Rougy, this is why you "butt heads" with people so often. You take everything personally and you assume the very worst. You may have felt personally attacked, but I wasn't personally attacking you. I made a comment about your comment, not about you as a person. And you called me a shithead. That's a personal insult and I don't appreciate it.

I have been humbled countless times on this website, and I've tried to learn valuable things from people who make thoughtful arguments against me. It's becuase I'm very young and I have a lot to learn. I know for a fact that I am very often wrong, but I'm here trying to learn something and to have good conversations. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you without feeling personally injured to the point that you need to leave the country, why do you come here?

P.S. I'm pretty sure that I was joking about the Reagan thing, Rougy.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
Rougy, to me it seems like you sat back, assessed the situation (at least partly from the comfort of your computer chair), and decided that the US is a lost cause and that we might as well just leave. What a cop out.
Call it a cop out if you want. I've been butting heads with people like you for the past 26 years, and I've had it.
Even though I don't agree with most of the opinions on the Sift, I would rather have you doing something productive with your energies than whining all of the time.
You think this is all I do and all that I've done? I'll admit, I haven't been a heavy-hitter in the activism department, but I did a hell of a lot more than most people did.
My "productive energies" have been wasted over the course of 26 years trying to talk sense into people like you, to no avail.
One time you said something here about how Mitt Romney could have been "the next Reagan." Now do you really think I want to waste any more of my time talking to somebody like that? I'll bet you were still in diapers when Reagan was fucking up our country. You don't know the first thing about all of the harm he has caused us, and others.
I accept your apology above, but I still think you're a little shithead.
I've given this country the best years of my life and nothing that I said or did stopped or changed anything. So I'm putting my "productive energies" into selling everything and moving to a country that I can identify with, and I will do everything that I can do be the best countryman that nation ever had.

Alright, I know that I already commented on this video, but I have to say again how sweet it is.
1. This song is great. Everything about it defines rock 'n' roll.
2. Elvis was the man. His vocals in this song are awesome.
3. He invented his own unique dancing style, and it was pure magic. Anyone who is cool enough to dance all crazy and weird and get away with it is a legend in my book.

This video is like an exhibition of many of the things that made Elvis great. It needs more votes.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that your premise is unfounded. To me it seems that you threw around generalizations and stereotypes without even attempting to back them up. How do you know that this guy has a low IQ? Lack of education and poor circumstances do not determine a person's genetic intellectual capacity. A person is not genetically inclined to intelligence because he has a PhD. Contrary to Sift belief, religious people, who on average have more kids, are no less intelligent than Atheists. Again, education cannot change your genetic makeup. I like to think that this man is suffering from ignorance, not mental incapacity.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Indicative that those with low IQ produce far more children.

Ultimately our success as a species... or should I say, our advancements, have increased survivability.. our ability to directly inhibit/alter natural selection.. has had a net negative result to the human gene pool.

Those with higher IQ's on average produce fewer children, and typically match up with each other. Those with lower IQ's produce far more children, and typically match up with each other.

10,000 years from now.. we may split into two similar but distinct groups. Low population, high IQ. High population, low IQ. Who is most likely to survive long term? Not the high IQ group unfortunately.

It is called devolution. We may find that as a species, we'll need another 100,000 years beyond that to recover.

Since the Bush years, we just got a short taste of what is to come. Moronic mentality bolstered by idiotic zealotry.

Fun fun fun.

It might be a little early to despair of Obama. He's been president for fewer than 5 months. I'm not as bothered by him not doing everything he promised to do as I am bothered that he's doing the exact opposite in some cases. Aargh.

I can't believe that I just upvoted a Bill Maher video.

I can't make much sense of either of your comments.

>> ^sallyjune:
Oh my, you are talking about mass meta-programming, first you have to take over a radio or television station, or stage a series media events-Mobs do not form until mobilized with a common purpose-Start with traffic fine protests in the US, everyone has to drive, and the bulk of the fines are exacted from the poor, check-to-checkers. Uhhh, over 60% I'm guessing, and most of these are non-white. Profiling is alive and well, check any large US county's jail on any given night- Blacks, Hispanic, Asian, a few whites.

Stop feeding parking meters.
When it is safe to drive, drive. Traffic signals and warning signs are for people who do not know their terrain. In turn, license only drivers who can pass a rigorous, professional, road test. Require re-certification every 2 years. Eliminate red light cameras, replace them with people who give a damn about safe roads, where alcohol is not blamed for a fatality on the news, without mentioning that the combination of PharMaceuTicalS and booze, and the interaction of the two, was the real culprit. Hold the pharmy folks accountable. In kind, hold the Education systems and the medical establishment responsible for allowing sick people who don't know how not to eat the poison the major agri-businesses and food manufacturers crankout, leach, boil, fortify, and shit out, fill the beds-Oh, eliminate insurance companies altogether. Make their operation a criminal act, use Rico to bury them all.
It goes on, and on, and on like this until your brain explodes.

I was being facetious when I said that. That's why I contradicted myself. I don't know why I bring my dry humor to the sift and expect people to read between the lines and understand that I'm joking. I didn't mean to offend you. My sincerest apologies.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.

Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.

But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.

Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week. Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.

It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.

Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.

I watched it twice and got the chills both times. I love this piece. I always get chills when the french horn comes in at 4:24, when the violins come in at 5:28, and at 6:08. The violins' little crescendo at 5:59 was slower than I usually hear it played, and I've never heard the staccato at 6:33 before, but I guess he knows what he's doing. Love, love, love this video.

Gwiz, I think that you misundestood me. I said that CD doesn't always involve breaking the unjust law. Of course it involves breaking the law.

