That was quick. If only you were so quick with this.

Freeman isn't a fan of the race argument and he's on record with his opinion to just "stop talking about it." There is also the possibility most brutal police violence comes from blacks (doubtful any valid statistical studies exist). The MSM focus on race because: 1) they are told to; 2) the belief system behind the majority who go into media (statist, liberal... or do I repeat myself?) supports the rhetoric; 3) contradictions don't matter in media. Reason had a funny cartoon the other day that speaks directly to #3:

Only perceptions matter. If truth mattered, the media industry wouldn't exist.

Congratulations! Thumbs up! Oh wait... that's Facebook.

FYI - using Firefox, this post is overlapping the About Getting Started on the right size. It's not happening on other pages. This is also showing as an entry under Latest Activity and doesn't look right: "Clarisse88 voted for comment "Here you go:nnnnI couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.nn" in politics 1 day 20 hrs ago."

Brilliant.

although I like the NIN version better

She is much hotter than anyone in Nine Inch Nails. Just sayin...

TIL the definition of wahine. "Goddess" doesn't do her justice.

It's hard to disagree considering his results, but people should be cautious about shunning doctors. It's good to take care of yourself and be knowledgeable. Just remember: some people fail when trying to heal themselves and we can't always rely on natural remedies.

HA! It did work! I got a message!

Yes, the image looks good now.

Trying out the new user tagging...

/u/c_prompt: the image on this article is huge and goes under the right column where the search bar is.

So, I'm curious. How does an ordinary person find drug dealers or other people who'd sell you drugs? I mean, it's not like you can just Google it, right?

Actually, it is as simple as Googling it. It's called the Darknet or Deep Web and it's easy to access. This is the marketplace for black market sites like Silk Road. The sites typically use Bitcoin for anonymous transactions.

Not that I have any personal experience. Just what I've heard.

I was given the following advice:

• Get them from a trusted resource who is willing to give you a sample, or take a sample in front of you.
• Do them at home.
• Prepare your home to be as relaxing as possible.
• Take half of what the dealer recommends.
• Relax.
• Have fun.

Good stories and "important safety tips. Thanks Egon."

The US should not help Ukraine to deter aggression Russia?

An emphatic no. American is not, and should not be, the world's policeman.

(And, in case you are unaware where the "US aid" came from, the money was stolen from American children whose futures are now riddled with enormous government debt. See also here, here, and here. Let's also not forget that not a single needy Ukrainian will be getting a hryvnia of that "aid" - it's all going to the international banks holding Ukrainian government debt.)

As Justin Raimondo put succinctly, the chief industry of the US is war. It behooves the people of the world to learn this important fact before asking for and accepting "help."

My suggestion is to let the Ukrainians handle their own affairs. It is without doubt: the US government (with NATO) is trying to start a war with Russia and is using Ukraine as one of many tactics to start it. Ukraine is a pawn and will be sacrificed. The US is not in Ukraine to help deter Russian aggression - it is there to instigate it and throw gas on the fire. Putin, for all his faults, hasn't yet taken the bait. When he does, Ukraine will be devastated and destroyed in toto.

If the people of Ukraine fall for the ruse, their country's fate will be the same as the countless others who suffer from US "help" and "aid." Should you need a few recent examples, Google "US involvement in..." Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Africa, Yeman, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Ukrainians are suffering, which is one reason they are seeking and accepting "help." My heart goes out to them. But they are being set up and won't live to regret it. If you don't believe that, ask these ~1.5 million people in Iraq. Oh, wait - you can't. They're dead.

You won't get any argument from me about the terrible things Putin has done. But Putin's atrocities do not make the US government's actions right. The US government should not be involved in any capacity in Ukraine. They are just troublemakers.

...there is this constant debate among neurologists that argues whether there might be some levels of consciousness that exist outside the brain. Sounds crazy, right? but there is actually a section of the scientific community that has some solid reasons to at least study it deeper.

Citations please? And let's hope they aren't from the Vatican.

I wouldn't use the word "interest," other than when researching for The Cost to Connect - Internet Prices Around the World (Ukraine ranked #42). Like a few others on this site, I am always distraught when the US government sticks its nose into places it doesn't belong. My wishes of peace and prosperity for the people who live in Ukraine aren't different than any other country. I'm unaware of any time since WWII where the US government actually improved conditions for a country. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with even one example where US interventionism/imperialism has been an improvement for humanity.

With the greatest respect to the ideas behind valME, I disagree with the author: advertising is currently the best way to monetize content and, let's face it - advertising is not going the way of the dinosaurs. It's a solid business model, notwithstanding many of his valid comments. Also, his framework of giving a dollar value to people's time is silly ("If we assume that a human’s free time is worth the U.S. minimum wage, then people have spent $600 million of their time with me"). You can argue that people should think in those terms, but almost no one does.

