ah,the days of being in a relationship with a woman,who loved painkilllers with her jug wine.

who would wake me up in the dead of the night,using the super heated metal tops of a bic lighter on the bottom of my feet (those are called "smileys" for those who do not know) to scream at me about some girl who had the audacity to look my way at target,because 3:30am is the time to find out if i am having sexual thoughts about random women.

or an earlier girlfriend whose father was a prominent artist in the country and was holding a weekend jazz festival.i had a customer who had cerebal palsy,and one leg had been amputated,whose boyfriend had just broke up with her and she was a wreck.

so i had this bright idea! why doesn't this poor emotional wreck of a woman come to the jazz festival of my girlfriends dad? that will get her mind off things right?

but,having a second person accompany made me a little late.so when i finally showed up,my girlfriend was already half in the bag,and mad.i tried to explain and introduce her to mary,the heartbroken girl.

and my girlfriend broke my nose with a bottle of michelob.i do not think she cared that mary was heart broken,and an utter wreck in need of human company.i could be wrong,this is just a guess,but the bleeding from my broken nose may have been a strong indicator.

or how about the time i was counseling a long time friend,who had pulled a midnight move out to escape a man who had basically had her trapped in a spare room,chaining her to the wall.that man had gone as far as severing her achilles tendons,after her first attempt to escape,and this woman suffered from a severe case of PTSD.

now she did form an almost childlike bond to me.maybe because i had offered her the first taste of true compassion,and offered her safety and comfort,and allowed her to talk the poison and bile out that had been building inside her for over three years.

but her attachment to me,which was to be expected,was not viewed favorably by my girlfriend.i spent a lot of time and attention in drawing this broken and damaged young woman to feel safe,and to begin to feel human again(which infuriated my girlfriend).my patio was always filled with friends,artists and people of interest,and i did my best to bring a normalcy to this young womans life in order to help her acclimate,and to feel human again.

and my girlfriend would come home,get drunk,and start to whisper the most vile.and disgusting things..not about this young woman,but about me.

which,of course,if you understand the mentality of an abuse victim.especially one who had suffered such as she had.any criticism,or perceived threat to the person who had (in their mind) saved them,will create incredible anger and anxiety.

so because of my girlfriends irrational jealousy of this woman,and in her drunken selfishness,she went out of her way to make this woman feel as uncomfortable,and as unsafe (the exact opposite of what i was trying to do).so much so that the young woman...who didn't want to be a burden,or affect my life in a negative way...left my home,and wrote me she would never come back,because she loved me and didnt want to cause problems.

two weeks later she was found dead in motel room.over dose of piankiller and xanax...and wrists slashed to ribbons.

or how about the time one of my girlfriends broke three of my ribs,because i was being kind to a waitress?

or the time another girlfriend stabbed me,because while she was unhappy with our relationship,she could not abide me talking to anyone who owned a vagina.in this case a fellow artist i was collaborating with,and who happened to be not only an amazing human being but beautiful as well.

or that one time,when i broke up with a girl,because it simply was not working out and she repeatedly rammed her ford fairmont station wagon into my brand new firebird?

oh..the stories i can tell about all my wonderful relationships,and the women i have shared portions of my life with.i could write a book...

and then i watch this video,and i am overcome with an urge to drive cross country to the creators home,walk inside,grab him by the ankles and crag him outsides....and beat him senseless.

because he is coming from a false premise.
he is implying the that the benefits of relationships outweigh he selective memory our brains create when reliving our moments of singlehood.

when the reality is this:as long as you have friends,who love and accept you for who you are,you are never actually single.you are surrounded and loved by an extended family.

i do not need a girlfriend.
i do not want a girlfriend.
i am not interested in getting married.
and as i have revealed here,i would prefer some memories to remain buried under the much happier and adoring memories of my actual friends who put up with my eccentricities,and my overall oddness,rather than deal with a woman who is smitten with the ideas fed to them by institutions,and periodicals such as comsopolitian and vogue.

though,ironically,i have two ex girlfriends living in my home as i write this.
one is a former porn star,and current stripper who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia,and is a recovering addict.

while the other i had to go do a midnight rescue from a place where she was renting a room,but the house was junkie house,and she is a recovering addict as well (and they also kept stealing everything from her).she has bought a house,but it needs work and that work is taking fooooooorever.

