This is nothing new especially. There's a lot of literature about social engineering. That if you spend a little money on things like childcare for your employees they'll work harder for you. Same with making the workplace just more enjoyable. They'll work harder and have an investment in their workplace so it makes sense to treat them nicer. Make them feel like they belong with significant things rather than just propaganda about how we're all a corporate family bullshit. People don't fall for that, unless they're already really indoctrinated.

In many cases though corporations won't do something like that even though it'll make them more money. Why? Because there would be giving up some control. It's not all about money, it's also about controlling your workforces.

How do you define "small" when it comes to narcotics? If I have a pound of cocaine, is that small? What about meth? PCP? LSD? Heroin? Narcotics are banned because they are harmful. Not just to yourself but to others. They are also addictive. Do you really think a junkie will be satiated by the small portions allowed by your proposed law? Nope. They'll always be looking for more and will do anything to get it. That's why drug-dealing is such a profitable business. A better solution is execution. If you're convicted of possession or abuse (no trial necessary if there's irrefutable evidence), you're dead. No further expenses beyond the execution (via cow puncher or some other cost-effective means) and body disposal (incineration seems most efficient). Zero chance of relapse.

As for money, sure, we could cut military funding. That would give us some money, though most of it would go towards rehabilitating criminals and paying off our numerous debts. We could increase taxes on the rich, even though they already pay the majority of taxes in the country. We could increase taxes for everyone, which we would inevitably need to do if we want top-quality education and healthcare for everyone.

As to your other points, we already have free healthcare. Well, relatively free in the form of Obamacare. We already have free education too. Public schools are free and available in almost every city. Said schools already offer sex education as well. The issue isn't really about education. Any dunce knows that having unprotected sex will result in babies. The problem is apathy. Some people just don't care. They don't think in the long-term. They don't plan ahead. They don't consider the long-term repercussions of their actions. All they care about is the here and now. It's not hard to find a condom. It's much harder to convince an apathetic and irresponsible person to actually wear it. You can tell them about the risks but if they don't think the condom is comfortable or convenient, they won't wear it. On the other hand, put a gun to their head and they'll definitely wear it.

I know it doesn't make sense to rationalize a crazy person's thoughts, but what was the best possible outcome in his mind?

Was the news crew going to delete the tape for him or maybe give him some cash for his troubles?

Did he just want an apology?

The thing is, Brand does have notions of what the post revolution system would resemble but he does so by reference to people he considers better informed than himself.

i.e. he is reluctant to give people some half baked concoction of his own as it's not the area he is most qualified to speak about. Instead he points us at philosophers and activists who have a lifetimes study and insight on such matters.

I think this is a far more laudable position than either A. defining a post revolutionary world arbitrarily or B. taking no position at all.

It's far more dangerous for a Revolution to have a half baked goal than none at all, hence he keeps his mouth shut about specifics he's not qualified to comment on as any wise person should.

The worst possible position to me is to accept the status quo regardless of what better solutions one may or may not have. There is clearly a massive problem and moreover one which causes untold suffering on a global scale. It's essential to recognise that before anything productive is going to happen.

Brands only goal is to help make recognition of this simple fact more prevalent. From there people far better qualified step in to work on the details. Such people are very much already around and have done a great deal of work to further this goal but they don't have media platforms like Brand.

All he and other such media personalities have to do is switch people on to the idea, leaving other things to the better qualified. Good revolutions are co-operative efforts rather than personality cults. (I'd even go so far as to say they go bad precisely because figureheads fail to recognise their limits)

Jim's advice to "follow your passion" is, IMHO, a terrible idea and is, perhaps dangerous and destructive career advice. But who could expect Jim to suggest anything else, seeing as how he became highly successful doing what he loves?

How many people do what they love, but never achieve success? Probably far more than those that do, except we never hear from them, because they're never selected to give commencement speeches at universities...

This is particularly pernicious in tournament-style fields where there are only a few big winners in comparison to the many many losers (e.g., media, athletics, startups, etc.).

