Icky Thump

Icky thump
Who'da thunk?
Sittin' drunk
On a wagon to Mexico

Ahh well, what a chump
Well my head
Got a bump
When I hit it on the radio

Red-head señorita
Lookin' dead
Came to said,
"Need a bed" en español

I said
"Gimme a drink a water,
I'm gonna 'sing around the collar'
And I don't need a microphone."


Icky thump,
With a lump in my throat
Grabbed my coat
And I was freaking
I was ready to go!

And I swear
Besides the hair
She had one white eye
One blank stare
Looking up,
Lying there

On the stand
Near her hand
Was a candy cane
Black rum, sugar cane
Dry ice and something strange

La la la la la la la
La la la la la la la

White Americans, what?
Nothing better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out?
You're an immigrant too.

Who's using who?
What should we do?
Well you can't be a pimp
And a prostitute too

Icky thump, handcuffed to a bunk
Robbed blind
Looked around
And there was nobody else

Left alone
I hit myself with a stone
Went home
And learned how to clean up after myself

>> ^jwray:
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.
The difference is the Coke has HFCS in it because the government has artificially made HFCS cheaper with our tax dollars and at the same time made cane sugar artificially more expensive through tariffs. This directly benefits corporations...it can be argued that it does or does not benefit the people indirectly but the fact remains that it's being done regardless of how it effects the people because thats what big money wants.

jwray, don't miss the forest for the trees. His main problem with HFCS is that its the product of government subsidies for special interests that, along with tariffs protecting the cane sugar industry, resulting ultimately in a higher effective cost for Americans. Additionally, another problem with the subsidies is that it pays for farmers to produce corn, and with such a surplus of corn, the industry pushes its supply of corn into whatever supply chain it can....including things such as HFCS, corn ethanol, corn-fed beef, all of which have deleterious effects on the health of our society and economy.

He believes that the biggest impact of corn subsidies on our public health result from using antibiotics that should be judiciously restricted for human health is indiscriminately given to keep corn-fed cattle alive while fattening to slaughter, which simultaneously selects for bacteria that are resistant to said antibiotics.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^teebeenz:
"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

But is that true?


As they said, based on current data... yes.

>> ^teebeenz:

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501


But is that true? Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose when broken down, but is sucrose actually processed in that order: split the disaccharide and then digest individual sugars? (Your link says that this is the case. And it says unsplit disaccharides stay in the gut. What percentage does this happen to?) Is there proof that fructose alone is bad and that it's not the imbalance of excess fructose vs. sucrose that's bad, like omega-6 vs. omega-3 fatty acids? Is fructose from Coke, mixed with carbonic acid, processed the same way, at the same speed, as fructose from apple juice?

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

>> ^BoneRemake:

DUN DUNN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!


This could be SO easily turned into drama king 2. The first 3 seconds, do a few loops of the last .5 of a second, add a sound track, and then add a cane/moustache if you want. There's so many places to stick that drama king soundtrack over!

>> ^HugeJerk:
"Well, for one, they can start using the agencies that regulate safety to actually, um, enforce those regulations to their fullest. If those regs are inadequate, then make new ones. But for Christ's sake, don't make new agencies! Use the ones we have!!! We have 30 billion regulatory entities that do nothing but sit on their own fingers and rotate..."
Regulating Agencies can't do anything to fix the situation now sadly... the non-enforcement or rather the lack of meaningful penalties is something that definitely needs addressed in several industries (Coal Mining has also shown their lack of adherence to safety requirements because the penalties are marginal). Breaking apart the agency to form two so they separate the enforcement from the collections will likely not fix the issue of people being corruptable and willing to look the other way.
"Something else the Federal Government can do--when help is offered, don't have red tape that prevents that help from arriving. I am not sure if the countries that made offers to help were doing so out of pro-bono expectations, or, sans that, reasonable expectations, however, that isn't the point. Let the public know why you turned down much needed help... "
From what I heard recently there are 12 countries actively assisting in the Gulf, 20 had offered to help and I agree that it's lame that we don't know why the other 8 weren't accepted. If their assistance means a quicker recovery, then they should be taken up on their offers.
"Next, don't apologize to BP for "having" to make a fund helping those that are affected by the horror of Oil-Cane BPer..."
I don't recall the actual Federal Government giving an apology to BP, just a politician or two who have contribution ties to the oil industry. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.
"Hrm, what else? Actually have a surplus of money instead of debt out the ass...this way you can actually afford to do something about catastrophes"
Unless we're going to shove dollar bills into the well to plug it, a surplus of Federal Funds isn't going to fix the spill at this point. The economic situation and the circumstances that lead to it, including two wars, are certainly things that the President needs to be working on.


