Lord, I’m on a Permanent Holiday I’m goin outside to play.
I ain’t gonna slave away. Not for no corporate Babylon.
I’m never gonna be a pawn in their manipulation games
I’m taking the reigns, breaking the chains, I’m never gonna kneel, no way.
My prophet is heaven sent.
No preacher or president gonna lead I astray

I’m taking Jah highway home.
I’ve got my own path to follow
Don’t know if you’ll overstand , I’ve got my own truth to swallow.
And if I could you know I would throw my guitar on my back,
Pick up the slack and leave here tomorrow. But I know that I’m
A pawn of Babylon, I got to face the facts, embrace the axe
And cut these chains of my sorrow

10,000 years of captivity, we must eventually open up our eyes and see
They’re manipulating we. With so much uncertainty and so many mysteries,
Why are so few questioning the unnatural state of things.
It’s a nightmare, we’re living in a nightmare, everyone’s living so scared
They’re virtually unaware of this fear that rules their lives, occupies, consumes their minds
This fear of bankruptcy, financial impotency. It’s money, money , money.
It’s all this digital currency. It’s all this monopoly money that keeps us from ever being free.
And so it seems we’ll be in this prison for life
Cause If we keep buying then they’ll keep selling the lies
And so it’s up to I & I
I won’t be manipulated, mind-controlled and inundated,
I will seek the revelation, make my life a celebration.
I’m gonna be the change I’m seeking, manifest the words I’m speaking
I refuse to be imprisoned I will make my own decisions

I’ll never go astray no.
I’m leaving the past and forwarding fast cause freedom is here to stay.
We got to take back the knowledge, take back the power
Take back what they have stolen from our hearts
Take back the esoteric knowledge, for too long they’ve been keeping us apart.
We got to take back the knowledge, take back the power,
Humanity don’t let this be our final hour.

Not what you're watching though-Pig is playing, dog is playing, neither is in survival-circuit-instinct-mode. This is a simple manifestation of the unique, hard-wired breed-orientation of specific species.

Ostracized to the community of the mad men. Dig it.

@TheFreak: I see what you're saying and I don't ostracize you (as much as you'd LOVE IT), but isn't it the tendency of the intellect to take moments of existence and dramatically augment them? Like a daydream memory only in your head.

BEGIN DRAMATIC MUSIC

The simple form of filming and interviewing this man is as overly dramatic as the scoring, if it were not skipped over by our technocratic brains. I say "our" because were it not for my obsessive hindsight into the comments of others, I'd have ignored these details, as well.

Perhaps the music stands out as more farcical because WE have fallen into the dead zone of normalized behaviors, memetic response; ignoring the obvious fact that a living man in a time now gone, was recorded on camera for all of the world to see and hear and gawk at.

All forms of tampering with that moment in time, including the recording of it -- which he advocated against in the form of "live in the moment" and "LOVE NOW" -- are merely augmentations of the majesty of biological existence; human reality. To be removed of context or placed into whatever context an intellect perceives as worthy.

And then to "CREATE" as is now manifest in our minds as any range of dramatic or mundane; having now been sifted for us to discern or merely to enjoy in passing. We can choose to enjoy fleetingly or dwell on with intellectual criticism, as much as we can ignore it.

Were I deaf, I'd have no understanding, but I'd still see this wild man.

END DRAMATIC MUSIC

Not at all. I certainly did not say it doesn't count. I said it's different.
You said yourself you moved away from there. Minorities can't move away from being refused a loan, getting a better job, or abuses of power. They can't run away from TV hosts seemingly amazed that black people know how to use a fork. They have to deal with more than explicit manifestation of discrimination.
That does in no way diminishes what you had to live through.

To quote Louis CK:
"I'm not trying to say that if you're white you can't complain. I'm just saying that if you're black you get to complain more."

I also want to stress, in line with my previous remark on "labels", that the vocabulary we use to discuss these issues is often not good enough, or at least not precise enough. We want to use (or claim) the word 'racism' because it carries that emotional weight needed to make a statement, even though it obviously means different things to different people. Should we instead use qualifiers like "community discrimination", "systemic discrimination"? Probably. But it's not likely to happen. To me the important point is not how it's called, but that people who are not confronted with this reality understand what effects it has on those who have live it.

This scene is pretty close to how it goes down in the book, save a little variation in how the final blow is administered.

I also completely disagree, I think the director completely nailed it. It plays up to a lifetime of predictable cliché's only to turn them right around and give us a dose of cold hard reality.

