Oh, don't kill it! Yours has its own charm. The visuals that have nothing to do with dogs or fish are actually quite lovely.

In reply to this comment by calvados:
I'd forgotten about the whole fishin' trip thing. Yes, your video is FAR better. Mine actually detracts from the song.

Let's let yours run on. I'm tempted to kill mine, actually, but the votes that would perish that way mean less renown for TCJ on Videosift. I wonder if I can fool Siftbot into thinking mine's a dupe of yours? Then the votes would be transferred over.

We sure do!



In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
I didn't notice yours when I posted! Or if I did, I already forgot.... brain like swiss cheese lately.

Those were weird visuals on your posting. Started out great, but the timing was odd, wasn't it? Too quick on the fades. And what do fish have to do with anything?

I do love this song. I know EXACTLY where I was when I first heard the first notes of the Trinity Session CD. I was cleaved in two. Rooted. I think I stopped breathing. I know I stopped moving. It still gets to me.

We have good taste!

In reply to this comment by calvados:
Oh they'll both make it. But yes, I was reminded of TCJ thanks to you posting "Mining for Gold", which is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard.

I like it so much that I posted it awhile ago, actually. It should appear in your related videos. But I'm not fussed about it and yours is getting lots of views these days, which is all to the good, since the world needs more people who know the Cowboy Junkies. Your video for that song is superior to mine, too.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
So if your Blue Moon gets published and my Mining for Gold doesn't....

It'll be proof of no justice in the world.

Or proof of my taste in music is lacking.... I didn't sift this because I liked their original better. (You did find this after watching Mining for Gold, right? If not... then ignore this comment.)

I didn't notice yours when I posted! Or if I did, I already forgot.... brain like swiss cheese lately.

Those were weird visuals on your posting. Started out great, but the timing was odd, wasn't it? Too quick on the fades. And what do fish have to do with anything?

I do love this song. I know EXACTLY where I was when I first heard the first notes of the Trinity Session CD. I was cleaved in two. Rooted. I think I stopped breathing. I know I stopped moving. It still gets to me.

We have good taste!

In reply to this comment by calvados:
Oh they'll both make it. But yes, I was reminded of TCJ thanks to you posting "Mining for Gold", which is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard.

I like it so much that I posted it awhile ago, actually. It should appear in your related videos. But I'm not fussed about it and yours is getting lots of views these days, which is all to the good, since the world needs more people who know the Cowboy Junkies. Your video for that song is superior to mine, too.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
So if your Blue Moon gets published and my Mining for Gold doesn't....

It'll be proof of no justice in the world.

Or proof of my taste in music is lacking.... I didn't sift this because I liked their original better. (You did find this after watching Mining for Gold, right? If not... then ignore this comment.)

...like an officer and a gentleman. Class as always, sir.
In reply to this comment by calvados:
^I'm not fussed about it.

*isdupe
>> ^calvados:

^I'm not fussed about it.

^I'm not fussed about it.

I have a 19month old daughter and I read that article last week along with my wife. We are both very, very concerned about the sexualisation of women in the media (Killing us softly gives great pause). We'll be doing our damndest to make a tomboy out of our daughter (not that difficult I don't think, she has 3 older brothers )

It's interesting that the article mentions Katy Perry and California Girls; There's a family we're friends with who's daughter just started school (so 5yrs old) and last time we were over at their house she was singing and dancing on the table to California Girls. That song and video clip (and Katy Fricken Perry) are exactly the sort of shit that girls should NOT be watching. It purely paints women as things to be looked at and to fuss over their looks and shoot whipped cream out of their breasts... wait, what?

That girl has been raised in EXACTLY the way that is enforcing the consumerist, image focused bullshit that we hate as parents.

When it comes to TV shows I'd like her to watch things like Kim Possible (although still with bloody cheerleading etc.) because she's a ridiculously capable secret agent, rather than tripe like Hanna Montanna or iCarli.

At the moment about the only thing she watches (in small doses) is Austalia's own Wiggles, which she loves and 'sings' and dances to. Actually, this morning when I dressed her I purposely picked out an outfit that had NO pink in it We originally were going to have a 'no pink' rule completely, but then it'd be very hard to actually buy ANY clothes for her.

So, yeah. My opinion is that for all of women's lib it seems to have been swinging way into the realms of getting girls to think about dating and sex and being sexy earlier and earlier and earlier... and it's quite sick.


It's going to be a challenge indeed to raise a girl with a healthy self esteem, no hang ups on her looks, a belief in her abilities AND still not have her be a prude or have any hang up about sex etc. when she's older.

*sigh*... kids, aren't they great?

>> ^quantumushroom:

As the blind would say: BRAILLIANT!


Except they couldn't see the ad so they'd be lost as to what all the fuss was about.

