If anything a video like this I would suppose would want to make someone become a terrorist. If nothing else is certainly aids them in winning. Because, quite simply, right now, the terrorists are winning.

“Terrorists” win whenever you change your day to day life out of fear, “terrorists” win every time that delays are caused at an airport. One of the ways terrorists win is by controlling your day to day life. Regardless, and I don't know how to do this, one of the ways to “win” is to remove yourself from the equation. To not let your life be controlled by fear or the actions of others. (Admittedly a tough thing to do.)

Another important thing in looking at this video however is to note that it's clearly motivated by fear. I don't even have to go to the website it looks back to, to know that I am already revolted by the people that have put it together. For some reason it almost reminds me of the west boro baptist church, it it's seemingly overwhelming one mindedness. It over generalizes a group of people, and seems to think that the actions of a few expand to all others. It's almost like saying that because you bought a single rotten orange, all oranges are rotten.

First, in my mind his firing was motivated by fear, his supervisors fear of the fact that he was transgender. This is clear if all the events are true as stated in the article. Why fire someone who is a man? If someone tells you that they are male (or female) shouldn't that be the end of it? Is it anyone's job to second guess the sex that someone identifies as. As the book states in one article they identify 5 sexes (which, I feel is restrictive in a way), but, I would argue that there is a difference between physical sex, sex you identify as, gender, etc. (Confusing, no?). This all culminates to further muddle the issue presented therein of “what(who) is a man?”.

This issue however according to my somewhat muddled political beliefs is somewhat clear cut-- it's none of my business and doesn't hurt me, or anyone else (honestly, how the hell would a female hurt someone by watching them piss into a cup except to maybe make them feel a little embarrassed, I'm guessing anyone at a drug rehab facility-- well, that's the least of their worries.) so allow them to go about their life unmolested.

Even the simplest of things, (living your life for example), too often are taken for granted, as we aren't free (this man for example seemed to have squared things with the government) but when it comes down to it, we still have to square things with everyone else... How horrible that too often we most curtail our own endeavors due to things such as fear. This man must now work through this (as he said, he needs the income from the second job) not because he did something wrong, but because his supervisor was too scared... too fearful... to just let him go on unmolested.

Is this really a social problem? I mean-- I understand it's not ideal, but, isn't this something that most businesses do? Oil companies simply doing it on a “grander” scale. Ideally, nothing like this would occur, but, is that really practical? I would argue that it's not... That in the functioning of current business society the “greasing of the wheels” is still necessary. Additionally however, I would argue that the oil industry wants to grease too much. That's it's too driven by speculation and the cost of a barrel of oil may as well be flowers in Holland.

And what I mean by this-- is that, what is the point of addressing this problem now. Instead lets focus on fixing the fact that we toss so much money away on big oil companies. Currently, who can (in regards to country) afford to purchase oil. In the United States We still have, all things considered low gas prices. How truly lucky (and luck it is) to live in the United States.

Sadly, what a bleak outlook we have in the future if this continues. (Just look at Paul Krugmans recent editorial in the New York Times) We don't live in a country of adults, we live in a country of bickering children.

There was a recent article about knowledge and speed usage among college (and Penn State students) posted to the PSU website. The most important thing to take away from that, in my opinion at least, isn't that we need to learn more-- it's that we need to acquire wisdom.

“All I know is that I know nothing.” -Socrates

In reading the comments from several of the posters on the Mother Jones article I instantly notice a few things. One of the striking things is that we have many comments that disagree with the conclusions that others draw (a heated debate, no doubt?) but what I notice is that while this is a rather complex issue when you consider what can be done to solve it (inequality) people however seem to want to focus on debating one, whether or not the rich deserve it, and two, what's wrong with those of you who don't work harder to make more money. What does it say about us (U.S.?) at this juncture that instead of being outraged at our lack of freedom (which, lets face it, we don't really have as we are controlled by the wealthy.) we instead say “What the eff is wrong with you for not being wealthy?” - Are we that brainwashed?

If the top .01% control the majority of the money in America, how is that not an issue? And I mean that-- I realize that there will always be inequality, but how is it not an issue that the wealthy pay less percentage of their income in taxes then ever before.

