I would suggest a subtitle: "Deal with it..."

Interesting narrative - and perspective on the aftermath of the removal of Saddam H. Would like to hear more - how does the society play out after the payback? Is the former ruling minority then suppressed by the newly empowered majority? or is there an ethical equilibrium achieved??? Or is Democracy just a euphemism for oppression by the majority?

I have commuted to work by bicycle for years - gotten "tagged" a couple of times by careless drivers with no major injuries...
But, I don't much care what the law says, if you have a large vehicle of any sort in your vicinity, it's up to you to know what the truck is doing and going to do and be ready to react accordingly. Any messaging that argues otherwise is just plain stupid. Maybe the driver sees you, and maybe not - maybe he's been driving too many hours with too little sleep. Maybe he's arguing with his boss or his girlfriend - doesn't make any difference what he's doing - if you want a long and reasonably painless bicycling career, it's up to you to judge the driving conditions and safety of your situation and placement at all times...

Adrenalin junkies only need apply... Helicopters might be okay in still air - but wouldn't be much of an improvement insofar as risk is concerned if there was any kind of wind blowing...

No, it makes them like the Democratic Party who don't have any problem simultaneously touting their position on women's rights and supporting Bill Clinton who was a serial groper and philanderer... in the same way that they condemn Trump for a lack of respect for the rule of law while they worshiped Barrack Obama who didn't feel it was necessary to enforce (or even recognize) immigration law or drug laws.

I don't really think either party has a monopoly on hypocrisy...

Interesting narrative - but maybe a bit too simplistic. "the boomers have all the assets" - really? is Bezos a boomer, how about Mark Z? There are some wealthy boomers, as there have always been wealthy individuals in the older generation - but lots of boomers are doing their best to survive on Social Security - maybe because they yielded to the siren song of consumerism. (a statement as simplistic as the claim that boomers have all the assets...). Technology has destroyed lots of middle class jobs - the working community displaced by technology is, as they always have, struggling to adapt. Some have adapted better than others. But the simplistic mantra of free college/university for all is a fraud when too many illiterates are being graduated from high school and too many parents are totally unconcerned that their children continue to advance in primary and secondary school with completely inadequate skills....
That's the thing with simple answers for the world's problems, they're usually wrong...

This, like so many of these tax discussions, happily ignores the fact that those top 1% of income earners pay 40% of ALL taxes... (and more than the combined tax revenues of the bottom 90% of income earners). The reality is that nearly 50% of all income earners pay NO taxes - this really isn't a good social policy - where nearly half the potential voting public have no vested interest in how government money is being spent

Very poorly named video of an extremely informative and interesting presentation. I don't have the chops to know whether this individual can back up all his assertions, but a very thought provoking discussion

One anomaly in this: I don't know what the song writer's intent was, but the video shows an artillery shot in association with Davy Crockett . Although there was a nuclear armed "Davy Crockett" artillery round during the 1960's, the context in the lyrics suggests Davy Crockett of the coonskin cap fame (played by Fess Parker in the mid-50's TV series) who was (wildly) popular at about the same time as Peter Pan (played by Mary Martin) was a big hit - and the only World Series win (1955) by the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Hardly a brilliant analysis - more like a brilliant piece of advocacy that, like most of its kind, is long on optimistic projections and very short on real numbers and a real analysis of those numbers. For instance: what is the megawatt hour cost of a solar power generation station that can replicate the power responsiveness and availability factor of a fossil power generation station (over a similar life cycle). He quotes the kwh cost for solar and wind power systems but each and every one of them is "backed up" by a much larger conventional power generation system that, ultimately, is burdened with the costs of maintaining grid stability, grid voltage, and grid frequency. There are huge engineering problems and substantial costs associated with maintaining a power supply that we now require to operate a modern economy. Just ONCE, I would like to see the green power advocates address those challenges and costs in a realistic way instead of glossing over them with their fantasy projections.
And I will say, as an aside, that I have spent my entire working career working in the renewable energy sector and fully agree that we need to transition to a renewable energy economy - but unrealistic projections are going to doom our economy if they are taken as being possible in the near term.

I didn't have time for the whole thing, but interesting to hear someone who was involved in the development of the new reality actually calling it for what it is. If anything, I am much less optimistic than he is about our ability to rein the crazyness in.

Organo -mercury compounds are extremely dangerous even at quite low levels because they do bio-accumulate in the natural environment. Read up on Minamata Disease - caused by industrial disposal of organo-mercury compounds into surface waters that ended up in Minamata Bay in Japan. The mercury bioaccumulated into the fish and shellfish - not only neurological effects but also severe birth defects for the population that consumed the fish.

Wow... completely amazing video. Where can I find the site to download this?

An extraordinarily simplistic and misleading discussion of tax laws. They very cleverly point out the disparity between the benefits of tax deductions between those with annual incomes over $400K and those below, but neglect to mention what fraction of the total tax payments each group provides.

Also suffers from the implied perspective that all the money actually belongs to the government and it's the government's right and duty to determine how much of it you get to have...

Fascinating... the attacks and parries are pretty sophisticated...