Advertising works because the majority wants dumbed-down, uncomplicated, "single-serving" content that takes limited time and thought to consume. It is not because they consider their time valuable, but because their intellectual wants are limited. If media companies had to rely on getting paid for their content directly by viewers (sans advertising), I bet most would fold. (If a social network like Facebook ceased all advertising and started charging enrollment fees, I bet it wouldn't be even a tenth of its current size.)

For most consumers, the indirect costs of advertising are "out-of-sight, out-of-mind." YouTube and advertisers are just giving people want they want - the appearance of "free" content. We don't live in an "economically efficient world" - that's why jobs like brokers and agents exist. And there are plenty of content creators who haven't any problem making money from advertising by catering to the masses. It's an honest market, even with its hidden costs, and even if some consider it nonsensical or inefficient. McDonald's makes mountains of money from selling junk food that literally destroys health. Give the people what they want.

Not all creators want to live in a world where they reap the "direct benefits" of their content because they know they would starve. At least with advertising, if they're able to drive traffic, they don't have to rely on the content being as valuable. If creators have social networking skills, views and clicks can be more important than content. As manufacturers know, it doesn't matter how good your product is if your distribution stinks. But strong distribution can sell even the weakest of products.

The BuzzFeed content creators of the world are not valME's market and not everyone wants "higher quality." Quality and value are relative terms and, sometimes, you just want fries with that... or JellyBellys.

Sickening.

Brilliant! Let the foreplay begin.

Wow - a positive write-up about Ayn Rand at HuffPo. Wonder how that slipped past the editorial board.

THAT is an incredible video and message. Tears flowing. Wow... just wow.

Great analogy, but am I the only one who watched this and visualized an orgy? Musicians often jam with more than one person.

Before upvoting, I ran a quick check that this wasn't from The Onion. It appears this is actually real. Where's the face palm upvote?

The new layout looks terrific. Some of the articles get pushed to the right and overlap the right column when you show the voting arrows but it's not a big deal.

These politicians are are sick.

Many good tl/dr on that page. Useful resource.

That's insane! ...if it's real ;)

I'm going to have to get a few of these songs, but the videos make a huge difference in the experience.

The RT piece could have done without the emperor's new clothes tie-ins, but the point is well-made. Let's remember entertainment is for... uh... entertainment purposes. That the entertainment industry enhances talent with technology isn't all that surprising. Don't forget all industries use technology in some way to enhance people's talents. If it's too disappointing, think of it as fiction and enjoy it in that spirit.

This entire song is all done by one guy in the same session? Wouldn't have believed it if not for the video. MIND = BLOWN.

My my. Chicago doesn't disappoint in its efforts to retain standing as a leader in political corruption. Fold - great article. What an unbelievably heartbreaking story, yet totally believable, especially the parts about the FBI ignoring the case and what the federal judge did. (Meanwhile, the FBI is looking into the hack of Sony Pictures' computers by the group Guardians of Peace because... Hollywood!)

Speaking of corrupt and tyrannical Chicago-style politics while adding fuel to the fire, Glenn Greenwald has another terrific post in The Intercept today titled "In US-Supported Egypt, 188 Protesters Are Sentenced to Die Days after Mubarak is Effectively Freed." In the article, we read this:

In one sense, it would be nice for the U.S. Government to condemn all of this, and even better if they cut off support for the regime as punishment. But in another, more meaningful sense, such denunciation would be ludicrous, given what enthusiastic practitioners U.S. officials are of similar methods.

Fully protecting high-level lawbreakers – even including torturers and war criminals – is an Obama specialty, a vital aspect of his legacy. A two-tiered justice system – where the most powerful financial and political criminals are fully shielded while ordinary crimes are punished with repugnant harshness – is the very definition of the American judicial process, which imprisons more of its ordinary citizens than any other country in the world, even as it fully immunizes its most powerful actors for far more egregious crimes.

And then there's this:

And how many dates do you go on?

Lots of clichés, but valid nonetheless.

Where's the "agree" upvote? I agree. Anger is really a response to injustice. This self-described "Bar Tender/ Night Porter/ Aspiring Writer/ Part time philosopher" put it well on the importance of anger:

When was the last time you were really angry? Angry to a degree where you could not help but do something about that which bought you deep dissatisfaction. I believe that there are two types of anger. The first being destructive anger where it is born out of ignorance and exists for the sake of itself. The second being constructive anger where it is born out of an injustice or dissatisfaction and a will to make a change towards a positive. The question is; in today's world of comforts and distractions are we finding constructive anger increasingly harder to maintain? How far do our dissatisfactions and patience have to be pushed for us to be moved? Are we becoming more and more de-sensitized? Without love we are like robots and the same can be said of anger.

