>> ^entr0py:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This is more a problem of big government than big business though, right, or did I miss something?

To me it seems like these are examples of reckless attempts to make government smaller by outsourcing basic services to contractors. Jails and public schools are not extravagant, they are absolutely essential services that citizens expect of any developed nation.
Sometimes privatization does produce a savings for the government. But usually at the expense of less accountability, lower quality of service, and the creation of fewer good jobs. Other times it costs taxpayers more, and only serves to line the pockets politicians and contractors. I'd say the US hiring of mercenary outfits to fight in our wars falls in that later category.


I would agree mostly, but only because government doesn't have a "market place" like we do. They make monolithic decisions mired in layers of politics instead of personal expectations, taste, and past experience (and don't forget price!). If you, I, or my town makes a bad decision, we reap the results and are in a better position to rectify than some people thousands of miles away ( I don't think the people in New Orleans will ever let the funding for the levies dry up again, even if some federal bill doesn't pass ). To me, this video highlights a real danger, and that is increased governmental responsibility leads the the creation of mega corporations to manage the affairs of large government responsibility. A self reinforcing problem that is very dangerous indeed. This is the problem that many have seen from the start of this country, and Eisenhower reminded us of only 50(god I'm getting old) 60 years ago, the industrial military complex. This issue is part and parcel with large, federal, central banking as well...it's a dance that we haven't seen the end of yet.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This is more a problem of big government than big business though, right, or did I miss something?


To me it seems like these are examples of reckless attempts to make government smaller by outsourcing basic services to contractors. Jails and public schools are not extravagant, they are absolutely essential services that citizens expect of any developed nation.

Sometimes privatization does produce a savings for the government. But usually at the expense of less accountability, lower quality of service, and the creation of fewer good jobs. Other times it costs taxpayers more, and only serves to line the pockets politicians and contractors. I'd say the US hiring of mercenary outfits to fight in our wars falls in that later category.

I'll still call it *wtf *engineering though, seeing as how the living standards of his people arguably call into question the extravagance of his bunkers and palaces.

This is my last comment on this video as it is getting old, but I just can't resist.

You want my definition of a rant? Ok, "to speak or declaim extravagantly or vehemently." As the point of your comment was to declaim James Randi, and you did it in a rather bombastic way, I stand by my statement.

Maybe I should also define something else you don't seem to understand:
monotone - a vocal utterance or series of speech sounds in one unvaried tone. Maybe you are tone-deaf, but Randi wasn't even close to monotone in this video. Monotone is how Ben Stein speaks - it tends to be pretty obvious.

Is Randi condescending? At times, but only to those who deserve our condescension. The purveyors of this shit deserve our complete derision.

Now, I would like to know how, from this one video, you decided that Randi believes that the only people at fault are the corporations. He has made a living teaching people to be skeptical and to question the paranormal and pseudo-scientific. He has made it clear that, while most of the fault lies in the dishonesty of the people who push the scams like homeopathy, applied kinesiology, psychic phenomena, etc., people need to be more skeptical and should resist these scammers.

This video was specifically produced to announce his new million dollar challenge to homeopathy manufacturers and his challenge to the sellers of homeopathic remedies so of course he talks more about corporations in this video.

Yes, boycotts would force these companies to stop selling this garbage but to bring that about you need publicity and a million dollar challenge is a good way to get that publicity. Though it would be even better, IMO, if our health and drug organizations (FDA etc.) didn't allow manufacturers to trick people into thinking water was medicine.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I could type a big response to your response...but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you read my response.
Btw, what is your definition of a rant? Mine is to ramble on over the same point without adding significant clarification (i.e. the clarification that I added.)
Here is the abridged version, since reading is not fun for you. Randi blames corporations because he is either ignorant or a suck-up, I blame the people using the medications and the corporations.
^Skeeve:
I could type a big response to your rant... but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you watched the same video.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Skeeve:
beg
Come on, every other homeopathy video and every other James Randi video is sifted. I figured this was a shoe in.