and BOTH of these women still harbor some residual feelings towards me.even though i have been quite clear,open and honest that i have ZERO interest in rekindling anything,with either of them,but that hasn't stopped them from being all catty with each other,and causing drama,and complaining about the smallest,tiniest and most ridiculous of things to bitch about.

at first i tried to play referee.
i did my best to help everyone get along,until i realized they both had no interest in getting along.they wanted to outdo the other in order to get my attention.

which is just.....dumb..but anyways,my new way of handling their insipid complaints is always this response:i don't care.

and it seems to work beautifully.

so there you have my story,or at least part of it.
and i have to say...this guy is kinda full of shit.

for those of you happily married,with a great partner,i salute you.good for you,and i mean that.

but for me?
no thanks.i am good.

I think article linked below on reading level is important to note in regards to this.
https://contently.com/strategist/2015/01/28/this-surprising-reading-level-analysis-will-change-the-way-you-write/ By keeping his language simple, he is able to reach, and have his keywords understood by a larger American audience. Of course understanding speech and reading are slightly different, but it's word choice still becomes important.

As this video notes. Trump is a salesman. And he's selling his crap expertly well. He circumvents the answer with babble that never actually answers the question. He never answered if it's un-American to have a religious litmus test to allow people to visit the US, he just says we have a problem, and implicates all the people of one faith in that, which ISIL itself said sometime ago was their goal, to turn the world against all of Islam to make it easier to recruit and radicalize more people... which is off topic. He doesn't address the point of the question, he sort of skirts it and generalizes it into his overall framework. One could argue that yes, saying there's a problem is itself an answer to the question, but it isn't a direct answer.

I don't know as if he's intentionally talking at that low a level though, or if he's just his style period.

It'd also be interesting to see if Hitler's run-up to being elected, if he used similar style. That is if he used a simple style to appeal to the masses. Not just Hitler, but other leaders of his ilk. I choose Hitler here as more an example of an elected leader gone wrong, that had mass appeal to his people, but later regretted to the point of shame.

Even if Britt's famed Warning Signs of Fascism isn't fully accurate by all scholars (and I'm aware he doesn't actually have academic scholarship) many do come close. I think most can agree that it requires at least Extreme Nationalism, warmongering, a loss of civil liberties and rights (Patriot Act, wanting to increase the spy power of the NSA, etc), corporatism a merger of the state and corporate power, racism (Britt's warning signs says sexism, but I think racism is more apt and I don't think what people normally think about sexism applies, though we need more of a racism slash something, to note those who "sin" differently than others, such as the gays).

From an article on ArsTechnica:

SpaceX's founder, Elon Musk, has said it costs the company about $60 million to build a Falcon 9 rocket. The propellant itself only costs $200,000. Thus there is the potential to slash the costs of spaceflight by 10, or even 100 times.

Perhaps SOME farmers kill their animals like this in the US, but certainly not all. My family doesn't, and we've raised cattle, goats, lambs, chickens, turkeys, etc. We shoot the large animals first and knock out the smaller ones....and have done so ourselves for over 40 years, and I have been involved numerous times. People who kill like in this video are uncaring animal abusers. People who condone it are condoning animal abuse.

When you make an assumption you've made an ass out of you and Mption....and what did Mption do to deserve that?

This was not "slashing the carotid artery", this was a near decapitation. Slashing the jugulars can be done with a small knife, it doesn't require a chainsaw. You only need to make 2 small puncture cuts, not a 2-3foot long slice 1/2 decapitating the animal but leaving it conscious. They're doing it wrong.

Anything going through the camel's brain will kill it, they don't need a gun to not abuse this poor animal to death, although it certainly makes it easier on everyone.

@newtboy

Oh, absolutely, the video is poorly titled. I'll give you that.

But everything else you wrote is, for lack of a better term, uninformed.

Certainly commercial meat suppliers in first world countries like the U.S. have bowed to the "politically correct" demands of PETA to "humanely" kill animals. Poultry are knocked unconscious (with electric shocks) before having their throats slit while larger animals like cows are killed with a single shot to the head. Concern with how "humanely" the animals are killed is rather comical given the conditions under which most commercial animals are bred and raised, but that's an issue for another thread.

