Very proficient little girl. I've been around a lot of deaf people (oldest kid was language impaired and her mother is an ASL interpreter) and while this girl is rather cute from our perspective, this isn't terribly unusual.

The funny part is that she's doing it as part of the chorus and it appears she has hearing. If she is deaf as well, even more impressive.

The plot thickens:

"A Boy Scout leader who came under fire for pushing over an ancient boulder in a national park filed a suit last month claiming he was suffering permanent "disability" and "impairment" from an auto accident four years ago.

Taylor initially faced scrutiny after a video of him pushing over a Jurassic era rock formation in the Goblin Valley State Park in Utah went viral.

Taylor, a Boy Scout leader, told ABC News that he should have handled the incident differently but thought the boulder was dangerous and thought it would be safer to push it over.

"The Boy Scouts didn't teach me to do this," Taylor told ABC News. "Would I do it again? Yes, with a ranger standing there. That's what we should have done.""

0:25 - stopped

Sorry but it's horribly out of sync, ya guys audio-visually impaired?
It only has to be 0.2 sec badly layered for the dance to be CLEARLY for music slightly faster than this song.

As a person that has driven cross country in the US, I have experienced insane hot rains that nearly (and sometimes completely) blot out visibility. Does this not seem like a bad idea to make your car become "invisible" (dark color change might not register with human vision if the color change occurs at the moment that visibility is impaired) with different temperatures of water? I imagine seeing this red car disappear and then THUD CRASH BANG: rear end collision.

For those unaware, she won the entire competition and was crowned Masterchef for season 3.

I was rooting for her the entire season and was very happy to see her win, however I do feel they gave her extra points and wanted her to win because of her impairment.

@mxxcon - It's not just knowing what your food tastes like, but being able to present a beautiful dish that's difficult, and she did a great job with presentation for most every dish. Aside from that, in this challenge the taste of her apple pie was the least of her worries.

Your argument is purely reactionary. You're essentially saying that we should just let people drive as drunk as they want and only punish them when somebody inevitably gets hurt. Shouldn't we try to prevent people from getting hurt in the first place? Isn't that the whole point of having laws? If laws only matter once the blood is on the floor, why bother having them at all?

There's no reasonable justification for driving drunk. Alcohol impairs your cognitive functions and when driving, you need those functions at their sharpest. There's an established correlation between driving drunk and getting into accidents (often resulting in casualties). Therefore, it is completely reasonable to punish people for driving drunk. It has nothing to do with "disliking personal behaviors" and everything to do with statistical fact. If your personal behavior puts other people at risk, then yes, the law should punish you for it.

That aside, I completely agree that everyone should be punished for causing harm, regardless of their BAC or mental state when doing so.

I have a simple test for this one. If you can no longer judge what is an appropriate amount of time to maintain eye contact with people, your too high to drive! (anyone who smokes should know what I mean)

Up until that point however I honestly believe it can slightly enhance ones standard of (safe) driving, especially if one is prone to a quick temper or impatience/ "a need for speed". Frankly some people are more of a liability when completely sober! (I know I used to be till I made myself calm down)

Unlike alcohol Pot tends to make one objective about how impaired ones senses have become. If your too high the little voice in your head tends to think "I'm really high, maybe I shouldn't drive yet?" rather than "I'm not pissed, I'm amazing. We can totally pull this off!".

Pot can also be surprisingly self regulating too, your most comfortable road speed is pretty much inversely proportional to how high you are, unlike certain other fermented vegetable products which are known to have the opposite effect....

IMHO existing laws for driving without due care and attention etc. are perfectly adequate to deal with potential abuse. I'm not saying it can't be a problem but equating it with drink driving is foolish and necessary to me.
This advert seems to have hit on a nice way of approaching the subject by simply suggesting you think twice about driving when baked our of your tree, rather than some unrealistic draconian shock tactics (Like the us advert at the drive through).

Good work NZ! (Wish I could afford to live there, seems like an awesome place)

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

Weather permitting, etc. I was always taught the rule of thumb is that you stop on yellow if you can without standing on the brake, and go through otherwise. That way you are preserving the flow of traffic, keeping it smooth and safe.

On red lights, I was always taught that if you enter an intersection before the light is red you clear it as soon as it's safe to do so. And you wait for people for clear it if your side turns green while they are in the intersection. This mainly applies to people making left turns, because oncoming traffic isn't obeying the stop on yellow rule of thumb above. In good weather, of course.

So, I think this guy was in the intersection before the light turned red and he was far enough across to not impair traffic by the time the other light turned green. I don't see a problem...he maintained his speed. Didn't slam on the brakes or speed up that I could see.

