That if is a mighty big if.

And the lessons you think they "need to learn" from this election are probably different from the lessons that the professional class (credit to Thomas Frank) thinks the Democrats need to learn. To them, it's not about getting a candidate that has a higher favorability rating than a meteor strike, but to find a candidate that maintains their status in society. They are the winners of "free trade" (see Rigged by Dean Baker) and globalisation, while a vast number of people have been thrown into debt peonage, wage slavery or worse.

Unless the Democratic Party emancipates itself from the donors and the professional class, I don't see them becoming a home to champions of the people. Look at how the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign to crush the Sanders candidacy -- lots of juicy bits about that in the Podesta emails. Look at Corbyn, who is basically caught up in a civil war within Labour, despite overwhelming support by the party base.

The Third Way (Social-)Democrats have bought into neoliberalism at such a fundamental level that I just cannot see anyone turning them into a vessel for social equality without getting utterly corrupted or even crushed along the way.

The lesson they learn might be to not nominate a member of a dynasty with so much baggage attached to them. Yet even that depends on them actually recognising the baggage in the first place, which they seemed unwilling to during this election cycle. Everything was brushed off.

And then you're still stuck with a representative of a system that doesn't work for a lot of people. The situation of the rust belt is not a result of anything particular to the current or previous candidates, but of the Washington Consensus and the widespread acceptance of neoliberalism as gospel.

Without major outside pressure, I don't see the party changing its ways sufficiently enough to become a representative of the people again. Maybe a Trump presidency is enough to create such movements, maybe not. Occupy was promising, yet crushed by the establishment in bipartisan consensus.

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

Dean Baker drops some MMT over at Truthout:

We Poisoned Kids in Flint to Keep Their Parents From Having Jobs

If you think a rule imposed by any authority is unjust, feel free to practice some civil disobedience.

But part of the impact of civil disobedience comes from accepting the (unjust) punishment / consequences of that disobedience with some dignity. That is what really persuades other people to see the injustice in the same light that you do.

Occupying a "federal building" that is only very tenuously connected to the word "federal" and then taking to Facebook to beg for "bare necessity" supplies (like French vanilla coffee creamer) is not dignified.

Yelling and cussing at a University Dean (?) because ... um, I actually can't figure out what she's upset about ... is not dignified.


Rosa Parks refused to leave her "colored seating" place on a bus when the driver demanded that she vacate it for some white people. He said "why don't you stand up?", and she said "I don't think I should have to". He told her he was going to call the police, and she said "you may do that." She had more dignity in her little finger than all of the Oregon clowns have put together.

That's why today, more than 60 years after the fact, people still remember what she did. The Oregon dudes will be lucky to be remembered 60 *hours* after their "occupation" of that building ends.

OK, that's more like it to me. No, we don't need AS MUCH protection (in general).
Again, I think you have missed what a "Master" is. Read his description with an eye towards "dean" and I think you'll get my point. He's not PR, or HR, he facilitates student activities, and sets the 'tone' on campus...so his job is really to teach these people that they're 100% wrong about what college is about and for, and to show them (EDIT: but not necessarily on an individual basis) that 'safe space' is the opposite of what college is for... at least that's what I get from his own words.
No, this instance isn't JUST about shouting at men and calling them "bad". I seriously doubt the vitriol would have been as thickly directed at his wife, though. Maybe I'm wrong, these girls are really just angry at their own failings and screaming at the world. I blame their parents for never telling them they aren't special snowflakes, better and cuter than everyone else.
The students are obviously wrong about what they are entitled to.
I thought I was clear...I guess not....I mean-would you say to them that they don't need 'protection'....as you said originally?

EDIT:I feel like you've/they've made the mistake of thinking that, since most positions of power are held by men, most men have power. I know that's what '3rd wave feminists' think...I've heard them say it. It's not true. That's kind of my point about the male rape victim...men are not always the one's holding the powerful position, and thinking they are simply perpetrates the inequality, but tries to swing it to the other side. That's not progress.

The first point I think we can safely disagree on without needing to dig further. We can both think of examples of very irrational, angry feminists and we can both think of examples of rational and grounded feminists. I am sorry that your experience tends mostly toward the first, whereas mine tends mostly toward the second; so many people that I know personally or that I see in media are happy to call themselves feminist that to me it's starting to mean absolutely nothing.

Masters and associate masters (nicholas and his wife, respectively) have some kind of non-teaching support role in relation to the campus and the student body. They're not deans, but more sort of community and relations managers. Without excusing the rudeness in the video, I think it would a whole different principle if these were, for example, students shouting down a professor in one of their classes (which I'm sure has also happened). The master's role is different.

"The point being, you said white men don't need protection because they can just shrug it off or, to quote..." They don't need as much protection from inflammatory comments, but they need job protection, protection against threats, protection against libel, protection against violence, etc., like anybody else. What we see in the video is a PR guy (public relations between the university and the student body) being caught up in a PR shit storm. He's not getting this shit because he's male but because he's the face of student relations. His wife got a lot of shit as well. I don't think he deserves getting shouted down by anybody, but my point is that this isn't the same as a feminist making a generic blog post about how all men are shitty people; it's a specific shit storm playing out around racism at Yale, his role and his wife's role as responsible for student relations, and about what students believe they are entitled to from the school staff. It's a very specific, very different situation, where the students thought they had a right to expect something from him which maybe wasn't part of his role. (I would bet a reasonably large amount of money that he's more PC than you or I would ever care to be).

