Thanks for posting this, fjnbk. I've been pretty busy, and I meant to write up something about my new channel tonight. However you beat me to it, so as Stuart Smalley always says: "And that's..okay." As long as the word is on the street that a "Books" channel now exists then that's the main thing.

As my rodent/toad colleague astutely pointed out: A VIDEO channel for BOOKS? Well let me explain why I did this:

- Ever read a great book, then when you when you heard it was being made into a movie you simply couldn't wait to see it? Or..

- Ever see a real cool movie, then wanted to read the book upon which it was based afterward? Or find out long after you saw a cool movie that it was based on a book?

- Ever watch a talk show where the guest is an interesting author talking about his or her latest book?

- Ever watch a show on the History Channel, The Learning Channel, BBC, PBS, etc. where they talk about the life of an author, or delve deeply into one of his or her works?

Well if you answered "yes" to any of those questions, then hopefully you understand why I created this channel. Now don't get me wrong; I still love videos and movies, but also I still appreciate the quiet, patient practice of reading. I simply wanted to create something that could tie together my appreciation of the visual arts and the literary arts. Hence the Books channel.

Don't be surprised if any of you find me necroposting the * Books channel to some of your videos. Gotta build a library, don't we?

*sticky

the director also directed The Lion King, Stuart Little, and Disney's The Haunted Mansion. kill me now.

"OK, I have this incredible scenario: Jackie Chan and Jet Li in the same movie!"
"And...?"
"That's it. That's the scenario"
"That's short"
"That's OK. They'll just portray some stereotyped characters from their early career. Like, I don't know, a dead serious leader and a funny drunken guy"
"Who will they fight?"
"Whoever...we'll just rip off stuff everyone knows about but no one has seen, and call that 'homages'. They'll just fight East Chamber Qing guards led by, say, a bride with white hair, in never-before-seen places like a Chinese inn or a bamboo forest. And we'll add some tasteless bimbos here and there"
"Good enough"
"Also, Shaolin monks"
"What for?"
"I really don't know, but no stereotyped Hollywood kung-fu movie would be complete without Shaolin monks"
"Deal. But they need to speak English"
"And they all speak English. Wait. Actually, sod Chan and Li, they'll be the sidekicks, and the hero will be an American white male. An American Dragonball kid. It will be directed by the guy who did Stuart Little"
"Genius"

I predict it will suck. Unless you have actually seen Li's and Chan's period pieces, in which case it will suck TERRIBLY.

Stuart... with a black leather jacket... with black hair... looking like Fonzy...

"The Coolometer is giving a reading of over 50 MegaFonzies!"

"Now I'm not saying anyone should be able to do anything they want, but certainly anyone should be able to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else.

This basic premise is behind my opposition to nearly everything that I oppose, both big and small: drug laws, religious dogma, intermingling of church and state, censorship, etc." -- xxovercastxx

Agreed. That's the central thesis of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. As he put it:
" The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

If you wanted a quote try this..

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

John Stuart Mill

And if you want to take a stand against needless death and destruction why don't you compare the total American deaths in Iraq with the number of alcohol related deaths right here in America where we are "safe" Personally I think I have better odds in the desert than driving down my own street. At least in Iraq I'll have armor and weapons. Here, the liberals won't let me carry without cutting through a mile of red tape which results in thing like the Omaha shooting. If there were more armed responsible law abiding citizens there would not be lunatics on shooting sprees. I don't expect liberals to understand so I will just have pity for you and I will continue to fight for your right to be stupid and protest against the freedom you enjoy.

Before I level my rebuke against one who must be almost seen as 'the almighty' in the eyes of many, I will point out that I do greatly applaud the fact that a show like this is out there highlighting the issues of the day. Also I think he's a quality interviewer.

Ok.. that's been said...

Why does it feel like every damn Jon Stuart segment consist largely of: Show clip of silly politician; Cut to Stuart; Stuart gurgles/groans, "durp de durpey durpedy durrrrp"? Surely he has some better material than that? He seems so witty with his guests.

Till he gets new material, I think i'll just stick to his interviews they post.

Edit: Corrected spelling, thanks Mycroft :>

Isn't it ironic that "white" people spend billions of dollars a year getting a suntan while the "non-white" people strive to lighten their skin colour?

"And so it was that later
as the miller told his tale
that her face, at first just ghostly,
turned a whiter shade of pale"
A Whiter Shade of Pale: Lyrics by: Keith Stuart Brian Reid: Sung by: Procol Harum
Here's Procol Harum singing A Whiter Shade of Pale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWULu5_nXI

cue Stuart Little

I like the bits about the Islamic Empire as a comparable to the Roman Empire in its influence on science, technology, and arts. But I wouldn't call the Ottoman Empire "great" for the same reason I wouldn't call any other empire great.

