I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion.

And I would argue that this financial practice only came into existence because of government interference in the private lending market. It was looooong leadup where government and lobbyists joined together for their own agenda items to change the rules. This crisis was NOT simply a crisis of capitalism gone amok. That is a neolib conceit, and it is inaccurate because it ignores 66% of the problem. The crisis was a THREE PARTY problem. 1. GOVERNMENT was the one that set the table. 2. Financial houses were the ones that sold the food. 3. Citizens were the ones that came and gorged themselves stupidly on unnecessary, unaffordable debt.

Also, can we call it a "public option" please? Our good friends in the public relations office spent a while coming up with that one. Listen, the bottom line is we already pay for everyone's health insurance.

There have been numerous studies that show conclusively that the real problem is not the lack of socialized medicine. The problem was the creation of an government mandated 'insurance' system that screwed up the private market. THere are two kinds of insurance really. One kind of insurance is 'universal' and it supposedly covers all expenses. THe other kind of insurance is 'catastrophic' which is supposed to only kick in when something serious happens.

The problem here is that people want to treat health insurance like "universal" insurance, when they really should be treating it like "catastrophic". Americans need to get it through their thick skulls that health insurance is not and NEVER WAS designed to cover drugs, doctor visits, band-aids, flu check ups, and stubbed toes. Health insurance as a concept can ONLY WORK if it covers only large scale, catastrophic disease or injury. Everything else should be paid for out of your own pocket by direct interaction and discussion with doctors & providers. That would bring costs down to affordable levels so fast it would make your head spin.

Think about it. If you treated your car insurance like you treat your health insurance then it would cripple the industry. People would be taking their car in to change their oil, rotate their tires, replacing headlights, fixing scratches and so forth. Suddenly the demand for those services would skyrocket because they were 'covered' and people would be doing them a lot more often because they were 'free'. Suddenly, oil changes would cost $100. Tire rotations would cost $500. All because they were 'insured' and the laws of supply & demand got screwed up by an artificial system that was inserted into the private market.

But auto insurance stays relatively cheap and affordable because you can only use it when something 'big' happens. And you can go get your oil changed for only $20 because you are negotiating directly with the provider for a cheap commodity service. That's how our health care should be. CHEAP basic services we negotiate directly in the free market, with insurance for the unexpected major problems.

Yes. Define excessive.

Excessive = anything beyond what was prescribed in the original US constitution and bill of rights. I.E. pretty much 99.99999% of what the federal government is currently doing except national defense.

Noone knows who these guys are. The media didn't ruin them for life, just for the 15 minutes this was in the national headlights.

And they came out as heroes and martyrs to most of their demographic, so rather than ruin them, they got an enhancement in reputuation.

The fact that the police can come up with an excuse to pull just about anybody over at any time if they want to, does nothing to excuse abuses of power, nor does it provide any method by which to avoid this abuse, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Two months ago, my friend needed to be picked up from work. I decided I'd do it, even though I was an unlicensed driver (No G, only an M). I went out (this was about 11:30 at night) and started off to get her. About halfway there, a cop car going the other way saw me, pulled a u-turn and pulled me over.

The reason? I forgot to put the headlights on. I sat there, and remained polite for the entire thing. She asked what license type I had and I told her the truth. She could've given me a $450
ticket for driving without a license, which in turn would have suspended my G1 (Equivilant to a learners permit in the states I think) and my M, a ticket for driving without insurance, AND a ticket for something else that I can't remember anymore.

Instead, since I sat there, remained polite, and didn't talk back, she let me off everything but driving without insurance and only gave me a $65 ticket, and just asked that I wait there until my sister got to the car and SHE drove home instead.

I know that cops can pull you over for any reason, and if they do, sit there, and take whatever is coming to you. I have since taken my drivers test and now have my G2 (meaning i'm allowed to drive legally) but wouldn't have been able to if I had been given the ticket to suspend my licene. And if i'd had my headlights on, f.y.i. I wouldn't have been pulled over in the first place.

He goes from genuine spy in the previous film, to inane parody.

