That was well laid out. I knew that countries with several parties tend to have runoff elections, and I knew the purpose of the runoffs is to discover what the second choice is of voters who chose the least popular candidates in the initial round of voting. But I never quite worked out that one round winner takes all elections tend to lead to a two party system.

I suppose defenders of the American system would say that the two parties are "big tents" that accept candidates from the electable political spectrum. But there are several problems. Gerymandering was mentioned in the video. Also, once elected, congressmen are expected get in line with their party's leadership or face serious consequences. And in many states, including mine, the process of deciding who will get the party's nomination is anything but open and democratic.

That's true, that WAS a bad game. At the time, 8-y.o. me liked it well enough. When I'd get frustrated I'd figure that I just wasn't a very good gamer, not that the game had shit design.

Kind of like with Iron Tank, actually. Got so close to beating those final bosses; never quite did.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.


If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..
In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.
Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.
Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.
Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.
Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.
That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.


Indeed, that does just about sum it up.

Kceaton doesn't need to try to negate your Christian god's omniscience (assuming the proposition that he exists in the first place is true, which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate). You did that just swimmingly all on your own, assuming again, that you're not a liar or playing Devil's Advocate and earnestly believe what you just typed.

Thanks for saving anyone with any inclination to refute your imaginary friend a whole lot of time by doing it for us. Also, cognitive dissonance doesn't mean what you think it means. I would say that you were a fantastic example of it in action but that means you would need to actually recognize (in some form) the incongruity of your own silly, self-contradictory beliefs and/or be bothered by it.

The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.



If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..

In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.

Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.

Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.

Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.

Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.

That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.

>> ^shinyblurry:

From a Christian perspective, the message itself is ridiculous because there is no way for human beings to create an ideal society. It doesn't matter if it is a democracy or a dictatorship. The ruler of this world is the Devil. Until Jesus returns, mankind will be subject to his rule, culminating when the Antichrist comes to power. This man does not understand the message and I doubt he is a real Christian.
As for all the wonderful people calling for Christians to disappear, etc, I'll make you a deal. If you don't use this guy as an example for Christians, I won't use you as an example for Atheists.


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.

He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to *tempt* us (or if you wish, *we* let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.

I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".

There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...

Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.

To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
What I'm talking about in general is looking at people's behaviors to see if they have shown they deserve the right to vote, as opposed to just assuming any Tom, Dick, & Harry can vote no matter how stupid they are or how badly they behave.

Others have already pointed out that this creates a very slippery slope. Me, I just want to revisit one of the first things you said in this thread:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Isn't a common trope from neolibs and Videosifters a lament that the American public is "too stupid" to vote? Wouldn't restricting sufferage rights to property owners increase the average intellectual level of the voter? Isn't that a good thing?

It's a common refrain from either side of the political divide to blame a loss on voters being ignorant. What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of, instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

The right, on the other hand, can never quite believe it when they lose elections. It's always, always "voter fraud" if liberals win. You even have kept alive the idea that Obama himself is somehow illegitimately in the White House because he's black they think there's been a massive conspiracy to hide that he was born in Africa.

The effect of every right wing anti-fraud proposal I've ever seen ends up shrinking the overall share of people voting. Literacy tests were the original (don't want those ex-slaves voting!), nowadays it's slandering organizations that try to register the poor and minorities (e.g. ACORN), driver's license requirements to scare away immigrants, and making sure that it stays as inconvenient as possible to vote (you must register months in advance, you must come to a set polling place between 7am and 7pm on a weekday, etc.).

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote. For example, allowing people to register to vote on election day, being able to vote as much as 2 months early, make election day a mandatory day off nationwide, etc.

We're also concerned about election fraud, or fraud committed by the people counting the votes. Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same.

Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

Funny. My rejections never quite turned out so nice.

Bravo. Exquisitely balanced use of deadpan irony, satire and sarcasm to make these points in a much more thought provoking way than would otherwise have been possible. People seem to have completely missed this.

Satire is never quite as funny when it has to be explained, but what he did through this dialog was bring out in the open numerous ingrained (and many would agree, wrong) views on the subject of migrant labor (esp on farms). Food for thought, pardon the pun.

Also WTF is up with the lady checking her Blackberry when someone is speaking? I find it staggering that members of this House Judiciary sub-committee haven't been issued Droid Incredibles.

