Unfortunately in an individualistic capitalist system the guy who's feeding his family by pouring shit in the river will fight you tooth and nail irrespective of what it means for the planet. Every other asshole is doing it why should he starve? This is why the more socially minded countries are the ones who can control themselves, as everyone feels they have a stake in it and they know they won't starve.. unfortunately the big rich countries are by definition plunderers running on greed and desperation.

1) Because they didn't succeed in a vacuum, they benefit from civilization, so are obligated to support it to at least the same extent if not more because they are able while others aren't.

2) swap dumb with rich and Trump is the bazillionaire he claims to be. You can't just swap dissimilar unrelated concepts and say "see, proved it" without looking like a braying moron.

3) Yes it should without question, our best and brightest don't come from the privileged class as a higher percentage. Actually the opposite because they don't have to do their best to survive, poorer people do, and drive matters immensely. If we want to compete internationally, we must educate the uneducated and undereducated, even those who can't afford $500000 to fake a crew history or SAT score. That education needs to be better than the countries we compete with, and it is all too often simply not.
That is a conservative stance, not a liberal one.

4) equating wealth to gpa, like this moronic video does, means Trump, like everyone else, should start at 0 and not get a bonus from daddy. If that happened, he would be zero. He is not self made, he did not only get a small $14 million unrepaid interest free loan. He did squander the money, failing at venture after venture until only Russian gangsters will loan him money, loans he needs because he squandered the money....then he repeatedly lied about it immorally squandering billions from hundreds of duped investors too...THAT is evil, yes.

5) We make $30000 for two people and don't take a dime, even overpaid my taxes...not everyone has my opportunities, privileges, and abilities. You are just spouting nonsense straw man arguments. In a perfect world, we could all be self sustaining with equal opportunity to succeed, we don't live in that communist/socialist utopia.....no one ever has.
I believe we are better off when the least privileged don't have to resort to violent or immoral crime to survive. I believe we are better off as a nation when our best people have the opportunities to succeed that our worst but most privileged are afforded. I believe we are better off being protected from the irresponsibility of purely profit driven commerce that, by design, must walk the razors edge of acceptability to maximize profit and minimize obligations by any means necessary, usually leaving them for socialist programs to clean up/repair. I believe we do more good ensuring the starving among us are fed food humans would willingly eat before ensuring some unrepentant apocalyptic bankers get their multi million dollar bonuses and a free pass on their crimes, and before those making multi millions a year get to hoard more and pay even less of their share.

6) What you are spouting is bat shit insane, not even AOC advocates pure socialism....not even Russia had pure socialism. Your ilk, however, calls any government program that doesn't directly benefit them or their Trumpian masters "socialist"....education, infrastructure, all regulatory agencies, social security, even the fbi have been labeled socialist by Trumpists in the zeal to discredit the report they assumed would expose criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States (ps, it found exactly that dozens of times over), while military welfare programs for equipment we don't want and won't use, bailouts for banks and agribusiness, public funds for private ventures like golf courses and troll roads, (edit:Freudian slip?) and don't forget the unmentioned elephant, the military itself...all that socialism is fine, you think it's not even socialism. *facepalm

I'll say it again.

Asinine.

Yes, widespread poverty, largely because of insane wealth inequality. (I'll elaborate if you wish) The rich had plenty to eat, and as the dismissive "let them eat cake" implied, had no concern for those who didn't. It was that disparity paired with the dismissal of the peasants plight by the ruling class that tipped a bad situation into civil war/revolt, imo.

Yes, poor are going hungry in the United States, maybe not starving to death often, but suffering to death from ailments caused by the only diets they can afford, which barely qualify as food. No, it's not to the extent of 1700 France, but we wouldn't tolerate anywhere near those conditions today, so that argument is ludicrous.

The real poor in America don't have roofs or electricity, where are these TV'S they're parked in front of exactly? The homeless problem is growing exponentially...those are the real poor surfs in this analogy, not just people like me who can live fine on $15k a year.

Poor can't afford TV's now that there's no free broadcast stations anymore.

It's their phones they can't look away from.

Kids starving? Yep. Homeless? Check. Deal drugs and/or pimp yourself out just to survive? Sure, but you'll pry my iPhone from my cold, dead hands.

Yes, I have heard of the French Revolution. You seem to imply that the main cause was wealth inequality, but you have not offered any reason as to why you think that.

Many believe that the biggest contributor to the French Revolution was widespread poverty. Peasants were starving.

This condition does not exist today. Especially in the US, the poor are not suffering in the same way they were in France in the mid 1700's.

In France, it was necessary to riot in order to eat. Today's poor in the US have a hard time getting up from their TV sets.

Lol..no.
CCD is barely studied in wild hives because it's not been seen in the wild in statistically meaningful numbers, and it's much more of a problem for commercial hives because they move, making them more prone to weakness and diseases, they are kept together, making them more prone to parasites like nosema and Varroa mites and disease spreading problems like the Israeli virus, and they are constantly in contact with crops sprayed with various pesticides weakening and confusing them. Wild hives don't have these extra deleterious factors, so are far less effected by CCD if at all, and are not noticeably effected by most if not all commercial or hobby beekeeping that targets human agriculture, not native flowers. I kept a hive of bees for years to pollinate my orchard, so I checked on this stuff before jumping in.