I voted for the video just now, but the Randi is monotone, condesending, and wrong in many areas--that may have something to do with the poor votes.
I don't disagree that the psedo medicine is fake--in fact I agree. However... "Its not just manafacturer's faults, but Walgreens, etc." Yeah, fuck face, its also the people who buy this shit at fault! Or the parents who trust this shit. But he won't blame the real problems, because that is unpopular, he blames the corporations because every one hates those! "Innocent people suffer." Well, what is the subjective meaning of "innocent?" If he means people who self inflict pain on themselves, he's right...if users boycotted this water shit, then the companies would go bankrupt! Boycotts are the consumer vote...
This feel-good idiot blame-monster is just like a politician... "Scapegoat time!" 'You have to protect yourself." Oh, he get's to that by the end Great science guy--bad philosophy. Maybe I am too anal, but then, I am tired of this "homopathetic displaced blame" water...

I totally agree that it's not simple. That's why all of this bothers me so much. Congress members like to see it black and white, what they want (and their contributors want) should be kept or voted in. What they don't want (and their contributors don't want) is communist/socialist/anti-american/against God/whatever. There absolutely no sway with these people, and that's because they are paid to think the way they do. It's not the best interest of the country, it's the best interest of who paid them off.

It's pretty blatant when the people who are making out like bandits during a very bad economic recession if doesn't become a depression and still want more tax cuts and profits, while the food banks don't have enough food and people are literally losing their houses because they won't extend unemployment benefits.

And trust me, unemployment in the US does not pay enough to cover what you would have made with a job. Especially when healthcare is primarily provided by companies and not by a universal health plan, people simply can't afford coverage on unemployment and they are not provided coverage unless they meet stringent criteria.

And it has been shown that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, for every dollar put into unemployment compensation a 1.60 or some such is generated. Rich tax cuts don't even come close to generating that, not even in the same ballpark. And they are supposedly the people who make the world go round if you listen to the bought and paid for Congress members.


In reply to this comment by Smugglarn:
While I agree with som of waht you say there is a caveat to all those wonderful programs. In my country (Sweden) the model of governance was that the ruling party (Social Democrats) essentially paid their voters with unemployment programs and social security benefits. You could actually earn less working than going on benefits. Immigrants who by nature of their endeavours are quite industrius and hard working quickly became pacified and dependant on the system. The only thing asked of the poorer classes is to vote "correctly" every four years. Remember though - they are only loyal voters for as long as they are not suffering as much . As soon as they get successful they get the full force of the tax system and change alliances. It stifles entrepreneurship and innovation.

Thankfully the Social Democrats were voted out. Regrettably, there is a high unemployment rate, a nationalist party gained a lot of seats in the parliament and violence plagues the projects and large cities around the country.


The left seeing the voters abandon them cry out for expanded immigration and more refugees. At first glance this could be thought of as a compassionate move - but in reality they want more party members to feed the machine. On the other hand the right want to expand immigration as well - for specialists nad other high quality workers - but also for cheap labour obviously.

What I'm rambling about is that it is not that simple.

In reply to this comment by Porksandwich:
Really no one knows what will fix the economy, often times opinion of the economy means just as much as actual changes. If people think the economy is in the toilet, they play safe with their money....if they think it's great they invest in more risky things (to me the tech bubbles demonstrate this, they don't know WTF they were investing in half the time but it sounded good).

But it strikes me as odd when you see a sudden decline in the economy and opinion of it tank....that they don't undo what they changed a few years prior to the economic downturn. Yes there are outside influences and other hard to account for things. But if tax cuts on the rich stimulated the economy in a beneficial way, we would not be in the situation we are in. Yes bank deregulation and other stupid moves, plus a blind payout to people who abused the system really hurt us. But the people who made those decisions also tend to be rich people with rich friends, after all it takes millions upon millions to campaign for any federal level job and you're going to notice the guy giving you a couple hundred thousand versus the guy who gives you 10 bucks.

As for making up the taxes in other methods...sales, consumption, sin tax, whatever you want to refer to. 1% of the population can go day to day without buying as much or can go to lengths to offset or remove the tax burdens they would otherwise face if they have many resources at their disposal. They could simply live somewhere else where those taxes do not effect them. And the rest of the people making, I think it's 250k or less a year to be the non-rich, they simply do not have the resources to avoid living near their jobs and are going to have the basic necessity expenditures as any rich guy.

I mean we all have things we need in common.
Food

Shelter (electricity, gas)

Toiletries (unless we're gonna wipe our asses with tree bark and not wear deodorant or brush our teeth),

Methods of transport (which is usually going to be a car, most places have pathetic public transport and riding a bike in sweltering heat or freezing cold is not going to cut it)

Medical - which at this point in time you have to be pretty destitute or disabled to receive government help with. And everyone at some point in their life is going to need medical assistance whether it's through a fault of their own or not. It's a stupid system where if you can't afford your treatment "RIGHT NOW" you may end up crippled and a burden on everyone else for the rest of your life over a few thousand dollars.

