Thứ Năm, 26 tháng 4, 2018

Auto news on Youtube Apr 26 2018

A secure lump of steel and concrete sat on an island surrounded by unforgiving currents.

Home to as many as 300 convicted felons, Alcatraz was coined the highest security prison in

America.

Day to day, Alcatraz was also the most expensive prison, state or federal, to operate in the

nation.

The dark hostile image of Alcatraz grew as Hollywood dramatized the brutal conditions

and glamorized the inmates who withstood them.

Were the conditions at Alcatraz really any tougher than any of the other state prisons

of the era?

And did those inmates who attempted to escape the rock succeed?

And is it possible to swim from the island of Alcatraz to the San Francisco bay?

Today, we'll go inside one of the world's most infamous correctional facilities, in

this episode of The Infographics Show – What was it like to be jailed at Alcatraz?

The first Alcatraz warden, James Johnston, had a tough reputation and ran the prison

with an iron fist.

Prisoners weren't allowed to speak to one another at all, except for brief exchanges

at break times.

Speaking aloud generally resulted in a trip to the dungeon or an isolation cell.

Eventually the inmates realized, however, that there were not enough isolation cells

to hold them all simultaneously, so they began to relax and speak en mass.

This eventually resulted in a relaxation of the talking ban.

Magazines and newspapers were banned, as the inmates weren't allowed to read about sex

or crime.

Contrary to popular belief, the inmates weren't all hardened criminals.

Anyone who had committed a federal offence might have been sent to Alcatraz.

Prisoners included shoplifters who had stolen from a store with a post office branch inside,

and folks who had carried alcohol across state lines.

A total of 336 cells were in B and C block and a further 36 segregation cells, and 6

solitary in D block.

A block was used mostly for storage.

The cells in B and C block were 5 feet deep by 9 feet wide, with a small cold water sink.

You could extend your arms and touch both sides of the cell, which is something you

might get around to trying if you were imprisoned in one for a year or more.

Having your own cell means that there is less chance of being sexually assaulted compared

with other prisons, and many prisoners found the privacy beneficial.

You would be allowed an approved visit once a month at Alcatraz, but you wouldn't allowed

to touch that visitor nor discuss any current events; conversations were via intercom, and

usually monitored.

Inmate Willie Radkay, who shared a cell next to Machine Gun Kelly, is on record saying

that the food at Alcatraz was better than any other prison he'd been at.

Alcatraz may not of been the brutal hellhole illustrated by many a Hollywood movie, but

it was no picnic either.

Inmates were marched from place to place, worked under tough conditions, and had a strict

daily routine.

Each morning at 6.20am, a whistle blew, prisoners rose, made their beds, and generally tidied

up their cells, washed and dressed.

At a quarter to 7, inmates moved to the mess hall, where guards supervised seating and

serving, giving the signal to start and stop eating.

Work detail was split into laundry, tailoring, cobbling, modeling, gardening, and other labor

details.

At 9.30, there was a rest period in which inmates were allowed to smoke in permitted

areas, but not allowed to crowd together.

At 9.40, it was back to work until 11.30, when a count was taken and it was back to

the mess hall for food, and then back to the cells.

12.30 back to work until 4.15pm, final eating, and 4.50pm final lock-up and a head count.

At 9.30pm, the lights were put out.

There were three more counts at midnight, 3am and 5am.

The prisoners nicknamed the central walkway Broadway, and other walkways were named Park

Avenue and Michigan Avenue.

The area between cell blocks and the mess hall was named Times Square.

At either end was the gun gallery walkway enclosed by bars patrolled by armed guards

who from that vantage point had a clear shot at the cell blocks.

A prisoner named Bernard Coy decided to break that routine and attempted one of the most

brutal attempts to escape the prison when he hatched up a plan that ended in The Battle

of Alcatraz in May 1946.

Two guards and three inmates were killed and several were injured in the attempted outbreak.

Kentuckian bank robber Coy along with five other inmates dreamed up the escape plan.

Coy smeared himself in axel grease and climbed the West End Gun Gallery.

He used some tools crudely fashioned in the prison workshop to manipulate the bars open

to a width of ten inches, which due to Coy's partial starvation of himself, was wide enough

to squeeze through.

Coy then took on the first guard, and with brute strength knocked him to the ground before

strangling him unconscious with his necktie.

He then lowered firearms and riot clubs to his accomplices below, who swiftly took 9

unarmed guards hostage.

However, they were unable to locate the key to the recreational yard, as one of the guards

had concealed it in the toilet of the cell he was being held hostage in.

