I grow my own plants, well, as many as I can in an apartment. I bike everywhere I can. I eat some meat, but it consists very little of my diet. I produce a grocery bag of trash a week and most of that is organic waste.

Oh, you mean I should stop living in a first world country and go back to the stone-age! I get it now. You mean, I should completely and utterly give up everything because it may cause some pollution? Very illogical of you. I believe that is another one of those fallacies people are chiding you for.

By acknowledging the climate change is man-made, we can make better strides to actually bring about meaningful changes. One person reducing their carbon footprint isn't going to make much of a difference, but 350,000,000 people will.

Or, if politicians like Marco Rubio, who I shutter to think belongs to my state, would stop denying climate change we could actually have a dialogue about actual changes we can make, not ad reductionist claims like some people here on the sift are making. (I.E., you.)

Um, as for the state getting out of the way . . . The reason we have any clean air is because of their standards. For instance, it took a government mandate to eliminate lead from gasoline. Lead, which is highly toxic and one of the leading causes of anti-social behavior in convicted felons of violent crimes. I'm sure the free-market would have solved that issue on it own, however, in a much shorter period of time. *Thinks about that for a while.*

So you want to move away from the AGW and just say the climate is changing?

Basic premise flaw: if we humans aren't creating it, then there's nothing we can do. I give you, case in point, climate change deniers. Such as our Marco Rubio. Humans aren't causing it, therefore, we shouldn't impose any regulations on oil and gas. (I believe they did something similar back in the leaded gasoline days. May what short memories we have.)

By the way, saying since California has environmentalists that having the worst air pollution thus makes environmentalism a mute point would be called Fallacy of Composition. Because, let's not forget basic math: California population is greater than oh, I think 49 other states and contains the counties largest ports (major source of air pollution), the majority of the countries cars, the majority of semi trucks and trains originate here, they house dozens of oil refineries and there's this little itty bitty nascent issue of these Rocky Mountain things people keep talking about. Or, this "valley" people make fun of. I hear it's right next to these mountains.

So, really, the logical argument would be, because of the increasingly dire air pollution in California, more and more people are become environmentally aware and are slowly changing their habits to reduce future smog, but without increasing government intervention, larger corporations will continue their practice so long as it returns a profit. So, as a result, the larger corporations are spending millions lobbying politicians who have been passing favorable laws much to the angst of the growing environmental movement.

And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts.

From what I've gathered, the US's policy has been to only support nascent revolutions when they reach critical mass implicitly (or in this case where there is violent suppression, explicitly).

Diplomatically this is smart. If a country's people don't have the will to follow through with a revolution on their and the US actively plays a part in stirring one and fails, the dictatorship in power will likely become highly isolated. That will lock it away from modernization, insulate it from western investment/democracy and cause the country to stagnate politically and economically. Perhaps not to the extent of North Korea but suffering from the same problems.

Whether anyone would like to admit it or not, I would bet anything that the relations that the US had with Egypt's military was utterly instrumental in throwing Mubarak out of power. The civil institutions that it has being able to support on the taxes of foreign investment and tourism will probably help it from falling back into dictatorship.

Not to mention, the specter of intervention could cripple either a country's attempts at revolution or the entire movement. Obviously, Africa has a history of colonialism. The Middle East has much more recent and current interventions. If there was genuine intervention and US/European involvement beyond simply behind the scenes diplomacy and preventing violence against civilians and rebels, it would give the dictators a huge amount of credulity and a mandate for their strongman rule.

As far as it being a European idea, let's face it, even if European leaders led the charge, US involvement by way of it's military spending being greater than the rest of the world combined is pretty much a requisite for involvement.

It's a possibility. But from an outsiders perspective (meaning not-American) - it very much seems like Obama IS the democratic party. As Wichita falls, so falls Wichita Falls and all.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Throbbin:
^I disagree with some of that, but I'm in a pinch right now. For now, I'd agree with your earlier projections on seat count, but also suggest that another blunder by Obama (or perceived blunder), and the Democrat Parties fortunes could fall dramatically.

