Don had me spending my allowance on Mowtown and Stax 45's along with all the great rock n' Roll during the same time-Never got to see black folks showin' out before on television before the Soul Train started making regular stops-Where I lived it was usually on Sunday afternoon at about 4-5 pm, after Wide Woirld of Sports or right before another great Sunday favor4ite, The Lawrence Welk Show, which showcased some of the hottest white-bread talent ever to thrill the perennial, un-hip.

See, geeks in the old days children, listened to some really square shit. Don Ho.
Burl Ives or some Frankie Laine or Montavanni. Oh, and allll of someones parents had at least three soundtracks from some popular musical from the 60's in their musty collection, along with one or two lame folk records recorded BY white folks(coked-up) in America, for the same (Joe and Mary blow), kind of like you youngsters all do now , but with a much more socially acceptable veneer of status-quo wholesomeness(terminal squareness)-

Oh and Don Cornelius? What most folks never dreamed was how, before there was internet porn or white folks wandering into black churches for the music and hip-shakin', you were able to land the longest-running syndicated (35 seasons, 2nd only to Pat Robertson's, The 700 Club) weekly television show where a LARGE MAJORITY of the viewing audience were white males between the ages of 12 and 67, tuning in every week after getting pumped-up on testosterone to watch some fine-ass, booty-groovin', soul sisters command the nation with gyration.

Sad to know you couldn't take the pain any more Don-Watched your last broadcast back in the mid nineties. Amazing brother indeed. Almost never missed a show for ten years straight.

I actually thought the same thing. Cenk was totally like Bill O'Reilly but in this case Cenk is speaking truth something O'Reilly has a delusions of. Let's hope Cenk doesn't get carried away with it. Being reasonable / logical does not need to consist of aggressive veneer.

I understand where Schiff is coming from. He is absolutely delusional, upper-class filth. Off with their heads!

>> ^artician:

I wish he would have let Schiff explain more. Even if he was wrong, I certainly couldn't tell because Cenk just kept bowling over him with his insistence to make his point.
Cenk very much took a page from the O'Reilly interview handbook this time.

The veneer of civilization was always very thin. Evolutionary and biologically, we are still caveman, we are still strongly driven by instincts and not rational thought.

The veneer of civilization seems to get thinner all the time.

She's not running: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/05/breaking-sarah-palin-will-not-run-for-president/?hpt=hp_t1

>> ^quantumushroom:

Sarah Palin is the only potential candidate with the same "rockstar" power as The Kenyawaiian. Cain is smart and would make a fine candidate, but people are not logical or overly using their reasoning abilities; they are emotionally-driven from the reptilian brain, with only a thin veneer of reason. Palin = Rockstar. Obama = Rockstar. No other candidates anywhere have this power at this time.
Palin is far smarter than the meager credit given by her critics. You don't become governor of Alaska by being a dummy. Nobody kicks a dead dog, and the disgraceful way Palin and her family have been treated by the libmedia since Day Uno should give anyone who 'trusts' any kind of media pause. I can't think of anyone else on the entire political spectrum who has been the target of such outright vitriol, personal and political, including Obama.
We can discuss Palin's verbal gaffes or 'hypocrisy' on issues; it does not matter. Palin loves America; I have never gotten that vibe from Barack. Ever. He seems a disdainful tea-sipping Eurointellectual, which would be forgivable if he ever did anything of note.
Palin = Rockstar. Obama = Rockstar. That's really it. It would be no shame for her to run and lose, but if she didn't run at all, that would be cheating herself. If she doesn't run NOW, she'll be a ghost for 2016 and beyond.

Re: executions. Sorry, I did not see this question before now. Correct me at will, but I think the question you're really asking is, given the risk of accidentally putting an innocent person to death, do you still condone executions?
My answer is Yes. Liberals have not been able to prove an innocent man or woman anywhere in America has been executed, since at least 1950. Even were it so, it's a risk I'm happy to take.
The System needs to be fixed. This endless appeals bullshite needs to stop. No one sentenced to death should live longer than 10 days more.