This video is overly reverent. It linguistically presumes Mohammad actually received "revelations". The act of a "religion of peace" being founded through forceful conquest of the known world is at best hypocritical.

Rather then re-re-re-interpreting scriptures to re-re-reconcile Islam with the changing moral zeitgeist, I'd rather read great philosophers like John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell, and think about ethics as its own subject. A cosmic despot's declaration cannot affect the ethicality of a deed to which he is not a party.

Even to put myself in a theist's shoes, if God declared certain acts good and evil, he must have had reasons for doing so, and we should seek to understand those reasons. If we can, there's no need to rely on fallible scriptures based on fallible memory of fallible oral recitations from a fallible slave-owning illiterate merchant named Mohammad who might or might not have had a revelation.

To treat what was probably mere trickery or hallucination as if it were some unquestionably glorious thing is to me a bit offensive because I value truth above almost everything else. The video devotes only about three seconds to skepticism about Mohammad's alleged revelation in the part about the life of Mohammad and quickly dismisses it with Mohammad's own fallacious argument involving combat victories. This is plainly pro-religion bias.

Peace

As someone perpetually expressing unpopular opinions, I believe I have something to say on this issue.

In a communication-driven arena like the internet, when you speak you must expect a reply. When you say something controversial you will spark debate, and where there is debate people will take sides. Sometimes you will be on the smaller side; sometimes you may even be on the losing side.
Ideas are not sacred; they do not inherently deserve respect and may be examined and questioned. When you present your ideas to others they will inevitably be judged, as you say, and people will respond with their own; if you become offended when your beliefs are opposed you are holding those beliefs for the wrong reasons.

Now, you've made a lot of problematic statements and assumptions in your post and they must be answered. If I don't want to write an essay I will have to go through them point by point, forgive me.

"When a person offers up their personal experience in an attempt to convey a point of view that may be contrary to the popular/accepted opinion being expressed, it's disappointing to see that person judged and ridiculed by other members."
You seem to be upset that people took that offering at face value and answered it in the same way as any other example of an argument. I think it's unfair to latterly declare certain of your statements exempt from normal scrutiny.

"If a person's experiences conflict with the popular ideas expressed on this site, are they supposed to just keep quiet, avoid the issue, or should they prepare for attack?"
Those are your choices anywhere. Neutrality, conciliation or opposition.

"I've always thought people benefit from hearing about the broad spectrum of human experience"
That's the whole point of freedom of speech, as brilliantly argued by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, required reading for pretty much anyone that wants to hold an opinion on anything. It's not a one-way street. You can't complain that you're being stifled while demanding others keep their opinions to themselves.

"not just what is considered 'normal''rational' or 'acceptable' or even 'provable'."
Don't put those things in inverted commas. That's the attitude irritating people.

"I thought Videosift was the place to hear that and be able to express that without fear of malice."
Conflict is a natural consequence of diversity; as the sift grows so does the spectrum of opinion. You will encounter opposing viewpoints. All I can say is: don't be so sensitive.

Maybe all I should have said was don't be so sensitive.

You might want to watch this first from Deputy Dog:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Resonance-Effect

Then read this article for more info:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL014372920070501?feedType=RSS

More info from the author's website:

http://www.tjmitchell.com/stuart/rosslyn.html

(from YouTube) Their band is called Corporeal and that is Dave Verlee on guitar, Hanah Stuart on violin, Dave Bedell on drum kit and Rob Leu on Bass.

Hexstatic is a UK music duo, consisting of Stuart Warren Hill and Robin Brunson, that specializes in creating "quirky audio visual electro."

Formed in 1997 after Hill and Brunson met while producing visuals at the Channel Five launch party, they decided to take over for the original members of the Ninja Tune multimedia collective Hex that had disbanded around the same time.

They soon collaborated with Coldcut for the Natural Rhythms Trilogy, including the critically acclaimed A/V single Timber. Much of their music involves integrated visual experiences, and both of their main album releases have been CD and DVD combinations; the latest, Master-View, includes 3D "anaglyph" versions of some of their music videos and comes packaged with 3D glasses. Hexstatic has also been instrumental in designing VJ equipment, including the Pioneer DVJ-X1 professional DVD player. Other artists they have worked with include EBN, Juice Aleem and David Byrne of the Talking Heads.

- More @ Wikipedia

The Cinematic Orchestra is a British-based jazz and electronic outfit, created in the late 1990s by Jason Swinscoe. The band is signed to Ninja Tune independent record label. In addition to Swinscoe, the band includes former DJ Food member, PC (Patrick Carpenter) on turntables, saxophonist / pianist Tom Chant and bassist Phil France. Former members include Luke Flowers (drums), Jamie Coleman (trumpet), T. Daniel Howard (drums) and Alex James (piano). The latest member of the band is guitarist Stuart McCallum. Stuart hails from Manchester and provides a further creative force in an already highly original band.

- More @ Wikipedia