Rich people don't need to eat any more than poor people, they might have richer tastes but they can survive on poor people food. Rich people don't need any more than the minimum shelter. Same with toiletries, fancy colognes and perfumes are frills. BMWs versus 20 year old clunkers, rich can drive beaters too. Medical, rich people are going to have the basic care they need when they need it at every stage of their life....because they are rich and of course luck in genetic lotteries count for a lot.

So unless every rich person lives extravagantly INSIDE the US at all times, taxing them on anything but income is only going to get what they spend money on inside the country...even though they make their money and protect their money and assets utilizing what everyone else helps subsidize - roads, utilities, police, firefighters, etc.

It's the "I got mine, so fuck you." attitude that seems to be popular now. You can see it in a lot of things, unemployment extensions (I got a job, so fuck you.), universal health care (I'm not sick, so fuck you.), public transportation (I own a car, so fuck you.), Visa workers/offshoring (I can get cheaper labor, so fuck you.), etc.

So we end up with absolutely no positive future growth besides what you can afford to do for yourself. And we have more and more people falling onto government welfare programs where they are going to find themselves stuck until the problems become so blatantly apparent that no one can deny that paying your share benefits you just as much as it benefits others.

Really no one knows what will fix the economy, often times opinion of the economy means just as much as actual changes. If people think the economy is in the toilet, they play safe with their money....if they think it's great they invest in more risky things (to me the tech bubbles demonstrate this, they don't know WTF they were investing in half the time but it sounded good).

But it strikes me as odd when you see a sudden decline in the economy and opinion of it tank....that they don't undo what they changed a few years prior to the economic downturn. Yes there are outside influences and other hard to account for things. But if tax cuts on the rich stimulated the economy in a beneficial way, we would not be in the situation we are in. Yes bank deregulation and other stupid moves, plus a blind payout to people who abused the system really hurt us. But the people who made those decisions also tend to be rich people with rich friends, after all it takes millions upon millions to campaign for any federal level job and you're going to notice the guy giving you a couple hundred thousand versus the guy who gives you 10 bucks.

As for making up the taxes in other methods...sales, consumption, sin tax, whatever you want to refer to. 1% of the population can go day to day without buying as much or can go to lengths to offset or remove the tax burdens they would otherwise face if they have many resources at their disposal. They could simply live somewhere else where those taxes do not effect them. And the rest of the people making, I think it's 250k or less a year to be the non-rich, they simply do not have the resources to avoid living near their jobs and are going to have the basic necessity expenditures as any rich guy.

I mean we all have things we need in common.
Food

Shelter (electricity, gas)

Toiletries (unless we're gonna wipe our asses with tree bark and not wear deodorant or brush our teeth),

Methods of transport (which is usually going to be a car, most places have pathetic public transport and riding a bike in sweltering heat or freezing cold is not going to cut it)

Medical - which at this point in time you have to be pretty destitute or disabled to receive government help with. And everyone at some point in their life is going to need medical assistance whether it's through a fault of their own or not. It's a stupid system where if you can't afford your treatment "RIGHT NOW" you may end up crippled and a burden on everyone else for the rest of your life over a few thousand dollars.

Rich people don't need to eat any more than poor people, they might have richer tastes but they can survive on poor people food. Rich people don't need any more than the minimum shelter. Same with toiletries, fancy colognes and perfumes are frills. BMWs versus 20 year old clunkers, rich can drive beaters too. Medical, rich people are going to have the basic care they need when they need it at every stage of their life....because they are rich and of course luck in genetic lotteries count for a lot.

So unless every rich person lives extravagantly INSIDE the US at all times, taxing them on anything but income is only going to get what they spend money on inside the country...even though they make their money and protect their money and assets utilizing what everyone else helps subsidize - roads, utilities, police, firefighters, etc.

It's the "I got mine, so fuck you." attitude that seems to be popular now. You can see it in a lot of things, unemployment extensions (I got a job, so fuck you.), universal health care (I'm not sick, so fuck you.), public transportation (I own a car, so fuck you.), Visa workers/offshoring (I can get cheaper labor, so fuck you.), etc.

