>> ^dag:
Does anyone speak camel? I'd like a translation.


it seems to be a different dialect of camel to the one i learnt, but at one point he definitely apologises to the camels for not passing the bong. also, at the end he mutters something about 'getting the hump'.

Now don't try and tell me you can't hear the difference!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Uncle-Ken-and-the-Toilets-A-True-Yorkshire-Dialect

>> ^quantumushroom

Obamunism = socialism, the intermediate step between capitalism and communism. There's plenty of RINOS as well as Bush presidents that foment the same thing, only at a slightly slower pace. Both parties were only too happy to let Civics vanish from public schools government indoctrination centers.


I think 'Obamunism' is actually called Communitarianism. America was pretty socialist before, then they shut it down, made it taboo to be communist (which failed in the Soviet Union anyway) then instituted capitalism, which has now failed.

Has a lot to do with the Hegelian Dialectic - ie. 'a + b = c' irrespective of if a or b is false.

a = Capitalism
b = Communism
c = Communitarianism

Ha. I love this, people follow Misean view of economics without realizing that at it's cores it is against all statism and democracy as a whole. How would you like to be ruled over corporations and business interests?

You make an assumption here that is false. Businesses get the ruling over us when they are able to enforce the rule of law over us. When we are free to choose what we want when we want it, the consumer is in power.

On the other end of the spectrum, the labor side (means of production). There will always be a fight between the business owners and the workers. When there are many workers, the companies will be able to force lower wages, and vice versa, that is just the way it goes. I think one of the modern success stories of free markets and interesting self regulatory bodies that emerge are the labor unions. They were able to strike out their claims more effectively and nimbly than any government regulation.

When the power is in the hands of the people, they have to recognize that their dollar is indeed power, and where they choose to invest it directly affects the world around them. It is a world where much more thought and responsibility has to be taken into account.

I realized that capitalism possess no soul and could not work unless we were all robots and did not care about the welfare of others.

Business is all about providing solutions for people directly. You aim is for consumer satisfaction. Who are these "others" to which your refer? If a company charges a fair market price for its product, it can pay its workers well, and his family can prosper as well, the consumer also gets his product at a reasonable price. It is the happy medium. It is when the government interferes with this that the unfairness is introduced. When we are forced to pay twice what a hair cut is worth because we need to make sure the barber is placed in a position in society that we wish to make the new minimum, you undermine the consumers right to evaluate what things are worth, and thus undermine the entire price structure. Things will begin to break down and inflation will result, lowering the buying power of everyone and thus returning this man to the same status of which you wished to lower him out of, and over-complicating things by placing a moral agenda on economics that all don't hold to.

The key to good governance and national economy is the mixture of both
This is dialectic reasoning to think you can mix to things that are fundamentally opposed to each other. Trying to merge two opposites is not wisdom. This is the idea of having your cake and eating it too. You can not have the powers of the market work if they are stifled in other areas. There ends up with a bubble of something eventually, and the market will always find that and exploit it until it bursts. The resent housing bubble is the greatest explained of poor government regulation. the The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the housing bubble by not alowing banks to use their normal risk evaluation models when considering blacks and other minorities for loans. The result was the sub prime mess of today; enterprising capitalist's found a way to exploit poor government controls for economic redistribution of wealth and manged to make the poor, more poor, and the rich more rich...which is usually now much government "level the playing field" laws go.

I was assured a full....
You were assured something, but where they something you even wanted? Where they something you asked for? The main problem with this whole idea is the massive waste that goes on, communism is extremely ineffective. It provides things to those that provide nothing. It provides things to those who do not want those things. It essentially is the most unfair system one could make when trying to make something effective and efficient. This is why Soviets could launch objects into space, but could not provide soap or women's pantyhose to its people, there is no real model for determining the value of things OTHER than peoples demand for them. There is no government system you could make until after you have a pricing model for them, it hasn't been shown to be possible without massive inflation or more widespread enforcement of market strategies.