Do note that I did not apply what I said to *every* member of VS, but *half* of them...and IMO, though not scientifically provable, I'm correct in this assessment. About 50% of any thread is riddled with one side or the other side sifters, with almost no in-between and no attempt to even try to understand their opposition. The way you addressed this, you applied what I said to everyone, which I never did.

Onto the meat of the subject, you claimed my post was negative (in so many words), however, it wasn't negative, it was merely in disagreement with the speakers approach, which is a completely different thing. As for cynicism, I can admit it creeps into the equation, however, that doesn't mean I can't listen too and hear what other intelligent people, such as yourself for instance, have to say.

As for the final things you said, I'd agree if you cut out the entire middle portion of the video -- in which he preaches -- if that part didn't exist, I'd agree with you that his point was in attempting to start a discussion, however, he tried to steer the discussion to where he wanted it. He didn't merely speak of a specific subject objectively in the interest of starting a discussion, as he went into a mini-soap-box rant in the middle portion, rendering objective discussion almost moot as his speech became suggestive in nature. At least, this is my opinion on the matter.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^hPOD:
Can't make his point clear, so he continues to ramble on endlessly in hopes of accidentally making it...which he never quite does.

There is a point here, which I'll address in a moment. I first need to call out this disease in the bottom of your post.
>> ^hPOD:

I can see this in half the posts I read on sift...the most vocal arguments come from the far left or the far right...neither of which even listen to the other side, they merely use the time reading the others points to think up their equally useless responses.

You're doing exactly what you're criticizing. As am I, admittedly, by addressing your negative post directly, but I'm hoping to defend the people on the sift as a whole. I find most of the regulars on this site to be very sharp and engaging.
This portion of your post resembles cynicism. Cynicism is what happens when people have lost hope in the government system that works for them. When this sets in, people discontinue listening to others' ideas and lash out at those who pose legitimate food for thought as wasting their time. It's hard to sit and think about a situation that perhaps you would rather not be in. It is much easier to live day-to-day and pretend the issue doesn't exist. Let's attempt to be aware of that line of self-delusion and dispense with it to move forward.
As for Mr. Hedges' point; The point is nothing more than to make you think about the situation we find ourselves in. If you're waiting for someone to come along and give a simple, predefined cause and effect along with a prescription for continued success, you'll be waiting a long time. This is a very complicated downfall that has more to do with mass psychology than it does with the actions of individuals. There will always be people without a notable conscious; those who live for greed. Sadly so long as we don't expect people to contribute to our government (meaning the governing of people as a practice, not a particular national government) on an individual level the number of people who can be easily exploited will continue to rise and the greedy can very easily take advantage of the populous. This is Chris' point. Stop. Stop fighting with each other. Stop labeling those around you. Think about what you're doing and where we're going. Let's all sit down and discuss this.
There is a real danger here in the age of ever diminishing attention spans and increasingly effective marketing based on soundbites rather than ideas. We need to ensure that we focus on ideas where it really matters. Mr. Hedges isn't trying to make a "point" and he's not trying to tell you what to do. He's trying to start a discussion.

>> ^hPOD:

Can't make his point clear, so he continues to ramble on endlessly in hopes of accidentally making it...which he never quite does.

There is a point here, which I'll address in a moment. I first need to call out this disease in the bottom of your post.
>> ^hPOD:


I can see this in half the posts I read on sift...the most vocal arguments come from the far left or the far right...neither of which even listen to the other side, they merely use the time reading the others points to think up their equally useless responses.

You're doing exactly what you're criticizing. As am I, admittedly, by addressing your negative post directly, but I'm hoping to defend the people on the sift as a whole. I find most of the regulars on this site to be very sharp and engaging.

This portion of your post resembles cynicism. Cynicism is what happens when people have lost hope in the government system that works for them. When this sets in, people discontinue listening to others' ideas and lash out at those who pose legitimate food for thought as wasting their time. It's hard to sit and think about a situation that perhaps you would rather not be in. It is much easier to live day-to-day and pretend the issue doesn't exist. Let's attempt to be aware of that line of self-delusion and dispense with it to move forward.

