>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Katy seems like a fidgeter, that comes from one that is also


Cocaine!

http://www.musicfrom.nl/songteksten/Wende_Snijders/au_suivant.html

Tout nu dans ma serviette qui me servait de pagne
J'avais le rouge au front et le savon à la main
Au suivant au suivant
J'avais juste vingt ans et nous étions cent vingt
A être le suivant de celui qu'on suivait
Au suivant au suivant
J'avais juste vingt ans et je me déniaisais
Au bordel ambulant d'une armée en campagne
Au suivant au suivant

Moi j'aurais bien aimé un peu plus de tendresse
Ou alors un sourire ou bien avoir le temps
Mais au suivant au suivant
Ce ne fut pas Waterloo mais ce ne fut pas Arcole
Ce fut l'heure où l'on regrette d'avoir manqué l'école
Au suivant au suivant
Mais je jure que d'entendre cet adjudant de mes fesses
C'est des coups à vous faire des armées d'impuissants
Au suivant au suivant

Je jure sur la tête de ma première vérole
Que cette voix depuis je l'entends tout le temps
Au suivant au suivant
Cette voix qui sentait l'ail et le mauvais alcool
C'est la voix des nations et c'est la voix du sang
Au suivant au suivant
Et depuis chaque femme à l'heure de succomber
Entre mes bras trop maigres semble me murmurer
Au suivant au suivant

Tous les suivants du monde devraient se donner la main
Voilà ce que la nuit je crie dans mon délire
Au suivant au suivant
Et quand je ne délire pas j'en arrive à me dire
Qu'il est plus humiliant d'être suivi que suivant
Au suivant au suivant
Un jour je me ferai cul-de-jatte ou bonne sœur ou pendu
Enfin un de ces machins où je ne serai jamais plus
Le suivant le suivant...

Thanks for the quality.
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
*quality

Rats. I had a look on vimeo, and with google.de's video search, but didn't find one likely to be unblocked for you The song is available, but not the version with the same recycled Gorillaz video clip.
In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
Unfortunately it's blocked :
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
http://videosift.com/video/peach-stealing-monkeys-nature-boy-
nat-king-cole-remake

Unfortunately it's blocked
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
http://videosift.com/video/peach-stealing-monkeys-nature-boy-
nat-king-cole-remake

http://videosift.com/video/peach-stealing-monkeys-nature-boy-nat-king-cole-remake

thought you might dig this:
http://videosift.com/video/peach-stealing-monkeys-nature-boy-nat-king-cole-remake

thought you might dig this groove.
i love this guy.
http://videosift.com/video/peach-stealing-monkeys-nature-boy-nat-king-cole-remake

@bcglorf, I've skimmed through this conversation, and I think that this is the most succinct expression of your position on global warming:
>> ^bcglorf:

Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.
As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.
I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.
Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.


I think John Cole still has the perfect description of the conservative/denier shtick on global warming:

You know the drill: global warming isn’t happening, if it is happening then it’s not caused by human behavior, if it is caused by human behavior then we can’t do anything about it, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it, then that something is too expensive, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it that is not too expensive, then that something is not what Democrats are proposing. And Al Gore is fat, he flies too much, look at his electricity bill, and sometimes when he goes somewhere it snows there, which is very ironic.

Now, to your credit, you have executed this script in a more thoughtful, reasoned, honestly skeptical way than most do, but ultimately you're following it to a tee. Hell, you even made a swipe at Al Gore along the way.

I think this comment of criticalthud's is pretty much speaking to why I posted the video in the first place:
>> ^criticalthud:

and I would add:
we have a psychological issue at hand.
the human species thinks it's entitled, and it's OUR planet. We think we're special.
This kind of psychological issue hides reality from us.
We have shown ourselves to be very poor stewards of the planet. How many species have we wiped out? How else have we affected our environment? What sort of poisons have we created, what scale of trash heap? Mindlessly fattening ourselves.
This makes me think it is quite likely that we are the frogs in the slowly boiling water.
So, we can argue about this and that, and whether our governments should act. But in actuality, it is up to each and every one of us to stop being energy and consumer gluttons, feasting during the oil orgy.


