Once again, your repeated blanket promotion of using black market DMT without supervision has gotten old, and you have repeatedly been chastised for promoting it in unsafe, irresponsible ways. I feel like you should have to list your actual name and address when you repeatedly suggest things like that with an air of knowledge, so people and estates know who to sue when it all goes bad.
You're also in danger of being nothing more than a skipping record. I rarely if ever see you post anything NOT suggesting random strangers do a hard core, illegal drug. Please find another topic to speak about. I'm starting to think that doing DMT makes your life about nothing but DMT from then on, and that's pretty sad.

Wow, this just such bullshit. I can't believe they would produce something so utterly irresponsible. Public health is important, yeah, but this crosses a line....spoiling breaking bad is just not cool

You understand that people react to DMT differently, right? You understand that some people have horrifying trips on DMT, so horrifying they commit suicide while on it, often enough that it is a drug that requires a 'sitter' to take with any small amount of safety. You do understand that some people have flashbacks of this debilitating horrifying experience at random times in the future, destroying the possibility of a normal life, right?
Your attempts to cajole others into trying a quite dangerous drug with NO mention of the dangers is irresponsible in the extreme.
My own drug experience is wide and varied, and I have had un-named drugs that did nearly exactly what others (poorly) describe their DMT trips as doing. It was not pleasant or useful in my life, and was given to me by those that acted exactly as you do...hyper exaggerating the positive effects, and completely ignoring the drawbacks and possible permanent pitfalls.

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.

But society tells a man, enshrined in law and tradition, that if he does not want to be forced into wage-slavery for 18 years of an unwanted child's life, he should not have had sex with the girl in the first place. It makes women victims of sex, not equal participants, fully capable and fully responsible. The woman chooses to have, abort, abandon or offer for adoption. The man does not have any choice over that, including if he wants to keep and she does not.

And that double standard stems from the inherent sexist bias that men are the big strong responsible ones, and women need protecting and helping. I keep seeing Emma Watson's face plastered all over facebook with "He For She" gash-tagged. He for she? HE... for SHE? She does not need he, and the campaign ridiculously reinforces the male hyper-responsibility and female hypo-responsibility that has led us to this system which is sexist to both males and females. If anything, we need we, but wee-wee probably isn't a good tag-line.

So why did i bring sexism up? Well, either you can't tell people to act a certain way if they don't want consequences, or you can.... and we as a society do not have a standard to use, because we legally force fathers into wage-slavery at the whim of the mother and tell him exactly that. Is it any surprise men are using the same unfair argument by which they can be and are financially crippled? That's the heart of the debate imo; society raises men to be fully responsible for their actions, but raises women not to be (which as we see is sexist and unfair to both).

Only one thing is certain - equality of the sexes is important for both sexes. Because when society is willing to accept that women can be responsible for themselves, men will not be held responsible for a woman's decision to have a child. And then maybe men will stop using the argument which they must bow to by law.

Pre-emptive edit:
I will never let it be said that the views expressed herein are sexist, nor that i am sexist. I am a huge proponent of the fact that women are gifted with the same cognitive potential as men, and that any physiological differences are irrelevant in the modern world. But equality comes with a price - and that price is real equality. I am not encouraging irresponsible male behaviour... i am stating, loud and proud, as a feminist.. that women should be allowed to be fully responsible for their choices and actions, because i believe them to be fully capable of it.

This is akin to posting videos of school bus crashes, then painting all bus drivers as irresponsible, lazy etc, telling your kid to be careful driving around school buses because they get in crashes all the time, meanwhile school buses transport thousands of children every day with no trouble.

But I understand people like to hate on the cops, they carry guns, most of us don't, they have power over others etc.

"Russell Brand destroys Nigel Farage on immigration"???
I can only assume you are joking. Brand was WAY out of his depth. In fact, much as I dislike the pseudo revolutionary, vainglorious half wit, I actually felt sorry for him. He was put firmly in his place by one astute person; "If you think you can, why don't you stand (for election)?" His response; " Mate, I'm frightened I'd become one of them." So, he doesn't even have confidence in his own childish rhetoric. He calls for anarchy just as long as he is not at the helm. He should put up, or shut up. Oh, and his call for people not to vote is one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things I have heard in a while.

