@rottenseed
I think that's somewhat debatable. Etymology doesn't tell the whole story of the inception of a word or phrase. I at least can find some sources that suggest the opposite is true: http://ebookbrowse.com/caliban-and-the-witch-pdf-d19978416

"Several authors have also uncovered the fact that there was a definite queer element to many of the sects concerned. Almost one thousand years ago, these people were expressing a unity of struggle which survives in broken form even today, no matter how much assimilated queers, career women and left-wing defenders of heterosexuality may insist otherwise."

This author adds the following notation for the source as well: "10 While not a scholarly work, Arthur Evans’ Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture: A Radical View of Western Civilization and Some of the People It Has Tried to Destroy (Fag Rag Books, 1978) is the earliest sympathetic formulation of this argument that I know of; more recent and more scholarly works include John Boswell’s Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality : gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century (University of Chicago Press, c1980) and Jeffrey Richards’ Sex, dissidence, and damnation : minority groups in the Middle Ages (Routledge 1991)."

----------

Solid evidence? Hardly. But it does seem, based on what I'm seeing in the research, that the connection is at least a possibility.

Now THAT is true.

Seriously though - I can't think of a single person in the GOP of any note that is a "birther" in the sense that they don't think Obama was born in Hawaii. So far it seems to me that the cuckoo far-left fringe and their media shills (MSNBC) are far more obsessed with this issue than anyone on the right. MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NTY, AP, et al are running 'birther' stories at a 4 to 1 ratio compared to FOX News. People that are whining "Let it go!" should be directing their venom at the left wing media complex, not the birthers.

But of course the neo-lib media won't let it go because it gives them a way to do what they do best... That is to deliberately screw up terminology, perception, and language in order to paint the sins of a tiny fringe with a big fat brush onto anyone they don't like. Now all the liberally biased media outlets are literally screaming like frothing lunatics that anyone who wants to see 'records' is a racist/bigot.

Bullcrap. There are people who want to see Obama's records. There is NOTHING WRONG with that. Any person who runs for ANY public office from Dogcatcher to President should be willing and able to supply any and all records on request. That is not a big deal. Just because people want to see Obama's records doesn't make them either 'birthers' or racists. That's just a load of garbage that neo-lib left wing propogandists are screaming loudly and often in the plaintive, desperate hope that the stupid and inattentive will believe it.

But reality check time. Obama isn't the first President who had this issue swirling around him. Chester Arthur, Barry Goldwater, and John McCain just a few who have had to produce records about thier births to settle controversies. And they're all WHITE guys. So please - none of this BULLCRAP that Obama is some sort of innocent, unique victim of racism over this birth certificate issue. Give me a break. What a steaming pile of hotspur. The whole issue wasn't even STARTED by the GOP. Hillary Clinton's campaign was the first group to bring this all up.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I don't know if Meg Ryan is a bitch or not, but who cares when you can have Helen Mirren. I might even see the remake of Arthur only because she's in it. But probably not. More than 5 minutes of Russell Brand and the exit sign looks mighty appealing. >> ^Yogi:
Why wouldn't the original Sally come do this? Oh right...she's a bitch.



She is...here's her on Parkinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWEdi4uf7Eo

I don't know if Meg Ryan is a bitch or not, but who cares when you can have Helen Mirren. I might even see the remake of Arthur only because she's in it. But probably not. More than 5 minutes of Russell Brand and the exit sign looks mighty appealing. >> ^Yogi:

Why wouldn't the original Sally come do this? Oh right...she's a bitch.

He looks like Arthur from Degrassi Jnr High
http://degrassi.wikia.com/wiki/Arthur_Kobalewscuy

http://videosift.com/video/How-Arthur-Became-King-of-the-Britons-Holy-Grail

great clip! here it is on the Sift with subtitles....


>> ^ToastyBuffoon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS_1bzaj2fw

>> ^spaceman:

Why I don't care:
1) You once believed in a god.
2) You are a guy.


@spaceman | The reason why the rest of us watch and listen to "just some guy; who believed in God":

The only reason you can type your sentence is from/due-to "other" men. Religion in all forms is from "other" men (unless you claim to hear voices or a physical divinity; but, please, not as an affront to you, make sure you're not psychotic or schizophrenic before telling us your interesting story as that is the case almost always; same with drug use; same with some other illnesses: narcolepsy, sleep walking, night terrors/sleep paralysis, and many other sleep related issues and all nervous system illnesses). Only a few things below talk more about what you said.
--------------------------
--------------------------
A little more to add to the conversation. Hopefully, this gets it all out as it will be fairly long, but the video is hard to reply to in a short manner. I hope this covers a large extent of what I wish to say about this very well done video witness/testimony.


