LOL. I dont know why I even bother.

First of all, I'm not even in the northern hemisphere (again, you're bubble) and have no love for Trump or white-supremacists. In fact I'm half Maori so I guess that makes you're whole argument moot.

I really fear for our future with all the closed minded, bubble living idiots like you coming out of the wood-work now.

Yes, you can allow full screen in the embed code. YT did change this recently to disallow fullscreen by default on embedded videos (I dont know why). To enable fullscreen, you need to click the "share" link on the video you want to share, then click the embed tab. There, you will get the full embed code that includes the important "allowfullscreen" attribute. When you include that, embedded videos on videosift (and elsewhere) will have the functional fullscreen button. I just tested this with a new video.

Really? Last night I even couldn't open the videosift websit from my house. It shows I am ban and one video from dailymotion play.
I dont know why. But from my work place it seems ok.

I was thinking about needlejets.. dont know why..srsly for real...

Thanks Dolbs, that's good to know even if I will almost certainly never encounter a tornado. So, windows rolled up then. After further thought, I think the truck probably is the best idea in this scenario. Belted in and covered with a heavy blanket to protect you from flying glass should the windows break (and it's safety glass anyways) or other small debris, would be the way to go, or just curled up in a ball against the firewall if that's the only option. In the truck, you're insulated from lighting strikes or downed high tension lines, and it would provide reasonable protection from small whirling debris. You also have the mobility option should that need arise.

Granted, the truck could get hit by large missiles such as tree trunks, other cars, fat old ladies, cranes or other heavy machinery, or indeed itself be lofted hundreds of feet into the air. If any of that sort of thing happens, though, you were screwed anyways.

So, when it comes to this, I'm not really sure this is EIA in the truest sense. Given the (apparently) 30 seconds they had to plan, I think they made a reasonable choice among the options available to them. After all, it's definitely a situation where an okay plan now is better than a brilliant plan in five minutes. And yes, they probably should have come up with a plan as soon as they realized they were moving to a trailer park in ND, so a bit of EIA there. At least they kept on top of their priorities and realized the very first item of business was to film it happening, and I commend their presence of mind to hold the phone properly even in such a life-and-death situation.

Of course, since we're betting on the tornado not scoring a direct hit anyways. It could be that under a bed or in a closet in the trailer might have been just as well (losing the mobility, of course). Maybe having a trailer collapse on you is bad.

I dont' know why I find this scenario so fascintating to dissect.

Half the time I dont know why I kill things. Have you seen my kill file. More vids in there then in my sifted. I do think it would be better if sifted by a Star Wars fan (wink,wink).

that right there!
i always struggled to find the words to express my concerns in regards to a free market.
i dont know why...brain block maybe?

but you nailed it.
exploitation.pure and simple.

thanks man.i think i love you.

@mintbbb
hey hey stranger!
i dont know why you second guess yourself in regards to how you are perceived based on peoples subjective and highly irrational understandings.

humans...a curious lot.

you are a total sweetie.you are just super sensitive and some people never really understood that about you.
your husband is an idealist.
thats not a bad thing,in fact that can be a very good thing.

we NEED people to be dreamers and your husband is a dreamer and sometimes that can be frustrating if you are in an argument with him (which i have been).

i didnt always agree with him but i always liked him.

some here on the sift have questioned my friendship with @chingalera.
they didnt understand.
i seemed to be so much more approachable and less acidic in my commentary.
so how could i align myself with such a trollish sifter?

the answer is simply because i get him.
we BOTH are idealists.
just like your husband.
the difference lies in that both ching and i battle,on a daily basis,the rising tide of cynicism.

a cynicism that was born out of being beaten,imprisoned,lied to,betrayed and many times by the very people and/or institutions that we once were idealistic about.

disillusion is a real motherfucker.

yet we still retain that idealism.
we both are humanists.
we care about people.

so everything we do or say is with that at its heart.
so when ching is berating somebody,they may perceive that as an attack.
and it is but it is NOT an attack on them,personally,but rather an attack on their media-induced mythology.
or maybe a person is suffering a severe case of myopia and needs to be shaken out of their apathetic dystopia.

but its always,and i mean ALWAYS to get someone to look at a situation with a different perspective or challenge a belief.
to get people to actually think.
to not just give in to authority but to realize ALL authority is illegitimate until proven otherwise.

i tend to use less shocking and confrontational vernacular than ching does.so that may explain peoples confusion why i consider him a friend.

but if you understood his intent,the words he uses would have less of an emotional impact.

note* by my commentary i am not excusing,condoning nor dismissing chings very real outbursts that actually did hurt some feelings.
but i also know that when people get their feelings hurt they sometimes lash out (and i also suspect that those outbursts were in conjunction with copious amounts of booze).

passionate people are just as sensitive as the next and can/will retaliate in kind when hurt.i know i have.

which brings me to the actual point at hand (sorry..i tend to rant).

why would we remove/negate anything from the archives?
the organic growth and procession of a community should be held intact.
warts and all.
to remove,edit or scrub clean serves nothing,except to maybe repeat past indiscretions.

we never use the ignore button.
nor the sarcasm or jokingly.
so why would we erase the communities past dealings?
be they enlightening or incredibly droll?
its who we were and gives us all a marker where we may be going.

just a thought.

redacted dont know why i care

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

well thank god i visited your page!
oooo../claps hands
what a delight to read your response!

i agree with almost everything you expressed.
oh thank you my friend!

economics has never been my strong suit.i know..shocker.
but i AM quite literate in history and government and of course politics.
while you are correct that a socialist state can become a fascist one,so too can a democracy.
it is really the forces of ideology which can push a state to either a fascist or swing despotic.
but i get your point.

i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to economics,so i rely on my history and governmental knowledge to fill in the gaps.
your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was having during this conversation.

i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
and we are.

