Give me a fucking break.

If anything we should be pissed that he continued the bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Focusing on Libya is just distracting from MAJOR, LONG TERM problems.

The UN, including America, is in Libya to prevent civilians from being murdered for protesting their government. Maybe someday someone will show that we shouldn't have done it but this video is pathetic journalism that distracts from larger and more pressing issues.

It's fucking bullshit.

Upvote to illuminate ignorance.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^zombieater:
I think many people are missing the main point of this video. No, it does not show biological evolution via natural selection in an accurate way, but I don't think it was ever meant to do such a thing. What this video does succeed in showing is the evolution of a line over time due to the build up of random mutations. It does NOT show evolution via natural selection, because there is no selection involved of any kind, natural or otherwise.
Think of it as displaying the evolution of a neutral phenotype (something the organism has that is not selected for or against by nature). If we look at it in that context, then it is a perfect analogy.

Your point might be valid were not the video titled as "An illuminating metaphor for the process of biological evolution".
Just sayin'


Touché.

>> ^zombieater:

I think many people are missing the main point of this video. No, it does not show biological evolution via natural selection in an accurate way, but I don't think it was ever meant to do such a thing. What this video does succeed in showing is the evolution of a line over time due to the build up of random mutations. It does NOT show evolution via natural selection, because there is no selection involved of any kind, natural or otherwise.
Think of it as displaying the evolution of a neutral phenotype (something the organism has that is not selected for or against by nature). If we look at it in that context, then it is a perfect analogy.


Your point might be valid were not the video titled as "An illuminating metaphor for the process of biological evolution".

Just sayin'

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

What bothers me more than the advertising to children is the fact that now the current biodegradable cardboard box will be replaced with a box that contains electronics equipment that will end up in the landfill. You have to have a basic coil of wire, some voltage converters, wires, resistors, and LED or other illuminating device.

I welcome any video that illuminates that fact that the US is not the only place with fat white-trash.

I am an artist that works on paper - drawing and painting media. Even though I have programs that will imitate various drawing and painting media, I still like the feel of working with traditional media on paper. I also enjoy collaging papers.

As for books, I treasure my art books.

There's only so much staring at an illuminated screen that I will tolerate in one day.

@Sagemind I'm not sure I see the problem with the window. The lighting change appears to be the illumination from the room coming through after the door is blown wider open by the cannon. In fact, you can even see the silhouette of the cannon operator.

The only evidence of fake to me is my prior that this would hurt more than your typical prank.

[EDIT] Actually the bigger tell is the way the scientists moves at the moment the cannon is fired. He sort of rotates in a pretty unnatural way.

(Copypasta from reddit)

In text form for those that want it in its entirety:

Speech:

"And now I thought we might have a moment, however brief, for some sincerity, if that’s ok; I know there are boundaries for a comedian, pundit, talker guy, and I’m sure I’ll find out tomorrow how I have violated them.
I’m really happy you guys are here, even if none of us are really quite sure why we are here. Some of you may have seen today as a clarion call for action, or some of the hipper, more ironic cats as a clarion call for ‘action.’ Clearly, some of you just wanted to see the Air and Space Museum and got royally screwed. And I’m sure a lot of you are here to have a nice time, and I hope you did. I know that many of you made a great effort to be here today, and I want you to know that everyone involved with this project worked incredibly hard to make sure that we honor the effort that you put in and gave you the best show we could possibly do. We know your time is valuable, and we didn’t want to waste it. And we are all extremely honored to have had a chance to perform for you on this beautiful space, on The Mall in Washington, D.C.

So, uh, what exactly was this? I can’t control what people think this was, I can only tell you my intentions. This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith, or people of activism, or to look down our noses at the heartland, or passionate argument, or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies. But, unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country’s 24-hour, politico, pundit, perpetual, panic conflictanator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen. Or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected, dangerous flaming ant epidemic. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.

There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats, but those are titles that must earned; you must have the resume. Not being able to be able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe, not more. The press is our immune system. If it overreacts to everything, we actually get sicker, and perhaps eczema. And yet, with that being said, I feel good: strangely, calmly good. Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us through a fun-house mirror, and not the good kind that makes you look slim in the waist and maybe taller, but the kind where you have a giant forehead and an ass shaped like a month-old pumpkin with one eyeball.

So why would we work together? Why would you reach across the aisle to a pumpkin-assed, forehead, eyeball monster? If the picture of us were true, of course our inabilities to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable. Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution, or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own? We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is, on the brink of catastrophe torn by polarizing hate. And how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done. But the truth is, we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don’t is here or on cable TV. But Americans don’t live here or on cable TV. Where we live, our values and principles form the foundation that sustains us while we get things done, not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done.

Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, or Conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often, something they do not want to do, but they do it. Impossible things every day, that are only made possible through the little reasonable compromises we all make.

Look. Look on the screen. This is where we are; this is who we are: these cars. That’s a schoolteacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high. He’s going to work. There’s another car. A woman with two small kids, can’t really think about anything else right now. There’s another car, swaying, I don’t even know if you can see it. The lady’s in the NRA and loves Oprah. There’s another car. An investment banker: gay, also likes Oprah. Another car’s a Latino carpenter. Another car a fundamentalist vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan. But this is us. Every one of the cars you see is filled with individuals of strong beliefs and principles they hold dear. Often, principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers. And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile-long, thirty-foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river. Carved by people who by the way I’m sure had their differences. And they do it. Concession by concession. You go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car? Ah, well that’s okay, you go, then I’ll go. And sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute. But that individual is rare, and he is scorned not hired as an analyst.

Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light, we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes, the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes, it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together. If you want to know why I’m here and what I want from you, I can only assure you this: you have already given it to me. Your presence was what I wanted. Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. And to see you here today and the kind of people that you are has restored mine. Thank you.”

- Jon Stewart at The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, October 30, 2010

Great. I never thought anything would make me feel sorry for ants.

Now i'm worried about 20 terrified and confused drone males, sent in the mail for days without air food or water, then trapped in a fiercely illuminated blue light.

They scream and panic at first, then they try to dig to find their queen to save them, only to find they are surrounded by impenetrable transparent walls. They're forced to eat a weird glowing synthetic gel, slowly getting dizzy as the oxygen levels drop.

Finally going mad and dying of lonely despair in their alien prison.

...Makes a magnifying glass seem merciful.

This song was used in Everything is illuminated.

Link below;

Great Song and Movie

>> ^Issykitty:

Sad. I downvote comments I don't like. Get the fuck over yourself.
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
Instead of just downvoting my comments for hubby, please feel free to comment yourself. Unless, of course, you were commenting AS hubby. It would explain much, as his comments were strangely emotional and obstinate for one of his intelligence. I may even be able to illuminate things if there is something you don't understand. Just let me know! You must have something uncharacteristically insightful, and not at all schmoozy to say somewhere in that brain of yours. I may even take you off ignore.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You are pathetic. I don't use ghostwriters. Stop trolling.
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
Instead of just downvoting my comments for hubby, please feel free to comment yourself. Unless, of course, you were commenting AS hubby. It would explain much, as his comments were strangely emotional and obstinate for one of his intelligence. I may even be able to illuminate things if there is something you don't understand. Just let me know! You must have something uncharacteristically insightful, and not at all schmoozy to say somewhere in that brain of yours. I may even take you off ignore.

Instead of just downvoting my comments for hubby, please feel free to comment yourself. Unless, of course, you were commenting AS hubby. It would explain much, as his comments were strangely emotional and obstinate for one of his intelligence. I may even be able to illuminate things if there is something you don't understand. Just let me know! You must have something uncharacteristically insightful, and not at all schmoozy to say somewhere in that brain of yours. I may even take you off ignore.

>> ^Truckchase:

Here's a large part of the over-arching issue as I see it: There now seems to be some sort of inherent equity in ideas in our culture. When any news outlet can create two sides to an issue, they do, regardless of the strength of the "sides". To see the world in such a way is scary; very few things are inherently "right" or "wrong", there are all sorts of variables that must be weighed. Since we've (we as a society) begun splitting what once were relatively complicated issues into polarized opposites we unintentionally enabled the side effect of this sort of equity of voice, in that people entirely unqualified to weigh in on a topic now feel empowered to do so by hitching their wagon to whichever "side" more closely resembles what they believe to be their set of values. People who at one time would have been laughed out of a public forum now fall in line behind an overly-simplistic rallying cry.

That's a big part of what's keeping these kinds of hateful and misguided ideas from being squelched -- the media has become entirely dominated by false equivalence (aka "Opinions on shape of Earth differ" journalism). There's no attempt to illuminate truth, and call bullshit when they see it, instead they just give a megaphone to "both" sides' bullshit, and refuse to validate or invalidate what's being said, at risk of offending either party's supporters (and thereby risk losing their subscription/viewership).

Some blog I read put it really well about how the mindset of business of mass media has changed. It went something like: It used to be that the programming was the product, the listeners were the customer, and advertising was the vehicle that made it possible. Now the listeners are the product, the advertisers are the customers, and the programming is the vehicle that makes it possible.

That essentially sums up the entire reason why we've seen mass media turn into what it has across the board, not just in journalism.