Here’s more Republican sex crimes for you….

226 Kennesaw Mayor, former councilman Leonard Church (all households required to own a gun) child molestation

227 GOP WA state Sen Joe Fain - accused of rape, accuser inspired by Christine Blasey Ford

228 Federal judge Brett Kavanaugh and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of sexual assault

229 George H.W. Bush - several groping allegations (though my sister worked in nursing homes & said they used to note DOM (Dirty Old Man) on charts because it was so common for aged men to lose their social control

230 AL GOP Gov. Robert Bentley - sexual harassment

231 Pensacola’s GOP Sheriff Al Harrison convicted of forcing women prisoners to have sex with him.

232 SC celebrity politician Thomas Ravenal, former Republican State Treasurer, sexual assault, assault and battery

233 Colorado Republican House minority leader Mike May’s company sued for sexual discrimination/harassment

234 Republican Sheriff L. PAUL BAILEY of Berrien Co, Michigan oversaw a prison where several inmates were raped and abused.

235 Reagan appointee U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. sexual harassment and misconduct

236 SD GOP state Rep. Mathew Wollman resigned after sleeping with interns Plural!

237 Republican NY state Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin - sexual harassment

238 NY Assemblyman Greg Ball - R - sexual harassment and assault several times in NY & TX

239 NY Assemblyman Republican Angela Wozniak sexual harassment, retaliation after staff member breaks off affair

240 Former state representative and gubernatorial candidate Steve Nunn ignored the restraining order had against him for domestic violence and murdered her.

241 GOP Kent County Commissioner Gary Rolls gets ONE YEAR for raping a young woman since she was 9 until she was 23.

242 Will Folks, spokesperson for Republican Gov. Mark Sanford (Appalachian Trail) convicted for domestic violence.

243 MN GOP state house candidate Brad Gerten - domestic assault

244 GOP Congressional candidate David "Bull" Gurfein domestic violence

245 University of Massachusetts Republican Club vice president -Bradley S. DeFlumeri domestic violence, violating restraining orders. https://dailycollegian.com/2009/04/republican-club-vice-president-arrested-banned-from-offices/

246 Carl’s, Jr CEO and big Trump supporter Andrew Puzder lost the opportunity to be Labor Secretary because of domestic violence history, but Trump still wants him in the administraiton

247 Albuquerque Republican Rep. Rory Ogle - domestic violence and assault withdrew from reelection campaign

248 William "Wild Bill" Janklowm Republican governor of SD - two rapes, one as a minor, the other, he took advantage of reservation inability to prosecute whites who commit crimes on reservation.

249 Republican Congressman Dan Burton - sexual harassment and groping

250 Dick Armey, GOP Congressman from Texas - sexual harassment, inappropriate conduct with college students

😂
Cons are child raping abusers that are led by a rapist that lusts after his daughter, or at least publicly did when she was an underage teenager.
😂

226 Kennesaw Mayor, former councilman Leonard Church (all households required to own a gun) child molestation

227 GOP WA state Sen Joe Fain - accused of rape, accuser inspired by Christine Blasey Ford

228 Federal judge Brett Kavanaugh and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of sexual assault

229 George H.W. Bush - several groping allegations (though my sister worked in nursing homes & said they used to note DOM (Dirty Old Man) on charts because it was so common for aged men to lose their social control

230 AL GOP Gov. Robert Bentley - sexual harassment

231 Pensacola’s GOP Sheriff Al Harrison convicted of forcing women prisoners to have sex with him.

232 SC celebrity politician Thomas Ravenal, former Republican State Treasurer, sexual assault, assault and battery

233 Colorado Republican House minority leader Mike May’s company sued for sexual discrimination/harassment

234 Republican Sheriff L. PAUL BAILEY of Berrien Co, Michigan oversaw a prison where several inmates were raped and abused.

235 Reagan appointee U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. sexual harassment and misconduct

236 SD GOP state Rep. Mathew Wollman resigned after sleeping with interns Plural!

237 Republican NY state Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin - sexual harassment

238 NY Assemblyman Greg Ball - R - sexual harassment and assault several times in NY & TX

239 NY Assemblyman Republican Angela Wozniak sexual harassment, retaliation after staff member breaks off affair

240 Former state representative and gubernatorial candidate Steve Nunn ignored the restraining order had against him for domestic violence and murdered her.

