Congratulations! Your video, 1899, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 3 Badge!

Your video, 1899, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My arguments were only about what the argument of legal rights, nothing else. I actually have three friends in Guam and I feel I'm more educated about the situation there than most Americans on the mainland. So thank you for acknowledging the soundness of my arguments, and keep in mind that I wasn't touching the socio-economic aspects of the situation, just John Oliver's misguided presentation of the facts.

Personally I'd love to see PR and Guam join. As for "why"... there are two main camps that I think might be right.

1)They honestly don't care. This mixes somewhat with the "they prefer the benefits of living in a Territory over what they'd gain by becoming a state." For example, if you live in PR and all of your income is made within the bounds of PR, then you don't have to pay US Federal Income Taxes. To me that doesn't really seem like a big deal. I think the people in this group would lean towards statehood if they weren't given the option to remain a territory (i.e. statehood or independence only).

2)They seem the fact that the US is still there as a remnant of military imperialism and they don't want to reward the US. In 1899 Samoa was carved up between Germany and the US during the stupid Kaiser's chest-pounding Imperialism phase that led up to WW1. Puerto Rico and Guam were both taken from the Spanish in the Spanish-American war. Cuba and the Philippines were as well, and those two chose independence and are now independent nations (Cuba was a special situation). The Virgin Islands were bought from Denmark during WW1 and the Marianas were taken from Japan during WW2. So... maybe these places feel like they aren't fully American. But honestly, I think that (with a possible exception of a large portion of Puerto Rico) this isn't the case. Or maybe they simply don't think they'd be an economically viable nation if they left. Look to Nauru as a great example of how fragile a small island's economy can be.

Puerto Rico had a really weird vote in 2012 that seemed to indicate statehood... but the ballot was horribly illegal (you can't have multiple, dependent questions of differing types on the same ballot)... so we'll have to wait til they redo it again with competence to see if they really mean it.

Add to all of this the comfort of the status quo. There's a certain philosophy of finding the sucky stuff that you're used to more palatable than the unknown.

But honestly... I don't know.

The paintings it is based on, thanks to basilisk on Reddit:

• Last Supper by da Vinci
• The Birth of Venus by Boticelli
• The Anatomy Lesson by Rembrandt
• On the right, Girl with a Pearl Earring by Vermeer; on the left one of the Portraits of Henry VIII by Holbein
• The Raft of the Medusa by Géricault
• The Death of Marat by David
• The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo

Chorus:

• The Son of Man by Magritte
• Composition with Large Red Plane by Mondrian
• one of Frida Kahlo's self-portraits
• Portrait of Dora Maar Seated by Picasso
• The Scream by Munch
• The 1899 self-portrait by Van Gogh
• Ten Marilyns by Andy Warhol

Verse:

• Gabrielle d'Estrées et une de ses soeurs by unknown
• Maestá by Cimabue
• Salome by Caravaggio
• Olympia by Manet
• Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix
• Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden by Dix
• The Kiss by Klimt

Chorus again, then

• La Mariée by Chagall
• Las Meninas by Velázquez
• One of the Sunflowers by van Gogh, probably the Third Version

Human Meddling in the process of natural selection disgusts me to no end.

Natural selection is a hard thing.

I feel that if an animal cannot live long enough to reproduce, humans included, then it obviously does not pass on it's genes ergo; it does not pass the test of nature.

My opinion of selective breeders is, they disgust me on both a guttural and rational level. These hoity toity rich white people base their whole breeding on outdated and unscientific opinion on how a dog should look

I see a strong working dog as the peek of its breed. I see a show dog as a farce of nature.

Pure breeding is not something to be liked. Biodiversity and Genetic Diversity is something that nature naturally seeks, and it is proven time and again that breeding with a small gene pool with no diversity will ultimately lead to extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I also find the Eugenicist argument about Pure Bred people completely warped.

My knowledge of biology is only as a hobby, and maybe a slight obsession. It was my favorite class in High School, and would probably have been in college had I majored in it.

On a more sentimental note an old German Shepard or Deutscher Schäferhund of mine died of complication that resulted from Hip Displasia. Here is a quote from the wikipedia on German Shepards:

In 1899, Von Stephanitz was attending a dog show when he was shown a dog named Hektor Linksrhein. Hektor was the product of many generations of selective breeding and completely fulfilled what Von Stephanitz believed a working dog should be. He was pleased with the strength of the dog and was so taken by the animal's intelligence and loyalty, that he purchased it immediately.

