good post, thanks for the insight

Q

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
1. Most of the time squads are ordered not to carry batons because they inflict mortal wounds and casualties. So they have to do with shields, tear gas. and water hoses.

2. This is also because Korea has had a violent history of firing guns onto protesters back in the 1980's when President Jeon Doo-Hwan led a military coup to take over the government. And while in power (1980-1988) he ordered his army to shoot down student protesters with tanks and army men.

Since then (which is still within last 20 years), civilian casualty is considered a trademark of a tyrant. Hence no guns, no batons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun_Doo-hwan

3. Korean protesters usually don't expect or WANT a peaceful solution until the end of conflict. And they're not afraid to fight, since KNOWING that the police will try to avoid inflicting casualties as much as possible. Police can fight back only when they are attacked first and are in danger of being injured themselves. That's why protesters always gets to taunt the police, because if they do show any kinds of harsh abuse, that goes right on to the front page news with the bold letters saying 'POLICE BRUTALITY' or 'TYRANNICAL SOCIETY'. They also usually have 'all or nothing' mentality, and are not willing to negotiate. Only when they are arrested and defeated they usually calm down and start talking.

4. This is also to demonstrate 'what they're capable of'. The longer they put up with this charade, 'stronger' their voice gets. In their mentality, the stronger you prove yourself to be, the more likely the government would listen to you, because now they have have an edge in negotiation, threatening them that they'll just go back to the streets and riot again, causing as much damage as long as possible. So they almost always put up a fight, trying to never shying away from using force.

1. Most of the time squads are ordered not to carry batons because they inflict mortal wounds and casualties. So they have to do with shields, tear gas. and water hoses.

2. This is also because Korea has had a violent history of firing guns onto protesters back in the 1980's when President Jeon Doo-Hwan led a military coup to take over the government. And while in power (1980-1988) he ordered his army to shoot down student protesters with tanks and army men.

Since then (which is still within last 20 years), civilian casualty is considered a trademark of a tyrant. Hence no guns, no batons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun_Doo-hwan

But also they consider this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee a national hero, who did the exact same thing, but in early years)

3. Korean protesters usually don't expect or WANT a peaceful solution until the end of conflict. And they're not afraid to fight, since KNOWING that the police will try to avoid inflicting casualties as much as possible. Police can fight back only when they are attacked first and are in danger of being injured themselves. That's why protesters always gets to taunt the police, because if they do show any kinds of harsh abuse, that goes right on to the front page news with the bold letters saying 'POLICE BRUTALITY' or 'TYRANNICAL SOCIETY'. They also usually have 'all or nothing' mentality, and are not willing to negotiate. Only when they are arrested and defeated they usually calm down and start talking.

4. This is also to demonstrate 'what they're capable of'. The longer they put up with this charade, 'stronger' their voice gets. In their mentality, the stronger you prove yourself to be, the more likely the government would listen to you, because now they have have an edge in negotiation, threatening them that they'll just go back to the streets and riot again, causing as much damage as long as possible. So they almost always put up a fight, trying to never shying away from using force.

Lived in Lafayette (La-fy-ette) for five years. Best friends Cajun. Learned how to cook a roux from Jeanette Trahan...looked just like Justin's. Lovely!
I think he missed the celery though. She always put it in hers. Also, we did cook the chicken in the roux before adding the water...just a little. Yum!
I watched this so I could remember how to do it...it's been years!

Guess who always puts the duration time in their videos?


http://www.videosift.com/talk/Idea-to-help-with-fixing-dead-pool-videos

It should *stay, I agree with Farhad that stuff like this needs to get out there to the American public so we can all see what is really happening 'over there' as we sure as hell are not gonna see it on the evening news... also, like you guys are starting to realize, if we start pulling stuff like this, you are going to have to kiss your 9-11 vids goodbye, and I think just about everyone will argue that that would be a tragic loss of content, for any number of reasons...

If a group referendum was necessary to rule that 9-11 vids are okay then I am willing to hold a pow wow for the debate over Iraq videos and where to draw the line in regards to them, because frankly, the war, in many senses, has eclipsed that one day at least a hundred times over, and if we can't be a part of an alternative source of documentation and information, we are only complicit in the sanitization of its coverage.

Furthermore, I still stand by the definition that a snuff vid has to have been produced from the get go with the intention of capturing a death on camera, and in some way, profiting from it. Long shot, filmed by accident or to record massive shit going down (like 9-11) should not count in this category, and therefore should be allowed on this site.

