Trump has sunk political discourse to new lows, I agree. But I think she'd suffer worse slings and arrows than "Pocahontas" no matter who her opponent is. That's the game and it always has been. She's got to "man up" and anticipate a certain amount of mud being slung her way. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, would never be caught unaware by a provoking one-liner like that.

Or as another example, think about Bernie Sanders, in the Democratic primary. From his own party; not yet from archfiend Trump. Sanders' own party called him a kook, didn't take him seriously, and harped on the "socialist" charge that they presumed would be a rallying standard against him for Republicans, etc. But I don't remember him showing any discomfort with that or letting on that it was getting to him.


I really do like Warren, but it is of paramount importance for any Presidential candidate to develop a thick enough skin to weather the smear campaign that is guaranteed to be headed their way. And this small throwaway interview isn't a sign that she can't get there, but it is a sign that she's still got plenty of work to do if she has those aspirations. Based on that, at this point I'd feel better if Sanders was the heir apparent (although that seems very unlikely given the current heads-up-asses state of the DNC). But Warren definitely has plenty of time to get to where she needs to be.

Yes, the jaw harp was excellent. Never heard one played like that and I'm impressed how long she was able stay so steady with it. As for the bagpipe, I can only take so much of that. That's totally the instrument. She does a great job playing it.

Wow! Loved the second song with the mouth harp, but all the songs were really interesting. I got an old school and a new school progressive rock feeling from their music. Very cool. *quality

The most interesting graph happens at roughly 4:38. 3.7 trillion dollars, made up of roughly 1/7th discretionary spending, 1/7th defense, and 5/7ths SS/Medi*/Interest.

The one philosophical holdout that I still appreciate about the GOP platform is generally smaller government. But for all they harp on that, they usually do jack shit to actually cut down on that total from the graph.

That huge 5/7ths portion is close to untouchable; or at least it would be political suicide to mess with any of that stuff. The only exception is the interest payments, which *do* have to be paid, but we could work to reduce the debt which would in turn reduce interest. How to do that? Raise taxes. And suddenly all the Republicans think it's a terrible idea.

That leaves the 1/5th from Defense and 1/5th from other Discretionary spending. To me, Defense is the obvious target. If you really want to tighten the belt and be fiscally conservative, do we actually NEED to spend all that on defense? Couldn't it be cut in half or even more drastically and we'd still easily be able to actually, you know, defend the country? But again, pretty much zero Republican interest in cutting Defense budget, unless you're a kooky fringe element like Ron Paul with zero intra-party backing.

So that leaves the 1/5th of Discretionary spending. And yeah, sometimes Republicans do actually make cuts here. At best, they cut "drop in the bucket" type stuff like mentioned in the video, with negligible effect on the budget and a loss of programs that are valued by some/many. At worst, you end up like KansasBrownbackistan, with zero budget for schools, etc.

That rift between party platform and actual action is the biggest reason that I tend to have *zero* interest in voting Republican for any national office, in spite of still being registered as a Republican. State offices (governor, state legislature, etc.) are slightly more palatable places to consider voting in an R, but not by much. I do think they tend to be good options for Local government offices, especially for more rural areas. On the other hand, D's tend to be much better at promoting things like Bond Issues for improving schools, maintaining infrastructure, etc.

The constant harping does not win you friends OR influence people. I suggest a different tactic.

The stats were percentage of total population, not individuals. The Jewish (immigrant)population was growing exponentially faster than non-Jewish. The concern is because it was the Jewish ones that decided to permanently relocate in huge numbers (larger than all other demographics put together) across the continent to a single small country that could not stop them, and then take it by force, expelling the natives.
This "refugee from hostility" bullshit is just that as I see it. If, as you claim, the Arab population in Palestine was already hostile to Jews specifically (and I contend that if they were it was a function of massive illegal immigration, often by militants, that pushed them to it), then moving there would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the concern they might have for people that are hostile in Northern Europe. It's a complete red herring argument, ridiculous on it's face, and worse when examined closely.

"except for the holocaust part"....
Tell that to the families of the students murdered by police, or the tens of thousands of Guatemalans fleeing murder squads. State sponsored murder is state sponsored murder, it doesn't require total genocide (although the Jews don't have a monopoly on that either) and Mexicans and others have just as valid a claim that they are oppressed by it (not to the same extent as Jews under the Nazis, no, but as much or more than before the Nazis started their campaigns).

OK, let's play pretend...starting with pretending the rest of the world has an American constitution requiring equal treatment and denying discrimination based on race or religion....but I'll bite.
Almost all that happened in the 50's-60's....in case you weren't aware....without the Rwandan genocide part, or the backing by a foreign nation arming the black side. I think there were even attempts at succeeding by some groups back then....but they got no support, and were 'driven into the sea' in essence, mostly driven into prison, hiding, or a 6 ft box in reality.
Comparing the Arab league to NATO and the US is hardly realistic, unless the black nation in your "example" gets the military backing of Russia, China, Africa, South America, and parts of central America, and NATO only contains the US, Mexico, and Canada, and has no chance against new Africa and it's allies, which beats them mercilessly then expands north for decades. Also, you have to change the immigration from Rwanda, a tiny nation, to black "refugees" from the entire planet...and even then you don't have close to the same per capita immigration problem European Jewish immigrants posed to native Palestinians. All that said...I'm pretty sure some Northern leaders publicly declared they would drive the secessionists into the sea in the civil war, so it would be nothing new here. Also, it would be totally proper to do so in your hypothetical, IMO. Any invaders can be driven out by force by any nation...and that nation gets to decide who's an invader. Keep in mind that in your example, the black nation would expel all non blacks and seize their property....which is usually called theft.

