Maybe 20+ years experience of search engines helps? Or perhaps it's 20+ years experience of goofing off looking for things like this instead of the research I was supposed to be doing... I remember using Archie when I was at University, and later being impressed that Alta Vista had a whopping 6GB of RAM for speedy web searches

There are possibly one or two vids in my pqueue that may interest you, given the style of music we were discussing.
In reply to this comment by Stormsinger:
Damn dude! I used to think I knew how to search the net. Nice work, and I thank you for the info.

These were submitted in the hope of finding just such info, more than any hope they'd get sifted. So I owe you one now. LOL

I only appreciated Archie Bunker after I got older and understood what was so damn funny. My dad used to laugh his ass off, though.

>> ^siftbot:

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by jonny.

So where's the little banner, bot?

Only the second comment , wow. As I was watching this I was wondering how long it would take for some moron to start making ad hominem attacks on this woman based on gender or appearance. Way to go Archie, I mean thumpa, I think you've set a record.

A Pyrrhic 'Victory'
By Thomas Sowell
8/10/2011

In Don Marquis' classic satirical book, "Archy and Mehitabel," Mehitabel the alley cat asks plaintively, "What have I done to deserve all these kittens?"

That seems to be the pained reaction of the Obama administration to the financial woes that led to the downgrading of America's credit rating, for the first time in history.

There are people who see no connection between what they have done and the consequences that follow. But Barack Obama is not likely to be one of them. He is a savvy politician who will undoubtedly be satisfied if enough voters fail to see a connection between what he has done and the consequences that followed.

To a remarkable extent, he has succeeded, with the help of his friends in the media and the Republicans' failure to articulate their case. Polls find more people blaming the Republicans for the financial crisis than are blaming the President.

Why was there a financial crisis in the first place? Because of runaway spending that sent the national debt up against the legal limit. But when all the big spending bills were being rushed through Congress, the Democrats had such an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress that nothing the Republicans could do made the slightest difference.

Yet polls show that many people today are blaming the Republicans for the country's financial problems. But, by the time Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, and thus became involved in negotiations over raising the national debt ceiling, the spending which caused that crisis in the first place had already been done -- and done by Democrats.

Had the Republicans gone along with President Obama's original request for a "clean" bill -- one simply raising the debt ceiling without any provisions about controlling federal spending -- would that have spared the country the embarrassment of having its government bonds downgraded by Standard & Poor's credit-rating agency?

To believe that would be to believe that it was the debt ceiling, rather than the runaway spending, that made Standard & Poor's think that we were no longer as good a credit risk for buyers of U.S. government bonds. In other words, to believe that is to believe that a Congressional blank check for continued record spending would have made Standard & Poor's think that we were a better credit risk.

If that is true, then why is Standard & Poor's still warning that it might have to downgrade America's credit rating yet again? Is that because of the national debt ceiling or because of the likelihood of continued runaway spending?

The national debt ceiling is just one of the many false assurances that the government gives the voting public. The national debt ceiling has never actually stopped the spending that causes the national debt to rise to the point where it is getting near that ceiling. The ceiling simply gets raised when that happens.

Just a week before the budget deal was made at the eleventh hour, it looked like the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives had scored a victory by getting the President and the Congressional Democrats to give up the idea of raising the tax rates -- and to cut spending instead. But now that the details are coming out, that "victory" looks very temporary, if not illusory.

The price of getting that deal has been having the Republicans agree to sitting on a special bipartisan Congressional committee that will either come to an agreement on spending cuts before Thanksgiving or have the budgets of both the Defense Department and Medicare cut drastically.

Since neither side can afford to be blamed for a disaster like that, this virtually guarantees that the Republicans will have to either go along with whatever new spending and taxing that the Democrats demand or risk losing the 2012 election by sharing the blame for another financial disaster.

In short, the Republicans have now been maneuvered into being held responsible for the spending orgy that Democrats alone had the votes to create. Republicans have been had -- and so has the country. The recent, short-lived budget deal turns out to be not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. It has the earmarks of a Pyrrhic defeat.

you buncha....


NOTHING BEATS ARCHIE !