The only way I would support ending the death penalty is if life in prison w/o any chance of parole was actual punishment. Federal crimes should be served in a federal gulag somewhere cold in the middle of nowhere, with few amenities. Every day should be hard labor until natural death. Once a month we can offer all the inmates a suicide pill. I'm sure you won't agree with much of this and that's fine. Most people in prison belong there. They are not nice people.


>> ^bareboards2:
Even my uber conservative father is somewhat embarrassed by her now. Started out a big fan.
So really? You really think this person is a viable political candidate for anything?
She does make a great Fox pundit. PS. That is not a compliment.
PPS Still waiting to hear from you about whether you are okay with the state executing innocent people. Yes or no. (Hint -- If you can't say it, you probably shouldn't be doing it.)

>> ^quantumushroom:
Palin out of the picture?
Wishful thinking from the libmedia assassins.

Sarah Palin is the only potential candidate with the same "rockstar" power as The Kenyawaiian. Cain is smart and would make a fine candidate, but people are not logical or overly using their reasoning abilities; they are emotionally-driven from the reptilian brain, with only a thin veneer of reason. Palin = Rockstar. Obama = Rockstar. No other candidates anywhere have this power at this time.

Palin is far smarter than the meager credit given by her critics. You don't become governor of Alaska by being a dummy. Nobody kicks a dead dog, and the disgraceful way Palin and her family have been treated by the libmedia since Day Uno should give anyone who 'trusts' any kind of media pause. I can't think of anyone else on the entire political spectrum who has been the target of such outright vitriol, personal and political, including Obama.

We can discuss Palin's verbal gaffes or 'hypocrisy' on issues; it does not matter. Palin loves America; I have never gotten that vibe from Barack. Ever. He seems a disdainful tea-sipping Eurointellectual, which would be forgivable if he ever did anything of note.

Palin = Rockstar. Obama = Rockstar. That's really it. It would be no shame for her to run and lose, but if she didn't run at all, that would be cheating herself. If she doesn't run NOW, she'll be a ghost for 2016 and beyond.


Re: executions. Sorry, I did not see this question before now. Correct me at will, but I think the question you're really asking is, given the risk of accidentally putting an innocent person to death, do you still condone executions?

My answer is Yes. Liberals have not been able to prove an innocent man or woman anywhere in America has been executed, since at least 1950. Even were it so, it's a risk I'm happy to take.

The System needs to be fixed. This endless appeals bullshite needs to stop. No one sentenced to death should live longer than 10 days more.


The only way I would support ending the death penalty is if life in prison w/o any chance of parole was actual punishment. Federal crimes should be served in a federal gulag somewhere cold in the middle of nowhere, with few amenities. Every day should be hard labor until natural death. Once a month we can offer all the inmates a suicide pill. I'm sure you won't agree with much of this and that's fine. Most people in prison belong there. They are not nice people.





>> ^bareboards2:

Even my uber conservative father is somewhat embarrassed by her now. Started out a big fan.
So really? You really think this person is a viable political candidate for anything?
She does make a great Fox pundit. PS. That is not a compliment.
PPS Still waiting to hear from you about whether you are okay with the state executing innocent people. Yes or no. (Hint -- If you can't say it, you probably shouldn't be doing it.)

>> ^quantumushroom:
Palin out of the picture?
Wishful thinking from the libmedia assassins.

@dannym3141

Fair enough, but I'd rather (and think it more likely) that there'll be an incident that bands people together than an inspiring figure in this case. The people in this protest seem to be a little too anti-groupthink for that, hence my sentiment indicating my belief that this is different than other movements. We'll see if the numbers increase and/or it dumbs down from that.

Also, you think everyone who deserves to go to jail automatically does? Didn't the OJ trial teach you anything? Money talks...

As for this "thin veneer", that's just culture driving us apart. Humans are social animals...

