I think these so-called unstoppable warlords that siphon off our aid is an even bigger myth. The United States of America defeated the British Empire, invaded Nazi Europe, dropped a nuclear fucking bomb on Axis Japan, sacrificed thousands of lives in Vietnam, stood head to head against the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, landed on the moon, funded Nicaraguan revolutionaries using money from arms sales to Iran, assassinated Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq, fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and yet we can't deal with warlords and civil wars in Africa where (at least with Rwandan civil war) weaponry is in the form of crate after crate of machetes made in China?

If all of those things are possible for the biggest super power in the world, how is it not possible to stop these warlords from siphoning our aid?

Lies.

We don't care so nothing of real consequence happens. All of those above events have one thing in common: our own goddamn self interest.

Everything sucks. May god have mercy on everyone's soul.

@bcglorf - That was the original intent of the 2nd amendment, to allow the people to keep the government in check. They wanted to mitigate the possibility of any heads of state from becoming overzealous and using their power against the people. The British tried to put an embargo on firearms and tried to disarm the colonies in order to leave them defenseless against the British military, and the revolutionaries didn't want that to happen to the people again.

Checks and balances were a major part of the planning of our government. If the three branches somehow failed to keep each other in check, it would be up to the people to defend themselves from tyranny.

Nowadays local government is more likely a threat to individual citizens than is a tyrannical dictator, but the constitution doesn't seem to help much on that front. The only thing that seems to keep police in check, for example, is the video camera. And even then, innocent people end up dead, and cops end up with relatively light or no punishment.

That's human nature for you.

Interesting, but...

Firstly as a person who packs things in boxes as part of my job I can't see it saving much time. They're really messing around when showing the side by side use. I'm sure I could pack as quickly using a proper tape gun and a conventional box.

Second, if you think I'm sending a box through any sort of delivery system when it will fall open when pressed in one pace, forget it.

This is one of those things that looks revolutionary and genius if you're not involved in the industry, but in reality it's just not really a big improvement and I can't see many if any companies going for it.

I'm no fan of Bush obviously, but the guy needs to tone down his hatred of Bush. It kinda undercuts his otherwise accurate message. He keeps talking about the contempt the rich has for the poor. Well...he's displaying that same contempt.

They keep referring to things like revolution and "coming storms" I don't think that's how change is going to occur. Back when people were ACTUAL slaves or maybe they were free but were starving to death. They pretty much had nothing to lose so I think it was actually easier for them to commit to change by violent means.

well...things are different now. We're not physical slaves, but you can argue that we're economic slaves. Even poor people usually aren't starving. food is cheap, at least shitty food is. It's a sort of gilded cage. So it's harder to get to that tipping point of committing to a "revolution"

I think he's wrong though, I think change will occur through democracy. It's just going to be extremely slow, extremely painful, and it's going to be a lot of setbacks along the way. I think there will be a lot of moments that will generate outrage. I just don't think there will ever be revolts as this guy describes unless the vote gets taken away and things get monumentally worse.

I just don't there will be any magic shortcuts to a fair and equitable society. Even if there was a revolt. what do the revolutionaries do to make things better? It's relatively easy to revolt, but if you win, then the real work begins. It's easy being an armchair general, but when you actually do have to make decisions that affect thousands, if not millions of people, It's not that easy.

I think the key thing is that there are just too many who don't actually agree with the founding fathers "that all men are created equal" If we actually believed in that idea. A lot of these injustices would not occur.

Actually, 99% of human behavior is entirely anarchic. I make millions of large and small transactions with other humans on a daily basis which have absolutely zero government involvement, whatsoever. Billions of other people on the planet do the exact same thing. Daily. Government is a fiction by which some people live at the expense of everyone else.

Even Somalia, as you may have seen, grew and improved on almost all counts after the government collapsed, built more roads and infrastructure during its 20 years without government than it did with the government.

What we have now, with a centralized government, is (because people, let alone government, is far from omniscient) more of a "planned chaos," by which little to nothing is fully known as to the long term of effects of anything that the government imposes. At least, without government, we work within natural laws and an emergent order. Instead, what we have now is "positive laws" (imposed by governments) which regulate some people at the expense of the many, while benefiting a very few.

And I think you should learn your history before you suggest that "might-makes-right" argument has shaped the arc of civilization. One cannot make the honest case that government is not behind the worst, most egregious crimes against humanity known to man, with its ability to generate unlimited money to spend on mobilizing huge military empires so "the people's" proxy can drone foreigners to death, or lock them up in Guantanamo or anywhere else, or spy on all their communications, or make them all poor though inflation, or regulate their existence to the most minute detail, or provide them with bad healthcare or any number of other things that government can do.

Not me. I'm joining the billions of people throughout history (from the Puritans, to the American Revolutionaries, to the millions of emigrants via Ellis Island, to millions of refugees, to all those air lifted from Saigon, to all those Americans whose relatives fled from China, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, or anyplace where there's war, or famine, or economic devastation) who decided to opt out of government, and to voluntarily exit the charade.


