It's funny how he talks about the dynamic range of CDs, when producers decided pretty quickly that range was for pussies and What We Needed Was MOAR LOUDNESS!!

Regarding the scratch proof thing, apparently, the original spec for the CD was very fault tolerant. You could actually burn a cigarette hole through it and it would still play. However, it only held 60 minutes of music and the head of audio at Phillips demanded that it could hold 74m for one of Beethovens symphonies (I forget which one).

That story is probably apocryphal though.

It's probably not as economical and convenient as white phosphorous.

My father was a physicist, and he told me a story (mind you, a great deal of his stories were apocryphal and he died before they could be sorted out--which is why I feel justified in claiming my great grandmother was Irish royalty and my great grandfather was an armless gypsy horse acrobat... but I digress). Anyways, he claimed that for a time in Spain there was a company marketing cigarette lighters that used white phosphorous so that you could merely flip the lid open, exposing a small amount to the air igniting it, and very suavely light a ladies cigarette for her. Unfortunately, sometimes the seals would fail while in a man's trouser pocket, which is where the slang "willy peter" comes from.

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.

I'm not sure where you're getting that John was a rebel or disagreed with Jesus, or that the book of John contridicts a single thing Jesus said.. on the contrary John was the beloved disciple and perhaps more than the others was privy to the deeper meaning of what Jesus said. The book of John goes right to the heart of His teachings.

I'm also not sure where you're drawing this imaginary contention between Revelation and the apocryphal vision of paul from..they are completely different animals..Revelation is pure prophecy, whereas the supposed pauline doctrine is very similiar to the gnostic mystery texts, which describes the various artifices of heavenly processions, but fails to expand on or add any meaningful truths. It has the words but not the content. Revelation is about the future, and it makes several predictions which are happening today, such as the formation of a one world government, economy and religion. This is what seperates the word of God from everything else.

As far as predictions about the end go, no one is ever supposed to make them..and anyone who does is automatically wrong. >> ^enoch:
book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/
they are still around today.seventh day adventists

Well, remember how we were talking about taxes? If we're going to play the fashionable game and tack dollar values of benefits onto people's salaries to pad the number for demagogic effect, then my effective tax rate is even smaller, more like 8% if you add the value of my health & retirement benefits to my income. You really need to consider doing your taxes yourself, clearly your CPA is doing something wrong.

So here's the thing, you say firefighters have such a sweet deal because of unions. I have an idea, how about instead of taking away unions from firefighters, why not get unions for everyone?

As for why you get flack from liberals for being a selfish fascist when you bitch about taxes, it's because you never give anyone a reason to think you're somehow being treated unfairly. There's one set of Federal tax laws, and most of us can fill out our 1040 or 1040EZ, grumble, and go on with life. You aren't running your business as a charity to help the unemployed, you're trying to make a buck. There's no blankfist tax, or anti-entrepreneurial tax. On the contrary, there are tax subsidies for small business all over the place, to the point where little middle class worker bees like me get fucking tired of hearing about it.

GE somehow paid zero taxes, and got a 3.2 billion dollar check from Uncle Sam. Instead of bitching about the insanity of that, all you want to do is fuck over all public sector employees all across the nation because you think they might be getting a slightly better deal than you.

Surely by now you've seen this:

A CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. “You better watch him,” the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. “He wants a piece of your cookie.”

That's what you're doing.

Oh, and by the way, student loans are subsidized by tax dollars. As was your K-12 education, I suspect. I bet you've also taken advantage of the services of countless thousands or millions of people who had their education paid for or subsidized by tax dollars. I bet the navy taught you some marketable job skills even (beyond the right way to use a glory hole). You were probably born in a hospital that was subsidized by tax dollars, and delivered by a doctor whose education was subsidized by tax dollars, and received vaccinations for childhood illness that were developed by research subsidized or wholly funded by tax dollars. You might even occasionally use this thing called the Internet, which is based on technology developed at DARPA as part of the defense budget.

Look, I have sympathy for anyone who's struggling to make ends meet, and I know running your own business is tough -- that's why I haven't tried it. But it's your philosophy that says people have to own their failures even if it's not really their fault. If you were working for, say, Blockbuster the last 15 years, did an excellent job, but then got laid off because traditional rentals got destroyed by Netflix, that's your fucking problem, and nobody else should have to help you out with your plight. That includes bailouts in the form of tax cuts.

