Forget what the rest of these commies say, bob, I think this is an excellent issue for you to champion. It in no way robs you of credibility in the eyes of the average person. Shout it from the rooftops.

There's no point in getting into it, because it's tiresome, long-winded and probably futile. But sometimes when I see people wanking on about how shit Obama and the state of affairs in the US is, I want to bellow from the rooftops, "YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT IT BAD??????" I despair danny, half the time I don't know what to think. I'm thinking about retreating back into my bubble...

Having said that, I'm so glad you're up for using your vote this time, too. This is what needs to be pushed forward now, people using their votes to bolster the other parties, bring them into the spotlight so that people at least consider other options. The Labour/Cons/Dems need some competition, they need to be put in a position where they have to TRY HARDER! We simply cannot survive with the choices we've got now. Well we can, but I'd rather fucking not!
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Yogi:
WOW...still regret that I voted for him, but he's a knowledgeable guy.

Hey mate, don't worry about it, you did the right thing, something had to keep the republicans out. I urge you to do it again.

No I didn't. You don't choose the lesser of two evils, you make the system work and produce better results. Obama is a war criminal.

I agree, so I guess a non-vote would have been in order, considering your two-party system. However, I like to look at the silver linings and in my opinion, your vote ensured that things didn't get as bad as they probably would have had McCain/Palin gotten in to power. And, all leaders are war criminals, or just criminals...

I've never voted in my life, because I refuse to pick the best of a bad bunch... but I will be using my vote next election tactically, because until other parties have a chance in hell, we're all doomed.


One day we're gonna find out we're long lost twins or something @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/alien_concept" title="member since February 14th, 2008" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#00ffa2">alien_concept..

I've not voted either, ever. I detest the system, i think the voting system and potentially democracy is flawed or limited and we'll end up in a species-rut because of it, working against each other until we run out of resources and die.

But i know i can't sit here complaining about the rich fucking manor-born tories stealing our country from under us if i didn't help to keep them out. I know me and everyone like me is responsible for them getting in.

I should have at least spoiled my paper or been more active in my protest if i wanted to protest the system in that way.

I was hoping the riots were the start of something. Change has to come from the youth and i suppose soon i won't be in that category anymore!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Watchmen, Zack, Snyder, Alan, Moore, Rooftop, Rescue, fire' to 'Watchmen, Zack Snyder, Alan Moore, Rooftop, Rescue, fire' - edited by xxovercastxx

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Jean-Luc Godard filmed the band on a rooftop in Midtown Manhattan (December 7, 1968)

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf - It's called news - if specific elements of what he says are untrue then feel free to disprove them - all you've done is used his involvement in a 9/11 movement as your 'proof' which is circumstantial at best. Marbles didn't make the video, he posted it, this site is called "Videosift" - a place where, you know, video's can be sifted. If you disagree with the message then attack the facts not the guy who added to the value of the site with an informative video. Unlike journalists where you seem to get your news from, Tarpley has (apparently) visited the country and talked to the people, there would be very few journalists that could give his perspective if this is true.
PS Was wondering when I'd see you next bcglorf, I missed you.

Al Jazeera has multiple journalists in Syria, all of whom are well agreed that the protests all started peacefully and were met with deadly force from the regime. The Arab league, who's member nations each have embassies in Syria with multiple diplomats living in the country, are also well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads. The Syrian refugees that fled to Turkey are all well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads.
The ONLY source that in any way corroborates Tarpley's story here is Assad's own media. I do believe that in itself calls into question Tarpley's veracity. When his sole evidence is basically his own word, trust him, I think it worth noting his past record of trustworthiness.
As for contributing, I don't consider propaganda bought and paid for by the Syrian regime a positive contribution to the plight of the Syrian people.



You do realise that people willing to spend 10 seconds on a Google search can verify whether your statements are true or not right?

Back in April alone:
(links available from http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-reporting-possible-ciasaudi.html)

The Al-Alam News Network reports that Saudi/CIA snipers are on rooftops firing at both protesters and Syrian forces

CNN reported that an unknown armed group had been firing on both protesters and Syrian forces alike (they go on to presume that it was Syrian forces that apparently opened fire on themselves which I find odd).

China's XinhuaNet reported that armed gangs had clashed with protesters and Syrian forces, killing members of both sides.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported equipment from these armed forces had been recovered, there were non-Syrian SMS cards and other tools to spread fake repression of protesters.

Ynet also reported a similar story, finding fake bottles of blood and other items - they reported that "the phones and cameras were carried by members of an armed criminal group that attacked a military location in Rakhem al-Hirak area in Daraa countryside"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059951,00.html

The assistant US secretary of state for human rights and labor (Michael Posner) in an AFP report said that the US had budgeted $50 million in the past 2 years to help 'activists' evade authoritarian Governments.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/us-trains-activists-to-evade-security.html

In terms of who the actual gunmen are, there is only circumstantial evidence from what I've seen - some of it is discussed here:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-reporting-possible-ciasaudi.html

There appears to be links with a group called Gen-next, and there is a precedent to this type of interference with local uprising - that link talks about armed units killing both Thai military and protesters alike in 2010.

