He's also avoiding a lot of sh*t: high school, insane girls, being trapped in a low wage job, bad credit, crushing debt, rip-off student loans, insane women, soaring health care costs, a host of existential middle-aged anxieties and later, the ravages of age.

No surviving to witness the rise of the global police state and ID and tracking chip implants until the birth of Skynet and the Matrix.

Yawn. Yet another unoriginal video on the Sift blindly bashing religion and telling us nothing new. Sure to soar to the top 15. Oh well.

It would take very little effort to find material to make a video called, "The Atheist Delusion" which made fun of atheists rather than making fun of Christians. That's what I was hoping for here. Something fresh. Still waiting.

BREAKING NEWS:
STOCKS SOAR ON NEWS OF CLEAN-SHAVEN RICHARDSON

too bad you weren't this skeptical and cynical about Bush's administration and his policies before he trashed our government, economy, environment and general standing in the world.

As a proud conservative, I consider myself more cynical and skeptical than you about government's ability to solve anything. I am equally skeptical of human nature.

My Bush disappointments are many: spending like a liberal, open borders fiasco, NCLB, taking no action against rampant fraud in both Iraq and Katrina cleanups, pushing the bailout without debate and towards the end, failing to stand up for himself or his party. Bush lacked core principles, and look what all his pandering to lefties got him: unbridled contempt.

Nevertheless, Bush got a hysterically bad rap from the main-piss-stream media, which has acted like deplorable, infantile squawking seagulls these past 8 years, criticizing the man even as he spent money like a liberal and expanded government. I'd say the lowest point for the bottom feeders was blaming Bush for Katrina while ignoring the fact New Orleans was run by corrupt taxocrats (and still is!) all the years those levees should've been fixed.

I find it hard to take you serious, it's as if you haven't been paying attention to what's happened in the last 8 years

Look what the rest of us had to deal with from the blame-America-first left. Worst Congress ever, controlled by taxocrats. Soaring gas prices and they do nothing. Non-stop negativism about Iraq, even as the good news increased exponentially. 9-11 conspiracy theories taken seriously. Lefties seem to have awfully selective hearing and vision when that irrational-beyond-measure Old Tyme Bush hatred kicks in.

But all this is going away. Soon it will be your fellow at bat. Some people have to learn things the hard way, and that time is here for you, Obama's True Believers. Grab a chair. The Jimmy Carter Remix w/ guest starring 60s radicals is about to begin!

Why the Republicans must Lose

Radley Balko makes the libertarian case for Obama as the lesser of two evils. It's a must-read for any center-right libertarian-inclined voter:

The Republican Party has exiled its Goldwater-Reagan wing and given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it's given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending—even on items not related to war or national security—has soared. And we now get to watch as the party that's supposed to be "free market" nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector...

While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons. First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed.

They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on.

As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

If it is real then these guys are going to be really soar when they open it up. Retailers empty cash machines like that one each night, since the cash in it is actually the retailers cash.

"Some blame deregulation for the rolling blackouts, soaring spot market prices, and utility bankruptcies that sprang from the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001. But this anger is misplaced. California has never experienced true deregulation. The "deregulation" implemented in 1996 left price controls in place and created "artificial" markets ripe for manipulation and disparities between supply and demand.

By setting price caps below market prices, California limited the profitability of the industry. When wholesale energy costs increased, the price caps prevented energy producers from passing them on to consumers. Wholesale prices rose dramatically for a number of reasons: natural gas prices rose, hot weather in the Southwest increased demand, a relative lack of water in the Northwest minimized the production of hydroelectric energy, and pollution-control permits, which allow industrial companies that produce less pollution than allowed by regulations to sell the difference as "credits" to higher-pollution-producing companies, rose ten-fold, from $4 to $40.

The price caps additionally discouraged potential producers from entering the market and increasing competition, and they discouraged existing producers from investing profits in adding capacity, of which Californians were (and continue to be) in dire need. As a result of the price caps and pressure from politicians and environmentalists, the building of plants and transmission lines slowed dramatically and energy producers were not able to keep up with demand, particularly in the Silicon Valley, where the booming computer and "dot-com" industries led to even sharper increases in electricity demand."

Source: http://mises.org/story/1954

If that doesn't work, here are a few other ideas I could think of off the top of my head (not being a pro by any means):

-Meditate. Focusing on nothing or on something distant can drive out fear. Breath well.

-Get out your iPod and blast the music. Not hearing the engines might help.

