I used to play Quake 2 with tremendous amounts of "leg", and I still placed #1 in most matches. You improvise, adapt and overcome.

Or you could just whinge about it.

Unintentional un-pre-fabricated fail and humour. I don't think they'll ever be on anything involving improvisation.

/Actors? Really?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Santa, improvisation, improv, press conference, santa claus, whos line is it anyway' to 'Santa, improvisation, improv, press conference, santa claus, whose line is it anyway' - edited by Kevlar

Yes, he was great. But, do you really think that was unscripted improv? Why does Jack just happen to have a stick?
I was at an improv theater last weekend, I witnessed the performers regurgitating rehearsed schtick to the beat of topics thrown out by audience plants or groupies saying the right words to trigger the obvious and easy jokes, and the props around the stage looked like they had been there for years, the performers searched for them.
It was a lot of fun, but it wasnt improvised.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'branch, tire, spare, trailer, skid' to 'branch, tire, spare, trailer, skid, improvised, ersatz, jerry rigged' - edited by calvados

>> ^Yogi:

Believe it or not this actually served a diagnostic purpose. House is a great show I'm constantly impressed by how good it is for being a network show that really should be crap. Crap like Lost. But it's consistently funny and fun to watch and maintains my interest.
Back to The Trip.


Indeed. The writing is usually good and Hugh Laurie is fantastic. With Lost, the plot was absolutely stupid, and it was obvious that the writers were improvising as they went along.

Ceiling fan fail, or improvised disco lighting win?

@SDGundamX

I'm still curious if you would have been offended if the video called believers in Zeus and Poseidon idiots. Is it belief in itself (any belief lacking empirical evidence against it) that you think should be shielded from intolerance or is it beliefs shared by many people? If I called someone who believed in Zeus a complete nutter, would that offend you? If it made them happy and comfortable with their lives.

I'm slightly confused by the multiverse angle, I'm not sure how the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a bigger likelihood of existing in another universe (as a magical being always existing without evolving into place), I guess it's possible to speculate in a universe that functions in a way that gives rise to Him, but how does that contradict the observations made on how this universe functions?

About the atrocities, I think that we still have atrocities going on today. Just take the deaths of millions of Africans from AIDS because they were taught not to use condoms. You probably think this is an atrocity, but it's bought with money pumped into the catholic church from millions of believers, most of them I would assume moderates, that lend their indirect support to the continuation of these teachings (although lately Ive heard the Pope has changed his mind, a bit too late for all those who are dead). And yes, the Church might be separate from the belief, but its built up on a base of belief and given power and cover by believers. And in 20 years we will hear the same story again "that was then, this is now, I agree that was an atrocity but now we're rid of all that, I don't believe in that, nobody I knows believes in that anymore". And then on to the next decision that affects other people negatively. And as such religion is always safe, the atrocities are always in the past and criticism can be deflected or ignored.

Look, I feel as I'm rambling but my basic point is this: Either you have good reasons for believing in something, or you don't. What makes someone happy might _seem_ right for him or her, but as a species we owe our continued survival and common well-being to realize our limits and overcome them. One such limit is that as pattern-seekers we encounter false positives all the time (this surely benefited us very early in our development). In ancient times a flood must mean the God's are angry. A bad harvest must mean the field is cursed. A modern version would be feeling religion gives our life meaning and happiness and must therefor contain some deeper truth. I simply cannot see how this follows.

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns, even if harshly as in calling someone an idiot.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna
With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.
With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.
In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.
I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

@chtierna

With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.

With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.

In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.

I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

>> ^kymbos:

I think we've disagreed on comedy before, Deano - but you're back in form here.


The one thing I might disagree upon is how improvised it is. I would normally expect virtually every line to have been carefully scripted with maybe a few things changed or added on the day.

>> ^Xax:

I didn't quite get him for the most part... I've never seen him before though. Is his other stuff any better?
Watts' shows are mostly improvised and consist of stream of consciousness stand-up in various shifting personae, mixed with loop pedal-based a cappella compositions.

"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.

That was a fantastic sift.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Thank you geo, that was my first sift
In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

Thank you geo, that was my first sift
In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

Even though I believe this is consciously improvised, I think this should have a little WTF, especially with that ending...