For those who don't know the "seven" is a model of Lada>> ^sepatown:

this is the google translation of the vid description:
"the driver of the "seven" decided to overtake a bus lost control and flew into oncoming under Tripod ... as a result of the accident the driver and passenger in the back seat got off lightly"
hopefully it's true regarding the two occupants.

>> ^VoodooV:
WTF? Did Obama visit Yogi and do a Sandusky on him or something? Talk about taking it personal.
I agree both parties are shitty, but it's demonstrable that one is worse than the other. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of drone strikes and dead civillians. But you honestly think the other guy is any better? Or hey, you want to go back to Bush the lesser and not only have a bunch of dead civillians, but have a bunch of dead Americans too because of wars of deception? Romney's beating the war drums for Iran. Yeah...SO MUCH BETTER!! lets have MORE dead people wooo!! I'm sorry, but cherry picking drone strikes is pretty bad tunnel vision, when in reality, it's actually drastically reduced the death toll because they are strikes instead of another occupation where even more people would be killed.
I'm sorry, but we are never going to live in a world where our politicians are squeaky clean. Even in a utopia, our politicians are going to have to, by necessity, do shitty things. In the real world, people have to get their hands dirty.
It's great that you're idealistic, really, I applaud it. But here in the real world, we really do have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Take your pick or stfu.
Edit: sorry, I always mix up Kofi and Yogi for some reason.


Here's the thing, I can't even argue this with you because you don't know fucking anything.

1. We're not going to War with Iran...never will we go to war with Iran. They don't meet the fundamental requirement for being a helpless nation. We might bomb their nuclear facilities but that won't do shit.

2. Both parties aren't shitty they're different wings of the SAME PARTY.

3. Cherry picking Drones strikes isn't about tunnel vision it's a War Crime. It's also destabilizing Pakistan, which has Nukes and people in it who are a serious threat. That might actually happen, Iran never will.

4. It's got nothing to do with me being Idealistic (I'm far from it) it's got everything to do with me taking it upon myself to become educated in this shit. I KNOW MORE BECAUSE I WORK FOR IT.

5. I'm not gonna pick the lesser of Two Evils again. I did it once for Obama when it was a serious historical event, something that hopefully would've moved us forward. I'm not in a state that matters so I'm not gonna vote for him again.

6. He's Black.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Yogi:
I love Joss Whedon. Everything he's done I worship at the guys feet. Stay outa politics Whedon so I don't have to hate you.

Sorry, Repubs made it personal so you have to fight back.
This "wah! they're equally bad" nonsense is just that.

I'm sorry but what the fuck are you talking about? How did repubs call out Joss Whedon? I'm saying he should leave it be, I don't want him in politics because I'm a fan of his. I don't like hearing people who don't know shit about fuck telling me what I should do.
I voted for Obama once, he sounded like a good choice, also it was a historical event I wanted to be a part of. I knew he wouldn't do much, I didn't know he would go around assassinating children and trying his best to make sure Pakistan breaks up and hands out it's nukes like candy. Or that there would be NO CHANGE in how Israel does business, Gaza is still the worlds largest prison, Israel is completely immune to international law.
Sorry Mother Fucker, I voted for him once he ain't getting my vote again. And I want Whedon to shut up about this because I like him, and I can't stand to see the man who made Firefly support a War Criminal.


WTF? Did Obama visit Yogi and do a Sandusky on him or something? Talk about taking it personal.

I agree both parties are shitty, but it's demonstrable that one is worse than the other. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of drone strikes and dead civillians. But you honestly think the other guy is any better? Or hey, you want to go back to Bush the lesser and not only have a bunch of dead civillians, but have a bunch of dead Americans too because of wars of deception? Romney's beating the war drums for Iran. Yeah...SO MUCH BETTER!! lets have MORE dead people wooo!! I'm sorry, but cherry picking drone strikes is pretty bad tunnel vision, when in reality, it's actually drastically reduced the death toll because they are strikes instead of another occupation where even more people would be killed.

I'm sorry, but we are never going to live in a world where our politicians are squeaky clean. Even in a utopia, our politicians are going to have to, by necessity, do shitty things. In the real world, people have to get their hands dirty.

It's great that you're idealistic, really, I applaud it. But here in the real world, we really do have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Take your pick or stfu.

