I'm not thinking in binary. There's gray area.

There's no debate about the fact that virtually everyone is somewhat racist. This isn't a debate about that.

I'm saying making any joke that is related to race isn't racist every single time, just as avoiding saying anything that could be construed as racist doesn't mean you're absolved of being a racist.

A joke that is actually racist is expressing an idea or feeling of one race's superiority over another directly or indirectly through humor.

Ironically making racial statements that I absolutely don't believe is NOT racist because I'm not expressing racial superiority. I'm pointing out the idiocy of racism and poking fun at racists.

About the random black person overhearing my joking, yeah, they'd be offended. Thank you for making my point. They'd be offended precisely because they heard those words out of context.

If you saw a grown man say this to a little girl sternly:

"...go cry me a river..."

You might be inclined to think he was acting like a jerk to her. But what if you had heard....

"It's a figure of speech. If you ever for example hear someone say 'go cry me a river', they don't actually mean one person's tears can be that much water."

It's the SAME THING. That man did nothing wrong, but you heard him say 'go cry me a river' to a little girl without context, it may look bad, when it's not.

Just because someone may get offended by hearing something out of context, it is not automatically something wrong with what that person said.

Even the dreaded N-word... Are you telling me that it was wrong and racist for Mark Twain to use it in The Adventures of Huckleberry Fin?

The one thing I would agree with you is that you also have to be mindful of context before saying the joke. Those racial jokes I make? I'm not going to say those in situations where there's a high likelihood that those statements could be overheard and misinterpreted. If I wanted to tell those to a black person, I'd make REALLY sure they knew I didn't actually believe the racial statement.

And you know what? Usually, it turns out fine. I've played that Louis CK thing for a black friend of mine, but I laid down the context first that it's Patrice O'Neal, etc. And they laughed hysterically at it.

Richard Pryor is considered by most comics as being a pioneer in using comedy to shed light and provide insights into racial tensions, etc., and actually is credited by many people far beyond just comedians to have helped further the cause of fighting against racism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048430

His use of the N-word wasn't racist. The use of the word was communicating that he was not Bill Cosby, not that there was anything wrong with Cosby's comedy, but it was to signal that he was talking more about reality, including the rough edges especially about racial topics, and there wasn't anything wrong with that either.

The kill somebody thing. You ever seen someone say something like, "My roommate AGAIN left all the lights on! I'm gonna kill him!"? My point there is you shouldn't call the cops because you think he's homicidal.

Did you shout how it was treasonous when Regan did it in 86 for 3million?
Or do you think that was different somehow (maybe just because 'Saint Regan')?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

And do you not understand these people are all already here working, so they won't be takin' anyone's jerb? Because they are. Now they'll just be paying taxes, so you'll pay less, and they are not getting full access to services (like Social Security) for it. How are you not on board with that?!
I will say, I wish their culture would change from large families to two child or less families...but that's a completely different issue.

From what I've heard, 23andMe has been making claims about the accuracy of their tests, for which they've failed to provide any evidence despite being given years to do so.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=247220418

I'm surprised I've never heard of Barnays, it seems he's had a huge influence on modern society. But then again he predicted I wouldn't. In his 1928 book Propaganda he wrote:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4612464

Here's the story for those interested: http://www.powerofgood.net/story.php

Most amazing is that he never even told anyone after the war. His heroic actions weren't discovered until 1988, when his wife found a scrapbook in the attic with the list of children's names and pictures.

>> ^Trancecoach:

>> ^xxovercastxx:

As for this being propaganda, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing South Korea would put out. Maybe North Korea.

Oh no?
What about this?
and this?
I'm not saying S. Korean gov't lies, but they have been caught in a lie before.


I didn't mean that South Korea wouldn't make shit up, I meant that this didn't seem like the kind of thing that South Korea would make up.

>> ^xxovercastxx:


As for this being propaganda, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing South Korea would put out. Maybe North Korea.


Oh no?

What about this?
and this?

I'm not saying S. Korean gov't lies, but they have been caught in a lie before.

Interesting interview, AM. I have never been a huge fan of Rock, but as he's gone on he's impressed me more and more. I think as he settles down, shouts a bit less and what not, his message gets stronger.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10187534
Interesting side of him.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10187534

Interesting side of him.

>> ^vaire2ube:

this is chris rock being chris rock. completely. review your source material.

You know that tax laws are bullshit when the only place ignorance is an excuse is tax law. When I say bullshit I mean complicated and needlessly so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100377301

The US tax code is 67,204 pages long and it is all written in lawyer speak.

I've always held the same stance on taxes. Send me a bill stating what I owe and do not owe. I shouldn't have to fill out any paperwork at, all, whatsoever.

They take the money then they should be the ones figuring out who owes what and based on what laws that are simply written; in simple English. The type of English that people use in common speaking.

I've heard from a person or two on here that China is a libertarian paradise because of the bad business practices, etc. They really don't understand free societies vs. communist statism, obviously. This is another example how government, always corruptible (ALWAYS!), uses its monopoly on violence to keep its people living in squalor and fear.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Governments manage pollution best! I submit this as evidence.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131440157

Governments manage pollution best! I submit this as evidence.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131440157

@dystopianfuturetoday, I think that what's being said here is true also, but that's because it's a logical inference from the facts that no one's really disputing, not because Russia Today is so credible I need not question anything they say.

For example, we recently had this shoot up the charts, where RT had on a propagandist from Reason to basically say that Prop 19 is going to fail because Obama's DOJ is engaging in "voter intimidation" because it truthfully stated that states don't have the power to nullify federal law.

As for better sources on the campaign finance problem, here's a number of articles in mainstream press to paint the picture:

Washington Post - Interest-group spending for midterm up fivefold from 2006; many sources secret
The Economist - Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain
The New York Times - Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign
The New York Times - John Roberts's America
NPR - 'Independent' Groups Behind Ads Not So Independent

So it's more than a gut feeling on my part that this is true, but again, that's because a) it's a reasonable deduction from the facts, and b) lots of people I respect, both inside mainstream press and outside it are saying the same thing.

But the fact that Russia Today decided to say it too doesn't mean they are some sort of unbiased source. On the contrary, I believe they're only giving it airtime because their bias drives them to promote stories like this.

So the right wing's agenda strongly favors business and they after getting huge lumps of cash funneled into their political ideas by big business as a result? Who could have predicted that those regulations were there to protect individual rights?

Oh well...THANK YOU FOR FUCKING US CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT!!!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

Also *quality journalism, people need to know about this.

There was a book recently released and hyped on the absurdity of our bottled water use. I first heard about it through the author's interview on fresh air. He goes through the basic argument in about 20 minutes there:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833795

The too long didn't listen version is

1) Bottled water adds about 70 million plastic bottles to our landfills every day. We recycle a relatively small fraction of what we use.

2) Bottled water consumption leads people to disregard our public water infrastructure, which is actually quite excellent, but won't stay that way if we don't maintain it. But why pay taxes for a service you don't use?

3) Bottled water is regulated differently from municipal water. While municipal water supplies are tested for safety a dozen times a day, and shut down at the slightest irregularity, bottled water plants are inspected as infrequently as once a year. The author has plenty of scary anecdotes to share on that front.

4) Bottled water manufacturers are engaged in a very successful disinformation campaign to convince us that tap water isn't safe and to convince local governments not to bother putting water fountains in public places.

I don't know if that author was pushing for an outright ban, but surely some small section of the environmental movement wouldn't mind seeing it happen.