I scrolled to the bottom of that page, and what did I see? Listings of WOMAN'S bantam weight, and bantam weight! It seems they DO have 'woman's divisions' separately after all.
From the ufc.com page

Women's Strawweight Joanna Jedrzejczyk March 14, 2015 (UFC 185: Pettis vs Dos Anjos) 0
Flyweight Demetrious Johnson September 23, 2012 (UFC 152) 5
Bantamweight TJ Dillashaw May 24, 2014 (UFC 173: Barao VS. Dillashaw) 1
Women's Bantamweight Ronda Rousey December 6, 2012 4
Featherweight Jose Aldo f1 April 30, 2011 (UFC 129)

etc.......

Untrue. He bashed Ron Paul for having odd convictions, he always applauded him for sticking to them. He did also compliment Ron for not taking special interest money back in the day. I never saw a single personal, petty attack against Ron, and I watch Bill regularly. You obviously don't, yet you are perfectly happy to make false claims about HIM...kind of what you're complaining about....so....

Maher is a smug prick all the way. He bashed Ron Paul over and over for the man staying true to his convictions and then has the audacity to bash his son for not? By this I mean he never complimented the father at all for telling special interests to fuck off, fix what a lot of Republicans broke or just being an honorable man. Yeah Maher, you could hate Ron's policies, but you made the attacks personal and petty.

Maher is the type of piece of shit that causes this stuff to happen. Yeah, this bashing is on both political isles but to wonder how a party makes their candidates their bitches, he needs to look at his cum guzzling asshole first. He would complain about Rand if Rand was full blown to his convictions...

Sorry, Maher is a piece of shit at best here. Kind of like the woman who goes home with the asshole over the good guy, then wonders why she has herpes on her face the next day.

This is a Petty great song!

Straight from the Guardian's current article on the most recent shipwreck in the Med:

The deaths are likely to renew calls from campaigners for Europe to reinstate full-scale search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean. Last October, the EU opted not to replace the Italian-run Operation Mare Nostrum, which saved about 100,000 lives last year, amid fears that it was encouraging smugglers and migrants to organise more trips to Europe.

What they forgot to mention: Italy would have continued Mare Nostrum if the rest of this bloody EU had bothered to pitch in with a few bucks. The total bill was €114 million per year. Petty cash, by any measure.

The replacement, Frontex's Operation Triton, doesn't even have a mandate to save shipwrecked folks, just to keep them away from EU soil.

European values worthy of yet another Nobel Peace Price, I'd say...

Yes, that's why they charged him with THEFT, not robbery. He didn't USE the piece of metal in his hand to threaten.
The arson part, that can be considered 'violent', you're right there.
No, ROBBERY is violent, burglary is sneaky. Y ou might note he was not charged with breaking and entering, robbery, OR burglary. Trespass is what it's called when you enter an OPEN building or home, burglary if you did it intending to steal, robbery if you came armed and used that arm in any way against a human.
No, I'm fairly certain auto theft and GRAND THEFT AUTO are different charges, like petty theft and grand theft are different.
No one ever mentioned a "tussel" with store employees, they are instructed to allow him to walk away, they would lose their job if they tried to stop him, because the gun was under $500, petty theft.
You are welcome to believe police when it comes to them excusing their violence. I am free to not believe them. Their recent actions have shown them to be untrustworthy, so I feel proper not trusting them.
Wait, so because a guy actually committed crimes, you will believe cops? Huh? They guy shot in the back did more violence than this guy, he actually tussled with the cop.
You know those aren't the only two options, right? Kill him or let him free to kill 11 year olds?
Videos have proven time and time again to be a far better picture of what actually happened than the officers accounts. If I could trust an officer to tell the truth, I could be there with you. Unfortunately, they have proven at every turn that they are not trustworthy, so I think any rational person would stop trusting them and require they PROVE their contentions, and ignore anything they claim without proof. That's where I am.