@chilaxe, what sub-culture are you referring to? Why are you assuming that the only factor in hiring political appointees to cabinet-level positions would be cognitive ability? Seems to me management skills, loyalty, and ideological compatibility would matter a lot more, even to politicians I like, than cognitive ability.

In any case, I think you're fundamentally asking the wrong question. Someone working for Kasich must have mentioned that this would be an issue, politically. If it was a matter of Kasich wanting to appoint someone, but wasn't able to find even one qualified non-white conservative to give a position to, then I sorta sympathize with him. He's just a victim of the larger conservative movement's hostility to anyone who isn't Caucasian.

Thing is, he seems to be relishing the fight. Going so far as to respond to a black Democrat who offered to help him with building a more diverse cabinet, he said "I don't need your people." He later released a clarifying statement that by "your people" he meant Democrats, but the damage was already done.

You see, my theory isn't that Kasich himself is necessarily racist. My theory is that he, and the Republican party in general, seek the support of racists. Better still, they seek to portray white people as being somehow persecuted by minorities and their liberal allies.

That's why he pushed back when people questioned him about it. He's not excluding black people, he's just hiring the most qualified people, and obviously that means blacks won't make the cut. If he thought he could've gotten away with it, he'd have made the same bell-curve argument you were hinting at, but that would've been too overt. The dog whistle is only meant to be heard by the people who know what they're listening for, not by normal people who find racism abhorrent.

Now he gets the best of both worlds. The racists can think that he only let a black man in his cabinet because he got pressured by the black community (persecution!), and the rest of the conservatives can go "see, he's not racist, I don't know why those pesky Democrats made such a fuss about it."

It's the state of the art in racial politics. You undermine legitimate claims by painting them as partisan politics, while at the same time you push veiled racist arguments into the mainstream (I'm not hiring a token black guy...because that's all they could possibly be, a token).

It's genius. Evil, but genius none the less.

Is the American ego so fragile that it is shattered by a mere song? Why all the fuss, take it standing up, not whining like babies. It's a damn song, get over your pompous selves.

If tea partiers and such are offended by everything, and nothing seems to make them happy then why can't America just ignore them?

Goota love that Dave / Lars hug, those guys were very good friends before all the fuss.
Peace in the Metal Militia !

@Tymbrwulf, well put, and I have the same thought about how we go about functioning as a society without any real way of sorting truth from misinformation.

I think the response that I (and I believe Keith) would give to that is that this is how it's always been. It's a bit more obvious now that more people have vastly improved means to do their own "fact checking" against what other people have written, but an interested person can find source information to back any position by doing faulty research, or relying on dubious sources.

The value journalists can provide, have always tried to provide, is a way to boil down all the data, try to filter out the noise, put it into context, and then glean the salient relevancy to their readers/listeners/viewers, and present it to them.

The problem is that journalists can also twist all their stories to meet an agenda. They can ignore all the data points that don't support their view, they can conceal or misrepresent the context, and they can blow the importance of a trivial story completely out of proportion.

That problem doesn't go away if the journalists have an agenda of appearing objective by pretending that both sides of a political debate are always making valid arguments. In fact, it's can be worse, because they think that they're being objective, when all they're really doing is making sure their reporting carefully avoids upsetting either partisan camp.

The result is that we have supposed "hard" journalists going out of their way to make every story ultimately say that no sequence of events ever vindicates or repudiates the political philosophy held by any activists, and anything bad that happens in politics or government is always equally to blame on both parties.

For example, they can't say that the BP oil spill casts a tremendous amount of doubt on the idea that corporations will regulate themselves if we eliminate safety inspections. They also can't say that it's largely Republicans who've worked tirelessly for decades to reduce the amount of safety regulations, and worked to systematically hamstring enforcement of what remained.

What's always safe is to criticize the current government for not having fixed the problem instantly and without fuss, and to criticize the megacorporation for trying to minimize their legal liability, the costs of the cleanup, and for using professional PR to try to limit the damage to their reputation.

But if it's just context-free ranting against the people with power in our society, it can't really ever lead to a constructive conversation about how to change our society so things like this don't happen again.

You're taking what I said wayyyyyyy out of context. I said it was typical of sensationalized Internet media to take something and make it far worse than it actually is/was. I do not and will not consider what happened in that video to be stomping on someones head, but as proven here, that can be argued. I do, however, feel it was out of line and the people responsible should be investigated.

This is why it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people these days. You can say whatever you want, and that's that. Nothing is open for discussion or disagreement anymore.

Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.

Objective judgment? Possibly. It is of my judgment that they went too far in what they did to her. That said, at least I'm honest about my objective judgment and am willing to admit that's what it is. I suppose others could say they didn't go far enough in what they did to her, which would make my opinion on this a judgment call.

