You have to understand that college football is part of the college experience in America, especially if you go to a school with a great team. And some families only have a kid in college because of football. I work with, am friends with, and live with people who went to Berkeley, USC, and UCLA so it can get real ugly real fast during college football season. The rest of the world has their football, we have American football -- and it's way more epic, even if it's only us.

>> ^Drax:

Ok, not to steal any thunder but this is a simulation.
At 1:55'ish a green ball of light seems to bounces -behind- a person walking in front of the church. In other words, the person walking didn't light up, so the projector would have to be behind them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu2e9uulMPA


Yes and no.

I have a projector at my house that can shoot an 80inch square onto a wall from only 10 inches away. It has an enormous lens on the front that's almost an orb, and calculates distance and makes necessary adjustments accordingly.

But yes, most of these were simulations, although the real deal is barely any different.

Check out urbanscreen.com's website for examples of real applications of this type of archetectural projections.

http://www.urbanscreen.com/usc/41

However, this tendency towards grouping isn't something to be reinforced and encouraged, or accepted as inescapable, or even good. In-group morality is one of the biggest flaws of the modern human mind, despite being a great benefit of the ancient mind. And at it's core, the problem begins with forming alliances to groups of "like" humans, and excluding those who are different.

Ah – rational discussion… I have so missed it here on the sift… I would take issue with some of your language. You say grouping is not to be encouraged and that it isn’t even ‘good’. I heartily disagree. Social groups are one of the best, most positive aspects of humanity. What you are attempting to describe (I think) is the tendency for some of these groups to foster NEGATIVE characteristics, which is something very different.

Groups can be positive or negative, just like human beings can have both positive and negative characteristics when viewed individually. To say that grouping should not be encouraged simply because “some” groups are negative is not wise. Groups can provide comfort, support, happiness, service, and learning – the best of humanity.

What you are trying to say I deem is that humans should avoid NEGATIVE groups, and foster positive ones. I can support that sentiment, but I cannot agree with blanket judgments that ‘all groups’ are bad & should not be encouraged.

I don't think she was saying that all college students are racist or guilty of that form of in-group morality. Rather, she was challenging people to step back and really observe their behavior.

What behavior? The tendency to sit, talk, and walk together in groups? It is a real stretch to believe that she is encouraging people to ‘step back and observe their behavior’ for no other reason than because they move around in generic, inoffensive groups. College is a time where you are supposed to do exactly that kind of stuff. To me is it plain that she is criticizing these kids regarding what KIND of group they are in. She thinks they are associating in groups based on ‘fear’ – I.E. she thinks (in your parleyance) that they are in ‘negative’ groups. I wonder on what exact value system she arrived at this conclusion…

In the end, you can either decide to get offended and come up with rationalizations as to why her message was inappropriate, or you can get introspective and make yourself a better human being.

I’m aware of no stories of rampant racism on the USC campus. Therefore her commentary is pointless. If she wanted to encourage people to ‘celebrate diversity’ and to ‘use the time on campus to expand your world’ then that’s what she should have said. But to say, “you people are livin’ in fear… I see you walkin’ round in groups & sittin’ at different tables & livin’ in different dorms…” That’s when I dismiss her as a judgmental buffoon. There is no cause for her backhanded insinuation of racism. To impugn an entire audience like that based on absolutely zero data? Shame on her. You would think someone who was trained in sociology would know better.

Neolib-skip

It is as valid a term as neocon. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… When people on the sift all collectively agree to stop using the term ‘neocon’ to generically describe any and all Republicans, conservatives, or anything else they disagree with then I will stop using my self-created term ‘neolib’. Until that happy day… Regardless, Mobama's ACTIONS are what make her a neolib. It isn't a bad thing to group people based on their actual behavior and record.

gwiz, rasch... think maybe you guys could hammer this one out privately? or at least make your own gwiz vs rasch talk post to duke it out in.

USC¹ 1: Sociopathic! gwiz665 vs rasch187, live on PPV!

¹: Ultimate Sifting Championship

Fixed and thanks.

In reply to this comment by Stingray:
*dead

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Hey ant, this video: http://www.videosift.com/video/A-harmless-prank-on-the-USC-Student-Body-Vice-President-goes-horribly-wrong is just too good to stay in sifttalk. I know lucky decided to *discuss it, but that guy (Ryan Holt) is too much of a douche imo. Whaddaya say I *return it and you replace the embed with this working one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_PAX6rk04k ?

Done and thanks!

John Ziegler responds:

. . . there is a lot more to say about this situation, largely because there has been so much misinformation, so many irresponsible accusations, and so much blatant hypocrisy in the general reaction to the remarkable videotape.

Now, one would think that there wouldn’t be much confusion about a situation that was videotaped in its entirety by not one but two cameras who were acting largely independently of the primary actors (we have posted a nearly real-time version of the entire affair at http://www.HowObamaGotElected.com), but unfortunately that is clearly the case. I would like to try to address some of these issues here.