Me, I want a safety net so that if you seriously fall flat on your face, you won't have to worry about having a place to sleep, and food to eat, and will still be able to go see a doctor for the STD you picked up from fucking farm animals. I think all life is precious, and that the markets are a fickle and harsh mistress, while the nanny state should always welcome you into her large, welcoming bosom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yes, LA is really fucked up. So is California in general. And so are my apocryphal firefighters and policemen.

The average pay for firefighters you linked me to doesn't account for benefits and pension, does it? That's just base salary. So, if the average pay for firefighters is just under $44k, then that's pretty much their taxable income because I cannot image what possible expenses they'd deduct, because they have zero financial risk being an employee. And I'd imagine his benefits alone would equal around $15k to $20k. And then of course their pension which is available when they retire at 55.

That's a pretty good deal. And they get women fawning over them and the vox populi calling them heros. Then there's the guy in the private sector, who's painted to look selfish and evil. People like me. But we don't have unions to protect us, give us great pensions and benefits, and we actually create jobs. I created two last year myself. That aside, the real problems with LA and CA are the unions. They were one thing when they protected proletariats from the bourgeoisie in Charles Dickens' England, but they're something entirely different today, especially when allowed to collude with government and legislators.

I grew up in a milltown in the South. You can't get more working class than that. I'm almost 40 and I'm still paying off my college loans, so suffice it to say no one helped me out. Being happy? I know what makes me happy. The same things you mentioned: not having to worry about rent, not having to worry about food, etc. But without getting too personal here, I can safely say some of that worries me right now because of what I owe to the taxman. And probably nine to eight years back I was in a really, really bad place, yet the taxman cometh. I tried to cash a honkey check, but apparently those don't exist. I guess being white only goes so far contrary to modern lib rhetoric.

What I find interesting is if someone like me bitches that the tax is too high, which it is, then some of you complain I'm selfish and refusing to pay my fair share. But isn't it you, the statists who believe in stealing my money to give to others, that are actually being selfish by laying the tax burden so heavy on the middle class? Specifically income tax.

Yes, LA is really fucked up. So is California in general. And so are my apocryphal firefighters and policemen.

The average pay for firefighters you linked me to doesn't account for benefits and pension, does it? That's just base salary. So, if the average pay for firefighters is just under $44k, then that's pretty much their taxable income because I cannot image what possible expenses they'd deduct, because they have zero financial risk being an employee. And I'd imagine his benefits alone would equal around $15k to $20k. And then of course their pension which is available when they retire at 55.

That's a pretty good deal. And they get women fawning over them and the vox populi calling them heros. Then there's the guy in the private sector, who's painted to look selfish and evil. People like me. But we don't have unions to protect us, give us great pensions and benefits, and we actually create jobs. I created two last year myself. That aside, the real problems with LA and CA are the unions. They were one thing when they protected proletariats from the bourgeoisie in Charles Dickens' England, but they're something entirely different today, especially when allowed to collude with government and legislators.

I grew up in a milltown in the South. You can't get more working class than that. I'm almost 40 and I'm still paying off my college loans, so suffice it to say no one helped me out. Being happy? I know what makes me happy. The same things you mentioned: not having to worry about rent, not having to worry about food, etc. But without getting too personal here, I can safely say some of that worries me right now because of what I owe to the taxman. And probably nine to eight years back I was in a really, really bad place, yet the taxman cometh. I tried to cash a honkey check, but apparently those don't exist. I guess being white only goes so far contrary to modern lib rhetoric.

What I find interesting is if someone like me bitches that the tax is too high, which it is, then some of you complain I'm selfish and refusing to pay my fair share. But isn't it you, the statists who believe in stealing my money to give to others, that are actually being selfish by laying the tax burden so heavy on the middle class? Specifically income tax.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Okay, so LA has a problem. It's not a nationwide epidemic, the average pay for firefighters simply isn't that high. Members of congress get paid $174,000 a year, the President gets paid $400,000/yr. You probably shouldn't be paying the average firefighter more than a House freshman, and the Fire Chief more than the President.

As for your architect, I'm not surprised by that at all. If you want to tell that as a story about taxes, you're probably going to have to at least provide an example of how the math works out so that you make less owning your own business than working for someone else solely because of taxes. I bet it's mostly due to the fact that there's not really a big market for a mom & pop architect out there even in good times, and especially given the state of the real estate market right now. Running your own business isn't easy, and it's certainly not the way to get yourself a stable source of take home income in a depressed economy.

