I think what's happening is that the cops see this stupid criminal behavior day in and day out, they risk their lives, and the lives of innocent people are risked, and nothing really happens to the criminal. I mean, he goes to court, or skips court, or gets a fine, or gets sentenced, then goes to jail perhaps, for a week, or a month, and it's not really punishment. It's 3 squares a day, and basketball, so the cops feel like, hey, let's tune this bastard up a bit, maybe next time he'll think twice before doing something stupid.

Now, I'm just speculating, but I bet there's a good chance this is what happens. For instance, a few weeks ago I got into a vehicle pursuit of a woman who was passing bad checks halfway across the country, we chased her for a good 10 miles at pretty high speeds. She finally gave up, she goes to jail, it's a non-violent crime so the judge gives her a court date and lets her go. This fucking broad was homeless. We'll never see her again. And all those innocent people on the interstate, and the cops chasing her, took chances on physical injury trying to bring her to justice. We brought her to justice but the court just opened the door for her.

Typically, reverse gear is actually a higher ratio than 1st gear, about 1/2 way to 2nd, iirc. It would have helped the Cars Movie tractor tipping at the end, but he wouldn't have made it up any better. I figure his clutch was halfway to being burnt out at the beginning, especially if he does this a lot.

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Irwin-Physical-Comedian-Par-Excellence !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The vid quality is poor, unfortunately. Two stellar moments (among many stellar moments) about halfway through and at the very end of Fool Moon excerpt..

In the current situation, "structural reforms" is used to subsume two entirely different sets of measures.

The first is meant to remove what you previously mentioned: corruption in all the shapes and forms it takes in Greece, from a (intentionally) broken tax system formed over decades of nepotism to a bankrupt national media in the hands of oligarchs. The institutions of the Greek state are precisely what you expect when a country has been run by four families (Papandreou, Samaras, Mitsotakis, Karamanlis) for basically five decades.

This kind of structural reform is part of Syriza's program. Like you said, it'll be hard work and they might very well fail. They'll have only weeks, maybe a few months to undo significant parts of what has grown over half a century. It's not fair, but that's what it is.

The second kind of "structural reform" is meant to increase competitiveness, generally speaking, and a reduction of the public sector. In case of Greece, this included the slashing of wages, pensions, benefits, public employment. The economic and social results are part of just about every article these days, so I won't mention them again. A Great Depression, as predicted.

That's the sort of "structural reforms" Syriza wants to undo. And it's the sort that is expected of Spain, Italy and France as well, which, if done, would probably throw the entire continent into a Great Depression.

I'd go so far as to call any demand to increase competitiveness to German levels madness. Germany gained its competitiveness by 15 years of beggar-thy-neighbour economics, undercutting the agreed upon target of ~2% inflation (read: 2% growth of unit labour costs) the entire time. France played by the rules, was on target the entire time, and is now expected to suffer for it. Only Greece was significantly above target, and are now slightly below target. That's only halfway, yet already more than any democratic country can take.

They could have spread the adjustment out over 20 years, with Germany running above average ULC growth, but decided to throw Greece (and to a lesser degree Spain) off a cliff instead.


So where are we now? Debt rose, GDP crashed, debt as percentage of GDP skyrocketed. That's a fail. Social situation is miserable, health care system basically collapsed, reducing Greece to North African standards. That's a fail.

Those are not reforms to allow Greece to function independently. Those are reforms to throw the Greek population into misery, with ever increasing likeliness of radical solutions (eg Golden Dawn, who are eagerly hoping for a failure of Syriza).

So yes, almost every nation in Europe needs reforms of one sort or another. But using austerity as a rod to beat discipline into supposedly sovereign nations is just about the shortest way imaginable to blow up the Eurozone. Inflicting this amount of pain on people against their will does not work in democratic countries, and the rise of Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Féin, the SNP and the Greens as well as the surge of popularity for Front National and Golden Dawn are clear indicators that the current form of politics cannot be sustained.

