While I see where you're coming from, I have a few issues with what you're saying:

1. The organization you're referring to is staffed, has offices and overheads. Assuming it isn't corrupt and skimming and holding multi-million-dollar appreciation nights and galas (and we probably shouldn't assume that it isn't), the money you're giving this organization still gets portioned off quite a bit. Your point about helping on the systemic level is quite valid (provided you are channelling your concern into actually doing so), but I'd look more into local community health centres or the nonprofit down the street, and still, that money isn't guaranteed to reach the person in front of you. Much as a social worker can help him connect to essential services, advocate for fair and affordable housing, counsel him on trauma, etc, he will still need money for a lot of basic needs.

2. You are vastly oversimplifying the needs and situation of every person on the street. That person may actually depend on money from strangers to make rent (being that welfare barely puts a dent in even the lowest affordable housing costs), feed kids, buy food that isn't McDonald's or canned food, get a haircut, or a million other things that everyone needs money for.

3. Even if that person intends to spend some of your money on oxy or crack, it is not in your right to judge that. While addiction can very generally be called "bad", this person may suffer from chronic pain, trauma, mental illnesses, or some combination and short of governments finally realizing that housing and caring for the poor is cheaper than incarcerating them and treating emergency health conditions, self-medicating is the only reasonable way they can continue functioning for another day. This isn't even an unlikely scenario; think how easily someone can go from your (or my) comfy life to homeless, poor and desperate. It isn't always "bad decisions"; you could be a contractor that falls and gets a serious injury, hit by a car, stricken with a mental illness you have no control over, traumatized earlier in life, born into a high-risk environment or social strata, or anything else, and then start sliding from there. You develop an addiction, your income comes to a screeching halt, your loved ones can't or get too tired to support you, bills that were routine become suffocating, and there you are on the street, pain exploding relentlessly in your body/mind, on the other side of the decision, seeing chins turned up and eyes turned away from you and hearing people mutter "Don't give anything to him; he's just gonna use it to get high," to each other.

4. Not a single person in the video (and really, in just about every situation you see on whatever street you're on) speaks to or even looks at the guy.

While I wouldn't expect that everyone gives money to folks on the street (I myself have only done it a few times), it frustrates me to hear people insist that nobody should. "He's just going to use it for drugs/booze" is a presumptuous and ignorant statement and mindset.

One more thing: if you really care about urban poverty and those suffering from it, the biggest thing (IMO) you can do is vote for politicians/parties who openly and strongly support social services and welfare, then hold them to their promises. I don't make a ton of money, but I am happy to pay higher taxes and lose some luxuries if it means people who need help just to get by get it.

Pinky and the Brain thought of it first:

"We shall fire a rocket carrying billions of tiny self-adhesive mirrors at the moon. Upon detonation, the mirrors will cover the entire surface of the orb, thus creating a GIGANTIC DISCO BALL."

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7fd00_15-b-pinkasso_shortfilms

I would maintain that in order for the satire to be effective, it actually needs to use offensive terminology. Clearly folks are already upset about the word "Redskins" (otherwise we wouldn't be hearing any of this), but not enough folks that anything is being done about it. To draw attention to how offensive it may be to those affected, he's using other, very offensive terms as a direct comparison. It simply wouldn't have any effect if he joked about "The Stephen Colbert Culturally Good at Math Foundation".

Also, on a personal note, I grew up with all the terms I mentioned in my first comment, and found them hurtful and offensive. I haven't, however, encountered them used as anything but clear satire for a very long time (a handful of exceptions in the past 15 years), and I personally find it takes a lot of the sting out hearing the phrases themselves made ridiculous, hearing people publicly accept that they're ignorant and offensive, and seeing people who would use them to sincerely hurt someone quickly ridiculed and shamed. So, still backing Colbert on this one.

As a Canadian of Asian descent, I just want to back up Colbert, here. If satire is "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues," then I think he knocked this one out of the park. A lot of folks don't see "Redskins" as an offensive term because they grew up with it being everywhere; exaggerating and applying the same idea to the Asian population really highlights how ridiculous the name of this foundation is, but only because Western culture has only just recently started to agree that phrases like "Ching chong ding dong", "orientals" (unless you're Rob Ford), "gook", "slant", "chink", etc, are actually really offensive. If a pro sports team came up with the name "Vancouver Chinamen" or "Detroit Negroes" today (coupled with stereotypical logos) there would be a massive and immediate outrage. The only reason the Redskins have gotten away with their name is that the team was named long enough ago that the racial slur was widely acceptable to the non-First Nations public.

And really, this parallels racial awareness in North America; although racism is still very much a thing for people of all races, the First Nations population is still being outstandingly and horribly marginalized with very little support or attention being paid to them or their (still appallingly denied) rights. Here in Canada (in which we boast great racial and cultural diversity, the "cultural mixed salad" vs the US "melting pot"), we still haven't done anything to amend the fact that when we got here we took brutal advantage of a trusting and helpful culture, booted them out to the worst parts of the country and stranded them there.

Wouldn't it actually be easier if he maintained exactly 8.65mph (ideally) in the run-up? If he's going any faster, then he'd just be fighting his own linear momentum as soon as the incline started, being that he's not a rolling wheel or ball and instead relies on stationary foot placement and pushing to move. On the other hand, once the direction starts changing you'd have to pump really hard to maintain speed.

I would also imagine he needs to engage his core muscles to keep from folding forward; my understanding is that there would be a significant "outward" force generated, which in this case keeps him on the track, but does so by pushing him against it.

Isn't there a sequence near the end where we see those past scenes sans Tyler? Thought that was pretty cool, like the Narrator pouring the lye on his own hand.

Comment upvote for actual science. Also fun: add a few drops of dish soap to the water.

Angela Gossow does it better.

LOVE this band. Saw'em live in TO with These United States; fantastic show. Great video!

It's true... I usually get the most sketched out before the second clip; after that there's enough height and stretch in the rope that you probably won't hit the deck on a fall. Not that a 50ft whipper is anything to scoff at! I think the most I've fallen is probably 15-20ft... but I'm also not climbing anywhere near the difficulty (and runout!) shown here.

>> ^Payback:

Ironic the smallest fall was the most dangerous.

I like Cenk's childish humour in this one. "GET BEHIND THAT SEEWHATIDIDTHERE" isn't that funny but Ana's dismissal of it made me laugh. It kind of highlights how obvious the message behind this piece is.

Now if we could just get to apply that same, obvious sentiment of "Harm reduction just makes sense" to drug use...

Speaking of "google-ing Tienanmen Square", isn't there a giant, nationwide block against those keywords, as well as a billion others? I thought I read something to that effect a while ago, wherein the average Chinese internet user had extremely limited access to anything that might possibly be deemed anti-government or pro-free speech.

If that's the case, it wouldn't be so simple to Google Tienanmen Square. I imagine the story gets passed on, but probably in hushed voices and hidden books, as it's certainly not a publicly welcome topic of discussion.

This is fun. As a side note, anyone else notice how the video's sped up to make his spins look faster? If you watch the cars as he's spinning, they all jump during each spin.

Not that that really detracts or anything... on the other hand it probably wasn't necessary.

So awesome. And fearless. Dynos (the jump-type moves) on lead climbs are scary! These ladies appear to have no fear, no end to flexibility and strength, and no extra body weight to haul up. The dudes are okay too =P.

Thanks for the comments all! I actually used to post more actively, and I even had a few sifted ones up, but it's been so long I think my record was wiped.