Edit: sorry, I always mix up Kofi and Yogi for some reason.

this is the google translation of the vid description:

"the driver of the "seven" decided to overtake a bus lost control and flew into oncoming under Tripod ... as a result of the accident the driver and passenger in the back seat got off lightly"

hopefully it's true regarding the two occupants.

>> ^Deano:

That's quite likely.
I might liken it to some glass-blowing videos. There must be some out there where the technique is flawless but perhaps the end result isn't that showy or interesting. And the same with martial arts. The bottom line is I do need to apply some sort of filter even if it's only my gut judgement.
>> ^ghark:
>> ^Deano:
>> ^chingalera:
>> ^Deano:
Well what precisely is skillful about this clip? Looks like a guy doing interpretative dance - slowly.

Thia guy pretty much single-handedly fast-tracked western cultures on the road to Chinese martial arts development-As well as being an extremely fluid practitioner of Wing Chun, he was able to transmute the art across time and space in his lifetime to what we know of today as the evolution of Kung Fu.
It qualifies dude, take my word for it.

Like some other submissions the problem is the skill is implied but not shown. I'm sure the dude is awesome but we need to see him doing something awesome.

I think in this case, to be the judge of whether he is doing something skillful you'd need to be versed in the forms he is displaying.



Ahhhhhh! Thaks mate, I agree whole-hardheartedly with your self-composed criteria. It is, after all, a subjective judgement that moulds any course or ruling. If you watch this with a limited background in the history of the Chinese martial arts it does look as if this old codger is lilting around his flat practicing some form of mime or interpretive dance.
This cat kept the torch burning on the southern Shaolin art of Wing Chun-The system was developed during the Shaolin and Ming resistance to the Qing Dynasty and has been passed-down exclusively through direct transmission from practitioners until this last century, when his student, Bruce Lee (who makes it look so skilful as to be psychedelic at times) who was able to transform the art by making it available to the entire world. Quite a feat for an old Chinaman who survived the Japanese occupation and the Communist takeover, both some very hellish times and experiences in the "against all odds" category.

The mans' a legend and that feeble-looking dance translates into his 90-yr-old ass clearing a room full of thugs with hammers, knives and sharp sticks!

Well, they could try the thing where you don't join the military in the first place. It prevents things like being committed to illegal occupations, and stops the pressure of having to kill innocent people in foreign lands that never attacked us.>> ^Fantomas:

>> ^volumptuous:
Hey soldiers, I have an idea. GTFO of Iraq.
Unfortunately I don't think the soldiers have any say in the matter.

>> ^syncron:

Hello class action suit.
>> ^PCGuy123:
>> ^syncron:
Couldn't she just remove the key to kill the engine?

No, this model of Kia Sorento had a proximity key, so she could start the car by just having the key fob on her person. I guess there is no way to turn off the car while it's in gear.
I'm finding inconsistent news articles on this story: one said the police don't know why the car finally stopped, while another article indicates the driver followed a troopers advice and lifted up the accelerator pedal while pressing on the brake, which made the car stop. But another article claimed the brakes were burned out already. The driver also put the car in neutral but that had no effect.
Kia Motors responded this was an isolated incident. I'm suspicious that Kia could do a thorough test on this in less than a day.



You could be onto something: I wonder if all electric ignition cars need some kind of emergency cut-off switch installed, in case of situations like this one with the Kia Sorento?

I have electric ignition on my 2012 Toyota, need to check to see if there is any kind of override...

EDIT: on my keyless starter I have to press and hold the starter button for 3 seconds, which should cut the engine off. But that feature may not be the same for other keyless starter systems.

Apparently the NHTSA has proposed standardizing keyless ignition systems in an effort to help reduce accidents related to these systems, per this article: http://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/feds-propose-standardization-of-keyless-ignition-systems

From the article:
"The agency also wants to specify the amount of time necessary to push the control to stop the engine. A driver should be able to stop the car immediately in an emergency without having to wait too long to hold the ignition control in order to do so. Keyless ignition control systems have been linked partly to the sudden unintended acceleration crisis at Toyota. In August 2009, a Lexus being driven by an off-duty California Highway Patrol officer went out of control accelerated to excessive speeds and crashed. All 4 occupants of the car were killed instantly. In the Lexus that was involved in the accident, the driver needed to hold the keyless control for as long as 3 seconds in order to cut the engine. In 2007, there was a similar accident involving a Honda Accord. The driver wanted to switch off the engine in an emergency using the keyless ignition, but could not do so."