Central planning nearly always results in tyranny of the most extreme kind. Once the power is centralized, the ability to abuse that power becomes irrefutable as far as history is concerned. The idea of the philosopher king (or planners)lacks the merit or the understanding of human nature. People are greedy. To place the power of all our lives in the hands of the few only begs for the worst kinds of tragedy that the world have known. More over, the few that we ask to do it are no wiser on those things than ourselves. Do you think that the hundreds of people on capital hill know what the best course of action is on green energy? Do their one or 2 advisers? No they don't. The only thing they can do, is force it. Even if it isn't the most wise course of action.

1. i never write anything true about me anywhere ever.

2. one day I saw this blog about writing 25 random things about oneself

3. and no one but me had this mark next to the name that noted my marginal status to the community posting on that blog.

4.It felt awkward,

5. maybe 1/6000000 part of what's like to have a star on a vest...

6. i've felt compelled to participate in a community inside my monitor

7. it's happened when i started reading comments on youtu...

8. on videosift in fact.

9. the more i read on this site throughout several years the less reticent i felt about joining,

10. but at the same time, i knew the secret services were stalking.

11. so it made me realize something

12. yeah, never write stuff about myslef anywhere

13. and when i wrote #12 i realized something else

14. you're paranoid, mister (oops, can be Miss, it can, ah believe this, it can be anything)

15. somehow this guitar riff from a 60's heavymetal band popped in my head

16. where i come from heavymetal bears the dicotomy of boring wannabeism and when foreign heavymetal comes to town it is profusely examined before being applauded or thrown rocks and bottles at ON STAGE fuk yeah

17. i used to like heavy metal when i was a kid and an innocent victim of the anglosaxonic music industry

18. but one day i became a none victim and started listening to coltrane, faaaantaaastic . . .

19. then i saw my father enjoying traditional music from our country so i formed a real band with the best people in the world and we started doing our music, it's not industrialized (yet) and non anglosaxonic so we're pretty much satisfied

20. people consider the band's product qualifiable as artistic (not "Kanye West is an artist" or "best artist of the year mtv award" kind of artistic)

21. but we know better, i'm an art student and what people mean it's that the band's product is aesthetically touching

22. but welcome to the present time, you sell you art, you appear you famous you artist (not verbs i know)

23. I noticed my brain functions in english when i write or speak english

24. I speak several languages.

25. I think that the english language is becoming a global dialect, a tool to global communication and aknowledges less and less its cultural origins since what the globe knows about english in its majority are memes and sterile things as such

“The classical example for all times,” says Junius, referring to 1793, “is the Great French Revolution.” From all this, he draws the following conclusion: “Century-old experience thus proves that it is not a state of siege, but heroic class struggle, which rouses the self-respect, the heroism and the moral strength of the masses of the people, and serves as the country’s best protection and defence against the foreign enemy.”

Junius’ practical conclusion is this:

“Yes, it is the duty of the Social-Democrats to defend their country during a great historical crisis. But the grave guilt that rests upon the Social-Democratic Reichstag group lies precisely in that, in solemnly declaring, on August 4, 1914, that ‘In the hour of danger we will not leave our fatherland unprotected,’ they at the same time belied those words. They did leave the fatherland unprotected in the hour of greatest peril. For their first duty to the fatherland in that hour was to show the fatherland what was really behind the present imperialist war; to tear down the web of patriotic and diplomatic lies with which this encroachment on the fatherland was enmeshed; to proclaim loudly and dearly that both victory and defeat in the present war are equally fatal for the German people; to resist to the last the throttling of the fatherland by declaring a state of siege; to proclaim the necessity of immediately arming the people and of allowing the people to decide the question of war and peace; resolutely to demand a permanent session of the people’s representatives for the whole duration of the war in order to guarantee vigilant central over the government by the people’s representatives, and the control over the people’s representatives by the people; to demand the immediate abolition of all restrictions on political rights, for only a free people can successfully defend its country; and, finally, to oppose the imperialist war programme, which is to preserve Austria and Turkey, i.e., perpetuate reaction in Europe and in Germany, with the old, truly national programme of the patriots and democrats of 1848, the programme of Marx, Engels and Lassalle: the slogan of a united, Great German republic. This is the banner that should have been unfurled before the country, which would have been a truly national banner of liberation, which would have been in accord with the best traditions of Germany and with the international class policy of the proletariat.... Hence, the grave dilemma—the interests of the fatherland or the international solidarity of the proletariat—the tragic conflict which prompted our parliamentarians ‘with a heavy heart’ to side with the imperialist war, is purely imaginary, it is bourgeois nationalist fiction. On the contrary, there is complete harmony between the interests of the country and the class interests of the proletarian International, both in time of war and in time of peace; both war and peace demand the most energetic development of the class struggle, the most determined fight for the Social-Democratic programme.”