Personally I am a Jughead fan but.. jug head digest seems to lack the notoriety.

Upvote for the Archie hair!

Part one, I think that might be a little bit harsh. Even though you (and I) believe civil liberties are important, there's no denying that they -have- been used as a distraction and a wedge issue. Albeit primarily by the conservatives. And no, both parties are -not- "exactly the same" on the "important" issues. I dunno, PHJF, maybe you weren't too harsh.

But on part two, did anyone really think we'd "conquered" prejudice and bigotry? I know I sure as hell didn't... You've never had to look far to see that it's still well accounted for, if not quite as in-your-face as Archie Bunker used to be. The human race is full of those that just love being assholes, especially when they can do so towards a relatively powerless minority, with plenty of other assholes keeping them company.

>> ^PHJF:

Uhhh I think civil liberties are sort of important, you douchebag. It's a shame MLK didn't include "... and gay people, too," in his I Have a Dream. We're today trudging through the same filth and muck of intolerance we supposedly conquered decades ago.

and so i watch you from afar, the haunted, low frequency in stereo, 65daysofstatic, japandroids, pains of being pure at heart, beach house, ben howard, these are powers, wildbirds & peacedrums, jonsi, wovenhand, mumford & sons, the low anthem, do make say think, archie bronson outfit, paul kalkbrenner. (but i dunno)

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Sammy Davis Jr meets Archie Bunker (All in the Family) - 2. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

My fav cover of "Lush Life" is an interp from saxophonist Archie Schepp....frikkin' sweeeeet!

SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
Gone-The Oohlas

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Buffy Theme-The Breeders

WHAT DO YOU LIKE IN A GUY/GIRL?
Come On-Tean and Sara

HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?
Paperback Writer- The Beatles

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?
Sugar, Sugar- The Archies

WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
She Smiled Sweetly-The Rollin Stones

WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
You've got to Hide Your Love Away-The Beatles

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR PARENTS?
Bang On-The Breeders (ewwwww.....)

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
I Will Survive

WHAT IS 2+2?
Gone for Good-The Shins

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?
The First- Tegan and Sara

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Energy- The Apples in Stereo

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Broken Face-Pixies

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
The Celibate Life- The Shins

WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Shuffle Your Feet-Black Rebel Motorcycle Club

WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
Here No More- The Breeders

WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?
Hi-Ho Silver Lining- Jeff Beck

WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
Sweet Caroline- Neil Diamond

WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk- Rufus Wainwright

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
Walk It Off- The Breeders

WHATS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN?
Do You Love Me Now- The Breeders

HOW WILL YOU DIE?
Here Comes the Sun- The Beatles

WHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU REGRET?
Walking With a Ghost- Tegan and Sara

WHAT MAKES YOU LAUGH?
Heroin- The Velvet Underground

WHAT MAKES YOU CRY?
I Don't Do Crowds-Camera Obscura

WILL YOU EVER GET MARRIED?
Hoverin'- The Breeders

WHAT SCARES YOU THE MOST?
Venus in Furs- The Velvet Underground

DOES ANYONE LIKE YOU?
Divine Hammer- The Breeders

IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?
Small Parts- The Oohlas

WHAT HURTS RIGHT NOW?
Girl on the Wing- The Shins

Hey , Winstonfield_Pennypacker ,
is all that you do hate?
With 3 votes for videos in 1.5 years?
426 comments , and 3 votes? Isn't there anything that you actually like?
Or are you in fact a modern metaphor for archie bunker .
You don't know science .
You bail out of any argument or debate as soon as it becomes clear your losing .
So you come here to bitch at people who don't believe the same as you .
To what end or effect ?
what change is it you hope to affect ?
This site isn't only about american points of view .
And just in case you hadn't noticed the pendulum went the other way the last time we had a say in it.
I hope you find something that makes you happy , somewhere , cause from reading your stuff , this aint it .

1 last thing , you haven't even heard the american left .
try amy goodman / juan gonzalez and democracy now , you've been getting it easy for a long time from the Centrist Media.
The 1st time you meet the real progressive radical left , your brains gonna go boom.

