I know I've seen this before.

Regardless, I envy their relationship, and found that slowly-dawning realization of the brother over the course of the video hilarious.

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
of the big lake they called "Gitche Gumee."
The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead
when the skies of November turn gloomy.
With a load of iron ore twenty-six thousand tons more
than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty,
that good ship and true was a bone to be chewed
when the "Gales of November" came early.

The ship was the pride of the American side
coming back from some mill in Wisconsin.
As the big freighters go, it was bigger than most
with a crew and good captain well seasoned,
concluding some terms with a couple of steel firms
when they left fully loaded for Cleveland.
And later that night when the ship's bell rang,
could it be the north wind they'd been feelin'?

The wind in the wires made a tattle-tale sound
and a wave broke over the railing.
And ev'ry man knew, as the captain did too
'twas the witch of November come stealin'.
The dawn came late and the breakfast had to wait
when the Gales of November came slashin'.
When afternoon came it was freezin' rain
in the face of a hurricane west wind.

When suppertime came the old cook came on deck sayin'.
"Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya."
At seven P.M. a main hatchway caved in; he said,
"Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!"
The captain wired in he had water comin' in
and the good ship and crew was in peril.
And later that night when 'is lights went outta sight
came the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Does any one know where the love of God goes
when the waves turn the minutes to hours?
The searchers all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay
if they'd put fifteen more miles behind 'er.
They might have split up or they might have capsized;
they may have broke deep and took water.
And all that remains is the faces and the names
of the wives and the sons and the daughters.

Lake Huron rolls, Superior sings
in the rooms of her ice-water mansion.
Old Michigan steams like a young man's dreams;
the islands and bays are for sportsmen.
And farther below Lake Ontario
takes in what Lake Erie can send her,
And the iron boats go as the mariners all know
with the Gales of November remembered.

In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed,
in the "Maritime Sailors' Cathedral."
The church bell chimed 'til it rang twenty-nine times
for each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
of the big lake they call "Gitche Gumee."
"Superior," they said, "never gives up her dead
when the gales of November come early!"

Replacing with proper embed. Matched from previous thumbnail *backup=[...snipped...]

A better question might be...What is the Law? When can a citizen 'stand their ground' and shoot/kill an offending/abusive cop? At some point, it must dawn on the legislature that cops kill 10 times as many citizens as the reverse (citizens killing cops) and it must be considered that we need protection FROM the police, as well as protection by the police. ;-)

As to your actual question, it's been reported that they were given the entire 'file' of evidence by the DA, everything they had, which must have been boxes upon boxes of information, as well as multiple 'laws' in their legalese entirety, including some that had already been removed for being unconstitutional. When that's done to an actual defendant in a trial, it's often called 'burying them in evidence', and is a tactic to hide a needle (of evidence) in a hay stack. I've never heard of it happening in a grand jury, where there is no defense side offered only the prosecution side (normally). It really seems the 'prosecution' this time was designed to both confuse the grand jury and offer them reasonable doubt...which is not how grand jury's work against citizens/non-police. Again, why I hope for disbarment of the DA, this was not zealous representation of their client, us.

Just like taxes for wars people don't support. Or subsidies and tax breaks for companies that wield political power and yet have no valid economic rationale for being subsidised. I hate to break it to you, but democratic societies have plenty of things that you pay for that you either don't support or don't use.

It's a fact that this point has apparently not dawned on a lot of people and the guy in the video doesn't put it eloquently, but you can bet at a state level when earmarks for generally wasteful expenses that only benefit a few come up, those few will suddenly become very supportive of the proposals that benefit their few over the many.

You could also take the perspective that since no one knows when they might get sufficiently sick to lose their job and their income, that it's an insurance policy for even the healthy. Even if you don't believe in that, the fact is emergency rooms are obliged to treat immediate health issues for free. Why should the healthy not be obliged to pay for this tacit insurance?

Your "obvious" solution has been progressing for years... Indeed Sarkeesian cherry picks games that offend her, but ignores that there are quite a few more games where women are protagonists, and /shock horror even dressed appropriately...

It's obviously not good enough for her, or apparently you...

As for your daughter and Mario, no, there's not something wrong with that. There are quite a few games (and more are coming) with female protagonists. Perhaps you should introduce her to Child of Light? Or let her play through the Longest Journey series? Guess what, not every game is going to give you the choice of a male/female protagonist, and I'm not sure why it's required. Honestly, I'd love it if reality TV shows about dumb socialites would disappear from the entertainment spectrum, but sadly I don't get to dictate to the media (or indeed the viewing public) what they should be doing.

In response to your points about the fight, you're right, and it should keep going and we should all try to support it. But Sarkeesian undermines that fight. Not because she dares to speak out, but how she does it. In her attacks, and they are attacks, she tars all male gamers as either deliberately misogynistic or hopelessly naive. That's great, really, you convince people to support you by insulting them continuously?

As for this snide little bit of crap...

"Look, I'm sorry people pointing out to you how fucked up it is how women are sometimes portrayed in games is somehow ruining your ability to enjoy games. But there are serious problems here. Maybe not problems for you, but problems for people like my daughter. "

This is a problem you and Anita share... Presumption. That just because I think she's a hack, that somehow she's ruining my fun (she isn't), that I support a male character domination of the industry (I don't), that there shouldn't be more strong female characters represented (there should) and so on and so forth. You have concocted a scenario in your head and jumped straight to the insults without ever bothering to find out what my opinion on the games (as opposed to the person blasting them) is...