"But, hey, if you like your government, you can keep it."

Ahmadinejad threatens to remove Israel from the map. Ayatollah Khamenei does the same. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard(which reports directly to Khamenei) virtually founded and continually provides training, arms and funding to Hezbollah which it must be observed routinely attacks Israel.

I'm not trying to say Israel is some pure and innocent virgin. I'm pointing out some basic facts that are routinely denied by a great many people and I felt the need for the truth to be out there. I also fail to understand why pointing out facts like this requires anyone to come out and basically state that Israel deserves it, or at the very least that they started it and are the ones in the wrong.

It's quite possible for there to be 2 wrongs and no need to lesson the sins of either.

As a comedic piece that was pretty good, some nice turns of phrase and a few genuine laugh out loud absurd moments.

But as a polemic it was just awful. Rambling, disjointed and mostly incoherent. If Brand is the modern day version of a revolutionary speaker, then it's no wonder we are in the situation we find ourselves in.

And to everyone criticising Paxman, clearly you are not used to watching a good political interviewer. He won't stand for nonsense or hand waving, he wants answers.

You know what really annoys me? So-called theists that trample over the idea that "we don't know what happens when we die", as if it were something never before considered in western philosophy. Shadows on a wall. That's all any human can know. Oh, but the voices (or "feeling" of a holy/unholy spirit) of "god" in your head confirmed that they're real because they said so..!? K...

Does anyone else not see the inherent security risk here? How does a god truly interface with a human mind and authenticate its validity beyond all shadows of doubt? Oh, you just know right? As if you're the expert on human perception. If the concept of demons or Satan be real, perhaps there is only that. Have you considered? Of course not, devout theist, the clause exists for a reason -- do not tempt. Never question. Does this sound like freedom... or tyranny at work?

Maybe the voice of "good" is in reality bad. Perhaps all voices from other realms (should you wish to believe such a concept) are the voices and feelings from another world bent on conquering our own. You don't know and you're better off ignoring ALL of this bullshit. One man's god is another man's demon and thus it's safe to just assume they're all demons, should you even fucking ignorantly consider believing this nonsense.

It's the only rational conclusion that I can imagine which takes into account the inherent security risks between potential "linked" worlds, and in which relinquishes fearful self interest and acquisition of "treasures" in the after life (afterlife class war much?). It's like clicking on an insane URL in an email from Sender: "God" h__p:/godisreal.com/eternity?reward=/script%3E%123.45.69%mansion%in%the%sky/script%3E!YOURMINDSASLAVENOW. Would you seriously do that? You have no idea and you didn't even consider that belief could lead to damnation. It's just too easy. And what do we say about things that are too easy? I know what that means in this life, thank you very much.

Now you're hacked. Idiot. And you call unbelievers stupid and sad. For fuck's sake you can't even control your own mind's will to sync with the known patterns of security that we use for survival in this world. You think you're going to be safe in the next? You're ensnared and if you have an eternal soul, I HAVE PITY FOR YOU.

All we really know is that we don't know. It's not a revolutionary idea and in my honest opinion, if there is a life after death, then facing the ultimate fear of your own mortality is a challenge for true fulfillment of an undeserving eternity.

To believe in an after life without question is not to admit ones mortality. Admitting your mortality is a sobering and freeing concept. Again, I continue to feel pity for those whose minds are not free to process this.

I wish this conflict were as simple as the courageous young woman reporter in this video portrays it but it doesn't take much research to discover that the FSA is increasingly being co-opted by anything BUT pro-democracy elements, namely Islamic jihadists allied with al-Qaeda.

For example:

"Hundreds of fighters under the command of the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) have reportedly switched allegiance to al-Qaeda-aligned groups, in a move described as a huge blow to moderate rebel forces.

Activists and military sources have told Al Jazeera that the 11th Division - one of the biggest FSA brigades - has switched allegiance to the al-Nusra Front in Raqqah province, a border province with Turkey.

A video was uploaded to YouTube on Thursday purporting to show members of the 11th Division parading through Raqqah with Nusra fighters.

In the video clip, a voice can be heard saying in Arabic, "Raqqah ... September 19, 2013 ... The convoy of Nusra ... God is great ... Nusra in Raqqah province."

The switch, if confirmed, tightens Nusra's control of Raqqah just days after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) attacked members of the Free Syrian Army in Azaz, on the border with Turkey.

The Reuters news agency, citing sources inside Syria, also reported that entire units of the FSA had joined Nusra and the ISIS in recent days.

The Raqqah Revolutionaries - which is part of the 11th Division - has about 750 fighters in total, according to a source close to al-Qaeda linked forces.

Abdulhamid Zakarya, military spokesman of Chiefs of Staff of the FSA, denied that Division 11 had joined Nusra. However, he said it had signed an agreement to collaborate in military operations.

In a separate statement, the FSA also condemned the ISIS for its actions in Azaz, saying it was going against the principles of the Syrian revolution.

