Monsanto is like Microsoft... they are these hulking titans of their respective industries, who work as hard as they can to stay ahead of the game, sometimes through questionable activities. However, their contributions on the whole are incredible, driving generations of progress in their respective fields through investment, research, and release of progressively more useful tools (on the whole).

There is a similar debate regarding pharmaceutical companies and their profiteering from the invention of life saving drugs... its easy to paint a company as a 'bad guy' for charging large amounts of money for medicine that a person needs to live. But is it the company's responsibility to forgo shareholder profits in order to maximally help more people with their drug, or is it the spectrum of regulations imposed by a representative government that should be entrusted with that responsibility?

GMO agriculture products that are drought tolerant, flood tolerant, self pollenating, etc etc, will likely save our buns in the next 100 years. If anything we should be doubling down on how much effort we put into GMO production and selection, to help drive a technological boom in that industry before we've mismanaged ourselves into a crisis.

You are not a special unique snowflake. Had you listened to instructions and removed the computer from the bag, you wouldn't have been flagged for further inspection, probably. If normal pat downs cause your child trauma....don't make them fly because it's likely they'll have one, and don't complain about it when they do. I would bet that 30/45 minutes was spent dealing with the irate mother, because we just saw the patdown take around 2 minutes.
I did this this morning, I was "selected" for extra screening (like every time I fly, maybe because I'm bald), it took 2 minutes because I didn't make a fuss about it and interfere with them performing their duties.
Flying is a privilege, not a right, and there are rules and procedures you must follow. They didn't.

Years ago when I worked in Retail, we had one of the best kitchen centers around - with huge selection.
BUT
When people realized they were faced with so much choice (30 blenders to choose from , 20 toasters etc) the sales plummeted - we decided that selection was a poor marketing strategy. Most people went away more confused than when they got there.
What we did was provide two alternatives at specific price points. So for example if buying a toaster...
2 at $10, 2 at $50 and 2 at $120.
People will pre-select what they feel is a fair price for a toaster and then we provide them a simple one over the other choice.

Of course I'm simplifying it here. But you can't give people too much choice.

Another case in point!
When I go to Subway - I want a bun with my stuff on it - I absolutely HATE when they ask what king of bread - it's practically all the same - then the cheese - it's all the same stuff in a different colour lol

Sure - I want to choose what is on my sub, but the bread? What's the taste difference between them? None! When they ask me what type of bread, I always answer "I don't care"

People only think they love their children but it's really just a trick of brain chemistry due to natural selection favoring those who care for their young. And still, I told my son to take the bus home from school because I wasn't finished cheddaring.

I have lots of hobbies and probably all of them are because my brain chemistry compels me in some way. Still, I'm experiencing new things and expanding my understanding of the world, instead of watching someone explain to me in great detail how everything I enjoy is meaningless. And I still even find time to tell my kids I love them. Even though, objectively, the love I feel is probably just a compulsion.

I'm hoping the horn has been trimmed to deter anyone killing the beautiful thing. Or one of those born with small horns due to cunt-assisted selective breeding.

I grew up in a Christian home (Methodist) but never really bought in and considered myself an atheist from about ~12 years old or so.

@poolcleaner said that atheists might be the worst at "respect(ing) my beliefs and recogniz(ing) that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me".

There's two parts of that. Respecting other beliefs, and not proselytizing.

Just speaking for myself, I would say that I am an atheist specifically because I don't respect the Christian beliefs that I grew up with, and feel much the same way about the dogmatic elements of any religion. Most religions share the basic tenet of the "Golden Rule" (or claim that they do), and as far as I am concerned that is the only thing of value to be found in any religion -- although it can exist perfectly fine outside of any religious context.

That's where proselytizing comes in though. For a while when I was younger, I wanted to "spread the good news" of atheism -- to show others what was so obvious and important to me, that idea that the Golden Rule works just as well outside of any religious context. I was "indignant" (as poolcleaner put it) and quick to tell people that I am atheist and to sort of "pick a fight" about it. I wanted to show people just how stupid and wrong they were.

