because she knows why the establishment hates her [contrary to the popular narrative, her husband did everything he could to stop that, but he got overruled by a senate supermajority] and why she's been challenged so strongly by wall street candidates over the years.

it's just a part of it. they got single-payer out of the way - or so it seems. there's a list of other issues...

if you do the research, you find startling connections between the eec and the remnants of post-war fascism. almost as though they saw the german occupation as a kind of pax germanica.

i've entertained notions that this is by design, but it doesn't seem to add up. the right-wing block actually seems to have strangely close ties to russia. that's inconsistent with this idea. the destabilization seems real, and the russians are helping with it.

if there's a parallel, it's closer to a replay of the german occupation of greece. same kind of looting. but it's ultimately failed neo-liberalism. forget about the outcomes of austerity being predictable. this was predictable from the establishment of the euro - or at least was to people who hadn't drunk the kool-aid. and, i think a lot of people legitimately drank from that chalice, and expected this experiment in the gold standard to have a different result.

that said, i'd remind people that europe had repeated opportunities to accept a political union, which was a necessary corollary to the establishment of the euro, and that a political union could have prevented this. the greeks ratified this. it's not their fault. but bankers are assholes. and, i'm not willing to rule out the idea that the elite may have decided to unite the continent by force as a consequence of it's refusal to rubber stamp their initiatives.

see, this idea that there was no space or light or time and there was this spontaneous explosion that created everything out of nothing...this is as ridiculous as any religious thinking. it's just religion with more math. that needs to be explained before you can take the idea seriously.

i do think that you should take the idea seriously. i just think it's painfully incomplete, and we're deluding ourselves if we don't shift our thinking about it.

i think we need a philosophical shift in approach to a complex cosmos that is interrelated and consequently a universe that has multiple complex causes, rather than a closed universe with a single cause. it's a reclamation of naturalistic thinking away from religious thinking.

you don't need a lot of math to get your head around it, just an intuitive conception of probability. i think this change in approach is the solution to a long list of issues that have no apparent explanation in the context of a universe with a single cause.

i don't like the process of mathematically creating dimensions on a whim - there's no real reason for this. it's magical thinking. but, i think that the theoretical conclusions that m-theory have come to are the only really rational approach to this, and will no doubt eventually be arrived at through some other means. what this theory suggests is that the big bang was the result of an outside explosion - that there is energy and time outside the universe, although it might not exactly be comprehensible in the way that we understand it inside the universe. further, these explosions happen all the time. it removes the mystery from some kind of singularity, and suggests our universe is really nothing remarkable.

i can't take the idea that there are infinitely many universes seriously. but, the number may be unfathomably large. then, we don't need ideas like the universe "creating space". it would simply be expanding into space that already exists. we don't need an irrational universe that spontaneously combusts out of nothing. it would be the rational consequence of events outside of it. further, it opens up a number of questions as to how our universe might interact with other ones. for example, we can't explain why we have more matter than anti-matter; the big bang theory actually cannot explain why we exist. but, if we acknowledge that matter (and anti-matter) may possibly shift between universes, then we can maybe understand why there's an imbalance. that's not a proof. it's not even a hypothesis. but, it's an idea that is currently not acknowledged, and it's that lack of acknowledgement that is untenable. for, if there are multiple universes then they must interact in some manner or other. and it follows that our universe would not exist in a vacuum. and, if the universe does not exist in a vacuum, then this approach of explaining it with a single cause is hopeless - because it is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKBkyN5os9s

think of it like this: imagine trying to explain the history of the earth with no understanding of things that happen outside of it. no concept of gravity, or comets, or any of the other things floating around out there. we don't have to speculate: we can look at history. and, we can see that the theories were limited by a lack of knowledge of how forces outside the earth effect what happens on the earth.

it could be centuries or millenia before we're able to grasp what is outside the universe. but, if we're to be serious in our theories, we have an obligation to recognize that our ability to understand the universe is drastically limited by our conception of it as a closed system. we may have little choice but to asterisk things for future research at some undisclosed point in the distant future. but, we should be thinking it through carefully and pointing out where outside forces may have a possible influence.

future generations may very well look back and laugh at us for believing the universe is flat, while historians argue that it's a myth, based on the writings of ancient relativistic philosophers.

cause of death: asphyxiation due to twizzler insertion.

see, you're defeating your own relevancy by confusing the issue. instead of this being an anti-trafficking issue, like it ought to be, and which would generate you cross-spectrum support, you're trying to turn it into an anti-abortion issue. and, that's going to get you ignored in the wider context.

it's quite unfortunate, because there's a rather serious concern, here - one that really needs to be addressed.

"Kerry cautioned against viewing the matter through the lens of just the US"

that's why the coverage of this is so awful. for years, it's been viewed as the hegemonic americans enforcing their will on the insolent iranians. in fact, for at least five years now, it's been a struggle between russia and america for influence over iran. nobody realizes this.

when the americans push down these brutal sanctions, what it does is create incentives to integrate further with the russians. what it's done is put the americans in a position where they've had to play catch up.

it's true that the negotiating approach was terrible and backfired badly. but, it's because it was tyrannical and oppressive, not because it was too lax.

the russians have walked out of this with all the actual control in terms of the actual material. iran is leaning towards integration into the shanghai co-operation organization, which is functionally a russian-chinese defense pact against american aggression in asia. an alliance like that takes them out of the list of countries that the americans can bomb without consequence. and, that is why the americans are pulling back - iran has squirmed out of this, with russian help.

russian help that is a direct consequence of american sanctions over ukraine.

by Guy Taylor - The Washington Times - Monday, April 13, 2015
Russia on Monday gave the green light to a long-stalled $800 million deal to deliver an advanced anti-missile rocket system to Iran, bringing sharp criticism from the White House and Israel and new political peril for President Obama’s prospective nuclear deal with Tehran.

Iran has pushed since 2007 to purchase the S-300 system from Russia — hardware that analysts say will dramatically increase Iran’s ability to defend itself from airstrikes, including a strike on its nuclear facilities from either the U.S. or Israel should international negotiations break down.

guys...

it's just a question of being less direct. the truth is that couples really do meet each other on the bus, or in the grocery store, or in random places. but, it helps to break the ice in less forward ways. there's nothing wrong with being friendly. and, there's really no reason to question whether it's true that that strip club was hiring.

it's less that these are hits. it's more that they're really bad hits.

it's more like that these guys need to really up their game.

see, this is the kind of thing that you simply don't get from corporate media due to a combination of manipulation and arrogance - but that the internet has made widely available to pretty much everybody. and, it's pretty devastating. not just for harper, but for his entire mode of economic thinking and anybody else willing to play in that sandbox. even ten years ago, you'd have to go to the library to get this, or sort for it through obscure blogs that you're only going to get to via insider link trading. so, there's really no mystery in the electorate's - and specifically educated electorate's - sudden rejection of neoliberalism and embrace of the economic left. it's just a question of being informed, in a new reality where being informed is much easier than it used to be.

rabble.ca/columnists/2015/07/worst-canadas-economy-under-harper-government