Ahh, I see, the police CLAIMED he pointed it at them during the moment the camera wasn't pointed at him, eh? I'm not sure I can take the word of an officer as fact these days....sadly.
You call it robbery, he was only charged with theft. He had a metal object in his hand, but didn't try to use it on anyone. You call it breaking and entering, but there's no indication the home was closed or that he broke anything, he did enter (trespassing), and did steal a car (not carjacked, so still GTA?), and later a gun (again, only petty theft). My point was it was not reported he threatened or injured anyone (beyond himself) during any of these crimes, so they may not have been violent at all. He was certainly having mental issues. You seem to be saying ANY crime is violent, which you're free to believe, but I'm free to disagree.
No one was seen in danger at the time they ran him over, certainly not in the camera range. In America we aren't supposed to try to kill people for what they MIGHT do sometime in the future, right?
True, they could have handled it worse in many ways, that doesn't mean I can't still see, and exclaim, that they handled it terribly.

I think you said it all in your last paragraph. Deadly force was authorized IF NEEDED, the officer saw an OPPORTUNITY (not a necessity) and took it.

If he truly pointed the gun at someone, it changes my opinion, but unfortunately I can't take a cop's word on that...."he grabbed my taser" (and the hundreds of other lies caught on camera) blows it for every claim they make. Now, if it's not on camera, it didn't happen. Their word is worth less than nothing at this point. They better buy those body cameras quick, because I don't think I'm alone thinking that way.

I believe in the power of the Petty. Do you?

Most of Videosift is petty stuff.

Many great sifters have left because of the clique-ish, self aggrandizing, first-world-problem-griping nature of Videosift.

The Siftquisitions that take place to "sort out" the squabbles are often times the most petty.

As I believe it was in my case..

(It was my causal, blunt-as-usual comment to Pumpkin or whoever that resulted in me being attacked & eventually banned.)

So yeah, Videosift is unique in that it is both petty & pedantic..

A decent - but flawed - idea.

..which why the rest of the internet has ignored it & its community.

Oooh well, it was pretty nice when it started.

Wonder how long it'll be before Dag finally shuts the lights off.

Everybody loses their shit over Sarkeesian et al because they are contentious. I think there is this perception that the attention that is generated as a result of all the frothing was somehow a cynical ploy to acquire fame, not for a cause, but for oneself. It's easy to feel how "SJWs" stole the limelight, that attention was diverted from rape to petty (in comparison at least) squabbles. I think it's a mistake to lay the blame on the originators of an opinion for the fact that it went viral. Fame is all our creation, not theirs.

This one is good. Very good. I'd say it's one of the most interesting pieces on the background of the current Euro crisis I've seen so far.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/michael-pettis-syriza-french-indemnity-1871-73.html

Well, Syriza is an acronym for Coalition of the Radical Left (roughly), and everything left of the Berlin Consensus is considered to be radical left. So they are going to call Syriza a radical leftist party until the political landscape itelf has been pulled back towards more leftist positions. But you're right, if they were judged by their positions, they'd be centre-left in theory, if centre-left hadn't turned into corporatism by taking up the Third Way of Schröder/Blair/Clinton.

They are, without a doubt, radically democratic though. As your Grauniad article points out, they haven't turned on their election promises yet, which is quite unheard of for a major European party. Francois Hollande in particular was a major letdown in this regard. Few people expected him to bow down to German demands so quickly. Aside from his 75% special tax for the rich, he dropped just about every single part of his program that could be considered socialism.

Grexit... that's a tough one.

Syriza cannot enforce any troika demands that relate to the programmes of the Chicago School of Economics. Friedman ain't welcome anymore. No cuts to wages or pensions, to privatisation of infrastructure, no cuts to the healthcare system, nor any other form of financial oppression of the lower class. That is non-negotiable. In fact, even increases in welfare programs and the healthcare system are pretty much non-negotiable. Even if Syriza wanted to put any of this on the table, and they sure as hell don't, they couldn't make it part of any deal without further damages to an already devasted democratic system in Greece.