I think LOTS of atheists are like that, especially early on after they part ways with religion. To be fair, a lot of that is defensiveness since atheists tend to get proselytized to a LOT by Christians that learn/discover that they are an atheist -- especially in the US.

Now I'm 20 years older and I live in a country that is 95% Buddhist, 4% Islamic, and 1% Christian/Other. Thailand isn't even really close to the most diverse Asian country in religious terms (Singapore has 5 religions with 10%+ of the population, with Buddhist being the most at 34%) but there is an air of practiced religious acceptance / tolerance here that is WAY different from back home in the US.

I'd wager that amongst the major religions, Christianity might contain the highest percentage of the "proselytizing type" -- those that really strongly believe in the message enough to want to spread it to those who don't, or those that have never really questioned their beliefs but who nonetheless buy in enough to think that it is important to get it out there. On the other hand, there are many more Christians who may be very strong believers but who are comfortable keeping that all internal and not proselytizing.

With atheists, I'd say that there is a high correlation between being very "out" / open about their atheism and being the "proselytizing type" of atheist. So, if you know that someone is an atheist, it is fairly likely that they will be a bit "indignant" about it. If someone is an atheist but doesn't feel the need to inform others about it, most people would never know/assume they were an atheist. I'm not talking about "closeted" atheists; just the difference between those who are going to tell you within 10 minutes of meeting you that they are an atheist without the subject ever coming up, and those that will only mention it if you directly ask them about it.

Keeping that it mind, I can actually believe that from an outside perspective, known atheists might be more aggressive than known Christians just due to that sort of selection bias. Maybe.

*backup=[...snipped...]

ah,the days of being in a relationship with a woman,who loved painkilllers with her jug wine.

who would wake me up in the dead of the night,using the super heated metal tops of a bic lighter on the bottom of my feet (those are called "smileys" for those who do not know) to scream at me about some girl who had the audacity to look my way at target,because 3:30am is the time to find out if i am having sexual thoughts about random women.

or an earlier girlfriend whose father was a prominent artist in the country and was holding a weekend jazz festival.i had a customer who had cerebal palsy,and one leg had been amputated,whose boyfriend had just broke up with her and she was a wreck.

so i had this bright idea! why doesn't this poor emotional wreck of a woman come to the jazz festival of my girlfriends dad? that will get her mind off things right?

but,having a second person accompany made me a little late.so when i finally showed up,my girlfriend was already half in the bag,and mad.i tried to explain and introduce her to mary,the heartbroken girl.

and my girlfriend broke my nose with a bottle of michelob.i do not think she cared that mary was heart broken,and an utter wreck in need of human company.i could be wrong,this is just a guess,but the bleeding from my broken nose may have been a strong indicator.

or how about the time i was counseling a long time friend,who had pulled a midnight move out to escape a man who had basically had her trapped in a spare room,chaining her to the wall.that man had gone as far as severing her achilles tendons,after her first attempt to escape,and this woman suffered from a severe case of PTSD.

now she did form an almost childlike bond to me.maybe because i had offered her the first taste of true compassion,and offered her safety and comfort,and allowed her to talk the poison and bile out that had been building inside her for over three years.

but her attachment to me,which was to be expected,was not viewed favorably by my girlfriend.i spent a lot of time and attention in drawing this broken and damaged young woman to feel safe,and to begin to feel human again(which infuriated my girlfriend).my patio was always filled with friends,artists and people of interest,and i did my best to bring a normalcy to this young womans life in order to help her acclimate,and to feel human again.

and my girlfriend would come home,get drunk,and start to whisper the most vile.and disgusting things..not about this young woman,but about me.

which,of course,if you understand the mentality of an abuse victim.especially one who had suffered such as she had.any criticism,or perceived threat to the person who had (in their mind) saved them,will create incredible anger and anxiety.

so because of my girlfriends irrational jealousy of this woman,and in her drunken selfishness,she went out of her way to make this woman feel as uncomfortable,and as unsafe (the exact opposite of what i was trying to do).so much so that the young woman...who didn't want to be a burden,or affect my life in a negative way...left my home,and wrote me she would never come back,because she loved me and didnt want to cause problems.

