Pair a chickens' on my back,
Bloodhounds on my track;
I'm pullin for my little 'ol shanty home
I'm pullin for my little 'ol shanty home

If they beat me to the door,
I'll hide' em under the floor;
Keep my skillet good and greasy all the time-
Keep myyyyy skill-eeeEET, good and greasy all the tiiime.

I'm goin down into town,
Gonna swipe me a big ham;
Keep my skillet good and greasy all the time.

Gonna get me a sack 'o flour,
Gonna cook it every hour;
Keep my skillet good and greasy all the time
Keep myyyyy skill-EEt good and greasy, all the tiiiime.

Looks like the more conventional type of slum you see in that and other parts of the world. Huge shanty towns build out of and sometimes on top of garbage, I wonder if that view was meant to give some sense of how many families lived in that tower, only spread out.

>> ^PlayhousePals:

What more could one want?




A jaunty sea shanty... no wait, that's in there too.

They're not just focusing on income inequality or ownership of resources. Just because one clip focuses on it doesn't mean that the entire movement is fixated on one stat. There are a lot of stats the left are focused on, such as unemployment to name another. And it's not a stupid statistic to focus on. If there is too much stratification of wealth, and there is such a thing, then what other statistic would illustrate that it's gotten out of hand?! For the good of the economy, for everyone across the income range, if the rich possess too much wealth, there won't be enough people with money to purchase goods and services being produced. This hasn't a thing to do with the little orphans you helped in Mexico.

Is it being trumped to the point it's being played like an emotional dagger instead of being analyzed rationally? Of course. But come on, if you're gonna sit there and say that only the left is guilty of that, then you're being partisan. How is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points "communist" or even "socialist" on an objective scale? Or even using those words to elicit a knee jerk reaction by people to say it's bad just because of the word instead of rationally discussing the policy? Or when anyone suggests raising taxes on the rich, it's automatically "class warfare"? Or you using derogatory terms like "NeoProgLibNaziCommunistSocialist" blah? Give me a break.

And yes, some wealth stratification is good. You want the people who work hard or are more talented to have more income. It keeps incentives in the system. I have no problem with that. But you're pretending that the income gap between super rich and poor is static, which misses the entire point. It's not static. It fluctuates. We're too the point now where it's getting absurd to the point that it's hurting the economy. You're also pretending that the stats only illustrate the gap between the super-rich and the poor, and that's not the case. The stats are showing the gap between the rich and everyone else, including middle class, which is being decimated.

You have very little patience when you hear a college-age son's of yuppies whining about they only earn $30K/yr for their liberal art major degree? What about me, the son of a solid middle class family who got one of those horrible liberal art degrees (Master's in Education, Bachelor's in History, Minor in International Studies) and got a "fake job" as a history teacher in a public school? Are you kidding me with this? (BTW, what a good person you are to say whose jobs are of value and whose aren't!) What I did for a living for four years combined produced less value than a commodities trader did in one year, whose job is essentially speculation that artificially drives up prices on the things they trade? You don't find something extremely absurd about that?

Let's do the math. At those salaries, a public school teacher is producing less than 10% of the value of what a commodities trader does, and a commodities trader isn't even required to have a college degree, and we're not even including the better benefits and bonuses. I'm not naive enough to think a public school teacher would ever be paid that well, but when the gap is getting wider, and wider, and wider, and you're seeing a public school teacher's benefits getting reduced, particularly retirement, I'm sorry, but something is horribly wrong here. The market is failing to address a basic societal problem. I'm not advocating a state controlled economy (aka Communism) to even it out. I'm advocating the gov't make it moderately more equal by raising the rich's taxes, and ease up on the poor and middle class. Tax capital gains like it's income, subject to the same brackets, etc.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes"
As with "neolibs" it is a word of my own creation which I used to describe the crazed, hardcore, insane left-wing liberal denizens of the world. Neolib was my default for a long time, but lately the vitriol of the left has gotten so prone to hate, anger, and insanity that I have moved to defaulting with "ProgLibDyte" to describe them. It is perfect because it is so close to "Troglidyte" (cave dweller) and covers "Progressives" and "Liberals" together. ProgLibDytes. Cave dwelling political liberals and progressives. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Which one should we obsess over?
How about not picking just one, and looking at all of them - or at least a LOT of them? Regardless, examining only the gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is about one of the stupidest metrics one could examine when it comes to economics. It means absolutely nothing in terms of either real income, economic trending, or any other meaningful metric. Such a myopic stat serves only one purpose, and that is to angry up the blood of the lower class.
There are always going to be really rich people who have so much money that they could eat gold bricks and crap diamonds. These guys are always going to exist in the same nation as people so poor they scrape the very bottom of the economic barrel. The difference between the top 0.1% and the bottom 5% is utterly meaningless. It is pure nonsense to get mad about the difference between Bill Gates and the guy who pumps gas. It tells nothing about anything.
I personally donate my time to help the poor. I've helped the poorest of the poor in US cities and I thought I knew what 'poor' was. Then I volunteered to help little towns in Mexico. When kids and widows weep in your arms just because you came to them with a few bags of cement to put a small concrete slab in thier one room dirt-shanty then you know you've hit the real thing.
In the US, even those who live in so-called 'poverty' have cars, TVs, homes, cable, internet, clothes, and money to spend at McDonalds on a lark. So I have very little patience when I hear college-age son's-of-yuppies whining about the fact that they only earn $30K a year (with benefits) for thier liberal-art's major compared to Wall-Street guys (who are actually performing a real job) earning 300K plus cash bonuses. Boo-freaking-hoo.