These students would be better advised to "Do what contributes" (i.e., focus on the beneficial value created for other people and not just to satisfy one's own ego). People who contribute the most are often ultimately the most satisfied with what they do — and eventually find their way into fields with high remuneration (i.e., tend to make the most $).

Sadly, advising people to focus on others rather than oneself is not all that popular, especially given the endemic narcissism that characterizes modern culture (and, to be sure, much of what's behind Jim's own 'performances'). Focusing on what is best for others, rather than oneself, requires us to delay gratification (and short-term happiness) and perhaps even toil for many years to get the payoff of contributing value to the world.

Too often, people follow their passions into fields that are simply too competitive for where their skills are in those things. Instead, one should "do what contributes" — follow the thing that provides the most value to others.

In other words, "Follow your effort," "Don't do what you love, love what you do," and other suggestions to adopt a more complicated if more realistic calculus of doing what you're good at so long as it gives you some amount of satisfaction.

IMO, the best commencement speech of the season is the one delivered by Adm. William McRaven, the head of U.S. special operations, at the University of Texas, who said, "You can't follow anything until you've made your bed."

Why you said ban? Plaese give me some tips to get accepted in Videosoft.

You have to give them some credit. At least there was the vague impression of social responsibility while making half hour toy commercials

I am guessing that I was one of the first pastors, if not the first, in my community not in opposition to gay marriage. I don't say this with any sense of accomplishment of having wrestled through some sort of epic moral struggle, because I never have opposed gay marriage as sanctioned by the State. I don't believe there is any Constitutional basis for opposing it. . I also see no issue with a business serving the gay community. By default, our family business has happily done so for decades. One of my favorite mottoes is, 'live and let live.' I am confident that people around me, including those gays that call me 'friend' know this about me already. Although I am a part of the Christian community where I live, not one of my gay friends has exited our relationship due to that, nor have I ever been considered a homophobe. My views on marriage are exactly that: conclusions I have come to with the resources at my command. And whether or not I disagree with you, I believe that I have no right whatsoever to impose my view of marriage on anyone. In the same breath, after considering my own failings, I have no right to judge how someone else chooses to live their life. I have concluded that whatever path they choose was never between me and them, but between them and God anyway.

The solutions to this common struggle today (the question of religious conscience living side by side with gender liberty) cannot be solved by enacting more law. Americans are, as always, legislating the soupe du jour. The trouble is, in a society where that kind of 'might makes right,' the pendulum can and does swing the other way to deleterious effect. I think that our common issue can be solved by a simple but powerful idea: a stronger community. Like it or not, we are in this together and only together can overcome the vitriol on either side.

I remember an incident many years ago when my Muslim ex-Uncle showed up at my grandparent's house for dinner. On the menu: pork. In one of the most despicable acts of imposition that I can remember happening in our family, my Grandfather decided that serving pork that day would give him some kind of twisted self satisfaction; a victory, of sorts. He decided that he would attempt to get our Uncle to violate his religious conscience and, if that not be possible, at the very least, offend my Uncle as much as possible within his power. I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't within my Grandfather's rights to serve whatever meal he wanted in his own home. But was it morally right? If he had loved my Uncle, he would have put aside his own rights and made a way to foster community. That is what living together is about.

In the same vein, I don't believe any one of my gay friends would ever ask me to perform their wedding. Even given that right legally, they wouldn't ask because they love me and they would not attempt to get me to violate both my conscience and my own understanding of marriage. While we agree to disagree, we remain friends out of love. Love is what binds. The law divides. The law is a foreigner to community, the enemy of community, when it says, 'we can live together only when you do as I want you to do in order to satisfy me or my sense of offense for another." While laws are necessary in society, they are superfluous when love will do. But we don't want to work that hard. So we make rules. We call people names. We stereotype. We divide, condescend, and foment bitterness toward our neighbors, gay and straight alike.

I had a friend confess to me once, "My whole family is racist. I was racist. But I'm not racist any more." That didn't happen because of legislation. It happened because he got to know some black people and found out that he had some love in his heart for them. Wouldn't you have liked to have been there when he shook a black man's hand for the first time in his life? Yeah, me too.

