You're comparing the motive for the need to balance the budget. The analogy is with the need for balancing the budget affecting the actions of the work. In this sense, the comparison with a business is fair.

The budget decisions should lead to questions such as 'what is the most effective police work we can do within our available budget?', where as in some cases it seems to be just 'what is the most effective way to balance our budget?'.

In that case, the police work is no longer a primary consideration and the tail is wagging the dog. They may as well stop doing police work altogether and start opening hardware stores, or lemonade stands to pay their salaries and maintain their buildings.

To paraphrase Charles Goodhart: once a measurement becomes a goal, it stops being a measurement.

My understanding is that those infrastructure enhancements have been put on the back burner if not scrapped altogether. This, coupled with a bus fare hike (9 cents was enough) broke the camel's back.

Ambassador Wooooolsey....Towing the party-line of "Create the problem, provide the solution." Some people simply need to be kicked in the face with their own bullshit...

Fuck Morgan, he demands his guests answer his bullshit questions and recoils from the same courtesy in every interview he orchestrates. The only way to deal with a choad like this is to over-shout him and disrupt his program....Like Alex Jones does so well-Someone needs to shut this errand-boy's shit down-I know, how about everyone stop watching CNN (or all television altogether)...only way to kill this pieces of shit like this-IGNORE them with your time and money.

@JustSaying

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you.

I'm not sure how you could say that. It was both about me and for me. You obviously wanted me to read it ("@"shinyblurry), and you asked me a direct question at the bottom of it.

What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!

Yes, I've made up my mind about God, and so would you, or anyone, if you were to receive personal revelation that He exists. You seem to think that isn't possible, but have you considered that it is impossible for you to know that? Why is it a virtue to you that one cannot come to any definite conclusions about truth? Is it an intellectually superior position to not know anything for certain?

You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.

You asserted many things in your post which would require detailed refutations and it would be fairly time consuming to respond to all of it. That is why I asked you to narrow the field. I also don't have any tactics. I attempt to engage in an intellectually honest discussion and I wouldn't bother writing if it was for the purpose of winning an argument. I honestly don't care about winning the argument; I only hope to share something of value.

I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.

That's okay; it's nothing I haven't heard before. I understand that posting on a website populated by atheists people are going to unload on me.

Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.

I haven't missed out on them; I wasn't always a Christian. I grew up in a secular home without religion and was saved later in life. I've tried what the world has to offer and I've rejected it. Or as the scripture explains, I am in the world but not of it. Jesus said you are either for Him or against Him; he who does not gather with Him, scatters abroad.

Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

Thanks, I appreciate that. If people want to ignore me that is their choice, but this isn't anything new. The talk of banning and ignoring me started almost immediately after I arrived here. While this site is based on democratic ideals, some people only want that in a limited sense. By that I mean that some want to be free, for instance, to post anti-christian videos and express anti-christian opinions yet they are bitterly opposed to anyone posting about the contrary.

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you. What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!
You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.
I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.
Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.
Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

Thank you for pointing this out, Mikemichael. On our video submission form we insist that any cited sources be credited appropriately. Unfortunately, some submitters sometimes overlook this important step.

@jatoha - Please update your description to cite the source of your text (which via a Google search seems to be flixxy), or remove the plagiarized content altogether. Thanks!

Later Heart (especially later than this) is kind of analogous to the middle age American heart, grossly obese and suffering from cardiovascular disease that kinda killed it.

Easy upvote though for the Wilson sisters (the first live concert I saw was Heart) and for 80's music videos. Love everything about it.

But still, I gotta say, omg, this stuff from the same people who made Barracuda? This is from another quality tier altogether:
LOOSELY *related=http://videosift.com/video/Heart-1977-Barracuda

I hate cyclists and no man in LEGGINGS will ever get an ounce of respect from me.

Altogether? given the chance I'd stop my car, get out and physically run into his stupid road hogging bike which couldn't stop.

I'm with Lewis [Louis?], "We need to just go with the popular vote altogether."

Damn I miss being able to break up quotes and reply to individual points.

I'll mark the points as I go through them.

1: Can you give me a modern example of when people with guns (individuals, not armies) prevented people being fucked over by governments/corporations? Because there's a metric fuckton of guns in the states and the same people who screwed you are still in charge. No, not government, silly, they haven't been in charge since the 70s. I meant Wall Street.

