I say we should ban everyone and start over. Dag and Lucky can morph into one Borg-hybrid of Siftbot. Choggie can rule with an iron slate and a blank fist. KP can TP the Sift Chat. Ant can lord over us with his six phalanges of downvote doom.

Netrunner can vulcanize the rubber stamps and get things moving, but only to the left. Rottenseed can go fuck himself, and we can all upvote the video of it while making funny comments that give us 15 one-handed claps from a masturbatory gwiz.

Issy and DFT can scratch the catnip towers and watch the servers melt into Three-Eleven oblivion yet again, while civilizations and civilized discourse are marred and scarred by Captain Planet, or is it Picard?

Zif can nab another top spot on the chutes and ladders of successful upvotes, while Farhad finds 2000 obscure references to cop culture, or enough to bring MG back home from the clutter of Middle Eastern oil sputtering derricks a-plenty.

All the while, thinker can leave on his socialist left-turn blinker, long enough to make QM sardonic, don't you think? It's like raining men on your traditional wedding day.

Ban them all, I say! Ban them all and let Dag sort them out. Sayeth the Lard, I can haz Amenz?

A nice little article i just read on yahoo news page.. Not meant to start a raging debate, not meant to be inflammatory, just a well written piece on the benefits of a system like the NHS, and the way the NHS is being used as the posterboy for the apocalypse by certain politicians in the US.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/55620/

Interesting read and some excellent points made. Hard for a brit to understand why the US are against a free and non-obligatory minimum standard of healthcare for all - it genuinely is. And having seen the recent Obama video, harder still.

This a good read to anyone from the US?

I don't want to beat a dead horse but this just came up again today. I know it hasn't been in the media much lately, but I just want us all to be sure that our minds are made up- That we know where we stand. This is important!

Is it ALWAYS wrong to use "enhanced interrogation" techniques? If you knew using waterboarding against a known terrorist may well elicit information that would stop a massive attack on an American city, would you still insist it never be used? Do you oppose the use of waterboarding if it would save a thousand innocent lives? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? What exactly is the point, if any, at which you believe waterboarding might be justified? If there is a point at which it is justified, who should make the decision?

(Let's just all agree that waterboarding is torture during this discussion.)

Many of you already know how I feel on this subject.



Food for thought.... check it:

Cheney is barking up a storm on the efficacy of what can colloquially be called torture. He says he knows of two CIA memos that support his contention that the harsh interrogation methods worked and that many lives were saved. "That's what's in those memos," he told Schieffer. They talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped."

Cheney says he once had the memos in his files and has since asked that they be released. He's got a point. After all, this is not merely some political catfight conducted by bloggers, although it is a bit of that, too. Inescapably, it is about life and death -- not ideology, but people hurling themselves from the burning World Trade Center. If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin: What to do about enhanced interrogation methods? Should they be banned across the board, always and forever? Can we talk about what is and not just what ought to be?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051102668.html

..and this:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News on Monday that the Obama administration should release CIA memos that, he says, will show "the success" of the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" during the Bush administration.

Cheney said he found the decision to release those memos – but not others that he says show the success of the use of the tactics – "a little bit disturbing." He said he has read classified memos "that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," arguing that they should be made public so the country can have an "honest debate."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4959587.shtml

...and this:

Morality also involves balancing ends and means. It is therefore relevant to take into account the possible benefits from the act of coercive interrogation techniques. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, during a 2004 hearing on the subject of torture, put it this way. “There are times when we all get into high dudgeon” on this matter, Schumer said, but that we “ought to be reasonable about this.” He then added this:

I think there are probably very few people in this [Congressional hearing] room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: if we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believe that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most Senators, maybe all, would do what you have to do. So it’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you’re in the fox hole, it’s a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect the fact that the President’s in the fox-hole every day. So he can hardly be blamed for asking you, or his White House counsel or the Department of Defense, to figure out when it comes to torture, what the law allows and when the law allows it, and what there is permission to do.

Senator Schumer noted, “We certainly don’t want torture to be used willy-nilly… But we also don’t want the situation like I mentioned in Chicago to preclude it.”