Perhaps, but his car's headlights hide machine guns.

Denis (the actor) is also featured here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/UNKLE-Rabbit-in-Your-Headlights-featuring-Radioheads-Thom-Yorke-directed-by-Jonathan-Glazer

Yes, I 've seen 35 Rhums in the cinema and that indeed brought me to posting some of the earlier Claire Denis..like her older work the film has a light narrative..with dramatic shots of bodies, touching other bodies or cups with warm drinks or rice cookers. Case studies of life in a flat and metro life.

In reply to this comment by griefer_queafer:
I posted this maybe. maybe i took it off. THis is one of my favorite scenes and one of my favorite movies. Claire Denis is so awesome. HUGE upvote.

I'm not going to take shots at his affiliation, because it has nothing to do with that. I have no respect for a man that goes on a sex spree, ESPECIALLY on father's day weekend.
I'm glad his wife isn't up there, trying to make him look good. At least she has some respect for herself. It always makes me angry when politician wives stand up there like a doe in the headlights trying to make their asshole husbands look good and keep a good face. Good for her.

The other three are deer in headlights over this... so great to watch

What part of them is he really exposing? The part which deals with situations in which they've in good faith agreed to an interview with what they've been led to believe is a serious, vaguely relevant reporter of some kind, only to find an outrageous buffoon trying to ridicule them?
OK, so these guys obviously aren't that eloquent or quick at thinking on their feet. However, do you think they were expecting anything of the sort of questions they got, or the interviewer for that matter? Seems like they went with the "deer caught in headlights"-approach of just sitting there instead of either have fun with the ridiculous situation or end the interview.

"YOUR FRONT HEADLIGHT IS OUT!! It's out!! It.. this one here... look I can't point!! Ok I'll try.. tha.. it's ou....! Your front headligh.. stop backing.. look just get out and look!! Your front headli... will.. you just sto... You're gonna get a tick... sto.. headlight it's out!! THIS ONE!!! Could you jus.. Bang my damn head into... GAH! Why wont yo... OUT!! YOUR HEADLIGHT IS.... THAT ONE!!!"

On my must have list after E3 are Crackdown 2, Alan Wake, Brutal Legend and Splinter Cell: Conviction.

Mass Effect 2 and Forza 3 also look pretty good but I'm not exited at all by Assassins Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2, they look like they're just more of the same.



>> ^Fjnbk:
I'm most excited about God of War 3, if nothing else, because you can rip off the sun god's head and use it as a flashlight.

Don't you mean headlight?

>> ^imstellar28:
Maybe you agree with it, like you might agree with punishing shoplifting by cutting peoples hands off, but its tyranny all the same.


I'm more of a cut their tongue out for lying kinda guy.

But seriously, why do you think you were pulled over if you'd done absolutely nothing wrong?

Don't you think the cop thought you were doing something that might qualify as reckless endangerment, but that the circumstances were such that it didn't warrant any punishment because at that moment no one was at risk?

We're not talking about a cop busting you for drug possession with planted drugs, or tapping your phone without a warrant, or holding you for 7 years without trial.

We're talking about a cop who's job is to enforce traffic laws pulling you over to say "hey, what you were doing wasn't safe" and tell you some scare story about the law.

I don't know motorcycle law, but I'm certain the law doesn't say you must have both hands on the wheel of a car or you go to jail for 5 years. It might say driving with no hands on the wheel is punishable with jail time, but that's different.

If you had to have both hands on the wheel at all times, cup holders, manual transmissions, and non-automatic wipers and headlights would be illegal, unless the controls were all mounted so they could be operated without ever pulling your palm off the wheel.

I could easily see there being laws about motorcycles requiring both hands on the bars at all times, but my quick google tells me the cop lied to you. There are laws against carrying a package that prevents you from being able to have both hands on the bars at all times, and possibly if you were needing to constantly keep one hand on your shirt in order to see, that might have qualified.

If the cop had arrested you, it would've been delightfully murky as far as the law was concerned, and the court would've had a chance to set precedent, so the next time it happens there's a little objective clarity about that particular situation.