>> ^packo:

"for them this is just some place, for us, this is our home"
the irony of that statement in regards to US foreign policy is epic


I think you could make a movie like this seriously and it would be REALLY good because of this idea. However I don't think this is that movie, but I want that movie to be made. Perhaps when we actually have this happen to us.

Just imagine a movie with a character who's the Govenor of the state who's trying to make deals with the North Koreans to keep everything running at least a bit, getting water and food to his people. Imagine what sort of Game of Thrones crap he has to deal with all the time, that would be awesome to see. Imagine the boots on the ground guys (Thor) and their racism and dirty tactics that sometimes kill some of their countrymen in the process. I'd want to see this movie if it would be done RIGHT. Showing the ugliness of war and the reality of a country (or part of one) in occupation. Watch the story of the public as they waste away, dealing with getting food and going through checkpoints. Watch the "Freedom Fighters" and their struggle and significant loses. In my opinion you could only do it in a Game of Thrones sort of way...there can be no heros. Also it would have to be a TV series, it wouldn't work as a movie unless you had one compelling story in the middle of this backdrop.

No, that was my own assessment of the movement, and it seems to have borne out. What is the OWS movement doing today beyond vandalism and petty thuggery?





Yes, there were some good points made, and a whole lot of bad ones as well. They spoke as one cacophony and it is that lack of coherency or cohesive strategy (as well as a terrible image problem) that ultimately led to their downfall. Even the founders of the movement agree:

"But even Adbusters, the 'culture-jamming' magazine that help spawn the original Wall Street occupation, says that things have changed dramatically for the movement. "Our movement is living through a painful rebirth..." began its frontpage essay this week, and then quoted a Zuccoti park regular who declared, "We are facing a nauseating poverty of ideas.”"

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/07

From crowds of 15k to 75 people, it seems to be all over but the shouting

Occupy Wall Street: Dead in 213 Days

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/10552

>> ^messenger:

>> ^shinyblurry:
...this is a movement without any cohesive message or objective..."
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp
-content/uploads/2011/10/no-message-occupy-wall-street.png
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.
com/files/2011/11/ows-message-murdoch-e1322660861906.jpg
I know you're not a lib, but have you really swallowed that Fox media message?

Things I learned today: Yodelmeister is an actual occupation.

Before too long, most cars will have more sense than their meat-based occupants, and these kind of bone-head maneuvers will be a thing of the past.

This is actually the point I'm making: these underlying factors are not separate from the discriminatory effect they have on wage disparity. We do not ameliorate discriminatory practices by imposing equal discrimination on all parties. Rather, we raise awareness and consciousness of the issues impacting men and boys, just as we attend to those impacting women and girls. >> ^davidraine:

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."

I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

@NetRunner, you wrote: "In other words, you don't dispute that women are being paid less as a group, you just believe that this is because women as a group aren't doing equal work. They stay at home to raise children, don't pursue advanced degrees, or maybe they just weren't raised to be as outspoken/competitive/aggressive as men. Whatever the cause, you posit that it is this deficit in quality or quantity of work from women which is the primary reason women get paid less than men on average. That's not a basic agreement with A, that's a wholly different assertion."

>>>Actually, that's not my argument. There is a disparity between the ways in which men and women are expected to contribute value to the society and this disparity is reflected, generally speaking, in the kinds of jobs that are sought/provided, responsibilities that are sought/provided, and roles or identities that are sought/provided by and for the genders. This is a distinction from lifestyle choice, which is not as socio-culturally pernicious as what I'm attempting to convey. However, if you are suggesting that I disagree with PL for EW, you're only partially correct. There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
As I asked before, what value is lost by the wage disparity?

@NetRunner, you wrote: And yes, I get that you're saying it in a soft, non-accusatory tone -- it's not that women are intrinsically inferior, it's that our society as a whole is shaping them into less valuable workers, whether they want that or not.

>>>Closer. The society is also shaping men into 'wage earners' whether they want that or not.