So with that in mind, what's the point of all the negotiations?

Varoufakis' suggestions are very reasonable. The growth-linked bonds, for instance, are used very successfully all over the world in debt negotiations, as just about any bankrupty expert would testify. Like Krugman wrote today, Syriza is merely asking to "recognize the reality everyone supposedly already understands". His caveat about the German electorate is on point as well, we haven't had it explained to us yet – and we chose to ignore what little was explained to us.

Yet the troika insists on something Syriza cannot and will not provide, as just outlined above. Some of the officials still expect Syriza to acknowledge reality, to come to their senses and to accept a deal provided to them. Good luck with that, but don't hold your breath. Similarly, Varoufakis is aware that Berlin is almost guaranteed to play hardball all the way.

Of course, nothing is certain and they might strike a deal during their meeting in Wednesday that offers Greece a way out of misery. Or maybe the ECB decides that to stabilize to Euro, as is their sole purpose, they need to keep Greece within the EZ and away from default. That would allow them to back Greece, to provide them with financial support, at least until they present their program in June/July. Everything is possible. However, I see very little evidence in support of it.

Therefore Grexit might actually be just a question of who to blame it on. Syriza is not going to exit the EZ willy nilly, they need clear pressure from outside, so the record will unequivocally show that it wasn't them who made the call. No country can be thrown out, they have to leave of their own. Additionally, Merkel will not be the person to initiate the unravelling of the EU, as might be the consequence of a Grexit. That's leverage for Greece, the only leverage they have. But it has to be played right or else the blame will be put squarely on Greece, even more so than it already is.

-------
Edit #1: What cannot be overstated is the ability of the EZ to muddle through one crises after another, always on the brink of collapse, yet never actually collapsing. They are determined to hold this thing together, whatever the cost.
-------

Speaking of blame, Yves Smith linked a fantastic article the other day: Syriza and the French Indemnity of 1871-73.

The author makes a convincing case why the suppression of wages in Germany led to disaster in Spain, why it was not a choice on the part of Spain to engage in irresponsible borrowing and how it is a conflict between workers and the financial elite rather than nations. He also offers historical precedent, with Germany being the recipient of a massive cash influx, ending in a catastrophe similar to Spain's nowadays.

It strikes me as a very objective dissection of what happend, what's going on, and what needs to happen to get things back in shape. Then again, it agrees with many points I made on that BBC videos last week, so it's right within my bubble.

While I agree, this may have been the Smart Move™ on Sam Smith's part to avoid a lengthy court battle over royalties and compensation and instead to negotiate a percentage through the writing credit - on the balance of probabilities in a court room a jury may well have found in Tom Petty's favour even if it was chance/coincidence.
But whatever. Sam Smith has a career ahead of him and Tom Petty has plenty of money.

Wow, that is such bullshit.

Not a fan of Sam Smith, but there's no way Petty should get a songwriting credit for that.

The tempo and tone and key have completely changed.

Granted, the songs use a similar chord progression... but so what? There are only a limited number of chord progressions that sound musical, so of course you'll see repeats.

Digging up an old post because I just saw this:
http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/01/tom-petty-awarded-songwriting-royalties-for-sam-smiths-stay-with-me/

"Tom Petty awarded songwriting royalties for Sam Smith’s “Stay With Me”"

“Recently the publishers for the song ‘I Won’t Back Down,’ written by Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne, contacted the publishers for ‘Stay With Me,’ written by Sam Smith, James Napier and William Phillips, about similarities heard in the melodies of the choruses of the two compositions. Not previously familiar with the 1989 Petty/Lynne song, the writers of ‘Stay With Me’ listened to ‘I Won’t Back Down’ and acknowledged the similarity.

“Although the likeness was a complete coincidence, all involved came to an immediate and amicable agreement in which Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne are now credited as co-writers of ‘Stay With Me’ along with Sam Smith, James Napier and William Phillips.”