Can anyone do a quick recap for those of use who are late to this/didn't care/understand very well?

You know a "previously on Videosift..."

In reply to this comment by Januari:
That accidents were about 75% less painful to watch than the music was to listen to in most cases.

For suuuuure! =o)

@shinyblurry

Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

Hope is what keeps people going … They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

This is my fault. As I mentioned in my last comment, I had intended to write further down about people who do find bliss in hurting others, and I had it fleshed out in the drafting process, but I guess I accidentally deleted it before posting. Anyway, here it is. First, there’s psychopaths. You don’t understand what a psychopath is. It’s not a blood-crazed killer from a Hollywood movie. In real life, a psychopath is someone who fails to feel empathy or sympathy, someone who has no sense of altruism. They do whatever serves their own interests best – however they define that. This is in sharp contrast with how the rest of us think about other people, which is mostly with compassion. I’ve been close to a few psychopaths, and they enjoy things like music or sports or writing or whatever like anyone else, and they mostly understand that others think hurting people is bad, so they avoid it. They don’t get any special thrill from hurting others – it just doesn’t hurt their conscience if they do. I’m guessing they don’t really ever feel the bliss I’m talking about.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead. What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves). Like, I might like to eat your cookie, but it would feel worse to steal it from you than it would feel good to eat it. Instead, I think about how I can have the cookie without feeling bad about it. I would probably ask you for some of your cookie, and then I’d not only have some cookie, but I’d also share a friendly interaction with another person in my community, someone who will probably enjoy sharing their cookie with me and be glad I asked them. Win-win. So to recap, “taking what I can” to me and most people, involves having the greatest amount of personally rewarding experiences I can, and those involve not doing bad things, and often involve doing good things.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself…That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

>> ^charliem:

Is there a followup to this? Im sure her foot is fine..if she could still move and feel her toes thats a really good sign.


She is fine now, at least her foot is 'pointing in the right direction'. Her boyfriend was with her when the ccident happened and he went to get help.

Rightthisminute has a recap and a follow-up store here:

http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/hiker-with-broken-ankle-waits-video-message-boyfriend-shoutouts

From your recap:

1] Public insurance has lower Admin cost. Around 1%. i.e. tax dollars aren't wasted. FALSE No one can run a company at 3% overhead cost let alone at 1%. Name another program, private sector or government, that runs at 1% admin costs? Think about that % you stated.


2] Some government make primary care mandatory. This lowers the burden on insurance holders even further. Would be a good idea to have annual checkups to prevent sickness at early stages. This should be an agreement with you insurance provider, not mandatory via government decree.

3] Governments set the cost of health care at an affordable price. Meaning more people can pay out of pocket. Meaning the insurance pools pay out less, which means premiums are lower. --- False That's a grandiose leap of faith. Healthcare costs will rise-- The affordability rates will go higher once this program gets up and running. Obama care is already projected to cost double of its original 1 Trillion.

The Government does not know how to save money, only wastefully spend it.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bobknight33
Do research. From peer reviewed primary sources.
You'll find that governments run lower administrative costs, 1%. As opposed to 3 up to 10% for private insurance companies.
Places like Japan have a mix of private and public doctors and hospitals so there's tons of competition.
The Japanese government focuses on primary care. Like some crazy socialist assholes, they make everyone go to the doctor regularly. You know, before they become too sick. Which cuts down on cost.
Not to mention, they have fixed prices for procedures. So say you need to see a So let's review

The only way to cut down a 800$ cost to #50% is to know how its calculated. That is what is involved in calculating that cost.
specialist. Instead of 800 bucks, the price is fixed at 350. A price everyone can afford. So many people don't NEED insurance to cover the cost.
So let's review:
1] Public insurance has lower Admin cost. Around 1%. i.e. tax dollars aren't wasted.
2] Some government make primary care mandatory. This lowers the burden on insurance holders even further.
3] Governments set the cost of health care at an affordable price. Meaning more people can pay out of pocket. Meaning the insurance pools pay out less, which means premiums are lower.
The result: Japan's health care system is in the top 10.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Japan's HCS = 10th
U.S.'s HCS = 37th
So, instead of repeating talking points you got from Fox & friends. Why don't you do some research and look for solutions.

the hell you say.


