Unbelievable. Our world is being run by imbeciles and the corrupt.

There are people out there in the world that dedicate themselves to learning information, refining methods, trying to make things better for everyone. They should be running countries. But instead, we've got men with hardly any qualifications and hardly any life experience.

Instead of gathering in a room and listening to community representatives telling them exactly how we want our money spent, the top brass are actually sat in a cushty conference room with a buffet and champagne, copping backhanders and selling us down the river.

When did the general populace suddenly fall into this groove of 'civilisation' - this unspoken belief that The Government are all-seeing, all knowing, and always out for what's best in the long run. We, collectively, have just been taken for billions and billions of dollars or pounds or whatever you use by a collection of the world's richest people. They have not been held to account, and in fact they've somehow convinced us to pay them back what they've lost. Imagine if you lived in a wild west village and you'd paid the sheriff every week to protect a safe with everyone's money in it, and he'd been out at night gambling it away. You'd be fucking furious, an angry mob would be at his door. But for some reason we're all docile about the exact parallel of that situation happening in reality.

We really need a paradigm shift in public consciousness, because the metaphor has progressed, right now that wild west village is under martial law and being run through intimidation by a gang. We don't live in some fantasy world where some unseen force is ensuring fair-play. We are the people who have to strive to ensure fair play in everything otherwise we're just letting people rob us. Literally.

We can't progress like this. In charge of the UK's education system is a guy who has never had any experience teaching whatsoever, let alone teaching under the current system, let alone qualifications in teaching. There's a petition on to have him do a week of teaching so that he can understand just how badly he's ruining everything. This is a real person like you or me and he's in charge of running the education system. We're all standing by watching someone we know is incompetent do a complicated job. Half of us wouldn't even admit to being able to do that job if we were offered it, but this fucking bumbling posh moron takes the wheels with the manic grin of an idiot that feels no fear. Dashing the wheel left and right, we idly watch on as he plays around to see what will happen, crossings our fingers nothing bad happens.

You know, one thing. I watched it all the way to the end---and I have to say, I have personally known of some spectacularly bad Christmas presents given by men to the women in their lives:
to wit (and I am NOT making this up)
---A limo ride with champagne in a bucket, a red rose and (drum roll) a wrapped bondage outfit with a whip in the back seat (she was not into that and NOT amused)
---A washer and dryer (oops)
---Most spectacularly: a dirt bike. And no, she was in no way, no manner, even mildly interested in getting one. Friend's dad, and he was in the dog house a long, long time.
LOL

Are you seriously suggesting that criticising the "bling" culture of rap is racist?

There's a massive difference between criticising people for their behaviours and criticising them for their race. I don't like the champagne/rims/gold jewellery bollocks either, does that make me racist?

If anything, it's racist to assume that all black people subscribe to the worst elements of hip-hop just because they're black.

Regarding the song itself: great message, lousy execution.

She seems to be scapegoating rappers and black women, and using the wealth signifiers of rap music (washing rims in the kitchen decorated with bottles of champagne) to gesture at self-important “anti-consumerism” (as if an Armani tie on a hedge fund analyst wasn't just as bad). She's exhibiting the same kind of bad taste and myopia (not to mention latent racism) as other [white] singers, Lorde and Macklemore.

While she seems to be trying to make some kind of feminist statement here (“Don’t need to shake my ass for you/‘Cause I’ve got a brain.”), it doesn't seem to be all that feminist of her to be mocking the other dancers in the video for having talents she doesn't have. It also doesn't seem all that feminist of her to remain blissfully colorblind in a world that functions along race

*dead -- "'Champagne para tod...' The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement..."

I met her in a pub down in old SoHo, where you drink champagne and it tastes just like cherry cola.

Who wants some champagne?

>> ^LukinStone:

Ah yes, the campaign of victory.


Thought he said "champagne of victory", as in shake the bottle and spray it everywhere.

fixed
In reply to this comment by carneval:
*dead

Interesting. Burning Man are supposed to be pretty vigilant in keeping branding outside the city limits. I wonder if they'll come down on this viral marketing?

They kicked a champagne company right in the nuts recently for trying to use them in their marketing...

How can this not be on here? A TRAVESTY!

The Late Show is one of the shining examples of Australian comedy... some absolute Champagne Comedy in there.

