*sigh* You'd think the lower and middle-class WASP's would have changed by now. (And I am one; a WASP, not a racist, mind you)

Hmm, let's see...

1830-1850: Huge immigration of Western Europe to the US. Irish, Italian, etc. #1 complaints? Lack of assimilation to the "American ideal" and: http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs

1885-1895: Another huge immigration...this time Eastern Europe. Poles, Jews, Eastern Bloc countries. #1 complaints? Lack of assimilation to the "American ideal" and: http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs

Since 1900, immigration from every country in the world, more from Asia and Latin America now. And guess what? We still have the "American" ideal and we still have jobs. Unemployment is about the same rate and so is crime. Nothings changed.

Oh, except we now have cool shows like South Park... http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs

My new birthday is March 29, 1900. Seriously, who would say that they were younger than 18?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'legend of 1900, movie, piano, jazz' to 'legend of 1900, movie, piano, jazz, ennio, morricone' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

This is from 1900. Aside from this part (which is a tad over-the-top, putting it mildly), it's actually a very good film.

I just finished climbing out the first cave. Now I'm going to sagely get some sleep to avoid repeating mg's ... epic experience. I was v. pleased to up the resolution to 1900 awesomeness. Gaming to continue later.

You mean ginormous wasn't a real word before?

And MG = jealous. I like my 19, but a 24 is a thing of beauty. No wonder you worked so hard on that new 1900 option.

> How do you keep your desk so clean?
That's why I took a close-up of just the monitors. (Not to mention that I Photoshop'd out a bit of dust that the flash brought out, but don't tell anyone!

Slaved away on a tiny 19" huh, YDJ? Haha. Poor you.

> Don't for get to set the layout width at the bottom of the sift page
Yeah, it was still shrunken down to the sniveling little 1280 setting because I had just dragged FireFox from the little monitor over to the ginormous (yes, that's a real word now) one. Speaking of which, perhaps I should add another larger size for those of us who are unusually well endowed, so to speak.

Look for a 1900 width option to appear at the bottom of the page soon.

I've read about a system in the early 1900's, when the phonograph was huge and the telephone was just catching on, where you could call on your telephone to get a certain song played over your phone. You then hung the telephone receiver on a special attachment on your phonograph and you'd get the music piped over the phone through your phonograph. The earliest form of file sharing.
Unfortunately I can't find the article I read before, or any information on it. Anyone else ever hear of this?

Trickle down economics doesn't work, see Reagen years. Rich people would only move their assets off shore to avoid being taxed, employ accountants to lessen their tax exposure, and invest where it's most suitable for them to make a profit, this is not necessary the US, it would be China right now.

Everyone who attacks Ron Paul on his support of bringing back the Gold Standard is being a little rash to presume he means a return to the '1900s', all he is saying is that the US dollar has no value based backing behind it as a currency and it requires one to prevent the senseless spending that has lead to such a large deficit and precarious currency position in the first place.

The US has been writing bad checks on it's currency for several years now based of it's de facto status as currency of reserve and exchange, this allowed them to increase spending without balancing it's huge trade deficits, essentially borrowing from China and Japan (combined they hold about 2.1 trillion USD in reserve).

The US continued to import most of it's goods, meanwhile off-shoring and the dismantling of the manufacturing sectors has meant that the US economy has become reliant on services mostly sold to each other. CEOs got paid massive paychecks for essentially off shoring manufacturing operations, the US now basically imports back most of it's products, a computer made by Dell in Asia is an import not an export to the US.

This splits off into two now, with the sub-prime mortgage crises and investor panic the Federal Reserve needs to lower interest rates to contain the problem, however if it does that the dollar depreciates even more, so the Federal Reserve needs to increase interest rates to convince foreign reserve holders to continue buying and holding US dollars, and thus allow Washington to continue borrowing. This is because the US dollar has depreciated rapidly against all currencies, because people are buying less dollars now, seeing how the US has not addressed it's budgetary and deficit problems.

The question now is will those holding to US dollars continue to do so? No one is selling now because no one wants to induce a panic, many have been talking of propping up the US dollar so it doesn't continue its decline, however this is unrealistic, how much value are foreign governments and banks willing to back against a falling US dollar? 100 billion? 1000 billion?

You might be wondering how it lead to this, The Federal Reserve has been backing non wealth creation financial instruments for several years now which lead to the sub prime mortgage crisis instead of investment into capital creation manufacturing industry (think of gambling instead of proper investment in industry).

Expectation was that the war in Iraq would mean the US would control massive oil resources that would allow it to continue writing bad checks, however this assumption back fired with the instability in Iraq.

The Fed now is cutting interest rates further to provide more money for investors, more cuts are expected that will send the dollar falling even further. With that might come the jettison of dollar reserves and a switch into the Euro, and then a recession in the US economy.