In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized? That's truly sad. I thought better of you, but I guess you're like the typical majority of Internet opinion makers -- if I disagree with you, you get mad at me for it. Oh well.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hPOD" title="member since August 6th, 2010" class="profilelink">hPOD ahh, so instead of titling it with objective fact, I should title it with subjective judgment?
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK, umm, my title should be funny? I think "roughs up" is inaccurate (I usually think of that as involving multiple strikes), I think "assaults" has a legal connotation, I think "pushes down" isn't what all the fuss is about, and you're the one bringing up crazy things that didn't happen (rape & murder).
To both of you, just google Lauren Valle, and look at the press headlines describing this event. Most include the word "stomp", including the current embed from the Associated Press. The ones that don't aren't really any less inflammatory. Many use the verb "attacked", one said "brutally attacked", another said "kicked in the head", and a student newspaper even called it "A Crack of the Skull 'Heard Around the World'".
The most mild I've seen is "stepped on" her head, but I'd say that implies that it was unintentional, and it clearly was no accident.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
With alllll that being said, what happened here was completely shitty. I almost hate that the title is so much of an issue more than what has actually happened.

Here's what really makes me mad, at both you and hPOD, frankly. You are the ones making a federal case out of the word choice in my title, rather than focusing on the act itself.
You are the ones who feel you need to come and express concern for my immortal soul because of the horrors of my base and vile dishonesty -- in copying my fucking title from a professional news outlet that was being more fastidious about its facts than most.
Condemn the guy who stomped on the woman's head, not me for calling it a stomp.

@hPOD ahh, so instead of titling it with objective fact, I should title it with subjective judgment?

@GeeSussFreeK, umm, my title should be funny? I think "roughs up" is inaccurate (I usually think of that as involving multiple strikes), I think "assaults" has a legal connotation, I think "pushes down" isn't what all the fuss is about, and you're the one bringing up crazy things that didn't happen (rape & murder).

To both of you, just google Lauren Valle, and look at the press headlines describing this event. Most include the word "stomp", including the current embed from the Associated Press. The ones that don't aren't really any less inflammatory. Many use the verb "attacked", one said "brutally attacked", another said "kicked in the head", and a student newspaper even called it "A Crack of the Skull 'Heard Around the World'".

The most mild I've seen is "stepped on" her head, but I'd say that implies that it was unintentional, and it clearly was no accident.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
With alllll that being said, what happened here was completely shitty. I almost hate that the title is so much of an issue more than what has actually happened.

Here's what really makes me mad, at both you and hPOD, frankly. You are the ones making a federal case out of the word choice in my title, rather than focusing on the act itself.

You are the ones who feel you need to come and express concern for my immortal soul because of the horrors of my base and vile dishonesty -- in copying my fucking title from a professional news outlet that was being more fastidious about its facts than most.

Condemn the guy who stomped on the woman's head, not me for calling it a stomp.

That was a silly comment Net... In no way did Blank suggest that being racist or overlooking racism was fine---so long as it overall diminishes.

But this is my thought on the matter. Division is what? White versus black, old versus young, North versus South, Democrat (You) versus Republican, belivers versus non, rich versus poor. The list goes on, but the point is; what is classification, or better termed, what is divisionism among humans (And some animals?)

It is a natural survival mechanism. Just like sexual impulses.

Does it make it right? No. Has it existed since humans first formed? Yes. Is it exclusive to one or another culture? No, it is in every culture. It is Mother Nature's dark impulses.

As you buy tvs, laptops and other such goods for dirt cheap, think on this. You made slaves of other "divsions" of people who work in poverty so you don't have to. If that is not racisms equal, then I do not know what is. Oh, we can say "We are not explotists," but of course that does not make it so.

My final point is, Divisonism (The head of all schisms) will be alive and well for all the time humans live.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
My grandmother was a racist. Was. That's why I think this guy can be so calm, because he knows that era is almost at a close.

The era is at a close?
You've lived in America during the last couple years, right?
Besides, the era of human sacrifice is pretty much over, does that mean I shouldn't be horrified if someone does one in front of me?

Yes today's racism is exactly like it was 50 years ago.

There are fewer human sacrifices today than there were 2,000 years ago. That's why I never bat an eye when people do them now. I'm so confident that they're going away, I simply refuse to make a fuss over ritual killings anymore.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
My grandmother was a racist. Was. That's why I think this guy can be so calm, because he knows that era is almost at a close.

The era is at a close?
You've lived in America during the last couple years, right?
Besides, the era of human sacrifice is pretty much over, does that mean I shouldn't be horrified if someone does one in front of me?

Yes today's racism is exactly like it was 50 years ago.


There are fewer human sacrifices today than there were 2,000 years ago. That's why I never bat an eye when people do them now. I'm so confident that they're going away, I simply refuse to make a fuss over ritual killings anymore.