241 GOP Kent County Commissioner Gary Rolls gets ONE YEAR for raping a young woman since she was 9 until she was 23.

242 Will Folks, spokesperson for Republican Gov. Mark Sanford (Appalachian Trail) convicted for domestic violence.

243 MN GOP state house candidate Brad Gerten - domestic assault

244 GOP Congressional candidate David "Bull" Gurfein domestic violence

245 University of Massachusetts Republican Club vice president -Bradley S. DeFlumeri domestic violence, violating restraining orders. https://dailycollegian.com/2009/04/republican-club-vice-president-arrested-banned-from-offices/

246 Carl’s, Jr CEO and big Trump supporter Andrew Puzder lost the opportunity to be Labor Secretary because of domestic violence history, but Trump still wants him in the administraiton

247 Albuquerque Republican Rep. Rory Ogle - domestic violence and assault withdrew from reelection campaign

248 William "Wild Bill" Janklowm Republican governor of SD - two rapes, one as a minor, the other, he took advantage of reservation inability to prosecute whites who commit crimes on reservation.

249 Republican Congressman Dan Burton - sexual harassment and groping

250 Dick Armey, GOP Congressman from Texas - sexual harassment, inappropriate conduct with college students

@Jinx
here is what you are missing,and i think should be a focal point in this situation in regards to burr:

1.while we may view burr creating a game where sarkesian gets punched in the face offensive,and maybe it is to you (i just find it in poor taste).this is a perfectly acceptable position to take.

what is NOT mentioned in this video is that burr created a very similar,distasteful game,with the exact same mechanics,for the exact same REASON a few years earlier,but in that case the face being punched was jack thompson,who was seeking to legislate by using unsubstantiated claims that video games promoted actual violence,but in THAT case it was a man whose face was being punched.

so where was the moral outrage then?nobody gave two shits.

2.guthrie responded by recruiting her fairly large feminist twitter followers to barrage burr contacts and businesses who he did work for.so it wasn't just guthrie but a group of like-minded women who banded together to,dare i say..harass? a video game developer who offended their tender sensibilities.

could we call this gaggle of offended women a cabal?
meeeeh..i think that maybe stretching the meaning just a tad in that regard,but i think it safe to call them a group of offended women.

did they have a right to band together and expose a person they felt offended by?
yep.they do have that right.

do i think it hypocritical and morally inconsistent to use the victim card,when years earlier burr created a similar game for similar reasons?but in that case it was a MAN getting smashed in the face?
yep..i sure do.

but here is where it REALLY goes off the rails.
you would think the target should be burr right?
after all it was him who created the sarkesian/thompson games.so it would stand to reason that burr would be the focus ..right?

well,you would be wrong my friend.
guthrie went after elliot for having the audacity to disagree politically with guthrie.
he never threatened her.
never used violent language.
in fact he AGREED with a large portion of guthrie's position.
he just felt it counter-productive to make a federal issue out of the situation,and advised a more cautious approach.

thats it.thats all he actually did on twitter.

and guthrie's response was,and i paraphrase "elliot seems to be unaware of our power as women.should i sic the internet on him?"

"sic the internet on him"

think about that for a moment,and let the larger implications come into focus.

so this mans life is ruined.
lost his job.
80k in the hole.
and for what?
HE didnt create the offensive game,so in what context can this be viewed as justice?equality?fairness?

no.
this is a lynch mob.
this is mob rules.
this is about privilege playing the victim in a victimless crime,and utilizing the internet to silence and punish dissent.

will elliot be absolved of all charges?
most likely,and that is even after the prosecutor changed the charges in the last minutes before sentencing in order to create a broader charge.

but that does not change the fact that elliot's life as he knew it...is over.

which is why i see a real and present danger with an overly PC community and social justice warriors who wish to impose their own set of morals on all of us.

we can look back in our own history and see the dangers of institutionalized morality police (looking at you christians).

this form of social control by way of internet bullying promotes censorship,stifles debate and literally quashes dissent.the fear of speaking your mind because it may draw negative attention from those who disagree and then translate to real world consequences that are long-lasting.

and as i said in another video,this new brand of feminism has almost nothing in common with the feminism you or i are accustomed and familiar with,at all.

i urge you to watch the video i linked to from girl writes what.she breaks down this case in a most excellent way,and it will become apparent that this new breed of feminists are just that...a new breed.