Keep packin' them pennies--you will probably need them someday

Oh - I am. No debts, and socking away money to make me a millionaire when I retire with slow, steady, reasonable investing. Hope you are too, because the way Obama and all the other bozos in Washington are running things we're all going to need to pack away as many pennies as we can.

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes"

As with "neolibs" it is a word of my own creation which I used to describe the crazed, hardcore, insane left-wing liberal denizens of the world. Neolib was my default for a long time, but lately the vitriol of the left has gotten so prone to hate, anger, and insanity that I have moved to defaulting with "ProgLibDyte" to describe them. It is perfect because it is so close to "Troglidyte" (cave dweller) and covers "Progressives" and "Liberals" together. ProgLibDytes. Cave dwelling political liberals and progressives. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Which one should we obsess over?

How about not picking just one, and looking at all of them - or at least a LOT of them? Regardless, examining only the gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is about one of the stupidest metrics one could examine when it comes to economics. It means absolutely nothing in terms of either real income, economic trending, or any other meaningful metric. Such a myopic stat serves only one purpose, and that is to angry up the blood of the lower class.

There are always going to be really rich people who have so much money that they could eat gold bricks and crap diamonds. These guys are always going to exist in the same nation as people so poor they scrape the very bottom of the economic barrel. The difference between the top 0.1% and the bottom 5% is utterly meaningless. It is pure nonsense to get mad about the difference between Bill Gates and the guy who pumps gas. It tells nothing about anything.

I personally donate my time to help the poor. I've helped the poorest of the poor in US cities and I thought I knew what 'poor' was. Then I volunteered to help little towns in Mexico. When kids and widows weep in your arms just because you came to them with a few bags of cement to put a small concrete slab in thier one room dirt-shanty then you know you've hit the real thing.

In the US, even those who live in so-called 'poverty' have cars, TVs, homes, cable, internet, clothes, and money to spend at McDonalds on a lark. So I have very little patience when I hear college-age son's-of-yuppies whining about the fact that they only earn $30K a year (with benefits) for thier liberal-art's major compared to Wall-Street guys (who are actually performing a real job) earning 300K plus cash bonuses. Boo-freaking-hoo.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'haul, away, joe, sea shanty, clancey brothers, tommy makim' to 'haul, away, joe, sea shanty, clancy brothers, tommy makim' - edited by calvados

>> ^therealblankman:
That is a Ship-breaking operation on the coast of either Pakistan or India or Bangladesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_breaking
It's one of the worst examples of labour exploitation and environmental destruction in the world, It's performed in these countries because of non-existent environmental and safety laws. They essentially just run the old ships onto the beach and dismantle them by hand. Some of the hazards that the workers are exposed to, other than being run over by freighters, include PCBs and asbestos. 40,000 people live in a shanty-town in Alang, India doing this job, and on average 1 worker dies per day.


Yeah I was about to declare "fail" until I realized "they meant to do that."

Sad business, funny 'parking job.' Love the sub-caption.

That is a Ship-breaking operation on the coast of either Pakistan or India or Bangladesh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_breaking

It's one of the worst examples of labour exploitation and environmental destruction in the world, It's performed in these countries because of non-existent environmental and safety laws. They essentially just run the old ships onto the beach and dismantle them by hand. Some of the hazards that the workers are exposed to, other than being run over by freighters, include PCBs and asbestos. 40,000 people live in a shanty-town in Alang, India doing this job, and on average 1 worker dies per day.

OK, yes, being energy efficient is great, and my wife and I are currently hunting for a house to buy and renovate, with the idea to make it as energy efficient as possible. BUT... you've gone a bit overboard on some of your ideas.

To suggest that everyone should have tiny windows is insane. Windows are brilliant for a large number of reasons:
* Free light
* Free solar heating when it's cold (including heating up a large mass like a brick wall to radiate heat inside the house)
* (most importantly for me) Removes the feeling that you're living inside a tiny box... large windows overlooking a garden or nice view can turn an otherwise normal room into a peaceful oasis.