A genetic disease that is so common in German Shepherds that one could, speculatively argue that it is the cause of selective breeding. After watching the dog degrade into dragging it's own hind legs around for weeks, and then shitting on herself regularly, because she couldn't lift herself up to shit properly, it was time to euthanize the dog. I can't help but wonder what the breed would look like if it had a bit of diversity.

It is wondrous to think what the world would be like if humans had no developed the current human brain, and still only had the reptile brain.

For a unique understanding of evolution and natural selection read some of these:


The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1976. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
he Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009. ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1986. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.


The Blind Watchmaker was the most complicated read in my opinion.

I beg to differ...

How about the panic of 1797, lasting 3 years
Depression of 1807 lasting 7 years
Panic of 1819 lasting 5 years
Recession of 1833-34 lasting 1 year
Panic of 1837 lasting 2 years
Depression of 1839-43 lasting 4 years (attributed largely to Jackson, one of the worst in history)
Recession of 1845-46 lasting a year
recession of 1847-48 lasting a year
recession of 1853-54 1 year
Panic of 1857 18 months
recession of 1860-61 8 months
recession of 1865-67 lasting 32 months
recession of 1869-70 lasting 18 months
panic of 1873 and the ensuing long depression lasting 65 months
recession of 1882-85 lasting 38 months
recession of 1887-88 lasting 13 months
recession of 1890-91 lasting 10 months
Panic of 1893 lasting 17 months
Panic of 1896 lasting 18 months
Recession of 1899-1900 lasting 18 months
Recession of 1902-04 lasting 23 months
panic of 1907 lasting 13 months
panic of 1910-11 lasting 24 months

Bang up job the old monetary policy was doing...

Your video, Thomas Edison records silent movie of his friend doing bicycle tricks (1899), has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In reply to this comment by joedirt:
In reply to this comment by mharvey42:
(Your equating Churchill with Hitler ultimate proof of that)

Do you know nothing of Churchill's words regarding the inferiority of Jews? You are completely clueless. Please start questioning your own beliefs when you are sooooo clueless.

His words regarding Jews are mixed: "Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world."

His words regarding Islam are unequivecal, and ring true through the years: "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
The River War, volume II pp. 248–50 (1899)

Churchill was a great man: a benefit to humanity. To equate him with Hitler robs you of your last shred of credibility.

Bertold Brecht-10 February, 1898
Kurt Weill-2 March, 1900
Lotte Lenya October 18, 1899

Considering that the Geneva conventions have nothing to do with weapons, I would venture to guess that DU is not mentioned in them. If you really wanted to find some sort of big name treaty that the US is violating, I would recommend looking in the Hague Conventions. Unfortunately, those came out in 1899 and 1907 before DU was even fathomed as a weapon.

But yes, Rabble, rabble rabble, US, rabble, rabble Geneva conventions, rabble rabble.

Considering that the vast majority of tank battles of desert storm and OIF1 occurred in the deserts of south-western Iraq, I would venture to suggest that DU isn't hurting that many people.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That reminds me of the guy who said back in 1899 that there was nothing left for science to discover.

We're on the cusp of a video revolution. I don't know where it's going to end, but there is a seminal battle forming coming between the democratic, bottom-up driven method of Internet video distribution and the standard pump it to your living room, you'll-watch-it-and-you'll-like-it-you-little-shit mode of TV distribution.

I seriously believe that so far we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. Of those 100 channels of TV, we'll soon see all of it on the Web, but chopped up in novel ways with only the good bits left in. Add this to the proliferation of camera phones and that's a lot of video.

Here's a prediction. Soon "personal video" will be always on. People will wear a lapel camera and record their whole f*cking life. Handy for when you get in arguments with your wife. You can rewind and find out who really said what.

So, no - I don't think it's the end, quite the opposite.

Title changed from "Silent movie of Thomas Edison doing bicycle tricks (1899)" per sfjocko's request

actually, edison was behind the camera. that is not him riding it. he was 53 in 1899.

library of congress info: http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/varstg:@field(NUMBER(0836))