Holding a gun to people's heads and demanding money does not make you liked.
Oh, is that the analogy we're using now? Remind me again when musicians "held a gun to their fans heads and demanded money". Oh right - copyright works the same way that the entire merchandise market works: if you want something you pay for it, if you don't want it you don't pay (and you don't get the stuff). Saying that musicians held a gun to people's heads and demanded money is about as ridiculous as saying every single store holds a gun to your head and demands money (because they won't give you their merchandise for free). I don't know what universe people live in where "they won't give me their stuff for free = they hold a gun to my head and demand money". It's a retarded analogy and it's meant to elicit sympathy for pirates (or, to continue the analogy, shoplifters).
(Step 1) They ignore you. (90% chance you fail after this step, 10% chance you progress to step 2)
(Step 2) They laugh at you. (90% chance you fail after this step, 10% chance you progress to step 3)
(Step 3) They fight you. (90% chance you fail after this step, 10% chance you progress to step 4)
(Step 4) You win. (Congruatulations, you're part of the 0.1%)
I'm sure there are plenty of "free energy" device creators who use that original quote to build-up their confidence that their device is going to revolutionize the world. (Not that I'm comparing solar to "free energy", I'm just pointing out the deficiencies of that quote.)
I'm actually thinking that IBM (a non-German company who helped Germany) and BMW (a German company who built weapons for the Nazis) are actually more culpable for harm done during WW2 than the Red Cross is. (I assume you're still boycotting them.)
Personally, I was pretty annoyed that the Red Cross was offering first aid to Jihadi fighters in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Though, in their defense, they have a policy of taking no sides in a conflict, and I would suppose that it might help protect them from being killed by those reprehensible Jihadis.
It sounds to me like liberal policies designed to reduce wealth inequalities are the only thing that will move humanity forward.
On a related note:
TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc
TED Talk: Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
First, let's start with two facts, and let's assume they are true: "the US has increased its crude production by about 2 million barrels a day" and "Iran's oil exports have been cut in half since 2011 (PDF), from 2.5 million barrels per day to a bit more than 1 million today". The implication in the summary is that Iran's oil production was reduced because the US increased oil production. Let's think about this for a second. This argument would make sense if all three of these claims were true: (1) Iran and the US were the only oil producers in the world, (2) The US was the only oil consumer in the world, (3) US oil consumption remained stable over the past two years. None of these claims are true. First, oil is a global commodity - there are plenty of producers and plenty of consumers. To put this in context, the global oil production is about 80-90 million barrels per day ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production ). So, why would it be true that an increase in 2 million barrels per day in the US would lead directly to a 1.5 million barrel reduction in Iran? Even worse, the US does not purchase any oil from Iran.(though there could be indirect effects, for example, a reduction in US oil purchasing could result in other nations purchasing more oil from Saudi Arabia or Canada, thus reducing their need to buy from Iran). If this is an indirect effect, then we would expect all oil-producing nations (*not* just Iran) to have a small reduction in oil sales (i.e. Saudi Arabia and Canada and Venezuela and other net-oil-export nations would all share in the decline).
In short, it's absolutely absurd to tie an increase of 2 million barrels/oil per day in the US to a 1.5 million barrel/oil per day sales reduction in Iran. These two things don't have any cause-and-effect relationship. They are merely correlated in time. (And I'd bet $100 that if the US never did any fracking, Iran would see the exact same decline in oil production.)
I can see the political implications of making this claim though: it allows (pro-oil) Republicans to pretend that fracking (which they support) resulted in forcing Iran (the country they hate) into a weaker position which pressures them to negotiate with the US. This allows them to take credit for Iran coming to the negotiating table while also undermining any anti-fracking talk. In short: if you damn liberals try to stop fracking, you're helping "Death to America" Iran. Why do you hate freedom?
> "I fucking hate child sex abuse. I'm one of those bleeding heart feminists."
I don't understand what those sentences have to do with each other, unless you think that only feminists hate child abuse.
A recent podcast on the interplay between genetic and athletics: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/09/david_epstein_o.html
An NPR interview with the same author: http://www.npr.org/2013/08/05/209160709/talent-or-skill-honing-in-on-the-elusive-sports-gene