This is how Junius argues. The fallacy of his argument is strikingly evident, and since the masked and avowed lackeys of tsarism, Messrs. Plekhanov and Chkhenkeli, and perhaps even Messrs. Martov and Chkheidze may gloatingly seize upon Junius’ words, not for the purpose of establishing theoretical truth, but for the purpose of wriggling, of covering up their tracks and of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers, we must in greater detail elucidate the theoretical source of Junius’ error.

He proposes to “oppose” the imperialist war with a national programme. He urges the advanced class to turn its face to the past and not to the future! In France, in Germany, and in the whole of Europe it was a bourgeois-democratic revolution that, objectively, was on the order of the day in 1793 and 1848. Corresponding to this objective historical situation was the “truly national,” i.e., the national bourgeois programme of the then existing democracy; in 1793 this programme was carried out by the most revolutionary elements of the bourgeoisie and the plebeians, and in 1848 it was proclaimed by Marx in the name of the whole of progressive democracy. Objectively, the feudal and dynastic wars were then opposed with revolutionary democratic wars, with wars for national liberation. This was the content of the historical tasks of that epoch.

At the present time the objective situation in the biggest advanced states of Europe is different. Progress, if we leave out the possibility of temporary steps backward, is possible only towards socialist society, only towards the socialist revolution. Objectively, the imperialist bourgeois war, the war of highly developed capitalism, can, from the standpoint of progress, from the standpoint of the progressive class, be opposed only with a war against the bourgeoisie, i.e., primarily civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie for power; for unless such a war is waged serious progress is impossible; and after that—only under certain special conditions—a war to defend the socialist state against bourgeois stares is possible. That is why those Bolsheviks (fortunately, very few, and we quickly handed them over to the Prizyv-ists) who were ready to adapt the point of view of conditional defence, i.e., of defending the fatherland on the condition that there was a victorious revolution and the victory of a republic in Russia, were true to the letter of Bolshevism, but betrayed its spirit: 48 for being drawn into the imperialist war of the advanced European Powers, Russia, even under a republican form of government, would also be waging an imperialist war!

In saying that class struggle is the best means of defence against invasion, Junius applied Marxian dialectics only halfway, taking one step on the right road and immediately deviating from it. Marxian dialectics call for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation. That class struggle is the best means of defence against invasion is true both with regard to the bourgeoisie, which is overthrowing feudalism, and with regard to the proletariat, which is overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Precisely because it is true with regard to every form of class oppression, it is too general, and therefore, inadequate in the present specific case. Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle, and only this form of class struggle would have saved Europe (the whole of Europe, not only one country) from the peril of invasion. The “Great German Republic” had it existed in 1914-16, would also have waged an imperialist war.

Junius came very close to the correct solution of the problem and to the correct slogan: civil war against the bourgeoisie for socialism; but, as if afraid to speak the whole truth, he turned back to the fantasy of a “national war” in 1914, 1915 and 1916. Even if we examine the question from the purely practical and not theoretical angle, Junius’ error remains no less clear. The whole of bourgeois society, all classes in Germany, including the peasantry, were in favour of war (in all probability the same was the case in Russia—at least a majority of the well-to-do and middle peasantry and a very considerable portion of the poor peasants were evidently under the spell of bourgeois imperialism). The bourgeoisie was armed to the teeth. Under such circumstances to “proclaim” the programme of a republic, a permanent parliament, election of officers by the people (the “armed nation”), etc., would have meant, in practice, “proclaiming” a revolution (with a wrong revolutionary programme!).