-Or take two Dramamine and there's no chance you won't sleep. That stuff knocks you out better than horse tranquilizers.

-You doctor might be able to help with anti-anxiety medications. They're pretty safe when only used in rare situations and I'm told they work quite well, but honestly, Dramamine FTW.

-You can also look at statistics on flying if you think you can rationalize your fear away. Flying is safer than driving by a landslide, a HUGE landslide.

-Don't panic when things shake. Planes always shake. They are built for it. The wings shake to keep them safe. Don't panic when the pressure changes. Just yawn a couple times. That should balance things.

-Occasionally get up and take a walk. You can just walk to the bathroom and back if want, as to not look odd. Being on your feet can help make you feel grounded, pun intended.

-Bring a drink and a snack in your carry-on. Wait... scratch the drink, they won't allow it, just a snack of some sort. Some people are reminded they're flying by peanuts from a cart.

-Some people are also unconsciously disturbed by the smell of planes if they fear flying. Wearing some perfume or something like it might help. Smell is the sense that is most linked to memory. Wear a comforting scent or munch a comforting snack. I recommend chocolate.

-Some time, try to figure out why you fear flying. Did anyone ever tell you it's not safe? Is it just what you've heard in the news? Phobias ALL have an origin.


---===My best advice though? Two words. AUDIO BOOK.===---


Personally I LOVE flying. Seeing new perspectives of earth is a passion, so soaring above it is a delight to me. I've flown many times and I am comforted in knowing that my car is $17,000 and I've never been hurt in it, and here I am in a plane that costs MILLIONS, much spent on safety measures. I also have an irrational love of heights, odd.

Though I can't relate to fear of flying directly, I am a VERY vivid dreamer (often lucid) while I sleep. I've actually never spoken to anyone about it who can relate. Odd, I know, I'm sure there are many, but none that I've talked to. This means that nightmares are absolutely heart-stopping, so I know how to deal with irrational fear. I focus on reality. I focus on breathing and tasting the air, seeing the room, smelling the scents, and denying the fear. Actually vocalizing that the fear is irrational and chemical ONLY helps a great deal. I also confront the fear by treating it with disdain. For example, if a nightmare triggers a serious fear that makes me want to keep my eyes open and turn the lights on, I will close my eyes and force proof that it is a bogus fear. That tends to convince my mind that the fear is BS and I should stop being scared. Remember that it is CHEMICALS that cause fear in your brain. Prayer can help as well not only because I actually believe in God, but also because it focuses the mind on defeating the fear.

I do however understand real irrational terror, the PTSD kind. After a car-crash I was in (no one's fault, bad weather), I experienced it for the first and hopefully last time while riding with someone else. For that sort of fear, I have no tips. I was frozen despite my will and my heart felt like it had stopped. OK, I guess in hind sight that's not the only time. The other was 2 days before my comprehensive exam in grad school. God, that was shear panic defined.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gliders, sailplanes, soaring, fun' to 'gliders, gliding, sailplanes, soaring, fun, not hang gliders' - edited by calvados

Hi Wynder, thanks for the reply.

(This is even LONGER, sorry)

A few points:

1. What do those studies mean by "Gun Control (Laws)"? What constitutes the "toughest"/"most restrictive" gun control laws in the US? Does it mean "no private citizen may own a gun" or does it mean "you have to wait six days before you can buy military grade weaponry"?
Generally speaking, you and I mean different things by "restrictive gun control laws". Furthermore, I must doubt the effectiveness of gun control laws in one city/state if there are no or less restrictive laws in adjacent states without a customs border in between. If Washington, D.C. imposed a ban on selling firearms, people would just need to drive to Virginia to still be able to buy one and noone would be able to check them for guns on the way back. (Just an example, I don't know the gun laws in Virginia or the D. of C.)

2. If you say that studies (seem to) show that "Violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control", what do you say about all the countries with tougher gun control laws and lower violent crime rates? Is the US that much more violent than any other country in the world that you archieve about 3 times the murder rate of one of the most densly populated countries in the world (Japan, your own numbers) in one of the most sparsely populated industrialised countries of the world only because your open gun ownership actually DECREASES violent crime levels?

3. "Japan’s murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also."

Unless these suicides were commited with a gun and can be considered a "violent crime", I don't see the significance.


4. "Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen." Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%. This trend continues in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

It's intereseting how the text you quote there first tells us that "Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned." and then lists the increase in various areas of violent crimes without giving any indication about the use of firearms in these crimes.

