I'm pretty wigged out by spiders, but I like snakes. So for me, I tried to mentally convert this video into a snake expert "handling" a cobra or something. The way I see it, sure, you can have an expertise level and skill level that would allow you to handle either sort of animal relatively safely. But even in that case, there aren't a whole lot of particularly practical reasons to put that into practice.

My hometown in Kansas has lots of bullsnakes. In my experience, large older bullsnakes are often pretty docile but the young juvenile ones are usually very defensive and will rear up, strike, and mimic rattlesnake sounds and actions. However, they are non-venomous and don't have "fangs", although they do have short teeth that can provide small, shallow puncture wounds if they get a good nip on you.

I like catching bullsnakes when I see them and handling them a bit before releasing them back into the wild. The docile ones are particularly fun, but even the juveniles that show some aggression can be fun to handle with some caution. I have never been bit myself, but I have seen people that have been. No lasting harm comes from that, and in most instances it wouldn't even draw blood -- the surprise of it is probably worse than the damage.

In spite of that, I have no interest whatsoever in handling something like a rattlesnake or other venomous snake. Looking at them, sure. But I don't see much practicality in handling them. In all likelihood, I could safely handle rattlers in the same way that I handle bullsnakes and avoid being bit. But the cost of failure would be higher (lots of pain and small possibility of death).

So at least for me personally, I don't think I'd be interested in handling black widows even if I was a spider person instead of a snake person. I'm not against the author of this video handling them, but I would stop short of the "you should try this at home" tag!

One of the hardest things to get a black widow to do is bite. This is why research on black widow venom is difficult - the collection!

They're not just focusing on income inequality or ownership of resources. Just because one clip focuses on it doesn't mean that the entire movement is fixated on one stat. There are a lot of stats the left are focused on, such as unemployment to name another. And it's not a stupid statistic to focus on. If there is too much stratification of wealth, and there is such a thing, then what other statistic would illustrate that it's gotten out of hand?! For the good of the economy, for everyone across the income range, if the rich possess too much wealth, there won't be enough people with money to purchase goods and services being produced. This hasn't a thing to do with the little orphans you helped in Mexico.

Is it being trumped to the point it's being played like an emotional dagger instead of being analyzed rationally? Of course. But come on, if you're gonna sit there and say that only the left is guilty of that, then you're being partisan. How is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points "communist" or even "socialist" on an objective scale? Or even using those words to elicit a knee jerk reaction by people to say it's bad just because of the word instead of rationally discussing the policy? Or when anyone suggests raising taxes on the rich, it's automatically "class warfare"? Or you using derogatory terms like "NeoProgLibNaziCommunistSocialist" blah? Give me a break.

And yes, some wealth stratification is good. You want the people who work hard or are more talented to have more income. It keeps incentives in the system. I have no problem with that. But you're pretending that the income gap between super rich and poor is static, which misses the entire point. It's not static. It fluctuates. We're too the point now where it's getting absurd to the point that it's hurting the economy. You're also pretending that the stats only illustrate the gap between the super-rich and the poor, and that's not the case. The stats are showing the gap between the rich and everyone else, including middle class, which is being decimated.

You have very little patience when you hear a college-age son's of yuppies whining about they only earn $30K/yr for their liberal art major degree? What about me, the son of a solid middle class family who got one of those horrible liberal art degrees (Master's in Education, Bachelor's in History, Minor in International Studies) and got a "fake job" as a history teacher in a public school? Are you kidding me with this? (BTW, what a good person you are to say whose jobs are of value and whose aren't!) What I did for a living for four years combined produced less value than a commodities trader did in one year, whose job is essentially speculation that artificially drives up prices on the things they trade? You don't find something extremely absurd about that?