2: Isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? Last time I checked, no-one was talking about banning guns altogether, just putting some reasonable safeguards in place (high capacity magazines, background checks, etc)

3: The "why don't we ban cars" argument? Really? I've heard this rebutted countless times in the last month alone, so I'm kinda skeptical that you don't already know the answer, but here it is anyway. a) cars are not primarily used as weapons b) there are already strict controls on the who can use a car (licencing, driving tests) and how they use it (speed limits, dui, etc)

previously on Videosift...I seem to remember doing what I always do when I get a pocket fulla points-I used em up all really fast while I was rollin', usually on other people's videos and a LOT of sift talk posts. It'[s a way of saying , "Hey, I like the cut of your jib!" * quality!

Now, powers?? That's a different beast altogether. Why, as well as flagrantly abusing the powers I had earned through tenure and hard work I also set out, on occasion, to spank insolent children when their bullshit started stackikng-up so high it began to waft. Yes. I don't work well with ALL, just most others.

There came a time when the mob ruled in the favor of a handful of cunts, I trust this won;t be an issue in future, as everyone knows how to engage in civil PRIVATE (hint, hint, douchebags) discourse before pulling out weapons.

The worst part of being banned unilaterally by a single user is not having an arena to adjust grievances mutually and correct simple misunderstandings....You must simply watch as assholes make shit up after you are gone.

I am sure that if anyone lurking smells a personal resemblance to the aforementioned odor, they are now welcome to come forward anytime, and kiss my natural euro-mutt ass!!

I hope that this bit of personal reflection has afforded you with a better understanding of the shaping of Videosiftistory dynamics.
MORAL: Some but not all rules and somebunal egos, are asking to be broken.

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

Paul Krugman, 2002.

Remember "The New Economy"? particularly how new-fangled, computerized market analysis would do away with the old laws of economics altogether? That was the idea that guided US economic policy in the Clinton era.

Greenspan was a big proponent of the idea, although apparently he did at one point have his doubts. I don't know how much that ideology informed policy after the dotcom crash, and how much of it was just a desperate attempt to keep the US economy from tanking altogether, but the crisis was successfully weathered, or postponed until 2008...

Wings made boo-koo hits with Linda in the band-She was talented enough to hang with PM&W, just like Ringo's mediocre drums were enough for the Beatles. Linda Eastman could hold her own with Paul, Yoko was in another realm of wannabe talent altogether. Even after living with Lennon all those years talent avoided Yoko like roaches avoid light!

i ran a rather succesful pizza franchise for a while. i was quite generous with my pay and even in a low-mid income pizza store, i could easily afford to pay $15/hr to all my staff (of 20). Tim Hortons (canada) sells enough volume of coffee at roughly $2 a cup (plus other things) to afford starting wages of $11/hr in my town (plus benefits like basic health care stuff/drug palns blah blah blah) and pay/hour only goes up from there.

big corps have the margins to support this, in theory based on experience, for most low level income areas (10-15k sales a week) have a 10-15% proft margin. thats a week. once the mortgages and other build loans are paid, a business runnings expenses half. and that margin doubles. so in practice, most major fast food chains could easily afford to pay more and the only people who suffer most is the top level. they would raise prices to make the same yearly income. so, yes, an economy could sustain and only really gain from paying its own employees more. happy employees at home means less drama and stress related "mishaps" (food industry is very stressful) in the kitchen, would in theory benefit the company.

primarily, the only real people to suffer is the top level. the guys that skim the left over (profit margin) after expenses are paid.

if a company raised its prices because its employees wanted more wages, and they actually did pay them more and treated them better, i would shop there more often as that is a business i want to succeed. but thats another issue altogether to discuss is the need for people to spend as little as possible, making places like walmart and black friday sales so succesful. in part, we are to blame for what is happening, but we do not ask those companies to treat their staff the way they do to achieve this goal.

um, also good for them, most of those franchises lost thousands in one day due to loss of sales. so remember that if you think this wasn't successful.

Not really....If ya wanna critique, these folks are way too white...seeing them perform does little justice to their efforts filmed or otherwise embodied in recorded tracks on YT with a wannabe clever album cover...To Me, they strain at sucking and are incurably Caucasian....That coming form a white boy, that makes and loves music....these dweebs' sound make my skin crawl for an escape hatch away from hipsters...:)

And since you love em so much, i guess i need to copy this review to one of their sifted viddies (probably pimped by you or another incurable white person with no ear for talent) straining for attention....Yeah. Pretty much recoil from their sound and vibe altogether, they embarrass their creed and associative alliance with blood kin, wish they'd stop trying !