Force austerity on France and Le Pen wins the election.

Meaningful reforms that are to increase Europe's "prosperity" would have the support of the people. And reforms are definatly needed, given that the Eurozone is in its fifth year of stagnation, with many countries suffering from both a recession and deflation. A European Union without increasing prosperity for the masses will not last long, I'm sure of it. And a European Union that intentionally causes Great Depressions wouldn't be worth having anyway.

Yet after everything is said and done, I believe you are still absolutely correct in saying that the pro-austerity states won't blink.

Which is what makes it interesting, really. Greece might be able to take a default. They run a primary surplus and most (90%+) of the funds went to foreign banks, the ECB and the IMF anyway, or were used to stabilize the banking system. The people got bugger all. But the Greek banking system would collapse without access to the European system.

Which raises the question: would the pro-austerity states risk a collapse of the Greek banking system and everything it entails? Spanish banks would follow in a heartbeat.

As for the morality of it (they elected those governments, they deserved it): I don't believe in collective punishment, especially not the kind that cripples an entire generation, which is what years of 50+% youth unemployment and a failing educational system does.

My own country, Germany, in particular gets no sympathy from me in this case. Parts of our system were intentionally reformed to channel funds into the market, knowing full well that there was nowhere near enough demand for credit to soak up the surplus savings, nowhere near enough reliable debtors to generate a reasonable return of investment without generating bubbles, be it real estate or financial. They were looking for debtors, and if all it took was turning a blind eye to the painfully obvious longterm problems it would create in Southern Europe, they were more than eager to play along.

I hate this style of editing.

1. Halfway through the final word or a sentence, zoom in.
2. Halfway through the final word of the next sentence, zoom out.
3. Goto 1.

*promote the master!
welcome back @blankfist
ya'all need to start taking notes.

this guy was super entertaining,i thought he was gonna have an embolism at the halfway mark.

hiiiiilarious!!!

look,no matter which direction you approach this situation the REAL dynamic is simply:power vs powerlessness.

we also should establish which form of libertarianism we are speaking.cultofdusty criticizes the bastardized american version and this dude come from a more classic libertarian (sans the unbridled capitalism).so there should be no surprise they are at odds in their opinion.this man is defending a libertarianism that cultofdusty may not even be aware of at all.

libertarianism has little or nothing in common with the republican party.

so when this dude posits that the corporation is the fault of government,while not entirely accurate,it is also not entirely wrong.corporations in the distant past were temporary alliances of companies,with the blessing of the people (government) to achieve a specific job or project and once that project was complete,the corporation was dissolved.

it was a cadre of clever lawyers,representing powerful interests who convinced the supreme court that corporations were people and hence began the long road leading us to where we are now.

so it was partly the government that fascillitated the birth of the corporation.

i do take issue with this mans assessment of public education.his commentary is the height of ignorance.while i would agree that what we have now can hardly be called 'education".his blanket and broad statements in regards to public education TOTALLY ignores the incredible benefits that come from an educated public.he ignores the history of public education,as if this system has been unchanging for 100 years.

that is just flat out...stupid..or more likely just lazy,regurgitating the maniacal rants of his heroes without ever once giving that 100 years some critical study.

so let me point to the the late 50's and 60's here in the USA where our public education was bar-none the best in the world.what were the consequences of this stellar public education?
well,...civil rights marches,anti-war movement,womens rights movement and a whole generation that not only questioned authority and the entrenched power structures but openly DEFIED those structures.

this absolutely petrified the powered elite.
during the height of the anti-war movement nixon was forced to baricade the white house with school buses and was quoted as saying to kissinger " henry,they are coming for me".

again,the fundamental premise is,and has always been -power vs powerlessness.

so over the nest few decades public education was manipulated and transformed into a subtle indoctrination to teach young minds to tacitly submit to authority.

which this man addresses and i agree,i just disagree with his overly generalized non-historically accurate puke-vomit.