Commericalized bee operations (commercial pollinators who's byproducts are honey/bees wax/pollen/royal jelly/bee venom/and bees themselves) don't displace natives. If there were native bees pollinating the crops they are hired to come pollinate, there wouldn't be a commercial bee industry. Honey is mostly a byproduct of the pollination industry, without which America at least would starve. Native bees simply can't pollinate at the industrial scale and timetables required for your vegetables, so without commercial beekeepers we'll all have to eat more meat.

The face part opened up, but the "ears" pop open and uncover whenever they're trying to listen closely.

I any case, armored just means they have some resistance to small arms fire, like the bugs in Starship Troopers or xenomorphs in the Aliens universe. Unless the monsters in this movie are covered in adamantium, I find it hard to believe that they can wipe out the world's militaries in such a short time.

Also, they would have to defeat the world's armies first, as securing the food supply would be one of the top priorities of any army. No military is going to sit around waiting to slowly starve to death.

More spoilers:

I think the movie tried to show that they only opened up and became vulnerable when they heard the feedback sound from the hearing aid.

The movie didn't really go on about how they defeated armies, but really they only have to kill the farmers, everyone will eventually starve if they can't grow food.

That was cute...

That reminds me of my kid at that age...just one long run on sentence that never really seems to have a break and flows from one stream of consciousness to the next eventually building to what you believe will be the dramatic finale but really is just an involuntary gasp triggered by an oxygen starved brain that once replenished resumes its partnership with the mouth to bring on a fourth act soliloquy of just how awesome My Little Pony is and oh don't you love that new pony sunset shimmer sparkle fart?

@noims -- My grandfather had about 10 war stories that he rotated through telling, pretty much exclusively after one of my uncles "broke the dam" by asking him to recall things as they were at the Oshkosh air show standing next to a P-47 airplane like he had worked on.

By the time that happened, my grandfather was in his 80's and in very good physical and mental shape (cattle rancher that did daily work manhandling heavy feed bags around, etc.) but had a quirky personality because he was 90%+ deaf. I don't think that was a result of the war, hearing problems seem to run in the family.

Anyway, he frequently used those hearing problems as an excuse for not having to interact with people. He had hearing aids, but he'd turn them off most of the time and just ignore people. I think some of that was being an introvert, and some was probably lingering "shell shock" / PTSD effects. But overall he really adjusted back to civilian life just fine. Got a degree in education on the GI Bill and taught and coached basketball to High School students, then worked as a small-town Postmaster, and eventually retired to work the ranch. I don't think any of us in his family, including his wife and children, thought of him as being "impaired" by the mental effects of the war. But it was clear that some of what he experienced had a very deep, lifelong effect on his outlook.


I wrote out the 3 stories of his above because they seemed to be the ones that had the most emotional impact on him. To me, it was interesting that a lot of stuff outside of combat hit him the hardest. He also had more traditional "war stories" stuff about victories and bravery, like when his unit captured / accepted the surrender of a young German pilot in a Bf-109 who deserted to avoid near certain death from flying too many missions after the handwriting was on the wall that the allies were going to win. But by far, he got more choked up about the other stuff like having to knock that French girl off her bike and seeing starving civilians and being unable to help them much.

Like you said, more banal stuff side-by-side with or against a backdrop of horror. I think it's pretty much impossible to imagine what those sorts of experiences in war are really like and what being in those situations would do to us mentally. And then WW2 in particular just had a massive impact on the entire generation. Basically everybody back home knew multiple people that went away and never came back. Then when some did come back, they were clearly different and yet reluctant to talk about what happened. Pretty messed up time to live through, I guess.

This is "starve the beast" philosophy of governing, from within supply-side (trickle-down) economics.

Sorry, re-reading that, it is badly worded. I meant I don't understand what upset him so much that he was disciplined for it.

But that leads back to my whole point about lack of context.

We don't know (from this video) WHY she talked about white male privilege and whether it was warranted, and equally, I don't understand why he reacted the way he did.

So, doing some research on this, it turns out that, when presented with the statistic that transgender people are 3.32 times more likely to experience police violence, he said "My wife has never been part of police violence, Most of the people that I know have never accused the police of violence. So I guess I don't get where that statistic comes from."

Ok, let's put the white privilege thing aside for a second. Can we all agree that that is a fucking dumb arse response? "People in Africa are starving." "Nonsense, I just had a cheeseburger". FFS.

It's at that point that Weber says "it's because of your white male privilege".

Now whether that response was merited is debatable. Personally, I feel like it's probably uncalled for, but I can also see where she's coming from.

Either way, it certainly doesn't merit Weber being put on administrative leave. As for the response, it was definitely unnecessary, but it was also not THAT bad.

I fail to see why the whole thing needed to go to disciplinary proceedings at all, when it could have been sorted out by making them both sit down and talk like grown-ups.

Actually, it doesn't burst so much as it ruptures in a small tear. Doctors state you can actually 'feel it go'. The tear doesn't dump all the food, it just releases bacteria into your system which kills you in a few hours if not treated.

The video is correct that it is almost impossible for this to happen in normal situations due to the brain inducing a gag reflex if you continue trying to eat. There are some situations which prevent people from following that reflex.

Bulimia can actually train the body to resist the gag reflex and the constant purging can help a full stomach to tear. Documented cases exist where bulimics have died due to stomach rupture.

People who have been starving for a long period of time can eat more than they can hold. Numerous cases of POW's during WWII, that were presented with large quantities of food after being starved for long periods of time, were indicative of stomach ruptures.

Fortunately if the rupture is caught in time, apparently with emergency surgery and treatment it is not likely to kill you.