I think the reason "we do that", is because such a large proportion of our resident's roots in the United States go back no more than 100 years, and there are SO MANY different cultures and ethnicities you can encounter, especially in Urban areas. Oftentimes an ethnicity or culture will live in a specific town or part of a city and will preserve much of their culture and tradition. I guess we could pretend like everyone is the same, but there ARE differences in culture and tradition, and i think we only use those terms when we are acknowledging/talking about those things. I don't know how that differs from where you are from, but maybe the difference for us is the sheer size of the country and its diversity means we have much larger clusters of people with a shared or common foreign ancestry and so they get more attention?

However, I don't think "African American" or "Hispanic American" are used as commonly as you think, aside from the news where topics like racism and affirmative action get more exposure, and a way to delineate differences is necessary. Or when we want to figure what kind of food to eat for dinner

So Lev got a girlfriend now? good for him, but I'm guessing Tales of Mere Existence will change its tone, until they breakup and he gets depressed again

Also, food arguments can be solved with the Urban Spoon App.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Keone and Mariel Madrid, urban dance camp' to 'Keone and Mariel Madrid, urban dance camp, Bob Marley' - edited by alien_concept

Problem is, I often see then riding 2 or 3 abreast on city roads and narrow country roads. On city roads, it's merely annoying. On narrow country roads, it's downright stupid. If you're riding at (being generous) 50 kph and someone comes round a corner doing a perfectly safe and legal 90, you're in trouble.

As for cycle lanes, you're generally right. Unless there's some physical separation from the road, in which case they're great. And while you may be obliged to use the cycle lane, it really makes more sense than cycling in traffic.

I don't want to come off as anti-cyclist. I really believe that cycling is a much better way of transporting people in an urban environment, but people need to stop being so stupid about it. In NZ, you are legally required to wear a helmet, yet everyday I see idiots
a) without a helmet
b) with a helmet, but it's hanging on the handlebars (I guess they don't want to mess up their hair??)
and most stupidly
c) wearing a helmet, but not closing the strap... honestly, this is just retarded. You're wearing the damn helmet anyway, close the strap so it might actually be useful in a crash. It's like running around carrying a bullet proof vest

"I see a connection between this feeling of powerlessness and the "stop and frisk" laws."

If we were science-minded, we'd demand statistics to confirm that hypothesis. And we'd look for data showing that removing "stop and frisk" reduces crime. But it's likely the opposite... "stop and frisk" works, and removing it increases crime.

The reason there's a correlation between cities with "stop and frisk" and the "knockout game" is because these cities passed "stop and frisk" in response to their unhinged urban youth violence.

These kids feel powerless because their academic scores are the level of third-worlders. Fix that, and everything else will fix itself.

There's a huge difference between urban and rural dialect, particularity in the mid-west that isn't reflected in this video. Some of these examples emphasize stereotypes that are actually in the minority. Fun none the less though.

Next-level car mod shit FTW-Maybe now, doinks who modify their exhausts will invest in some urban video edification instead of craptacular tailpipe penis Toyota Supra!

Can't wait for the movie.

"Cheerin': Jazz Hands in the streets!"
A sheltered and straightlaced collegiate cheerleader discovers the underground street Cheerin' scene. She falls in love with mildly ethnic bad boy Alonzo, who shows her what it's like to 'get real with it'. But is love enough to overcome the disapproval of her friends and the challenge of the street? Can the rigid and intolerant collegiate cheerleading establishment handle her new found urban flare?

What, the two gay urban safari dudes with that Burmese python?? The things that serpents' seen!

if someone uses chemical weapons in an urban environment that is certainly something to bitch about. The same way people should bitch about a number of other conflicts worldwide. It is called bringing attention to something that is obviously fucked up.

Ideally politicians should both sound smart and not talk bullshit. The fact that it is Ron Paul, someone videosift (me included) has a thing for deserves taking his response seriously and analyzing it critically.
That is also called debate and not just bitching.

I like Ron Paul's stance on non-intervention. I like Ron Paul a lot.
But what he is saying on Syria and the convoluted power system there is simply not true. There are Al Kaida fighters on the sides of the rebels. However, there are also Hezbollah fighters on the side of the Assad Regime.
If America's stance on what asserts a terrorist group and what not holds true interpolitically they, by their own theory can not stand by passively and watch. America HAS to do something- they allready "invested" too much into the region to now sit back and not act. WHAT exactly this intervention should look like is the question and you can see the current adminsitration suffer with a good answer to it.
Don't listen to the currently popular theme of "Gas-weapons are just another way to kill people". If you think the deployment of poison gas weapons into a urban warzone is the same as just "regular" bombardment you have to seriously go and read up on how gas-weapons behave in an urban environment especially WHEN combined with regular bombardment.
The use of this weaponry is an absolute show stopper, which makes it a lot more painful to realize that the USA itself is using enriched Uranium munitions and clusterbombs) - Nonetheless- the USA not acting now would be like saying: "You might not be as powerful and omnipotent as we are, but go ahead since we take this so seriously that we trivialize it to start our own wars".

