Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

Mark Blyth is my third favorite Scot, right after two brothers who are dear friends of mine. After his famous interview for Athens Live, every video of his released by the Watson Institute has pretty much been a must-watch, particularly his takes on "The Deplorables" and the Front Nationale.

I got his book "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea" after it was praised heavily over at NakedCapitalism 3-4 years ago -- to me, there is no bigger compliment for an economist than praise by Yves and the commentariat over at NC.

His takes on the mercantilism of Germany are among the best, and by far the clearest. Bill Mitchell had some great pieces on it as well, but Blyth's capacity for facilitating understanding of these concepts is on a different level entirely.

So do I disagree with him on parts of his economic analysis? Yes, but only on the fringes where MMT/functional finance is concerned.

Check out the companion talk to his book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

And a recent bit:
https://youtu.be/vGiHiZyKuAE?t=43m2s (juicy, this one)

I have friends in Scotland. They think it is highly unlikely either Ireland or Scotland will leave the U.K. over this. Apparently there are some vocal groups calling for a vote but public opinion in general seems apathetic to the idea, especially as the Scots apparently enjoy a great deal of financial support from being in the U.K. and losing that support would cost more than any benefits gained from independence.

So the only white bike thief somehow just rides off scot free. And none of the black ones say even one word.

Fakety fake fake.

Then why do cops get off scot-free whenever they murder and unarmed innocent person?


You know full well cops, lawyers and Judge work closely together, are sometimes friends, and will lie, misremember, or "not recall" shit to cover one another.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged-for-on-duty-shootings-1416874955

" New research by a Bowling Green State University criminologist shows that 41 officers in the U.S. were charged with either murder or manslaughter in connection with on-duty shootings over a seven-year period ending in 2011. Over that same period, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 2,718 justified homicides by law enforcement, an incomplete count, according to experts. "

"The think tank’s researchers tracked allegations of misconduct involving nearly 11,000 police officers in the U.S. from April 2009 through December 2010. They found that 3,238 of those cases resulted in criminal charges, and 1,063—or 33% of those charged criminally—resulted in convictions. In felony cases against the general public in 2009 in the country’s 75 largest counties, 66% were convicted, according to the Justice Department’s research arm, the Bureau of Justice Statistics. "

So as a cop, you're unlikely to get charges brought against you.

If you do, you're only half as likely to get convicted.

Cops are scumbags.
They might not start they way, but they definitely all become that way.

And if you don't get corrupted; the rest'll harass you, stick you with filing paperwork, take your cruiser.

You're like a child Lantern.
You're naive as Hank Hill, I tell yuh h'what.

Like you can't understand that Power Corrupts. Cops have Power.
Therefore many cops become corrupted.

"What are you talking about Genji, no one would just go on the internet.. and LIE like that."

"What do you MEAN there's no toothfairy Genji?! Where did all my children baby teeth go then?!"

Oh, shit, the Scots have discovered fire -- RUN!!

I kinda knew as I was watching that he'd be a fellow Scot!

Fair enough, I should have expected to be laid in to for expressing a political opinion. Fair play to you -- It is the internet, after all

I spend quite a bit of time in the north and like it there, but most of my time is in the midlands so I'm not going to pretend to know what it's like to live there permanently. The only 2 Scots (only 1 of which could vote due to living there) that I'm in touch with regularly both supported staying unified but are looking forward to the greater powers that Scotland deserve and will get.

The difference between the parties, at least in England, seems pretty minimal to me. Blair didn't seem any better (or worse really, other than ditching the gold reserves all in one go at a rather low price) than Cameron.

What sentiment? Cameron has hammered the poor and needy of this country, sold off the post office to his chummies at half price, raised tuition fees (thanks very much Clegg) and nearly ripped Great Britain apart. Fortunately he knew the right people to oil up and got major banks and businesses to pull out in the few days prior to the vote, scaring people into saying no.

Every single scot i've spoken to (and i speak to loads, my mum lives there) has said that they would let the north come with them if they could and they only want to leave because Westminster and the south are completely disconnected from the rest of the country. It's a different world, and the people running the system have absolutely no experience what life is like for the people that have to use it.

Even John Major came out and said that there are too many (something like 80%) rich background public schoolboys in government. Can you tell me with a straight face that you've been to places like Blackpool near where i live, had to use the buses or queue for unemployment, or had family members suffering with disabilities and/or cancer, and then tell me that you think people like Call-Me-Dave in any way represent their best interests or understand their problems, struggling day to day?

I don't want to sound aggressive, but i do have experience with things like that, and some people in this country are getting to the point of desperation but of course that kinda thing doesn't get on the national news and the majority remain oblivious. If we don't see significant democratic reform in this country, i predict a significant social uprising within a lifetime.

Yay, all the way.

But better prepare the strategic popcorn reserve. If they truly pull it off, the British establishment will go into full-blown scorched earth mode, the Belgian and Spanish establishments will shit themselves -- and the average schmuck will get it up the ass.

Whatever the majority vote for, it's going to get ugly.

Here's the insight I got yesterday while talking to someone about Michael Brown's execution.....

EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN AMERICA OPERATES UNDER "STAND YOUR GROUND" MENTALITY.

Any whiff of feeling threatened, no matter how incredibly stupid and racist, and they will get off because they were "defending" themselves. Look at what happens in Florida under specific Stand Your Ground statutes -- plenty of unarmed people are being murdered and the shooters are getting off scot free. And so do police officers. ALL THE TIME.

Wingsuit terrain flying is kinda an either - or sort of thing. If something goes wrong you either have spectacular footage of a close call and you walk away scot free, or you die. There isn't much middle ground where paramedics would be useful.

This guy was incredibly close to dying pulling a turn like that.

even before then, I'd say that the Scots are our *celtic brethren.

And... is that a guitar strap? for a ukulele? I think that's a first!

*british, but not for long if the Scots break away from the UK!