I think again you're fixating on Obama too much. I think the big way this reverses itself is if the nascent economic recovery dies out and starts to turn into a new downward plunge. If that happens it's going to be a bloodbath.

>> ^Throbbin:

^I disagree with some of that, but I'm in a pinch right now. For now, I'd agree with your earlier projections on seat count, but also suggest that another blunder by Obama (or perceived blunder), and the Democrat Parties fortunes could fall dramatically.


I think again you're fixating on Obama too much. I think the big way this reverses itself is if the nascent economic recovery dies out and starts to turn into a new downward plunge. If that happens it's going to be a bloodbath.

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal. Yes, he cut some taxes but they are not enough.

Furthermore, let's not forget the policies of Reagan were an antidote to the high inflation caused by the military Keynesianism/supposed golden era of Liberalism of the post war boom period (1945-67). Unions were too strong and corrupt, durable and nondurable good consumption started falling in the late 60's, the emergence of OPEC, the expansion of the communist menace leading us into Vietnam, various conflicts to combat Marxist-Leninist-Maonist armed resistence groups taking power under political party fronts and an arms race with the Soviets and off the gold standard...While Europe had their social welfare experiment, we were busy policing the globe.

After the Volcker shock of 1979 (boosted IR to 20%) this lead to the financialization of the economy and the move away from manufacturing. All of this happened under the Carter Administration. Realizing the golden era of liberalism was untenable it brought the inevitable Reagan to prominence whose new regime (following the prescription of Milton Freidman and others was to allow consumers and the market to decide and to decrease the centralized control of government) - as denationalization of the public sector was the only way to create more opportunities and jobs. Cheap credit was not only championed by Wall Street as an antitode to problems, but was also championed by Democrats.

Democrats were almost completely unelectable in the White House until Bill Clinton and his administration (was Republican lite in essence as enacting Welfare Reform and setting the infrastructure for the War in Iraq and following the financial privitization schemes of the Chicago School, the FED fueled dotcom and mortgage bubble which created the much ballyhooed and fictitiuous Clinton surplus) is the reason for the financial deregulation in the late 90's (Clinton is now distancing himself from Rubin and Summers regading derivatives). The Neoconservatives and Democrats have much in common - as they both believe in crazy spending. Neocons through military (some of which does create nascent industries of the future), and Democrats who spend on any frivoulous social programs that work to break states and keep their politicos electable. Where is the incentive to become a producer in this country? If you are not paying high taxes you are competing against government subsidized monopolies (stop whining for more jobs when you overregulate ad penalize big corporations for doing what they need to do to make profits). The Democrats kill the ability to start a small to medium sized business thus making it more attractive to join big firms - that everyone continues to attack - sending them racing abroad.

And last time I checked the "real left" - which Obama distances himself from for good reason - is too busy scratching their heads ain petty sectarianism about how all of their wonderfully utopian ideas caused over 70 years of dreary totalitarianism. Seems the working class in the US now wants nothing to do with them. They want Palin. While you upper middle class liberals eat organic, sip latte's, do your hipster environmental thing and make fun of these people - they are forming the next grassroots that will be a vital contituency to covet.

These people may not be smart - but know that Obama is untrustworthy if he thinks the Federal Government can spend its way out of this mess, not understanding that for every 1/2 cent we have saved we still owe 2 dollars and that if we start increasing our deficits to create new jobs, the Chinese will sell off their currency reserves which are in dollars and then...

You could be efficient about it too and use part your nuclear arsenal to bomb the rest of it to smithereens. That way you'd not only save time and money but you'd have a thriving nascent race of super mutant zombies at your disposal.

