Comments:

1. Patricia on July 5th, 2010 at 19:51:

   This is the same douche that demanded his live cover of Radiohead’s “Creep” to be taken down from YouTube… while Thom Yorke scratched his head and asked for it to be put back because “it’s our song”. If there’s someone who doesn’t get it, it’s Mr. Whatever-He-Likes-To-Be-Called-These-Days (he’s back to being Prince?)

2. tsphillips on July 6th, 2010 at 1:00:

   He stopped being Prince because his former record company “owned” the name. Once that contract expired he could be Prince again.

3. Ralph on July 6th, 2010 at 6:17:

   “Jehovah’s Witness”… Nuff’ said.

4. Kash on July 6th, 2010 at 16:56:

   prince, the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as prince.

5. Karl on July 6th, 2010 at 19:50:

   Prince is amazing. If he says this internet thing is over then I’m quitting. Right after I hit submit here.

6. Jan-Mark on July 8th, 2010 at 22:10:

   C’mon, Prince has been called Prince again since 2000. I somewhat like his music, but I really do like his experiments against the big labels (esp. Warner Bros) and I am saddened to hear he will stop his alternate way of distributing music. We can make fun of they way he puts it, but he at least tried very, very hard. How many of the big artist tried? And you have to to love the guy’s originality, remember the Lovesexy album, that was all one track? (The CD that is, the LP had separations.) I may not have bought his albums, I may not have subscribed to his private corner of the Internet, but if anyone tried to make a change it was him and I applaud him for it. And if he declares the Internet is unable to free him from the old ways, it deeply saddens me. Maybe we should be wondering what is going wrong. I suspect it’s not technology that is failing us. Where is this unparalleled freedom of information we all crave for? We can blame all the governments or ICANs or the old world or whomever. But ultimo we, the Internet inhabitants, turn out to be nothing but spoiled consumers, we only complain about what the Internet isn’t doing for us. Belittling the people that really offered us a different path won’t help much.

Comments:

1. Karl on July 6th, 2010 at 19:53:

   Makes sense.. we’re not trying to kill BP here, we’re making them pay for what they did. They’ll be in much better shape to pay for clean up and compensation, and we’ll be in much better shape to push them around with a $82 million dollar a month contract.

Comments:

1. Rob on July 5th, 2010 at 17:28:

   The Future of the USA? You cannot be serious. The US is not even remotely heading in this direction. Of the hundreds of thousands of classrooms in the US, you might find a handful like this and they have to fight to stay in existence. In a large and diverse population, you’re going to find beliefs of every kind. It is our strength, not our weakness.

2. John Sinteur on July 5th, 2010 at 17:32:

   Rob, in my visits to the US I’ve always met lots of intelligent, smart, and all around great people, so I really hope you’re right.. but sometimes I feel people think Idiocracy was a prediction instead of a movie.

3. spaceman spiff on July 5th, 2010 at 18:28:

   These idiots should be banned from teaching! I have a sister-in-law who home-schooled her kids, my nieces and nephews, using the prattling of a fundamentalist religious sect. Yes, she taught them the legally required fundamentals so they could pass state-required tests to get their high-school diplomas, but that didn’t keep her, a college-educated woman with a degree in education, from inculcating them in this baloney! They are the nicest kids, in the purest sense – young and ignorant (from the Latin nicere). And you can bet they will continue to pass this nonsense on to another generation!

4. Mudak on July 6th, 2010 at 3:04:

   I disagree with the assertion that it’s the future. Look to the overall knowledge of science in the USA and you realize it’s the present.

   I just wish these people would dedicate half as much energy to debunking the bible as they do trying — without success — to discredit scientific fact.

5. Mr. N on July 6th, 2010 at 7:19:

   Spaceman, I guess you are confusing
   nescire (nescio, nescis, nescii, nescitum, nescire) -> true latin meaning “to ignore”
   with
   nicere -> a medieval bastardization of nictare (nicto, nictas, nictavi, nictatum, nictare), meaning “to blink an eye”

6. Mykolas on July 6th, 2010 at 14:39:

   Bible Belt Classroom = Tea Party Training ground

7. JJ on July 7th, 2010 at 12:10:

   That last quote was just hard to hear. He’s obviously never heard of getting a tan. Although judging by his complexion, he probably goes from pasty white to bright red, skipping that tan stage altogether… I hope those scientific observations didn’t pass any tests for him…

   But religion is clearly the motive behind this. The youtube description says “Christian values kept alive and well” for goodness sake!