Now, if you think stuff like this video doesn't happen in places like the U.S. I'm gonna guess you don't realize what happens on typical farms where people raise livestock for their dinner table as opposed to commercial sale. People kill animals exactly in this and similar ways--slitting their throats, beheading them with axes, grabbing poultry by the head and breaking their necks, etc. Don't believe me? Check out this thread on how to kill a chicken. What happens in this video happens across first world countries, including the U.S., on a daily basis. Your shock comes from the fact that modern society has insulated you from the killing by hiding it from you.

Now, the people in this video are probably not living in a first world country, and we've already established that even if they were the animal would likely be butchered in a similar way if it is being prepared for personal use as opposed to commercial sale. They're most likely doing it the way it's been done there for hundreds if not thousands of years using the tools available to them to get the job done. Slashing the carotid artery is the fastest and most painless way (compared to other methods) to kill the camel. I can't think of a faster or more painless way other than shooting it in the head (which still risks ricochets and assumes personal gun ownership is legal in the country where this is happening).

I remember -hearing- and -reading- about those days. They were before my time, or at least before I was paying attention to politics. Until Watergate, I wasn't really interested...after that, the GOP was pretty much irrational.

Simpson was one of the half-way rational sorts. Big for privacy and equal rights, but was also pushing to privatize Social Security and cut taxes (mainly for the wealthy, surprise!). I'm not sure he's got solid standing to call others hypocritical on the topic of income inequality...he did his share to help reach our current balance.

Edit: I didn't quite trust my memory after writing the above, so I did a bit of verification. And I found I was right not to trust it. Simpson was not trying to privatize SS, he just wanted to slash the benefits and increase the retirement age. Which has much the same effect for those who have paid into it all along; they get less.

I made a 36-minute counter-analysis. Youtube slash GrimRussian.

I worked in a department store once, A big one, nine floors.. (Eatons Centre - downtown Vancouver)
When we had to garbage stuff, security followed us to the Compactor, and made sure EVERYTHING that went into the garbage was first completely destroyed.
Things like Full sized ride-em Barbie cars, exercise equipment, and tons of stuff from my department. I know that literally Tons of clothing, went into the trash as well, and it ALL had to be slashed before it went in.
Security would stand there and make sure nothing survived - and if it wasn't destroyed enough, they made us break it some more.

True story.

In the current situation, "structural reforms" is used to subsume two entirely different sets of measures.

The first is meant to remove what you previously mentioned: corruption in all the shapes and forms it takes in Greece, from a (intentionally) broken tax system formed over decades of nepotism to a bankrupt national media in the hands of oligarchs. The institutions of the Greek state are precisely what you expect when a country has been run by four families (Papandreou, Samaras, Mitsotakis, Karamanlis) for basically five decades.

This kind of structural reform is part of Syriza's program. Like you said, it'll be hard work and they might very well fail. They'll have only weeks, maybe a few months to undo significant parts of what has grown over half a century. It's not fair, but that's what it is.

The second kind of "structural reform" is meant to increase competitiveness, generally speaking, and a reduction of the public sector. In case of Greece, this included the slashing of wages, pensions, benefits, public employment. The economic and social results are part of just about every article these days, so I won't mention them again. A Great Depression, as predicted.

That's the sort of "structural reforms" Syriza wants to undo. And it's the sort that is expected of Spain, Italy and France as well, which, if done, would probably throw the entire continent into a Great Depression.

I'd go so far as to call any demand to increase competitiveness to German levels madness. Germany gained its competitiveness by 15 years of beggar-thy-neighbour economics, undercutting the agreed upon target of ~2% inflation (read: 2% growth of unit labour costs) the entire time. France played by the rules, was on target the entire time, and is now expected to suffer for it. Only Greece was significantly above target, and are now slightly below target. That's only halfway, yet already more than any democratic country can take.

They could have spread the adjustment out over 20 years, with Germany running above average ULC growth, but decided to throw Greece (and to a lesser degree Spain) off a cliff instead.


So where are we now? Debt rose, GDP crashed, debt as percentage of GDP skyrocketed. That's a fail. Social situation is miserable, health care system basically collapsed, reducing Greece to North African standards. That's a fail.

Those are not reforms to allow Greece to function independently. Those are reforms to throw the Greek population into misery, with ever increasing likeliness of radical solutions (eg Golden Dawn, who are eagerly hoping for a failure of Syriza).

