"[the] world is actually healthier, wealthier, better educated, more tolerant, less violent than it has ever been."

Not in places like Afghanistan, Libya, Jemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, downtown Chicago, Detroit or Cleveland. Not in Greece. And I'm not entirely sure it's a better place for the hundreds of millions of Chinese who left their rural areas to become work nomads. Also not sure about the all the millions of people in Africa whose livelihood gets crushed by subsidised produce/corn from the West. Not sure about all the Indian farmers who are driven into suicide by the monopoly powers of seed suppliers. Not sure about India as a whole, now suffering from the third year in a row of a belated monsoon and horrific drought.

"Democracy means you don't everything you want, when you want it, all the time" ... "and occasionally comprise, and stay principled, but recognise that it's a long march towards progress"

He talks the talk, but even for a center-right guy, he doesn't walk the walk. Principles went out the window in Gitmo. Principles went out the window when the drivers behind the illegal war of aggression in Iraq were not prosecuted in accordance with the Nuremberg Principles. Principles went out the window when carpet surveillance pissed all over the Constitution. Principles went out the window when US military forces aid Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria just because they oppose Assad. Even mentioning principles in the face of the gruesome, drone-driven terror campaigns in at least half a dozen countries makes me want to vomit.

And don't get me started on compromise. If you ban single-payer and drop the public option before negotiations begin, that's not compromise. That's theatre meant to mislead us plebs while you add an additional layer of "market" to an already dysfunctional market, which ends up profiting the insurance companies yet again.

Given that internet access isn't as available in parts of Africa, but mobile phones are, phone based funding and/or subscriptions could be worth trying for him too.

Food waste has different causes in different places.

For instance, 45% of tomatoes harvested in Nigeria are lost due to poor Food Supply Chain management. In Kenya 15-35% of their crops are wasted due to the high specifications on appearance by European Union supermarkets. In other places food is wasted because there's no easy way to transport it to markets. In most African nations most of the losses occur early in the food supply chain, but in Europe and North America the losses are more likely to occur much closer to home.

According to http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts consumers in industrialised countries waste almost as much food every year as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (222 million vs. 230 million tons).

Australians discard 20% of the food we purchase (total waste is 4.06 million tonnes of food every year). This works out fairly similar to the 10kg per person per month in the link above for the USA.

There is no new technology required to dramatically improve on these figures, it mostly just requires a desire to do better (and perhaps a bit of education).

Yes, that article was pretty silly, repeatedly quoting the study claiming the UK has the most violence based on the fact that they consider an argument a violent crime even when there's been no injury, but compare it to other countries where no crime is reported unless there's hospitalization. Just note, in the year studied, the UK had a total of 921 murders, compared to 14,831 in the US that year...but yeah, the UK is the more violent country, far more violent than the US or South Africa.
WHAT?!?

Yep, you sure do end up with a lot of violent armed crimes in a country filled with guns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Actually, donating clothes to Africa is often detrimental to their economy as it puts burdens on craftsman that cannot compete with free products...

Well, I made a genuine effort to find out exactly what Ofcom did and all I could find was a ruling that said he breached broadcasting standards. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll happily read it. For reference, here is a list of sanction decisions made by ofcom: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/

"Punishment means fines. Fines means the threat of force. Force means abduction and false imprisonment. For the crime of sitting on a couch and having a conversation."

That slippery slope looks awesome fun! Does it go the other way too? If you can't joke about dwarfs, then pretty soon you won't be able to advocate giving those queers the beating they deserve or tell those darkies to fuck off back to africa! It's PC gone mad!

Black Panther. They hinted at him in Age of Ultron (his home country is the same one where Iron Man fought Hulk in Africa).

Um...no
The Jews that invaded Palestine were illegitimate because they were illegal immigrants invading what was essentially a British 'colony'.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the USA didn't take as many as we might have. Those are two separate wrongs.
Palestine was not invaded because it was 'safer'..it was invaded because they wanted to own it. If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries, not one single place all the way across Europe....kind of like the Syrian refugees are doing. If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...we would laugh at their faces as we blasted the shit out of them...why did we support Jews doing the EXACT same thing without a gun forcing (edit: most of) them out of their homes like the Syrians had?
Palestine did NOT have a SIZEABLE Jewish population, it was close to 5% before the invasion. It also wasn't closer by far than any other country in Europe. It only made perfect sense because their religious leaders told them to go there and 'take back their ancestral homeland'.