Three other inmates were released from their cells, but by this time, the breakout was

discovered and the distress sirens wailed.

San Francisco Coast guard and Marines were alerted, and together they blocked all of

the industry working inmates, while inside the prison a battle was raging.

Two inmates were shot dead in the battle before the guards took back control of the prison.

Other escapes were attempted.

Joseph Bowers was shot and killed climbing a fence in 1936.

Two prisoners escaped the prison in 1937, but it is generally understood that they died

crossing the water, although their bodies were never discovered.

In 1962, brothers Clarence and John Anglin, and Frank Morris (probably the most famous

escapees) chipped away with spoons at the concrete around ventilation grates in their

cells.

They moved through a maintenance area and made a raft with life jackets and raincoats.

They avoided being detected in the nightly headcount by leaving paper mache heads in

their bunks.

They hopped a fence to the bay.

Again the trio was considered drowned yet made famous in the Hollywood, Escape from

Alcatraz starring Clint Eastwood.

Television show Mythbusters tested a raft across the same stretch of water and found

that the escape was technically possible.

And for those who think swimming the distance to the mainland undoable, there's an annual

Alcatraz swimming trip open to all open water swimmers willing to tackle the 3.6 miles around

the island, or the easier 1.25 miles from the island to the mainland.

So what do you think?

Would you be able handle conditions in a state prison?

Or would you make a break for it and swim from the island to the mainland?

Perhaps you've been to the island before?

Please enter your comments in the comments section below and join in the discussion.

Also, be sure to watch our other video called How Rich was Cleopatra and other Pharaohs?

Thanks for watching, and as always, don't forget to like, share and subscribe, see you

next time

For more infomation >> What Was It Like to be Jailed at Alcatraz? - Duration: 6:34.

-------------------------------------------

What If Thanos Was Real? - Duration: 4:34.

Hello and welcome back to Life's Biggest Questions, I'm Ron McKenzie-Lefurgey.

With Avengers Infinity War fast approaching, nerds and non-nerds alike are eagerly awaiting

the arrival of Thanos, The Mad Titan.

But what if this death-obsessed superpowered villain resided not on the pages of comic

books or the silver screen, but was actually real?

Let's explore.

By the way, if comic books are your bag, and if you're watching this video I suspect

they might be, head on over to Top 10 Nerd.

It's a sister channel hosted by Kelly Paoli, Roya Destroyaa, and yours truly, where we

talk about all things nerd.

I'll see you over there.

But for now, get ready, it's time to ask the question: What if Thanos was Real?

In order to avoid similarities with other lists like What if Superheroes were Real,

this video will assume that Thanos is the only superpowered individual.

So we won't have superheroes to help us, and he won't have supervillains to help

him.

First of all, we should probably go over the capabilities of the Mad Titan, since most

people aren't particularly knowledgeable about the guy.

Thanos is the most powerful of the Eternals from the planet Titan.

He has greatly enhanced strength, speed, stamina, and healing...

He's extremely smart, and super durable; he's even survived attacks at point blank

range that would have destroyed a planet.

He can teleport thanks to his link to his techno-mystical transport chair, can manipulate

matter, and has powerful telepathic abilities.

One thing we would have going for us is that Thanos wouldn't have much help.

Based on the stipulations given at the beginning, Thanos wouldn't have any superpowered allies,

so his powerful Black Order wouldn't be a problem.

However, the many dangerous inventions and creations of Thanos could certainly have terrible

results.

For example, he's been known to make impressive and powerful clones of himself, called the

Thanosi, that he can make to do his bidding.

Usually.

He also has access to a variety of robotic drones, which serve a number of functions,

although in this case, battle drones would probably be the most relevant.

So, Thanos has his own powers, clones, and robotic drones, not to mention whatever powerful

weaponry he brings to the table.

What would happen if he attacked the Earth?

Well, one big question would be whether or not the Infinity Stones and Infinity Gauntlet

existed in this hypothetical world.

If Thanos was real but the stones and gauntlet were not, he would certainly be a threat,

but one that could be dealt with.

If he attacked the Earth, the nations of the world would need to unite to defend against

the alien threat.

Nuclear weapon production would begin in earnest, to be used against invading spaceships.

Militaries from around the world would work together to fight off the invaders.

It would be tough, and the odds would be against us, but we could potentially come out on top

if we were lucky.

Of course, if we lost the war, it's likely that the world would be decimated, and humanity

and other animal life would be extinguished.

But if we were victorious, it could begin a new era for humanity.

Perhaps the global cohesion would stick, allowing the countries of the world to unite under

a single banner.