I read a diary at DailyKos that made an interesting observation about the Nobel Prize. The overall tilt of the piece is pretty partisan, but I do think they've got the right lens for sorting out the answer to whether the question of whether Obama deserves the Nobel Prize. The core argument goes like this:

The distinction between earnings and gifts is a key element in this moral analysis. Earnings implies an exchange of goods and/or services where, in theory, the exchange is deemed equitable by mutual consent. While the reality doesn't always match the theory - one party may not receive an equitable share because their bargaining power is very different - the underlying concept of an exchange of goods and/or services remains. Each party should get what he/she deserves.

Gifts are quite different. A gift does not imply an equitable exchange of goods and/or services. Quite the contrary, its status as a gift means that one party has freely chosen to bestow it with no expectation of any equitable return, except perhaps for gratitude. The necessary elements are that the giver is willing to offer it, and that the recipient accept it. It may be offered in the hope that the recipient will put it to good use, but ultimately that good use is for the recipient to determine. A gift with strings attached is not really a gift at all.

..snip..

Had President Obama sought the prize based on explicit or implicit promises - campaigning for it as he did the presidency - it would make sense for progressives to consider Fairness/Reciprocity. Then it would be earnings. But he didn't seek or campaign for the prize. It was a gift,

This makes a lot of sense to me, and actually fits with my initial emotional reaction to the news -- pleased surprise. The question "why?" was the next thought I had about it, but figured they undoubtedly would explain the decision.

In reading more, I think Rachel essentially has it right on their reasoning, coming as it is from an international/European viewpoint.

Bush had effectively turned the United States into the most dangerous rogue nation the world had ever seen, and Obama has entirely reversed that course. There's no more nascent resurgence of a Cold War with Russia. There's no more open disdain for the European powers. There's no more disregard for the UN. There is no more flagrant mockery of environmental issues. America has returned to being a citizen of the world.

There are still two active wars the US is engaged in, but one is being drawn to a close, and the other is under review, with a goal of establishing an exit strategy.

I do think it's more aimed at encouraging Obama to "stay the course", than a recognition of any tangible goal achieved, and it seems clear to me that Obama recognizes it as such.

Sounds like a good idea to give Obama a strong push to follow through on his promises. Again, I hope it works.

despite my feelings about alex jones' wingnut positions on the trilateral commission, bilderberg, and the cfr...

i'm upvoting because the essential message the vid infers is, as 'the who' so succinctly put it, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'

here are some legitimate gripes i have with obama and habeus corpus:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Guantanamo-Bagram-Is-there-much-difference
http://www.videosift.com/video/BBC-Investigation-of-Abuse-At-Bagram-Air-Base
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/

imho, the difference between bush and obama is black and white, literally... although obama can pronounce 'nuclear' ... i believe that his message of change wasn't much more than to convince the american people and the world that he was some sort of harry potter, who could fix all that was wrong simply with a wave of his big black wand

in reality, and from primarily an international perspective, he's the usa's global apology card, primarily to a western europe both worried and not-a-little-angry with america because 1. it gave them 8 years of gw bush, 2. was the sole remaining superpower in the vacuum left by the ussr's collapse, and was now viewed not as the cold war's 'great balancer' but as a post-cold war threat to both global security and international parity, and 3. through the burgeoning of instant mass communication afforded by the internet, the uneducated and largely impolite rabble of europe and the us were better able to ruffle each other's feathers, both innocently and maliciously

this two-way estrangement between the decades-long, erstwhile allies needed and continues to need to be smoothed over, and what better way than to present the world--at least on the surface--a polar opposite to bush and his ilk... a well-spoken, apparently sincere man of intelligence whose humble platitudes and defacto apologies at least try to serve as a soothing balm to the inflamed passions, old rivalries, petty grievances, and genuine concerns that had long lain dormant during the cold war, but were coaxed back to their previous vigor with the ill breath of the three enumerated items in the previous paragraph, which reput would be: 1. american arrogance, 2. a nascent eu's competitiveness and envy, and 3. the ignorance and polemics of the internet's unwashed masses

so... who 'won't get fooled again?'