So we end up with absolutely no positive future growth besides what you can afford to do for yourself. And we have more and more people falling onto government welfare programs where they are going to find themselves stuck until the problems become so blatantly apparent that no one can deny that paying your share benefits you just as much as it benefits others.

@SDGundamX. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so

Ah, the old "its only meant for the jews then and there" defense.. Well, then why are even discussing them?

I am considering them in their context, their ENTIRE context, which includes the later clarifications of them; the proper way to treat slaves, how disobedient children must be put to death, how witches cannot be suffered to live, how anyone making offerings to other gods must be put to death..

If these rules are merely local, time-restricted directions, invented by illiterate, desert-dwelling barbarians, then I suppose they are understandable to some degree.

But we have to consider them for what they are claimed to be: Commandments from an all-knowing god. Not only that, but it is claimed that they are the basis for our sense of right and wrong. My point was that this is clearly ridiculuos: these are not good rules to live by: They are in direct opposition to religious freedom, they posit ridicululuosly hard punishments for things that could hardly even be considered crime, and they speak of some of the most brutal and disgusting crimes one can imagine as if they were part of a perfectly acceptable behaviour.

The fact that most people ignore most of the contents and interpret left and right, well, for the purposes of my argument (The ten commandments are not godgiven/the source of our morality/good rules to live by)is IRRELEVANT. If I wanted to make extravagant claims about the wisdoms contained in Mein Kampf, I'd make damn sure to tone down the various mentions of "the jew problem", but that wouldnt change a goddamn thing. Mein Kampf isnt the source of our morality and innate good behaviour (quite the contrary). And the same can be said of the bible/Ten Commandments.

Go far enough back and we all have the same ancestors. After that, there were a bunch of people and some of them preyed on others. At the same time, there were any number of disasters and windfalls, any amount of luck, good and bad, death, disease, theft, charity, feuds and reconciliations, new ideas and paradigms; all of which affected the society in which we find ourselves and the advantages our parents could pass onto us, what our grandparents could pass on to our parents, our great-grandparents to our grandparents and on. Historical inequality exists, racially driven and, crucially, otherwise, but all of it completely beyond our control so it may as well have been random. Do we consider every bounce of the die in its course, or do we just say it came up six?

Say a millionaire discovered he would have been twice as rich if only his maid's ancestors hadn't ripped his family off 500 years ago, does the maid write him a cheque? History may make for amusing speculation, but it's not a serious study and can never be applied to anything meaningful. For example, I like the idea that black and white were getting along fine until the 1600s when some scheming rich folk invented racism.

>> ^peggedbea:

I may be misunderstanding your point. So, sure, any anthropology class will teach you that race doesn't really exist and is only a cultural construct, like gender (not sex, gender).
But to say that inequality based on who your ancestors were doesn't exist and that how you may be subconsciously perceived by societal institutions is just a "roll of the dice" is a bit of a stretch.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last line. But American society was indeed set up to intentionally draw lines based on "race" and to both create and exploit racial tensions. And it worked fantastically well. Poor whites and white indentured servants were intentionally pitted against black slaves to be a buffer against revolts. The same concept is still being used to day with extravagant success, pit the lower classes against each other on the basis of some arbitrary tribe identification and they won't look too closely at how actively you're fucking them all over.

I may be misunderstanding your point. So, sure, any anthropology class will teach you that race doesn't really exist and is only a cultural construct, like gender (not sex, gender).

But to say that inequality based on who your ancestors were doesn't exist and that how you may be subconsciously perceived by societal institutions is just a "roll of the dice" is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last line. But American society was indeed set up to intentionally draw lines based on "race" and to both create and exploit racial tensions. And it worked fantastically well. Poor whites and white indentured servants were intentionally pitted against black slaves to be a buffer against revolts. The same concept is still being used to day with extravagant success, pit the lower classes against each other on the basis of some arbitrary tribe identification and they won't look too closely at how actively you're fucking them all over.