1: The Great Global Warming Swindle was on tv, so not really a "lolol only pro global warming on tv lolol"
2: Seems you're not just a global warming denialist, but also a greenhouse gas denialist: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It, in addition to water vapor and other gasses (others which only amount for 8% of the greenhouse effect), holds infrared radiation in the atmosphere which in effect heats the surface of the earth. It's why we have a climate and there is any life on this planet in the first place. You increase the concentration of it and you hold in more radiation, causing temperatures to go up. This was all taught in any middle school science class across the country. Now that we have that little misconception cleared up, please continue.

3: and another thing: The Great Global Warming Swindle was made in the UK, shown on UK, and debunked in UK. It got debunked so hard Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. 'There was a fluff there,' he said. If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the NASA website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940—although that would have undermined his argument. 'The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,' Mr Durkin said: The original, and corrected versions of Temperature data from TGGWS, along with NASA GISS data
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/341/86488206qk5.jpg

"'To Beg The Question' means using what you are trying to prove. Not making you want to ask the question."

noted...fixed my comment. Guess I need more sleep...and to think I was just chastising a 12-year-old on Youtube for bad spelling and grammar.

Scientific Fact...don't get me started. You can find clues, you can find evidence, you can't find fact. If you weren't there to witness something happening, it cannot be claimed as fact. Before you argue "with such reasoning, one wouldn't be able to prove anything that happened before, say 1900, since no one (very few) are alive that were alive before then.", let me counter with this. People were there, and they wrote it down. Many people witnessed many things. The important things were written down, painted, photographed, etc., and correlated by others.

Yes, it's a fact that scientists have found this connection. And it supports the THEORY. But it also supports theory that God is like Nissan.

There is evidence to support a young universe as well as an old one. Halos in granite come to mind: http://www.halos.com/. As well as moon dust. Scientists calculated that the moon was so covered with dust, that the astronauts should have sank when they landed...but they didn't. The perceived amount of collected dust supports a MUCH younger moon. I doubt solar wind and even most meteor impacts could create enough force to "blow it away."

I'm not saying that evolution and the related theories (big bang, 10 billion year old universe, etc.) are philosophical beliefs...I hold the position that, though often people are both, supporting intelligent design doesn't make you Christian. /////edit, just realized I didn't finish my thought...Intelligent Design is just another theory.

Sexy 1900's steel conglomerate tycoon!

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

"America remains the light of the world"

man, that's rich.

Agree that the US is an empire, in the same vein as the British Empire. I think they were using loopy self-serving rhetoric like the above statement around 1900 too.

And yes, "evil" shouldn't even enter into the discussion - no point in imposing biblical relative terms on politics as usual.

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

Here we go again...

To Persephone:
That "righteous tone" that Condell, and most of us anti-theists seem to take on is a result of us being sick and tired of religion, religious "values", and religious practices being shoved down our throats time and time again due to the weakness of politicians and the loud vocal religious constituents that demand these practices be put in place despite their not being the only voice. For some reason it's okay in society today to be passionate about one's religion, but it's not okay to be passionate about one's lack of religion. Explain to me why that is reasonable?

To BlueCliff:
I don't even know where to begin... I'm probably going to let another Sifter who is more eloquent, smarter and more historically savvy than me to expound, because I just can't think straight due to my disgust, but I'll give a short reply. Anyone, feel free to correct me, as I'm on my second glass of Sangria and am very angry.

The United States of America was specifically designed to NOT involve God. The founding fathers, during the Age of Reason, knew better than to involve any sort of theocratic stipulations within the Constitution. Yes, many of the founders were Christian, however many were deists, and many, including Jefferson showed a great deal of doubt about any God at all to the point of at least agnosticism. There was a lot of deliberation on the subject, from what I understand, but in the end, they reasoned that the separation of church and state was beneficial for BOTH the church and the state. And as a result, they created the longest running Republic in the history of the world. It has only been after the creation of the union, and in particular in the 1900's due to the evil threat of "Godless communism" that the religious have gained any sort of foothold and perverted American politics. To say that America can't exist without God, to me, is offensive and an affront to everything that the founding fathers tried to do.

That is why I get so passionate about my atheism. Yes, we have a lot of Protestant "morals" in this country, but most of them are antiquated and childish and based on repression and shame. They mostly serve to hold society, reason, and science back. However removing God from the equation in no way means that we are going to resort to some anarchistic, amoral society.

Condell's whole point of this is that European countries have been becoming more of a free democracy and less of a theocratic state in the last century, while we've gone backwards, and yet for some reason, they are now allowing a new Islamic theocracy to invade their system and allow for crimes that would otherwise be intolerable. And why? Just so that they don't offend that small religious segment? The freedoms that they've gained are too important to lose to another set of religious dogma, whatever the religion may be.

Okay, that was way longer than I intended... With apologies...