Here's a counter theory by another racer:

"I haven't seen how Stewart handled the car preimpact. That said, those vehicles require speed for what little grip they have, as it's largely generated by the roof fin, and they don't really steer so much as surf. If you watch the cornering style it's a full on drift. That makes twitch steering pretty ineffective - you steer from the back which requires heavy throttle.

You don't see Stewart's approach ( at least on the vid I've seen ), and the fishtail post impact I would attribute to the impact itself. His approach does not seem consistent with trying to spray the other driver with dirt ; that would have to be a at a high angle relatively speaking and he seemed to come in straight.

It's possible that Stewart intended to kill, but I really think it's highly unlikely. When you're racing you have a lot to deal with, and whilst under a yellow flag undertaking is typically verboten and in theory you should be slowing down, but in reality you are always looking to get the drop as soon as the yellows disappear. To that end you're scanning the track looking for disabled vehicles.

You're not scanning for drivers standing in the middle of the track - the assumption would be that the driver stays safely secured in the car, or they hop the barrier. If that can't happen for some reason, it's the job of race control to red flag the race.

My personal theory, based on incomplete footage - I'd like to see in car footage from Stewart ideally - is that Stewart just didn't see him in time to make any effective attempt to miss. It's a night race, and Stewart would have been concentrating on the disabled vehicle to his right. There's not much about Ward's outfit that would attract attention - from Stewart's perspective, black helmet, black racesuit, against a dark dirt background. These vehicles don't use headlights, so there's nothing to offset the glare of the spotlights.

In a perfect world Stewart would have seen and avoided, but ultimately Ward put himself in a fucking stupid position and paid the price. I'm not surprised to see lack of remorse on Stewart's part ; Ward shouldn't have been there, plain and simple.

Anyhow, that's my thinking on this - I don't know or follow anyone in that type of series, so I'm claiming to be bias free here. Racers know that motorsport is dangerous, so you do what you can to mitigate risk, not increase it by orders of magnitude.

Edit : Looking at it a few more times, it's also possible that Stewart was trying to rotate the car around Ward - throttling up and steering right would have pushed the back away from Ward, which might have made the outcome different. I still say it's a Darwin."

Ya, all through this I kept imagining her singing a SLOWER version, Jessica Rabbit gown, dark smokey bar (fog machine, gotta protect that voice), single diffuse spotlight, and got the shivers.

The guy who made this video really failed to give a thoughtful analysis of the situation. Before I comment, I will clarify that I do not agree with the thought or spirit behind Phils comments. I think they were crude, and fundamentally wrong on a few different levels. I do agree with Phil, however, that homosexuality is a sin. However, so is stealing and lying and cheating on your taxes, and so I do not single out homosexuals for their sins in particular. To do so would be hypocrtical because I fall short of the glory of God daily and I need Jesus just as much as they do.

My comment is that this situation has little to do with Phil or Duck dynasty; it is simply acting as a vehicle for a lot of pent up outrage and angst against the media and the politically correct culture. It's an overreaction, basically, because conservatives in general and Christians in particular feel marginalized by the current cultural climate.

It's an interesting cultural milestone because while Chick-fil-a was popular, it was never in the spotlight of the media or very much in the national consciousness. As a money making and ratings juggernaut, Duck Dynasty is right on the main nerve of it all, and so its fans, typically conservatives and Christians, cannot be easily ignored. Greed has given them a voice because the threat of a boycott is seen as a clear and present danger to many different bank accounts.

So we see two forces now pitted against eachother; one is the real motive of the corporation, which is to milk duck dynasty for every dollar it can. The other is its obligation to appease the politically correct establishment by blacklisting all who have violated the new cultural norms. A&E had no choice in the matter; they clearly had to do something. But, it is all just a facade; they dearly wish they had 100 Phils with 100 hit shows instead of just 1.

So, it is interesting to me because greed is taking the air out of the politically correct atmosphere. Because of Duck Dynastys popularity, the right actually has a louder voice in the culture than the left on this issue. If Duck Dynasty was just an obscure show, Phil would be history. Yet, because it generates so much wealth for shareholders, Phil is pretty much invincible. It all comes back to the bottom line, an idol to which seemingly anything can ultimately be sacrificed, even the progressive agenda itself.

