If you don't know who Matthew Silver is:

"My role as a clown, trickster and village idiot is to parody excessive seriousness by playing with taboos, rules, and social norms. My inspiration comes from my heart. I perform for smiles and laughter, loosening people’s armor, and opening up a portal for imagination, creativity and love.

Some people see me as a raving lunatic, pompous “artistic” hipster, or attention-starved 9 year-old, but people don’t consciously understand the role of a clown in society. Read between the lines and you will start to see things from a different perspective. By breaking down boundaries, I provide you, the viewer, with permission to open your mind and realize it’s okay to act silly from time to time. We may trick ourselves into believing we know everything, constantly striving for perfection in a society that requires a civilized, job-holding, serious individual. We cannot be perfect. If we allow ourselves the chance to be flawed perhaps we can let the obstacles humble us, rather than make us rigid. In the end we can let our guards down to attain our most basic need of giving and receiving love."
http://www.maninwhitedress.com/?page_id=2

China holds the economic keys and put the most pressure on the N Korea. This should be Plan A, B, C D.

We don't need to be preemptive on N. Korea.
However if they launch an attack It would be logical to fight back.

How much to retaliate depends where they attack first.
If they go for Soul S Korea with12 Million people It would be logical to whip the shit out of the North leaders and army. Then let an UN govern the area until the area is re established

They hit Guam -- Same. but no invasion of UN or any other group.


This is a hornets nest and once poked it would be decades before peace peace is settle.

China will not allow Americans occupy N. Korea.
S Korea does not have the finance to "settle/ rebuild/ stabilize" an new government in the north.

China does not want a flood of hungry starving immigrants.

American don't need another money pit to fund.

he's very good at making his arguments sound plausible, but I don't think we should let someone starve to death so that they can learn a lesson; there's also bottoms that you can't climb back out of... severe mental health issues, can't get a job when you're homeless because you can't present yourself well, can't get a job because you have a record

A clearly sensationalist title that I think shows this guy is just trying to make a name for himself rather than add to the conversation of "empathy is good, we need more of it, here is how we could do that." Provocateur, etc.

Seriously, "the problem with too much empathy", it's like, what's the opposite of a phrase like this? "The solution for reducing empathising so that its effect is not negative to me"? Empathising is an act of self-expressive courage man! You do it because feelings are a fundamental part of the human experience and how we RELATE to EACH OTHER. And you can do that TOO MUCH?!?!

I believe empathy is a sense, not a rule dude. Just because other people are starving doesn't mean that because of "the rule of empathy" then I should act. I think empathy is rather a sense where when something happens with someone, I experience, I observe, then I feel, and it is that feeling which is part of both my capacity for empathy, and my actual empathy.

PS - I don't look at or try to look the world objectively, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! Everything is subjective! The only truth is what we share together. I do not share this dude's opinions about what the word "empathy" means.

GOSHDARNIT this guy describes how people interpret the world through their personalities and then immediately goes on to clarify nothing about what he said, he says people need to talk about what they each believe because people have different perspectives, BUT then he immediately says "I'm not saying that facts don't exist or that they're not relativistic or anything like that" THEN WELL WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?!?!?! DO YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING?!?!? DO PEOPLE HAVE TO TALK OR NOT TO MAKE SENSE OF THINGS!?!??! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to believe he's trying to be helpful to humanity somehow but I don't see it.

I think a company that can't pay a livable wage should go out of business; raising the minimum wage is the only way that wages for specific jobs are going to go up because when you're scraping by at the bottom, you take what you can get or you starve and the owners know this

The thing I don't understand about those who are attempting to starve Planned Parenthood is -- if they care so much for reducing abortions, why the holy heck don't they promote birth control?

It is insanity.

There are far more 'common threads' between Daesh and the Bakers than there are with Daesh and the left.

Did that guy just say the Soviet Union funded nuclear protests world wide in the 80's? When they were dead broke, starving, and the union was dissolving? I'm pretty certain that would be news to my aunt and uncle who have run an anti-nuclear protest group since the early 70's.

John Guanadolo?!? Really? "Foremost terrorism expert"?!? Don't they mean "disgraced and fired ex FBI agent caught having numerous affairs, including with witnesses he was protecting, among numerous other complaints, most notably his rabid anti Muslim stances and actions but including coercion and extortion"?

Not really a surprise from people who believe in talking snakes, tout incestuous communities (Adam, Eve, and their progeny), and who worship a zombie, but still disappointing.

Informative:
Link to article referenced in the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/nature-documentary-tricks_n_7249528.html
(but boo, reading, yuck)

Non-informative:
So they can edit in plottwists.
So yeah, bambi lives.
But then cut to: White wolf goes back starving kids. Camera goes slowly to dark as one of the wolf pups exhales for the last time.
But then cut to: A large family of maggots has been waiting for this moment, rooting for bambi in the earlier scene.

This is how the white man goes to war --

Excuse me, do you by chance happen to um you know have any large sources and/or surpluses of precious resources?

1. No, ok bye. You need religion and economic aid for your local warlords to exploit and starve you.

2. Yes, ok you're bad and you believe in bad things. Anglo Saxons to the rescue -- if you don't like progress and [INSERT POLITICAL IDEOLOGY HERE], prepare to die -- or maybe be tortured and interned while we figure out what the hell our long term plan is.