Hero's frequently loose, villains frequently win, overconfidence is a weakness and having a just cause is no guarantee of victory.

Oberyn wins the fight but allows his need for vengeance to cloud his judgement. He starts calm and works himself into more and more of a frenzy over a neurosis he has carried for many years. IMHO this was portrayed pretty authentically, he starts calm (as he has learned to be) but as the fight progresses he allows the guard to drop and the raging emotions to manifest properly.

Now he can afford to let these bottled up feeling out properly, the mountain is right there and soon he will kill him! Throw in some adrenaline and the anticipation of that moment overwhelms the self control that earned him the title red viper.

I also don't see how you can describe the mountain as a "super ninja" here. Everything he does at the end is an exercise in brute strength, let's not forget he's wearing mailed fists, the blow to the mouth need not be especially strong or quick to do the damage. All he does after that is roll on top of him with the last bit of strength and rage he has (spurred on by his "beetle crushing" fuck everything mindset). Subsequently crushing the skull has more to do with his upper body weight as his hands alone.

A massive strong man yanks someone's legs out from under them, punches them in the mouth and then climbs on top (while they are stunned) to finish the job.

Being run through doesn't necessarily stop one's muscles from working until the blood loss kicks in. Doubly so with the adrenaline of a life or death fight (and the anaesthetic effect massive trauma has on the nervous system). There are countless stories of soldiers and criminals being mortally wounded by multiple shots to the chest who continued attacking till the blood loss overcame them. Gregor Clegane is exactly the sort of psycho who might exhibit such bloody minded behaviour.

I might also remind you that the Mountain has one more than one occasion been described as "swifter than might be expected for a man of such stature" i.e. not a lumbering hulk. He gets several blows in on Oberyn during the fight. Many of the swings are extremely heavy but they are calculated moves from an expert fighter who is more than capable of moving quickly when needed.

Oberyn is quicker, but the Mountain is not exactly slow (that's one of the reasons why the Mountain is/was formerly undefeated, he's big but can still move relatively quickly for his size).

Agreed. I've always said that deep down, racism, homophobia, misogyny are merely manifestations of fear.

I've always wanted to go to a white power rally or something and give them a big hug and say "don't worry, the scary black people aren't out to get you. You don't need to be afraid" and then watch the racist idiots squirm.

Like the argument that the US is becoming an Empirical state you can trace it's beginnings back to the founding of the nation. As far as we know there's been no other nation that has been founded to become an Empire. With it's Manifest destiny and needing to control it's hemisphere, the US started it's infant life as an Empire. Heck you can even see it in the architecture of it's capital.

Same with Oligarchy, the Senate was always meant to have more control and power and be run by the Owners of the Society. However while this isn't a new argument it has rarely in our history been more brazen than it's becoming now. Which is why the Occupy Movement got started, and it's not over by a long shot.

The battles in the coming few years will influence the direction of our country and the world at large incalculably. It's going to get interesting, and honestly I'm quite excited.

Many people exhibit an advanced or enhanced eidetic capacity. When a child manifests this capacity relative to sensory input, in this girl's case seeing the music performed and conducted (sight) the music produced (hearing), motor involvement (touch, sense, feel), etc., this is an example of a very healthy mind functioning at a higher level than average....very encouraging.

Now it's been 13 hours, with 84 views and 7 votes, so from my list above I'd guess that a combination of the above reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are the reason this video has still not been published.

It does fit the criteria for being some of the best video on the internet, which would in this user's estimation place Franksy in a realm beyond the average dullard-ilk on this site. Let's toss him/her/other a couple power points, see if they can push some more video drugs to this somnambulistic crowd

" I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here."

Where did you quote me? I missed that.

I am not "attacking" the "comedians." I quoted/"plagiarised" Thomas DiLorenzo who pointed out "[Jon Stewart's] "hit" was about how the Judge wrote in one of his publications that the U.S. probably could have ended slavery the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all the other Northern states did, as well as the British empire, Spanish empire, the French, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, and others during the nineteenth century did: namely, peacefully. . . . " and that Stewart (in his inimitable wisdom as an historical scholar) was wrong in his assertion that war was the way to go.

And, whatever Lincoln's reasons were for going to war, of course there are always options other than imperialism (despite what manifest destiny might have you believe). Same as Truman having options other than nuking Japan. Or Bush the second having options other than invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever Lincoln's "reasons" were for going to war and thereby leading to the slaughter of 620,000 people and the maiming/disfigurement of over 800,000+ others, these reasons are not the same as what his options were, and the white washing of history does not change this very basic fact.