Apropos of Schumer’s comments, critics of enhanced interrogation techniques need to wrestle with a set of questions they like to avoid: if you knew using waterboarding against a known terrorist may well elicit information that would stop a massive attack on an American city, would you still insist it never be used? Do you oppose the use of waterboarding if it would save a thousand innocent lives? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? What exactly is the point, if any, at which you believe waterboarding might be justified? I simply don’t accept that those who answer “never” are taking a morally superior stand to those who answer “sometimes, in extremely rare circumstances and in very limited cases.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/morality-and-enhanced-interrogation-techniques-15125

The FLN and the French in the 1950's:

Was torture effective? As Branche and Thenault both acknowledge, torture enabled the French to gather information about future terrorist strikes and to destroy the infrastructure of terror in Algiers. General Aussaresses is not wrong to claim that he won the "battle of the Casbah" precisely by abandoning any pretense of legal norms in dealing with the FLN.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/04/23/did-enhanced-interrogations-work-do-we-need-an-investigation/

...and lastly this:

Even President Obama’s new director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, wrote in a memorandum to his staff last week that “high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used,” an assertion left out when the memorandum was edited for public release....

...Four successive C.I.A. directors have made similar claims, and the most recent, Michael V. Hayden, said in January that he believed the methods “got the maximum amount of information” from prisoners, citing specifically Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief 9/11 plotter.

Many intelligence officials, including some opposed to the brutal methods, confirm that the program produced information of great value, including tips on early-stage schemes to attack tall buildings on the West Coast and buildings in New York’s financial district and Washington. Interrogation of one Qaeda operative led to tips on finding others, until the leadership of the organization was decimated. Removing from the scene such dedicated and skilled plotters as Mr. Mohammed, or the Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali, almost certainly prevented future attacks.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/04/23/did-enhanced-interrogations-work-do-we-need-an-investigation/

The Jiggaman has come of age.

Teachers should be treated with respect (I'm told) and Jigga is just that, sacrificing himself to form your unruly children into respectable citizens; engineers, lawyers, bus drivers and crack dealers. Make the kids analyse Bob Dylan lyrics, Jigga! It worked for Michelle Pfeiffer...

So major congrats to this quality sifter and be sure to visit his pqueue. Think of it as an extracurricular activity.

I don't know how this thread will be received or whether or not it belongs here, but I don't want to get flamed again so if you tend to become upset easily, please disregard the following. Or just flame me. Whatever you want.

I've been thinking about Henry David Thoreau's famous essay, originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government", but now commonly known as "Civil Disobedience". The second time I read it, it reminded me of VideoSift. I started thinking about some of the outraged comments that I sometimes read here regarding the US government. I've heard Bush called a "filthy murderer" and worse, and I have occassionally wondered, "Well, why don't you do something about it?"

I am NOT criticizing you for failing to take direct action. Goodness knows that I don't do much but talk and vote. I'm just trying to raise a question.

... more inside ...

How about a favorite quote thread?
Perhaps a quote-off among sifters?
Or even quoting other sifters?

(I'm not sure which is the highest ranking comment on the site. The question is whether it is too contextual for the video or the pertaining discussion to be quotable)

Anyway here's a quote I just found on google books. I really like it.



Technology is the knack of so arranging
the world that we do not experience it.

- Max Frisch

So this question has been brewing in my head for awhile now and watching this video http://www.videosift.com/video/A-Jew-Christian-and-Muslim-were-walking-through-a-desert I decided to vent or ask the question. What the fuck sift? I don't mean this in the i am pissed i want to smash this jim beam bottle over your head but more like your my best friend that just fucked my ex that is a whore; now lets go get a beer. I myself am an agnostic in my belief structure. Though it seems to me that Atheism runs free range all over this site and i am not against that. I believe in the free exchange of ideas. It leaves me to just wonder WTF? and am i the only person that has any belief?

By Chris Hedges

We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth. The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection. This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities.
... more inside ...

A thorough political questionaire that locates your political orientation within four quadrants:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.
That's about as much as we should tell you for now. After you've responded to the following propositions during the next 3-5 minutes, all will be explained. In each instance, you're asked to choose the response that best describes your feeling: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree. At the end of the test, you'll be given the compass, with your own special position on it."

By Ludwig Von Mises

"I know only too well how hopeless it seems to convince impassioned supporters of the Socialist Idea by logical demonstration that their views are preposterous and absurd. I know too well that they do not want to hear, to see, or above all to think, and that they are open to no argument. But new generations grow up with clear eyes and open minds. And they will approach things from a disinterested, unprejudiced standpoint, they will weigh and examine, will think and act with forethought. It is for them that this book is written."