This could prevent, or at least limit, warfare between nations on earth, allowing us to focus

on scientific and technological advancement, in hopes of colonizing new worlds.

Furthermore, the existence of Thanos and his impressive inventions could help humanity

to advance technologically.

Many of his abilities, such as teleportation, would baffle scientists, and could potentially

lead to significant advances here on Earth.

Even if we were unable to salvage his technology, the mere knowledge that something is possible

can often aid researchers to discover a method to achieve it.

Kind of like the invention of the Ansible in Ender's Game.

Of course, it's possible that we would go back to business as usual after his defeat,

with various countries squabbling over who deserves more credit, who needs more help

rebuilding, or who should have more power in the future world.

But let's stay optimistic for now.

If, however, Thanos DID have the gauntlet, optimism wouldn't getcha too far.

When fitted with the six infinity stones, the Infinity Gauntlet gives its bearer control

over Time, Space, Power, Reality, Minds, and Time.

That is to say, it makes a person able to do essentially anything they damn well please.

And the thing with Thanos is that his goal is to kill a bunch of people to impress the

female personification of Death.

With whom he is in love.

It's a long story.

The bottom line is, if Thanos had the infinity gauntlet, he would win, and we would probably

all die.

And now we return to our question: What if Thanos was Real?

Well, this would largely depend on whether or not he has the infinity gauntlet.

If he didn't have it, we could potentially win the war against him and his creations,

and it could usher in an era of peace and prosperity to Earth.

However, if he had the gauntlet, or he didn't but still won the war, humanity would be in

big trouble.

We'd probably be killed, to appease his bae Death, and Thanos would go off in search

of more lives to destroy.

So let's keep our fingers crossed and hope that he does not, in fact, exist.

Thank you for watching Life's Biggest Questions, I hope this was interesting and informative,

and maybe even inspired you to look into it further on your own.

If you liked this video, please thumbs up and subscribe to the channel down below.

While you're down there, let me know what superhero you would most like to be friends

with.

And as I said earlier, if you're looking for some nerdy videos, check out Top 10 Nerd!

Until next time, I'm Ron McKenzie-Lefurgey with Life's Biggest Questions, wishing you

the best of luck, on your quest for answers.

For more infomation >> What If Thanos Was Real? - Duration: 4:34.

-------------------------------------------

BREAKING OBAMA BUSTED IN WHAT WAS JUST FOUND INSIDE HIS SICK 'SECRET EMPIRES' - Duration: 22:39.

BREAKING: OBAMA BUSTED IN WHAT WAS JUST FOUND INSIDE HIS SICK 'SECRET EMPIRES'

On yesterday's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on the Fox Business Network, Peter Schweizer

who is an editor for Breitbart News and an author blew the lid off of the Obama Crime

Syndicate.Image result for BREAKING: Obama BUSTED In What Was Just Found Inside His SICK

'Secret Empires'

Peter Schweizer, whose upcoming book, "Secret Empires: How the American Political Class

Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends," explains how the Obama administration spent

their whole eight years in office using regulations to help the president's friends acquire

more and more wealth.

During Schweizer's interview with Lou Dobbs, he explained and gave a whole roadmap as to

what former President Barack Obama did to help his friends.

Schweizer explained that Obama's best friend, Marty Nesbitt set up an equity fund while

his friend Obama was the regulator in chief.

Then he invests in highly regulated industries.

As an example of this, the author stated that the Obama would decide that the for-profit

University of Pheonix is not a good school so he would then regulate it through an executive

order so the GI Bill money won't be allowed to go there anymore.

When this happens the stocks would go from $100 to $3 a share.

So then comes Nesbitt and buys up as much stock as he can, and once he is done.

Obama would turn around and said, "Now that I come to think of it, that was a mistake,"

so he reverses the regulation which in turn puts the stock at over $100 again, making

Nesbit have an enormous profit.

Via Breitbart:

'Schweizer said, "Barack Obama's best friend, a guy named Marty Nesbitt…sets up

a private equity fund while his friend is the regulator-in-chief, and what he does is

he invests in what he calls 'highly-regulated industries.'

… And so, to give you one brief example, the University of Phoenix, the for-profit

school, Barack Obama's administration says, 'We think this school is bad.

We're going to suspend the Pentagon from using GI Bill money for soldiers to go to

school there.'

Well, of course, the stock price goes from $100 a share to about $3 a share.

Guess who steps in to buy it?

Barack Obama's best friend Marty Nesbitt and his company Vistria investors.

They come in.

They buy it for pennies on the dollar.

And then lo and behold, the Obama administration says 'You know what, we think we're going

to let GI money flow again back to the University of Phoenix.'