Violence is touched on in the 90's at 43:00 but the focus is on the innovation of Street Fighter 2 and Doom and again it 47:45 with Mortal Kombat, Night Trap and the US Senate Hearings that led to the ESRB rating system. The pace of the narrative is still compelling as this was an important leap forward where game graphics could be represented by photographic imagery. Let's face it, the violence controversy formed a major part of the evolution of video games.

If you can't stand to hear about Columbine again, skip 52:00 to 54:00. Glen Beck chimes in on GTA at 1:11:00, but he doesn't steal the spotlight.

Irony of ironies. Accusing a POfuckingW who was tortured and refused to leave early of treason. I don't like McCain, but gotdamn that's ridiculous.

But McCain is almost partially responsible for this by recklessly putting the spotlight on Palin.

This reminds me of hearing Stewart himself explain to the audience "how the heck do you get these people to agree to be on their show?"

They just love the spotlight so much, they don't care/realize how stupid/crazy they look. This was pure *1sttube SiftGold.

The only lie I see here is in the title of the video.

Murdoch didn't have the ad banned, a variety of commercial television channels and newspaper chose not to run the ad for a variety of reasons. I don't necessarily agree with their decisions, but there is no evidence that Murdoch twisted any arms or had any involvement in those decisions.

Don't make him into some all-powerful agent when there is an entire system at work, it only serves to take the spotlight away from where it belongs.

here's a nice one for ya 260 yard kill with 30-06: http://youtu.be/Pcl0H2ZxtAk

or the thrill of an 11 year old's first deer kill: http://youtu.be/95rf5w_k_-E

my father was in vietnam and taught me to hunt, and I'm passing it onto my kids who also love to hunt.

I taught my wife to frog gig, we go out during full moon in a jon boat, I shine spotlight, while she gigs.

Also rabbit hunting on full moon with spotlight is good, course there are old wives tales about hunting rabbit on full moon or the meat will be bad

I don't see what's hard to understand about the fun and thrill of the hunt. watch any hunting, fishing videos and listen to the "hoots and hollers" of excitement.

Depends on what you mean.
If you mean are the prisons some kind of sci-fi dystopia where the prisoners are left to fight it out, then no, it's not legal and the authorities took a pretty dim view of this commercial.

If you mean the ad itself, I can't find the details, but I seem to recall it was banned by the advertising standards people, which meant it was immediately shown on the news and thus seen by far more people anyway.

Personally, as much as beating the shit out of women beaters and rapists appeals to me on a gut level, I don't agree with the message.

Even if I doubt I'd shed many tears over them, prisoners (even scumbags) shouldn't live under the threat of violence.

That said, the ad succeeded brilliantly. It was just the right amount of controversy to put the topic of domestic abuse back in the spotlight, and frankly, that can only be a good thing.

Liked the clip, thought I'd help out with the translation, as some expression Google translate totally misses Tried to keep it as literal as possible, here you go


[Flynt]
My friend is my buddy even though he has no money
He’s my appearance, my face but doesn’t look like me
He’s my brother, but we weren’t carried by the same arms
He’s my s’rab (= friend), he surely won’t be the one to denounce me
My friend is my big but he’s not Pierre Menes
He doesn’t break sugar on my back (literal translation of French expression, it means he doesn’t talk about him behind his back)
He can support OM (French soccer team Olympique Marseille) and if it helps him I’d lie to his wife without a problem
And If my friend comes from far away, he or his parents
Black, white, yellow or brown, it makes me one ignorant less
I do not expect you to wax my shoes (again French expression, it means he doesn’t expect him to kiss his ass)
It will not be because of you being straightforward if I burn the bridges
I wouldn’t put you in my mess if I did something stupid
I wouldn’t ask you to come down with a shovel at night without asking any questions
But if it is needed, bring me back home
If I go crazy bring me back to reason
We can disagree, we can take our heads (French expression, it means We can argue, fight)
But there will always be a piece for you on my plate
My buddy does not scream with wolves
We do not wash our dirty laundry in public (to take care of your personal business) but between us
It is not always the good wind that brings my buddy (It means it is not always a happy reason why his friend is coming to him)
I’m not always OK with how he behaves
I wouldn’t like to learn that he has betrayed me or that he’s plotting
It would bury our relationship even if it’s strong
I have not sealed my fate to his, for me things are clear
My friend is my friend but he’s not my father
I want to keep him a long time so I avoid interfering
Between him and me, money, women and all that could divide us