Most of those activities you mentioned require the use of force, so they can't be done by private citizens, because the use of force is exclusive to government. Any other activity that doesn't require the use of force shouldn't be done by government because it can be done (and will tend to be done better) by the private sector.

How exactly is force the exclusive domain of the government? What about the polluter that is forcing you to breath lower quality air? I can't do anything about that. I need a government to enforce my property rights over the air. Yes, the government employs force. It's our only recourse against the force employed by concentrated capital.


If anarchy was the end result of libertarian ideals, they would be called anarchists. Corporate oligarchies are much more likely when government regulates the economy, and gets in bed with corporations. You have to realize that any "archy" requires government, force. It can't sprout out of markets where force is not allowed.

Please explain to me the law of nature which prevents corporate oligarchy in the absence of government force. Collusion is the rational selection for a small number of powerful agents. They reap the return, prevent entry into marketplaces, and price gouge when privy to exclusive control over an inelastic market (such as healthcare). You've been reading Ludwig too much... I'd recommend reading more of his brother Richard's work. He actually contributed to knowledge.


Does that overhead in the private sector have anything to do with excessive government regulation of the healthcare insurance market? Maybe it would be less of a burden to compete in a market that is almost 60% provided by government?

Hopefully not. I'm a single-payer kinda guy. Like I stated, healthcare is an inelastic market like police, fire, and water. As such, it should be provided by the government because the status quo of a small number of profit-driven actors in the market leads to price gouging.


Government and the Fed created the moral hazards that led to what you're attributing as the cause. A lot of people acted stupidly, you're saying it's cultural, that people "got greedy", ignoring the incentives and government guarantees that led people to believe there weren't any risks.

I'm not saying people got greedy (though the few did). I'm saying the majority of people got stupid. The laws that were in place to prevent the overextension of consumer credit were withdrawn. That is, they removed government intervention in the marketplace. That allowed unfortunate people to overextend themselves to the benefit of the few. Now, before you go off on some rant about the laws governing entrance into the sub-prime housing market, remember those laws would not have been nearly as dangerous had they not also repealed restrictions on debt securitization, turned a blind eye to insurance market regulation of CDS, and loosened fraction reserve restrictions. Those three de-regulatory events had, imo, far more reaching ramifications in this crisis. They removed the counter-party risk from debt initiators, and instead incentivized predatory lending. It was not government subsidy of the sub-prime market that distorted the incentives. It was the banks writing a junk bond, and slapping a smily face on it.


Ever hear of "cutting your losses"? There's no "sell high" here, the US can't pay back its lenders, not at the rate the US government is spending and willing to spend for the next few years, and not in a recession where government is ruining productivity. China will be part of the recovery effort alright, but they'll much rather do it without the US strapped to its back.
Think about it, if China lent the US more than a trillion dollars, it's better to lose that money than lend us 2 or 3 more trillions just to watch even more money go to waste. They don't need us.

Actually, they do. If our dollar were to suddenly become worthless, they would have no currency reserves. While I agree, they have the upper hand in this, they've already seen what a collapse of consumption on our soil does to their own economic growth. Without that growth, the chinese government doesn't have a political toothpick to stand on. I think you'd be surprised with the swings in currency valuation these days just how much higher the dollar could yet climb back. Our workforce is skilled, and increasingly well educated. In any event, it doesn't make sense to sell all at once. What they'll probably do is wait until the systematic risk has stabilized, and then slowly convert their treasury notes into special drawing rights at a rate which will not drastically undermine valuation of the dollar. I agree however, they will likely discontinue purchasing the debt, forcing us into "quantitative easing" (another winner from the PR team).


The Constitution is a good reference, most things the federal government does that are not expressly authorized in the Constitution are excesses.

So the market for nuclear weapons, particularly when wielded by militiamen, shouldn't be regulated?


NetRunner, is that you? I guess you think hyperinflation is a synonym for "awesome".
If you actually studied Austrian economics and you think it's "non-mathematical" and "BS", yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're beyond help.

Net who? No, I'm afraid there can be more than one educated progressive. I didn't say hyperinflation... I said inflation. Between 2 and 4% inflation is a good thing. If you disagree, you are beyond help.