Publication Information: This online text corresponds to the 1951 Yale University Press edition (in pdf)

Preface to the Second English Edition  (p. 13)


Translator's Note  (p. 14)


Preface to the Second German Edition  (p. 15)


Introduction

1. The Success of Socialist Ideas (p. 25)
2. The Scientific Analysis of Socialism  (p. 27)
3. Alternative Modes of Approach to the Analysis of Socialism  (p. 31)

... more inside ...

mauz15 is a sifter of pure quality in my eyes. He posts so many great documentaries it's impossible to keep up. Besides posting great vids, he has also made a great effort in *deading and fixing videos. A long time member who joined the sift back in May 2006, mauz15 has finally joined the Diamond rank.

You are greatly appreciated, mauz! Be sure to check out his sifted vids and PQUEUE.

I find the history of medicine and science interesting. We've come such a long way and are so advanced in some respects. I came across this timeline of outrageous medical experiments that U.S. health authorities have conducted on children, women, minorities, homosexuals and inmates.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022383.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479904,00.html

OK, obviously this article tells little about why these kids were taken from their parents. But even the local Sgt. who knows their dad stated he's never seen anything wrong with the family.

As much as I may not agree with naming your kids "Hitler" or "Aryan", this is a free country the last time I checked. And you can name your kid "Jesus" so why not "Hitler"?

It is really late and I'm exhausted so please forgive any and all stupid things that I type. I was sitting here thinking about life and ethics and it ocurred to me that I might like to pick your brains a little bit seeing as how this is an excellent forum for discussion.

I am not trying to prove a point here (hard to believe, I know), but as someone who believes that human life ought to be preserved at almost any cost, it has in the past been difficult for me to understand why others do not feel the same way. So tell me. Why is/isn't life sacred to you?

I cannot remember what ethical philosophy states that if an action

1. increases/doesn't decrease happiness or
2. decreases/doesn't increase suffering

it is ethical. Would that mean that to murder a friendless, suffering person is ethical because it decreases suffering? Or that to abort any unwanted pregnancy that gives a woman physical or emotional pain is also ethical? Does this only apply to fetuses that have no feeling and cannot suffer or feel happiness? If no one would suffer as the result of a death, is it still unethical to fail to try and preserve the life or to snuff it out?

Not very profound, I know. I would still like to hear your thoughts.

Mauz15 is totally awesome and deserves more votes for the awesome documentaries submitted to VideoSift. Thanks, Mauz! Oh and one more thing: awesome.

Mauz doesn't make trouble, provides insightful commentary and contributes truly excellent content. The posts tend to be well annotated and dutifully tagged and channeled and are enlightening, enriching, educational, and entertaining. Mauz has also been here since the Dawn of the Sift, and has been made all those laborious YouTube playlists for our edification. So three cheers for Mauz and let's do some voting and learn something in the process.

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of the existence of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equi-probable."

5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one."

Of course there are not 7 hard categories but a continuum. For simplicity's sake, which one most closely describes your views?

Well ladies and gentlemen, the philosophy channel has its new owner, commissar mauz15. Afeter some careful deliberation and random dart throwing it has been decided that he'll be the one weeding all the unwanted "elements" and being generally unpleasant. For philosophy isn't a democracy, it's more of a tyranny, with big words on top.

It's previous owner (me) is now free (from responsibility) to post blatantly racist, homophobic and sexist comments without restraint. Doghouse here I come!

Hip-hip... !

So this may seem a bit morbid, but I was thinking about this today and I was wondering what others thought:
... more inside ...

Is Google Making Us Stupid? (by Nicholas Carr)
"[The advantages of the Internet come] at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles."

Would love to hear what you think about this article.

In honor of my recent anniversary here at VideoSift, I have decided to submit an amazing video entitled "Barack Obama vs. Pennsylvania". I expect it to be lavished with lots of * quality and * promote tags, and I also believe it will change lives in the process. This will probably break upvote records here on the Sift, I'm just being realistic.

It has also come to my attention that I am up for an NAACP/PETA/ACLU Online Image Award for the 2007/2008 internet year. This is a great honor, and I'm ecstatic to be nominated. There are many people to thank for making this possible: George W Bush, for being the greatest President of this century; Hillary Clinton, for standing by her principles and dodging gunfire in the name of her country; Barack Obama, for showing us that church can unite us all; and finally, to Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, for showing exceptional moral leadership in these trying times of recession and depression.

Finally, I'd like to thank all my followers here on VideoSift for their daily fanmail, thoughts, and prayers. You all keep me humble and grounded. I will now and forever be, BillOreilly: Defender of Freedom, Purveyor of Truth, Master of the Obvious, King of My Own Little World.

Thank you, and goodnight.