Definitely do all you can to reduce heat loss from the house through them when it's cold, or heat entrance to the house when it's hot... but getting rid of windows is NOT the way to live. Not in any sane sense of having quality of life. And suggesting that people have sheets of plastic over their windows really is a little horrendous. That's utilitarianism taken to extreme. It may work, but your house will resemble a shanty town.


LED lights would be great to have except that there are NONE that are anywhere near to bright enough to replace even moderately bright incandescent bulbs at a pricepoint less than $100... so until they become a logical choice it's compact florescent for our house at present.

You haven't really even touched on passive heating/cooling, and you're very much only thinking of keeping a house warm when it's cold rather than cool when it's hot. I live in Melbourne Australia, today the temp is going to be 44C (111F), which is STINKING hot by anyone's measure. But it also gets down to single digit temps (40s F) in winter... so we have to have homes that can be good both ways.

One of the best ways to keep a house cool is to keep air moving through it. If you have vents/windows up high you can have them open to vent off hot air that rises, and window down low open to draw in cooler air from outside. This is one thing our current house lacks. It may have lots of windows we can open to let air through, but being that they are all about midpoint through the wall it is infuriating to have the house too hot and yet a change has come through and it's lovely outside but you can't coax the air through the house.

* Insulate as much as you can afford.
* Build the house (when you're doing so from new) such that it takes best advantage of the sun for the given times of year.
* Install Solar Panels for electricity
* Use an on demand gas hot water system (so you're not heating a large container of water and have it sit there), and even better have it be a backup to a solar hot water system
* Install Rain water tanks
* Use dual flush toilets (amazing that they are not common in the US)
* Use evaporation cooling over refrigerated
* Use as much passive heating/cooling as you can.

Crying foul of how inefficient things like stoves/fridges are is a little pointless, as other than getting the most energy efficient ones you can when buying, what can you really do about it?

Definitely think about energy and insulation and actual energy usage, but you don't have to live in a sealed, windowless box in order to live efficiently.

*sigh*

Nice of you to invent things which I never said. I never said that the Australian system was perfect by any means, there are plenty of things which can make it better. But the crux of it is that when it comes to having treatments to keep you alive or well, you should NEVER be having to stop before seeking treatment and thinking 'gee, can we afford this'.

That just SHOULD NOT cross your mind.

But seeing as you have this insane logic where you think it's ok that you had to pay $5K out of pocket lump sum right there to get your treatment then you have a mindset completely different to mine. I find it infinitely better to be paying taxes ongoing that I don't notice, taxes that are taken out consistently and put to good use, rather than having something happen and having to cough up THOUSANDS of dollars that I don't have.

Seriously, do you think that everyone puts aside the amount that we pay in taxes for a rainy day? Sure it's a good idea to always put aside money, but... you know... things come up, and well, look we have that money we put aside, let's use it to do X or Y. In our system, and that of other countries that have public health. We ongoing pay our taxes, and as such when things come up, well, we CAN'T have spent our 'health savings' as it's handled for us. And yes, some people will get more value out of the system than others. But if you begrudge someone getting more money spent of them for health care then truly you are a heartless, money grabbing bastard.

But I keep seeing Americans having fund rallies and setting up websites to ask for donations to pay for treatment for cancer or other such life threatening ailments. And yet you think this is a good way to be, that people constantly have to find a way to raise thousands of dollars to get treatment to keep themselves alive?

You have rationalized the insanity that you only paid $5000 for your treatment. Well, good on you for being able to FIND $5000. Most people would have a hard time coming up with that sort of money out of the blue.

Simply because something is necessary or important does not mean it should become a federal government entitlement - and CERTAINLY it doesn't mean it can or even should be 'free'.

HUH!? The very definition of 'Necessary' is that it's needed, that it's a service that is mandatory. And you're sitting there, typing away that it's bad economics for a government to provide that?