And more information on them (with working vids of the Thai attacks) here:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/color-revolutions-mystery-gunmen.html

Anyway, it's the same old story with you, your comments are abrasive towards those opposed to your abhorrent ideology and your 'facts' are verifiably untrue. It's a shame because you seem more intelligent than some of the other trolls so you have potential to improve, you simply decide not to.

The real story is that these gunmen are a mystery to almost everyone, they appear to be showing up frequently, they appear to be corporate backed, they don't appear to be part of the local armed forces because they routinely attack them. Making a bold statement about their intentions seems difficult due to the circumstantial evidence against them, however the fact that they are operating in multiple countries and the US is pouring millions of dollars into these kinds of efforts (and has done over and over again in the past) indicates that it is likely not of Syrian origin.

Lane's edge was really nice. Recommended. We stayed for quite a while, then caught the city circle tourist tram around to Flinders St station, effectively the entire loop. I thought I'd been on the tourist tram before, but, ah, maybe not. I think I've mostly done the 10% we missed

At that point we caught up with @kymbos, and went... er... somewhere. On a rooftop. After that we went... er... somewhere else. I hope the others have a better idea of where we were, or the reports will make dull reading After leaving the really nice restaurant (it was getting late for me, so I excused myself and left early) I circled around until I worked out where I was and caught a train home.

I do have one or two blurry photos, but am desperately hoping the others have done better I'm also rather unclear as to how one posts a photo in a post.

I had a lot of fun, and really enjoyed meeting @dag, @persephone, @spoco2, and @kymbos

Yep, it's all looking good. Saturday's now looking 25 and mostly sunny - loving it.

Melbourne is our oyster. I have had a bit of a check, and most rooftop bars open around midday on Saturday.

http://www.au.timeout.com/melbourne/bars/venues/725/campari-house
http://www.au.timeout.com/melbourne/bars/venues/412/rooftop-bar
http://rooftopcinema.com.au/
http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/71/1621007/restaurant/CBD/The-Aylesbury-Melbourne
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/the-aylesbury-20111029-1mpah.html

As I said, I'm looking like 8pm and will contact Dag to find your whereabouts. If you do head to the rooftops, Mme Brussels and the Carlton Hotel are pretty close by Meyers Place. Brussels is a bit more showy and expensive than the Carlton, which is more of a 'beer on tap' kind of place. The rooftop bar on Swanston St is further away, but has a spectacular view.

If you are keen to eat before I get there, no worries - I'll meet you for drinks afters.

@kymbos, I do love the idea of the rooftop places, and as @dag said, we may well move to one. But most don't open until after 4pm. Meyer's place opens at 4, so we have a place to start from, and then can move on through the city as places open up

We'll find our way to great places I'm sure. I wish you were coming earlier as you certainly seem to know the bars around the city much better than I... although to be fair I think there are alley cats that know more about the bars in Melbourne than me.

Saturday's going to be 23 and a possible shower, with fine days either side - come on, that's prime rooftop material for 4pm.

I'm obviously not fussed as I can't make it till later, but I reckon with your combo of tweets and updates to this page, you can swing the flexibility of rooftop with Meyers Place as a backup.

Do it. Do it.

>> ^dag:

@persephone and I will be at the Crowne Plaza. Is that far?


@dag, Not really, it's either about a 15minute leisurely walk, or a quick tram ride up the street.

@kymbos, I do like the idea of roof top places or those with gardens, and Madam Brussels is ridiculously close to Meyer's Place... it's just that
a) The weather is not looking to be nice and sunny, so rooftops might be a bummer
&
b) Being down at street level I think makes it easier to spot the fellow sifters.

Now, being that @dag and @persephone will be down Southbank way, we could make the meeting point be closer to that area, but I think that runs the risk of the whole thing remaining around the Crown complex, which doesn't really show off Melbourne that well.

What we need is a way of people knowing our movements as the Sift Up progresses. I'll say it here and at the top of the post, if anyone wants my mobile number so they can track us down on the night, then I can do that.

Or, I guess... being that dag tweets, people could follow that? I've never used Twitter in my life, so I can't speak for how well that would work.

Would that make more sense though?

I hate that I can't get there till later, but I want to suggest consideration of an outdoor venue if you're starting at 4pm. If it's a nice day, there are some pretty cool rooftop venues around Melbourne that do it well. For example:

http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/71/1471397/restaurant/CBD/Madame-Brussels-Melbourne

http://www.thecarlton.com.au/

Meyers Place is a great bar, but has no view and might be more an evening kinda thing...

perhaps easier (if no deep pools around) to learn to do the reverse from your rooftop with big bottle of water