In the same breath Junius quite rightly says that a revolution cannot be “made.” Revolution was on the order of the day in 1914–16, it was hidden in the depths of the war, was emerging out of the war. This should have been “proclaimed” in the name of the revolutionary class, and its programme should have been fearlessly and fully announced: socialism is impossible in time of war without civil war against the arch-reactionary, criminal bourgeoisie, which condemned the people to untold disaster. Systematic, consistent, practical measures should have been thought out, which could be carried out no matter what the rate of development of the revolutionary crisis might have been, and which would be in line with the maturing revolution. These measures are indicated in the resolution of our Party: 1) voting against war credits; 2) violation of “civil peace”; 3) creation of an illegal organisation; 4) fraternisation among the soldiers; 5) support to all the revolutionary actions of the masses.[1] The success of all these steps inevitably leads to civil war.

The promulgation of a great historical programme was undoubtedly of tremendous significance; not the old national German programme, which became obsolete in 1914-16, but the proletarian international and socialist programme. “You, the bourgeoisie, are fighting for plunder; we, the workers of all the belligerent countries, declare war upon you for socialism”—this is the sort of speech that should have been delivered in the Parliaments on August 4, 1914, by Socialists who had not betrayed the proletariat, as the Legiens, Davids, Kautskys, Plekhanovs, Guesdes, Sembats, etc. betrayed it.

Evidently Junius’ error is due to two mistakes in reasoning. There is no doubt that Junius is decidedly opposed to the imperialist war and is decidedly in favor of revolutionary tactics; and all Messrs. Plehhanovs’ gloating over Junius’ “defencism” cannot wipe out this fact. Possible and probable calumnies of this kind must be answered promptly and bluntly.

But, firstly, Junius has not completely rid himself of the “environment” of the German Social-Democrats, even the Lefts, who are afraid of a split, who are afraid to follow revolutionary slogans to their logical conclusions.[2] This is a mistaken fear, and the Left Social-Democrats of Germany must and will rid themselves of it. They will do so in the course of the struggle against the social-chauvinists. The fact is that they are fighting against their own social-chauvinists resolutely, firmly and sincerely, and this is the tremendous, the fundamental difference in principle between them and Messrs. Martovs and Chkheidzes, who, with one hand (à la Skobelev) unfurl a banner bearing the greeting, “To the Liebknechts of All Countries,” and with the other hand tenderly embrace Chkhenkeli and Potresov!

Secondly, Junius apparently wanted to achieve something in the nature of the Menshevik “theory of stages,” of sad memory; he wanted to begin to carry out the revolutionary programme from the end that is “more suitable,” “more popular” and more acceptable to the petty-bourgeoisie. It is something like the plan “to outwit history,” to outwit the philistines. He seems to say: surely, nobody would oppose a better way of defending the real fatherland; that real fatherland is the Great German Republic, and the best defence is a militia, a permanent parliament, etc. Once it was accepted, that programme would automatically lead to the next stage-to the socialist revolution.

Probably, it was reasoning of this kind that consciously or semi-consciously determined Junius’ tactics. Needless to say, such reasoning is fallacious, Junius’ pamphlet conjures up in our mind the picture of a lone man who has no comrades in an illegal organisation accustomed to thinking out revolutionary slogans to their conclusion and systematically educating the masses in their spirit. But this shortcoming—it would be a grave error to forget this-is not Junius’ personal failing, but the result of the weakness of all the German Lefts, who have become entangled in the vile net of Kautskyist hypocrisy, pedantry and “friendliness” towards the opportunists. Junius’ adherents have managed in spite of their isolation to begin the publication of illegal leaflets and to start the war against Kautskyism. They will succeed in going further along the right road.