A very intellectual approach to a feeling. Well done.

It's difficult to put love into such an objective framework, especially as definitions are so varied. You define it as:

To me, the root of romantic love is entirely rational and definable - it is the identification of our highest values and the acknowledgment that we are our own highest value because we have earned it (by achieving all or most of our goals in life). Or, as Carl Jung said more poetically, "The soul cannot exist in peace until it finds the other, and the other is always you." As a result of earning our lives, we think we deserve the selfish pleasure from the enjoyment of the virtues of another man. Again, to me, love is, essentially, the emotional response of someone - who has self-esteem - to the admiration of their highest values in someone else.

...So, essentially, love is an independent value that comes from the mental and physical interaction between two people of the same character.

You're not likely to find too many who would define it as such. Your standard of love may work for you, but it's not for everyone. You must know people who claim love yet haven't earned it, haven't earned their lives, haven't any self-esteem (or have limited self-esteem), or don't even understand the concept of valuing. Who's to say that they don't feel love when they proclaim it? You can assert that what they feel isn't love (or isn't "rational" love), but that's really an argument in futility. They know what they feel. You'd feel differently in their situation, but that doesn't factually dispute their feeling. You can also assert that taking your view of love will make their feelings even stronger. Conversely, it might leave them without any feeling of love. The dilemma: is it better to have loved "inappropriately" than never to have loved at all?

My favorite part:

Because my embers don't smother without your air,

in fact they breathe all the better.

In the immoral words of Robert Frost:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Ignoring for a moment that its educators and proponents believe "foundational science" to be somewhat immaterial and unnecessary of "regard," this field might have potential if they stuck to this (all emphases added):

In an effort to promote durable living on a finite planet, environmental psychology develops, and empirically validates, practical intervention strategies regardless of where the foundational science resides.

...and went deeper than common sense, like:

Environmental psychologists Rachel Kaplan and Stephen Kaplan suggest that the difference between reasonable and infuriatingly unreasonable behavior may be partly explained by the environments in which people find themselves.

...and:

Being confused or incompetent does not bring out the best in people thus restoring and maintaining mental vitality and proficiency is essential to supporting reasonable behavior.

...because there is a fair amount of this:

After all, to deal with the urgent environmental problems being faced, people may be called upon to make far-reaching changes away from the status quo, toward an unfamiliar life pattern, some promoted by abstract scientific arguments alone.

...and this:

Citizen and environmental experts alike should constantly tinker with new institutional forms, metaphors, norms and principles.

...used to help "sell" foregone conclusions through manipulation when "unjust" people aren't "reasonable":

As we contemplate the changes that will be needed to address the many environmental issues being faced (e.g., climate disruption, energy descent, environmental injustice, soil depletion), it is heartening that the reasonable person model supports the notions that humans seek meaningfulness more than novelty, that they benefit more from developing a sense of competence, clarity and mental vitality than from pursuing convenience or hedonic pleasure, and that the mind is better adapted to exploring, problem solving and sense making than it is to affluence.

But this field obviously has more to do with political science, which is not a science. The potential this field has anything to do with understanding the science of psychology goes out the window with statements like:

Although our current analytical tools can help make sense of the past (e.g., how did we get to this state of climate disruption and energy descent) and the present (e.g., what is the nature of our environmental predicament) and can extrapolate recent trends into the future, they cannot determine which paths into the future will prove more useful. For this we must adopt an adaptive, experimental approach. Our problem solving must seek a plurality of solutions, not the one right solution or the magic elixir. Emerging plans, policies and procedures should be viewed as hypotheses in constant need of reality testing. Or, as author and community organizer Pat Murphy puts it, we need to "make a lot of mistakes quickly"(quoted in Cobb 2009). The quickly part of this suggestion comes from the concern that climate disruption and energy constraints are happening at a frequency and intensity thought to be, until recently, many decades away...

An approach to behavior change under conditions of urgency, great environmental uncertainty and grave stakes, yet with a need for place-based sensitivity, might start with small steps. As anthropologist and political scientist James Scott advises with respect to interventions for economic development, "Prefer wherever possible to take a small step, stand back, observe, and then plan the next small move." (Scott 1998: 345). Scott’s suggestion follows, in part, the small-experiment approach to environmental problem-solving outlined by Irvine and Kaplan (2001; see also Kaplan, Kaplan & Ryan 1998). Small experiments is a framework for supporting problem-solving that is based on the innate inclinations that are at the core of the reasonable person model, particularly the building and sharing of mental models.