two weeks later she was found dead in motel room.over dose of piankiller and xanax...and wrists slashed to ribbons.

or how about the time one of my girlfriends broke three of my ribs,because i was being kind to a waitress?

or the time another girlfriend stabbed me,because while she was unhappy with our relationship,she could not abide me talking to anyone who owned a vagina.in this case a fellow artist i was collaborating with,and who happened to be not only an amazing human being but beautiful as well.

or that one time,when i broke up with a girl,because it simply was not working out and she repeatedly rammed her ford fairmont station wagon into my brand new firebird?

oh..the stories i can tell about all my wonderful relationships,and the women i have shared portions of my life with.i could write a book...

and then i watch this video,and i am overcome with an urge to drive cross country to the creators home,walk inside,grab him by the ankles and crag him outsides....and beat him senseless.

because he is coming from a false premise.
he is implying the that the benefits of relationships outweigh he selective memory our brains create when reliving our moments of singlehood.

when the reality is this:as long as you have friends,who love and accept you for who you are,you are never actually single.you are surrounded and loved by an extended family.

i do not need a girlfriend.
i do not want a girlfriend.
i am not interested in getting married.
and as i have revealed here,i would prefer some memories to remain buried under the much happier and adoring memories of my actual friends who put up with my eccentricities,and my overall oddness,rather than deal with a woman who is smitten with the ideas fed to them by institutions,and periodicals such as comsopolitian and vogue.

though,ironically,i have two ex girlfriends living in my home as i write this.
one is a former porn star,and current stripper who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia,and is a recovering addict.

while the other i had to go do a midnight rescue from a place where she was renting a room,but the house was junkie house,and she is a recovering addict as well (and they also kept stealing everything from her).she has bought a house,but it needs work and that work is taking fooooooorever.

and BOTH of these women still harbor some residual feelings towards me.even though i have been quite clear,open and honest that i have ZERO interest in rekindling anything,with either of them,but that hasn't stopped them from being all catty with each other,and causing drama,and complaining about the smallest,tiniest and most ridiculous of things to bitch about.

at first i tried to play referee.
i did my best to help everyone get along,until i realized they both had no interest in getting along.they wanted to outdo the other in order to get my attention.

which is just.....dumb..but anyways,my new way of handling their insipid complaints is always this response:i don't care.

and it seems to work beautifully.

so there you have my story,or at least part of it.
and i have to say...this guy is kinda full of shit.

for those of you happily married,with a great partner,i salute you.good for you,and i mean that.

but for me?
no thanks.i am good.

No, I didn't confuse anything. Almost every single country benefits from 'illegal' immigrants as well as regular ones. France, for example, has thousands of illegal immigrants from mostly Islamic countries that provide services to it's mostly aging native population. We benefit no more and no less than any other nation from illegal immigration, as @newtboy mentioned, if you import food products or grow them locally you probably are benefiting from illegal immigration.

As far as your evidence, I hope this will suffice as 'some':

Steven A. Camarota, PhD, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, in a Jan. 6, 2015 article, "Unskilled Workers Lose Out to Immigrants," available at nytimes.com, stated:

"There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and we also admit over a million permanent legal immigrants each year, leading to enormous implications for the U.S. labor market. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that there are some 58 million working-age (16 to 65) native-born Americans not working — unemployed or out of the labor market entirely. This is roughly 16 million more than in 2000. Equally troubling, wages have stagnated or declined for most American workers. This is especially true for the least educated, who are most likely to compete with immigrants (legal and illegal).

Anyone who has any doubt about how bad things are can see for themselves at the bureau's website, which shows that, as of November, there were 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans working than in November 2007, while 2 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) were working. Thus, all net employment gains since November 2007 have gone to immigrants."

Jan. 6, 2015 - Steven A. Camarota, PhD

George J. Borjas, PhD, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, in a Sep./Oct. 2016 article, "Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers," available at politico.com, stated:

"[A]nyone who tells you that immigration doesn't have any negative effects doesn't understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable...