Would it be sexist/misogynist to think that the woman in the article is batshit insane?

http://thelibertydoll.com/2014/08/22/meet-woman-reduce-male-population-90-for-peace/

Not because she's a woman, but because of what she's saying, and how she's saying it. This is why I object to Sarkeesian and think she's a shameful opportunist who's willing to set back feminism in her quest for fame or perhaps relevance..

"You can still have your Damsel/Dude in Distress trope, by the way. I have no doubt lazy developers will continue to use it as a substitute for meaningful story. Just don't expect people not to call out the utter absurdity of it, is all I'm saying."

Oh, it's my trope now... /eyeroll

I can't point out how ridiculous it is to try and kill off a trope that pervades every aspect of human story telling since the dawn of time without it becoming my personal favourite? Pro tip, if you're trying to convince someone of a viewpoint, it usually helps not to be a patronising git... X D

@lantern53

When you have a country were it is acceptable for SWAT teams equipped with more weapons and body armor than an average soldier in your national military to kick down doors and throw flashbangs into people's homes on the "suspicion" that a small amount of drugs may be in the house, or to intimidate peaceful protestors by raising their weapons towards them, when it is acceptable for the NY city police department to conduct secret surveillance on anyone within three states who happens to be a Muslim in the name of counter-terrorism activities, when it is acceptable to taze people simply because they don't provide identification upon demand, when it is acceptable for the police to go to the wrong house to serve a warrant and shoot the dog that happens to live there then I think it is only natural that people are going to hate on the police. The police in the US (particularly the LAPD) have earned the hate they receive ten times over in my opinion for a lot of the reasons he states in this video.

Like he said, the problem is that you are telling a group of people that they are there to enforce the law. Which isn't a problem until it dawns on some of them that they occupy a position that allows them to actually act above the law and get away with it.

Every cop should have to have a camera attached to their uniform that is recording at all times while they are on duty and that video should be available for a civilian oversight committee to review. The committee should have the ability to punish or fire officers who overstep their authority or misbehave on the job. And the videos should be public record so we can see both the good cops and the bad.

Your video, Weather Radar Captures Stunning Dawn "Torrent" of Birds, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Neils thoughts on the viral video

*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.

It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.

Some comments...

1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.

2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.

3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.

4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.

5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.

In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.

Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson

*Dead by dawn

I was waiting for Naomi Watts to show up, then realisation dawned.

Is this subliminal advertising for the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?

If not, it still made me laugh.

Replaced the audio clip with the very fresh official video. And *promote.


If I make 250 stars, I'll make a *sadness (or *sorrow) channel. And this video will marked as such. Love how the lyrics contrast with the song.


Today I’ll cut the flowers
I will walk for hours
I will breathe in all that grows
Now that spring is coming
And the sun will shine
I will look up when it shows
And there will be no darkness
There will be no darkness
I will fill your space with light
And there will be no darkness
There will be no darkness
I will fill your space with light
Today the streets are empty
And the sky is clear
I could sleep until it hurts
Now the birds are singing
Somewhere dawn arrives
And there will be no darkness
There will be no darkness
I will fill your space with light
And there will be no darkness
There will be no darkness
I will fill your space with light
And it looks like hope
And it looks like hope
I will fill your space with light
And it looks like hope
And it looks like hope
I will fill your space with light
And it looks like hope
And it looks like hope
I will fade into the light
And it looks like hope
And it looks like hope
For today at least I’ll try

Yeah, so halfway through and he's just finished the bit about Sucker Punch. Gonna have to stop you there, buddy. I *have* seen Sucker Punch along with all of Snyders other movies (except the owl thing).

He's a technically gifted director, but he's at his best when he's adapting material (300, Dawn of the Dead). His Watchmen was a solid adaptation of the source material, but it completely missed the point of the original (which was to highlight the strengths of comics as a medium). Stripped of all it's little nuances, Watchmen is a decent if unremarkable superhero movie, whereas the comic is a work of genuine literary innovation.

As for the rest of the video, if you have to make a video like this is explain why the movie is not bad, then clearly the movie failed to connect with it's intended audience. Even if there is an explanation for each of those story points (and his dads death is still retarded), it doesn't matter. Taken as a whole the movie just feels wrong. And frankly, by the end, I was bored. I had no investment in any of the characters.

And the final comment is utter bollocks. Yeah, Superman's been an asshole in the comics. Hell, I've never even really been a fan of Superman (stories involving an indestructible being with near god like strength aren't that interesting). But you've just spent 15 minutes explaining why it's a good movie despite those previous attributes, so I can't respond with my (equally subjective) opinion?

This is a pretty good summary

You do exist for your own sake, but it's fun to exist for the sake of someone else's pleasure, and your own.

If you're into that kind of thing.

If not, that's cool, don't stress. But I gots me a woman and she has nails done, hair done, all that jazz -- and I dig it to the break of dawn. And she's obsessed with it and that's okay. We're both moderately successful and creative, so the extent of our obsessions are not the measure of our self worth.