@newtboy
still missing my main point.

which may be my fault,i tend to ramble.

i can agree that:
choices have consequences.
i can agree that an employer had a right to fire according to its own dictates and standards.
i can actually agree with much of what you are saying,but it is not my point.

i am simply pointing out the larger and greater societal implications of how social media,youtube,instagram,tumblr etc etc are being used as bully pulpits by those who feel morally superior to admonish,chastise and ridicule other people into submission.sometimes rightly so,other times not.

there is already a growing number of people who have been directly affected by this new paradigm,and what i find disturbing is that so few are even bothered by this new development.

people have lost jobs over facebook posts!
for posting an opinion for fuck sakes!

and nobody seems to have a problem with this?
this is perfectly acceptable in a supposed "free" society?

lets use a totally hyperbolic example,but the parameters are the same:
during the salem witch trials it was later found to be common practice that one farmer would accuse his competition of witchcraft.

was this neighbor actually practicing witchcraft?
probably not,but what an effective way to rid yourself of competition.

we can use an even more recent example of afghanistan,where farmers were turning in their rivals for cash.they get rid of competition and their neighbor is whisked off to gitmo.

do you see what i am saying?

the larger implications are vast and easily abused.
and this is most certainly a PC police issue,because it is actually punishing offensive speech,opinions and positions.

west baptist church are a repulsive and offensive group of religious thugs,but they have a right to speak and express their vile opinions.

and i will defend their right to be offensive and vulgar,while totally disagreeing with their position.

this is social control by proxy.
don't say anything offensive,or there shall be consequences i.e:job loss
dont say anything controversial or there will be consequences,or post anything racy or contrary to social norms.

in fact,because more and more people are paying the price for saying/posting a controversial view or offensive opinion,just be quiet.

sit down.
shut up.
and obey.

or the PC police will band together to expose your offensive,controversial and subversive opinions and destroy your life.

so you just sit there and think your thoughts,but don't you dare voice them,or the morality police will expose you for the subversive you are.

this tactic is already reaching orwellian levels.
and nobody seems to be bothered.
nobody seems to be giving this the scrutiny and examination it deserves.there is a real danger here that many of my fellow citizens seems to be either unaware,or just dont care the larger implications and that is disturbing to me.

because some of the examples are just like THIS turdnugget.
a reprehensible,vulgar and ignorant example of a human being.so it is easy to feel good about him getting a "comeupance".

because we hate him and what he represents.so it is easy to ignore the larger picture and the implications of social warriors taking things too far.which i could literally type all day laying out scenarios where this form of PC police/social warriors could easily be abused (and already HAS in some instances).

and that should have us all standing up and taking notice,because it is those very implications and the relative silence that is disturbing me the most.

so yeah,this turdnugget is an easy target and easily dismissed as getting what he deserved,but what happens when it is YOUR behavior being villified? something you were doing ,maybe in the privacy of your own home or out with friends that made its way to youtube,and someone found offensive.what if you were taken out of context? or the video was edited?

how would you defend yourself?
better yet,WHY would you have to defend yourself when you were not harming anyone,but some overly-sensitive fuckwit was offended and decided you should be punished?

there is a plethora of historical examples i could use where tyrannical governments,despots and police states have literally quashed dissent,differing opinions and abhorrent behavior by simply creating fear..not of the government per se,but rather by their own neighbors.

which is EXACTLY what the PC police and social warriors use to silence their opponents.fear.

you are totally within your right to disagree with me,but my main argument is how easily this tactic can be abused and if we dont start paying attention now.we may not get a chance later.

it has happened before.
it can happen again.