The cop followed him for as long as he did because he wanted to make a bust on something and was waiting on some other better reason to come along. He could have pulled him over long long before since that road was basically empty.

So, hope the guy wins. And I like that he was outraged during the ticketing process....his age probably helped him there. Young guy doing that probably wouldn't be fairing as well.

My love affair with Libertarianism was crushed by reality. I was a big Libertarian, pushing for Ron Paul up until the actual election of 2008 (I pushed Paul through the primaries). Then the company I worked for at the time sent a memo saying that if Obama won, and put his tax plans in place, they would have to fire over 300 people. Then before Obama even was in office, the company fired 350+ people, and sent a memo to the rest of us that there would be no raises (nobody at that company but the executives have had raises since) as the company couldn't afford it, and claimed that the cost of living went down anyhow. The owner then went out and purchased a private jet and another mansion in a gated community where he already had the second largest mansion in it. I called BS on that, as did a few others. I then started looking at the rich and corporations as a whole and started doing some real studies, not just Libertarian propaganda, and realized that they wouldn't operate on the rational interests of society, but would gladly screw over anyone just to advance their own short term self interests. That owner who fired over 1000 people and kept everyone else under his employ at the same pay rates over 5 years wasn't an aberration, he was the norm, a very high percentage norm. Libertarians are under a delusion that corporations and the rich will act in the rational interests of society, but they could care less about anyone but themselves, and that isn't misusing the phrase "could care less" because less than 2-3% of them care about what would be best for society as a whole, and sure I'm pulling that figure out of my ass, but I'm sure I'm being generous with that guess).

It became clear that without minimum wages, companies like McDonalds and Walmart would gladly pay their workers $1 or $2 an hour. The Libertarian response that people just wouldn't work there then, is BS, because nobody really wants to work at those places for minimum like they do now. The workers would be stuck, just like they were in the days prior to labor unions and minimum wage laws. The 40 hour work week that we have the unions to thank for, would be gone, as companies paid less, people would be forced to work more, and with the Libertarian ideal of removing overtime laws and other pay laws, people would end up working 80 to 100 hour work weeks just to make what used to be minimum. I'm sure we would see child labor return too, as families would have no choice but to put their kids to work to help make ends meet.

It became clear that without government in the way they would gladly pollute and destroy the environment if it means better short term profits and if they don't have to worry about paying clean up costs later, and in a Libertrian world, they won't have to pay for the clean up costs later as nobody would force them to.

I still believe in individual freedom. I believe drug laws are an impairment to individual freedom, the right to do with your body as you will. I don't believe that a company has unlimited freedom, corporations are not people my friend. I believe in the social contract, that we have an obligation to help lift people up, and the only way to do that is via a government that is designed to help those that need it, and that taxes must be collected to achieve that. I believe that if we teach people that greed is bad, to work in the rational interests of all, then we could eventually get rid of government, but it is needed for now to overcome those that would abuse the people. Bring government back to the people and away from the corporations and rich.

I dunno ... been a fan for years [he's from my hometown]. He seems a bit impaired to me here

Oh by the way, all the citations in this Koch funded video are, from a Koch funded "think-tank" Why am I not surprised?

Also, I noticed that chart at 0:21 uses "average income per person" which is a highly misleading statistic. Using the median income per person is more reasonable, but that would fuckup their pretty pretty graphic.

Average income per person in the US is ~50k USD
Median income per person is ~26k USD

And yes, for the math impaired, for the average to be so much higher than the median means that the top end of income is incredible skewed.

I don't have any kind of problem with this. In fact, I'm surprised it's even legal to refuse a breathalyzer.

It's really simple. Driving is part of a social contract. Everyone pays taxes and gets to use the roads. Part of the terms and conditions of using the roads are that you are a competent driver. This means a) you have a licence to show that you passed a test proving your proficiency and b) your ability is not impaired. As part of the deal, you accept that the cops get to check that your blood alcohol level. Don't like it? Don't drive.

Or hell, go all libertarian and get a private company to build a private road network. Let me know how that works out.

It's too bad they can't bring up the type of gang-banger the victim was-If Zim had met-up with some punk-ass chulos with La Raza tats and they beat the shit out of him, he'd have probably shot the Hispanics as well, he'd have shot a white person, he was ready to use his nayborhood-watch shooter and looking for a reason just as little, innocent, beat-you-to-within-an-inch Skittle-man was....Combined with a law that's not insane or perfect (though it may need instruction pamphlets for the socially-impaired) the whole things' a huge clusterfuck because everyone involved is and was, developmentally-disabled!

This is what I do, but this would totally suck for the internet impaired. GoG could work though.