I'm of two minds about your last paragraph. Someday I think I'm going to write some big blog posts about my life, and how it shaped my political outlook. For now, I'll just say I did ultimately have a privileged life compared to most, but not by as much as you seem to assume. I'm no trust fund baby -- and I went to school with enough of those to know the difference. I have a shitload more in common with the poor working class people in the neighborhood I grew up in than I do with the trust fund set I went to school with.

The trust fund set generally felt like accumulation of wealth and status was the primary route to happiness. The more working class people in my neighborhood saw money as more of a means to an end. Happiness for them was being able to not have to worry about whether they could afford groceries, or worry about their car breaking down, or having to borrow to make rent/mortgage payments, or medicine for sick kids. They didn't really care about having the nicest clothes, a nice car, gourmet foods, or who had membership to the more prestigious country club. Those were things my rich friends talked about constantly.

I grew up constantly switching between class experiences. Over time it made me see pretty clearly that money isn't the key to real happiness. I saw lots of unhappy rich people, and lots of happy poor people. Their outlook on life had more to do with things other than money.

Anyways, it sounds like you think you're engaged in a class struggle to try to help the lower classes get a leg up on the rich. If so, great, you and I are on the same side then.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Dude, is it so hard to believe a public employee makes $12,000 a month? That's only $144,000 a year, not $1.4 million. It's possible. Especially since so many groups are unionized in this state.

[snip]

My CPA also told me a story of an architect who got tired of struggling as a small business and having to pay so much in taxes, so he quit the private sector to make more money working for the city. You wanna call BS on my apocryphal architect?

And I do care about the taxes I have to pay. I envy you that you don't. You must've had a great life as a lawyer's son. Always having more than you owe. I wish we all could come from there so we could also take the same sanctimonious positions you do. Only people of privilege seem to say things like, "money isn't everything." As if they scowl at the rest of us for wanting better for ourselves. Now excuse me while I go back to that mom of yours I was fucking when I told you this story.

Okay, so LA has a problem. It's not a nationwide epidemic, the average pay for firefighters simply isn't that high. Members of congress get paid $174,000 a year, the President gets paid $400,000/yr. You probably shouldn't be paying the average firefighter more than a House freshman, and the Fire Chief more than the President.

As for your architect, I'm not surprised by that at all. If you want to tell that as a story about taxes, you're probably going to have to at least provide an example of how the math works out so that you make less owning your own business than working for someone else solely because of taxes. I bet it's mostly due to the fact that there's not really a big market for a mom & pop architect out there even in good times, and especially given the state of the real estate market right now. Running your own business isn't easy, and it's certainly not the way to get yourself a stable source of take home income in a depressed economy.

I'm of two minds about your last paragraph. Someday I think I'm going to write some big blog posts about my life, and how it shaped my political outlook. For now, I'll just say I did ultimately have a privileged life compared to most, but not by as much as you seem to assume. I'm no trust fund baby -- and I went to school with enough of those to know the difference. I have a shitload more in common with the poor working class people in the neighborhood I grew up in than I do with the trust fund set I went to school with.

The trust fund set generally felt like accumulation of wealth and status was the primary route to happiness. The more working class people in my neighborhood saw money as more of a means to an end. Happiness for them was being able to not have to worry about whether they could afford groceries, or worry about their car breaking down, or having to borrow to make rent/mortgage payments, or medicine for sick kids. They didn't really care about having the nicest clothes, a nice car, gourmet foods, or who had membership to the more prestigious country club. Those were things my rich friends talked about constantly.

I grew up constantly switching between class experiences. Over time it made me see pretty clearly that money isn't the key to real happiness. I saw lots of unhappy rich people, and lots of happy poor people. Their outlook on life had more to do with things other than money.

Anyways, it sounds like you think you're engaged in a class struggle to try to help the lower classes get a leg up on the rich. If so, great, you and I are on the same side then.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Dude, is it so hard to believe a public employee makes $12,000 a month? That's only $144,000 a year, not $1.4 million. It's possible. Especially since so many groups are unionized in this state.

[snip]

My CPA also told me a story of an architect who got tired of struggling as a small business and having to pay so much in taxes, so he quit the private sector to make more money working for the city. You wanna call BS on my apocryphal architect?