We don't need to rely on complex statistical calculations to see the harm being done to some workers. Simply look at how employers have reacted. A decade ago, Crider Inc., a chicken processing plant in Georgia, was raided by immigration agents, and 75 percent of its workforce vanished over a single weekend. Shortly after, Crider placed an ad in the local newspaper announcing job openings at higher wages."

Sep./Oct. 2016 - George J. Borjas, PhD

Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., PhD, Emeritus Professor of Labor Economics at Cornell University, in an Oct. 14, 2010 briefing Report to the US Commission on Civil Rights, "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers," available at usccr.gov, stated:

"Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser [sic] in this competition are low skilled black workers…

It is not just that the availability of massive numbers of illegal immigrants depress wages, it is the fact that their sheer numbers keep wages from rising over time, and that is the real harm experienced by citizen workers in the low skilled labor market."

Oct. 14, 2010 - Vernon M. Briggs Jr., PhD

There are more educated people than I that hold the same opinion, but let me give you an easier to understand, and absolutely true, example. How do I know it is true? When I was a much younger man, I worked for a roofing company. So I lived it.

The company I worked for was owned by a family friend, who had worked for most of his life in the field and had an excellent reputation. However, in the 90's around the time NAFTA was passed and (not related, I hope) illegal immigration spiked in Texas, he began to lose out to other companies. He did some snooping around and found out they were often charging hundreds of dollars less in their estimates than he could possibly offer, at least while still making a profit. He also found out that the two companies that were taking most of his business were staffed with illegal workers, being paid much lower wages than he could give to his legal employees.

Fast forward a year and he was close to declaring bankruptcy. Just like any type of labor where you pay your employees little to nothing comparatively to their compatriots in the same field, you cannot compete fairly. Net result, he was forced to let us go one by one, replacing us with illegals.

Obviously, I moved on, learned a different skill and began to make far more than I would have as a simple laborer. But the fact remains that an entire industry was undermined and radically changed by the inclusion of cheap illegal labor. This will not change if we simply ignore illegal immigration because it is the 'nice' thing to do. What it will accomplish is that young people will slowly find that certain jobs are out of their selection. It also will get worse the more accepted and commonplace illegal immigration becomes. I know for a fact that while I worked at Apple there were entry level support techs that were illegally here. Perhaps you will say that it is a benefit because it would prevent offshoring, but I disagree. What it does is make the working class poorer and doesn't solve the other issues brought about by illegal immigration, such as Emergency Rooms being flooded by people who can't afford insurance. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it is common to go to the ER and see people stacked like cordwood because they can't refuse patients unless they are a private hospital.

As far as The Jungle, and my statement about it and it's author, I was merely pointing out that as much as you try to put forth that illegal immigrants have a bad life here in the USA, the fact is that we used to treat legal immigrants far worse. Perhaps it was a reach on my part, but it seemed logical at the time.

I doubt we will agree on any of this, but I respect your opinion. I live in a state that has a very large proportion of illegal immigrants, and while you are correct that they are generally not a criminal negative to society, they do have severe effects which I think you are overlooking. I do think that legal immigration policy needs massive change and businesses that exploit the almost slave like labor of illegals to make more profit should be punished severely. In the meantime, when we do catch illegals, they should be deported, not protected by a sympathetic politically motivated law enforcement group.

I'm pretty sure the 84 Lumber commercial was a bit pro trump, if not at least neutral. That was the point of the great big door at the end. The idea being that policies will allow selected people to come in legally as trump talked about in his speeches.

As far as the comments from top democrats, the devil is in the details. We often miss the nuance.

Interesting rant. From a media person who will undoubtedly defend to the death the ability of "the media" to pick and choose who is elected and what misguided, ill-intended, and destructive bills are enacted into law. Clearly contemptuous of any world view other than his own.

For a democracy to survive, there has to be compromise and a willingness to understand and provide some level of respect to differing viewpoints. We've just been through eight years of selective enforcement of the laws, selective respect for individual rights, and policy driven by executive order to bypass the legislative process.

Why all the sudden "fear and loathing in Washington DC" when the current arrogant, misguided administration is using the tactics of the former arrogant, misguided administration????