So yes, almost every nation in Europe needs reforms of one sort or another. But using austerity as a rod to beat discipline into supposedly sovereign nations is just about the shortest way imaginable to blow up the Eurozone. Inflicting this amount of pain on people against their will does not work in democratic countries, and the rise of Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Féin, the SNP and the Greens as well as the surge of popularity for Front National and Golden Dawn are clear indicators that the current form of politics cannot be sustained.

Force austerity on France and Le Pen wins the election.

Meaningful reforms that are to increase Europe's "prosperity" would have the support of the people. And reforms are definatly needed, given that the Eurozone is in its fifth year of stagnation, with many countries suffering from both a recession and deflation. A European Union without increasing prosperity for the masses will not last long, I'm sure of it. And a European Union that intentionally causes Great Depressions wouldn't be worth having anyway.

Yet after everything is said and done, I believe you are still absolutely correct in saying that the pro-austerity states won't blink.

Which is what makes it interesting, really. Greece might be able to take a default. They run a primary surplus and most (90%+) of the funds went to foreign banks, the ECB and the IMF anyway, or were used to stabilize the banking system. The people got bugger all. But the Greek banking system would collapse without access to the European system.

Which raises the question: would the pro-austerity states risk a collapse of the Greek banking system and everything it entails? Spanish banks would follow in a heartbeat.

As for the morality of it (they elected those governments, they deserved it): I don't believe in collective punishment, especially not the kind that cripples an entire generation, which is what years of 50+% youth unemployment and a failing educational system does.

My own country, Germany, in particular gets no sympathy from me in this case. Parts of our system were intentionally reformed to channel funds into the market, knowing full well that there was nowhere near enough demand for credit to soak up the surplus savings, nowhere near enough reliable debtors to generate a reasonable return of investment without generating bubbles, be it real estate or financial. They were looking for debtors, and if all it took was turning a blind eye to the painfully obvious longterm problems it would create in Southern Europe, they were more than eager to play along.

Alright, after two days this is still bugging me and I have to say it, but ignore this comment and stop reading here.

This is not Vault Boy. Vault Boy, also sometimes known as Fallout Boy before a terrible band ruined that for everyone, is the cute cartoon character in Vault-Tec promotional material. This is, presumably, the Lone Wanderer. It goes:

Fallout 1: The Vault Dweller
Fallout 2: The Chosen One
Fallout so-called-3: The Lone Wanderer
Fallout actually-3-slash-new-vegas: The Courier

Oh, fistfights are definitely treated differently than stick violence. Mild stick-related stuff (taking a short chop at someone with the stick is called a slash, tripping is self explanatory, leading a check/hit with the stick can be charging or a cross check, etc.) is usually given a 2 minute minor penalty. But if you go nuts and just try to lumberjack somebody with your stick (extremely rare, but happens every once in a while), it is treated very harshly with a likely LONG suspension. All that seems pretty well-handled to me -- if your slash or cross check or whatever is is a risky situation that can or does result in injury, those scale up from minor penalties into majors, game misconducts, or possible suspensions.

Fights are a 5 minute major penalty, assuming both sides/fighters intentionally got into it. However, both involved players get the same 5 minute penalty, so since they are coincidental it doesn't result in any actual penalty to the team (not down to 4 players instead of 5 like in a normal penalty) other than the player who was in the fight being unavailable for 5 minutes. A pretty high majority of players who get into fights are designated goons who might be on the ice for 1-3 minutes total of a 60 minute game, compared to 15-17 for a skilled forward or 20+ for a skilled defenseman. So, "losing" that player for 5 minutes is usually really no penalty at all.

However, the "code" of those enforcers/goons is actually a pretty real thing. Many fights (especially in the regular season) are actually a pre-planned thing between the enforcers on each team. They ask if the other guy is up for a fight, as a means to engage the crowd and/or their teammates. If both are up for it, the next time they line up for a faceoff or whatever they will probably contrive some offense and drop the gloves. Those fights are pretty silly, but both sides know what they are getting into and agree to it beforehand, so it isn't SO crazy.

Spontaneous fights usually happen when an average or lesser-skilled player makes a dangerous hit or dirty play against a skilled player on the opposing team. If that happens, their toughest teammate currently on the ice will likely rush to their defense, and if it appears like the offending player did it intentionally they will drop the gloves to "teach them a lesson". These fights seem much more purposeful to me, and if you ask great skilled players like Wayne Gretzky they almost all universally say that this system made things safer and opened up the ice for skilled players.