I never said those in the 40's were not that desperate, nor did I ever suggest we 'change history'. You need a reading comprehension refresher. I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming). I also say those in the 40's after the war and all those coming after that had NOTHING to flee.

The difference being that the Arabs had been there for centuries, living peacefully with a small Jewish population as part of their 'country', yes, peacefully. It wasn't until the Brits ignored their own immigration laws and allowed the Jews to invade by the thousands that conflict broke out. Today, non Jews are not full citizens in the land that the Palestinians lived on for eons, and what's left of the native Palestinians are held in a concentration camp.

If things being bad where you live is a legitimate reason to take another country, all of Africa should be taking Europe today, along with much of Asia. In fact, we may as well forget countries if that's the metric, all countries treat some group poorly.

The invaders gained more land than they had at the outset (they had NONE at the outset, they lived in what had been British ruled Palestine, and was now reverting to Palestinian rule...) but the Jews wanted their own Jewish country and stole it from the people who had never had an army, using American weapons purchased mainly with American money (or given to them for free) while the Palestinians were barely supported by their neighbors, who had never been their allies. It was not "civil war' it was an invasion. Those fighting came from elsewhere to steal the land, it was not just the native Jews fighting, it was mostly invading Jews.

Yes, of course they refused. If Mexico took Texas, then the UN said "OK, it's yours, just don't take New Mexico", yet the Mexicans were already settling in New Mexico with their army protecting the settlements, I really don't think the US would accept the UN plan either. It was ridiculous and a plan based on stealing from Peter to pay Paul back for somethin Ringo stole. WTF?!?

Yes, that counts as 'stealing land' using overwhelming force, then fighting over it, then stealing MORE land, then subjugating and dehumanizing the locals, then stealing MORE land, and more land, and more land, and whining and crying that they're the victims.

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.
When a 'smaller' invading force uses it's international contacts to become a violent racist bully, uses it's overwhelming force to steal land for decades, pushing the locals into the sea or concentration camps, kills tens of thousands and imprisons millions in horrendous conditions for decades and claims they want peace, yes, they need to return all the land they gained with their evil behavior or expect the leftovers of their genocide to strike back until one side is wiped out.

They were not a nation when they did this. They were an invading horde of Europeans trying to create a religious nation on someone else's land.

I knew it, South Africa is way more Mad Max than everybody suspects. Ha!
Pretty lax gun safety standards down there, it seems.

Awesome. It's amazing how close you can get to such a powerful wild animal.

In India and Africa the large game animals have learned to regard the vehicles in much the same way as they regard trees. they know they're there, they just don't bother with them in any way.

When we were in India on a tiger safari we had a very similar experience. The amazing thing was that people live and work in these forests. 100yds down the road from the situation in the video may be a party of women collecting firewood. Or one time we found a mahout looking for his elephant that had wandered off in the night!

Tigers are incredibly beautiful animals. they have a quality that sets them apart from lions and other big cats. They are so different in the wild to the animals you might see in zoos. If you've ever wanted to see what real natural beauty looks like then go and see the wild tigers, they're breathtaking.

Okay, I have to remove two sins from this one.

First the one assigned for the elephant graveyard as they exist.

Second the one assigned for "It's a Small World After All" when they say "Annoying Disney tune was around even in the time Africa existed" as I'm fairly sure Africa still exists... even if it's a joke, then take the point off with a "Oh wait... it still does, point back".

I'm not pleased to see this kind of hate-mongering xenophobic propaganda posted here.
I saw a tv 'news' piece about the neo-Nazi 'Democrat' party in Sweden just 2 days ago, I think the guy at :41 may have been part of the group being interviewed.

The producers also have terrible math skills it seem, as they claim Sweden has fewer rapes than S Africa, which they list as 53.2 out of 100000, or .0532%, but they also say out of 100000 women in Sweden, 25000 will be raped (25%, or 1 in 4). 25% is greater than .0532% , so how is South Africa the worst and Sweden the second worst when Sweden allegedly has 500 times more rapes per person?