And I do care about the taxes I have to pay. I envy you that you don't. You must've had a great life as a lawyer's son. Always having more than you owe. I wish we all could come from there so we could also take the same sanctimonious positions you do. Only people of privilege seem to say things like, "money isn't everything." As if they scowl at the rest of us for wanting better for ourselves. Now excuse me while I go back to that mom of yours I was fucking when I told you this story.

Dude, is it so hard to believe a public employee makes $12,000 a month? That's only $144,000 a year, not $1.4 million. It's possible. Especially since so many groups are unionized in this state.

Remember this video with Councilman Bernard Parks banning fast food in South LA? Well, according to this article from LA Times (you know how right wing they can be), Parks makes $178,789 a year plus "$22,000 a month in city retirement benefits". Plus a police pension of $265,050 being the highest paid police chief in US history. But that's just one councilman and retired police chief in LA.

The entire Los Angeles general fund budget is $6.7billion, and they're projecting a deficit. The police budget's over 1 billion. And check this article out:

Los Angeles could face nearly a $1-billion shortfall by 2010 because of a mammoth bailout needed for the city's employee pension funds, which have seen investments tank in the spiraling national recession, according to a city budget report released Friday.

Sure, they're cutting some jobs, but look at all the new spending and hiring they're doing. On the news right now they're reporting about LA City Council voting to fund a $1.2 billion-development project to build a luxury hotel. And what about the high speed railsystem from San Diego to San Fran? The point is, LA and California spend a lot of money, so why is the $12,000 monthly salary for a fireman too big for you to swallow? Usually there's nothing too big for you to swallow.

Hell, a quick google search could've easily proven my "apocryphal firefighter" is in fact not so questionable. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. How are they able to earn so much? Is it because the number of fires magically leapt to historical highs over the last couple of years? Well, according to the article, that sounds unlikely:

Recruits earn overtime for after-hours remedial training "if they feel the need for more time to grasp the skills," a department spokeswoman said.

So, do you now still call bullshit on me, my CPA, and your mom the two of us were fucking when we told each other that story? Or does it seem possible (nay probable!) that maybe the city workers in unions here in LA (and all over California for that matter) are making a very good (and at times great) salary on our tax dollars?

My CPA also told me a story of an architect who got tired of struggling as a small business and having to pay so much in taxes, so he quit the private sector to make more money working for the city. You wanna call BS on my apocryphal architect?

And I do care about the taxes I have to pay. I envy you that you don't. You must've had a great life as a lawyer's son. Always having more than you owe. I wish we all could come from there so we could also take the same sanctimonious positions you do. Only people of privilege seem to say things like, "money isn't everything." As if they scowl at the rest of us for wanting better for ourselves. Now excuse me while I go back to that mom of yours I was fucking when I told you this story.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just expressing skepticism since it doesn't line up with either my personal experience, nor with objective analyses of the changes in tax law from 2009 to 2010. Since you don't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about why your taxes might be higher, there's not really any way for us to get to the bottom of the discrepancy in our viewpoints.

I can't say the same about your secondhand hearsay about a supposed fireman who's making six figures. I call bullshit on you, your CPA, and the pig the two of you were fucking when you told each other that story. It's either a total fabrication, or the guy's primary source of income has nothing to do with firefighting.

As for Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK, they're not in the same boat as the US. They're all engaged in much sterner deficit-reduction policy than the US has adopted or is likely to adopt in the near future. And to answer the question I posed to you, the net result is that they're just making things worse. What on paper should have reduced the budget didn't since it depressed the economy so much, and as a result they're no better off in terms of government debt, and much worse off when it comes to their general economies. Countries who took the liberal path like Canada and Sweeden are in pretty good shape. The US is pretty much splitting the difference, and while we're not getting worse anymore, we're not really recovering either.

I kinda feel sorry for you if you really think taxes are the only thing standing between you and a happy, satisfying life. A 35% raise wouldn't give that to me, nor would even a 350% raise. It'd be nice to have to be sure, but I feel like I've passed the point where even large increases in my income would have a qualitative impact on my overall quality of life. I don't really make all that much in the grand scheme of things either -- far less than your apocryphal firefighter.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that you don't care about wars, or humanitarian crises that happen to other people, just about how much taxes you have to pay and whether people you know make fun of you or not. Most people who feel that way don't have the guts to come right out and say so.