Just once, I'd like to see someone brew some iced tea, walk across the street to that gay neighbor or that Christian neighbor and sit down and find some commonality. I read above (can't remember who wrote it) that the Bible's morality is trumped by today's morality. I say that the epitome of morality exists in the words of Jesus when he says, "Love your enemies." That, to me, is the fulfillment of what it means to be human.

In related thoughts, I think the Church needs to tell the State, 'Goodbye. We are not going to act as your agent any longer in arena of legal marriage. We will not sign your documents. You have the legal authority over marriage in our society but the Church has the spiritual authority as the Church sees fit." That leaves room for some congregations to perform gay weddings and others to not as they see fit. It leaves room for live and let live. It leaves room for love.

As "The Captive Mind" posits that the primary means of ensuring compliance from "the people" is not propaganda, but physical coercion. The state does not 'reason' or 'debate' with non-compliance. 'Students' are forced to go to school and learn the 'official' version of history, for example (home schooling aside), and accept it (i.e., the hierarchical "binge-purge" model of education in which regurgitation of ossified narratives is valued more highly than any independent or creative thought).

Propaganda serves as post-facto justification in order to give people some way to rationalize what goes on around them. This helps to allow the threat of violence to suffice as a means of maintaining control without the state having to resort to actual violence, in most cases.

In one of Stefan's other videos, he calls professional licensure a dog collar that you're forced wear. He calls modern folks 'free-range slaves'. The 'human farms,' as he calls states, are run by 'farmers' who have realized that free-range slaves are more productive than those kept in a more strict captivity. (And it undoubtedly is better for for everyone than the slavery-of-old.) He says that allowing a few slaves escape here and there creates a desired illusion of freedom. One could argue about the accuracy of Stefan's ideas, but I don't find that as useful as simply accepting it as Stefan's own aesthetic/philosophical position, or his worldview, and understanding it or interpreting it as you would for say, any other artist/philosopher. This brings to mind the understanding that the 1% consists mostly of "human farmers" (i.e., kleptocrats and cronies) and other escaped 'slaves'.

It seems that folks who tend to take issue with my comments here (@enoch, @ChaosEngine, @newtboy, @Taint, among others) have taken on the recent swell of anti-"libertarian" rhetoric as their own (particularly the more tabloid-like forms of it).

That's not as important to me as the question of why there seems to be so much media attention given to these ideas of late? I think it may have to do with setting the stage for opposing a possible 2016 presidential run by Rand Paul (who has already been 'branded' as a 'libertarian' by opponents of both parties).* Or it may have to do with how technology (particularly in the Bay Area, where I live, but certainly in other places as well) is increasingly making individuals less reliant on the state, more self-sufficient, and more able to access the information they need to recognize their status as a serf, and/or plan their means of escape from the 'farm'.

*I guess the media cares less about an "ideological war" against "libertarianism" than they do about crafting a practical strategy of electoral politics. Hence their insistence in conflating conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, and even anarchists (which couldn't be more dissimilar at their core).

Oh and lilithia, it's fine the amounts and all, I can wing that shit with my eyes closed, AND...
After i read your recipe, it inspired me to write these lyrics to a tune I shall flesh-out in studio (as i have been prone to be up-in lately recording hillbilly music) this punk tune, and here's the gyst and general set up and lyrics...so far (and yes, you Lilithia, inspired this song, as will be reflected in the credits)

I Steal Cookies - words and music by Chingalera, Choggie Kendall esq., BMC © 2014.

I steal cookies
It's something that I do
I steal cookies
Gonna steal some for you

I steal cookies
and hide'em in my shoe
I steal cookies,
yer gonna steal me some TOO!

(instrumental break and bridge)

I steal cookies
I steal em from the zoo
feed'em to the zebras
fed em to the, eeem-uuuu's

Gonna give you some cookies
if that 's what you wanna doooo
EAT SOME COOK-AhhhHHHS! (emphasize shouting)!