That is a very nice building, it would be beyond my pleasure to be able to walk through it slowly--at my pace. As well as watching the cars being built themselves, it would be great. It's really a place were you might play a nice score on your iPod while sipping champagne--if they would let you...

Talking to the individual people sound as though it would bring the whole experience together, but none of us are so lucky as this interviewer, so I guess we get to take his tour as our only ever example. I wonder who gets to wander through those halls though...? Besides the obvious choices of course...

BTW, if anybody reads this before watching do yourself a favor and bump this up to 720p and throw it on your HDTV and watch it there, as it is the length of a documentary anyway--watch it in relaxation.

It was a more entertaining piece than I thought it would have been as it started slow, but the visuals kept you engaged.

//Which is a good thing to do for a great many videos here on the Sift BTW; just stick them in a playlist or find one of the many playlists that already keep track of them...

@chilaxe

So what you're saying is.. you're a cowardly white privileged bigot who's too afraid to leave the safety of his software & champagne fortress and confront the real problems of the world?

Cause we all know that Silicon Valley has nothing to do with "societal decay".

I mean, sure companies like Apple deny hard-working Americans high-paying jobs/careers in the Technology Sector by exploiting cheap labor in Socialist countries like China. But that's just want any good cold and calculating capitalist would do.

OH OH! I got the perfect bumper sticker for you "I Hate Socialism.. but I Loove my Ipad. Vote Yes on Apples for Americans"

Then you could pass around a petition demanding that Apple build a new factory in Oakland.

You know, to stop all the societal decay and give those dirty niggers and spics something to do with their lives.


In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Why don't you fuckin' move then.
Oh wait, then you couldn't complain about how shitty your life is under this oppressive Marxist regime.


I live in Silicon Valley, so I'm insulated from the societal decay.

I hardly ever interact with people who aren't techies, so the only way I know that California's been turned into the dumbest state in the country is from the news.

@Grimm - At the risk of stating the obvious, don't you think it's more logical to believe that Reagan's loyalty to big money (and ALL of his predecessors) might have played a dominant role in the degradation of American public education, rather than the fact that a Department of Education exists? Boise laid out a number of deliberate poison pills in his comment. You've merely asserted your claim without any rational other than an arbitrary number of trips around the sun.

Let's say you buy a new car, and I tell you I hate it and intend to pop the tires, break the windows and light it on fire after you go to sleep. If the next morning you wake up to find your car on fire, with popped tires and broken windows, would you take it back to the dealer and claim the car was faulty? This, in essence, is what you are doing here.

If I were you, the logical counter argument would be, "well there you go, you've made my case, a malicious or subservient (take your pick) president was able to have a hugely negative effect on education nationally. Had it been left to the states, our educational system would be a utopic wonderland."

To which I would respond, "If big money can compromise a huge government, what makes you think they couldn't eat a state house for champagne brunch?"

The problem with libertarians is that they are unwitting allies of the corporate state. They believe that getting rid of government would end authoritarianism, completely failing to understand that the kind of authoritarianism that haunts our country would prefer to be unrestrained by government too. Right libertarianism, if enacted, would indeed provide more liberty to a handful of wealthy and powerful people, but it would come at the cost of liberty to the vast majority. 1% vs 99% if you will. Sound familiar? I see no clear difference between libertarianism and social Darwinism. If you respond to any of this, I'd most like to know how you differentiate libertarianism from social Darwinism.

I think a vast amount of people would prefer the liberty of healthcare, education, roads, fire departments, police departments, schools and libraries to the liberty to dominate a labor force, the liberty to pollute the environment with impunity, the liberty to manipulate the banking system or the liberty to build bloody corporate empires on foreign shores. What makes you think the business men that took us to war in the middle east wouldn't be twice as brutal without a single shred of oversight or transparency? What makes you think deregulated labor markets wouldn't revert back to pre-regulation era slavery if given the option?

If social Darwinism is what you truly desire, then we have nothing more to say to each other. However, if you want to stop authoritarianism, then stop trying to make it easier for authoritarians to thrive. Ron Paul is a nice fella and all - an adorable little grandfatherly gnome even - and I take him at his word when he says he believes his economic hypothesis would create liberty. Unfortunately, reality begs to differ. And, sincerity is no excuse for bad ideas.

Good debate. Peace.

You can join the convo too if you like @GeeSussFreeK

BoneDiamondRemake!

*red carpet
*applause
*searchlights
*confetti
*trumpets
*noisemakers
*champagne
*dj