Just a word of advice, but money isn't everything. It can feel like it if you're not able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, or pay your medical bills, but beyond that happiness and satisfaction has a lot more to do with your emotional needs and the relationships you have with the people in your life than much of anything else.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, I'm certainly not lying. And it was 35% on my adjusted income, or what they call taxable income, I think. And it was in no way over or even in the same ballpark as $373k. Not even close.

I don't own. I rent. It is LA, after all. Buying a home in the city is tough. But I shouldn't be penalized for that, should I? We didn't get married last year, but we're certainly doing it this year. That may help next year, but why punish people who are single? Does that seem fair to you? And why punish those who don't want to work in the public sector or for a corporation? You know, I did employ two freelancers, so I create jobs this year. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that? It just makes zero sense to me.

I don't know why my tax is so high, to be honest. I have a CPA that deals with all of that. I just give him my itemized deductions and the amount I made, and he does the rest.

Yes, Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK are exactly the same as the US. Bravo. Their EU is part of their problem, but that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it? I like how you bipartisan types take someone's real problems and make a political statement out of them. You know, taxation of this magnitude is not a partisan issue. This affects real people with real lives. Right now in my life, the only thing that stands in the way of me building a better life and the ability for me to pursue my happiness is the government. I owe them every year, and every year it goes up, and every year the Democrats call me a liar. I don't understand that.

Meanwhile, my CPA tells me of some of his clients. The firemen and policemen in LA. One fireman, a captain for a firehouse, makes $12,000 a month, and he'll retire when he's 55, and he'll take home 90% of that for the rest of his life. Good for him. A police captain makes enough to buy a home in Malibu overlooking the water. According to my CPA, he's got one helluva beautiful manicured backyard, too. Good for him. Glad I can pay for it. And you wonder why some of us hate public unions. Because I have to pay for them to retire at the age of 55 and take home a pension for the rest of their lives, yet the small businessmen can't catch a break because we're just middle class. I hear it's a helluva lot easier to just get on welfare and ride that out for a while.

So, you can comeback all you want with "Spain! UK! Greece!" but it means little to people like me, because I don't give a damn about your partisan bullshit, and it's not worth my effort to sit here and point out the many flaws in that argument. I care about how this affects me. The wars, the world affairs, the humanitarian efforts, and whatever else to me is just a distraction. What's important is I shouldn't be raked over the coals, and then have a gaggle of confused statists scratching their heads and point fingers at me as if there was some taxation glitch in the system.

I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just expressing skepticism since it doesn't line up with either my personal experience, nor with objective analyses of the changes in tax law from 2009 to 2010. Since you don't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about why your taxes might be higher, there's not really any way for us to get to the bottom of the discrepancy in our viewpoints.

I can't say the same about your secondhand hearsay about a supposed fireman who's making six figures. I call bullshit on you, your CPA, and the pig the two of you were fucking when you told each other that story. It's either a total fabrication, or the guy's primary source of income has nothing to do with firefighting.

As for Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK, they're not in the same boat as the US. They're all engaged in much sterner deficit-reduction policy than the US has adopted or is likely to adopt in the near future. And to answer the question I posed to you, the net result is that they're just making things worse. What on paper should have reduced the budget didn't since it depressed the economy so much, and as a result they're no better off in terms of government debt, and much worse off when it comes to their general economies. Countries who took the liberal path like Canada and Sweeden are in pretty good shape. The US is pretty much splitting the difference, and while we're not getting worse anymore, we're not really recovering either.

I kinda feel sorry for you if you really think taxes are the only thing standing between you and a happy, satisfying life. A 35% raise wouldn't give that to me, nor would even a 350% raise. It'd be nice to have to be sure, but I feel like I've passed the point where even large increases in my income would have a qualitative impact on my overall quality of life. I don't really make all that much in the grand scheme of things either -- far less than your apocryphal firefighter.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that you don't care about wars, or humanitarian crises that happen to other people, just about how much taxes you have to pay and whether people you know make fun of you or not. Most people who feel that way don't have the guts to come right out and say so.

Just a word of advice, but money isn't everything. It can feel like it if you're not able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, or pay your medical bills, but beyond that happiness and satisfaction has a lot more to do with your emotional needs and the relationships you have with the people in your life than much of anything else.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, I'm certainly not lying. And it was 35% on my adjusted income, or what they call taxable income, I think. And it was in no way over or even in the same ballpark as $373k. Not even close.