I'll stick with my Mexican analogy, it's vastly more apt, IMO....it's as if you forgot that there are native Mexicans in the US that did have their property rights infringed on and were discriminated against (and still are)...and/or aren't aware that Rwanda is much smaller than the US or even smaller than many individual states, and/or ignored that the Arab League is much smaller and infinitely less capable than the UN or NATO, so not a decent comparison.....or aren't aware of.....well, that's enough, no need to harp.

Tetris Theme on Laser Harp - Theremin Hero LIVE! Finale... has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

There is a reason to go gender neutral but personally I advocate copying your brain and cloning yourself as both a man and a woman, and then a gender neutral cherub to follow your female and male selves around, shooting love arrows and playing a harp on a cloud with a My Little Pony that carries your personality back ups.

Of course, technologically we aren't there yet, but yeah that's the path to my heart's content.

And while I wait for that time, I'll spend the remainder of my life alternating between male, female, and neutral. Of course... it's hard to alternate sometimes when I have acrylic nails, threaded eyebrows, and henna up and down my arms. People are just confused by my appearance no matter how masculine I act.

The problem I have is that the effort to go through the process of feminizing makes the process of returning to a masculine state difficult. And often times I don't want to return to a masculine state. Though, being masculine is much easier aesthetically, it makes the return to a feminine state easier to achieve than going from my female self to male.

The thing is, I was never super masculine until around my midtwenties when I started hanging out in bars, drinking a lot, and basically mimicking alpha male behavior. I had to really put forth the effort to be a man's man, but once you learn to fake it long enough, you make it become part of your reality.

So in the reality that is my brain, although I am genderfluid, I lean more towards neutrality and femininity aesthetically, even if I also enjoy a good masculine diatribe every now and then. See, on the internet I can be anything I want to be at any time without the material requirements, which MEN do not fully realize (you ignorant pigs). So my genderfluidity is more natural and honest in this realm of 1s and 0s than "the desert of the real."

Edit: As an aside, I would like to point out that I'm not transgender or genderfluid because of Caitlin Jenner. It's not a fad or a trend, it's how I've always been, I just don't make a big fuss about it, unless it is appropriate to do so, such as now.

Eärendil was a mariner
that tarried in Arvernien;
he built a boat of timber felled
in Nimbrethil to journey in;
her sails he wove of silver fair,
of silver were her lanterns made,
her prow was fashioned like a swan,
and light upon her banners laid.

In panoply of ancient kings,
in chainéd rings he armoured him;
his shining shield was scored with runes
to ward all wounds and harm from him;
his bow was made of dragon-horn,
his arrows shorn of ebony,
of silver was his habergeon,
his scabbard of chalcedony;
his sword of steel was valiant,
of adamant his helmet tall,
an eagle-plume upon his crest,
upon his breast an emerald.

Beneath the Moon and under star
he wandered far from northern strands,
bewildered on enchanted ways
beyond the days of mortal lands.
From gnashing of the Narrow Ice
where shadow lies on frozen hills,
from nether heats and burning waste
he turned in haste, and roving still
on starless waters far astray
at last he came to Night of Naught,
and passed, and never sight he saw
of shining shore nor light he sought.
The winds of wrath came driving him,
and blindly in the foam he fled
from west to east and errandless,
unheralded he homeward sped.

There flying Elwing came to him,
and flame was in the darkness lit;
more bright than light of diamond
the fire upon her carcanet.
The Silmaril she bound on him
and crowned him with the living light
and dauntless then with burning brow
he turned his prow; and in the night
from Otherworld beyond the Sea
there strong and free a storm arose,
a wind of power in Tarmenel;
by paths that seldom mortal goes
his boat it bore with biting breath
as might of death across the grey
and long-forsaken seas distressed:
from east to west he passed away.

Through Evernight he back was borne
on black and roaring waves that ran
o'er leagues unlit and foundered shores
that drowned before the Days began,
until he heard on strands of pearl
where ends the world the music long,
where ever-foaming billows roll
the yellow gold and jewels wan.
He saw the Mountain silent rise
where twilight lies upon the knees
of Valinor, and Eldamar
beheld afar beyond the seas.
A wanderer escaped from night
to haven white he came at last,
to Elvenhome the green and fair
where keen the air, where pale as glass
beneath the Hill of Ilmarin
a-glimmer in a valley sheer
the lamplit towers of Tirion
are mirrored on the Shadowmere.