Human psychology isn't wired properly for dealing with things like climate change. We have trouble with making connections between our actions in the here and now, and consequences to people elsewhere in space, and in time. We're also weird about our assessment of risk. Some people are deathly afraid of flying, but have no problem driving around in a car, even though driving a car is vastly more likely to result in your death than flying on a plane.

The science isn't certain on exactly what's happening, but then science isn't certain about anything. Everything has a fucking error bar on it. We won't be certain it's gonna kill the human race until the human race dies. We won't know it's not going to be a big problem until it's already stopped...and it's showing no signs of stopping on its own.

Environmentalism at its most basic level is about trying to lessen the impact humanity is having on the natural systems we rely on for the basic necessities of life. It's about not felling forests, not poisoning our water, not blighting our soil, and in this case, it's about trying to get people to stop giving a big fucking shove to the equilibrium of our atmosphere when we don't know exactly how it works (and what we do know suggests doing that could possibly be very bad for us).

The basic disagreement here is about what our default position should be in the absence of certainty. Mine is that we should be humble, and curtail our CO2 emissions rather severely. Yours seems to be that as long as the science isn't yet 100% definite, we should just ignore the problem and just wait until scarcity of coal and oil pushes us off them.

Think of the possibilities... all you have to do is find someone dreaming about natalie portman getting it on with Cheryl Cole and pray to god that tendrils dont start appearing. On the other hand nightmares will no longer fade away when you can replay them on Tivo.

I think John Cole at balloon-juice sums up the conservative "stance" on global warming awfully well:

You know the drill: global warming isn’t happening, if it is happening then it’s not caused by human behavior, if it is caused by human behavior then we can’t do anything about it, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it, then that something is too expensive, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it that is not too expensive, then that something is not what Democrats are proposing. And Al Gore is fat, he flies too much, look at his electricity bill, and sometimes when he goes somewhere it snows there, which is very ironic.

@NinjaInHeat maybe you're right, but then again i genuinely do think that people wouldn't want that stuff at the expense of personal privacy and/or the law. People like to see the rich and famous recieve some misfortune and they may be intereted in cheryl cole's intimacies, people like "good" stories, yeah. Maybe i'm being too optimistic, but i feel they wouldn't want it at the expense of just about anything.

I feel that it's flawed to say "well the demand is there, so people obviously want it", yeah sure they want it, but they never said they wanted the tabloids to break the law for it. The tabloids took that step for themselves because they want to sell more than their rival, so it's not really the people that are at fault it's the papers themselves for wanting to beat the competition at any cost surely?

It's a bit like saying "well, you like cheap clothes, so we provided you with cheap clothes. oh sure we have kids working in sweatshops but the demand for clothes is there so blame yourselves!" I don't want my clothes made at the expense of others, but how do i distinguish? And am i then to blame for heinous practices because i like cheap clothes? I think that's a pretty good analogy.

Honestly I don't know the first thing about celebrity gossip but I imagine it's actually quite the opposite; the dedicated tabloids would probably be much more interested in some truly trashy piece of gossip to report, and like it or not, a piece about celebrity yeast infections would probably sell way better than one covering hairstyles.

Remember the whole Gizmodo iPhone debacle? Same thing. Sure Gizmodo were to blame for being completely unprofessional, but they were simply the manifestation of the Apple fanboy hoards. We can't expect the media to practice professionalism and work ethic when we don't demand it as consumers but simply frown when they go 'over the line' (and even when they do, and we frown, we still manage to make it worth their while).

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.
I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.


In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.

I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

>> ^criticalthud:

are there other people out there who would have liked to have heard OBL speak? the only information i have about the man came almost exclusively from my government, which sells information to me like it's selling me deodorant.


Google GEO TV. It's a Pakistani news network that has been frequently banned in the country and employs the only journalist to have interviewed Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks. The coles notes version is that they largely agree on the facts regarding Bin Laden on both what he has done and what he says. The only difference, as usual, is the spin that is put on it.