I remember that blackout, I was in 1st grade in 1965 and we thought it was just our neighborhood that was affected in upstate NY. Went into school the next day and found out it was the entire northeast.

It's "Through" the eyes of truth, not "Though"

This public announcement has been brought to you by the spelling police!
The spelling police: Fighting orthographic crime one letter at a time since 1965

@Grimm, I think the right legislation to focus on is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which appears to be the genesis of federal funding for education.

Now, I confess I have no direct knowledge of the Department of Education beyond what I can google, but according to their website, their mandate is:

• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
  
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
  
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
  
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.
  

Now I'm not sure how many of those things Ron Paul is really against, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend he's only opposed to that first bullet.

But why is he opposed to that? I'm guessing the whole idea here is the money comes with strings attached. Well, that's fine, if states want to forgo that funding and ignore those strings, they can. What's his objection?

If he doesn't want the money to have strings attached, I'm open to that idea, but I would like him to put a little effort into explaining what "strings" are currently being attached, and why he thinks they're so onerous.

If he's just opposed to some specific policy the Department of Education has put in place, then he should just say that. But then it's not the Department of Education that's the problem, it's that policy that's the problem -- the Department of Education as an institution is fine, he just wants it to be run differently.

But just outright discarding the Department of Education means getting rid of popular, reasonable things like federal funding for education, collecting statistics about educational outcomes, enforcement of federal anti-discrimination law, or even basic curriculum standards (like you can't teach religious doctrine as science).

And this in a nutshell is why I never really have anything nice to say about Ron Paul anymore. Either he's a fucking clueless idiot who doesn't know anything about what the Department he supposedly wants to eliminate is responsible for, or he does know all the things the Department he wants to eliminate is responsible for, and he's just hoping normal people don't realize that eliminating it would mean cutting education funding and decriminalizing racial segregation of schools until it's too late.

One can certainly complain about the policies the Department of Education is setting -- and I see liberals doing so all the time, BTW -- but this call for the abolition of the Department in its entire is mindless, heartless insanity, and it's gotta fucking stop.

Thank you Chicchorea

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
No Twang played here...he was truly a phenomenal piece of work.

Nice sift, *promote.

Me neither -- I had to beg and promote! But now...

Peggy. Yep.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I can't believe I missed this jewel first time 'round!

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What ?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done ?"
God says. "Out on Highway 61"

Highway 61 Revisited -- Bob Dylan 1965.

>> ^soulmonarch:

Credit should go to Simon AND Garfunkle, shouldn't it?
I think it's important distinction. Paul Simon played very different music solo than in his S&G days.


From the wiki:

"I Am a Rock" is a song written by Paul Simon. It was first performed by Simon alone as the opening track on his album The Paul Simon Songbook which he originally recorded and released in August 1965, only in the United Kingdom. Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, as the American pop/folk duo Simon and Garfunkel, re-recorded it on December 14, 1965, and included as the final track on their album Sounds of Silence, which they released on January 17, 1966.

>> ^brycewi19:

I was actually always a big fan of Kevin Costner's Waterworld's opening with Universal. It showed the globe then it flooded the crap out of it.
That was probably the best part of the movie unfortunately.
Surprised that wasn't included on this collage.


The OLDEST one I can remember was "Cat Ballou" (1965)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhqUIrWaAV4

I remember "Waterworld".....good call, it just means that there are plenty more out there to do a follow-up vid to this one.

The original, unmashed:

http://videosift.com/video/Perversion-for-Profit-1965-Anti-Pornography-Short 9 minute version

http://videosift.com/video/Perversion-For-Profit-1965-31-01 31 minute version

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

First off, I'm convinced the selection of your username was motivated primarily by a desire to discourage people from addressing you directly. On to the serious stuff...

Let's go right to the "Climategate" data release. Cornell has a free piece of software called Eureqa that analyzes raw data and finds trends or formulas that could generate such data. It has no bias in its analysis; it doesn't even "know" what the data it's being fed represents; it just takes numbers and finds patterns. This guy just happened to be playing with the software at the time of this data release and decided to try it out. See the results for yourself. I wouldn't want to introduce any bias by telling you what they look like.

[Charles Monnett] has been suspended, possibly over the accuracy of his observations. - From the polar bear researcher article.

The important part of that article is in that quoted sentence and it's "possibly over the accuracy of his observations". The reason that's important is because Monnett has not been charged with anything yet; that's just Fox speculating on what he might be in trouble for. If he is found to have been dishonest, I hope he gets nailed, but let's wait and see.

Citing the hockey stick controversy is interesting because you're basically just choosing the climatologist whose findings you like over those who you don't. Hubert Lamb, the guy who put out the 1965 data with the warm "hump" in the middle ages, about 13 years later, came to agree that there would be evident global warming around 2000.

Even if you insist on sticking to his graph of the medieval warm period, we exceeded those temperatures in 2006-2007 and are still on a steep incline. It's hotter now than it's been in over 1000 years, one way or another.

Excuse me...but this is NOT Spinal Tap. Originally called "The Originals", then "The New Originals" so not to be confused with another band of the same name they finally settled on "The Thamesmen" when they recorded this single in 1965.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by gwiz665.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Premakes-Up-1965

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

(Nitpicking: I think MCMXLV would be 1945, whereas 1965 would be MCMLXV). That being said, you have a point about the video's questionable historicity (the only results Google-god gave me link back to this video). I will change the video information accordingly.

>> ^RFlagg:

Copyright MCLXV... 1165? Even if they meant MCMXLV that would put it in 1965 and DeMille died in 1959, so he directed it beyond the grave, or in the case of 1165 an ancient ancestor's thought)? Also the CDC wasn't called the Centers for Disease Control until 1970... in 1965 it would have been the Communicable Disease Center. So bad fake is bad...
EDIT: I think perhaps it should be removed from the History and Vintage channels and put back in Parody, though it does lack the humor one would expect with parody so perhaps not that one...