How is it not an issue that Americans have been saving statistically less money each year since the end of the 50's? I personally think it's rather scary that we don't save, or don't have the chance to.

One of the arguments that I noticed was that people have a choice of where they want to shop, and what they want to buy. We don't. We don't even really have a choice over whether or not we want ethanol in our gasoline (which is a waste of money.). Tell me how a single mother has a choice between fresh fruit (especially in city areas) and hyper-processed food? Which is affordable? It's sure as hell not the healthy choice.

In reading the comments from several of the posters on the Mother Jones article I instantly notice a few things. One of the striking things is that we have many comments that disagree with the conclusions that others draw (a heated debate, no doubt?) but what I notice is that while this is a rather complex issue when you consider what can be done to solve it (inequality) people however seem to want to focus on debating one, whether or not the rich deserve it, and two, what's wrong with those of you who don't work harder to make more money. What does it say about us (U.S.?) at this juncture that instead of being outraged at our lack of freedom (which, lets face it, we don't really have as we are controlled by the wealthy.) we instead say What the eff is wrong with you for not being wealthy? - Are we that brainwashed?

First, I have to shamefully say that I've seen this video before. Second, that I don't necessarily consider it white. (Why is it such a “white” video?). What things are considered “white”? When I begin to think about it I suppose I start to list off guns, hunting, peacoats, hockey, and plaid. (I admit I had to get help from friends with some of these.)

Is this supposed to be “white” because it's pointless? Or because it deals with guns? I know the jokes that only white people buy certain ridiculous things.

I understand the humor in the exhibited homophobia that the man displays at about two minutes. I have to also marvel at the fact that he seems so uncomfortable that he has to wear running shorts underneath his pants and even warn the viewer before he puts the holster on. But, on there other hand, isn't there an equal amount of homophobia with the white gold ol boys as there is with black rappers?

My main wonder has to deal with what exactly makes guns white? (I wish to focus on this for a moment) because when I go to a gun show, it is rather rare to see anyone who's black or brown, which, is kind of eye opening in a way.) Don't black people own guns? Out of the black people I've been friends with, most have owned at least one gun or more, but, they did usually act rather “white.”
(I wonder what that kind of means, to act, “white”)

Perhaps acting white means to talk and act a different way, same as acting black? There has to be some truth in this however, as, how else do these stereotypes form without some grain of truth? Thus then, I guess in a way, this man acts white just by his behaviors.

Why is light so important? Quite simply, humans aren't nocturnal creatures. Whether you believe in a divine creation or a slow evolution we still need light to function and operate in happiness. Is this simply modern social programming or a deep routed biological need for vitamin D? I would suggest the later, that the need for light is not necessarily a social need, so much as a biological need. A need that is rooted in our most primitive desires and wants. The circadian clock inside of us that ticks along with the larger clock of the sun cycles.

The fact that we need vitamin D is well documented in many locations (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vitamin-d/NS_patient-vitamind) and could very well be part of our desire to function in sunlight. Additionally, in bygone times, wouldn't we have followed the suns schedule to a point instead of plodding on long into the night like we do at this juncture in time? Instead we plod on, allowing ourselves to be absorbed by the darkness around us. (What a melancholy thought that would no doubt result in melancholy behavior!) No doubt however that there is a need for the light boxes in Helsinki that are being providing to some of the populace. It will be interesting to see if the overall happiness of the area increases as a result of the lights and similar events. Is this the correct tactic or would simply telling residents to be more physically active and increase their endorphins have the same affect?

Perhaps it's all in our heads. Perhaps there really isn't a biological need for sunlight, and the changes to ones life all occur because of psychological pressures induced by those invisible strings. After all, what difference should it really make if it's all artificial light or if it's natural? Is it not being able to see far into the distance, and observe details that can only be seen during true sunlight? Or is it once again, all in our heads?

Is it supposed to be some new breakthrough that we're over medicating kids on ADHD medication? As someone who has worked in a pharmacy for years, I can personally attest to this fact. I actually grew up in an area (Camp Hill, PA) where almost everyone you meet is on ADHD medication, ages 7-25. Why do we do this? I completely agree with the video, that, we are trying to stop kids from being natural, honestly, how can we expect anyone to pay attention to all that “boring” stuff? The correlation between ADHD and standardized testing blows me away however, after all, what do the majority of those tests accomplish? Aren't we simply teaching for the test rather then teaching comprehension?
Perhaps this desire for conformity causes more problems then it allievates.

