*quality shit. One take is amazing... period. This video will have its detractors because of the pop music choice, but we as sifters should be able to look beyond the sound and upvote in appreciation of the effort it took to make this. Awesome awesome awesome.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

I think this may be the first time I didn't find Carlin funny.

-edit-
i hope that no one takes my subjective opinion of what i think is or isn't funny to personally.

Do not confuse this local station with their better-known national opinion-brothel. This guy is legit.

As a disclaimer: I care nothing about Detroit, I avoid buying American cars, I never watch Fox news (or any TV at all, really), and I have an ingrained hate for most journalists, but I do care about people.

This reporter is a Detroit native, and after leaving for several years (education, career, etc) came back to find a city steeped in shit. There are several clips of his reporting online, and every one is something that should be celebrated as a victory by the common man over a system that cares nothing about him (links below).
He can be a bit contrived and over-dramatic at times, but I would say he excels at walking the line between what's viewable on television, and the rage that anyone who is actually paying attention to what's happening around us would feel. He is amazingly tempered in his demeanor, and I can only assume he has to do more than one take in order to not show his anger.

Regardless, I read a lot. I hardly ever read non-fiction. His other reports were so genuine and passionate that, just last week, I checked out the book he authored titled "Detroit". I've yet to have time to open a page, but his work and what he is doing makes me eager to read it. The news clips of his that I have seen made me consider the guy as the pinnacle of journalistic reporting in the US.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Whatever-this-field-reporter-is-being-paid-it-isnt-enough
also= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9uzDelNvDg

The guys appearance might make him look like a douche, but I really feel like this is the modern day hero that we write comics about. Nothing will save the city of Detroit outside of Robocop, and I think it's destined to be abandoned and forgotten, but we should all support people who's actions are obviously in favor of those who need our help most. Even if they're on a Fox channel.

Right again, Mr. Chomsky. Then after the rubes have been softened up, enter the smarmy, two-faced Barack Obama, whose plan to save us from global warming is a such a hack job that it's hardly worth the industry shills (like the ones taking up so much space commenting here) to bother with. Like his gift to the insurance industry -- America's sad excuse for "universal health care" -- Obama's environmental "program" is just another load of pretty B.S. thrown up to cover his real agenda, which in this case is to hand over the keys to America's energy industry to people like Dick Cheney, whose hands might as well be guiding the marionette strings coming out of his back. The "president" really doesn't have a choice about pushing natural gas; he sold out to the oiligarchs while still a do-nothing Senator. But that doesn't mean the few of us who are awake and aware shouldn't scream at him about it and do everything in our dwindling power to make him and the rest of the gasoholic cabal wish they'd never been born. Indeed, part of what the moribund U.S. environmental movement needs -- and in particular the fractured and chronically outclassed anti-fracking movement -- is a significantly angrier soundtrack, not bogged down with insipid musical baggage from old, hippy-dippy environmental campaigns. Pete Seeger and his sweet, smiling ilk don't cut through all the background noise any more. With that in mind, here's a new American anthem guaranteed to stir the soul of any red-blooded environmentalist, as well as lure a few emotionally sensitive people over from the dark side. Feel free to use it. Scream your anger! soundcloud.com/biff-thuringer/to-america

Getting a warrant to search a house isn't that simple. It takes more time than they had plain and simple. I can't fathom how anyone could think that police, having reasonable grounds to believe that an armed suspect who had committed several murders of innocent civilians in the previous hours is contained in a specific neighborhood, should stop, contain and commence writing search warrants for every house they want to search. Each one taking at minimum 1-2 hours to type, and additional time to be read and approved by the Judiciary. In fact, it would be reckless and irresponsible to do this and allow any other people to be killed in the meantime. This is why exigent circumstances clauses exist. It has never been seen on this scale before and that is due to the extraordinary circumstances.

To argue there shouldn't be an "exigent circumstance" clause, is also ridiculous. If police believe on reasonable grounds, that a suspect is in his house they need a warrant. If they believe he is currently destroying evidence of the crime for which he is a suspect, they do not need a warrant. But rest assured, the police MUST articulate their use of exigent circumstances every time it is used and the scrutiny from lawyers and judges will be fierce. People seem to think that it is a free pass for police to do what they want with no recourse. It is not.

SO the set-up for this one take was

1 Col. George Taylor POA Heston doll (Snapped on E-Bay when Heston died, new -in-box)
1-paper cut-out Statue of Liberty lower, left frame)
2-Estes D rockets, duct-taped to back
1-scavenged fuse from leftover Chinese sky-candy
1-Micro-cassette recording of National Anthem (Foley)
1 FUJI Finepix F1000

The tree-bounce-around is off-camera....only one recording of that so here it is: As soon as he leaves frame he's in the tree and barley freed himself of the tangled bounce in the top before ditching in the pond at full throttle-Had he made air he had about 40 feet up inna swirl before thrust would have pooped-out.

...done this before so any way it could have gone might have-

It is indeed. And they're not that hard to make, but it does take some attention to detail, and a fair amount of time. But the friend that got me started built his first kit (which included building a plastic coated balsa wing from scraps) before ever flying a damned thing, and it worked fine.

My preference, if you're gonna build one, take the extra 10 hours and do it right. Then you'll know how to repair it after the inevitable crash. LOL

Are they respected in society? Here they'd be treated as idiot suckers by the financial sector rich no matter how good they got. Probably why no-one takes that sort of job seriously.

These Germans are remarkably forgiving of assholes. I really wanted to see one take a swing at the fake security guard. They'd be totally justified. Or grab a bottle of Nivea and discharge it in his face.

international measurements -> Corruption Perceptions Index

Look at who "perceived" this corruption. (According to your source
2012 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 12 different institutions.
The institutions are the African Development Bank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, International Institute for Management Development, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Political Risk Services, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the World Justice Project.Many of these private organizations have strong ties to particular governments or nations, such as the World Bank which is funded by certain countries.

The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.Early CPIs used public opinion surveys. Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.)

Should one take these numbers for real ?

1) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2) I think there are levels of corruption not measured and mapped by this aggregation of data.

I'd like to believe it's all one take, but my inner skeptic has doubts. They edited out the chances to see the camera vehicles, adding further doubt to the validity.

Regardless, cool vid

I appreciate your tone. I really do. I just wanted to leave you with some suggested google scholar searches. If you haven't already, check out the recent research in gametic or transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. It'll be really jargony and difficult to understand. One take home is that the gametic accessibility of genetic material for transcription has been shown to have reliable effects on the phenotype of progeny in animal models. Further, human studies have shown transgenerational effects on the adult weight of offspring in response to the diet of the mother during pregnancy and even in response starvation events dating back further generations (although the mechanism is not necessarily known).

Anyway, nice chat.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

Maybe. But don't we kind of force kids to grow up to soon these days anyway? Kind of nice to see one taking his time. I know I did. >> ^Trancecoach:
kid's a bit old for that, no?
then again, I used to have a 37 y.o. roommate, and currently have a 28 y.o. roommate -- both of whom sleep with stuffed animals.
it's kinda wtf for me



o/~ I don't wanna grow up I'm a Toys R Us kid o/~ --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8HMSf4O2FM

Maybe. But don't we kind of force kids to grow up to soon these days anyway? Kind of nice to see one taking his time. I know I did. >> ^Trancecoach:

kid's a bit old for that, no?
then again, I used to have a 37 y.o. roommate, and currently have a 28 y.o. roommate -- both of whom sleep with stuffed animals.
it's kinda wtf for me