The basic form of a social contract is the foundation for every state in the world. Every individual within the territory forfeits a set of rights and is imposed with a set of duties instead. That's a social contract as described in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Du contrat social".

Doesn't help much with regards to Anglo-Saxon capitalism, does it? Beyond its most basic definition, social contract means, in theory, a recalibration of metrics beyond mere profit, within a society. Whatever metrics one might think would reasonably map progress towards the ultimate goal: the pursuit of happiness.

A concrete example would be the political-economic system of Germany, 1948 onwards, the so-called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft", wherein capitalism is (or was) constrained by agreements to the benefit of the whole of society. Not any individual, not any group, all members of society. Manifestations of it would be the safety net in all its forms and shapes, the health system, the pension system, the rejection of military interventionalism, the preservation of nature, no tolerance for fascism, etc. All specific policies that have their origins in an understanding of what society agreed upon would be best for everyone. The extent is subject to constant political debate, but the underlying concept remains untouched.

So the claim that there is no such thing as a social contract strikes me as a continuation of Thatcher's insistence that there is, in fact, no society. I don't subscribe to that notion, and as far as I can tell, neither does continental Europe as a whole.

If people prefer a system without a "society" beyond the very basic neccessities of a functioning state, go ahead. Do your thing. Competition of ideas and whatnot.

But I'm going to stay a member of this society, thank you very much. And as such, I take the liberty of leaving this "discussion" again. Cheerio.

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

C-Engines' right, a war wouldn't do anything unless you're talking about the systematic elimination of individuals behind an empire that's designed to instill a lasting, generational fear in those who would continue the push for ultimate power and control. The only changes that will come will be more total control unless a dialog manifests with meaning and purpose directed at the control mechanism's infrastructure by a majority of regular peeps unsullied by the indoctro-education of so-called knowledge of the the way the world works.

Until people stop trying to work within the framework of rules and engagement that has been created by the same perpetrators of our enslavement, the majority of our sentient, big-brained species may as well get used to the idea that the few freedoms you imagine yourselves to have now are illusion and your children will not enjoy one one-hundredth of that same illusion in 30 years.

Guerrilla-tactics with a broadband and well-coordinated take-down is the only way to end the paradigm that has been in place for thousands of years. That or some unifying world-wide catastrophic necessity for the survival of the species....like a frikkin' meteor storm some other worldwide natural disaster or some influence from without.

Not to defend the study which could be flawed as any study (and many are) but your analysis ignored a part that they did emphasize in this and the original experiment with children...strangeness.

They're not at home and they introduce the aspect of a stranger intentionally to play on the social constructs that we as humans use and are thus trying to understand in the animals we keep as pets.

Being in a foreign environment with strangers present is an automatic trigger for social animals (even adult humans will tend to cling to a familiar face at a foreign social gathering) and so if that social connection exists in a similar way between cats and humans one would hope to see it manifest itself as well.

I imagine if you did this with kittens and their mothers or vice versa you would likely see the results they were looking for. Which would beg the question: how different is the relationship between the cat family and the relationship of that cat to its human owner?

In the end I don't think people are arguing that cats don't care at all but instead when compared to the relationship between human/human and human/dog perhaps it is just not the same.

Would you argue that a horse, bird, fish, or snake can "love" a human as deeply as a cat? I've seen all of those show affection towards human owners. If not then what is the scale with which we measure an animals affinity for us relative to each other if not their intense desire to associate with us specifically as their owner?

I also find it interesting that I can't recall hearing cat owners point out a showing of affection by cats that we don't find in dogs although I HAVE heard of uniquely cat methods of revenge (jaws and claws being equal I've never heard of dogs using table tops to terrify cell phones and other treasured human items). So you could almost argue that if cats don't love humans more than dogs they may dislike us more than dogs in their efforts to devise methods of inflicting pain on us.

I'd also like to point out on a personal note that even in an adult human, if I took them somewhere and they walked away, watched me leave, then come back, all the while never knowing why we were there, with whom they're now left with, or if I was ever coming back....and the person didn't even care to greet me upon my return then I wouldn't exactly say that person cared about me at all much less liked me or loved me....just saying.
.

Non-empiricism ruins peoples' lives.

I'm currently watching an extended family member destroy her end-of-life financial planning because she thinks she just needs to meditate/pray harder.

Instead of living below her means before it's too late, she's planning on being able to "manifest" the money needed to continue her needlessly exorbitant lifestyle.

Naturally, she's lost a lot of money to salesmen and con-artists with "high integrity" who pitched her "alternative investments" that were "sure things."