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a worthwhile opinion you have Opus.
But I don't think my last sentence was understood. "Reason" implies some gain, need, or selfish nature behind why someone does something. The cop get's paid. Sure. And if that's his sole reason--meh, he is not a hero. But why did he do it? If she fell, he would still have his job, pay, benefits, still get good reviews. When he fucks up once or twice in life he will still face the same punishment--regardless if hero or not...
Example of what I mean by "why."
I run into the street and nearly get hit by a car to save your child! Yay, I am a hero. But I throw your kid in the back of my van afterwards for nefarious purposes! Ewww, not so hero-ish now... But I saved his/her life, that's gotta count for something..
I know ^ sounds a bit on the sensationalized lines--but that is the area where my mind is when I say why. And it is almost impossible to explain, properly my point of view without an example.
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Totally disagree with your last sentence. IMHO, the less reason you have for doing something, like saving a life, the more heroic the action.
I DO agree that it doesn't have to be in a life threatening situation to bring out heroic action in someone. But I also think that a real hero is one that you never hear about. The ones that do heroic things without recognition or reward.
You shouldn't need a why to be a hero...
Not to lessen the magnitude of this cop's actions but, if it had been some average joe that had saved this woman's life, how much more press coverage would there have been? I have to agree with EMPIRE, I think the word "hero" is misused for this situation. He was doing his job. Cops are supposed to do this. Doctors save lives every day but, hero isn't the first word that comes to everyone's mind when they do. It's only heroic if you're not obligated to do it.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think a hero can be more than a dangerous situation or accomplishments..
The man who works his fingers to the bone for his children and still has time to throw them around in the air like superman (That's to you dad.)
The woman who looks to an abusive husband and says, "Fuck you, I don't need you." (That's to you Mrs. Lawdeedaw--when she did that to her previous husband.)
The little girl who returns the penny to the man who dropped it because his mother gives 'that nod' to her. Then the man who smiles at her, and gives her a dollar for the effort.
We have sensationized 'hero' so much that few people are heroes at all. The Soldiers fighting the wars? Mecenaries. The cops? Same. It is why you do something that vastly outweights what you do.



I actually DO understand what you're saying and I also think you are sort of proving my point.

You're looking for a reason for him to be motivated to save her and if that reason is "nefarious" then he is not a hero. I'm saying having a reason at all makes him not a hero. The nature of his job obligates him to try and save her and THAT is his reason, To Protect and To Serve. He has to try and save her. His job overrides his personal motivation (as it should with every cop).

If she had fallen yes, he would still have his job but, he would have failed at it. Not sure about "good reviews" and he would probably have some guilt issues to work out.

I had this argument with a friend about altruism and being nice for no reason, which I said he never does. A few days after the discussion he said he had done this kindly, selfless act for someone. "See? I can be altruistic." he says. I said the very fact that he told someone about it negates the "kindness" of it because recognition was motivating him to do it.

If this cop had been off duty and just happened to be walking by, that would have made it an entirely different situation. It's the old argument "Is it better to have a reason for doing good than no reason at all?" IMO, it's the latter.

This is not to say there are no heroes in the police force. Or fire fighters, or doctors... But, is it more heroic if a cop saves a life (which they are trained to do and is their job) or just some average person does it (with no training and no connection to the life saved)?

It is a worthwhile opinion you have Opus.

But I don't think my last sentence was understood. "Reason" implies some gain, need, or selfish nature behind why someone does something. The cop get's paid. Sure. And if that's his sole reason--meh, he is not a hero. But why did he do it? If she fell, he would still have his job, pay, benefits, still get good reviews. When he fucks up once or twice in life he will still face the same punishment--regardless if hero or not...

Example of what I mean by "why."

I run into the street and nearly get hit by a car to save your child! Yay, I am a hero. But I throw your kid in the back of my van afterwards for nefarious purposes! Ewww, not so hero-ish now... But I saved his/her life, that's gotta count for something..

I know ^ sounds a bit on the sensationalized lines--but that is the area where my mind is when I say why. And it is almost impossible to explain, properly my point of view without an example.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Totally disagree with your last sentence. IMHO, the less reason you have for doing something, like saving a life, the more heroic the action.
I DO agree that it doesn't have to be in a life threatening situation to bring out heroic action in someone. But I also think that a real hero is one that you never hear about. The ones that do heroic things without recognition or reward.
You shouldn't need a why to be a hero...
Not to lessen the magnitude of this cop's actions but, if it had been some average joe that had saved this woman's life, how much more press coverage would there have been? I have to agree with EMPIRE, I think the word "hero" is misused for this situation. He was doing his job. Cops are supposed to do this. Doctors save lives every day but, hero isn't the first word that comes to everyone's mind when they do. It's only heroic if you're not obligated to do it.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think a hero can be more than a dangerous situation or accomplishments..
The man who works his fingers to the bone for his children and still has time to throw them around in the air like superman (That's to you dad.)
The woman who looks to an abusive husband and says, "Fuck you, I don't need you." (That's to you Mrs. Lawdeedaw--when she did that to her previous husband.)
The little girl who returns the penny to the man who dropped it because his mother gives 'that nod' to her. Then the man who smiles at her, and gives her a dollar for the effort.
We have sensationized 'hero' so much that few people are heroes at all. The Soldiers fighting the wars? Mecenaries. The cops? Same. It is why you do something that vastly outweights what you do.