"life is like driving at night; you can only see as far as the headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way."
-i don't remember

Mullet with headlights!

>> ^Drax:
>> ^robdot:
if I where to shine a flash light in the direction I'm traveling then the light emitting from that flashlight should travel (relative to me) at the speed of light minus 500,000 mph. Otherwise the light would be traveling faster then the speed of light to someone not onboard the magical cosmic space
I think your wrong on this point, the speed of light is a constant. it will measure the same to all observers.

Then it -would- travel at speed of light minus the speed of the train to me, otherwise for someone "standing still" (whatever that is) the light would be traveling the speed of light plus the speed of the train.
I'm just gonna stop here before my HEAD ASPLODES.

This seems to be correct. Light travels at a constant speed through space. Unless your magic train is outside of space (and time) the light from your flashlight would travel at the speed of light, period. It is not affected by the speed of the emitter. The speed of light is a constant (yeah, refraction can make it SEEM like it changes, so can space expansion, but it's really a constant), and is not cumulative.
My question to math teachers was always..."If I'm going the speed of light in my chevy nova and I turn on my headlights, do they work?". Sadly, they never answered me, but the correct answer is "...kind of, define "work"." They would emit photons, but those photons would not go faster than the nova through space, and so they would not "light up" the space ahead of the car (as long as it traveled at the speed of light). My hypothesis is the photons would remain between the emitter and the reflector, and the "relative" speed of the car and light would be between 0 and twice the speed of light, but actual speed of each would remain the speed of light. There would not be a beam of light, but a point (or 2 points, one in front of or at the emitter, one in front of or at the reflector) where photons were traveling in the same direction, constantly gaining in "density".
A good question here might be, would there be a point where the photons reach a maximum "density" (where no more photons can occupy the same point in space time), and, if so, what happens when this point is reached?
Oh no! (head expands and pops!)

Cops are needed rougy. Given that they make bad decisions from time to time, and over exert themselves in more than one occasion.

But that is really a small price to pay compared to what it would be like when cops aren't there to help you.

Many of you are so pent up on this 'the big bully' image of cops that you really forget how necessary they are, and why they act certain ways.



And as for the 'cat and mouse' theory, again you can just flip that story and say that you guys shouldn't expect the worst and act like dicks in front of cops. They're there to help you out and inform you what's going wrong and what's legal. You don't wanna be bothered by the cops? Don't provoke them, and don't do retarded shit that's borderline illegal. Is that so hard?



When I was in college I was getting a ride from one of my friend. His right headlight happened to be out in the rain, and the cop stopped us for it.

We didn't give the guy any attitude. We said we were sorry and we weren't aware of it. Told the cop we'll fix it as soon as the shops open on this coming monday.

That's it, the cop let us go with just a warning.



Next case, typical college kids drinking beer on the front porch. The cops approach us while riding a bike. They see that a few kids were gathered up, so they just give us a warning not to get too rowdy. Okay, thank you, have a good night. That's it. But as soon as the cop walks past the road curve I hear one of my friends murmur 'fucking pigs'.

And I am sure the cop actually heard these words over his shoulder. But he chooses to ignore it, and goes back on his patrol route.

Now, what did this cop do so wrong anything other than to tell you to be careful? He was just informing you that such laws exists, and reminding you of it. Because he doesn't want you to get in trouble, and they don't wanna bust in a good going crowd and ruin your fun either. Why do you need to call them names?



A lot of you always put yourself in the 'individual' category, but I recommend you put yourself in the 'enforcers' perspective once in a while. Then you'll start to see why certain things happen, and why misunderstandings can happen.

Cops are people too. Regular joes with friends and family. They're not here to ruin your day or out there just because they love to 'cap some ass'.


There's always been strong bias and wrongly placed animosity towards any types of authority by blue collar working class. And here in videosift we've got women's rights activists, environmentalists, pro-gay, pro-choice activists and what have you, fighting for individual rights and minorities. But Even YOU, VideoSifters aren't free from bias against authority figures, just because they have that title.

Damn.......I sound very republican right now don't I? LOL