He tarried there from errantry,
and melodies they taught to him,
and sages old him marvels told,
and harps of gold they brought to him.
They clothed him then in elven-white,
and seven lights before him sent,
as through the Calacirian
to hidden land forlorn he went.
He came unto the timeless halls
where shining fall the countless years,
and endless reigns the Elder King
in Ilmarin on Mountain sheer;
and words unheard were spoken then
of folk of Men and Elven-kin,
beyond the world were visions showed
forbid to those that dwell therein.

A ship then new they built for him
of mithril and of elven-glass
with shining prow; no shaven oar
nor sail she bore on silver mast:
the Silmaril as lantern light
and banner bright with living flame
to gleam thereon by Elbereth
herself was set, who thither came
and wings immortal made for him,
and laid on him undying doom,
to sail the shoreless skies and come
behind the Sun and light of Moon.

From Evereven's lofty hills
where softly silver fountains fall
his wings him bore, a wandering light,
beyond the mighty Mountain Wall.
From World's End then he turned away,
and yearned again to find afar
his home through shadow journeying,
and burning as an island star
on high above the mists he came,
a distant flame before the Sun,
a wonder ere the waking dawn
where grey the Norland waters run.

And over Middle-earth he passed
and heard at last the weeping sore
of women and of elven-maids
in Elder Days, in years of yore.
But on him mighty doom was laid,
till Moon should fade, an orbéd star
to pass, and tarry never more
on Hither Shores where mortals are;
for ever still a herald on
an errand that should never rest
to bear his shining lamp afar,
the Flammifer of Westernesse.

Our entire system is entirely stupid but the point of frugality is much more than what you noted Redsky. I agree that students should not have to have demanding jobs that destroy their leisure time; leisure in the academic sense of course. I also agree with what you say except one important American detail.

If we have more to spend we spend more, and more, and more. The American ideal is the new IPad and IPhone. More debt. The American ideal of college is beer pong and fast cars. Pussy and dick. More debt. Our ideal is NOT learning. Not on average. Fuck, John Stewart and John Oliver have harped on this shit over and over again in reference to the above class snot-nosed brats--but when it is about poor people bettering themselves, oh, we can't make fun of them. Even if they do it identically to the higher classes.

The fallacy though is that there is a strong anti-gun movement. There isn't The pro-gun people desperately cling to that strawman fallacy any time there is a call for gun control.

The number of people who are actually "anti-gun" in the US are too small to politically matter, but who knows, as @ChaosEngine pointed out, maybe that will change someday as attitudes and technology changes, but that day is not today.

However, the majority of people ARE for gun control/regulation. The vast majority of Americans have no problem with armed citizenry. The debate is ACTUALLY about the level of armament. They want stiffer controls to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed. And maybe some required training/certification for those that do choose to own firearms, just like we test periodically for drivers licenses.

Even the pro-gun people should (I hope) agree that nuclear arms should be under tight control and not in the hands of civilians. Should a civilian be able to own a cruise missile? a tank? A battleship cannon? How about one of those new magnetic rail cannons being developed? If you agree that these types of weapons should not be used by civvies, then you are pro-gun control.

The question is just one of degree. I completely agree that "assault" weapons is too vague a term and stricter definitions need to be created to define what civvies should and shouldn't have.

Precedent is already set. We have a constitutional right to bear arms as well as many other rights, but rights have been taken away countless times (with the consent of the governed) for people who have proven that they can be a harm to others, so you can't really argue that the 2nd amendment is inalienable. Many, if not all, rights have conditions to them.

There are ALWAYS exceptions.

I've harped on it before and I'll harp on it again. Bill Maher is exactly right. There is no "anti-gun" party. We have a "loves guns" party and a "likes guns" party.

There is NO significant anti-gun movement in America. But the pro-gun people are scared so they try to bogeyman you into thinking there is.

An inconvenience to her lifestyle?
What if this girl has a medical condition that would have caused her DEATH if the baby was bought to term?
What if this girl has no stable job, and zero financial support beyond there, would you be ok bringing someone into this world into a destitute, empoverished lifestyle?
What if this girl just...doesnt want the baby at all?

Who cares what the details are behind the decision...its her body, its her decision.

The same people who harp on about this being bad, seem to also be the same ones who want the government out of our lives (but not if its homosexuality, or what we put into....or take out of our OWN FUCKING BODIES).

How hypocritical, I cannot even begin to understand how these conflicting points of view are reconciled.

Its her body, its her life, she SHOULD have the choice to decide what she wants to do with the BOTH of them.

End of story.

Sonny Boy Williamson I (John Lee Curtis Williamson), was my first inspiration to add blues harmonica to my own battery of musical accomplishment. He was born two years after Aleck MIller, who is referred to as #2....Weird, huh?

They both sound incredibly similar in their styles of both harp-playing and voice.

Dude-You should check-out Sleepy John Estes...If you like the Williamsons' styles I'd think you'd dig his groove as well (guitar/vocals). All-time favs➷

When it's a point we don't agree with it's 'harping' or something equally dismissive.

But oh yeah... comparing the Civil War carte blanche to EVERY other war is a solid argument... about as solid as arguing in favor of assassinations.

He "tricked" Carolina, has to be the most moronic argument I've ever heard. Talk about twisting history to fit your beliefs. I'm honestly hoping that was a joke.