>> ^residue:

Would it be ok to practice your trumpet playing at the monument? How about having an inpromptu game of flag football with your friend in the monument? The point is when you're bothering other people in a place generally considered to be quiet you're infringing on other people's rights to not be hassled. Like Shepppard pointed out earlier.
>> ^Skeeve:
Just throwing this out there, but doesn't it say something about a society when its monuments (let alone monuments to liberty) are so worshiped and sacred that there are laws made to enforce their sanctity?
When monuments that should be inherently joyful and full of wonder become places where only 'sober and respectful reflection' is allowed something is wrong.



Yes and Yes. As long as you abide by any noise ordinances and don't encroach on someone else's personal space.
Of course, your question isn't of any honest inquiry, but of a logical fallacy of the false continuum sort.
There is no subjective right to "not be hassled".

Would it be ok to practice your trumpet playing at the monument? How about having an inpromptu game of flag football with your friend in the monument? The point is when you're bothering other people in a place generally considered to be quiet you're infringing on other people's rights to not be hassled. Like Shepppard pointed out earlier.

>> ^Skeeve:

Just throwing this out there, but doesn't it say something about a society when its monuments (let alone monuments to liberty) are so worshiped and sacred that there are laws made to enforce their sanctity?
When monuments that should be inherently joyful and full of wonder become places where only 'sober and respectful reflection' is allowed something is wrong.

Thank you!!!!!

There are folks who are howling in laughter at this comment, Fusionaut.

I trumpeted it from one end of the sift to the other....

Including changing the title and promoting this:

http://videosift.com/video/Not-your-father-s-Drummer-Boy

Which shows you as the first person to say -- hey! welcome to the sift!

Warm fuzzies all around!

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Hey Bareboards, Congrats on the Ruby!

I totally missed it!

please tell me the dude playing the high notes is a piccolo trumpet just so i can sleep OK tonight.

This is muddle-headed bullshit by Ana Kasparian pretending to think about "serious issues" and trumpeting her E-Z Pik Progressive Opinion: that she's outraged by the awfulness of the War on Drugs only because blacks are getting arrested too much (and that she doesn't think taking drugs is a crime). Look how puffed up she gets, pausing for effect after repeating the statistic about more blacks in U.S. prisons today than there were slaves in (just to pick a date) 1850.

Says it all, doesn't it?

Anyone who watches the Young Turks when Ana is talking knows she is judgmental as hell. She normally advocates the harshest prison sentences, likes the work of Child Protective Services and wouldn't promote anything she didn't truly believe in — not even for (really) "a billion dollars." So you can believe her when she tells you Kim Kardashian's thighs are fat!

Cenk is clearer that the WoSD is the true problem and that poverty — not race — is the salient factor in who *does time* (as opposed to whatever Ana is officially pissed-off about) — that the results are cruel for everyone. I thought that might be why he tells the story of a (presumably white) Montana dude facing life for passing a bong in his car, except he makes a point of agreeing that the guy did do something wrong.

Ana rounds out her simulacrum of thought-provoking opinion by noting the injustice of blacks getting arrested for drug crimes even though violent crime statistics have been trending downward in urban areas. Sounds heavy. Dunno why exactly ...

Still, two and a half million people in cages across the USA rejoice to hear their story is finally being told and eagerly await Ana's future Social Studies Presentations. Upcoming Topics will include: "What is the Proper Speed Limit on the Interstate?", "Is Capital Punishment Bad?", and "Euthanasia, School Uniforms, Gun Control and Test Tube Babies: What I think for less than $ 1 billion"

I didn't hear her advocate that. I heard her shine light on a disturbing trend of modern society. One that I think it's good that a new generation of women (and men too) knows about, so that they can use their sharp, empowered wits (that the apologists here trumpet so loudly) to not let the trend affect them negatively. And if at all possible, turn around.

It's telling how many of the commenters here try to groundlessly assign motivations.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What are you going to do, toots? Pass a law that forces people to only portray human figures in a way that you personally approve?

Marcus Miller, bass
Dean Brown, guitar
Michael 'Patches' Stewart, trumpet;
Roger Byam, saxophone
Poogie Bell, drums
the keyboard player I've seen twice live, but forgot his name:) I think it's Bruce Flowers (?)

>> ^imstellar28:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/guymontage" title="member since July 18th, 2009" class="profilelink">guymontage
Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.
What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.
Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.