The picture looks a little different if you take fireamrs use into account.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom)
"The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population, and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99. Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage."

Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?
Look at other countries with tougher gun-control laws. Look at Japan for crying out loud. About the toughest gun control laws around, and - Surprise! - one of the lowest murder rates in the world. (There are, of course, other sociological reasons besides gun control for that.)
Do you know why the London Metropolitan Police (the "Bobbys") only wear Truncheons (Night-Sticks, Clubs, whatever you call them) and no guns? Because the expect most criminals to be unarmed.

The U.S. government “found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes” and also concluded in one study that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control. Most gun control laws in the United States have been written since 1968, yet the murder rate rose during the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate dropped 2 percent.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation and ranks #1 in robberies and #4 in both violent crime and murder. The robbery rate is 70% more than the national average. These numbers are likely low because one of their more violent cities, Baltimore, failed to report their crime levels.

In Japan, the murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. Japan’s murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also.

Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen. Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%. This trend continues in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

All of the above facts are taken from http://www.gunfacts.info and each one of them is cited by an independent academic, scientific or government study.

God damn, those were some cool stuff. The most I was willing to try was spinning and stuff off of the swingset when I was a kid, flips scared me. But I miss that feeling of soaring through the air when you jump out at the top of the swing.

@BansheeX, I agree with your assessment about Kucinich. I think in a lot of ways he had a better platform, and more solid convictions. He wasn't the better candidate though, because he didn't have the soaring speaking style, or the moderate policies of Obama or Clinton. Being a "better candidate" is all about electability, not governance.

I disagree with the entire term "welfare state" when used about the United States government. Look at any other English speaking nation in the world, and tell me we have some sort of "welfare" state. It's just not born out by the facts or realistic comparison with any other industrialized nation. Even India has a stronger health care plan than the U.S. (in that they have one).

All that said, what I said in my original post is still true. Just because you haven't listened, haven't liked it, or wanted more change, doesn't mean Obama hasn't talked about specifics, and is somehow secretly status quo.

Well, if you play with a compound interest calculator, and plug in a best-case refund of $1800, for 5 years, with the average interest rate for a savings account (1%), you make about $90 over 5 years, assuming you leave it alone.

You're better off looking for some sort of long-term investment that'll give you a higher rate of return. If you really want to leave it in a hands-off account, the best thing to do would be a mutual fund, though the stock market will be rocky for the next couple of years, and it might go down before it goes up. Over 5 years though, it's still likely to grow a lot more than 1%.

The real thinking behind the thing though is that you'll go off on a shopping spree, and turn the economic picture around, the government will make its money back in taxes as jobs are magically created, and the stock market soars up.

Personally, I don't think the stimulus check will work. Even on that thread, people are talking about spending it on gas, and I think that's going to be true for most people. They're going to use it to temporarily offset the increase in the price of food and gas, or to help pay their mortgage, not go out and stimulate some slumping sector of the market.

I don't know what's going to happen, but a lot of economists are still screaming that the sky is falling, and calling a lot of the efforts by the Bush administration simple short-term fixes that will at best delay the coming crash, not avoid it.

Me, I'm sticking my rebate in a savings account. I'll consider other guaranteed investments, but part of me doesn't want to lock away that money in a CD or bond, in case I need it right away.

I hate to be all doom and gloom, but everything I read has me worried. On the bright side, it'll probably have recovered to a large degree after 5 years. I just don't know how bad it's gonna get during the next couple.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
I really appreciate your train of thoughts/comments on the economic stimulus chat! I confess, I'm not really investing in cheap gold. As a contrarian, I'm curious to see what would become of it in five years if I open a savings account specifically for it, which would be the opposite of our government's intent...

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Not to flood this post, but yeah, now I'm finding plenty of articles saying that this rebate is a gift. The 2001-2002 rebate had to be paid back. This one just gets heaped on to the national debt.

So forget what I said earlier, go nuts with the money, people, otherwise it's one more thing our grandkids will have to pay for.

yes and SF and LA should dictate, they are after all, the most shining and influential examples of morality and solid sensibilities-in November, the people will speak, and this unilateral action by a few ass-kissing worthless judges, will be overruled....Newsomes' a chump, San Fran's homicide rate has soared since he's been there, the city looks horrible,....wtf folks,

the poeple of any nation everywhere will continually put down the desires of a few for the sake of the many....what's next Cali? Polygamy??? Sure why not, after all, one unchecked Libido is as good as the next-The other voices of dissent here? Perhaps they just wanna be liked by the other monkeys...