Funny, Christians all dismiss thousands of years of multiple human cultures...(like any that deny or dispute the Christ story), but complain to no end if theirs is disputed or discarded in any way.

You've got to be kidding. The times when the most disgusting experiments were done is the exact same time when religious zealots inserted their "christian" religion into our government. (But certainly not it's teachings)

EDIT: Those cards only look like bricks from one narrow viewpoint. From any other view point it's undeniable that they are just paper thin and can't stand on their own. It's not about not giving them a second thought...it's that no matter how much you examine them they only appear solid from one specific position.

That was a lot of backhanded compliments and snark for someone pretending a nerve wasn't struck.

Granted, the earth will be fine....but people and other higher life forms probably won't.
Population thinning will come too late, because these effects of overpopulation will last far longer than one generation....unless you mean it will thin out to zero and self correct, which is likely.

What you don't seem to get is that when the ocean acidifies enough, the dead sea life sinks and bacteria causes massive levels of hydrogen sulfide which can then come out of solution and cover land in toxic gas clouds, leading to another "slime world" of slimes and bacteria like happened after the end-Permian extinction.
I wouldn't characterize that as "all is well" myself.

Global climate evolution. The earth is fine. IF you think this is man made fine . From this fine propaganda film the population will thin out and self correct itself. all is well.

It's only a wafer-thin mint. Just the one.

I don't know that Carlin's voice would be the right one, but doing so wouldn't necessarily be an issue for the character of Blaine. Seems reasonable to have a computer simulation of a particular voice rather than a voice actor specifically acting out each line. I'd argue however that if we're going to resurrect someone to voice Blaine, let's go with Alan Rickman. Just the right blend of civilized / polite and deadly serious / menacing.

Edit:
I've been a fan of the books from sometime between 3 and 4, and love most of the story. The last three books lost me some, as they felt quite different in tone. Even Wizard and Glass felt a bit of a miss, though it was a solid story in its own right. I frequently avoid watching trailers for films I know I'll see, so as to avoid spoilers and being mislead if the trailer happened to be poorly made. I plan to see this movie, and originally came here for the comments exclusively; having read them, I chose to watch it. I get the impression that the actors treat the characters well, and they feel like good interpretations. McConaughey's Walter is hard to read with what little we see here, but I've generally liked him in other things.

My biggest worry is that visuals all seem too clean, and the more sci-fi direction bothers me some. To me Mid-World always seemed like a character itself. An ancient thing, being stretched thin, fighting to hold itself together and losing. High tech doesn't feel right there, like the extreme entropy would have rendered it all non-operative. There was some tech here and there in the books, but most of it was broken or breaking down.

@Jinx
the whole jordan peterson thing confuses me as well,though i do not know if for the same reasons.

i understand his argument on language,and it's uses,prefixes etc etc.ok,i get that.what i do not really get is his objection to c-160.

on the surface,his argument seems to suggest that it is about criminalization of pronoun usage,which,if true,i could understand his objection,but how i read c-160 that is not the case at all.

the new addendum appears to only add to already existing laws on the books to protect a subset of people that were in need of at least SOME protection.

his argument seems to be ripped out of the pages of a minority report type abuse,but not anything that is actually in practice.

now this is not necessarily un-warranted.there have been many instances where well intentioned laws were perverted to produce something entirely not expected.
see:14th amendment and the creation of the corporation,an amendment set in place to protect newly freed,land owning slaves.

but to extrapolate an addendum,to already existing law,and make the case of future abuse,with little or no evidence.is a pretty thin argument.

in my opinion,dr petersons only real gripe,and valid argument,is against the university of toronto,and how they handled the situation.

i have watched a number of dr petersons videos on language,and the psychology behind language,and the societal and cultural impacts of language,and even the abuses that can arise with the misuse of language and the inevitable conflicts that can arise.

i have also seen peterson speak to a group of protesters and have watched them settle down and actually have a conversation with him.

so i think peterson has a beef with the university,and not the addendum to an already existing law,although that is not his contention.i simply do not see where he can take it to that extremity,when there is little evidence to support it.

i dunno..seems kind of a waste of time in many aspects to me.

It sort of makes sense, but i would ask for no cheese and just go across the street to about any American store and get at least the store bought cheddar or something by kerrygold like dubliner or anything ANYTHING that isnt a thinly congealed strip -- you cant even call it a slice of cheese..

Oh no, sir. I KNOW he lied repeatedly, he wrote a book about how to get ahead by lying.
On the other side, as you put it (and you missed me screaming for months that there aren't only two horrendous choices) was a normal, underhanded, misdirecting politician.

Email cover-up? Really? What crime was she covering, now that we have seen them all....none. Was she transparent about it, no, but as evidence that Trump is at least as bad on that front if not worse....tax returns is all I need say.
Pay for play, after Devos blatantly bought a cabinet position you would actually blindly make that claim with no evidence? Let me guess, you're afraid of the fish people Alex Jones told you about too. Is she corrupt, yes, is she corrupt compared to a man that's screwed over every business partner he's ever had and the taxpayer by intentionally bankrupting his companies repeatedly by hiring and massively overpaying other Trump companies, using that method to steal all funds and assets and build up massive debt, then declaring bankruptcy, stiffing his partners and creditors, and walking away (or in a few cases doing it over before being forced to leave), no. By comparison she's above reproach. Clinton may fit the definition of corrupt, but the word barely covers the insane backstabbing, admitted and repeated bribery (remember he claimed to have bought numerous politicians by bribing them, he thinks it's how government works), and theft from his partners that Trump is proud of.

So yes, tissue paper thin glass snow globe......

Um....so you think the right didn't make sinister sounding documentaries about Clinton? Where have you been living the last 25 years, a cave in the Peruvian alps?