My physics went up to a minor on my undergraduate degree. Even in high school though the potential energy of millions of tonnes of concrete at a certain height is already taught. That is more energy than any bomb or load of jet fuel anyone can get their hands on, and it's all rigged to unload itself straight down.

The truther that are idiots are the ones insisting that the planes weren't the cause of the collapse. If you distrust and loath the government enough to believe they were behind the attacks, if you are a rational, scientific person you will conclude that the government organized the plane crashes to take out the towers. All the insistence that was merely a cover for explosives already planted inside is insanity. If the government wanted to commit the act, they would just plant the explosives and set them off. It wouldn't have even been the first time terrorists tried to use explosives to collapse the buildings. The ONLY thing adding the planes into the mix would do is make it infinitely more prone to failure and discovery.

Then you have the unscientific beliefs that people trumpet as reasons they believe the towers were rigged beforehand:
-Jet fuel can't melt steel! Meanwhile commercial steel furnaces are widely sold that are designed to do exactly that.
-The buildings collapsed at near free fall speed, no resistance! Go see the explosives free building demolition video here on the sift. Same speed of collapse, with just the upper supports pulled out by some cranes outside.
-Everyone knows the planes couldn't have been enough to collapse the buildings! Meanwhile, 10's of thousands of engineers the world over didn't bat an eye at the finding that the fires could cause the collapse. That's a lot of professionals in on the conspiracy.
-Blocking investigation of the real story! Meanwhile google scholar is filled with endless numbers of publicly available journal articles that speak to every loony idea the conspiracy crowd can throw out there.

If you believe the government worked with someone to crash planes into the towers that's one thing. If you believe the whole idea that the planes couldn't possibly have caused the collapse and the government must have wired it with explosives before hand, you believe something idiotic and need your head shaken.

Looks like "Energy in Depth" is another bullshit oil industry front group.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_in_Depth

Energy in Depth (EID) is a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America and dozens of additional industry organizations for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by Colorado U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids. Hydraulic fracturing of underground geological formations, commonly called "fracking," was invented by the Halliburton Company. It is done to increase the amounts of oil and gas that can be extracted from existing wells. [1]

Energy in Depth denounces DeGette's proposed fracking legislation as an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil and natural gas producers.” In June, 2009, Energy in Depth started a multimillion dollar lobbying and public relations campaign aimed at derailing public health legislation that would require the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking fluids. In addition to a Web site, EID's campaign includes a Twitter feed, a Facebook group, a YouTube channel and an aggressive advertising campaign. [1]

Energy in Depth trumpets the economic contribution oil and gas drilling makes, and the numbers of people employed by the industry.

>> ^wagthedog1:

>> ^nanrod:
I know this is all bullshit because T. Boone Pickens was on the Daily Show and he assured me that no water well has ever been contaminated by fracking. He wouldn't lie would he?

And neither would Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy in Depth, who has told the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that a litany of errors in the anti-drilling film should render it ineligible for the Oscar for best documentary feature.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011
/02/01/01greenwire-ioil-and-gas-group-urges-oscar-judges-to-steer-99256.html
Besides, it is good that North Americans are once again getting a small taste of what many petro-states have have to endure over the decades to fuel a lifestyle of excess.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Amazing Trumpet Player. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Right at the beginning, "The ignorant get to vote, voting on their narrow interests" and almost immediately he goes onto say "one walks in with wanting to improve society by rolling back abortion."

I think there should be a Christian Apocalypse. Sound the seven or nine trumpets. I don't even care which way they are sent - just send down Jesus or Satan, giant roaches and whoever and let them have their way with them. I'll be ok, I'll still be sifting videos like the one I see now, "How the Human Species Exponentially Evolved without Christianity."

this needs some burlesque trumpets

I was wondering how long it would take before the false equivalence fallacy entered the discussion.

The left has been taking flak for the rather obvious hypocrisy. It is no surprise that thinking orders have gone out to give the faithful masses a thought to grasp for when confronted by reason...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/9/934662/-This-is-the-problem-with-the-promotion-of-false-equivalencies

"The problem with false equivalencies is that while there is overblown rhetoric on both sides, the amount and intensity is much worse on the right than the left. To indicate otherwise is not only disingenuous but it is dishonest and harmful."

I shall venture a guess that the above quote waxes eloquent in the ears of the average neolib. The statement is easy to make, but as with many baseless accusations it lacks substance and proof. I will then formally make the request for fair, scholarly evidence to support this argument. If the right is indeed far greater in "amount and intensity" compared to the left, then there must be some sort of dataset that proves the assertion in a neutral, non-partisan way.