   I’m not opposed to schools exploring creation theories outside of evolution, but science class isn’t the place for it. My school had a separate course that explored those ideas (it was an elective, NOT a substitute to bio, chem, etc). But this teacher clearly has no interest in exploring the problem with irreducibly complex organisms. He’d rather use science class to reaffirm the religious beliefs of the students that probably say “earth is only 6,000 years old.”

   I’d be interested to see what his evolution lectures are like; to see if he really does give it a fair shake.

   But yeah, this definitely is not the future of the USA. If this was a school in Los Angeles or New York, I’d be a bit more concerned. But if I might stereotype for a moment, this video is from Tennessee. My friend is from the state, and here’s how he puts it:

   “You’ve heard of the bible belt? Welcome to the buckle.”

Comments:

1. Steffen on July 5th, 2010 at 11:03:

   Well, any realistic alternatives?

   Socialism is definitely *not* the answer. Socialism tried to eliminate the cycle of crisis, but the only effect was that the problems started to mount in the background, became bigger and bigger, people became more and more lethargic and cynical, the leaders withdraw into their ivory-towers and became blind for reality, and in the end everything came down. The final crisis of the communist bloc was a hundred times worse than the recent crisis. The countries of eastern europe suffer until today.

   The problem with Marx is that he made some very valid analysis (in economics, he is very respected), but his conclusions were completely wrong. A typical wonderful theory which was torn into pieces by merciless reality. Most lefties close their eyes and refuse to see this.

   So, any realistic alternatives to Capitalism? This is a very serious question. The author of this presentation only mentioned “anti-capitalism”, and concluded rather vaguely by putting the bankers into jail. This would surely satisfy certain people, but would it really make our lives better? When we tore down something, we must replace it with something. With what?

2. Roland Hesz on July 5th, 2010 at 12:14:

   Actually, noone has ever seen communism in effect. Feudalism, yes. ’cause in the Soviet Union, in China, in North Korea, if you look at it, you will notice it has nothing in common with the marxist concept, and everything with the local feudalist structure.

3. Mark on July 5th, 2010 at 15:09:

   Have we really seen “capitalism” in effect? Certainly we’ve had graft, corruption, nepotism, and downright thuggery – but taking all that away, a system of property ownership and benefits reflecting real value (not derivatives trades based on lies and deceit) might be as good a thing as any other utopia. The problem is human nature. The same human nature that turned socialism and communism into murderous dictatorships turned capitalism into the corporate cesspool it is today. The issue isn’t what “-ism” is better, the issue is how to prevent greed and self interest and lust for power over other people, and that/those issue(s) will never go away.

4. John Sinteur on July 5th, 2010 at 15:13:

   Also note that this self-proclaimed Marxist honestly admits he has no answer. How about this one – he explains how Thacher and Reagan broke the back of the unions to break through the “Greedy Union” problem: how about we break the back of the capital institutions in a similar way? Where’s Thatcher when we need her?

Comments:

1. Steffen on July 5th, 2010 at 10:04:

   (devils_advocate_mode=on) In a certain way, yes.

   When I photograph someone, and then try to make money with the picture (having captured the victim in a delicate situation, for example) then it is a kind of kidnapping.

2. spaceman spiff on July 5th, 2010 at 14:45:

   @ Steffen
   Which is why professional photographers who are snapping pictures of individuals (not just crowd scenes) in public which they will want to publish, will ask the individuals in question to sign a release form. They can publish the photograph even if they don’t have the release, but then they are exposed to suit – most likely invasion of privacy I think (not sure of that).

3. Rob on July 5th, 2010 at 17:41:

   Depends on where it’s done, don’t you think? Photographing someone through their window is an invasion of privacy at the very least but I don’t see why you would need permission to photograph someone in public. No comparison to copyright infringement, though. Copyright infringement is illegal in just about every country and I cannot think of a single reason why copyrights should not be protected.

Comments:

1. Roland Hesz on July 5th, 2010 at 12:12:

   So, if they hear a loud argument, they will barge in and cuff everyone?
   Political debates and arguments about whose football club is better, bye bye..