Teabaggers are not 'affiliated' with the Libertarian Party? WOW! That's not what I see. When I see 'Libertarian' rallies on TV or at my local court house, they are filled with idiots in tri corner hats with tea bags attached and with poorly spelled signs saying things like 'keep your guverment hands of my medicare' and 'get the fed away from my soshial security' and "No Moar Regulashuns". Perhaps the "Tea Party" party has technically 'joined' the Republicans, but many Teabaggers are Libertarian, and nearly all are libertarian.
Actually I think you asked if I heard the idiot in the video say it...but I get your point, you obviously believe as he does. At the same time, you complained that:
" Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?"...seeming to call for better regulations that would stop those issues. IF that's what you were saying, I could agree with you, but you are now backing away from that interpretation of what you said...so what DID you mean by all that...that those things are terrible, and will be solved by removing government regulation and enforcement? If THAT'S what you mean, please explain how that works.

EDIT: I see, the issue here is you've swallowed the 'corporate power/irresponsibility comes solely from the government, and will only be solved by removing government' idea hook line and sinker. I have not. I do not see the problem of corporate misconduct being solved, or even helped by less regulation/oversight. The very idea flies in the face of logic, just like the 'self regulation' fallacy.
Never happened, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

No, a police dog is a dog. A tazer is a tool. (I could have made a terrible joke there, but will refrain)
I understand that humans being more 'valuable' than 'animals' (as if we aren't animals) is the normal way of thinking, but you make the knee jerk assumption/implication that they are the only options, either let a dog attack a dangerous armed person that WILL hurt/kill the dog or do it manually and be hurt yourself. There are MANY other options always available that don't involve releasing the unsuspecting dog into harms way. Most don't even involve deadly force. It would NEVER be proper to let the dog attack a known armed threatening person instead of using one's brain to deal with the danger in a safer manner, but that is what you've said you would do.
As a society, we have partially reversed the thinking that 'humans are more important than animals'. That is shown by the creation of many 'preserves' that stop people from farming/hunting on land to save animals, and that ends up killing some people (through starvation, malnutrition, etc). So while your statement is usually correct, people do usually consider humans more valuable than animals, as an absolutist statement it is wrong. That kind of thinking has put us in a position where the food chains are being broken because we only thought about humans (and not very thoroughly).

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, it's a terrible thing to have to help them go, but often the right thing for them. :-(

Your comments were "a dog is a tool" and "If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." Both show a complete lack of concern for the dog, or even thought for it as a living, thinking, feeling being. The latter also shows a propensity to put the unsuspecting dog in far greater danger rather than accept a manageable danger themselves. In your scenario, you could easily disarm 'Machette' with your Taser, firearm, car, other officers, etc. with minimal or no danger to the officers, only more time taken, but you say you would send in the dog to get sliced. I find that terrible and not the words of someone that truly cares for the animal.
EDIT: " I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." really translates to 'I would be happy to have a dog risk their life over a person taking a chance.'...and I and others find that thinking uncaring and irresponsible towards the living, feeling being (your tool) who's care and welfare you took responsibility for.
You are quite correct, I could never be a cop. I don't have the mentality to constantly tell others what to do (and insist they follow my directions), or to deal with the drudgery of writing people tickets, paperwork, etc. I could not dehumanize people I think are criminals daily and treat them like the inhuman scum they 'are'. I would have too hard a time enforcing laws I disagreed with, and I would fear that dealing with people at their worst would make me think the worst of all people, and so cause me to treat them all like the awful criminals they are (in my mind), making me a douchebag with authoratah. I don't want to be that in any way.
I feel like being a cop is a truly hard job that screws with one's mind. Again, why I think therapy on the job should be mandatory.
Honest discussion is never a waste of time.