And as if that wasn't obvious enough to expose the field's underlying nature (pun intended):

Some people may argue that the small experiment framework is a renamed version of the experimenting society proposed by Campbell (1981). The experimenting society suggests that social programs should be designed and implemented as experiments with a built-in evaluation process. However, in Campbell’s version the evaluation is a formal process, one conducted by social scientists using meticulous, expertly designed trials followed by rigorous statistical analyses. Furthermore, the results are intended for use by governmental policy makers and, perhaps, for later publication.

The small experiments approach uses the concept of an experiment in a much less restricted sense. The analysis involved in such experiments is less formal and more compatible with immediate needs and local capabilities. Online accounts, reports by participants or visits by interested individuals would be appropriate additions to whatever formal record keeping is employed. The more expert-based framing of an experiment used by Campbell make his approach less likely to be tried by, and the results less accessible to, non-experts.

The small experiment framework is a quick and simple way to promote behavior change that is compatible with what environmental psychology has learned about human nature. Such an approach can enable people to build mental models that allow them to view the urgent and serious environmental issues they face in terms of challenge and possibility rather than inevitability and despair.

Politically, environmentalism is a racket, has a great deal of junk science, and is known for a significant amount of fraudulent and manipulated data. Psychology has a reputation for more than its share of junk science. Bringing the two together is ripe for corruption. Nothing wrong with using science and empirical data to try to convince people that cleaning up the environment, moving away from fossil fuels, etc. are good things and bring about current and future benefits, but this strikes me as another effort by Al Gore and Co. trying to manipulate people through psychology. This isn't learning about how the brain works or alleviating mental diseases. This is about how to make propaganda more effective. We also must be watchful of what occurs in the field lest we forget that the top professional organization for psychologists sanctioned torture.

Needs an inspirational upvote button. There are many important messages in this article, and not just for teens. Adults of all ages would benefit from reading it.

My favorite part:

tanned skin wrinkled

by white teeth and wide eyes

Vivid.

When your son asks why his Jewish or Islamic friends don't get presents from Santa, what do you say? If "Santa exists" is accepted as a legitimate lie, how do you decide how far to take it? At what point does a lie switch from right to wrong?

Ha!

I'm guessing Cecil Hartley was using the strict definition of flattery: "praise that is not sincere." But "darling, you look marvelous" always works for me.

It's good to recognize yourself in another.

You're in good company with this idea (as opposed to the "opposites attract" viewpoint). Sociologists call it homophily. From Blog 2: Homophily - evident within daily life....:

Homophily History

Before the turn of the century, researchers had recognised homophily as the inclination for similarities within friendships (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Aristotle once wrote within his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people “love those who are like themselves” (Aristotle, 1934, p. 1371, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Furthermore, Plato stated within Phaedrus that "similarity begets friendship" (Plato, 1968, p. 837, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Additionally, Tarde said “social relations, I repeat, are much closer between individuals who resemble each other in occupation and education” (Tarde, 1903, cited in Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971, p. 525). Lazarsfeld and Merton also quoted the well known expression of “birds of a feather flock together,” which is still used to illustrate the concept of homophily, which they attributed to Robert Burton (McPherson et al., p. 417).

Moving poem TattooedWanderer.

(gently prods c_prompt) Someone needs to lighten up. It's poetry. You're supposed to feel it as much as analyze it. Give into its beauty and the deep feelings that unfold while not forgetting your own words: "feelings matter." :)

...must we have others in order to be "complete?" Can we not be whole on our own?

You've already answered your own questions: "Humans are social beings. We (instinctually?) crave relationships." There will always be "puzzle pieces" and "star shine" missing from someone who is lonely/without others. There is probably some evolutionary reasoning behind this: to survive the various devastating conditions, humans couldn't live alone and needed to ascertain individual differences of benefit. Natural selection probably favored this need biologically to rely on others. Even economics theory acknowledges this via the division of labor.

If the question really is: can you be happy without others? In a global sense, I don't believe so. You can be happy with yourself, but that is different from being happy with your full "life experience." There's more to life than just yourself. Someone who lives on a deserted island, in theory, could be contented. But happy? Doubtful.

A reasonable assessment. But if someone is going to summarize a speech, it should be limited to the points made in the speech. Pundits can then analyze various statements across multiple speeches and summarize the overall (nuanced) points to take away (and Raimondo is exceptional at this). Judging from the English translation, the bullet points above just don't seem to reflect a summary of what Putin said in this speech.