>> ^gorillaman:

There's no such thing as white privilege; there's no such thing as a white race or a black race. It seems harsh to say this guy spent an hour talking about literally nothing at all, but there it is. He's living in a fantasy world where people are linked in a way that simply doesn't exist in any objective sense.
The world is a collection of individuals, and some of us were born into disadvantageous circumstances and some of us were born into advantageous circumstances. Yes, in the past some more individuals behaved like dicks to some other individuals, for a variety of reasons, and some of us have benefited incidentally from that while others have not. But that's really all it boils down to, the whole history of humanity is just one big roll of the dice, and some of us rolled higher than others.
Now, if we want to talk about correcting those imbalances on an individual basis through whatever social means - progressive taxes, subsidies, culling racists, fine; that could be a conversation worth having, but if we're going to go on pretending we've all been naturally and necessarily divided into these arbitrary tribes based on vague genetic similarities, well, it's just noise.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I think the system is fine. The onus is on the bastards who must keep a tally in their heads to balance things. Otherwise, gifts are gifts, dammit. If you actually consider it a loan (or a gift balancing act), don't give another one until the previous one has been repaid, but otherwise let it go.
And... if this isn't about personal debts, what was he going on about for 3 and a half minutes? Must have gone over my head.


No... argh, you're not getting it. It's NOT that people who worry about this stuff (which I am one), get concerned about OTHER people not paying US back (at least, this is the way I work), it's the other way around... If I've been out with friends, and it ends up that one has shouted me a round, or paid for lunch/dinner whatever... then I am forever trying to make sure that I even up that debt lest I be thought of as a cheapskate who just takes.

I find it very hard to accept that while I am more than happy to just shout someone a drink/coffee/whatever now and again with no care for that ever being squared up, that everyone else could be just the same. See, I can't tell if internally that person who has just shouted me a coffee now has a tally in THEIR head and are going to keep note if I don't shout them an equal number back.

This leads to me doing extravagant office wide coffee runs on my own dime every now and again to try to 'clean the books', and demonstrate that I'm not a moocher at all... really I'm not. :-/

I, and I'm pretty sure he, are well aware it's our own failing, and not others... he's just articulating in a funny way the thought processes that go on in our heads. He's not REALLY suggesting that this be the new order, he's being FUNNY Damnit.

pretty much oldest idea ever when "automating" a lawn mower. Calling it a hack sounds bit too extravagant as well

Geeez, I typed up a huge response only to have videosift refresh the page to lose it all, thanks videosift.
Anyway, here goes one more time...

You have the audacity to be so ignorant as to claim that an entire group of a wide variety of people are all unashamed and selfish - all the while I've met several democrats and republicans whom are unashamed and self-righteous people (not all of course), but I wouldn't be so blatantly ignorant as to group the entire lot as such.
People of all walks of life end up being in the middle politically because they realize the partisan bullshit of a two party system that is both corrupt to the core (politically) and constantly lying to us to get elected and/or remain in office.

Many libertarians share common values with those on the right and left. Not all libertarians believe in a completely open free-market society. Many of us like myself demands a regulated market. There will always be some issues that you may disagree with or feel a little differently about no matter what party you are in.

Civil rights, sound monetary policy, limited international intervention and proper checks and balances in a small federal government sounds like the most logical I've heard of out of all the parties available. I don't agree with the abortion issue because I'm non-religious and I feel a woman should have the right to choose, yet this should be highly regulated and it shouldn't be a federal issue, but one for the states individually to decide.

Now, to answer your questions (again):
1.) "if you are not rich and your road gets a pot hole in it, who fixes it?"
Ans: That would be the STATE taxpayer funded infrastructure dept. (i.e.: Caltrans, DMV)
I have no problem paying state taxes so long as the funds are not abused, used up in bureaucracy, paying extravagant salaries to executive, lost via corruption, etc.) The income tax goes only to pay for interest the national deficit (thanks to fractional-reserve fiat banking and systematic removal of the gold standard).

2.) "if you are not rich and your house catches on fire, who puts it out?"
Ans: That also is the STATE taxpayer funded Fire and Rescue departments.

3.) " if you are not rich and someone tries to kill you, who stops them?"
Ans: That also is a STATE taxpayer funded Law Enforcement division.
Note: The FBI is a great Federal law enforcement agency (when not hampered by bureaucracy, politics and corruption). This being said I feel some federal taxes are fine. One third of my pay is gross taxation though and it's gotten a bit out of hand thanks to bankers and corrupt politicians creating and controlling economic policy.

4.) " if you are not rich and your kid gets very sick, who heals them?"
Ans: Usually myself because I am not rich. If I have to take them in, then my kids get healed from the doctor I have from my medical plan that I and my company pays into. The federal or state govt. has not assisted with me on this!