You're very welcome. Thank you for all the yummy links.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Thanks for the promote. I just sent an e-mail of Andrew Bird youtube performances I like to a friend; thought I'd share with you in case you hadn't caught some:

"
Here's a song that's much better live than on the record, performed at the Fillmore with a fun audience... fun lyrics, and lyrical presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Buxc-CNfLM

Here he is again on the violin, and also playing guitar and glockenspiel, with a band backing him up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmKGPyYcf8g

Here's a slower song from a CD coming out Jan. 20th called Noble Beast (that album title is a David Attenborough reference):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYwUVSUd3Ko

Here's a strange one of him walking around Paris singing and playing for a popular French music blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsR0uyPxqxI

Here's a song I really like,... he supposedly got the lyrics from a letter he found on the ground (he said the letter started 'Dear Dirty,' and then went on to describe in a simple caveman dialect what it was like being a caveman):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnjsRvsyGQ

Finally, here he is first playing a song he wrote for a children's show he appeared on, then rolling into an intense performance of a pretty wild song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ0-HVPl4xg
"

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
*PROMOTE

Thanks for the promote. I just sent an e-mail of Andrew Bird youtube performances I like to a friend; thought I'd share with you in case you hadn't caught some:

"
Here's a song that's much better live than on the record, performed at the Fillmore with a fun audience... fun lyrics, and lyrical presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Buxc-CNfLM

Here he is again on the violin, and also playing guitar and glockenspiel, with a band backing him up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmKGPyYcf8g

Here's a slower song from a CD coming out Jan. 20th called Noble Beast (that album title is a David Attenborough reference):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYwUVSUd3Ko

Here's a strange one of him walking around Paris singing and playing for a popular French music blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsR0uyPxqxI

Here's a song I really like,... he supposedly got the lyrics from a letter he found on the ground (he said the letter started 'Dear Dirty,' and then went on to describe in a simple caveman dialect what it was like being a caveman):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnjsRvsyGQ

Finally, here he is first playing a song he wrote for a children's show he appeared on, then rolling into an intense performance of a pretty wild song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ0-HVPl4xg
"

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
*PROMOTE

thanks for sharing.

I just sent an e-mail to a friend with links to Andrew Bird performances on youtube that I like, in case you hadn't seen some of them:

"
Here's a song that's much better live than on the record, performed at the Fillmore with a fun audience... fun lyrics, and lyrical presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Buxc-CNfLM

Here he is again on the violin, and also playing guitar and glockenspiel, with a band backing him up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmKGPyYcf8g

Here's a slower song from a CD coming out Jan. 20th called Noble Beast (that album title is a David Attenborough reference):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYwUVSUd3Ko

Here's a strange one of him walking around Paris singing and playing for a popular French music blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsR0uyPxqxI

Here's a song I really like,... he supposedly got the lyrics from a letter he found on the ground (he said the letter started 'Dear Dirty,' and then when on to describe in a simple caveman dialect what it was like being a caveman):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnjsRvsyGQ

Finally, here he is first playing a song he wrote for a children's show he appeared on, then rolling into an intense performance of a pretty wild song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ0-HVPl4xg
"

In reply to this comment by guessandcheck:
thought you might like this http://www.videosift.com/video/Andrew-Bird-Yawny-at-the-Apocalypse

>> ^Throbbin:
I too speak tongue, and here is the translation...
"Uh lullullalalalala habiiiigeebee oooobobobobobo neeeeeebababababababa whoooooojoojookooboo."
She doesn't make ANY sense in Tongue either.


You're translating with the wrong dialect. She's actually saying "Dear God I hope this performance makes the Top 15......googalabanza!"

you want a religon that is satisfying to your intellect? You cut the superstition? yeah well what you get is moral and ethics and for that no one needs a god. all you need is self discipline, integrity; to be fair with yourself, your knowledge and the rest of the world and its knowledge awaiting for you.