Umm. By far the biggest reason for the shift is the specialization factor, mainly spurred by NOT playing both sides of the ball (offense and defense). Which to be fair, the video did point out.

The video didn't come right out and directly say that was a bad thing, but heavily implied it. I disagree, and think that it is one of the coolest things about American Football. Different positions require (or at least reward) different skillsets and physical attributes. So at the highest level of play, yes, O linemen are going to be huge and stable on their feet. D linemen are going to be slightly less huge, but faster and more aggressive. D backs and receivers are going to be tall and fast. Running backs can excel by being smallish, elusive, and quick, OR large and resilient. And so on.

That specialization makes the game fascinating -- seeing how teams with different balances of specialists can compete with each other and be more or less effective in different situations or against different teams.

Are NFL linemen going to be more at-risk for conditions like heart disease? Of course -- any sample group made up of people that weigh as much as NFL linemen is going to have greater occurrence of heart disease. But that isn't something unique to football players / the NFL. In fact, if you compared rates of heart disease in current / former NFL linemen to a sample group with the same average weight who were NOT football players, they'd probably have a lower rate, because like the video said, those linemen generally still had to be in very good physical shape -- just heavy.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems weird to insinuate that it is a bad thing for the NFL / football in general to "encourage" health issues directly or indirectly because they select for large / huge players. If you want to point out unique risks of playing in the NFL, there are way more pressing and direct issues -- like RBs having LOTS of mobility problems after they retire due to all the bone / joint damage from getting tackled all the time, or increased risk of chemical dependency in football players in general due to all of the pain and other meds that teams pump into players to keep them going.

The 'tenuours connection' has not been debunked. The evidence president Obama had access to was enough to order Anwar's assassination from even.

Anwar al-Awlaki and the Fort Hood shooter met in person at the mosque Anwar was then an Imam at. Following that the shooter emailed Awlaki back and forth, but the contents of the email's has been kept closed. Anwar's praise and blessing of the attack immediately afterwards though is kind of telling.

That then combines with Anwar's past before that, where he was an Imam at 2 separate mosques attended by 3 of the 9/11 hijackers. One of those is the same mosque where he also met the Fort Hood shooter...

Or back even before that in the late 90's when he was running a charity that was later declared a front for funnelling money to terrorists.

That's an awful lot of coincidental contact with terrorists. Combine that with the fact he went full on cheer leader for it all once he left US soil seems to tell enough. He was an active participant and conspirator to at least Fort Hood, and possibly many more attacks on the US and it's allies.

I'm sorry to say it, but Jeremy Scahill is pretty guilty of selectively presenting and showing only the facts that fit his arguments and leaves out a mountain of other extremely relevant information that would be inconvenient to his narrative.

*talk ... any reason my promote didn't work at all? nowhere on the front page with either "hot" or "just published" selected.

First of all passing law to allow pedophiles and perverts in opposite sex bathrooms is wrong.
I'm not rooting for a team. Democrats are just worst. buy an ultra small margin.. They approve low moral standards.

Both are woefully disgusting and hence the ultra low approval ratings and Trump getting in.

I would much rather see more States stand up for States rights and actually limit the FEDs power to 1/2 or more of its current size.

Even better is for News to actually report truth and for the people to stop watching stupid mindless shows ( ie 99% of them) and tune to to what the heck is going on and VOTE. The people represent the "4th" branch of government in a sense. We need to kick out the Harry Reid's and john McCain's of government. They are the truly rich 1% and they did not build shit, they just bought and sold favors at the peoples expense.

With respect to chaos does nto matter where he lives on tihs issue. He was given a video of what is going on and still stood on the side of perverts.


With respect to Trump. Who knows what will unfold. But I do see a bright man who built an empire. That takes skill and ability. Hopefully he will use it to the betterment of the world.

Clinton is and utter disaster of a pick. Corrupt to the core.

The POTUS selection was a no brainier.

Bernie and my pick Cruz would have been an choice. True opposites. One one cheated and one was bullied.


No I am not a republican.. The Bushes were the final straw.

Sadly are only 2 teams and we must pick... Jill Stine No