Does it have to be military intervention? Hell, no.
Can it be expensive? Hell, yes.

The Use of UEAE-weapons (undiscriminatory extended area effect weaponry- i.e. stuff which even gets into protection shelters and doesnt worry which ones) is like lining up and shooting an entire part of a town by principle. Kinda like a poor man's nuke and even if it was a ruse by the rebels- this certainly warrants the current drama.
The USA invaded Iraq because they thought that Sadam Hussein had these weapons (fabricated charges or not, thats what they started the war on) so what exactly would be the consequences now if America sits back?
John Steward said on the daily show that this is like 7 year old bullies fighting on the playground. The irony is that he is frightingly right.
Again, I am against military intervention but this is some serious stuff.

What do I get from this trailer?

PG-13 "death" scene. All he does is get blown up in a car, not the extremely violent and painful death of Alex Murphy from the original film goes through, the trigger in him remembering his previous life and becoming more than just an emotionless robot/cyborg. The trigger in this? His family. Yawn. They turn one of the most important scenes from the original into "boom". Also leads me to believe this'll be a PG-13 puss-fest.

Face time! The vanity of celebrities or producers that think they need to have the star's face plastered throughout the entire film (massive props for Karl Urban and the director of Dredd for sticking with the fact Dredd never shows his face). In the original, once he was RoboCop, you only ever see his face until the end. It was a good visual reminder to the audience that he was human, to reinforce that now he's reclaiming some of humanity.

It IS a powersuit. Rather than literally being a human brain in a robot as the original is, you see it's just a guy in a suit with a robot leg and arm (his bare hand and his "face in a helmet" looks ridiculous). Kinda weakens the human mind battling the robot programming aspect of the plot. Especially considering it seems he's all emo as soon as he wakes up "What have you done to me! WAH WAH!"

Where's the satire? Sure it may be hard to wedge in satirical aspects in a trailer, but I have a feeling there'll be none of it in this one. The tone is completely different and feels very generic.

Granted this is just a trailer, but it feels like this is nothing more than a generic action movie with the same name as an old beloved cult classic. I'm not against reboots, but if you plan to reboot something successful, two things need to be kept in tact: The tone and feel, and key aspects to the plot. I'd love to see more RoboCop, this isn't it.

And of course Obama is going to step down peacefully. I mean, you can say whatever you want about the state of American politics, and it's obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that Obama hasn't lived up to the hype he and his people managed to create during his campaign (which makes sense since he's, y'know, A POLITICIAN), but this idea that he's somehow going to organize "urban gangs" (and I think we all know which social group Orson Scott Card's really referring to here) and take over America is just... well, it's just...

It's just completely fucking INSANE.

And it shows us poor Orson Scott Card's connection to reality really is.

Night photo of scene, Yellow Tarp is covering Trayvon's body.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/gallery/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-photos/slide_305143_2617618
_free.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mediaite.com/online/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-pictures-shown-to-jury-graphic-photos/&h=399&w=600&sz=78&tbnid=gTA2MCebV
ELF2M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&zoom=1&usg=__A7K2FL0q-9QTbs1LWEQMyT24-bk=&docid=lg7SLr3w8FMIgM&sa=X&ei=Mc_kUc3fHrKl4AP13YHACA&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAQ&dur=248


Daytime photo of scene:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://transferstation.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/spot-of-shooting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://marinadedave.com/journal/
2012/3/22/the-tragedy-of-trayvon-martin.html&h=1350&w=1800&sz=2038&tbnid=m1IKo5J0-675KM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=125&zoom=1&usg=__9IeX8ZPcjYhuuxVgrG-pvk6zszI=&do
cid=Qi5fmgt8p5KwWM&sa=X&ei=Mc_kUc3fHrKl4AP13YHACA&ved=0CE0Q9QEwCg&dur=16

So, not hedges blocking view on sides, but fences and building facades. Small trees to some degree blocking view. Generally and unlit walkway/footpath/alley overall.

As for definition of Alley: An alley or alleyway is a narrow lane found in urban areas, often for pedestrians only, which usually runs between or behind buildings

So I guess you can argue how narrow it has to be to be "narrow" and how "urban" this area is. The buildings aren't sky scrapers, but they rival the height of some of the buildings in the wiki pictures.

I'll take a few extra cookies for doing the looking up you could have done.