>> ^dannym3141:

@mgittle
Some fair points, but who's to say that everyone's annoyed with wall street? I'm not, i'm annoyed with government, so sitting in wall street means nothing to me. How can people be pissed off at wall street for excelling under the rules of the system?
I personally think that anger at "wall street" is childish. If you set out a bunch of rules and say "the more pebbles you have the cooler you are" and i'm better than you and get most of the pebbles leaving few pebbles left for you, perhaps even start loaning you pebbles for a while at an interest of 3 pebbles a day, should i be strung up for being better than you at getting pebbles?
I mean, if those guys did something illegal to get their money, why aren't they sat behind bars and the money returned whence it came? Perhaps because it was too beneficial to the government at the time to pursue it? I cannot blame them.
We'll see what happens, i would love to be wrong. But i still think nothing is going to happen until we have that inspirational figure to unite everyone's annoyances (at the very least).
Also @criticalthud is 100% correct! Behind the thin veneer or government and law, we are each alone on this planet competing for survival with no rules and no referee.


It's not childish they wrote those rules that they live under. They designed this government and they set it in place to help themselves. So yes taking it to them makes perfect sense...and furthermore it works, it actually scares the crap out of them.

If we protest the government the people be protested are replaced with people who can do nothing. We protest the owners of the country and it's a serious threat that they worry about so they fold whatever bullshit they're doing.

Why do you think this is taking soo long to get any meaningful traction on networks...because it's dangerous.

@mgittle

Some fair points, but who's to say that everyone's annoyed with wall street? I'm not, i'm annoyed with government, so sitting in wall street means nothing to me. How can people be pissed off at wall street for excelling under the rules of the system?

I personally think that anger at "wall street" is childish. If you set out a bunch of rules and say "the more pebbles you have the cooler you are" and i'm better than you and get most of the pebbles leaving few pebbles left for you, perhaps even start loaning you pebbles for a while at an interest of 3 pebbles a day, should i be strung up for being better than you at getting pebbles?

I mean, if those guys did something illegal to get their money, why aren't they sat behind bars and the money returned whence it came? Perhaps because it was too beneficial to the government at the time to pursue it? I cannot blame them.

We'll see what happens, i would love to be wrong. But i still think nothing is going to happen until we have that inspirational figure to unite everyone's annoyances (at the very least).

Also @criticalthud is 100% correct! Behind the thin veneer or government and law, we are each alone on this planet competing for survival with no rules and no referee.

I think a lot of Shyamalan's problems are that he's focused on a different aspect of the movie than most people are.

Let's look at Signs. That was really the first one, I think, that generated widespread disdain. Signs, IMO, was a good story but a bad movie.

Most people talking about Signs would focus on how stupid it is that aliens would invade a planet that's "infested" with water, if you will, when they themselves are water soluble. They would also talk about how unbelievable the aliens were on screen. The "twist" at the end was also way more predictable than 6th Sense and Unbreakable. I'm not saying these aren't valid criticisms; they absolutely detract from the movie as a whole (and ultimately ruined it for me).

But the underlying story about faith, doubt, destiny, self-worth and discovery is wonderful. This is where I think Shyamalan really shines -- in telling stories about characters who learn/discover things about themselves. This is also what I suspect he is focusing on, sometimes to the point of tunnel-vision. He ends up serving a gourmet meal on a cracked plate and a lot of people spend so much time staring at the crack that they forget to taste the food.

I loved The Sixth Sense. Unbreakable is my favorite film specifically because of the underlying story of destiny and self-discovery. It also happens that I really enjoy both the subtle and not-subtle comic book references, so the surface story appeals to me as well. Signs was a misstep but The Village was a move back in the right direction. Lady in the Water was more like Signs; a good beneath a crappy veneer.

Since then his movies have been fairly ordinary, uninteresting, routine Hollywood affairs. I haven't seen any of them.

More than anything, I think it's become popular to dislike him and his movies. Nobody had a bad thing to say about Sixth Sense until Signs came out and all the sudden everyone claimed to have never liked any of his films.

I wish he would go back to doing what he is really good at but also fix the distractions. Serve us our meals on plates that are worthy of the food they're carrying.