my final point,and its always the point where libertarians lose their shit on me like an offended westboro baptist acolyte (its actually two points) is this:
1.if we can blame the government for much of the problems in regards to concentrated power and the abuse that goes with that power,then we MUST also address the abusive (and corrosive) power of the corporation.many libertarians i discuss with seem to be under the impression that if we take away the symbiotic relationship between corporations and government that somehow..miraculously..the corporation will all of a sudden become the benign and productive member of society.

this is utter fiction.
this is magical thinking.
many corporations have a larger GDP than many nation states.this is about POWER and there is ZERO evidence any corporation will be willing to relinquish that power just because there is no government to influence,manipulate or corrupt.

which brings me to point number 2:
my libertarian friends.
you live in a thing called a society.
a community where other people also live.
so please stop with this rabid individualism as somehow being the pinnacle of human endeavour.im all for personal responsibility but nobody lives in a vacuum and nobody rides this train alone.the world does not revolve around YOU.

but i do understand,and agree,that the heart of the libertarian argument is more power to the people.i also understand their arguments against governments,which directly and oftimes indirectly disempowers people.

i get that.its a good argument..
BUT...for fucks sake please admit that the corporation in its current state has GOT TO FUCKING GO!

because if you dont then ultimately you are trading one tyrant for another and in my humble opinion,ill stick with the one i can at least vote on or protest.

there aint nothing democratic about a multi-national corporation.they are,by design,dictatorships.

so i will agree to wittle the government down and restrict its powers to defense (NOT war),law and fraud police,if you agree to dismantle and restructure the seven headed leviathan that is todays corporation.

deal?

The witnesses? The only witness that vaguely supports this that I've seen is an anonymous witness cited in the Daily Caller. Not credible journalism even by USA standards. The known witnesses are Dorian Johnson (altercation at the car, shooting as he ran away, he got hit, turned around put his hands up and stumbled forwards before the shooting began again), James McKnight (more or less the same as Johnson), Michael Brady (altercation at car, shooting, then as Brown was halfway towards falling to the ground more shots), Piaget Crenshaw (shots fired as he ran away with hands up, turned with hands up, more firing). Those accounts aren't too far from the Police account really. Is it reasonable to conclude deadly force is required in the timeframe of the shooting? What does police protocol say? One step? Two? When can you be sure it's not charging but belligerence, drunkenness, or injury? I'm sure America are the experts in these cases by now and have explicit and clear guidelines for semi-autonomous itinerant armed police officers and when they can and cannot open fire. Surely it isn't just 'if you harbour any fear, kill or otherwise incapacitate the citizen you are trying to apprehend'?

There is also TheePharoah who tweeted it from the scene and said ' JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG....no reason! He was running!', but you know, its not clear he can provide further useful information assuming he was interviewed.

As an American who has been living in not the USA for about 9 years now, here's a thought:

Compare the attitude of these guys with the attitude of your average American visiting anywhere else. This chipper dude's been up since 3:30 chatting up the locals and draping himself in the local flag. Average American abroad is probably busy asking where the nearest McDonalds or Starbucks is, and complaining about how they can't get any help from someone who speaks English (even if they are in, say, London)...

/I'd tag with sarcasm, but I'm only halfway there.

http://modelmugging.org/personalized-self-defense-instruction-for-women/

Check out the photo about halfway down the page of the woman kicking the padded attacker.

Very powerful, very safe position to fight from if your assailant is a single, unarmed assailant. From the ground position, you can easily pivot, keeping your foot high and between you and the assailant.

They grab your foot? Let them. Pivot and bring your other foot up and kick them in the head while they keep themselves nice and close to you.

Wow. Hard to watch that and not be inspired. You can see halfway through she's trying to shake the lactic acid out of her forearms and she just keeps going. So impressive.

p.s. here ya go @Esoog

*actionpack *sports

Well, you were the one that initially compared your marriage fidelity (or hypothetical lack thereof) to virtuous (or immoral) behaviours. You can't really compare one side (the behaviours) and then complain about a comparison of the (dis)incentives.