@NetRunner: Still, I think anytime you go around saying pay discrimination is in any sense justified, you're wading into some dangerously misogynistic waters. Worse, I think if you use the word "myth" to describe the idea that women face unjust pay discrimination, you've pretty much jumped in with both feet.

>>>Show me where I have posited that the pay discrimination is justified! I will immediately retract it. There are ingrained habits of this argument into which you seem to want to place me, but that is not the position I am taking. It is, by no means, a "myth," that women get paid less than men for equal work. That much is mathematically accurate. What is "mythical" about it is that circumstances under which that wage disparity exists is identical between the genders. It is not, but is instead indicative of a much larger, deeper, societal disparity between the genders... one that did/does not get adequate attention.

>> ^Trancecoach:

@davidraine, @NetRunner: Please read the article, then we can have a discussion.


Done. That was a very entitled and misogynistic read, and the arguments sounded exactly like the ones the Republican on Meet The Press presented. The $40k/$47k line was used specifically -- except that it's a figure that's now eleven years old, so who knows how valid it is anymore. In any event, I claim that based on this sample of his work, the book represents a very misogynistic viewpoint. Not everything in the book is going to be anti-woman, but there's enough there to form a clear pattern.

"Give women ways of earning more rather than suing more." / "Give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more."

Both of these statements stem from the belief that women think they are a privileged class and should get more rights and protections then men. It further states that the playing field is already level, and if women were just a little smarter they'd figure out how to earn more and wouldn't need the courts to fight their battles for them. This is misogynistic on its face -- It is a belief that women aren't as bright as men and need special training to "earn more", and a belief that women aren't already doing the same work men are. It also assumes that the playing field is actually level, which it is not.

"At this moment in history, gender-specific research is funded with a consciousness toward making women in the workplace look equally engaged but unequally paid."

This espouses a belief that there is an agenda behind equal-pay studies and that the researchers were biased and cannot be trusted. It's a form of "projecting" -- Modern Republicans (among others) love this tactic and truly believe in it because their studies have an agenda and are biased, so all studies must be the same way. The fact is that biased studies don't hold up to scrutiny (peer review), and research methodologies are published to help verify the quality of a study. It's also the same argument that you used in an earlier post: "The statistics can be shown to prove anything, so I can raise a counterargument without supporting it with data."

"From the Jobs Rated Almanac’s worst-job list: We often hear that women are segregated into lower-paying jobs. What is probably true is that women are more likely to take lower paid jobs precisely to avoid these worst jobs." / "The fields with the highest paid workers bias toward engineering, computers and the hard sciences while the lowest paid are doing work that almost any adult can do—therefore there is no end to the supply of available people."

The fact that this is still used as an argument means that those using it are being deliberately misleading. This misses the point and always has. If unequal pay was a function of occupation choice, then a man and a woman in the same job at the same company would make the same amount of money. This is provably false.

"Men’s Weakness As Their Façade Of Strength; Women’s Strength as Their Façade Of Weakness" / "In most fields with higher pay, you can’t psychologically check out at the end of the day (corporate attorney vs. librarian)"

These comments espouse a belief in seriously outdated gender roles. Assuming women should be shrinking violets that do their work behind the scenes and do amazing things that surprise the men she is working under is not the way it works anymore, and thank goodness because that was a bunch of crap when it was expected (which was what, five decades ago?). The concept that women can't handle the stress of not leaving work behind when you leave work is equally misogynistic.

"People Who Get Higher Pay..."

This is the last one I'll tackle, and I'm going to repeat myself here, because it bears repeating. This is the heart of what's wrong with the "equal-pay is a myth" counterargument. The whole chapter and the next is predicated on the belief that women make less because they're making the wrong choices, not risking as much as their male counterparts, and are working less than the men even though they're in the same position. Therefore women *should* earn less because women are *doing* less.

Except that women *aren't* doing less. They don't just occupy the same positions, they do the same work. In some cases they do more work, and are still stiffed and passed over for promotion. Women are willing and able to do exactly what men do for their jobs, and yet they make considerably less for no reason other than their gender. There isn't an "effort gap" or "reverse sexism" or "societal factors" in play here -- Those have been modeled and they don't explain the disparity. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It's literally the only explanation left over.