And that pattern is repeated over and over again in other sectors of the economy.

It was rampant."

This same pattern repeated over and over again in multiple areas of the economy.

With Obama regulating, his friends such as George Soros buying and then changing his

mind while at the same time making his friends billions.

So next time your liberal friends start saying "Obama's time in office was scandal-free,"

you can tell the story about the regulator in chief and how he manipulated the stock

market into making his friends billions while regular folks like us paid the hefty price.

Here is more on Peter Schweizer's new book, "Secret Empires: How the American Political

Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends:"

"From the New York Times bestselling author of Clinton Cash comes an explosive new political

expose!

Peter Schweizer has been fighting corruption—and winning—for years.

In Throw Them All Out, he exposed insider trading by members of Congress, leading to

the passage of the STOCK Act.

In Extortion, he uncovered how politicians use mafia-like tactics to enrich themselves.

And in Clinton Cash, he revealed the Clintons' massive money machine and sparked an FBI investigation.

Now he explains how a new corruption has taken hold, involving larger sums of money than

ever before.

Stuffing tens of thousands of dollars into a freezer has morphed into multibillion-dollar

equity deals done in the dark corners of the world.

An American bank opening in China would be prohibited by US law from hiring a slew of

family members of top Chinese politicians.

However, a Chinese bank opening in America can hire anyone it wants.

It can even invite the friends and families of American politicians to invest in can't-lose

deals.

President Donald Trump's children have made front pages across the world for their dicey

transactions.

However, the media has barely looked into questionable deals made by those close to

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Mitch McConnell, and lesser-known politicians who

have been in the game longer.

In many parts of the world, the children of powerful political figures go into business

and profit handsomely, not necessarily because they are good at it, but because people want

to curry favor with their influential parents.

This is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States.

But for relatives of some prominent political families, we may already be talking about

hundreds of millions of dollars.

Deeply researched and packed with shocking revelations, Secret Empires identifies public

servants who cannot be trusted and provides a path toward a more accountable government.'Image

result for Obama sad

Scroll down and leave a comment below!

For more infomation >> BREAKING OBAMA BUSTED IN WHAT WAS JUST FOUND INSIDE HIS SICK 'SECRET EMPIRES' - Duration: 22:39.

-------------------------------------------

What The Hurt Locker Actually Says about the US, its Soldiers, and Iraq - Duration: 10:24.

Stop the car!

Take cover!

Hi, my name is Gabe and in this video I'll be looking into The Hurt Locker.

Did you know that, adjusting for inflation,

The Hurt Locker is the lowest grossing best picture winner of all time?

That's unfortunate, because I think it is not just one of the best war films,

but one of the best films of any genre, ever made.

I'm craving a burger, is that strange?

Not for you, no.

Before I begin: spoilers ahead.

Alright, lets get into it.

IED!

The first thing I'd like to address is the number one complaint about this film:

that it, Staff Sergeant James in particular, is an inaccurate depiction of how US soldiers operate.

I have no doubt this is true; even if the writer, who was imbedded as a journalist in Iraq,

claims every event in the film actually happened.

For every event to happen to the same person,

or rather, for the same person to do all the things James does,

You want me to go close to it?

Yeah.

- [Arabic] - No, I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

really does seem unreal.

But this doesn't bother me.

I used to simply say that the film is a narrative, not a documentary, but that is a cop out explanation.

The real reason this doesn't bother me is it isn't what the film is about.

Other than at the plot level, The Hurt Locker isn't about US soldiers, or operations in Iraq,

or anything like that.

Instead, the film is about something else entirely,

and it's not a secret either; they tell us right up front.

This film is about war being an addiction.

There's no question that James loves bomb diffusion too much; he practically tells us so here.

The older you get, the fewer things your really love.

By the time you get to my age, maybe its only one or two things.

With me I think it's one.

But no one else in the film even likes Iraq.

I fucking hate this place.

Alright, let's get out of this fucking desert!

Because of this, the film clearly is not about soldiers being addicted to war.

I've actually heard few criticisms on the accuracy of Sanborn and Eldridge,

leading me to believe that they, not James, are meant to represent the actual soldiers in Iraq.

So who does James represent?

A common plot point in this film is how James's behavior puts not only himself in danger,

Get down now!

but Sanborn and Eldridge as well.

We can go!

And if Sanborn and Eldridge represent the soldiers fighting in Iraq,

that means James represents those putting them in danger.

Now turn of your goddamn torch, because we're going.

Despite this, James clearly does not represent insurgents, or terrorists, or anything like that.