Hey Jimbo, what's our short term plan?

Hell if i know. Here's a term stolen from the Chinese and reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell we want it to mean --- GUNG HO!!!!!! And here's a new one: SHOCK & AWEEEE-yeeaah! Oooooooooohhhhhh... *Hillary Clinton looking at balloons in wonderment -- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra*

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

Ah. And climate change and pollution have nothing to do with population growth. And property values will always go up. Idiots. This was so obviously funded by individuals with more money than God who have no understanding of the impact of a species overpopulation on a fixed environment. As long as Billie Gates can buy his way to live far, far away from the starving, stinking masses, he will continue to spew out this nonsense. Don't buy into it.

re: Internet/totalitarianism/control of information, every single government tries to control information, the media, public opinion, and uses the internet as a tool for that goal (just like tv, radio, print, etc). The internet/access to information in and of itself does not guarantee greater accuracy/truth of that information, and unless the population is educated, respectful, and capable of critical thinking it can easily become little bubbles of echo chambers and a playground for griefers. What good did widespread internet availability do for the last US election? has the internet made americans more free, or more easily monitored and controlled? what good is it for cuba for cubans to have access to world of warcraft, so they can neglect their children who starve to death while they grind up to the next level? has the internet prevented mainstream media from fabricating news / pushing their agendas, or has it given more people a platform for fabricating news, anonymously? yeah, im not saying the internet is all bad, of course there are other very useful applications for it, but its not a magic "improve society" wand.

final thing i want to say, I have several friends who studied in cuba as exchange students in the late 90s, early 00s and yes, they had to make treks to specific places for access but they were able to send emails and such, so this piece is not factually accurate. If the cuban govt was so dead set on stopping people from communicating, im pretty sure they would identify network cables hanging in the middle of the street and easily follow them back to your apartment, not to mention detect wifi networks setup all over their tiny island.

blame?

i don't know if i would use such a charged word to describe a very and nuanced question.i think there is plenty of blame to go around,and it is never quite as simple as the media soundbytes we are all subjected to on a daily basis.

who do i blame most?
democrats..hands down.

but there are other factors that all served to produce this circus of an election cycle.

1.the failure of the left to actually understand just how frustrated and angry the working class had become.those people may be politically unsophisticated,but they are not dumb.

this really had very little to do with republican vs democrat.this was a large portion of the american population that had simply become fed up with a system that they finally understood had thrown them overboard decades ago.many of the people who voted for trump also voted for obama..TWICE..because they wanted to see "change" and what they got nothing,zip,zilch,zero,nada.

they simply refused to play charlie brown to the democrats lucy.

2.the DNC and debbie wasserman shultz,may she burn in hell for eternity.
this woman singlehandedly secured the nomination for clinton,while blocking a sanders nomination.

remember laurence lessig?
well,don't feel bad if you don't,because wasserman and the DNC kept changing the rules of application so lessig couldn't even get on the primary ballot.

the DNC basically said to the sanders supporters "sanders? fuck you! you get hillary and will like it".

3.the ultra left liberals,for being so sensitive and touchy (don't get mad,you guys are way too soft skinned) that they restrict their interactions in these weird,singular echo chambers.where everybody is agreeing with each other and nobody is challenging anything,no critical examination.

so when trump won.
they damn near lost their minds in shock!
because anybody who may have shed some actual light on the situation was already blocked or on ignore.

4.the republican party,who hated trump but allowed him to fan the flames of dissent with his bombastic speeches,emotionally charged rhetoric and divisive language.

they let this go on for almost a year,and while publicly denounced trump,privately sought a way to capture his thunder.

want carson?.....nope
cruz?...nope.
kasich?..nope.

because just like the left,they too,had misjudged just how pissed off people were in regards to our political system,and their plan backfired.

5.the democratic party for allowing such a shit candidate,and just like the republicans,not fully understanding just how pissed the electorate was.

6.the corporate media,who sought solely to profit from the election by giving us all this mish mash of reality tv,wrestling and days of our lives.they didnt report the issues,they fed the drama.

and every political pundit,every pollster,every opinion news mrs mcprettyface,got it FUCKING WRONG.

7.bernie bros who stayed home in protest,but this entire election was a protest vote.

so,
yeah..a lot of mitigating factors went into trumps win.

i didn't think he was going to win but i knew it was going to close,but i sure as fuck was not surprised.i was actually laughing at loud.

would you look at that...
my fellow countrymen just hit the nuclear option.
i didn't want a trump victory..no sir..but i have to admire the audacity of my fellow citizens to hit that shiny red button.

fuck you washington!

we live in interesting times my friends.
interesting and terrifying times.

and really...what would clinton have given us?
more of the same?
more wars and regime change?
more tax breaks for the super rich while children starve and more people become homeless?

i may find my fellow americans choice horrifying,but i have to respect it.
either way kids...something is gonna change.

I can't wait to be disappointed. Hollywood will once again destroy and skew a character's image to appease the public. Talk to me when Harley Quinn gets the lasso of truth, breaks it's bounds and makes Wonder Woman her bitch. Amazonian queen my ass, this will be just another attempt to get 16 year old girls to drag their sex starved hormone men to shell out money to get laid, and it'll work. At least for the women. This is exactly why I bring my own popcorn bucket to the movies, drill a hole in the bottom, and hope she doesn't ask for extra hot butter.