As for the Austrian school, yes, it's BS. It's been discredited repeatedly. The predictions don't hold water, so they say "you can't use mathematics because people are too complicated." Even the Chicago school monetarists (many of whom worked with Von Mises) know it's BS. Once you run out of room with monetary policy what should you do is the only argument left. I think the Keynesians about have that fight won now that they've shown how to explain the late seventies.


Don't worry about that. Keep rules simple, no fraud, enforce contracts, no use of force. Everything else will tend to sort itself out. Also, don't be afraid of technology.

No force, but enforce contracts. Right. You show no regard for the existence of externalities, nor the rampant exploitation of the commons by the private sector. In fact, you explicitly removed that single section from my post indicating either your ignorance of basic economics, or an intentional dodging of the topic.

It's easy not to worry about how the rules are set up so long as they are benefitting you. Once you see that not everybody is getting a fair deal, you realize the moral, and even selfish reasons for entering a broader scoped social contract. In the end, we all benefit from a well educated, healthy society. We just need to put up the VC.

>> ^bmacs27:
Well, one could argue that government of any sort is government intervention in the economy. That's why anarchists and libertarians so often get confused. Think about it. There's a market for murder. There's a market for "protection". There's a market for "waste disposal". So really, the question always boils down to 'what specific government interventions into the marketplace are you for?'

Most of those activities you mentioned require the use of force, so they can't be done by private citizens, because the use of force is exclusive to government. Any other activity that doesn't *require* the use of force shouldn't be done by government because it can be done (and will tend to be done better) by the private sector.

To me, while anarchy seems like the end result of libertarian ideals... really it's rule by corporate oligarchy, with rampant exploitation of the commons.

If anarchy was the end result of libertarian ideals, they would be called anarchists. Corporate oligarchies are much more likely when government regulates the economy, and gets in bed with corporations. You have to realize that any "archy" requires government, force. It can't sprout out of markets where force is not allowed.

How about like this: Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007

Does that overhead in the private sector have anything to do with excessive government regulation of the healthcare insurance market? Maybe it would be less of a burden to compete in a market that is almost 60% provided by government?

I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion. Afterwards, they put a gun to our head and handed us the tab. In other words, print the dough, or the pitchforks and torches tear the whole joint down. The only reason their hustle didn't work indefinitely is because too many of US were spending money we didn't have. Changing that is going to take a cultural shift that is already beginning.

Government and the Fed created the moral hazards that led to what you're attributing as the cause. A lot of people acted stupidly, you're saying it's cultural, that people "got greedy", ignoring the incentives and government guarantees that led people to believe there weren't any risks.

Ever hear of buy low, sell high? No, I think China is more likely to just borrow against it, and start picking up their part of the consumption. They're already pulling the world out of this recession.

Ever hear of "cutting your losses"? There's no "sell high" here, the US can't pay back its lenders, not at the rate the US government is spending and willing to spend for the next few years, and not in a recession where government is ruining productivity. China will be part of the recovery effort alright, but they'll much rather do it without the US strapped to its back.

Think about it, if China lent the US more than a trillion dollars, it's better to lose that money than lend us 2 or 3 more trillions just to watch even more money go to waste. They don't need us.

Yes. Define excessive.

The Constitution is a good reference, most things the federal government does that are not expressly authorized in the Constitution are excesses.

Spending is serious business, it's inflation you all gotta relax about. Is it worth having the "why inflation is good for the economy" argument with you? Or would you rather go back to your non-mathematical Austrian school BS, and we can just agree to disagree?

NetRunner, is that you? I guess you think hyperinflation is a synonym for "awesome".

If you actually studied Austrian economics and you think it's "non-mathematical" and "BS", yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're beyond help.

I agree, it's difficult to write laws without unintended consequences. That is, you can always game the rules. One should not conclude from this, however, that you shouldn't try and write rules. Instead, you should just write them faster than the douche bags can game them. You always need more rules. Every time there is an advance in technology, you need more rules. Why? Technology makes it easier to game the rules, and exploit the commons, just like it makes it easier to do everything else.

Don't worry about that. Keep rules simple, no fraud, enforce contracts, no use of force. Everything else will tend to sort itself out. Also, don't be afraid of technology.