Let's do the math. At those salaries, a public school teacher is producing less than 10% of the value of what a commodities trader does, and a commodities trader isn't even required to have a college degree, and we're not even including the better benefits and bonuses. I'm not naive enough to think a public school teacher would ever be paid that well, but when the gap is getting wider, and wider, and wider, and you're seeing a public school teacher's benefits getting reduced, particularly retirement, I'm sorry, but something is horribly wrong here. The market is failing to address a basic societal problem. I'm not advocating a state controlled economy (aka Communism) to even it out. I'm advocating the gov't make it moderately more equal by raising the rich's taxes, and ease up on the poor and middle class. Tax capital gains like it's income, subject to the same brackets, etc.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes"
As with "neolibs" it is a word of my own creation which I used to describe the crazed, hardcore, insane left-wing liberal denizens of the world. Neolib was my default for a long time, but lately the vitriol of the left has gotten so prone to hate, anger, and insanity that I have moved to defaulting with "ProgLibDyte" to describe them. It is perfect because it is so close to "Troglidyte" (cave dweller) and covers "Progressives" and "Liberals" together. ProgLibDytes. Cave dwelling political liberals and progressives. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Which one should we obsess over?
How about not picking just one, and looking at all of them - or at least a LOT of them? Regardless, examining only the gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is about one of the stupidest metrics one could examine when it comes to economics. It means absolutely nothing in terms of either real income, economic trending, or any other meaningful metric. Such a myopic stat serves only one purpose, and that is to angry up the blood of the lower class.
There are always going to be really rich people who have so much money that they could eat gold bricks and crap diamonds. These guys are always going to exist in the same nation as people so poor they scrape the very bottom of the economic barrel. The difference between the top 0.1% and the bottom 5% is utterly meaningless. It is pure nonsense to get mad about the difference between Bill Gates and the guy who pumps gas. It tells nothing about anything.
I personally donate my time to help the poor. I've helped the poorest of the poor in US cities and I thought I knew what 'poor' was. Then I volunteered to help little towns in Mexico. When kids and widows weep in your arms just because you came to them with a few bags of cement to put a small concrete slab in thier one room dirt-shanty then you know you've hit the real thing.
In the US, even those who live in so-called 'poverty' have cars, TVs, homes, cable, internet, clothes, and money to spend at McDonalds on a lark. So I have very little patience when I hear college-age son's-of-yuppies whining about the fact that they only earn $30K a year (with benefits) for thier liberal-art's major compared to Wall-Street guys (who are actually performing a real job) earning 300K plus cash bonuses. Boo-freaking-hoo.

Keep packin' them pennies--you will probably need them someday

Oh - I am. No debts, and socking away money to make me a millionaire when I retire with slow, steady, reasonable investing. Hope you are too, because the way Obama and all the other bozos in Washington are running things we're all going to need to pack away as many pennies as we can.

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes"

As with "neolibs" it is a word of my own creation which I used to describe the crazed, hardcore, insane left-wing liberal denizens of the world. Neolib was my default for a long time, but lately the vitriol of the left has gotten so prone to hate, anger, and insanity that I have moved to defaulting with "ProgLibDyte" to describe them. It is perfect because it is so close to "Troglidyte" (cave dweller) and covers "Progressives" and "Liberals" together. ProgLibDytes. Cave dwelling political liberals and progressives. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Which one should we obsess over?

How about not picking just one, and looking at all of them - or at least a LOT of them? Regardless, examining only the gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is about one of the stupidest metrics one could examine when it comes to economics. It means absolutely nothing in terms of either real income, economic trending, or any other meaningful metric. Such a myopic stat serves only one purpose, and that is to angry up the blood of the lower class.

There are always going to be really rich people who have so much money that they could eat gold bricks and crap diamonds. These guys are always going to exist in the same nation as people so poor they scrape the very bottom of the economic barrel. The difference between the top 0.1% and the bottom 5% is utterly meaningless. It is pure nonsense to get mad about the difference between Bill Gates and the guy who pumps gas. It tells nothing about anything.

I personally donate my time to help the poor. I've helped the poorest of the poor in US cities and I thought I knew what 'poor' was. Then I volunteered to help little towns in Mexico. When kids and widows weep in your arms just because you came to them with a few bags of cement to put a small concrete slab in thier one room dirt-shanty then you know you've hit the real thing.

In the US, even those who live in so-called 'poverty' have cars, TVs, homes, cable, internet, clothes, and money to spend at McDonalds on a lark. So I have very little patience when I hear college-age son's-of-yuppies whining about the fact that they only earn $30K a year (with benefits) for thier liberal-art's major compared to Wall-Street guys (who are actually performing a real job) earning 300K plus cash bonuses. Boo-freaking-hoo.

