Voter fraud. Can any of you in the U.S. with half a brain fail to admit that the PROCESS ITSELF has become a massive ballet of spin, misinformation, & media and political manipulation on a ridiculous scale to the degree that it is done in plain sight without impunity?? The entire process is complete and utter shit.

People involved should be publicly exposed and humiliated and exiled, and you the complicit should be spanked until bottoms are rosy and near bleeding.

Obama is re-elected because he was SUPPOSED to be according to his handlers.

Mental health can't be rosy, and elephants are smart as fuck. One at the local zoo here back a number of years ago murdered a pigeon in cold blood while my girlfriend and I were watching. Kicked it with premeditation and wily positioning....It slid at around 30mph into the edge the concrete enclosure.

They don't like being treated shittily.

>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^dingens:
Dag wood test anyone?

The part of dag's wood I have here says:
...
Made in China. Huh.


Kinky.

>> ^dingens:

Dag wood test anyone?


The part of dag's wood I have here says:

...
Made in China. Huh.

In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
*promote

Yayyyy!! Thank you so much for the promote!!!

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Hilarious *quality

Thank you so much for the quality!

>> ^longde:

It just seems like you have an ax to grind with africans, and your last comments show it.
African people aren't violent warlords; but they are homophobic, dogmatic, and patently dishonest. I get it. Thanks for your contributions to this anti-stereotyping video.
Who doesn't try to put themselves in the best light? British people, atheists, and gay people -three of the most moral peoples on the planet -never do that. >> ^Deano:
>> ^longde:
I'd rather like to see you in Nairobi in their faces patronizingly asking them about their personal beliefs.

I'd be quite happy to. Though I don't see why it would have to be patronising. If you want to have an honest dialogue then those matters are going to come up and everyone should be willing to discuss them.
It would make a change from my experience in London where it's quite the opposite way around. I often encounter Nigerians who are often more than comfortable sharing their views about religion and not so subtle opinions about homosexuality. They tend to be women due to the sector I'm in and one was so pushy as to wonder what I did on a Sunday if I didn't go to church. And then followed it with "Are you gay?" She was blissfully unaware that she was putting herself in disciplinary trouble. She just didn't care.
My mate used to work at the passport office here in London which was the centre of quite a few heated political disputes in the last few years. The workforce included a bunch of really nice African guys but dodgy as hell and always pulling some scam.
This is, in my view, definitely a cultural difference. My friend is a straight arrow, very reliable and honest so the contrast between him and others (hell even myself as I like to cut corners sometimes) is more pronounced. In another country some of those behaviours (including racial bullying and generally taking the piss) might be fine but here not so much. The problem with the passport office is that they lacked leadership and strong management so everyone ran amok.
So getting back to the video, yes it's nice to challenge stereotypes but let's remove the rose-tinted spectacles at the same time. I'm sure these chaps are as super nice as they are depicted, but it IS a depiction designed to promote a charitable cause. Everyone has prejudices and blind spots, everyone can and will be an arsehole. Even after you strip away the stereotype you can't get rid of that.



Apologies for not replying promptly @longde but work has consumed most of my time over the weekend.

I have no axe to grind. I thought I had expressed myself clearly but I apologise for failing to do that. My original comment was intended to counter the somewhat rosy, unrealistic and some might say shallow depiction of African men in the video.

It's not much different from those lovely promo videos showing off everyone in their best light (anyting from the Olympics springs to mind). We intuitively KNOW the reality behind such things and my comment was merely a reminder of that. And I put the smiley face on because, no, I do not have a problem with anyone from Africa and I resent that accusation. I have plenty of experience and appreciation for people from all walks of life but I'm not afraid to call it as it is. If this video was going the other way I'd be providing counter-examples as well. I've got plenty of experience of the good and bad in people - and if you heard me rant about my Norwegian family I can only assume you'd think me anti-Scandinavian

Finally I'm a bit puzzled by your last sentence. It really doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you could explain. Honest question.

I have a hard time listening to science when it's presented by pop culture figureheads like this guy, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, et al. I keep expecting him to say "really? really?" at the end of every mind-blowing statistic.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

some things just shouldn't exist.

I merely acknowledge not judge on the should and shouldn't of existence.

>> ^BoneRemake:

I dont think kids should be singing this crap, or the nikki manaj tripe.
Whats up with that other girl, she just stands there on the couple performances I have watched.