I have to address more fully my feelings on his comments on how every country in the world is assessing how they do education. I almost wish he would take more out of “Fight Back!” (http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/fight-back-a-radical.html) Because it really has a lot of good information to bring to the table on educational reform. (And what the “students”, or maybe more correctly, “the product” might be thinking.) I had never realized that concept though, that we really do “educate” children based on age more then anything else. Never having attending public school (having been homeschooled) is the excuse I shall hide behind here. I feel almost validated however in the fact that I have been saying for years that I wished we would educate children based on their interests and strong points, rather then just as a mass of product on an assembly line.

What an interesting experiment it would be if we were to grade a class as a whole, rather then the individuals. Grade simply on the work performed, and depend on some sort of social hierarchy to keep the group members in line. Based on my own experience of study groups and group projects at Penn State, this may or may not work. Maybe if we were to start with this kind of learning younger, before people became “educated” we would see a huge difference...

Is it supposed to be some new breakthrough that we're over medicating kids on ADHD medication? As someone who has worked in a pharmacy for years, I can personally attest to this fact. I actually grew up in an area (Camp Hill, PA) where almost everyone you meet is on ADHD medication, ages 7-25. Why do we do this? I completely agree with the video, that, we are trying to stop kids from being natural, honestly, how can we expect anyone to pay attention to all that “boring” stuff? The correlation between ADHD and standardized testing blows me away however, after all, what do the majority of those tests accomplish? Aren't we simply teaching for the test rather then teaching comprehension?
Perhaps this desire for conformity causes more problems then it allievates.

I have to address more fully my feelings on his comments on how every country in the world is assessing how they do education. I almost wish he would take more out of “Fight Back!” (http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/fight-back-a-radical.html) Because it really has a lot of good information to bring to the table on educational reform. (And what the “students”, or maybe more correctly, “the product” might be thinking.) I had never realized that concept though, that we really do “educate” children based on age more then anything else. Never having attending public school (having been homeschooled) is the excuse I shall hide behind here. I feel almost validated however in the fact that I have been saying for years that I wished we would educate children based on their interests and strong points, rather then just as a mass of product on an assembly line.

What an interesting experiment it would be if we were to grade a class as a whole, rather then the individuals. Grade simply on the work performed, and depend on some sort of social hierarchy to keep the group members in line. Based on my own experience of study groups and group projects at Penn State, this may or may not work. Maybe if we were to start with this kind of learning younger, before people became “educated” we would see a huge difference...

Quite simply I have to try to distance myself from my own personal bias on this issue, and my own feelings against Republicans to an extent. Sarah Palins' quote from the article that “the first lady cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat." I agree in the respect that we really can't trust families to make responsible decisions on what their children eat. Too many families eat far too much fast food or other highly processed foods. Admittedly, however, this entire blame can't always be on the family (after all, almost everything in the grocery store has some corn product in it) and it's hard to buy fresh fruit or fresh vegetables when the super processed frozen beef is on sale, and will feed your family at a third of the cost. Maybe we should look at where some of the money from the government goes (ethanol, is not the answer here, it's not good for cars, and corn (I realize ethanol isn't used in food, but, processed corn is) isn't good in the amounts that we intake it.

This isn't really about a tax deduction, which, I think is totally valid. It's about finding another way to attack those “horrible Democrats”. Do Republicans support tax deduction of your tuition, or books? I know many who would speak out against this. Too often at this point, the Republican party ( and even the party I am a registered voter of, Democrats) don't live in the real world, they live in a world where they promise things they don't actually have the power to do, and waste too much time on trivialities of simply not liking the other party.

This issue simply isn't about breast feeding, it's about so much more. It's about nutrition, health of children (why does the US still have such a high still born rate?) and it's about our obesity epidemic.

We need to change, we have to change. Maybe a little breast feeding would be good for all of us? (Perverted jokes aside.)