It seems you need to rethink a few things here. You don't seem to really understand the general Libertarian philosophy. People tend to mock what they don't understand or they have an agenda for their own party of trying to stamp out competition (an ambitious form of monopoly over the lives which they try to influence).


>> ^daxgaz:

the party of of the unashamed selfish. I've debated several libertarians in the past. when you get right down to it they don't care about anyone but themselves. the irony is, the ones i talked to were not in the upper 2% of the wealthiest of the population and would therefore be enslaved by their own cause. If you want to get down to it with one of them, ask them a few of the following questions:
if you are not rich and your road gets a pot hole in it, who fixes it?
if you are not rich and your house catches on fire, who puts it out?
if you are not rich and someone tries to kill you, who stops them?
if you are not rich and your kid gets very sick, who heals them?
the answer to all of these questions from a pure libertarian is "screw you. take care of yourself."
They are the party that most supports corporations controlling the entire society, though they don't often talk about it directly. It's a free country, right? if wal-mart makes enough money to buy run out all the competition and have a monopoly over the lives of every person on earth for their own profit, then good for them.
i really hate the libertarian philosophy.

Sorry, but what extravagant claims were made here that you're trying to debunk? Perhaps you're confusing this sift and comments with another?

This video's a good test of which of your friends is gullible.

Unless Aikido followers can prove their extravagant claims empirically like everybody else in a modern intellectual society, the assumption is that they don't compete not because their magical dogma forbids it, but because if they did, it would look like this: http://www.videosift.com/video/Kiai-Master-Gets-Owned

If you disagree with that statement, please join me in advocating that Aikido followers prove it wrong.

It's good to see bad ideas get filtered out of the marketplace of ideas.

1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?

Being in a small but livable house somewhere in the prince edward islands surrounded by my books and movies.

2. What is your greatest fear?

Ceaseless physical pain.

3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?

My intractable need to lie to people.

4. What is the trait you most deplore in others?

Egotism.

5. Which living person do you most admire?

Maybe a journalist. Or an interviewer like Neal Conan from "Talk of the Nation" or a blogger like Andrew Sullivan. But i dont know. Maybe a filmmaker like Takeshi Kitano? Thats tough. Most of the figures I truly truly admire are dead. Lol

6. What is your greatest extravagance?

My smoking. Expecially in NY state. Its like 8 dollars a pack.

7. What is your current state of mind?

Somewhat at peace. Gettin' excited to go out for beers with my new colleagues.

8. What do you consider the most overrated virtue?

Confidence--it freezes personalities in place and I am sick of waiting for the ice to thaw.

9. On what occasion do you lie?

On many. Mostly when I want to disguise who I really am, which may be lost altogether.

10. What do you most dislike about your appearance?

The grey hairs on my beard.

11. Which living person do you most despise?

Dick Cheney would have to be up there.

12. What is the quality you most like in a man?

Humility, warmth, intelligence, strong and independent.

13. What is the quality you most like in a woman?

Humility, warmth, intelligence, strong and independent.

14. Which words or phrases do you most overuse?

Fuck.

15. What or who is the greatest love of your life?

A woman who no longer causes me emotional pain but whom I still love.

16. When and where were you happiest?

Its hard to remember. I think two winters ago when I was living in Boston and still making and watching movies, and drinking, and with good people.

17. Which talent would you most like to have?

Piano.

18. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

Not be so nervous all the time.

19. What do you consider your greatest achievement?

Getting into a first rate PhD program.

20. If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?

Maybe something like a mountain goat.

21. Where would you most like to live?

Iceland or Montreal both sound great to me.

22. What is your most treasured possession?

I'll try and avoid platitudes like "my brain" and just say my laptop.

23. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?

Being in any way helplessly beholden to any one person or group of people. The police, or a shitty relationship, for instance.

24. What is your favorite occupation?

Film programmer.

25. What is your most marked characteristic?

My beard

26. What do you most value in your friends?

Understanding.

27. Who are your favorite writers?

Borges.

28. Who is your hero of fiction?

Werther (from the Goethe novella)

29. Which historical figure do you most identify with?

Shit. I have no idea.

30. Who are your heroes in real life?

A friend of mine.

31. What are your favorite names?

Cathleen. Huston.

32. What is it that you most dislike?

Uptight, mean fucks.

33. What is your greatest regret?

Drinking nearly a whole year away.

34. How would you like to die?

Suicide. When its rationally 'time'

35. What is your motto?

Don't take me or yourself too seriously.