Both are systems of reward and punishment. You incentivise desired behaviours and disincentivise undesired ones. Whether the incentive is a tax break or an emotional response is irrelevant.

But let's say that you're right and there is a distinction between them. It still doesn't solve the problem of encouraging moral behaviour.

If I'm the CEO of a company and I make a decision that makes me and my family better off, everyone is happier, right? Moral bonus all round.

Except maybe my decision impacts someone else profoundly negatively. Halfway around the world, someones working conditions got much worse. Locally someone got laid off so I could employ the people with the crap working conditions. I saved money on environmental standards now at the cost of a problem in the future.

But none of that has an immediate social or personal consequence to me. I just bought a boat and took my family sailing and they're happy!!

The fact is that with the best will in the world, it's really easy for those with power to abuse it, and no, morality does not keep them in check. It might in a few individual cases, but those are dwarfed by the colossal atrocities perpetrated by those whose morality fails to keep their power in check.

Again, look at the current banking system. Please don't tell me you think there are moral people in charge of that, and for the love of all that is holy, please don't tell me that we just need to give them the opportunity to exercise their moral muscle.

The problem with this libertarian philosophy is that it has been the default position throughout history and the outcome has been spectacularly bad.
Libertarians counter this by claiming that we haven't had a "true" libertarian system, which to me is akin to trying to put out a fire with gasoline and then when it doesn't work, claiming we didn't add enough gasoline.

I have mixed feelings about the UK plug. 1) they are HUGE. therefore power strips are also quite large, and the wall outlets only have place for one device. 2) I've seen plenty of UK plugs where the conductor goes all the way to the housing, not halfway like he shows as a feature. I've seen Euro-plugs with both types as well. 3) putting fuses on the plug instead of part of the house means that too many <13A devices could be plugged in, and (if used simultaneously) cause a fire in your walls and burn your house down (I assume UK requires circuit breakers and branch circuits nowadays). 4) the same safety device that requires ground to be plugged in first makes it really-hard to plug into cheaply made outlets or power strips (the plastic cover doesn't slide easily).
That said, another safety feature that he didn't mention in the video was that most wall outlets have their own switch on the outlet itself. Turn-off ; plug-in ; turn-on. This prevents arcing, which is easier with the higher 240V.

Euro outlets' holes are too small to fit most screwdrivers, knives, fingers into, and they have both grounded and ungrounded (smaller) variety.

My favorite are the IEC-60309 plugs/outlets, but are only for bigger amperages - 20,30,50,60, etc.

Yeah, so halfway through and he's just finished the bit about Sucker Punch. Gonna have to stop you there, buddy. I *have* seen Sucker Punch along with all of Snyders other movies (except the owl thing).

He's a technically gifted director, but he's at his best when he's adapting material (300, Dawn of the Dead). His Watchmen was a solid adaptation of the source material, but it completely missed the point of the original (which was to highlight the strengths of comics as a medium). Stripped of all it's little nuances, Watchmen is a decent if unremarkable superhero movie, whereas the comic is a work of genuine literary innovation.

As for the rest of the video, if you have to make a video like this is explain why the movie is not bad, then clearly the movie failed to connect with it's intended audience. Even if there is an explanation for each of those story points (and his dads death is still retarded), it doesn't matter. Taken as a whole the movie just feels wrong. And frankly, by the end, I was bored. I had no investment in any of the characters.

And the final comment is utter bollocks. Yeah, Superman's been an asshole in the comics. Hell, I've never even really been a fan of Superman (stories involving an indestructible being with near god like strength aren't that interesting). But you've just spent 15 minutes explaining why it's a good movie despite those previous attributes, so I can't respond with my (equally subjective) opinion?

This is a pretty good summary

You know that b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b thing people do by twiddling their lips while making a sound? I started doing that involuntarily about halfway through.

"I'm not a racist."

I"m halfway thru BackStory. I am looking forward to getting to this bit so I can hear his voice in my head as I read.