First point--yes, regulating won't fix anything already messed up. But preventing future failures is more important... This would help if there was a BP2—so, in essence, if we would have started regulating, oh, before BP1, then it would have fixed the problem.

Point 2, glad we agree-ish.

Point 3, the federal government as a whole never answers something completely. However, we can generalize to a certain point in regards to certain things. Americans hate gay marriage. It is sad, but there are a lot, most in fact, of Americans who are intolerant. Does that mean we all are? No… but, what do we all do to curb this behavior? Do we truly try to change beliefs, or do we score cheap political points. Most are in for the points...

Slowly the views are dying off. However, those in inaction are nearly as responsible as those actively causing the harm. A man walks by a traffic accident and does not call for help; he is nearly as bad as the hit-and-run driver because both know that that action will result in harm.

My point is many federally employed republicans have made their support known for BP and refused the "shakedown" of BP. No one raised much of a stink until one republican apologized directly to BP's man... In other words, it was fine until that one guy did it...

4th point, I was meaning that infrastructure should have already been our focus and should start to be our future focus. We squander on two wars, as you say, and have barely any skimmers or science to stop this problem. Invest, invest, invest. We agree here, I am sure. It is all just a matter of whose fault things are.

"Well, for one, they can start using the agencies that regulate safety to actually, um, enforce those regulations to their fullest. If those regs are inadequate, then make new ones. But for Christ's sake, don't make new agencies! Use the ones we have!!! We have 30 billion regulatory entities that do nothing but sit on their own fingers and rotate..."

Regulating Agencies can't do anything to fix the situation now sadly... the non-enforcement or rather the lack of meaningful penalties is something that definitely needs addressed in several industries (Coal Mining has also shown their lack of adherence to safety requirements because the penalties are marginal). Breaking apart the agency to form two so they separate the enforcement from the collections will likely not fix the issue of people being corruptable and willing to look the other way.

"Something else the Federal Government can do--when help is offered, don't have red tape that prevents that help from arriving. I am not sure if the countries that made offers to help were doing so out of pro-bono expectations, or, sans that, reasonable expectations, however, that isn't the point. Let the public know why you turned down much needed help... "

From what I heard recently there are 12 countries actively assisting in the Gulf, 20 had offered to help and I agree that it's lame that we don't know why the other 8 weren't accepted. If their assistance means a quicker recovery, then they should be taken up on their offers.

"Next, don't apologize to BP for "having" to make a fund helping those that are affected by the horror of Oil-Cane BPer..."

I don't recall the actual Federal Government giving an apology to BP, just a politician or two who have contribution ties to the oil industry. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.

"Hrm, what else? Actually have a surplus of money instead of debt out the ass...this way you can actually afford to do something about catastrophes"

Unless we're going to shove dollar bills into the well to plug it, a surplus of Federal Funds isn't going to fix the spill at this point. The economic situation and the circumstances that lead to it, including two wars, are certainly things that the President needs to be working on.

>> ^HugeJerk:
Maybe I don't understand the whole situation... but what more can the federal government do at this point to help with the spill? Should they send troops to the shores to shout "INCOMING" and shoot at the blobs of oil?
The impression I get is the Gulf States governments are incapable of doing anything more than asking the Federal Government to help. Do these States not have any resources or capabilities of their own... are they in need of something? I never hear specifics of what the Fed can provide, just that they want the President to act emotionally and have his entire focus on the issue in the Gulf.