@bareboards2:
I don't buy all that garbage like "internet srs bsns roflz", it's as serious as anything else, real life, anything, he should take responsibility for his comment and not hide behind a veneer of "this is the internet". However, you're being far too 'serious' - it was a joke, clearly a joke. If you didn't like it, downvote it, say "bad taste", then move on!

Agreed, but religion is a special consideration because it claims to know of a divine, metaphysical truth of enormous importance. Being an atheist, I've no issue with people subscribing to religion - not at all. I take issue with religion being imposed on children, inserted into the wrong canals of education and being so significantly involved in politics and government.

You've just said, in so many words, that you have no problems with religion, as long as it's invisible and has no effect on society. Children are incapable of making rational, informed decisions (same with a lot of "adults"). While Bertrand Rusell is correct that children's religious beliefs is installed at the mother's knee, there's not a better way. The State has no morality.

Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

You've also just described liberalism. Liberals believe they are doing only good and that liberalism is altruistic. Who's going to argue against caring for the poor? But when the latest social program not only fails to reduce an evil but instead legitimizes and expands it, it's depressing. It has to be the fault of The Other. It's the Republican/Devils' fault--or lack of money--when the real answer is flawed human nature.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

Atheism is not neutral. It is a declaration that there are no deities and no supernatural influences, because they have never been scientifically proven. Yes, the religious are 'dependent' on their God/s, but the idea that atheists are Vulcan geniuses is equally absurd. Man remains a vicious animal with only a thin veneer of reason. If a stranger struck your child for no reason, rare is the fellow who would stop and say, "This stranger is obviously mentally unbalanced or just having a bad day, that's why he did that." The other 999 out of a thousand would have to be restrained to keep from killing the SOB.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

There has never been a successful State sans religion. Remove God and the State becomes god, and the results of that are never good. Put another way, "As long as there is poverty, there will be gods."

thinker247 wroted:

I was with you on the first two sentences. It's not capitalism that causes trampling of fellow humans for a deal on electronics. It's primal urge and a little too much enthusiasm.

It's a failure of self-control, which either wasn't taught well or even at all. But humans are first and foremost dangerous animals with a thin veneer of "reason". The stores can certainly share some of the blame by not being prepared, or caring.

How is morality brought into this?

Considerate people would not trample others for a damned stereo. We would be more forgiving if this was a video of people fighting over food or water, but not much.

If we all went to church on Sunday and paid our taxes on time and tipped our hats to passing lady folk, would that prevent the actions of this video?

To a certain extent, yes. The practicing of consideration would be more ingrained. But an anonymous mob?

And by the way, we don't all believe that all values are equally valid.

Yeah, I didn't mean that as a sweeping statement, even though it was a sweeping statement.

Murder would always be wrong to me, even if every blue-blood Democrat told me it was okay. I also try not to judge people before judging myself, but not because a deity told me this in a book. A good idea is a good idea, regardless of who started it.

Maybe you should look into Buddhism. Older than Christianity, and no deities.

I'd like to create a world in which everyone gets along, no matter what the voices in their head and in their literature tell them.

It won't happen, but it's a nice idea.

May Dog bless you this fine Kwanzaa season, QM.

Dog has been somewhat lacking of late, but I takes what I can gets. May Joyous Kwanzannukah befall you as well.

I went to Disneyworld when I was a kid. I hated pretty much everything about it. Though I wasn't necessarily consciously aware of it at the time, it was indeed the soulless corporate machine under a veneer of canned cheer that put me off it. If you'd asked me at the time, I would probably have said I didn't like it because it was so "fake." It's similar to how I find clowns creepy and disgusting.

Anyways, my guess would be that these kids just spent ten hours in a car. Nothing would be likely to go down well.

Fuck both Pauls. Neither one believes in civil rights, and both are good at hiding their extreme views in the closet or in plain sight with the veneer of intellectualism/principle.

It's indicative of the extremism of the Pauls that the Teabaggers think they are vanguards.