Great sift, and thread as well. Ah, where's Westy when you need him?

Whenever I hear people say between you and I, irregardless, or it's instead of its, I am constantly resisting the urge to correct them. Of course, we can all be a language Nazi, but words and their usage will always evolve, as Ferdinand de Saussure first noted; he classified language study into two groups—the static (a snapshot of a language at a given moment in time, which we call a dictionary) and the dynamic (the fluid usage of words, which changes so quickly that it's impossible to put into a dictionary). Unless you are working with an artificial language like Esperanto or mathematics, where its definitions are clearly explained from the outset, every word's etymology will be a Frankenstein to some degree. For instance, when should we use "that" instead of "which"? There is no One True Answer, only a messy history of usage which we must dig through to agree one usage is better than the others because... well, because we like the sound of it.

Still, it's frustrating. Why do we bother learning grammar and spelling rules if it's okay to suddenly not follow them? Here's a poem I wrote about exactly that:


Ode to Our Mislaid Apostrophes

O wonderful, mischievous, slippery mark:
I want to punctuate, but youre location is stark.
My meanings are loose, my intentions skewed—
my editors pens could leave me quite screwed!
They often complain that theyre English is good
while my typewritten words barely understood
If only Id divine when its was not it's
they just might be able to keep all there wits
Or not mistake they're when it really is there,
or swap out a your when you're is somewhere...
I find it so silly. Cant you understand my thought?
Is my english so bad that new laws must be wrought?
I suppose who and whom can go fly with the dodo
for who really cares, but Gandalf and Frodo
In fact, I will drop all punctuation at once
and no one around will suspect me a dunce
for they too will know what I mean with my word
so why need I try its so pointless absurd
lets assassinate all grammer and speling as well
im sure every school kid would love to us tell
how much they hate engish and other dim arts
no need to learn standards when its old pompous farts
insisting they bend to the will of those rules
like all human beings are grammatical mules
o wunderful mischevious slipery mark
i would use you if only i knew where you park
but no one cares now if youre lost to the wind
since apostrofe rules they wish to recind
its a simple mater of its usage you kno
wheter your is correct in your sentance flow
ah who cares no one maybe only a fyew
i do wish theyd speek up oh how I doo


P.S. And "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" is actually "Eats, Shoots & Leaves". Normally, I wouldn't say anything, but in this case, the author's comma placement is explicitly intentional. Tee hee.

P.P.S. I also agree with oxdottir that neither the internet nor this forum is a formal medium; we are not paid editors and nobody is expected to write as if they are paid journalists (least of all those for whom English is a second language). So, sorry in advance to anyone if I reach out and tag you. Westy, of course, is exempt.

Wow. Again with the long post. Because you quote me and end up calling me a troll, I’ll take the time and effort to go through each of your points. I realize that by now, no one but you and I are reading this so I’ll speak directly to you rather than attempting to make my comments applicable to others.
“What do feelings have to do with anything here? You're being patronizing. That's rude. And I don't see where you've asked me a question, by the way.”
Patronizing, maybe. I am attempting to show you that I do read and listen to the material pertinent to this discussion. I am not “speaking out of my rear” so to speak. I am informed and was letting you know that. My suggestion that it may or may not make you feel better is my attempt to signify that you may be glad to discuss this with someone who is reasonably well read or you may be upset because you were trying to teach me something by pointing out something of which I might not be aware. As to the question, glance up a ways and you will see this: “A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?” Personally, I think that this is a good thing.

“First off, you're attributing words to me I haven't said or implied with your "evil rich" quip.”

Granted. I apologize for lumping you in with those people who think that people with massive amounts of wealth are evil. All I have as a defense is the tone I have derived from your posts leading back to the original quip about taxing billionaires fairly.


“Secondly, your insinution that people of every level of wealth break tax laws and that it then follows that "the system is thoroughly and completely broken" is not supported anywhere in either article. But you imply as much, and then you go on to marshall this false premise to support your opinion. This is a form of dishonesty.”