As for Mr. Hedges' point; The point is nothing more than to make you think about the situation we find ourselves in. If you're waiting for someone to come along and give a simple, predefined cause and effect along with a prescription for continued success, you'll be waiting a long time. This is a very complicated downfall that has more to do with mass psychology than it does with the actions of individuals. There will always be people without a notable conscious; those who live for greed. Sadly so long as we don't expect people to contribute to our government (meaning the governing of people as a practice, not a particular national government) on an individual level the number of people who can be easily exploited will continue to rise and the greedy can very easily take advantage of the populous. This is Chris' point. Stop. Stop fighting with each other. Stop labeling those around you. Think about what you're doing and where we're going. Let's all sit down and discuss this.

There is a real danger here in the age of ever diminishing attention spans and increasingly effective marketing based on soundbites rather than ideas. We need to ensure that we focus on ideas where it really matters. Mr. Hedges isn't trying to make a "point" and he's not trying to tell you what to do. He's trying to start a discussion.

Can't make his point clear, so he continues to ramble on endlessly in hopes of accidentally making it...which he never quite does.

While some of this is coherent thought, it skews into the preach zone which then becomes corrupted by political leanings one way or another.

The real problem can be highlighted by using this person as example A -- he's right, and if you don't agree with everything he says, you're wrong. It's this exact kind of thinking on both sides that keeps everything at stalemate, yet everyone seems to ignore it. It's easier to latch onto the ideas you agree with than to consider the other side. The REAL fact is -- contrary to everything this man says -- is that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but neither side is willing to meet half way...so the problem continues to manifest itself.

I can see this in half the posts I read on sift...the most vocal arguments come from the far left or the far right...neither of which even listen to the other side, they merely use the time reading the others points to think up their equally useless responses.

its truly sad that some of he comments on here are negative, because this man is a hero. He never quit unlike so many others out there today. We need more people in the world like Derek!

>> ^chilaxe:

Let's speculate... would I be a progressive if I was raised in your family, and would you be a capital-generating scientific rationalist if you were raised in my family? We can actually answer that, because my parents and siblings were in fact liberal, and my instincts were aligned against their instincts since my earliest memories. That's to my benefit, since my instincts are orders of magnitude more useful in the world than their instincts, but that's not really just.

I could just as easily hold that situation up as proof that it's not genetic, either. Of course, the right answer to that is that both genetics and learned behaviors are more complex than "traits in the parent appear in the children".

>> ^chilaxe:
Liberals oppose genetics because it's immutable, and they oppose reprogenetics because it has to do with genetics, which they oppose. Fast forward to the 2030s and liberalism has done a 180 after opposing genetics for 100 years, because they've realized advancing everybody's biology is the only way to create genuine human equality instead of pretend human equality.
That's great news. It means we have a choice.


You may need to elaborate on the "liberals oppose genetics" comment -- we like research into genetics, and I haven't really heard any serious discussion of reprogenetics in liberal circles.

Human genetic engineering is gonna be a big political shitstorm. My own prediction is that liberals are going to come down on the stance that all US citizens should be provided subsidized reprogentic services, to try to make sure all men are still being created equally. I fully expect conservatives to have their usual coalition -- the free marketeers will object to having an advantage of wealth lessened by "socialism", and the theocons will want it banned outright (but will never quite succeed in getting it, just like bans on abortion or contraception).

When I lived in Europe it finally dawned on me how much water we waste here in the US just by flushing our toilets.

I think it's because we pay so little for water services, as opposed to western Europe.

But in Germany, the toilets were much different than the rest of Europe. There was what my friend described as the "inspection shelf". Your turd(s) thwacked down on bare porcelin, sounding like a steak hitting tile. Then when you flushed, the water whisked it away. Also, most German toilets have two buttons (pee or poo) for how much water is pushed through the toilet.

When I returned to the states, I put glass bottles in my toilet tank to bring the water level down to where it is on the rest of the planet.


>> ^EMPIRE:

I never quite understood why in america, the water in toilet bowls is at such a high level. It looks like a clogged toilet.
Can anyone explain?

>> ^EMPIRE:

I never quite understood why in america, the water in toilet bowls is at such a high level. It looks like a clogged toilet.
Can anyone explain?


I'm not sure where you're comparing too. It might be related to the flushing mechanism though.

American toilets seem to work a little like a vacuum when they flush, sucking the water away, while UK toilets appear to do something more like pouring lots of water on top to push the other water away.