While I was impressed with it being able to do an original song at that age, I disheartened to think of she even knows the subject matter.
As for the other girl, she could stand to throw a few more "Uhs" and "Yeahs" or at least a little more dancing. That's your job! You hype up the audience for the sick lyrics about to be dropped. I swear she's like a child.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect. And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

You also failed in your economic analysis. To say that the stimulus jobs created 1 job for every $200,000 is the most absurd thing I've ever read. First off, it assumes that the only jobs created are the jobs of people it directly contributed to hiring without taking into account the residual effects of said hiring, or the results of whatever goods and services produced from the work they did. How many jobs are created or preserved by building infrastructure? How many jobs were created or preserved by providing all workers hired through stimulus programs, which in turn spent that income on goods and services produced by private sector workers? What about workers producing goods and services necessary for these programs that wouldn't immediately show up?

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

The economy is cyclical in nature. Stopping the bleeding is a big deal. And most economists believe the stimulus bill wasn't as successful as it should have been is because it wasn't big enough, not because it was too big or was done at all.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_100.png

So there's completely DUH obvious undeniable, there's no other way to explain it, basic US historical fact that we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending. How can you possibly argue that "when government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn." So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?! You have no factual claims to stand on! Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression! We deficit spent quite a bit leading up to WWII, still didn't get out of the Great Depression, massive record deficit spent, THEN got out of the Depression. It is undeniable that's what did the trick.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.
The facts...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Unemployment started going up a bit in May of 2008 (5.4%). By February of 2009 (Stimulus bill passes) the rate was 8.2%. By October of 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. +2%. After. The. Stimulus. Unemployment hit 9%+ in May of 2009 and has stayed in that zone ever since.
Unemployment did spike a total of +4% between May of 2008 and May of 2009. 60% of that spike took place before the stimulus, and 40% of the spike took place AFTER the stimulus. In order for anyone to claim that the stimulus 'stopped' unemployement from rising, they would have to conclusively prove that unemployment WOULD HAVE RISEN to 13.4% by May of 2010, then to 17.4% by May of this year without the passage of the stimulus. Balderdash. Unemployment hit a natural free market peak in late 2009, and it was going to do that with our without the stimulus.
Let's assume the stimulus DID 'create jobs'. Is that backed up by facts?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-campa
ign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R20110913
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
Economic data is open to debate. On the one side here we have the CBO which gave the stimulus a very generous amount of credit (based on some very questionable interpretations of job 'creation') for 'creating or preserving' 3 million jobs. Then we have an OSU study which uses statistics to prove the stimulus 'created' 450,000 government jobs and KILLED a million private sector jobs.
I personally I think the OSU study hits the nail on the head. "ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than directly boost private sector employment." That is a statement that reflects reality. The stimulus mostly plugged up budgeting gaps that had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the CBO itself freely admitted, "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” QUOTE!
But let's be really nice and use the CBO's figures - even though they are highly questionable. 3 million jobs were 'created or preserved' by the stimulus bill. Even in this very rosy scenario, the stimulus made 1 job for every $200,000 dollars. It can be credibly argued that doing NOTHING would have generated a better result in an overall analysis compared to spending $200K for 1 job.
But for the sake of discussion let's take a good hard look at the jobs that were 'created'. After all, 200K a job might make sense if they were GOOD jobs...
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/11/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs
They weren't. Most of the jobs were government jobs. And most of them were temporary construction jobs or other seasonal gigs for make-work projects scheduled to complete in a year or less (at which point they are fired). The private sector - where jobs are needed most - got virtually NO boost from the stimulus.
I could keep on going for hours, but suffice it to say that the stimulus didn't 'stop' unemployment. There is solid, real, credible evidence that the government's interference in the free market did far more harm than good. That's what happens. When government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn.

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.

The facts...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Unemployment started going up a bit in May of 2008 (5.4%). By February of 2009 (Stimulus bill passes) the rate was 8.2%. By October of 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. +2%. After. The. Stimulus. Unemployment hit 9%+ in May of 2009 and has stayed in that zone ever since.

Unemployment did spike a total of +4% between May of 2008 and May of 2009. 60% of that spike took place before the stimulus, and 40% of the spike took place AFTER the stimulus. In order for anyone to claim that the stimulus 'stopped' unemployement from rising, they would have to conclusively prove that unemployment WOULD HAVE RISEN to 13.4% by May of 2010, then to 17.4% by May of this year without the passage of the stimulus. Balderdash. Unemployment hit a natural free market peak in late 2009, and it was going to do that with our without the stimulus.