>> ^brycewi19:

It's official. NPH can now be named a national treasure.

There's lots of reply girls but the one in this video takes the cake for making you wish you had not clicked her video. Her facial expression and tone of voice are so dull and stupid sounding. There is also literally zero percent content in her videos, apart from vaguely recapping the contents of whatever she's replying to. She just describes the video and calls it a reply.

it = engage in war (when it should be clear that doing so will do little or nothing to improve the long term security of the US (and may in fact degrade that security)).
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.

Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.

I spelled it out as clearly as I can three comments up, with three very specific examples. I'm not sure how else I can word it.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.

Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.

>> ^jonny:

That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.


Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.

To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.

You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.

@hpqp

I've watched a lot of his videos too... not sure why you keep assuming I haven't. Check out some of his other vids on the Sift and you'll see I've downvoted many of them (not all--it's hard for anyone including Pat to be wrong 100% of the time) too. The more I watch, the less I think he is being ironic and the more convinced I am he is being dead-straight honest.

In fact, I don't see how this video can be interpreted to be ironic in any way, shape, or form. If we use Wikipedia again to look at the definition of verbal irony we see that:

Verbal irony is a disparity of expression and intention: when a speaker says one thing but means another, or when a literal meaning is contrary to its intended effect. An example of this is when someone says "Oh, that's beautiful", when what they mean (probably conveyed by their tone) is they find "that" quite ugly.

So how is this diatribe ironic? For it to be ironic, what he is expressing must be the opposite of what he is saying. In other words, he must mean that he really doesn't want them to feel bad after he insults them. In fact, he agrees with their methods. Clearly that's an absurd interpretation of this video.

He is being sarcastic in this video (according to the definitions from my last post), he is being a hypocrite (saying he believes the meaning of life is joy but then arguing its okay to insult other people cuz, you know, they started it), but I don't see how you can argue he's being ironic.

I understand that you believe Pat actually means "criticize" when he says "insult" but taken as a whole I don't think this video gives you much evidence to support that view. Conversely, there's lots of support there to show that when he says insult he means insult. For example at 1:34...

"And for this reason not only do I have a perfect right to insult your religion, I have a right to insult you personally the moment I have to hear about your poxy religion."

FYI according to the urban dictionary "poxy" means: crappy, stupid, dumb.

It's pretty difficult to explain that statement away as a criticism of religion and not a direct insult. Just look at how he says that sentence (his facial expression, intonation, etc.). He is dead-serious.

Just to recap my main points:

1) Claiming that it's okay to insult religion because "they started it" makes it difficult to take your arguments any more seriously than a childish rant
2) Throwing insults around is not likely to accomplish anything--even though you have the right to do something, doesn't always mean it's a good idea to do so.

I absolutely agree with you that we should not let people squelch criticism of religion by claiming that criticism is equivalent to insult. But neither should we, in turn, equate blatant insult with genuine criticism.

As far as Sagan goes... when you have to change multiple parts of someones quote in order to make it sound like they support your views, you're not really quoting them--you're just putting words in their mouth. Sagan was a class-act gentleman who knew how to argue rationally and found no need to throw shit around like some angry ape in order to make a point. Pat could learn a great deal about persuasive arguing from Sagan.

Did you read the legal ruling? Did you read my recap (however flawed it might be) of the legal ruling?

"Non-public forum" is a legal concept that has been developed over decades and has stood up to legal challenges.

Or don't you believe in the Constitution, and the different branches of government?

I'm beginning to think that you are an anarchist rather than a libertarian. (You are a libertarian, right? Sorry if I got it wrong.)