First, one of the ways that those on the left have used to try to avoid having to hold their nose and support the free speech rights of a rabble-rousing “conservative,” is that USC is a “private” school and therefore they had the right to kick me out for no purpose. I even saw one prominent blog with the headline “Ziegler Arrested for Trespassing on Private Property,” which is just laughably false.

While USC is indeed a “private” school, this does not in any way legally make their property like that of a private residence. First, they take federal tax money, and second it has a very “open” campus and the area I was in has direct access from a public street without even a gate blocking the way. At any given moment there are many people walking on the sidewalks where I was arrested who are neither students, faculty nor invited guests of the University. I had every right to be there (outside the building where the award ceremony took place) and I did nothing to provoke or warrant being handcuffed, arrested or removed from the property. It is very clear the only reason that happened was because of my previously expressed political opinion on what was going on that day. In short, I was targeted for different treatment because of my beliefs.

The next tactic many have tried, in order to avoid facing their own politically induced hypocrisy on free speech, is to minimize the incident by saying that I was not “arrested” and that what happened was not a big deal.

While in the end I was not charged (I was told that I would indeed be booked at LAPD headquarters), that was only because higher authorities saw that the campus police “arrest” was clearly problematic if not completely bogus. After I was already “arrested,” they shifted gears and told me that I basically had two choices: leave the premises or be charged along with the two photographers who did not work for me and who in no way bargained for such a situation. Not wanting to put them in jeopardy and seeing that I could not possibly do anything further to achieve my original goal of educating those attending the awards, I decided, under threat of prosecution, to leave the grounds.

But make no mistake, I was arrested. I was handcuffed and detained against my will for an extended period of time with my microphone and blackberry taken from me. The photographers were also told to stop shooting under threat of arrest themselves. And, as the video clearly shows, my wrists were significantly bruised by the handcuffs that I had rightly complained were put on way too tight.

All of this happened obviously not because of my actions but because of my political view on the proceedings. In effect, I was being punished, repressed, and physically harmed as a form of prior restraint because they anticipated that I might do something to disrupt the proceedings based on my prior writings and commentary on the event (in which I never claimed I would do anything more than exactly what I tried to; give away copies of my film as an educational exercise). No matter how hard liberals try to rationalize it, this makes this a very obvious case of a blatant free speech violation.

Another way that commentators (including some on the right) have attempted to ignore the very serious First Amendment implications of this case, is to say that I set this up as some sort of publicity stunt to promote my film.

First of all, this could not be more irrelevant to the constitutional issues involved . . .

the rest:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1240370084

From YouTube poster:

John went to USC to witness and ask questions about Katie Couric getting the Walter Cronkite journalism award for her interview of Sarah Palin. He intended to also give away copies of his film but was literally prevented from doing so. He did not go there hoping for or expecting any sort of confrontation, especially with law enforcement. He was simply shocked and horrified by what happened there, as should every freedom loving American. He did absolutely nothing wrong and was handcuffed, detained and literally abused by law enforcement at the event. The video speaks for itself, John will have plenty to say about this very disturbing episode.

Why is the Student VP at USC wearing a Texas A&M shirt?

>> ^jonny:
Can you people read? Try Lucky's comment again. Here, I'll make it simple:
"he got the copyright holder/videographer to request that we remove the video"
He, Ryan, did not ask to have it taken down. The copyright holder did.


To be clear about the take-down for any interested parties, Mr. VP did request that we remove the video, but since he only appears in the video and does not own the copyright, he had no right under the DMCA to lawfully compel us to comply. After informing him of that fact, he had the actual copyright holder make the same request, leaving us no choice in the matter but to abide by the law.

And for the record, they were both very cordial about it (unlike lots of other angry requests we've received in the past). Apparently the video was supposed to remain private, but someone got their hands on it and gave it permanent residence spread across the Interwebs.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^dag:
..or he found out his brother has aids.


laugh out loud

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

Put yourself in this guy's place. Yes, he comes across as a complete douche in this video. But does he deserve to be judged by that his entire life? Perhaps his mother just died of breast cancer the day before, or he found out his brother has aids.

So he's graduated from USC - he's sending resumes around, and, as is the norm these days - his prospective employers google his name.

If he gets an interview after that he'll be lucky - but if he does get the interview - I'm sure the first question will be "Do you work well under stressful conditions?" or "Would you say that you have a congenial relationship with your co-workers?" Sucks to be him.

You can't possibly be as dumb as you pretend. Your spelling and grammar are too good.

In reply to this comment by Edeot:
>> ^burdturgler:
You may resume whatever fart jokes or other self-attention getting "fun" now.

Two guys before me talk about getting drunk BUT I'M THE TROLL!

You really have it out for me.

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

I had a pint of Guinness and a Kilkenny at lunch today - I want to give the USC guy a big slobbery hug.