I don't own. I rent. It is LA, after all. Buying a home in the city is tough. But I shouldn't be penalized for that, should I? We didn't get married last year, but we're certainly doing it this year. That may help next year, but why punish people who are single? Does that seem fair to you? And why punish those who don't want to work in the public sector or for a corporation? You know, I did employ two freelancers, so I create jobs this year. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that? It just makes zero sense to me.

I don't know why my tax is so high, to be honest. I have a CPA that deals with all of that. I just give him my itemized deductions and the amount I made, and he does the rest.

Yes, Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK are exactly the same as the US. Bravo. Their EU is part of their problem, but that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it? I like how you bipartisan types take someone's real problems and make a political statement out of them. You know, taxation of this magnitude is not a partisan issue. This affects real people with real lives. Right now in my life, the only thing that stands in the way of me building a better life and the ability for me to pursue my happiness is the government. I owe them every year, and every year it goes up, and every year the Democrats call me a liar. I don't understand that.

Meanwhile, my CPA tells me of some of his clients. The firemen and policemen in LA. One fireman, a captain for a firehouse, makes $12,000 a month, and he'll retire when he's 55, and he'll take home 90% of that for the rest of his life. Good for him. A police captain makes enough to buy a home in Malibu overlooking the water. According to my CPA, he's got one helluva beautiful manicured backyard, too. Good for him. Glad I can pay for it. And you wonder why some of us hate public unions. Because I have to pay for them to retire at the age of 55 and take home a pension for the rest of their lives, yet the small businessmen can't catch a break because we're just middle class. I hear it's a helluva lot easier to just get on welfare and ride that out for a while.

So, you can comeback all you want with "Spain! UK! Greece!" but it means little to people like me, because I don't give a damn about your partisan bullshit, and it's not worth my effort to sit here and point out the many flaws in that argument. I care about how this affects me. The wars, the world affairs, the humanitarian efforts, and whatever else to me is just a distraction. What's important is I shouldn't be raked over the coals, and then have a gaggle of confused statists scratching their heads and point fingers at me as if there was some taxation glitch in the system.

Apocryphal: Of questionable authenticity.

Aprophycal: A completely made up word that make's ryjkyj almost downvote an otherwise great video.

>> ^Memorare:
lol the intros lookled like a Monty Python sketch, and wow, for the first time in a while Hitchens didn't look like he just woke up from a 3 day drunk.
The catholic church is irrelevant as a force for anything in the world. It's a banal social club that meets for 30-45 minutes once a week, whose members disregard whatever wisdom they may have heard as soon as they walk out the door.


I wish that this were true. While it may be true that many "enlightened and educated" members of the Church of Rome take what they hear from their Church and filter out much of what they hear as apocryphal or inapplicable to their lives, it most definitely is NOT so for the majority of the billion-plus members of the Church in the developing world. The Church teaches that their message is to be taken literally and doctrine is to be followed without question, and far more people do just that rather than not.

I'm glad that he admitted that it's our responsibility to take care of the poor. Let's take a look at what the effect of people coming together in a social contract to take care of them was:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/poverty-will-always-be-with-us-until-we-do-something-about-it.php

(quoted for the graph, though Yglesias is responding to another ideological yarn-spinner in Friedman's vein)

Curious how when the welfare state got put in place, the poverty rate went down...until we had a President who believed, as Friedman did, that it's better to let poverty be. That way the rich have their liberty from incentives to make the poor productive, and the poor had the liberty to be kept by them as wage slaves or just die and reduce the "surplus" population.

In fact, you can see that the very year in which Friedman is giving this speech, 1978, poverty had literally been halved in the wake of the Great Society, only to rise again when his kind of thinking came back into vogue thanks to Reagan's apocryphal Welfare Queens.

Personally, I love the way he waves away government's responsibility to the poor by comparing it to the building's responsibility. I suppose government has no responsibility to repay its debts (as buildings do not), to respect the boundaries of property (as buildings do not), or the responsibility to only shoot when absolutely necessary (as buildings do not).

Turns out, government has no need to be responsible at all. I would guess this guy also taught John Yoo in law school.

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Ok, good points about the non-humanness of angels. I can accept that Gabriel was very androgynous in that scene/movie. But what about Lucifer then? He is most definitely a masculine character. Kinda seems like they're attempting at having both interpretations instead of one or the other.

^enoch:

this is why gabriel is known as the angel of resurrection,and his punishment/duty is to stand watch over the four watchtowers- north(might be south,too lazy to check)and will utter no sound until the end-times(book of john,gabriel blows his horn).