I think perhaps the "glass houses" complaints are being made by people living in a paper thin crystal snow globe who wish to distract from that fact.

Recall, Trump ran on the lie that he paid for his entire campaign and was beholding to no one, it was absolutely central to his candidacy, and was just another pack of obvious bold faced lies he sold the right, like draining the swamp, releasing his taxes, hiring the "best and brightest people", and putting his assets in a blind trust....all of which were total lies.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

@enoch
I did my best :-) I honestly feel threatened by this attitude of feeding the bear crumbs and pretending he is a friend. Also cant help liking Abby, so very disappointed.

@newtboy
For russia Assad is a (replaceable) puppet, bolstering Assad is just using that puppet for their own needs. ISIS is a threat because it directly supports terrorist groups within Russia. Sending in their air force and that coal powered smoking joke of an aircraft carrier was a military excercise with minimal losses and huge political and home security gains. Expensive though.

One cant just send in a task force to take out a dictator simply because one believes it would be the right thing to do. Countries generally have a limitless supply of local mafioso would-be dictators or religious leaders which the local population prefers to foreign rule. Religion and politics are just a thin veil for local tribal wars. In spite of Syria being a fairly civilised country before the current events I doubt there was ever a "democratic" alternative to Assad. Sometimes you just get lucky and the dictator decides he wants democracy (South Korea, Chile, Gorbatchev inadvertently).

F**k the whole middle east actually IMHO, twice. The Kurds never get any love from anyone and they´ve survived in the middle of this crazy shitstorm for millenia. Yet they will never have a country of their own. Even "Palestinians" created only in the last few decades appear to be closer to that goal. Not fair at all.

Donald Trump is whatever he needs to be to get your approval right now. He's not a man of conviction who can be relied upon to stand by his beliefs. He's an adolescent with a twitter account who needs more followers to prop up his ego. He's a thin skinned, vindictive narcissist who cares more about the appearance of popularity than committing to the hard work required to earn true respect. He's a child in the middle of the room who's suddenly realized everyone's paying attention to him, so he hams it up and makes silly faces to hold the attention. His relentless need for praise and zero integrity allowed him to shape-shift into anything that would get the highest ratings. He is whatever the desperate and disenfranchised wanted him to be, so they voted for him. But he still only cares about the cheering section, even if he has to bring his own with him. So he will never do what's hard to fulfill his promise. He'll put up the facade, sign the papers in front of the cameras, bask in the glory, move on and blame someone else when he fails to follow through. There are people who need what he promised and I feel sorry for them that the only one saying what they needed to hear was a sad little man who's universe does not extend beyond his own ego. He will self destruct, because he always does.

You did good on that joke and on its explanation. I got it just fine without the commentary though.

I left your whole commentary here, because I make it a practice to delete all comments from my wall. Your essay needs to be saved for posterity.

So here is a quirk of Videosift.

If you are ignoring someone, and they make a comment on one of your videos, you will never get another email saying that comments have been made.

I had no idea of the implosion on that comment stream. Dear god in heaven.

What is really sad is I only wanted a temp ban. I honestly didn't know of @gorillaman's propensities. I am all for second, third and fourth chances -- even though some people have left the Sift in the past because the worst abusers were allowed back. I understood their pain, but I'm still all for more chances. If you love something enough, maybe you will change your behavior. I certainly don't change immediately. I will accord others the opportunity to learn over time.

So no edit help, huh? I think I'll use this:

As "Homeland Security" says, if you see something, SAY something. (Because here is the truth: As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel wrote, "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.")

Much cleaner. Don't need the snark bit. Quote marks. Gotta love 'em. (Quote marks, not parentheses, to denote snark. I'm getting old.)

I didn't address your tendency to tread lightly with me in my first response. I figured it was made up of three things:

1. My early days on the Sift, I had really thin skin. I was easily hurt and upset. One of the biggest gifts to me in my life was learning on the Sift to be clearer and stronger in my communications. And to walk away from the abusers. And to use the ignore button. I figured that my early reactions were in your brain pan still.

2. That tone of voice thing. It is real. What is a simple, clear declarative sentence in my head can be read as a whine-fest by others.

3. I think it is great that you write carefully when you write to me. Keep it up! It's called caring about the person you are talking to. I have zero problem with that. In fact, I see it as a Great Good. (Because if you aren't, and I lay my own internal tone of voice onto your words in a way that doesn't match the words in your head, you will be hearing from me. And I am just as verbose as you, my friend! A punishment worse than death!)

And yes. We are people who hang in there. It is a blessing and a curse.
Well, only a curse to those who roll their eyes and snort "good grief, just shut up!" I'm cool with it.

Thanks for hanging in with me. And I am truly sorry about gorillaman. He did it to himself, though. He did have other choices.

In solidarity, I say to you -- Fuck Homeland Security and ginned up xenophobia and racism.

(A poet? Do you write epic odes? Surely not haikus!)

I've not seen any real proof that having a royal family living in the palace is a deal-breaker for tourists. And so I've also never seen any proof that they provide a net gain to the country because they get fecking millions in subsidies, security, and all the land and positions they own 'by divine right'.

They royalty are public servants - you would never catch me bowing to any of them, or treating them any differently than i would a stranger - respectfully, as equals.

As far as i'm concerned, they've got the luckiest life in the world by birthright, which goes completely against everything i believe in. So they better do a lot of charity work and never complain about it - which to be fair they have done, but only because they know they're on thin ice and will be summarily dethroned if they act up. Especially at a time like this.

Every single person I have explained this to looks at me like I'm an idiot fabricating how I imagine something works in real life yet don't really get how it works. "Data mining for digital money by solving math problems that create that money out of thin air?"