As for the audio of the shots fired, I fear it actually supports the cop's story, as heinous as it still is.

It appears there were a series of quick shots, a pause, then four more shots at a measured rate.

Michael was shot six times from the front.

The cops have stated that the police officer fired several shots at Michael and his friend as they ran away. None struck either of them -- no bullets entered from the back. (And luckily no bystanders were shot. Bullets travel far!!!)

Which means that Michael stopped, turned and was shot. There was a pause, at which time Michael could have "charged", hence the more measured firing.

Was the cop in danger? Were there other things he could have done? Could he have shot at his leg and dropped him? No. Yes. Yes.

But see my post above.

Fucking Stand Your Ground fucking paranoid irresponsible fear mongering bullshit that is used to exonerate racist and/or stupid actions.

Pisses me off. Can you tell?

As an ex racer I will say this is disturbing and should definitely be investigated as a criminal act.
First, watching the initial incident closely, Stewart definitely turns into Ward intentionally putting him in the wall. That's likely not criminal, but it should get him thrown out of the circuit, and watched closely by any other circuit he drives in.
Second, the point made in the description is quite valid but understated. He DID know that hitting the throttle would send the whole car, and especially the rear end, sliding to the outside of the turn. Any attempt to claim otherwise is completely ridiculous, he's a professional driver and he knows that. That means even if Stewart didn't intend to hit Ward, he did intend to drive dangerously close to him at unsafe speed wile sliding partially out of control. It seems likely he only intended to spray him with the dirt roost and/or scare him but burped the throttle too soon...that is not an excuse or absolution in any way.
Being on a track doesn't absolve you from behaving safely, or from responsibility for your deliberately unsafe actions. Killing Ward may have been accidental, but acting dangerously irresponsibly was not. An accident that happens when you are acting unsafely is 100% your fault and responsibility, it's exactly why we have the charge of manslaughter and not only murder. Hitting and killing him when you unsafely accelerate at him in a dirt corner was foreseeable by any reasonable person....I would almost certainly convict him.

Totally positively 100% agree. Downvote if I could. This is a stupid irresponsible video that makes light of a very serious horrible issue. Just about one of the dumbest things I've seen on the sift.

@harlequinn, you do realise that NZ actually has quite sensible gun laws? You can own semi-auto rifles and so on but to do so you need a firearms licence. This includes not only a police check, but the cops will actually come to your house and check that you have adequate storage provisions for your guns. On top of that

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

- a history of violence
- repeated involvement with drugs
- been irresponsible with alcohol
- a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
- indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

To me those are perfectly reasonable and sensible restrictions.

@scheherazade, ah yes, the libertarian argument. I want a gun and fuck everyone else.

Kids getting shot at school? Fuck 'em, not my problem.
Random nutjob mows down a bunch of people in California? Fuck 'em, not my problem.

The fact is that guns do cause harm. The "people kill people" argument is beyond infantile. Of course, people kill people.... with a gun. It's a lot harder to go on a mass killing spree armed with a stick.

Here are the indisputable facts:
- There are some sick people out there. Some are just fucked up, some are in need of help.
- Sometimes these people snap.
- Sometimes when they do, they get a gun and kill a bunch of other people.
- If they didn't have a gun, the harm would be less.
I'm assuming no-one disputes those facts.

Now there are two solutions to this:
- Pro-gun advocates take the position that citizens need guns to defend themselves from this kind of situation. They often argue that instead of taking guns away from everyone, we should focus on either helping the mentally unbalanced or stopping them by shooting them.
- Gun control advocates take the position that if the shooter didn't have access to a gun in the first place, then maybe the whole mess would be avoided or at the very least minimised.

To me, it's a simple matter of practicalities. Option 1 is simply not working. We're decades (possibly centuries) away from completely understanding mental illness, that's if we achieve that at all. Meanwhile, crazy/insane/evil people are still going on shooting rampages.
And stopping them after the fact? That's pretty cold comfort to the people that have already been killed.