I agree this kind of atheist humour is saturated. I discovered that the process of ignoring something is quite similar to the process of something not exisiting, since its existence is substanciated by the feedback it gets in conflictuous occasions. Examples: a spoiled kid will try to draw attention by conflict; a religouse group will do something outrageous just so that we realize tehey do something therefore they exist (too bad for them that what they do is just useless to them and us).

that said, the bashing, the sarcasm, etc. seem to be dialectic plots to keep alive something that apparently is set to be weakened by these same procedures of the opposite point of view.

religon is old, and in teh tiems of teh internetz each one of us can be his/her own god, if so is needed. If not, better yet, rely on the intellect to judge your path. it will lead you to disgrace or harmony (see how these terms apply very well outside of a religious context, religous ones who rob and torn our words, universal our particular as they may be?...).

*economy, *dance. *aqua which somebody proposed already, I think it was mintbbb. and then there should be a channel that has "all the stuff your government won't tell you", as translated from early choggish dialect - conspiracy theories and such like

>> ^cybrbeast:
It's Dutch spoken in heavy dialect, can barely understand it, but I think he says:
"heb je dat gezien? Heb je dat gezien daar? Dat is maar 5 meter van het dak."
"Did you see that? Did you see that there? That's just 5 meters above the roof."
I think it was more than 5 meters though, but he doesn't seem like the brightest guy.


In actuality he said, "Did you see that? Did you see that there? That's just 5 meters above the duck."

It's Dutch spoken in heavy dialect, can barely understand it, but I think he says:

"heb je dat gezien? Heb je dat gezien daar? Dat is maar 5 meter van het dak."

"Did you see that? Did you see that there? That's just 5 meters above the roof."

I think it was more than 5 meters though, but he doesn't seem like the brightest guy.

>> ^Arg:
How, exactly, is he wrong sir gm?
Take there, their and they're as an example. If we were to spell them phonetically then they would all be the same. Now try to make sense of the following sentence:
"There over there with there children."

This phrase is unambiguous because of English's strict word ordering. Every native speaker will intone this sentence as "They're over there with there children" because an English sentence is Subject-Verb-Object. For example, try pronouncing this: "There they're with there children". Most native speaker would be reluctant to pronounce this because it's actually a grammatical conundrum. This last phrase is in fact impossible. If you do pronounce it, you will pronounce it as the equivalent of the the first one, that is "They're there with there children". When you change the word order, you CANNOT contract the subject and the verb. You would naturally say: "There they are with there children". (Here I'm writing "their" as "there" just to show that there's no ambiguity whatsoever between those two words, because they're both words but not verbs)

So, in reality there's no need to "translate". When you pronounce the first phrase, you will understand it just fine. The real problem here is that reading is not the same as speaking, unless you read aloud or subvocalize. But any which way you read, when writing you cannot convey the intonation of the voice. That's one of the greatest pitfalls of alphabets. For example, in this case to be phonetically correct, you would have to specify by a typographic mark that the first "there" is actually a spoken contraction of two originally distinct sounds "they" and "r", so that a reader who doesn't know English very well can put the correct intonation on the correct words. That way the sentence becomes as clear as it needs to be phonetically. Of course, it's not always as easy as that, and to convey pure spoken language in a textual form without all the usual typographical baggage that you find in linguistics is impossible. Even Germans do not always pronounce exactly as they should, but for example all the different nuances of the sound "a" are all rendered as the letter "a" and only that letter. When a whole word is pronounced differently it becomes a matter of dialect and not of pronunciation per se.

Another example: in French, intonation is always on the first syllable of a word, so individual words are easy to separate. Add to that a strict word order plus a plethora of articles and you get yourself a quite clear language that can be written however you fancy.

So spelling, and punctuation, add more information to the meaning of the words than merely how they are pronounced.

They do, but it's a pittance because a spelling not based on pronunciation is too arbitrary. When retracing the origins of a word, pronunciation is much more useful than spelling. If spelling changed without equivalent modification in the pronunciation, it would make the linguists' job harder. But it almost always happens in reverse: the pronunciation changes and then some guy decides he's going to spell it the way he pronounces it. And the linguists thank him. But some old words get spelled in new ways and some others keep their original spellings, and in the end you get the orthographical mess that is known as English (or French for that matter).