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by blankfist.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Nascent-Police-State-Shoot-Protestors-Laugh-About-It

http://www.videosift.com/video/Nascent-Police-State-Shoot-Protestors-Laugh-About-It

^ I don't want the left to respond to this with violence. I like that we're mostly just trumpeting the sheer ugliness of our opponents, and the shallowness of their so-called "principles".

They're against having any kind of reasonable debate, and will engage in the most blatant lies, scare tactics, and now outright physical intimidation, and for what? To preserve a broken healthcare system?

This is supposed to be a civilized society, and it's up to people to decide whether they're going to hop into bed with our nascent version of a Republican Basij, or if they're going to demand that people conduct their debates on issues with some modicum of honesty, civility, and respect.

*news

TNG is some of the best episodic sci-fi TV ever. No story arc, and yet managed to grow the characters over time, and be able to tackle ethics every week, and present it in a fresh way every time. I've seen nothing like it before or since.

DS:9 was pretty damned good too, even if it was a Trek rip off of Babylon 5, it was a pretty enthralling one once they really committed to a Dominion-heavy story arc in the latter half of the series. The non-arc episode where Sisko, Bashir, and Dax get sent to the early 21st century and are thrown into a nascent concentration camp for poor people is on par with the best of anything TNG had to offer.

Voyager was basically 100% crap except for a handful of episodes.

Enterprise was a really cool idea, but it lacked a unifying vision which hurt it badly. The last season was pretty good, and the 2-part Mirror universe episodes were some of the best Trek ever.

The old series has always seemed almost intolerably dated to me. I've never really gotten hooked into any of the episodes like I did with the other series.

The even-numbered movies have been pretty good, though Nemesis (10) was awfully bland.

Here's hoping the latest Trek movie breaks the odd-number curse.

It was kindly pointed out to me that I have just established a precedent at odds with the nascent opinion in this conversation.

As I wrote on the previous post, "I consider this action infinitely more efficient than waiting for all 105 (as of this time) voters to enter their votes a second time."

The only major downside to such an action is the scenario of people entering downvotes which they would've have upvoted had the video been sifted up differently.

To that, however, I say people should vote carefully. If the re-sift is to correct a wrong (in this case, poor video classification to the point of malice), then anyone who decided to upvote based on the proper video classification is vindicated.

The primary downside is anyone who decided to downvote for the reason of malicious classification (and who has not yet upvoted the new sift) will have a downvote transferred over.

The example linked above resulted in 4 downvotes getting transferred - my rudimentary cost/benefit thought-moment argued that 105 up's more than makes up for 4 down's in such a scenario.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
dupeof is too restricted to be very useful at the moment. At least let anyone call dupeof on their own posts (transferring votes they received to the rightful post, that is) the same way anyone can discard their own post. The probability of someone who can call dupeof actually seeing the video before it's discarded just isn't high enough. If the original poster can do it then that at least guarantees that the opportunity to call dupeof will present itself in every case.
I was also going to suggest what arvana said... have dupeof check queue date before it does its thing. You can do one better, actually. If someone calls dupeof backwards, attempting to transfer from old to new, since you've checked the dates you can kill the new and transfer to the old, even resurrecting the old with a new embed if necessary.


Now you see, the logic I have described above argues against xxovercastxx's idea - there may be some kind of reason the original sift was discarded and a resuscitation is not called for, such as in this case.


maatc: "What happens if the video the votes are being transferred to is a discarded, dead or killed clip? "

Sifters have the power to obliterate their submission to the Sift. An electronic "right to die", if you will. You don't want the code bringing discarded/killed vids back to life in this manner.

Restoration of dead clips, however, completely kosher because the sifts themselves are "alive", it's just the video code which needed fixing.

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

Facebook is a bit of a monster - but I have found it supremely useful for stalking getting in contact with old high school girlfriends.

I'm all for a Facebook app. Any nascent FB developers out there?