. There are ways around them if you know how.

That actually isn't a half bad idea! Unfortunately (or fortunately, actually) this is a very rural area. Not sure the wild life park does all that much business to start with.

But in a stronger tourist destination spot? You'd make a mint!

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

I never noticed those after about 35 years! My rural area wants to be drilled for oil.