So now I am dishonest? Interesting. I don’t see anywhere that I suggested that either article discussed people of every income level breaking tax laws. What I said was “That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken.” Please try to take this in the way that I mean it. I realize that you are not a US citizen and in my mind your attempt to label me as dishonest means that you are not aware of some commonly known facts about taxes in the US. I will simply say that there is a vast array of methods used by everyone including the rich to avoid paying taxes on income. It may be a waiter under-reporting his tips, a construction worker paying their nanny/gardener in cash, or a small business owner hiding income within their business expenses. This is not an exhaustive list, but all of these share a common thread: they require conscious thought and are a direct attempt to cheat on taxes. This is all illegal and yet it is done every year by people from the highest to lowest income brackets. I’m a firm believer in the rule of law and even though it is a tax code I do not agree with, it is the law and everyone should be made to follow it. Not just the rich. Everyone. This doesn’t even include the people who unintentionally cheat on their taxes because the tax code is ridiculously complex and nearly impossible to understand. Here (http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/09/04/NewsInBrief/Irs-Help.Centers.Gave.Incorrect.Information-457639.shtml) is an AP story that shows that 43% of the time the actual IRS help desk gave incorrect or no answer to tax questions. The actual people paid to help you do the right thing on your tax forms told you the wrong information or gave you no help 43 freaking percent of the time. That is truly insane. That is yet another sign that the US tax system is well and truly broken. To put it into numbers, the IRS estimated in 2001 that 15% ($353 billion) of taxes went unpaid (http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/307/essentials/p42.htm). It’s certainly not all because of intent to defraud the government, but that represents a sizeable chunk. In summary, my premise is not false. You read it as false because you inferred that I was only discussing the material in the two articles given. I was not. Facts support my opinion in this particular point. My premise was that everyone cheats. Facts show that rich people cheat, middle class people cheat, and poor people cheat. My opinion was that everyone who cheats should be punished.


“I take that as a compliment. But I'd not limit my efforts to the middle class of course; the marginalized and disenfranchised poor are at least as deserving of fairness as are the middle-class.”

It wasn’t really meant as a complement nor was it meant as an insult. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that you would try and help the people as you thought best rather than helping yourself. I don’t know you, so I can’t judge your character. I was just listing my assumption before moving on to my next argument.



“The word "labour" is meaningless when we are talking about the uber-rich; the only fruits in question here are derived by the labour of others--for productive property accrues value on its own while owners sit idle or lobby their friends in government to manipulate legislation in their favour ie., for more welfare-for-the-wealthy.”

Here is where we dramatically different in outlook. I am not going to try and change your opinion, it would take quite a bit more than this forum to change either of our opinions I believe. But in any case, I am going to state mine more in detail and hopefully you will see some of the basis of my views. You state “uber-rich” like they appeared out of thin air as if through a miracle. I contend that this is not the case. As I see it, rich people in general (uber and non-uber alike) come from one of three places:

1) Inherited wealth. Inherited wealth exists and in some cases has been passed down for centuries. Inherited wealth did not appear from nothing however. At some point in time, someone earned that wealth and it has been passed down. That wealth is “earned” though the person holding it now is not the one who earned it. Income derived from this wealth is also earned in that the wealth itself must be risked in some fashion in order to generate income or the principal itself must be sold in order to realize a gain.

2) Earned wealth. Earned wealth is the most common form of wealth (at least in the US, read Tom Stanley’s the Millionaire Next Door). Earned wealth comes directly from the fruit of one’s labor. It may be an assembly line worker who has earned a good wage and invested wisely, a plumber who has worked hard and grown a business, or any of the five richest men in the world who all earned the greatest portion of their money within their own lifetime.

3) Obtained wealth. Generally, thieves. I lump in everyone from Bonny and Clyde to Ferdinand Marcos in this category. These people take the wealth of others through force, intimidation, trickery, etc. I have already stated my position on the law (see above).