PS I still await a repeal of the Zapruder ban... I will always put forth that it is not snuff... someday, I know y'all will come around

"This is the song on the apple comercial."

funny description.

Feist's always put on a fun live show.

Alton always puts a smile on my face. His show is excellent - delves in to the "science of cooking". Cool video.

Are the words used in the lead comment that can be written under the sift during submission able to come up through search?

If the title takes up all your space, one could always put the year in the comment. The one that displays under the sift. In any case, the decade should be in the tags for the tag cloud.

60s is grammatically correct eh? Well it does take up one less space in valuable tag real estate Consensus will rule and I will retro fix all mine some sleepless night soon.

So is with or without an apostrophe? It would make the tag clouds neater. I want to live in grammar world

How many people can you name that appear?

Does Errol Morris always put his own son in? (2:30)

About the video, it's hard to make someone understand something they are paid not to understand.

And It takes a special person I believe to say that global warming is not real especially given some pretty 'hard' facts, such as the fact that the last hottest years on record were in the previous last 14 years, the last one being 2005. 2005 was a year that records were broken in the US, Europe and India for highest temperatures and rainfall. The ice glaciers around the world have retreated, up in the northen territories you can see trees for miles around drunkenly swayed because the roots are in permafrost that is thawing. Go to Alaska, you can see the effects of Global Warming on the oil pipeline, because since the land is thawing and threatening the structural intergrity of the pipe. Back when I was in africa, rising temperatures over the years created problems with mosiquitos, as they moved into higher locales were most of the cpaitals were built such as Lusaka and Harare. But enough facts, people don't like facts, this is not a story based on facts this is purely economics, and the american people are being taken for a ride.

Kyoto has been ratified by all countries expect 2, the US and Australia. Both countries contend mainly that imposing enviromental policies on their economies would be detremental. The motor industry of course does not want this to happen, imposing enviromental policies in the US would mean that low MPG cars would be encouraged because they are more enviromentally friendly, currently Ford and GM are really not in that business, it's dominated by the bigger companies like Toyota and Honda. The US when compared to the world has the worst cars based on MPG, so much so that american cars doen't pass enviromental laws set in China of all places.

Some states and cities seeing inaction from the goverment are taking action in their own hands. California nearly did this until GM/Ford basically killed it and the restrictions that were supposed to bring California to the MPG standards of China were diluted. At the same time GM's amazing Electrical car got silently killed.

Now to many people, the question would arise about why would the motor industry go out of their way to suppress this. Because enviromental legislation means goverment control and oversight of an industry that's been allowed to get away with alot in the past. Safety issues that were always put on the driver, the legislation the american people had to go through just to get safety standards up in first place. Remember the Ford Pinto? You know that car that if you get rear ended in, chances are you're BBQ toast. Ford knew about this problem, worked out that it's cheaper to face the lawsuits then recall an entire production run.

So you really believe they are not capable of counter-spin to protect their industry? In actuality of course if Ford and GM would adopt mordern policies and improve the enviromental standards of their cars they would only benefit seeing as that would instantly open up new areas for export. GM could give you an amazing electrical car, that is good for living within the city tommorrow, but they wouldn't do that, why give you something today that works? When we can promise you hydrogen fuel cells that are close to a decade away. Allowing us of course to collude and rape the american people and hopefully the rest of the world for all the inefficient SUV gas guzzlers that they want.

This is all risky business, it is possible that Detriot is going to finally dissappear off the map. Ford and GM would lose out and we will all be driving Honda's and Toyota's in the future. You know why because the american car industry has been pathetic since the 1970s, when the oil crisis hit the american people were left with gas guzzlers from Ford/GM and new fuel efficient cars from Japan. Cars from Japan were so much more efficient and cost benefical, car manufacturs lobbied congress to impose trade restrictions on Japan. What happened was a voluntary quota system, where a fixed of Japanese cars were allowed in the US market, thus their low price shot up (high demand- low supply) and Japanese cars attained a high end market and the Lexus and such emerged.

The Japanese did it because it let them make a killing, there was large demand in the US, the quota artifically drove up the price for the Americans, thus Japanese auto companies were for it. Ford and GM were allowed to keep their tiny dominion for a little more, and also made a killing. Who lost? The american people who again got sub-par cars when compared to the rest of the world, paid much more for cars both domestic and foreign, and also pays the goverments imposition of the voluntary export quota.

So, no. I don't think Global Warming is BS. I like the weather like it is now, I don't want to see it change.