So, it is all pretty complicated and strange to the uninitiated, but there is a sort of method to the madness.

I've never had a cat, i don't want to be a jerk and i don't want to encourage people to mistreat pets (obviously). So with that said, why is everyone being so harsh to the guy? They played a bit, the cat goes for him and the guy is gentle with it despite the cat trying to hurt him (as he should be).

Are the noises it makes towards the end indicative of long term exposure to stress? I've seen videos with that same noise and no hatred to the owner. I know a lot of people with a lot of pets and many of them have little behaviours together that an outsider could easily think bad of, perhaps they play fight all the time but the cat for some reason hates the glove he bought it to play with. He doesn't look like a regular cat baiter and he isn't dressed like someone who expects slashing attacks to be coming limb-wards. The label is crisp and white and visible, i'm not sherlock holmes but i'd say they bought a new toy, the cat for some reason didn't like it, and they filmed the reaction which they didn't expect to go so badly. Otherwise they filmed and released one particular day in a string of abuse-filled days - and the cat won?

I don't see anything worse than someone using a little fluffy thing on a stick/string to tease a cat into chasing it and attacking it. That's all he did, but with the glove.. a little play fight, and the cat had an unusual reaction to the glove. People seem to think he's a bad guy and deserves savaging though, so could someone explain why? I'm just a bit shocked at the vitriol for him.

@artician - not just for grooming but for clawing at too which is why it looks a bit velcro-ish, so a cat person tells me. I was under the impression he was using it within the limits of its intended use.

I think kitty was just telling him that uris use forward slash, not backslash.

MUSKEGON COUNTY, Mich. — A Norton Shores man was arrested Sunday after leading police on a chase on his moped.

Norton Shores Police were dispatched to a home on Reneer Avenue west of Leon Street after Richard Shear, 28, allegedly threatened his mother and girlfriend with a sledgehammer and a knife and tried to set the house on fire.

Sources tell FOX 17 that the suspect’s mother called police after he threatened her with the weapons.

He`s accused of threatening his girlfriend too, but she told FOX 17 that never happened.

Sources also tell FOX 17 Shears attempted to light the house on fire by pouring gasoline on his landscaping then throwing a candle.

They say he also slashed an SUV’s tire before hopping on the moped and fleeing.

As FOX 17 took a closer look at the incident, we learned Shear has a history of drunk driving arrests, but we’re told he is also seeking help for mental health issues.

We’re told Shear, just like many other servicemen and women, suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a result of his time spent serving overseas in Iraq during his eight years in the Marines.

Those close to him tell us he has been struggling with PTSD, abusing alcohol to prevent dealing with the deep seeded issues and hitting rock bottom on Sunday.

Police say the chase ended back at Shear’s home when he tried running back inside but was arrested by police.

His bond has been set at $100,000.

http://fox17online.com/2014/10/27/man-on-moped-leads-muskegon-co-law-enforcement-on-low-speed-chase/

You will need insurance, but because the risk is so, so much lower the insurance will be almost nothing.

I'm in the UK and for my wife and I to insure our new VW Golf fully comp it costs £118 a year. That's very cheap for the UK. But it costs my apprentice at work about £1700 to insure a piece of shit old banger. The difference clearly isn't the value of the vehicle, mine is worth for than ten times his and his insurance is more than ten times mine.

The difference is that he's only just past his test and is young whereas I'm in my mid thirties and I've been driving for 17 years. The difference is in the likelihood of us having a crash and hurting someone.

Self driving cars will have the ability to react to a situation way, way faster than I ever could, and to be able to react together if there are lots of them on the road, meaning even if there is an accident the consequences will be massively reduced.

A self driving car will never be tired. It will never be distracted by a phone, or a passenger or anything. It will never be drunk.

All of these things mean that the risk from a self driving car will be way less than for a human driver. And by way less I mean a tiny fraction. The more self driving cars there are around the less risk there will be. Humans are an unpredictable element, remove them from the situation and you'll remove the risk massively. So, my risky apprentice is now a lower risk than I am, and as such his insurance will be lower than mine. All of a sudden the insurance company's income is slashed to a fraction of what it was.

Insurance companies make money out of risk. When everyone on the road becomes low risk they will make less money.