You're also commanded by God to impregnate your widowed sister in law and allowed by God to sell your daughter into slavery. You're banned by God from touching menstruating women. You're not allowed to work on a Sunday and those who do must be put to death - I presume you kill firemen and doctors? Don't tell me that us politically correct people have stopped following these commands?

Have you read the bible? I am commanded to do no such thing. What you're referring to is the jewish cermonial and civil law which was only for Israel in that time and place. Please read up on the differences between the old and new covenants.

No no, I don't bash Christians. My mother is a Christian and I love her. I am intolerant of intolerance. I am intolerant of those who claim to be saving souls, yet who bully young men into committing suicide - and what does your Bible say about that? You're not saving souls, you're damning them.

I haven't bullied anyone, and it isn't loving to tolerate sin. It is actually hateful to tolerate it because sin is what sends people to hell. No one should be bullied or singled out, and those who act that way are not following what Jesus taught.

So I presume if your mother is Christian, you grew up in the faith? If so, why did you turn your back on it?

You can be Christian all you want, but if you have a problem with homosexuality, then you don't engage in homosexual acts.

I have a problem with sin, and I will continue to speak out against it as God commanded me.

Oh, and stop bleating about American being founded with Christian ideals. Freedom of religion is in your constitution.

I will stop talking about it when people stop trying to rewrite history.

>> ^Quboid

>> ^shinyblurry:
If you want to say anyone who speaks out against homosexuality is a bigot, I disagree with you. We're commanded by God to speak out against sin and we aren't going to stop obeying God to listen to the politically correct establishment. You and your ilk feel free to bash Christians all the time, so you don't really have much to say about tolerance.
>> ^Quboid


You're also commanded by God to impregnate your widowed sister in law and allowed by God to sell your daughter into slavery. You're banned by God from touching menstruating women. You're not allowed to work on a Sunday and those who do must be put to death - I presume you kill firemen and doctors? Don't tell me that us politically correct people have stopped following these commands?

No no, I don't bash Christians. My mother is a Christian and I love her. I am intolerant of intolerance. I am intolerant of those who claim to be saving souls, yet who bully young men into committing suicide - and what does your Bible say about that? You're not saving souls, you're damning them.

You can be Christian all you want, but if you have a problem with homosexuality, then you don't engage in homosexual acts.

Oh, and stop bleating about American being founded with Christian ideals. Freedom of religion is in your constitution.

>> ^garmachi:

Although, for some reason I can't quite put my finger on, he gives off a bit of a douche baggy vibe.


I don't get that from him myself. Maybe it's because I also enjoy his other videos on the Sift. E.g., the one about unusual fruits and the other about the Vinegroon mating ritual.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

ISSUE ONE: "If you conservatives are so 'Christian' then why don't you do what he taught and help the poor/widows/whatever?"
Where neolibs make their blunder on this subject is in equating "giving money to government programs" with "charity". Christ taught people to personally help the poor & needy. He did not say, "Do it by giving your paycheck to the government."
When a conservative doesn't support a bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government program, it does NOT mean that they are not charitable and generous. However, the typical "godless liberal" (as you put it) thinks that conservatives are literally stealing money from poor people when they say they want to cut these programs. It is the exact opposite. Conservatives want to cut these bad programs so that ALL people everywhere keep more of their money. It is a conservative's firm belief that more people keeping more of their money will result in (A) fewer poor people and (B) more wealth that private citizens can use to help others via voluntary donation.
Conservatives help the poor and needy by volunteering thier own time and talents to help those in need - NOT by offloading that responsibliity into the hollow, empty, soulless 'substitute charity' of a government program. Studies have proven conservative individuals give more money and time to charitable causes compared to liberals. Without fanfare and without desire of reward, they help the needy through personal volunteerism. That is Christian behavior.