Finally, I don't know what you are asking if I would "say to a man who has been raped by a woman" Would I say to them that they should ignore shitty feminist blogs about how men are shit? Absolutely. Somebody who has suffered sexual violence should stay far away from that kind of toxic bullshit. But maybe that isn't the scenario you're presenting - let me mirror it and see if I understand what kind of scenario you want me to consider: if a friend of mine has been robbed by a black man, and then dismisses all black civil rights activists as criminals and thugs, would I try to argue with him? I hope I would, though it would be difficult as hell.

If I knew a man who had been raped by a woman, I would try to support him in getting through that, and not blame all feminists. If I knew a woman who had been raped by a man, I would try to support her in getting through that, and not blame all men's rights activists. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

Yes, but as I said, the majority of ACTIVE, self labeled "feminists" are the man hating brand today, and it's causing many to no longer self label themselves 'feminist' lest they be confused with this vocal majority.

You ignore the pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by women in prison as well, or the pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by women outside of prison. Yes, it happens, and is prosecuted far more rarely for various reasons, marginalizing those real victims....just like these "feminists" do, pretending all men are rapists, and all women are victims. It's simply not true, and it muddies and sullies any real point they might have about equality.
I think you know I was using hyperbole to make a point. I don't advocate anyone being raped in real life...not even mass rapists, but I do see that it might be the only way to show SOME people who have a total lack of empathy for people that don't hold their mindset.

"Master"? I thought they said "dean". Is that the same thing? EDIT: If so, the dean is not a guidance counselor/therapist any more than a judge is outside college. They have guidance counselors and therapists for those jobs.

The point being, you said white men don't need protection because they can just shrug it off or, to quote..."We can pretty much take it; we as a group already have most of the money, most of the privilege, and most of the presidents. We don't need a safe space." ...do you still say that seeing how he's NOT capable of just 'shrugging it off' and ignoring them, knowing that many have lost their careers for simply not agreeing with this brand of PC-Nazi?
EDIT: Would you say that to a man who's been raped by a woman? How about a white man raped by a woman of color? Not about the rape itself, but that they still have all the power and can 'pretty much take it/they don't need a 'safe space'', while implying these kids can't take it and do need a safe space?

agreed,to a point.the narrator didnt bother me that much,and i felt the content far more important than some random youtube channel owner.

this new overly sensitive,overly privileged with a healthy dollop of self importance being placed on the individual really needs to be addressed.

this new trend to silence dissenting opinions and demanding respect for our own,tiny and insubstantial habitats.while simultaneously disrespecting those who happen to disagree is hypocrisy on steroids.

to scream at the top of your lungs to the dean of students that his job is NOT to create and intellectual space but rather to create a home,and NOT be aware of the incredible disconnect to reality is quite disturbing.

there is REAL danger in demanding a space where only ideas YOU agree with,opinions YOU agree with are allowed,and all dissention needs to be either protected from or compartmentalized.

the reason why the free market of ideas is so brilliant and VITAL,is because this is the place where bad ideas come to die.bad ideas are challenged,scrutinized and criticized.when you remove this free flow of thought,then bad ideas can find homes in these small "safe spaces" and are allowed to breed and fester.

the new form of social censorship must be completely,and utterly destroyed.

lets get some fingers snapping shall we?

Greetings to you in Columbus from Canton. Ohio does have a decent rock history beyond just the rock hall... Chrissie Hynde, DEVO, Trent Reznor (technically from PA, but his NIN project started in Cleveland, so I count him as Ohio), Marilyn Manson, and Black Keys just to name ones off the top of my head... John Legend... of course there's also Dean Martin but he's not rock... I know there's more... I was last in Columbus for the 4th of July for the Columbus Crew game that day.

I dunno, to be fair Chris Pratt isn't really 'leading man' handsome and therefore not particularly memorable. He's just sort of generically handsome, whereas Harrison Ford, Johnny Depp, James Dean, um... Christian Bale maybe, and pre-fat Marlon Brando and those sorts of guys are 'leading man' handsome. He isn't *strikingly* handsome in a way that makes him stand out from the thousands of generically handsome faces we see in the media every day.

I got nothing against the guy. He seems pretty cool and I've liked his work, but I don't think his face is ever going to sell movie tickets.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

@artician
i hear ya man,
but tolkien set the bar where all other fantasy writers had to follow.

personally i found the "the chronicles of thomas covenant-the unbeliever" to be perhaps the best fantasy series to take what tolkien did to a much greater depth and scope and incorporating much of what C.S lewis laid down.

what a great series.the protagonist is such an anti-hero and you struggle for three books to even like him,nevermind identify with him.

but like you,i sometimes struggle when a writers influence is so blatant.

take Dean Koontz...really...take him..
i find him to be an utter hack,and while his prose is readable,his storylines and ideas are so obviously plucked from better writers and then mashed together so we wont notice.

i notice...and thats why any book of his given to me has a permanent place on my bathroom shelves.that man is pure crapper reading,since i get to play "recognize the plot" without any real exertion ....mentally.

but let us be honest.
while tolkien created a very diverse and detailed land with lore and history.painting a picture in our heads this fantastic world he created.the basic plotline is not that original.

it is your basic heroes quest with an extremely detailed backdrop.

so i will give this show a pass,just as i did brooks books.they were engaging and entertaining,and at the end of the day...what more do we wish out of our books?

ever read any of piers anthony's xanth novels?
they are puntastic and a fun ride (even if a bit cheeky),and nowhere near great literature.

but fun...and i can live with that.

My two favourite FBI agents - Sam and Dean Winchester.

*comedy for the Dean Martin impression.

Such a great performer!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'carson dean, cardio, treadmill, workout' to 'carson dean, cardio, treadmill, workout, uptown funk' - edited by calvados