“ISIS no longer fights the Assad regime. Rather, it is strengthening its positions in liberated areas at the expense of the safety of civilians. ISIS is inflicting on the people the same suppression of the Baath party and the Assad regime.”

Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Antakya in neighbouring Turkey, said that if proved true, the switches of allegiance would be a serious blow to the FSA's strength, and could have significant implications outside of Syria.

The US State Department designated Al Nusrah Front a terrorist organisation on 11 December 2012. There are financial sanctions in place.

"This means that the FSA has suddenly lost serious amounts of loyal fighters ... it's basically being swallowed up by Nusra," she said, adding that it would be very difficult for the West to support a rebel army dominated and commanded by al-Qaeda linked groups."

I don't plan to read his book, mostly because I would probably find the subject to be boring in general. But what strikes me as odd is how critical the evangelicals are of this book, but based on how he described Jesus in the interviews I've seen. It's a generally flattering description of him is it not? In the interviews I've seen he's painted Jesus as a strong revolutionary against Roman tyranny. Is that not a more or less positive characterization of Jesus?

Or is Reza more critical of Jesus in the book?

Or is it just the fact that he focuses on the historical context instead of the biblical one enough to piss off the fanatics?

Or is it just that Reza is a Muslim period...doesn't matter if the critique is positive or negative?

It's a tracking device. Not exactly "revolutionary", I'm sure we all knew something like this would eventually hit the market. How do they get around the privacy issue if you can just slip a tile into someone's pocket and stalk them or attach it to a person's car, declare it lost, and use everyone's phone to keep track of their comings and goings?

Your video, Egypt: 12 Y.O. Boy Discusses Revolutionary Politics, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You know what else you don't see on (US) beaches. The right for a woman to omit a top. I'm all for women wearing what they want. I personally find less more comfortable when it's really hot and a full suit better when it's cold. I don't see covering up any more dignifying that showing more. Also, who wears a swimsuit for power?

Covering up isn't going to solve the issue with how the male brain reacts to scantly clad women. I really doubt the result of said brain scan would be the same in a culture where women's breast and other body parts were not fetishized to the point where they HAVE to cover them (or the other way around)

Vintage bathing suites have been in style for a long time. She's not really doing anything new or revolutionary. The designs are cute but I've seen similar designs all over the web.

Sorry, but Ching is right. There is no need to talk about this in terms of civil war, especially since that isn't even close to what this was showing.

A crowd, in particular because of its size, has its own weaknesses. It is naive to assume that large numbers mean that the police can not control or influence a protest. In fact, that is exactly what riot police train for: leveraging their small numbers and sophisticated weaponry against unprepared and untrained masses in order to achieve their objective. A successful protest and/or revolutionary group must know how to counteract the intimidation and violence of security services and their weaponry.

This is not 1920s India or 1960s USA. Pure nonviolent resistance does not spark moral outrage or wider, sustained support among the public nor does it create shame within the police and army that attack these movements. This is the 21st century, the neoliberal project is much more entrenched and will fight harder to hold on to that power. As I've learned from experience, it is ineffective and irresponsible to participate in peaceful protests and movements without considering the reaction of the state and preparing for it through training and equipment.

Perhaps you've gone out on a march once or sat in a park hearing some people talking about big ideas, but until you spend days, weeks and months actively resisting the powers that be, you don't really understand what happens in the streets.

I'll just briefly touch on what I've already talked about in the other thread. Basically....

1. They have the data, but where's the evidence that they're doing harm with that data. Those are two separate questions. I think this is consistent with my views on the 4th AND 2nd amendment. 1. It's one thing to have a gun/the data,and 2, its another to use it wisely and there should be safeguards in place to incentivize safe and constructive use.

2. Privacy is overrated. At the very least as technology gets more and more sophisticated. we're going to have to re-evaluate what is and isn't privacy. I think privacy boils down to two things. Things we are doing that are illegal or unethical that we want to hide, in such a case, tough shit. And then there are the things we are simply embarrassed about that we want to hide. In such case, that falls into the realm of "humans being human" and we ultimately shouldn't be embarrassed about it. Think about all the things people during revolutionary times thought were private, but we consider silly to withold now. Now extend that thought another couple hundred years into the future.

3. Our outrage over privacy is hypocritical when we consider credit cards, internet, gps tracking and all other forms of technology that already are tracking our movements. It's ok that corporations have this info? but as soon as the gov't does it? It's bad? I can vote out a president, I can't vote out a CEO. One group is trying to get me to buy shit I don't need, the other group is using it as part of defense. I'll take the latter thanks. If you're going to have this mock outrage over privacy, at least be consistent about it.

If you don't like it, demand better of your politicians. They do this shit because even now, with it being in the limelight, there is simply not any real outrage over this. Quite frankly, there is probably good reason Most likely because they know it isn't that big of a deal and it's what the data is being used for is the larger issue. I'm tired of this hyperbole. People calling oppression and they can't name one thing they could do pre-Bush/Obama that they can't do now.