One set of values you can research and witness to it's validity on your own, as he has done. Science also allows for this methodology, using the well known precept of "The Scientific Method".

A quick example is that many people of faith, even Evid3nc3, talks of feeling "x" with their "hearts" and knowing "x" with their "soul". In science there is nothing more than a simple, yet complicated, physical processes. It's all a creation and manifestation in your brain; if you think you "feel" something with your heart you're causing minor self-hysteria to the extent of creating a minor hallucination.

The "soul" is called the(primarily in psychology, neuroscience, and neurology; there are many other terms that try to mean "you"; typically, in grossly inaccurate ways, such as: ghosts, "psychic" remote viewing, many religions use of the magical-energy-divine soul, etc...) psyche which is typically (starting from the outer-functions and moving into core-functions) sensory systems, language center, feelings, memory, and then the key-piece the neo-cortex. So it must be understood that your brain does a lot of things still baffling (mostly the mechanics or mechanisms of function and chemistry), but the overall picture is fairly clear.

But, the brain is not a floating energy source, nor is it an absolute definition at any given point or time. Depending on how and where you look at the brain the very concept of you is different. It more akin to superposition of an electron or a kaleidoscope; the definition of you is not concrete until measured and even then you are already not what was measured.

Even from what little we do know, belief plays a central role in how our neo-cortex makes decisions and operates (even with memory and other functions, which is why we do make many mistakes as it's due to how our brain physically commits to anything it must or will do; it's perhaps the single best reason to show why, "To err is human; to forgive, divine."; you don't understand the human condition if you cannot forgive...). Could this translate into a bigger picture; our connected neurons telling us to accept faith and belief, sometimes, because that is what it does at the small scale?

*Offtopic Look up articles, books, and videos (look at TED for Marvin Minsky, Jeff Hawkins, Craig Venter, Jonathan Haidt and others --some of which are here on the sift-- related topics on there like the Mind, AI, facial-pattern-contextual-semantics-divergent-cat vs. dog software based Recognition, and then other media pertaining to 'Artificial Intelligence') or if you want to know strictly about how the brain works and makes it's decisions, look for a type of setup called a "hierarchical structure"; also known as a pyramid or pyramid scheme. One cell makes a decision based off of the accumulations of "guesses" the other millions of cells connected to it made; these cells are fundamentally the foundation for that setup, but the neurons are more flexible than that as each can be a parent and also part of the "foundation" structure, making the brain a fantastic structure. With time this becomes accurate (this occurs in less than a few milliseconds), although our vision, for an example, is horrifically distorted and wrong, if you could look at one "frame" based on a few cells. Only a small fraction of the frame would be correct; literally it would be as though your senses got one pixel correct in a 1080p image. Yet, repeat this millions of times with different data sets each round (and this is done as said above, fast) you get an accurate picture; or at the least 20/20-to about one-arc minute (the resolution for the human eye, on average).

One set you can't test, we call that belief or faith. "What is the reasoning for taking the leap of faith?", this is what you have to defend at this point. If faith is your only defense, I will (like many others will) assume you haven't looked into your own faith enough yet or you even refuse to look out of fear of being wrong. If you do not understand the topic you must be willing to ask for help as he did or you'll be a slave to your willful decision of ignorance, to the extent that you feel compelled to defend them, but you never convince anyone except yourself--and for yourself it is only because of the rote-righteous indignation.

If it's true it should withstand all scrutiny. Unless truth isn't your ultimate goal. Then, for us and many others there is no reason to follow your faith. Usually, this type of merit and defense are directly related to age due to learning this all when you're a child and devoid of an intense ability to decipher, attribute values, connect, and draw in a belief (if with some facts and proof you could call it a hypothesis).

It's all from men... I'm wagering you're dismissing this flippantly due to religion; if not what exactly is your point, as I truly would like to know why and where this claim of non-relativistic knowledge comes from, without a woman or man?

Also, if it has to do with his belief in being mistaken for believing in God that's a moot point as we have all erred in life. I know of no person that has reliably been able to "claim divinity", other than Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, etc... But, we also know now that mental illness and other factors can account for any manic or psychotic leanings. We also know magicians (or magister, proper) have been around A LONG TIME.

