The chief problem with this article is that the author has fetishized the maximization of working hours. If anything we will probably want to reduce working hours in the near future as AI and automation make many types of work pointless.
There was a natural experiment in North Carolina among members of the eastern band of the Cherokee tribe. They opened a casino and suddenly were distributing a bit over $5000 annually to members of the tribe.
As it happens, there was already a social researcher who was studying the tribe, particularly the children of the tribe, and she found that among children under a certain age (maybe around 8 or 10) there were immediate and dramatic effects. Previously Cherokee children had been consistently poor performers in school, and suddenly they started doing better than their white peers. Criminal activity and involvement in the justice system also declined precipitously as they grew older.
She noted that their parents were working shorter hours - which the author of this piece would count as a negative - but it was chiefly because they didn't feel driven to work as much overtime. This gave them more time with their children, and that appeared to be the cause of the positive changes.
If your measurement is number of hours worked, then UBI is a bad thing - but why would we think that number of hours worked is more important than overall quality of life? Especially as we enter an age of automation and artificial intelligence in which there will be less and less useful work that humans are able to do? Is it the purpose of life to work the maximum number of hours and to do poorly what machines can do better? Or is the purpose of life to enjoy life and enjoy family, and do the things that machines are unable to do?
We have lots of refugees from New York, especially from the areas around Syracuse and Buffalo, where I live. A couple years ago a recent refugee said that anyone with the least amount of sense was getting out of New York.
Of course it is all about poor governance that punishes and restricts responsible people to serve the wants of the irresponsible. But will the politicians in New York figure this out? Doubtful.
I notice that the publishers didn't want comments on this video. That's telling.
Most of the "wealth" of billionaires consists of control over resources, and these billionaires typically became billionaires by efficient use of those resources to meet the needs of customers. Taxing them would simply take control of those resources away from those who have demonstrated good management, and give them to people who have demonstrated poor management of resources.
That is a recipe for catastrophe, and it isn't difficult to understand. These women are obviously morons.
All the complaints in this article derive from feminism and the matriarchy.
Men and the nonexistent "patriarchy" are blamed.
Vocals are great.
Dancers are great.
Choreography is great.
Costumes are great.
Unfortunately, the costumes and the choreography clash with each other. The costumes have a masculine, military vibe, and the choreography is kind of the opposite of that. Makes it a bit distracting.
So the Council on American-Islamic Relations has declared war on the American people?
It's not historical revisionism to note that the South was legally and morally right, and that slavery was already on its way out because it was uneconomic. If they want to talk slavery, though, then ask why northern states allowed their citizens to openly participate in the trans-Atlantic slave trade carrying slaves from Africa to the Caribbean and Brazil as late as 1861 despite such participation being against federal law for decades prior. Ask why several Confederate leaders had freed any slaves they had years before the war, and why there were Union generals who remained slave owners throughout the war.
And equating "The South Was Right" with the "Nat Turner Diaries" is just asinine, as is relying on the well known hate group and fraudsters the Southern Poverty Law Center.
As for the idea of banning books, or virtually burning books - that is not something a free people engage in. That is the sort of nonsense we see from fascists.
Curious thing, too, that the Prussians - famous precursors to a famously fascist regime - were one of the few European powers at the time that favored the Yankee cause. The others saw through the self-serving Yankee propaganda.
I'm not going to sign up for InfoWars and get their marketing emails.
So I'll put this here: it is a fundamentalist Christian belief that God controls all things, and therefore nothing happens outside of his will, and therefore the fact that there are multiple religions is in accordance with God's will.
That does not mean that those religions are correct, nor that their adherents will be saved, but the document mentioned which cites God's will is not in contradiction to fundamentalist beliefs.
It's almost as if killing or driving off everyone who knows how to farm is a bad idea.
We are supposed to believe that the same Bible that tells us that to look with lust on a woman is the same as to commit fornication with her does not imply that attempted rape is just as bad as actualized rape?
I'm perfectly fine with interpreting the Bible to say that homosexuality is a sin, but there have been plenty of other cities that should have been destroyed by God if that was the only criteria. The behavior of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah is terrible by any standard, and I think the vast majority of gay men would agree.
And the guy who made this video? His low morals are beyond belief. How could anyone have such clouded judgment that they would perceive attempted same sex rape as LESS evil than voluntary same sex sex? Again, I'm fine with interpretations that homosexuality is a sin. Those interpretations are certainly reasonable regardless of whether they are correct. But to classify homosexuality as MORE evil than the same thing with the ADDITION of attempted rape? That's just insane.
This article is misleading. Aside from very small groups such as the San and the Khoi peoples, and the larger Cape Coloured community of mixed race (the aforementioned groups and Europeans), the black population of most of South Africa belong to peoples (tribes from distant parts of Africa) who arrived AFTER the Boers, or in some cases about the same time. All of which is to say there is no "taking the land back" because it never belonged to the black majority in the first place. Some of this farmland is only viable because the Boers created irrigation systems. Before the Boers arrived it was arid and empty.
So there is no "taking back" land that was "stolen" from black Africans. It is simply a proposed theft from white Africans.
(There are of course a few exceptions, but most of those have already been dealt with by the legal system.)
There is no justice in the attempts to steal land from the Boers, just a thirst for raw power ... and suicide, because the black majority has very few people who understand modern farming techniques, and the farms that have already been purchased from Boers to be given to black farmers are mostly lying idle now, producing either nothing or just a fraction of what they were producing when farmed by Boers. If this expropriation happens thousands of Boers may die, but afterwards millions of blacks will starve. What's more, a good portion of black South Africans understand these things and support the Boers, from both a sense of justice and of self-preservation.