Let's assume the stimulus DID 'create jobs'. Is that backed up by facts?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-campaign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R20110913

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

Economic data is open to debate. On the one side here we have the CBO which gave the stimulus a very generous amount of credit (based on some very questionable interpretations of job 'creation') for 'creating or preserving' 3 million jobs. Then we have an OSU study which uses statistics to prove the stimulus 'created' 450,000 government jobs and KILLED a million private sector jobs.

I personally I think the OSU study hits the nail on the head. "ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than directly boost private sector employment." That is a statement that reflects reality. The stimulus mostly plugged up budgeting gaps that had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the CBO itself freely admitted, "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” QUOTE!

But let's be really nice and use the CBO's figures - even though they are highly questionable. 3 million jobs were 'created or preserved' by the stimulus bill. Even in this very rosy scenario, the stimulus made 1 job for every $200,000 dollars. It can be credibly argued that doing NOTHING would have generated a better result in an overall analysis compared to spending $200K for 1 job.

But for the sake of discussion let's take a good hard look at the jobs that were 'created'. After all, 200K a job might make sense if they were GOOD jobs...

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/11/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs

They weren't. Most of the jobs were government jobs. And most of them were temporary construction jobs or other seasonal gigs for make-work projects scheduled to complete in a year or less (at which point they are fired). The private sector - where jobs are needed most - got virtually NO boost from the stimulus.

I could keep on going for hours, but suffice it to say that the stimulus didn't 'stop' unemployment. There is solid, real, credible evidence that the government's interference in the free market did far more harm than good. That's what happens. When government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn.

How does this goofball miss Rosie O'Donnell, who wants to cut people's heads off if they make more money than her?

@heropsycho

1. My original point was more aimed at questioning whether teaching is so exceptional. It is certainly harder than many other jobs, but does it deserve exclusive status with it's restrictive labour laws? If so, do you believe jobs equal to or more stressful than teaching should receive the same benefits? More specifically, if we knew that greater job security in stressful jobs created better outcomes (ie, in teaching the students are better taught), then why is it that the private sector has not willingly adopted this? What I'm saying is, there's double standards at play.

2. This is getting off topic, but I don't think anything is innate. We may have a predisposition to better at certain things but anything that we wish to excel at will ultimately require countless hours of practice. Again, I think you're being selective in exemplifying only a very good teacher which directly engages with everyone in the class. Most of what I recall (from 4 schools) involved teachers teaching in their own style 'at' a class, not directly to individuals.

3. My point would be that merit pay would raise the wages of 'good' teachers and thereby attract more teachers into the workplace. It won't ever be perfect as a system, enterprise bargaining in the private sector is subject to the whims of cronyism/favoritism of your superiors and isn't a perfect reflection of performance, but as a system it functions. By the way, I'm not in any way implying multiple choice tests are sufficient, open ended questions can be standardized just fine.

5. I would put down the opposition of unions to merit pay to several reasons:

a) Unwillingness to change - this reflects all changes not just merit pay. There are potential ups and downs but there is no incentive for them to take a risk. You would think flagging students scores relative to other countries (particularly Scandinavian and rich SE Asian countries) would be an incentive, but ultimately they are delinked from these outcomes.

b) Potential fall in membership - A move to individual wage setting over a seniority based wage (at least that is what it's here in OZ) would diminish their power and their members base. Standardized wages are generally seen in low skilled jobs where there is high turnover, a large supply of willing workers to replace them and therefore constant pressure to push down wages - a place where unions have great value in preventing this from happening. We both agree teaching requires considerable expertise. Were the labor system to move to individual wage setting on performance their role would diminish and their members base would dwindle.

As far as I'm concerned merit pay is but a scapegoat to justify their opposition from a more selfish point of view.

Last point - As I made sure to mention, I'm not opposed to the arts. What I'm appalled by is teacher's union activists talking about the benefits of these ultimately extracurricular areas when there are countless schools in impoverished regions unable to imbue many of their students with the ability to hold down an rudimentary job. Talking about these luxury activities and painting a rosy picture detached from reality, while glossing over the overt failings of basis education in derelict communities is disgusting to me frankly.

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.

>> ^lavoll:

who is she?


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rosie+Perez&l=1