*intent to harm is an actual legal charge,and can be prosecuted.

there was no harm here.except for feelings and racist/derogatory language.

i guess you could make the "emotional distress' argument,but in a 5 minute video you would be hard pressed to prove actual,irreparable harm.

i am rambling again,and probably lost the plot somewhere,but i hope i at least got my main point across.

there is a real and present danger here my man,and it threatens some of this countries core ideas and is ripe for abuse.

because the truth is:this tactic works and it works extremely well.

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

@Asmo
i get what you are saying but i think you are missing the insidious implications that this new system of indoctrination represents.

i think @ChaosEngine's term 'stealth totalitarianism" is rather clever..and apt.

i agree with you on the points of peer pressure and how people can easily be manipulated.we are all,to varying degrees,subjected to a plethora of propaganda and targeted rhetoric,all meant to mold and shape our opinions in order to sustain the status quo while giving the impression that somehow our conclusions are an organic and natural response,when in reality we have been duped.

on that point we agree that this is not actually something new or novel but an old,tried and true method of social control.

what is new about this 'gaming" system,is that it is not taking the more subtle and passive approach of what current and supposedly "free" societies now implement to control public opinions and attitudes in order to either remain in power,sway the public into policies against their own interest,or create an atmosphere of fear to foment opposition.

this new system is actually aggressive.
this system will actively use its own population to do the oppressing,manipulating and controlling FOR them.

it is brilliant in it's simplicity.
it will use very human attributes we all possess in order to enact a better system of control,all the while having the appearance of being a harmless and innocuous social media competition.

but it is anything but harmless.
nor innocuous.
it will and can affect every facet of someones life.from their job to where they will be able to live,to even HOW they live.

think back to the times of east germany and the stasi,or the weimar republic,or even the soviet union of the 80's.

all used elements this new gaming system is representing,but those systems of control,while relying on the public to do much of its surveilling,all had one thing in common that they ALL relied heavily on:fear.

fear of reprisal.
fear of exposure.
fear and suspicion were the driving forces that kept those systems in power and the people in a perpetual state of paranoia.

the dread of the midnight knock.
of jackboots and black bags.

but those systems of control were fragile and once even a little resistance was exerted those systems crumbled incredibly fast.

this new system is far more subtle and devious in my opinion,because it removes the spectre of an imposing and oppressive government that will respond with violence and replaces it with the citizen to do the work for them.

the government does not have to do anything.
your neighbor will,and not because of some fear-based reason but rather for points to propel their own ambitions.their own selfish desires.

the wholesale implications are absolutely terrifying if you really think about it.

i would speculate that within a very short amount of time dissent and criticism of the chinese government will all but have vanished.replaced by a obedient and compliant population.

not because they are afraid of reprisal from the government but rather fueled by their own selfish desires for a better job,better living quarters,more privileges etc etc.

so a seemingly benign system utilizing social media will become of a self-propelled system,where those who do not tow the party line soon face joblessness,homelessness and ostracization.

not because the government strong armed them into submission,but rather their own neighbors.

so you are right.
there is nothing new here,but this system has taken the old forms of social control and brilliantly utilized one of humanities greatest weaknesses:selfishness.

it is the simplicity that makes this so brilliant and yet so horrifying at the same time.

I started to argue with you, it was a good one too. All about relevance and irrelevance and civil disobedience. But then I realized that my point was, nobody cares. And then I realized that I don't care.

I realized that having political opinions bears little difference to having religious ones. There's so much faith, too many assumptions, too much arrogance, side picking, divisiveness, manipulation and social control involved in both. So I'm agnostic. Both politically as well religiously. The issues are too big, too convoluted, and too interconnected for me to actually know or understand whats going on... and it sounds like arrogance to me now when someone talks politics. Particularly when it comes down to the silliness of assigning traits and personalities and connotations to words like republican or democrat. It's an arrogant, binary way to look at something. And it reeks of brain washing.

So my point again, fuck it. Imma read some books and go to bed.

"I don't know" doesn't get you social control and a steady flow of income on the "be saved" platform.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it.

I agree with much of your comment, but that opening statement is so broad and overreaching that I had to downvote it (and I almost never vote on comments).

Unless I am mistaken, I think you are referring to a very narrow definition of religion in making that claim. It is absurd otherwise. Religion, in the most general sense, is a collectively accepted doctrine of moral, philosophical, and spiritual belief. There is nothing inherently detrimental to such systems of belief, except perhaps the tendency towards tribalism. But it's worth noting that some religious doctrines explicitly warn against tribalism.