How can the federal government do more? Let me count the Ocean Waves...

Well, for one, they can start using the agencies that regulate safety to actually, um, enforce those regulations to their fullest. If those regs are inadequate, then make new ones. But for Christ's sake, don't make new agencies! Use the ones we have!!! We have 30 billion regulatory entities that do nothing but sit on their own fingers and rotate...

Oh, and the states themselves? Haha... Wait? You were serious? Sorry, anyways, no, the states suck. Look at Katrina...

Something else the Federal Government can do--when help is offered, don't have red tape that prevents that help from arriving. I am not sure if the countries that made offers to help were doing so out of pro-bono expectations, or, sans that, reasonable expectations, however, that isn't the point. Let the public know why you turned down much needed help...

Next, don't apologize to BP for "having" to make a fund helping those that are affected by the horror of Oil-Cane BPer...

Hrm, what else? Actually have a surplus of money instead of debt out the ass...this way you can actually afford to do something about catastrophes...

But like you, I can't think of anything the Federal Government can do... Beats me...

>> ^honkeytonk73:

Burn the oil. Vapors go in the air. Clouds gather. It rains. Oil falls.

Small kitchen fire gets a little out of control. BOOM!... FIRE, freaking, CANE!!
...okay maybe not but it can't be good

Not to belabour the obvious, but in Hebrew

Low = No.

Cane = Yes.

So this is the boring Israeli bank equivalent of saying... everyone else may turn you down for a loan, but we'll give you one, and look at our low interest rates!

Oh, and at 0:36, the word (spelled out on the screen) is "Cheshbon", which means "account" (ch in this case being a guttural h... like at the beginning of Channukah, or Challah)

>> ^MilkmanDan:

I would applaud the girls' efforts and intentions, but the invention itself seems a little underwhelming. They spent time and effort and limited funds to get the electronic parts, but have they ever seen a blind person walk with a cane or asked such a person what would make for a better cane?
The point of the cane is to function as a probe. It isn't held rigidly in one place directly in front of the user, it is tapped or dragged back and forth in an arc in front of them. You don't need a sonar/laser proximity sensor to alert you when you are approaching an obstacle; the cane physically touching the object does that. I don't really understand their hole detection system, again I imagine that simply using the cane to probe out holes or steps down would work just as well if not better.
So it seems to be a cane with electronic circuits that at best provide little benefit at the cost of having to periodically replace batteries, and at worst feeds the user with incorrect information or causes them to become less adept at using the cane as a simple (but effective) physical probe.
I don't really mean to be a downer, but it just doesn't seem particularly practical. Maybe there is more to it than meets the eye, or the report didn't do it justice.
edit for spelling error


I thought the same thing at first, but here's the key difference:
A blind person's "probing" cane/stick does not support weight, the same way an old/handicapped persons cane/walker does. So the probing canes are only good if the blind person is in otherwise good enough physical condition to walk on their own. This invention just merges the probing and walking canes into one cane.

[redacted]

I would applaud the girls' efforts and intentions, but the invention itself seems a little underwhelming. They spent time and effort and limited funds to get the electronic parts, but have they ever seen a blind person walk with a cane or asked such a person what would make for a better cane?

The point of the cane is to function as a probe. It isn't held rigidly in one place directly in front of the user, it is tapped or dragged back and forth in an arc in front of them. You don't need a sonar/laser proximity sensor to alert you when you are approaching an obstacle; the cane physically touching the object does that. I don't really understand their hole detection system, again I imagine that simply using the cane to probe out holes or steps down would work just as well if not better.

So it seems to be a cane with electronic circuits that at best provide little benefit at the cost of having to periodically replace batteries, and at worst feeds the user with incorrect information or causes them to become less adept at using the cane as a simple (but effective) physical probe.

I don't really mean to be a downer, but it just doesn't seem particularly practical. Maybe there is more to it than meets the eye, or the report didn't do it justice.

*edit for spelling error