Your thinking, which would seem to be the thinking of the right wing, is a thinking I will NEVER come around to, because it is, at it's core, unjust and created by those who already HAVE money, who already CAN afford to self pay for things. It gives NO allowances for those who can't afford $5K medical treatments or $40K a year school fees. If there is a way you can have a government fund and pay such that these basic NECESSITIES are provided for all who need them, and do so in such a way that you are not stopping those who work hard from becoming successful, (Which, hey, we have plenty of rich people here you know, there's nothing stopping hard work making you shiteloads of cash in Australia) how can you be against that, I really don't get it.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
THAT is what is wrong with the US system, and THAT is what will ALWAYS put it below other countries like Australia, the UK etc. where we get access to still world class services and yet do not end up in financial difficulty
Your post is full of what can only be described as disingenous exaggerations. "Here Down Under, every citizen gets free health care, doesn't pay a dime, there are no waiting lines, and our care is world class. You poor, poor Americans... No one can afford care, you wait months for all your services, and your doctors & facilities are the equivalent of a witch doctor pulling up a cot in a shanty..."
BS. Not that I put much stock in the WHO list, but if the Aussie system is SO grand then why are they #32 on the list and the US is #37 despite being private? Clearly not all is beer and skittles in Oz's health care system. Anyway, I'm not impressed by anecdotal evidence. Know why? Because I've got my own story about how GREAT the US health care system is. I won't bore you with the details, but I consider getting a half-million in medical care for a total of $5K out of my pocket (tax free) to be a pretty good deal. "Oh yeah - but I got that much and it was FREE..!" Uh - bull. Taxes, copays, and such added all together and adjusted for currency exchange and you guys are paying as much (or more) in relative terms for your so-called 'free' system.
Regardless, the sentiment of your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics. Simply because something is necessary or important does not mean it should become a federal government entitlement - and CERTAINLY it doesn't mean it can or even should be 'free'.

THAT is what is wrong with the US system, and THAT is what will ALWAYS put it below other countries like Australia, the UK etc. where we get access to still world class services and yet do not end up in financial difficulty

Your post is full of what can only be described as disingenous exaggerations. "Here Down Under, every citizen gets free health care, doesn't pay a dime, there are no waiting lines, and our care is world class. You poor, poor Americans... No one can afford care, you wait months for all your services, and your doctors & facilities are the equivalent of a witch doctor pulling up a cot in a shanty..."

BS. Not that I put much stock in the WHO list, but if the Aussie system is SO grand then why are they #32 on the list and the US is #37 despite being private? Clearly not all is beer and skittles in Oz's health care system. Anyway, I'm not impressed by anecdotal evidence. Know why? Because I've got my own story about how GREAT the US health care system is. I won't bore you with the details, but I consider getting a half-million in medical care for a total of $5K out of my pocket (tax free) to be a pretty good deal. "Oh yeah - but I got that much and it was FREE..!" Uh - bull. Taxes, copays, and such added all together and adjusted for currency exchange and you guys are paying as much (or more) in relative terms for your so-called 'free' system.

Regardless, the sentiment of your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics. Simply because something is necessary or important does not mean it should become a federal government entitlement - and CERTAINLY it doesn't mean it can or even should be 'free'.

i just downvoted my first qm comment.
(i think, i maybe proven wrong, but i dont REMEMBER voting another one down)
taking care of eachother as a national ideal is not the samething as "celebrating" being downtrodden. i suppose you celebrate the kind of greed which creates this human refuse. with compassion, we all grow stronger.
im confused as to your idea of morality.


imstellar, then youve probably never been a victim of gross abuse or mental illness.

the homeless i have known and loved were either teenage runaways- victims of abuse and addiction. or the severely mentally ill. in one way they choose it i suppose.

i know very well what the point when you give up, reject the abuse and violence youve been subjected to and run. that cave looks better than another beating with the nearest kitchen appliance.

i never liked these kinds of underground squats either. i prefered camping on rooftops or the shanty towns that spring up around rail yards and creeks hidden in the city.

i also know very well the point when you give up on someone you love, who means the world to you, and sit by in your house with your paycheck while they give up and run out of options and choose this kind of squalor.

last thing i heard about the father of my children, he was brutality beaten at the public shelter and spent a few weeks in ICU at the county hospital.
the same problem exists with transportation. its illegal to quietly hop aboard an empty freight car and in many states you can be shot for having the gall to do so. but the alternative is to hitchhike (also illegal, but they cant shoot you) and hope the trucker who picks you up doesnt hold a knife to your throat while hes cumming on your leg. or take your chances with getting felt up when you pass out on the greyhound.

many teen runaway friends ended up joining cults. which look like concentration camps really, they clean you up, shave your head, put you to work and preach to you the word of jesus......... and of course they wouldnt dream of helping you attempt to locate some family or some assistance so you can get an education.


also, hiv positive men and women can not safely attempt to spend the night at the shelter, they will be beaten up. (which makes no sense)

If I was homeless I would create a comfort zone/ shanty/ home... in a place that I would not be bothered...by police...by anyone shaking me down. This is the mindset of close to a billion people on the planet. Just about every North American state/province has cut back on social housing over the last two decades. This is the result... not to mention mental health cuts across the board. Smashing shanty towns like they do in South Africa and calling it a solution without seeing the larger picture of society is a failure.
Nevermind. I'm going to go back under my bridge like a troll.

Another great film. Thanks.

I think he's singing a kind of shanty, about being young and loving maidens.

He spent most of his life as a civil servant, and he just found out he had terminal cancer.

But he does something great before he dies. And many people remember him.

no spring bobber, no teardrop, no shanty, not even a depthfinder, this cat can't icefish, it's that simple