I do agree with the title: this is a very important speech similar to Churchill's Sinews of Peace speech. How sad that Churchill's words don't cause people to reflect:

On the other hand, ladies and gentlemen, I repulse the idea that a new war is inevitable; still more that it is imminent. It is because I am sure that our fortunes are still in our own hands and that we hold the power to save the future, that I feel the duty to speak out now that I have the occasion and the opportunity to do so. I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries...

If we adhere faithfully to the Charter of the United Nations and walk forward in sedate and sober strength seeking no one's land or treasure, seeking to lay no arbitrary control upon the thoughts of men; if all British moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association, the highroads of the future will be clear, not only for our time, but for a century to come.

The US government and the puppeteers who pull the strings want war, and lots of it. They also want indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines, the land and treasure of others, and control over everyone's thoughts. Supporting this direction, the Western media is in demonization mode (another great article by Raimondo). To appropriate Raimondo's words, "anyone capable of the least amount of objectivity will have to concede" the evidence supports this all beyond doubt.

Putin is no saint. He uses words like "justice" and "objectivity" in his speech, but probably defines them much differently than I would. However, he is to be commended for postponing war in Ukraine. It remains to be seen whether or not he prevented it. I wonder if he's feeling lonely.

Now this is interesting.

After reading the full speech and the Kremlin's emphasized quotes, it's not clear that the summary points above reflect what he said. Not being able to speak Russian, it might be that this is what was said between the lines. Statements like "However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it." in #7 don't seem to be implied anywhere in his speech. However, it's also not unreasonable to assume that people who are familiar with Putin and understand the language of politics (sometimes referred to as bullshit) interpret these words as the correct takeaway.

It's still an incredible speech and, unlike anything from the mouths of US politicians, comes across as sincere. Paul Craig Roberts is correct when he says "It is about time a world leader denounced the thuggish neocon regime in Washington." Here's the video with an English translation if you want to watch:

It’s interesting you consider religion a social technology. “Going viral” is all the rage in social media. Companies make buku bank when people (especially the younger, more hip, and technically savvy generations) share content. Social media sites like Facebook already have a mammoth subscription base so, if you can get your content to go viral there, you have an instant, huge audience.

We know most people are easily manipulated, which is one of the reasons people accept supernatural ideas. Considering the large population who hold religious beliefs, if you could somehow harness existing followers and offer rational philosophies, you’d certainly make inroads more quickly. However, you face an uphill battle with religion's leadership. Good luck trying to convince anyone at the Vatican to replace the supernatural with science and rationalism (even while standing in their observatory). But theoretically, if you could target and tap religious leaders, you might stand a chance getting those ideas to spread within the community.

Anyone have the Pope’s phone number? 39 06 698 BEL-IEVE is disconnected.

...but you should either define religion as requiring a god or not requiring a god.

POI: One of the acceptable definitions for religion is 'something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: "to make a religion of fighting prejudice."'

I enjoyed your post at http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/cannon20120315. Your ideas about faith seem agnostic and broad, both reasonable and well-accepted uses of the term. It is odd that you learned these as a child growing up among Mormons, but I don’t have in-depth knowledge of Mormon teachings.

Discussions on faith always remind me of The Mummy scene where Rick O’Connell says “After what I just saw, I'm willing to go on a little faith here.” We take things on faith whenever we assume. Complete information isn’t worth the cost (if even possible). When I meet someone, I assume he or she is a good person. When I eat at a restaurant, I assume the food isn’t poison. In both instances, I don’t have hard data to support my assumptions. All I possess is generalized knowledge attained over the years. Call me lazy but, given enough accumulated experiences, there are many things I don’t even think to question on a daily basis. Besides, and rightfully so, they would kick me out of the restaurant if I attempted to inspect the kitchen.

Some people (including myself) are quite open to challenges against something taken on faith if provided sound reasoning or the proper motivation. (Note: The supernatural and superstition are not examples of sound reasoning, and force is not an example of proper motivation.) No harm in reconsidering a position held if there’s a rational basis for doing so. Who knows? You might learn something.

(One of these years I'm going to write an article on Ray Kurzweil's amazing book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology because I have huge concerns about his lack of philosophical considerations for technical advancements.)

"Years?"

You are probably already aware - US Army withheld promise from Germany that Ebola virus wouldn't be weaponized:

Bioweapons were outlawed in the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and was signed and ratified by 179 signatories, including Germany, the US and Russia.

It dictates that signatories, "under all circumstances the use of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons is effectively prohibited by the Convention" and "the determination of States parties to condemn any use of biological agents or toxins other than for peaceful purposes, by anyone at any time."

I'll bet the signing at the 1972 convention made for great headlines. At least it was good for something.