1.the banks need to held accountable.
check.
2,which by inference means the governments role should be as fraud detector and protector of the consumer.
check.
3,you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a person and therefore shall be removed from the political landscape.
check.
4.this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is diseased at the moment).
5.which will return this country to a more level playing field and equate to=more liberty.
6.this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices.

how am i doing so far?

now.
since we have to talk about politics when we talk about markets.
my old professor dr paul (great man,miss him very much).
he reduced politics down to one simple question:
"what should we do"?
or in terms that we have been discussing:
"what is governments role"?

thats it.
now people like to make it more complicated,especially people getting paid good money to postulate on sunday morning tv shows,but thats it.

being an anarchist is not one dimensional.
the anarchism YOU are speaking of is the extreme.
i am more the libertarian socialism flavor.(yes..you didnt convert me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
the anarchist may see a form of government that no longer works.that is weighed down by its own hubris,greed and corruption.
the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that government to build a new one.

and why not?
if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of it and try another.

now you wanted to know why i feared and unrestricted free market.
(which is how i was talking your previous post and confused me greatly).i see now i may have misinterpreted your commentary so my next point may be a moot one.
if so..i apologize.

if we put everything on the table as an unrestricted free market.we would be going back to feudalism.
the flaw in capitalism is not just the boom and bust but the exploitation of the common man,or worker if you like.

not only would the most vulnerable of us be exploited but it would make the class structure even WORSE than it is now (which by comparison is not too bad when compared to,say..somolia).

we see pockets of this happening now here in the US:
http://youtu.be/GVz_yJAxVd4

imagine having to pay for any road you drove on.ALL of them.all owned by different companies and subsidiaries.every one of them a toll road.
the market would dictate what burden could be held sufficiently in order to turn a profit.
what percentage would be prevented from driving those roads due to lack of funds?

see what im saying?

lets take this template and put it with firefighters.
would having a firehouse every couple of miles be profitable?
i mean,how many fires are there actually occurring on any given day?
so the firehouse would have 2 choices that i see.
shut down the more rural and spread the firehouses more thinly OR charge a monthly fee.
since a nominal fee would be the most likely avenue,what about those people who cant afford that fee?
does the firehouse BILL them?
"sorry for the loss of your house ..pay us".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrPa8Ps7A

and what about police?
they already have become revenue generators and protectors of the privileged.
what happens to poor folks in an unrestricted market?
police wont have a station in any inner city areas.no profit there.
no no no..wait a minute!
there would be HUUUGE profit there!
/smacks head
what was i thinking!
of course!
just like our prison system the police would be paid by the state PER arrest.
to be reimbursed on a quarterly basis!
BRILLIANT.
then poor people could be commodities!

nope nope nope.not gonna work.
that would mean the state would have to impose a tax or something to generate the revenue to pay for the arrested subjects.

hahaha im being an asshole now.forgive me.

ok.lets talk schooling.
lets privatize em!
free market baby!
based on the local population and average income we can fill those seats.
aaaand maybe get rid of NCLB and standardized testing,which i loving refer to as the giant ball of bullshit.
now this would be GREAT.

wait a minute.
what about the poor families that cant afford the tuition?
what do they do?

well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system driven by self interest and profit?

welcome back child labor!!
and the 80 hour work week!
and beatings for not making quota!
and how awesome is it that that poor family of 5 gets to live with grandma,grandpa,uncle lou and aunt sara and there 3 kids all in one 3 bedroom house.
its 1913 all over again.
happy days are here again.......

ok ok.dont get mad at me.that was mostly tongue in cheek.
i realize after your post tonight that you are not suggesting an "unrestricted" free market but a free market.

and i am ok with that.
if we can limit government intrusion.
allow companies to tank when they fail.
rewrite the corporate charter (or dissolve them completely,or as i suggested previously make them accountable and put back the phrase "for the public good").
reign in bank fraud and make the rules to keep em honest.

in my opinion the only thing we really seem to disagree on is when it is in regards to labor.

i tried a few years ago to buy my friends bar/eatery with most of the employees.
did you know what i found out?
we were not allowed.
could not get the permits.
the owner even offered to finance us all..
nope.
how about them apples.illegal to have an employee owned business.

that is changing though.
employee owned businesses and co-opts are popping up like recurring herpes.

i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how employee owned companies would threaten a free market.

but as you figured out.
economics is not my strong suit.

and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your views and even some about free markets.

thank you my friend.thank you.
namaste.

pay before you buy, i dont know why no one does it

My "normal " and your "normal" or what the police say is "normal" could be worlds apart, and that is part of the problem. I'm trying to look down the road and the possible precedents it sets for these type of police actions in the future. Also I dont know why warrants couldnt have been obtained for the houses being searched. I assume under the circumstances it would have been easy to do.

I fear the police having discretion to make these type of calls as I am distrustful of law enforcement and would rather have the rules they operate under more well defined.

This must be a problem with your internet connection, or a temporary down of YT (less likely). The vid works fine for me in any case.
In reply to this comment by khattakgul:
I dont know why, when I click on the video to run, it responds with the following!
------------------------------------------------------------------
The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few
moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So, please let me know, why it is so.

I dont know why, when I click on the video to run, it responds with the following!
------------------------------------------------------------------
The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few
moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So, please let me know, why it is so.