I am genuinely perplexed as to how people don't understand this.
Gun control works. In every other developed country in the world, there are reasonable and sensible laws restricting firearm ownership, and there is nothing like the kind of insane shootings we see on a regular basis in the US.

No-one is arguing that all guns should be taken away. No-one is saying you can't hunt or target shoot or even defend your home if necessary (although again, in the civilised world, most of us have no need for that).

But jesus, maybe you don't need an AR-15 with a massive clip. And is it that unreasonable to check to see if someone is mental or criminal before selling them a gun?

Apparently, in the US, it is.

How do you define "small" when it comes to narcotics? If I have a pound of cocaine, is that small? What about meth? PCP? LSD? Heroin? Narcotics are banned because they are harmful. Not just to yourself but to others. They are also addictive. Do you really think a junkie will be satiated by the small portions allowed by your proposed law? Nope. They'll always be looking for more and will do anything to get it. That's why drug-dealing is such a profitable business. A better solution is execution. If you're convicted of possession or abuse (no trial necessary if there's irrefutable evidence), you're dead. No further expenses beyond the execution (via cow puncher or some other cost-effective means) and body disposal (incineration seems most efficient). Zero chance of relapse.

As for money, sure, we could cut military funding. That would give us some money, though most of it would go towards rehabilitating criminals and paying off our numerous debts. We could increase taxes on the rich, even though they already pay the majority of taxes in the country. We could increase taxes for everyone, which we would inevitably need to do if we want top-quality education and healthcare for everyone.

As to your other points, we already have free healthcare. Well, relatively free in the form of Obamacare. We already have free education too. Public schools are free and available in almost every city. Said schools already offer sex education as well. The issue isn't really about education. Any dunce knows that having unprotected sex will result in babies. The problem is apathy. Some people just don't care. They don't think in the long-term. They don't plan ahead. They don't consider the long-term repercussions of their actions. All they care about is the here and now. It's not hard to find a condom. It's much harder to convince an apathetic and irresponsible person to actually wear it. You can tell them about the risks but if they don't think the condom is comfortable or convenient, they won't wear it. On the other hand, put a gun to their head and they'll definitely wear it.

@lucky760

Showing compassion is a choice. I don't doubt for a second that a majority of people in the world agree with your viewpoint the guy in the video doesn't deserve to be shown compassion because a) he was engaging in a crime and b) his injuries are a direct result of the actions he took.

And that's specifically why I responded to your post and the point I've been trying to make throughout this conversation: choosing not to have compassion for fellow human beings--making arbitrary decisions about who deserves and does not deserve compassion--leads exactly to the kind of mess you now see in Gaza, Syria, the Ukraine, and the U.S. prison system (John Oliver's vid explains clearly that the situation has gotten so bad because it's easy for people not to care about convicted criminals).

Yes, you are right about the Gaza vid--the Israelis want revenge. They want revenge because they no longer look at Gazans as humans worthy of compassion but as "the other," an enemy that must be conquered. Again, arbitrarily choosing who to have and not to have compassion for gives us exactly the world we have now--a world where people can cheer the bombing of civilians.

Ghandi once said be the change in the world you want to see--and followed through in a way that changed not just India's future but that of the world (with his effect on the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., on Mandela's movement to abolish apartheid in South African, etc.). I have no idea how you imagined up I was proposing compassion re-education camps. I'm simply pointing out to you and anyone else who cares to read that you have a choice. You can choose to believe and act the same as we as a species always have (and get in return the world we currently have) or you can choose to try to move beyond our genetic and environmental predispositions and work towards a potentially better world.

Then again, you've already said you'd call an ambulance and run over to help the guy in the vid if you saw this happen, so I think it's safe to say you do feel some compassion for the guy even if you think what he did was stupid and irresponsible. Your initial posts made it sound like you didn't care at all, which is partly what led me to respond because frankly I didn't really believe that--and I'm glad I was right about that at least even if I'm completely wrong about humanity as you suggest.