Plus, as Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". Which then one must ask another question, "Can divinity itself ever be established as being magic only?". This is then rounded up by a statement from Larry Niven (sometimes called Niven's Law(s)), "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology.". These collide and distinctly form a conclusion about divinity and any of it's powers (descriptive magic or divinity and it's "how to use it" manual are indefensibly getting closer in each step to being more akin to physics; plus the Christian God hates magic, which begs the question, "Why do you need a God, if we can exact the same effects?"):

Divinity can only hope to use advanced knowledge and technology in a collusion to bring about one standpoint alone: "divinity" if described by God in any kind of ruleset (some of it is in the bible, already) stands on a rigorously tested and time shown: shaky ground.

Men would be gods whether God existed or not.

(P.S.: only the beginning and some bits here and there are for you, @spaceman. The rest is for our vestibule.)

Again I must add that this is a great find @dystopianfuturetoday.
You're doing yourself a great disservice not watching it (or all of it as the case may be).

I recommend you all forget about the Kubrick / Spielberg melodrama and go read the source material. Brian Aldiss eventually wrote three short stories about David. In fact, in a foreword titled "attempting to please" he talks about Kubrick, Spielberg, AI, etc. It's quite interesting. Here, let me type out a bit of it:

"So why was 'Supertoys' not filmed? [...] My belief is that he [Kubrick] was basically mistaken. Obsessed with the big blockbuster SF movies of the time, he was determined to take my sorrowing domestic scene out into the galaxy. After all, he had wrought similarly to great success with [Arthur C.] Clarke's story.

But 'The Sentinel' looks outward to begin with. It speaks of a mystery elsewhere, whereas 'Supertoys' speaks of a mystery within. David suffers because he does not know he is a machine. Here is the real drama; as Mary Shelley said of her Frankenstein, it 'speaks to the mysterious fears of our nature'.

A possible film could be made of 'Supertoys' showing David facing his real nature. It comes as a shock to realise he is a machine. He malfunctions. Perhaps his father takes him to a factory where a thousand identical androids step off the line. Does he autodestruct? The audience should be subjected to a tense and alarming drama of claustrophobia, to be left with the final questions, 'Does it matter that David is a machine? Should it matter? And to what extent are we all machines?'

Behind such metaphysical puzzles remains the simple story - the story that attracted Stanley Kubrick - of a boy who was never able to please his mother. A story of love rejected."

This table wins.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by kulpims.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/King-Arthur-WISHES-hed-had-one-of-these

Hello Dave, it would be great if you could review Umbertos Clam House on Arthur Avenue in the Bronx for Italian Delicacies. It has great range of Seafood, Steaks, Pastas and Chops….definitely worth featuring.....

The Guardian had a poignant remark about MasterCard and VISA during their live coverage:

4.14pm: Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are "white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God."

"Guess Who?"

by

Thomas Sowell

Guess who said the following: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?

Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR's closest advisers. He added, "after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Professor Burton W. Folsom, Jr., of Hillsdale College.

Ordinarily, what happened in the 1930s might be something to be left for historians to be concerned about. But the very same kinds of policies that were tried-- and failed-- during the 1930s are being carried out in Washington today, with the advocates of such policies often invoking FDR's New Deal as a model.

Franklin D. Roosevelt blamed the country's woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.

Whole generations have been "educated" to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History text books by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.

Although Professor Schlesinger admitted that he had little interest in economics, that did not stop him from making sweeping statements about what a great economic achievement the New Deal was.

Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia likewise declared: "The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties had been pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive." Anyone unfamiliar with the history of that era might never suspect from such statements that the 1920s were a decade of unprecedented prosperity and the 1930s were a decade of the deepest and longest-lasting depression in American history. But facts have taken a back seat to rhetoric.

In more recent years, there have been both academic studies and popular books debunking some of the myths about the New Deal. Nevertheless, Professor Folsom's book "New Deal or Raw Deal?" breaks new ground. Although written by an academic scholar and based on years of documented research, it is as readable as a newspaper-- and a lot more informative than most.

There are few historic events whose legends are more grossly different from the reality than the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. And there are few men whose image has been more radically different from the man himself.

Some of the most devastating things that were said about FDR were not said by his political enemies but by people who worked closely with him for years-- Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau being just one. Morgenthau saw not only the utter failure of Roosevelt's policies, but also the failure of Roosevelt himself, who didn't even know enough economics to realize how little he knew.

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt's ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics. To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

President Roosevelt's strong suit was politics, not economics. He played the political game both cleverly and ruthlessly, including using both the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate his critics and opponents.

It is not a pretty story. But we need to understand it if we want to avoid the ugly consequences of very similar policies today.