But I'll save you the time, because no such research exists. Instead, what we have are laundry lists of isolated examples - extremes on both sides - which in no way represent the thought or speech of the majority. There is no proof that the right is greater in "amount and intensity" while the left meekly suffers in quietude. I've seen pages as long as my right arm of examples of 'right wing hate'. I've also seen pages as long as my left arm with examples of 'left wing hate'. Any perception of truth to the argument is based entirely on OPINIONS - not facts. The argument is patently false, and the fallacy exists because of personal bias alone.

What I think we are seeing is a case of mass hypersensitivity to opposing bias. People love to find isolated, eggregious cases and pretend that they are typical of entire groups. The left's hate of the Tea party is a good example. Bias magnifies the words you hate, and muffles the stuff you like.

So when people on the left hear Bush, Cheney, Bachman, Palin, Rush, Beck, Hannity, or Fox say something stupid it is instantly trumpeted as 'hate filled rhetoric' that is 'dominating the political discourse'. It isn't really, but they think it is because they disagree with it.

The very same people are able to blythely gloss over the exact same kind of rhetoric coming from ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, Rueters, NYT, CDS, USA Today, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, KOS, Beast, HuffPo, Maher, Olbermann, Kurtz, Maddow, Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Greyson, Sharpton, and MANY others. How are they able to achieve such staggeringly obvious cognitive dissonance? Easy. They AGREE with them. A nice thick layer of bias makes it all better.

The Videosift itself 10 to 1 favors left leaning links over right. All the above resources are filled to the literal brim with examples of 'left wing hate'. Just like the examples on the right of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, or Sean Hannity are filled with examples of 'right wing hate'. There is no difference in quantity or intensity. The only difference exists in the minds of people too blinkered by their own bias to see or hear accurately.

So I reject your inaccurate usage of the False equivalance fallacy. Such fallacies only exist when there is not actual equivalence. The angry rhetoric of the right that is being bemoaned is factually being duplicated on the left. Actual equivalence. And I - unlike others - am not attempting to use the existence of offensive rhetoric on one side as a club to censor the opinions of another.

>> ^MaxWilder:

This actually shed a lot of light on a lot of questions I had. I have not at all made up my mind on the subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to argue against the points made in this video.


If you have a lot of questions, history books are a better starting place than a blatantly biased video like this. I made it to minute 6 before the outright lies and falsehoods were more than I needed to know this video was not worth more of my time.

The very opening claim of the video declares Israel has always, since before it's inception seen no legitimate claim for any other people in Palestine except their fellow Jewish people. Historical fact is that in 1948, when the fledgling UN recommended a partition of Palestine into two states, Israel accepted the borders and declared independence. This could have been the end of the civil war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It wasn't the Zionists that where aggressive at this point. The entirety of the Arab world declared a united war against the new state of Israel, trumpeting that they would drive them into the sea. My description here is not in question either within the Arab world, Al-Jazeera has an article covering all these points in even more detail.

Now the video decides around the 6 minute mark to contradict itself:
At the end of the 19th century, there were hardly any Jews living in Palestine.
And yet, the video just finished telling us in the introduction that historically Jews and Arabs had been getting along famously. We might wonder how that is imagined to have happened if there were hardly any Jews there to get along with?

Historians largely say the best guess at populations in 1900 Palestine are not possible, and largely inaccurate. The closest commitment they make is to sate there was a significant Arab majority, but also that the Jewish population was by far the most significant minority in the region. Enough so that it is well agreed, even by anti-Zionist pro-Arab sources that the city of Jerusalem itself has had a Jewish majority since the very late 1800's.

So, the video has started by lying about the basic facts of how many Jews where in Palestine when the conflicts started, and about their willingness to accept a rather reasonable partition of the country. Useful answers and insights aren't likely forthcoming from a source like that.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it
Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.
Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.
Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&sub
id=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.
So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.


I watch a lot of news especially during the Bush era. I've seen Bush compared to Hitler and Monkeys and stuff...I have never seen some of the shit you're talking about and you know why...because it wasn't trumpeted in the media. Hatred against Obama and racism is put on our TVs almost like it's a great thing...even defended and encouraged in some cases.

So yes the Left does have it's crazies and they do say stupid fucking things...but no, it's not Equal...not in coverage not in reaction. Any study of the media would tell you this but you're probably a bit busy.