Dgandhi, thank you very much for your thoughts. I agree with you. Yours was just the sort of logical and well-supported response I was seeking when I posted this thread. This is why I take these types of questions to the Sift. So many of you are more knowledgeable than I that I know I'm bound to get some good stuff when I come here with my personally puzzling questions.

Thanks again.

The only thing I want to say is that I barely remember the Iraq war protests. I was only 14 or 15 at the time, but in my memory they seem short-lived and unremarkable. That isn't the fault of the protestors, though. They did their best. Maybe I was just an apathetic teenager,

What are we going to do about this country? It's a pickle.

Are you being sarcastic? I'm not very careful about my grammar on VideoSift, so it kind of amazes me that you would ask me. Cheeky monkey.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
So, I've been polishing my grammar and am still in need of help. What say you to proofreading my sentences for free?

I'm pretty darn sure that civil disobedience does not always involve breaking the laws that needs to change, not even in the Civil Rights movement or Indian independence. Did you read Thoreau's essay? What about the Vietnam War protests? That might be a bad example since it wasn't the most successful campaign in history and some people felt so powerless that they resorted to terrorism. Nevertheless, civil disobeyers occasionally clogged the machine despite the war being overseas. I don't think that we need to do everything exactly how it has been done before, either. I think you could get creative if you really wanted to make it work. CD is all about clogging the machine, and there are thousands of ways to do that.

As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.

Okay, I know that I'm about to sound like an unforgivably naive, silly little idealist. I admit it. But I think that a little idealism is healthy for a nation of people who think that they are utterly powerless.

Rougy, to me it seems like you sat back, assessed the situation (at least partly from the comfort of your computer chair), and decided that the US is a lost cause and that we might as well just leave. What a cop out. I mean, who is going to affect change except for those who see a problem? Can we at least say that we tried hard? I doubt it.

I'm not suggesting that I'm some sort of noble crusader or something. I'm not brave and I agree with you that my ability to change a nation is very small. But I've been reading all of this stuff lately by the people whose ideas built this country and I'm in awe of them. No matter how bad things were they were full of hope. They believed that they had the power to change things and so they did (though it took decades, especially women's suffrage). It's inspiring.

Even though I don't agree with most of the opinions on the Sift, I would rather have you doing something productive with your energies than whining all of the time. It makes me unhappy and concerned to see people so dissatisfied with the state of the nation, complaining and whining and waiting for someone else to do something about it. That "someone" is usually the opposing political party. We're a nation of critics with very few suggestions. We need to start thinking for ouselves.

Gosh, I love this forum. You all came through with some really thoughtful comments. And sallyjune, thank you for your well wishes, but I'm not doing a homework assignment. I've been stewing about this and I'm genuinely interested in what you all have to say.

I honestly loved Thoreau's essay. It made me think about the moral obligation of civil disobedience, never mind the efficacy. I've read quite a bit of MLK Jr., and the thing about him is that he wanted to bring about change as quickly and efficiently as possible. He made CD into a science, and it worked.
He was amazing. Thoreau and the other transcendentalists were all about the abolition of slavery, but they were only effective as far as spreading the word. They got their ideas out there and it made a difference. Thoreau was obviously an advocate of civil disobedience, but it's like King took those ideas and dressed them up. He made them work.

Now, the most interesting thing to me about "Civil Disobedience" is that Thoreau saw CD as a moral obligation. In light of your comments it is evident that today we think of CD in terms of its practicality. Personally I think that this is the best way to look at it. Thoreau, on the other hand, believed that paying your taxes to an unjust government is despicable. He would probably wonder why you fund the murders that you so vehemently oppose. Never mind that it wouldn't do any good to get thrown into jail. He just thought it was wrong and he would wonder how you could live with yourself.

As the people that are familiar with my rants probably know, I'm very religious. One of the "Articles of Faith" of my church states that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Now, this only goes so far as the law is not evil. As a matter of belief, I think that we like to go through lawful channels to affect change or maintain the status quo. Thoreau and King both saw the lawful avenues of change as ineffectual and painfully slow. Meanwhile, innocent people are suffering and dying.

I think that dgandhi's comment is really insightful, but the optimist in me wants to believe that inefficacy is NOT inevitable. When I look at the force of people who are unhappy about death and devastation abroad, I wonder why CD isn't an option. You said, dgandhi, that the ugliness isn't dumped in our own backyards. This is true, and it certainly makes a difference. But don't you think, despite the comfort of our domestic situation and the ease and profitability of abusing the people of other lands, that people are passionate about this? I mean, I've heard such hatred and outrage coming from American lips that I'm amazed there isn't more unrest in this country. It seems almost incredible to me that people don't do more when they are that angry. Do you really think that Americans aren't willing to be "beaten unconscious trying to stop something?" It would certainly cheapen their words quite a bit, if you ask me.

Don't you think it's slightly, I donno, pitiful to have decided that drastic action is ineffectual before even attempting it, especially in view of the intensity of the talk that floats around the internet? Are we honestly more willing to get out of America than to try to change it? Do you feel right about leaving the rest of us nuts here with irresponsible power?

I'm not calling for civil disobedience here. I'm just throwing some ideas out there.

What's that one in the middle? I've seen all of them except that one and it's torturing me!!!

K, I know that this discussion ended a year ago, but in case anyone ever reads this I have to point to one thing that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Several people have said that continuing to breastfeed a kid for comfort is destructive because it teaches kids that they can "get everything that they want" and that they won't learn to "comfort themselves," etc. Wait a second. Why is comforting a child with breastfeeding different than giving a child a hug? Kissing her, stroking her hair, rubbing her back, cuddling her, giving her a mug of hot chocolate or a bowl of chicken soup? If your 7-year-old comes up to you asking for comfort, I really hope that you don't tell her, "No, you're way too old for that. Comfort yourself. You can't get everything that you want."