AFTER i STEAL EM FOR yOOOOOU!

(insert head-banging lead, two more bridges, and resolve here)

finished composition, less than 10 mins
(all these dern cookies will take wayyy longer to bake!)

While on one hand, I've always known that foreign aid is barely a drop in the bucket of our budget, but on the other, I'd still be hesitant to increase foreign aid to be completely honest.

so much shit that needs fixing and investment here domestically.

If we really could make a decent dent in military spending...then I'd be more comfortable with more foreign aid.

hate to say it but don't these people need to overthrow their own dictators and overlords? I'm ok with giving them some aid and giving them intel and other kinds of non-hardware military support. but they do need to fight their own damned battles.

Give us some base...WHOMP!...Never missed a beat

dzonny n' poolcleaner, here's another vote just for you two and some unsolicited insight as to perhaps why this vid isn't enjoying some stellar erection err..ascension: Star Wars fans as advanced in age as those depicted here well, they're dying-off or have moved-on. The fond childhood memories of epic cinematic outer-space masturbation have given-way to the worries and trials of a civilization saturated with entertainment, regurgitate art and culture, and the concerns of real-world issues like, "My children will never experience the thrill of cinema like I did because all the fucking movie theaters are either closed, or packed with 16 pieces of cinematic crap that costs way too much for a poor-quality product. Oh that and the demise of language and culture, as the world is turned into a single amalgamate of herd-like automatons.

Plus this song has been parodied so many times as to become nauseating.

But I'm just a cynical bitch so give it some time....more SWG's will come out to play after I remind everyone how much the franchise SUCKS DONKEY BALLS!

@Shepppard
ah...my young friend.
come over by the fire,your buddy enoch has some things to speak to you about.
are you comfy?
need a drink? beer? coffee?

then let us begin.

1.why do YOU care what another makes an hour?is it YOUR business?

but i understand the basic gist of your point:unskilled labor.

ok.thats a fair point.
but why is 15$ an hr too high?
what arbitrary scale are you comparing their hourly worth to?
walmart workers?

here is a facts that may give you some perspective:
a.if we take the minimum wage from 1978 and factor in inflation and worker productivity todays minimum should average 22$ an hour (yes...you read that right).
b.the workers in these unskilled jobs are in the high percentages in goverment subsidies.to the tune of 7 BILLION a year.so basically we ALL are subsidizing mcdonalds and walmart to pay their workers like shit.

so are you still against them getting a living wage? when you and i are subsidizing their income. the companies they work for get to pocket those profits,you and i get to help pay for their housing and food stamps.

walmart even helps ttheir employees sign up for food stamps! now isnt that adorable.

dont you think it a better idea that these companies pay their help at least enough where they dont need government susbizies? you know.like actually PAY them and not force us to?

2.if these corporations paid a minimum of 15$ an hr the projected hike in product prices will be......./drum roll.....
...........15 cents per item.........

3.how come it appears to be taboo to point to a CEO of a company who is making billions in bonuses while his/her workers are having to receive food stamps?
when did obscene gluttony and greed become something cool? even praiseworthy? while ridiculing those trying to survive and demanding a little bit of dignity as something to be chastised and cajoled for even having the impertinence to ask for a living wage.

the cognitive dissonance on display is on an epic scale.

who do YOU think you have more in common with?
the dude working at your local burger king?
or jamie dimon?

and dont even get me started on that condescending argument "get an education to get a better job".

i have been seeing many posts of late that reflect the very same flavor of yours @Shepppard and the one thing they all have in common is this judgemental value system that they just pulled out of their ass but in reality was given to them by the very people fucking them,and their children in the ass.

there will come a day when these people will realize they are slaves.
debt slaves.
wage slaves.
and while they were bickering the banksters and the corporate elite cleaned their clock.....
and they didnt notice until it was too late.

those elite fuckers.
they have a small club and you aint in it.
they dont like you.
they will never like you.
me?
im on your side man.

Give this some more votes and love *promote