[Orelsan]
My friend has always been there
Too long, my best friend was me
My buddy stays at my home, we spend sleepless nights
We remake the world, we hear each other even in the silences
My friend always answers my phone calls
That we every hour or every twelve years
I can make him understand everything with a blink
At the edge of the explosion buddy is the pin (goupille is the metal pin of a grenade)
Where I am many people mix friends and groupies
But I’ve understood treason since Fox and the Hound
My buddy isn’t trying to please me at all costs
Doesn’t pretend to look away when my verses are bad
Late evening, always a corner of a sofa
My car is not in the ditch because he keeps the key
Nothing separates us even large sums (of money)
We don’t raise pigs but have raised some sluts
My buddy lowers no one to bring himself in the spotlight
He’s my reflection, breaking us apart is risking seven years of bad luck
My buddy is not a beast in heat
And I can sleep peacefully at night when I introduce him to my sister
Loyal in friendship
If I am not down to earth anymore my dude reminds me of the laws of gravity
Always ready, always the first to come down
in case of a dip or for a game of Play(station)

He’s my antidepressant, my lexo(mil), my friends aren’t all heroes

In practice we all have our faults
If one day in my life I forget to be legit

I’ll listen to this piece again as a kind of memo

[Flynt & Orelsan]
This is for my friend of 20 years
For my buddy of now
He’s my disgusting friend and my dapper dude
For my ugliest friend
For my dumbest pal
For m most down to earth friendy friend
For my friend on Pluto

This is for my easy-talking friend and my dyslexic friend

My buddy that my friend (girl) said no to but persists
For my unemployed buddy, my buddy who works

For my kickeur buddy, my buddy who raps poorly
(kickeur apparently means good rapper: it does)

Boxer buddy, my pianist friend
Performing buddy, buddy artist
Buddy hook, buddy Roger
My friend who crashes at a mate’s house and has no projects

Dude in a suit, buddy in Coste-la (Coste-la is actually ‘verlan’ for Lacoste, the brand)
My friend who lives in the countryside

I know the people in this group. Frankly, I'm kind of disappointed. I think the general idea is that there is some neural process, colloquially called attention, that is fundamental and possibly indicative of intelligence in general. Many people haven't thought about it carefully, but really attention has as much to do with suppression of irrelevant information as it does spotlighting relevant information. In the visual domain, it's often thought about as masking, or background subtraction. The finding here is supposed to tap into that relationship. High IQ people found it much easier to see the motion of the smaller target, and actually showed a deficit at detecting the larger (backgroundish) object. Frankly, I think it's squishy as all get out. The correlation was relatively strong, but I felt it relied heavily on a couple of subjects. In the end, my problem is really with the whole enterprise of trying to assess an ill-defined concept like intelligence. It would be interesting if a similar finding held across other perceptual modalities however. Even I would have to bother to listen at that point.

Maher's channelling an alternate dimension left wing O'Reilly here.

The issue here though is that most religions have been interpreted radically at one point or another in time as Levin mentions. Certainly both Christianity and Islam have sufficient sections in their religious books that can be interpreted to incite extremist violence.

Islam being in the spotlight for its radicals has more to do with the social development / HDI measures of majority Muslim dominated countries. As Levin mentions, Islam can also be a façade or rationale for violence in the name of nationalist causes or as a reaction to oppression.

In many cases the Qur'an is irrelevant as those recruited, especially in lower developed countries in the Middle East can be illiterate and ultimately rely on an imam for any and all religious guidance.

Not to ruin the magic, but at 1:41 doesn't that look like a loop of wire securing one of the sticks?

Edit: Never mind, there are just really strong shadows from the spotlights. There's nothing to distract from how impressive that was.

I can't believe that Romney not only got the party nomination, but that it is still even considered that he may win.

It just goes to show that all you have to be is white, mid 50's, semi-attractive (with a dash of salt and pepper hair), be anti-gay rights, anti-Obama and anti-abortion and most Republicans will blindly support you no matter your name, stance on issues (other than the three above), economic plan (or even a vague one), and a consistent, verified, proven history of lies, flip-flopping and deception.

It is pathetic. It is like those Calvin peeing on Ford/Chevy stickers that everyone had on the car a few years back. Blind loyalty and devotion to anything is such a bad thing.

Next election, I sure hope that the third party candidates get the time in the spotlight. If the media actually showed more on Gary Johnson or Jill Stein Or Virgil Goode and the like, I promise you that there would be a lot more people willing to support them over Romney/Obama.

Yes, thank you, you put it so much simpler than I do!
In reply to this comment by Thumper:
Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.