Ok, good point. No wait, that's utter bollocks. The conservative agenda has systematically set up the economy over the last 50 years so that poor people are poorer and the middle class is disappearing. And then they bitch and whine when asked to contribute a few extra dollars.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

ISSUE TWO: "If you conservatives are so Christian then why do you want to kill people all the time?"
The mistake neolibs make here is that they think that forgiving someone also means that you do not try to hold them accountable for thier actions. Conservatives don't do that. They try to follow Christ's example of forgiving others (loving them as fellow children of God) while at the same time following Christ's teachings of personal accountablity and accepting responsibility for actions. Just because you love someone as a fellow child of God does not mean that you have to just let them do awful things without trying to hold them responsible. The warped view of forgiveness held by a liberal says conservatives should just never hold anyone responsible for anything or they aren't "Christian". That's complete bull crap.
Does that help?


It helps to show how little attention conservatives pay to their own religion. So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"? You can hold someone accountable without killing them in cold blood. Yeah, a lot of the people on death row are evil fuckers. But they're confined. Killing them serves no purpose (other than to cost the state a fortune, where's your "small government" now?)

And you're being utterly disingenuous to pretend they're "cheering for justice". That is bullshit and you know it. They are cheering for vengence.

I don't get why conservatives are mostly Christian. Why is it that the "godless left" are more inclined to follow Jesus teachings (forgiveness, charity, etc) than his supposedly biggest fan club?

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the principles of charity and forgiveness as Christ taught them. I do not say this with hostility. I really want to help you out here.

ISSUE ONE: "If you conservatives are so 'Christian' then why don't you do what he taught and help the poor/widows/whatever?"

Where neolibs make their blunder on this subject is in equating "giving money to government programs" with "charity". Christ taught people to personally help the poor & needy. He did not say, "Do it by giving your paycheck to the government."

When a conservative doesn't support a bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government program, it does NOT mean that they are not charitable and generous. However, the typical "godless liberal" (as you put it) thinks that conservatives are literally stealing money from poor people when they say they want to cut these programs. It is the exact opposite. Conservatives want to cut these bad programs so that ALL people everywhere keep more of their money. It is a conservative's firm belief that more people keeping more of their money will result in (A) fewer poor people and (B) more wealth that private citizens can use to help others via voluntary donation.

Conservatives help the poor and needy by volunteering thier own time and talents to help those in need - NOT by offloading that responsibliity into the hollow, empty, soulless 'substitute charity' of a government program. Studies have proven conservative individuals give more money and time to charitable causes compared to liberals. Without fanfare and without desire of reward, they help the needy through personal volunteerism. That is Christian behavior.

ISSUE TWO: "If you conservatives are so Christian then why do you want to kill people all the time?"

The mistake neolibs make here is that they think that forgiving someone also means that you do not try to hold them accountable for thier actions. Conservatives don't do that. They try to follow Christ's example of forgiving others (loving them as fellow children of God) while at the same time following Christ's teachings of personal accountablity and accepting responsibility for actions. Just because you love someone as a fellow child of God does not mean that you have to just let them do awful things without trying to hold them responsible. The warped view of forgiveness held by a liberal says conservatives should just never hold anyone responsible for anything or they aren't "Christian". That's complete bull crap.

Does that help?

On a final note - Bareboard above wrote about abortion. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially his point was that when liberals cheer abortions they are not cheering the killing of babies - they are celebrating freedom of choice. Likewise, it can be said that when conservatives cheer capital punishment they are not cheering the death of a person - they are cheering their support of JUSTICE. Accept or reject that as you will, but if a person only beleives the 'good' stuff about thier side and only the 'bad' stuff about people they don't like then that says a lot about them.

We've come a long way, baby...
http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh
(video's dead atm, but the comment thread is priceless)
LOL

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Seric:
Black Widow Bite at day 3

Yeah, I don't know what it is with Lawdeedaw. If errors were merit badges, he'd be an Eagle Scout.


I know, that asshole! I say we find his house and hurt him? Who's with me? (error Will Robinson error...)

>> ^Seric:

Black Widow Bite at day 3

Yeah, I don't know what it is with Lawdeedaw. If errors were merit badges, he'd be an Eagle Scout.

Black Widow Bite at day 3*

We need to get these widows dates!

Bug week for me http://videosift.com/video/Black-Widow-Bite-at-day-2

http://videosift.com/video/Half-Ant-Wasp-ancestor

You wanna add tags and channels