You appear to believe that people become obscenely wealthy (and I use that merely as an adjective, not as a statement on their character) through idleness and massaging the system in their favor. That may be the case in some instances, but for the most part wealth comes from a good business plan and hard work. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are great examples of this. Yes they both started from somewhat privileged backgrounds, but their real wealth came from their hard work. They may not have built buildings or dug holes, but both of them are known for their incredible work ethics. They earned their money fairly and no one has the right to take it away just because they are wealthy. Just because there are fewer rich people than poor people doesn’t enter into it.


“And you know quite well that your consumption tax scheme is regressive and unjust.”

You claim to know what I know do you? Interesting. Somehow I doubt it. In this case, you are quite wrong. First, I don’t claim any credit for the concept of a consumptive tax. Let me quote Alexander Hamilton. “It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.” He concisely stated what is self evident truth, i.e. that consumptive taxes are self limiting in that too much consumption tax reduces revenue by reducing consumption itself. But that doesn’t address your point. You suggest that “my” consumptive tax scheme is unjust and go on to list why it is without any benefit being given to “me” for forethought on the topic. You make assumptions, assign them to me, and then argue against them. Just for thought, I’ll list two possible scenarios which are neither regressive nor unjust. In scenario 1, consumptive taxes are placed on all goods except utilities, food, daycare, and healthcare. Thus, if you are at or below the poverty level and spending all of your money on just getting by you pay no taxes whatsoever. The more wealth you have, the more money you spend on things other than these items and the more tax you pay thus placing a “progressive” tax burden upon the wealthy. You can argue whether housing should be included in the exemption, but that is another discussion. Scenario 2 is a plan already in place and proposed before both the US Senate and House of Representatives. It’s the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). In essence, it is also a sales tax except instead of making exemptions for certain goods it has no exemptions at all and instead gives taxpayers a “prebate” each month that makes up for taxes which would be paid on basic services. The authors make a good case why this should be so and illustrate how it means the middle and lower tax brackets either pay the same or pay even less tax while they do now but I don’t know that I am convinced that the bureaucracy created would be able process these prebates in a timely manner. Both of these cases use a national sales tax to totally replace corporate, income, capital gains, payroll, and estate taxes. In the case of the Fair Tax, extensive research has been done already to determine the effects of this on the economy as well as on taxpayers in different income brackets. For the Fair Tax at least, studies show an across the board reduction in overall effective tax rate with the greatest reduction (1.5% effective lifetime tax rate) for those in the low-income brackets and the least reduction (20.5% effective lifetime tax rate) in the highest brackets. So, in effect, everyone pays less taxes and yet the program is revenue neutral. And because of the prebate (or in scenario 1, the exemptions), it ends up retaining the “progressive” nature of the current income tax system.


“In other words "it is so because you say it is so--for no other reason but this." Except I don't buy it.”

Whatever. Let me reword it and see if you can buy it this way. If I attempt to force you to accept my views because I think they are right, it doesn’t change the fact that I am trying to force you to accept my viewpoint.


“You're transparent and you're predictable. Please put some effort into being interesting.”

I don’t believe that you mean any of it this way, but I take this as a complement even with you sticking smilies at the end of your sentences. I aim to be transparent and I have made no attempt to disguise my true opinions. And I’m glad you think that I am predictable because it means to me that I am being consistent. I shrug off the fact that you think you can “predict” me and yet you were 180 degrees wrong about what I “know” as discussed above.


“You weren't really. You just been trolling here.”