Do you think there should not be any laws?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bmacs27:
It's not a public space. It's government property. There is a significant difference, and if you'd read the ruling you'd understand that.
Not a single one of you has argued intelligently against the ruling. It's all been appeals to emotion. If you want to protest a law, explain how you would like to see the law changed.

Government property isn't public property? What happened to all this "We the people" and "of, for and by" bullshit you statists always talk about?

Ah, @blankfist, very clever with the amazon links.

However, that is at the top of this Sift Talk post, it isn't the last thing on the Sift Talk post. So no good, blankie. Doesn't count.

For those who don't understand what is going on, let me recap.

I have carved out this little Sift Talk Post as a safe place for women and women-friendly Sifters. It didn't start out that way, but it has become that for me and anyone else who feels as I do that the Sift is rampant with tiresome sexist comedy, some of which (rarely, very rarely) tips over into "going too far."

I have told blankfist (and others) privately that I will DIE before I let this Sift Talk post end on a nasty troll towards women. The rest of the sift? Have at it. That is yours 24/7. This space is mine and I will not allow the trolling mentality to go unanswered.

And I mean it. I am in relatively good health, so barring a car accident, I will be here until the end of my life saying NO FUCKING WAY will this sift talk end on a nasty troll towards women.

The trolls rule the rest of the Sift. Those who don't enjoy it are too cowed to speak up. Or are just bored by them. It is easier to just let them say their little say (by which I mean they have a little penis), sigh, and move on. I have been advised repeatedly to give up, that I can't win, that this is what the trolls want. They live for a reaction.

But guess what? I am pleased as punch that they keep coming back here, after I clearly explained the consequences of them doing so. (I stop when they stop. It's not difficult to comprehend.)

I get to say NO FUCKING WAY to sexist bullshit crap that either makes me wince or turns my stomach or makes me fear for the future if this is how some men are towards women. I can't win? Are you kidding me? I'm in hog heaven!

Every time they post something here I get to speak as freely as I want. I am thrilled as anything for this to continue until that truck hits me.

Let me be clear -- I have no interest in censorship. I know where I am. I LOVE 80% of the Sift. I understand that there are things here that aren't for my enjoyment. It is my choice to stay for the 80% or leave because of the 20%. If I stay, it is inappropriate for me to complain. And I don't.

However, the "no censorship" thing cuts both ways. I get to have my one little sift talk post that says I don't like trolling.

This post is way way too long, but don't get mad at me for keeping this going. Believe me, I am also, thrilled as I am, as weary and bored by this as many of you.

TL DR: Go leave private messages on blankfist's page, telling him to stop trolling on this Sift Talk. This crazy woman isn't going to shut up and you are sick of reading her posts.

Huh. Never occurred to me that he was recapping his own (short to me!) comment.

Thanks for the possible interpretation.


>> ^jonny:

I think Retroboy's "TL;DR" is in reference to his own comment, i.e., a summation if anyone couldn't be bothered to read his whole comment. I could be wrong though.>> ^bareboards2:
No offense, Retroboy, but it is pretty dang funny to me that you have an opinion about what is happening here without having read the comment stream.

No, I agree with quantum. What better way to take a stand against the liberal enemy within than to eat lots and lots of hamburgers, steaks, ribs and chicken fried steak?! No, really, this would be a great protest. Tea Parties are for pussies. Have a Meat Party.

Here's how you do it:

Eat really fatty, cholesterol laden dishes 6 or 7 times a day. About one meal every 2-3 hours. But, you don't want to get fat and out of shape, because when the revolution comes, you are going to need to be lean and mean. Get a gym membership to counteract all those calories, and be vigilant about working out. Don't even waste a second. Eat a triple western bacon cheeseburger and curly fries and then immediately do some strenuous cardio. With all the extra workout time, you won't have as much time to sleep, which means you are going to have to get some cocaine. LOTS and LOTS of cocaine. So, to recap, take lots of cocaine, eat copious amounts of high calorie, high fat, low fiber foods, and then engage in extremely strenuous activities sporadically throughout the day. I think that would be the best way for people of your political stripe to make this world a better place.