I think what you may be arguing against is demagoguery and tribalism, both of which are often attached to religion, but are not synonymous with it.

It is important to make this distinction because only by being careful with such words can we ever move those enthralled by the negative aspects of religious social control.

So you're saying that if it wasn't for religion humans would find some other aspect of human nature to exploit? Not really profound, but it really does make sense. For example, religion is being used as a means to deny gays the same rights the rest of us have. However, when it comes down to it, some people just feel that homosexuality is icky. And you know what? As ignorant as that is, it's just as natural for somebody to be repulsed by certain sexual behaviors as it is to be attracted to some sexual behaviors. As long as people disagree there will be conflict. The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power. Furthermore, if somebody doesn't agree with something that's ok. And since there is no god, therefore no word of god, our differences are merely individual preference.>> ^peggedbea:

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:
whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:

whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.

All the freedoms who enjoys? Who is free? You keep saying that everybody is free but we're far from it. The only other countries that we're more free than...are countries that are just slightly more religious than the US. That's right...the more religion, the less freedoms. Inverse relationship between religion and freedom. On the individual, on the community, in a country. Religion is ALWAYS a form of social control, it has never been used to "free" anybody.

You don't think you're free in America? Let me guess..you take issue with Americas drug laws, right? And you're quite incorrect about the inverse relationship between freedom and religion. The least free countries today are atheistic states and totalitarian regimes. The freest countries in the world all have a rich Christian heritage, though not all of them necessarily honor that heritage. You're also talking about religion as if they're all the same, which they clearly aren't. The Christian religion has brought freedom and liberty where ever it has gone, whereas religions like Islam are oppressive and grind their people into the dirt. The catholic church used Christianity to control people, this is true, but they clearly weren't following anything Jesus taught. There is nothing oppressive about Christianity..it teaches us to regard everyone as equal, to love our neighbors as ourselves, to hate no one, and to minister to the poor and helpless. If everyone followed that we would have an ideal world.

>> ^rottenseed

All the freedoms who enjoys? Who is free? You keep saying that everybody is free but we're far from it. The only other countries that we're more free than...are countries that are just slightly more religious than the US. That's right...the more religion, the less freedoms. Inverse relationship between religion and freedom. On the individual, on the community, in a country. Religion is ALWAYS a form of social control, it has never been used to "free" anybody.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Everyone who voted for this video and (mockingly) for the other one is a hypocrite. Bashing Christians in the name of tolerance? As far as his claims go, this country was founded by Christians, and it has always been Christian. All of the wonderful freedoms that secular humanists enjoy today are only because of Christian principles. If you want to rip out the foundation you're going to sink the boat, and that's exactly what is happening today.

Yeah that's all well and good but there's a problem. The old "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" adage is nothing more than a means of social control.

If I want a lot of stuff my life is meaningless? WELL THEN I better let the rich handle all that. They may have money, but are they happy? (+_+)

I often wonder about that and fast food. Maybe you've heard of the cheeseburger bill before, maybe not. And while Super Size Me seemed a bit exaggerated at times the results he was getting from his doctor were SCARY. And while things like cigarettes and alcohol come with warnings from the surgeon general, fast food, in spite of the evidence that it's horrible for you, is protected by the aforementioned bill AND the public is under-educated about how dangerous it really is.

It's just a matter of time before we move on to soylent green for the masses. Oh wait...

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
the cost of food isn't high enough yet. historically, people are generally complacent with letting the ruling class do whatever as long as they can afford food and expect a reasonably brighter future. i wonder if part of the reason we subsidize agriculture is to keep food prices artificially low longer to avoid social unrest. and then there's fast food. which consistently remains cheap. my paranoid brain is starting to formulate fast food as social control conspiracies. also, google holodomor. and think about monsanto.

i think we've all given up on the "brighter future" part... and food prices keep fluctuating.. it's coming though, don't worry. the rest of us will join you soon. as soon as we can no longer afford a mcrib. >> ^rottenseed:

Why isn't USAmerica rioting? I am. It's just me though.