And finally, you resort to calling me a troll. It’s funny because I have made no aspersions as to your character and have in fact accepted your statements as true previously in this exchange. Since you can “predict” me, I don’t need to explain, but just in case anyone else reads this far let me explain to them. My original motivation behind posting this video and soliciting comments was simple. I accept that because of the way the US is heading, we are likely to institute some form of universal health care in the next ten years or so. Given that is true, I was looking for comments on how to ensure that a situation like that described in the video is prevented and discussion on how the US should construct a health care system. In support of this, I stated in the summary of this video the following statement “The dialogue is heavily slanted and there is a clear agenda to the message, but the underlying points are valid and worthy of discussion. If the US is truly going to attempt universal healthcare, how can we design a system so that something like this doesn't happen in the US?” At the very heart of the matter to me is the concern that American citizens won’t have access to the best possible care here in the US. In my mind, sending our citizens to some other country for health care that they can’t get here (or at least in a timely enough fashion such that they don’t die while waiting) is not an acceptable solution. The first few exchanges between us addressed the fact that money was the issue, not some other fundamental flaw in the CHA and this was directly related to the discussion at hand. The conversation took a downward turn around the time we started discussing the “fairness” of tax law.

Abba Badly Drawn Boy The Beatles Black Eyed Peas Chemical Brothers Christina Aguilera Daft Punk The Darkness David Bowie Elton John Eminem The Flaming Lips Franz Ferdinand Goldie Lookin Chain Guns N' Roses Har Mar Superstar The Hives Ice T INXS Jackson Five Jimi Hendrix Kiss Kraftwerk Led Zeppelin The Libertines Marliyn Manson Missy Elliott Morrissey New Order Nirvana Oasis Ozzy Osbourne Prodigy Public Enemy Queen Queens Of The Stone Age Red Hot Chili Peppers Rolling Stones Scissor Sisters Stevie Wonder The Stone Roses Tatu Tupac Shakur U2 Usher The Velvet Underground The Village People Wham! The White Stripes X-ecutioners Xzibit Yeah Yeah Yeahs Yoko Ono Frank Zappa

With the original graphics on the creators blog.. nice sift
http://www.flipflopflyin.com/portfolio/omm.html

As you may know Ive created a playlist of many of the dead videos on the sift. As its been there for awhile, and there have been quite a few views of it, very few vids have been fixed or discarded. I thought a list just of yours might be of some help. The list below are all your videos on my playlist. There may be a few errors, but I gave it my best shot.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Mickey-Mouse-Steamboat-Willie-1928
http://www.videosift.com/video/classic-pop-Roxette-Listen-to-Your-Heart
http://www.videosift.com/video/Vintage-Commercial-Luxury-RCA-Color-Television-1961
http://www.videosift.com/video/Franz-Ferdinand-The-Dark-of-the-Matine
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dispute-in-Ukrainian-Parliament

He went to give the other player a high 5 and i think ferdinand thought it was for him so he missed with his first swipe. Nothing too amazing that last one

"release the beast" is great, but the other original songs here aren't really very good at all. nowhere near as good as the daft punk songs, anyway. that's because dance music is mostly to do with repetition and dynamics, not originality. people who overrate originality don't usually like dance music much anyway...

for the ultimate in daft punk "sample" technique, find their "remix" of take me out by franz ferdinand. it's just the entire original song with a massive blast of white noise that builds up on top of it. it's a big, big improvement...

What other superfluous tags can I add to get this one a single, little vote?

'Feather-haired kama sutra'

'The Marlboro Man was never called an asshole, but Stephin Merritt probably has been'

This particular song is from one of the three discs that comprise Merritt's "69 Love Songs", a masterpiece about Ferdinand De Saussure, love, Busby Berkeley, bad obsessive stalking love, dancing, grim yet hopeful love, trucker's hands, and chickens with their heads cut off.

Voting for the video not audio, Nick - not a fan of Franz Ferdinand; although this is probably one of their best songs. It's a good video: doubly so as they don't feature in it (synchronised in uniform again! At least they have great faces for radio). By the way, for those that don't notice: none of the above is a compliment - except the good animation part.

P.S. "Are you Scottish? No?! Well Done!" Let me shake your hand...Sorry: private joke, Sifters.