Sorry to single you out enoch, but the idea that Gabriel blows the trumpet in the end times is not found anywhere in scripture, the earliest source for this is from an Armenian manuscript from 1455, and it reached the English language in Milton's Paradise Lost. As for not uttering a sound until the end times, the Bible specifically names Gabriel and the angel who announces the births of John the Baptist and Jesus (Luke 1:5-20 and Luke 1:26-38 respectively) hence his title as the Archangel of Annunciation.

Yes there are many different stories about angels, many of which contradict each other, but the standard beliefs as written in the Bible and accepted by the major churches stand on their own.

I know I am picking at a movie you guys enjoy immensely, I'm not trying to attack your taste/choice, I just think it's a little odd the way they chose to portray it. Either way, I don't really know anything about the movie or its universe so I'll shut up about it now .

lol..naw..you got me..you got the tater.my fault for being lazy and just posting stuff offa my head.didnt know about the paradise lost deal..thats a nice lil nugget.

gabriel has been many things in scriptures,messenger,voice and teacher(muhammhed).
the incarnation i am most fascinated with is the arch angel gabriel of the resurrection,who along with uzriel,rapheal and michael gaurd the four watchtowers.the apocryphal books have a much richer history concerning gabriel than canonized scripture ever will.
if you are interested in such things allestier crowley and don milo duquette are fascinating reads.

>> ^Skeeve:
A lot of comments on how good the movie is here. I have never seen it, but from watching this clip I know I wont because it made one of the mistakes that I really hate. Gabriel is a masculine name, hence the feminine Gabriella. Even though I don't believe in any of this stuff I'd like it if people got the story right. Gabriel is male. Just as I wouldn't appreciate it if a movie mistakenly made Apollo female I just don't like it when movies/books make Gabriel a woman. It's unfortunate, because the movie sounds like it is pretty good otherwise.


get it right?
ok..here is "right".according to the 25 apocryphal books based on angel mythology:
1.angels are androgynous,which this film depicts quite well in tilda swinton.
2.gabriel in particular sided with lucifer along with 1/3 of heavenly hosts and lost their bid to "sway" god.according to myth gabriel was destroyed by god,resurrected and then absolved of all prior sin.this is why gabriel is known as the angel of resurrection,and his punishment/duty is to stand watch over the four watchtowers- north(might be south,too lazy to check)and will utter no sound until the end-times(book of john,gabriel blows his horn).
3.gabriel is told to be the size of a sun and for any mortal to gaze upon his true form would be instant and painful death.thats why the arch-angels use lesser angels to do their bidding concerning humanity.
4.this movie is based on a graphic novel.

if religions cant even keep their theology straight,how can you expect a writer or film-maker?
this is just material i pulled off the top of my head,there are massive VOLUMES of material to sort through,and much of it contradicts each other.

but maybe your deal is just with gender naming,in that case i cant help ya buddy.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I applaud any person willing to swim against the tide of mindless "Oooh! Oooh! Me too!"-ism that goes on here in the sift. Well done Mr. BurdT. While I'm not a fan of profanity or inflammatory language, I certainly support those who spike the wheels of atheist groupthink.
This discussion essentially follows the traditional fallacious nature of most atheist vs. God debates. The atheist premise is that if God existed, he would prevent human suffering. Or - phrased a different way - God must not exist otherwise he would not allow people to suffer. Or - a different way - "Hahaha your 'loving' Christian God is really a cruel sadist because he allows & creates suffering."
This is the fundamental flaw in the atheist position. The existence of suffering does not mean that God created the suffering or that he enjoys it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the very basic nature of what God is, and what he wants.


that has GOT to be the worst straw man i have ever SEEN!
you set up the "atheist argument" and then say its a fundamental flaw?
weak my friend..very VERY weak.
show me this understanding of god that you espouse.what is this fundamental understanding that you so obtusely speak of?and this lack thereof?
what does "HE" want?
is it from scripture?which version?publishing date?language?gospels?apocryphal or canonized?greek orthodox or KJV?
i have an entire bookshelf,let me know which i should pull out.

while i can admire BT for standing up for his beliefs,potty mouth aside (bad form BT),i cannot and will not let such a poorly flawed argument slip past and not call you out on it.
mr pennypacker...you sir..are full of cow cookies.