I mean, he's fighting them, he tries to save the people they sacrifice,

and he loves the US and hates its enemies;

You know there are guys watching us right now.

They're laughing at this!

this last fact alone makes it clear that James is not meant to represent them.

So other than the enemy, who else put US soldiers at risk?

One group is the people who sent them to war in the first place.

And that is who James represents:

the American people, specifically Bush's America,

specifically specifically the people and politicians in Bush's America

who supported the war and sent soldiers to Iraq.

You want to go out there?

Yes I do.

This may be an esoteric claim, but there is evidence in the film to support it.

James bills himself as a proud redneck,

I'm pretty sure I can figure out a redneck piece of trailer trash like you.

Well it looks like you're on the right track.

the people Bush most appealed to and who, more than anyone, claim to be "true Americans".

James also views his work as a game,

Game-face buddy, let's go.

while in the US war dominates the video game industry

and we even put Iraqi's most wanted on playing cards.

Nine-of-hearts, that's one. And the other, Al Rouie(?), jack-of-clubs.

James also prefers boots on the ground as a first response and in general has a cocky,

cowboy attitude, something many said was characteristic of the US when Bush was in charge.

So if James is addicted to war, and James represents Bush's America,

that means that, according to the filmmakers, Bush's America was addicted to war too.

The natural follow up is: what does the film have to say about this?

I mean, addiction isn't necessarily bad, not if it can be channeled into something positive.

Like what I'm guessing Kathryn Bigelow does with filmmaking; from what I can see,

her feelings about filmmaking are how she connected with James and put herself into this movie.

The Hurt Locker actually has multiple instances where it gives its thoughts on this issue.

First, there's the fact that James loves bomb diffusion, an inherently non-destructive act,

very different than if he were a mercenary, sniper, demolition expert, or anything like that.

And you can add to this that he is really good at his job.

There's also the fact that deep down, James is a good person,

one who is caring, is guided by honorable principles, and knows the difference between right and wrong.

And at the end of the day, he's there for his team and he does try to do the right thing,

no matter how much it doesn't seem so sometimes.

Everything I just mentioned is positive, and these are the reasons that at first glance,

The Hurt Locker may seem more neutral than anti-Iraq war.

You're alright buddy, you're alright.

But anti-Iraq war it is, as is shown in several other moments.

Like this one.

Despite all of James's talent and bravado, despite everything he's accomplished,

this is the first time he has the opportunity to save someone who needs saving, and he fails.

Sure, it's not his fault and he did all he could, but still.

There's also this scene, where James literally breaks into an Iraqi's home,

then refuses to connect with the homeowners when they treat him as their guest.

You are a guest. Please, sit down.

I'm a guest...

Or here, where James was making friends with an Iraqi,

before events occurred that made the friendship not worth it.

Hey man? What's up?

And there's also this line:

Well if he wasn't an insurgent he sure the hell is now.

Sure, it's said jokingly but also in an ironic and funny-because-it's-true style.

Additional evidence that The Hurt Locker does not support Bush's America's war mentality

can be seen through other characters.

Like Eldridge, who ridicules the quality of items built by the US Army

Did you build that?

No, the US Army did.

and also complains about how much of the war is a waste.

Aren't you glad the Army has all these tanks parked here?

Just in case the Russians come, we have to have a big tank battle.

Or Sanborn, and how he believes the people back home feel about him.

Shrapnel zings by, slices my throat,

I bleed out like a pig in the sand.

Nobody'll give a shit.

And how about this guy, who clearly represents out of touch Americans,

the ones who keep soldiers fighting while they sit on the sidelines.

You know, this doesn't have to be a bad time in your life.

Going to war is a once-in-a-lifetime experience!

It could be fun.

And you know this from your extensive work in the field?

I've done my field duty.

Where was that? Yale?

In the end, he is shown to be an idiot.

But more damning than everything I just mentioned is this scene.

I mean, how do you do it, you know,

take the risk?

I don't know, I just uh,

I guess I don't think about it.

James could have said he does what he does because he knows he's doing the right thing,

or that he is doing his part to make the world a better place.

But he doesn't.

It turns out that once you understand what The Hurt Locker is doing,

you find that it is strongly against the Iraq war.

And even moreso, it is against the mentality of the politicians and citizens who supported it.

But judging by the popularity of films more supportive of Bush's wars,

including Bigelow's very own Zero Dark Thirty,

this clearly wasn't a message many people wanted to hear.

But regardless of whether you wanted to hear it or not,

it is hard to argue that this isn't exceptional filmmaking,

because it is.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét