Saliva testing only shows up marijuana usage in the last four to five hours? What kind of weed keeps you wired (at least enough to still affect motor skills at that point) after 4 hours and where can I get some?
Don't smoke it. Ingest it. a gram of hashish, when eaten, can keep you high for up to six hours.
In practice, it leaves WAY too much discretion in the hands of the cop who pulls you over. He gets to act as judge and jury based on his evaluation of your performance of whatever "tests" he decides to administer.
An objective, testable standard is needed, similar to what we have for alcohol (0.08% BAC in most states). Exactly WHERE that level is set is subject to debate, of course. The acceptable BAC level has been getting pushed lower and lower in recent years, perhaps well below the point of objective impairment, simply because of political pressure by groups like MADD and the like.
The unusual pharmacology of THC (particularly the fat solubility and long retention time) compared to alcohol is going to make this a tricky issue to solve. But handing more power to cops is NOT the way to deal with it.
The only way I can see roadsode impairment tests working properly would be to make them impartial and objective, like the "Fitness for Duty" testing devices used in some workplaces, where the subject needs to complete some simple task like tracking a point of light on a computer screen or whatever. The problem with using these as ROADSIDE tests is that they rely on an INDIVIDUAL baseline for each subject, with pass/fail based on deviation from the subject's deviation from their own previous results (presumably when sober). Such an individualized standard isn't possible with random roadside tests.
One way to address the subjectivity would be to require video of the field sobriety tests. While this wouldn't help at the time of the test if the police wanted to arrest you, it could provide for a more objective analysis in court. It's not a perfect (or even great) solution, but it's better than using meaningless (in terms of determining impairment) saliva/urine tests and can be used to verify/refute the judgement of LEOs giving the FSTs.
Remember that they legalized for medicinal uses, not recreational as far as I know.
In that case, you put a label on it like you would any judgement imparing drug: Do not operate automobiles or heavy equipment while taking this medication.
Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing. The Washington and Colorado ballot initiatives covered legalization, not medicinal use. Colorado already had a medicinal use law anyway.
That said, i agree that it should be regulated just like alcohol. DUI is DUI is DUI. No one should operate machines weighing > 1000lbs that operate at high speeds when impaired. See my earlier post WRT impairment.
In the study referenced there are LOTS of "conclusions" mentioned that can be taken out of context of the article. This be because the paper references many other studies and quotes their conclusions or observations. The bulk of the paper points out positive and negative aspects of previous studies. The paper itself does not present the conclusion of "a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" as suggested above. There may be another paper with that conclusion, but it's not this one. If that number came from one of the other studies that this paper cites, it would be interesting to see how this paper's authors address that conclusion.
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf
There are three points at the end of this paper:
"Overall we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:"
1. No evidence that consumption of cannabis increases the risk of culpability for fatal traffic crashes and may decrease them.
2. The evidence for the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol relative to alcohol alone is unclear.
3 It is not possible to exclude that cannabis use, with or without alcohol leads to an increase risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.
Most of the studies I reviewed came to the conclusion that being high does impair you. Also, even very small quantities of alcohol significantly increases the amount of impairment experienced. Smoking a bone with a couple of friends may not result in significant impairment, but having a couple of beers too may result in severe impairment.
While on the subject, does anyone have the source for this quote? "Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes"
Role of Cannabis in Motor Vehicle Crashes, Michael N. Bates and Tony A. Blakely 1999
The conclusion certainly isn't from that paper, I read the study and its conclusion was that Cannabis may decrease the risk of fatal accidents.
"There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks."
Governments are harmful. That they may provide a benefit for some people in some situations ignores the fact that they had to use force to obtain that benefit from others.
I agree. That's why I moved to Somalia. Come on over, the water's fine!
This guy runs the USPTO. What's he going to say? "We've really cocked things up and need to rethink our IP framework." I think not. The real incentive here is for Kappos to give the impression that what his organization is doing makes a positive difference, whether it does or not.
I'm not against IP, I'm against the *insane* IP framework that's in place in the US.
Sadly, we're not likely to see any positive change since our legislators are all firmly in the pockets of the corporations who use our incredibly unfair IP to stifle innovation and ensure fat profits.
This situation reminds me of how Ambrose Bierce, in his superior lexicon, defined an 'alliance':
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.
I submit that this is true in domestic as well as international politics.
That's why the US has the fifth amendment (and why a right against self-incrimination is a good idea in general).
Please elaborate on how this is a good thing, because I'm really confused about it. To me it sounds like, the police finally found a way to identify a murderer, but then this 5th amendment thingy comes in and it gets thrown out on a technicality. What's good about that?
I've read the Wikipedia entry about the self-incrimination aspect of it, to prevent confessions obtained under torture for example. But that's a far cry from what we have in this case.
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
US courts have ruled that a criminal suspect/defendant may not refuse DNA testing based on their Fifth Amendment rights. However, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge before a "search" can be performed.
US courts have ruled that (except for convicted felons and other narrow exceptions) police must obtain a warrant before coercing someone to give up a DNA sample.
However, based on the 1985 California v. Greenwood case, if you spit on the sidewalk, throw away a cigarette butt or lick a stamp, then legally you have "abandoned" the DNA and police can collect it without a warrant. California v. Greenwood focused on household garbage placed in bins outside your curtilage, but that reasoning was expanded to include "abandoned" DNA as well.
It's a stereotype: Just like used-car salesmen, the majority of recruiters are helpful, knowledgeable and genuinely want to help..
I'll agree with the helpful part. Of course they want to help. That's how they make their living. As for knowledgeable? Not so much. In my 20+ year IT career, I've met exactly two (out of dozens) recruiters who actually had some sort of clue beyond keyword recognition. Many of the interviews arranged for me by recruiters were a complete waste of everyone's time since they didn't understand the job spec or my resume.
But that's not the real problem. The real problem is the *lying*. I've caught recruiters lying *to* me and I've caught recruiters lying *about* me.
On the whole, recruiters make things *more* difficult for those seeking jobs and waste an enormous amount of hiring managers' time. I suppose it's possible that I was just unlucky that the dozens of recruiters I've dealt with are the "bad apples," but that's not so likely.
IF there truly are any "moderate" muslims (the politically-correct people keep telling us these moderates are the vast majority) then they should have wrapped-up and solved the whole "extremist" thing long ago...
Muslims are not a monolithic group. There are many sects and subgroups. Just like Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. there are Muslims of all stripes. Including those that are just as bigoted as you. Why don't you go and make all the various sects of whatever bullshit religion (and they all are) you subscribe to play nice? Here in the US we probably have them all beat, as some have observed:
The USA is so enormous, and so numerous are its schools, colleges and
religious seminaries, many devoted to special religious beliefs ranging
from the unorthodox to the dotty, that we can hardly wonder at its
yielding a more bounteous harvest of gobbledygook than the rest of the
world put together.
-- Sir Peter Medawar
Oooh, how do I join? Do drink dead Christian, I have to go to communion. The blood is great, but the raw Jesus flesh is usually dry, and a bit salty.
Sorry. The IJC (and world domination) is just for the chosen people. However, aside from the monthly magazine, I don't get much for the dues I pay. You'd think I'd get a fat check every month or at least wholesale pricing since we're running the world, eh?
Not just dead Christian. It's Christian babies. We have our own dry stuff (see the link), but it's not salty.
It is pretty amazing that people actually believe that stuff. I mean, what with the Lubavitchers mostly on welfare and the other Hasidimin the US and the Haredi in Israel also not working for a living, you'd think the complaint would be about those lazy Jews sitting around reading the Torah all day.
But I guess it's easier to hate the Jews if you delude yourself into thinking they're running the world. Damn, bigots are dumb!
The 'shoe bomber' didn't have a BOMB in his shoe, the whole story was made up by our Jewish 'masters' to give them even more excuses to take naked photographs of us using their TSA scanners. The public are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable. I can't even have a conversation with ANYBODY I know about stuff that matters. Take the JEWS' disgusting mass murder in Gaza over the past few days - the idiots I work with don't even know what they 'should' think about it, seeing as they subconsciously know that Jews are their 'masters' and mustn't be criticised, no matter what atrocities they commit. Hell, they already get away with torturing their own baby boys, 'because God told us to do it', what can't they get away with?
Just to clarify, I don't support the Israelis' heavy-handedness in Gaza, nor do I support the subjugation of the Palestinians over the past sixty-odd years. I also don't support the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, including women and children by Palestinian thugs.
Sadly, you're part of the problem. Just as the vast majority of muslims are not terrroristic stone killers, the vast majority of Jews are horrified by the evil perpetrated on the Palestinians by the Israeli government.
The 'shoe bomber' didn't have a BOMB in his shoe, the whole story was made up by our Jewish 'masters' to give them even more excuses to take naked photographs of us using their TSA scanners.
Strange. I just checked my copies of IJC Monthly (part of what I get for my dues in the International Jewish Conspiracy) for the time around when that guys was arrested and there's no mention of us making that up. I'll bring it up at the next meeting as we're plotting our next "Drinking Christian baby blood" party.
I don't like the situation the way it is, and I'm sure that there could be more sanity around the whole issue, but I also think that what they do is not completely without merit and I do kinda understand where they're coming from. The TSA shouldn't engage in assholery with people who they are responsible for protecting. Most sane people wouldn't arrest someone because they're wearing the jewelry of their choice. But then TSA agents on a power jag think it's perfectly fine to engage in such stupidity in support of security theater.
Maybe these racists (but you won't see this on the geomapping racist tweets site (or cbs, nbc, msnbc, salon, mediamatters, thinkprogress, nyt, washington post, chicago sun times, St. Petersburg Times, charlie Rose, GMA, SacBee, LaTimes, BBC, BostonGlobe, CNN, Huffpo, Politico, UKGuardian, or the several hundred other top circulating political news/blogs).
Which just goes to prove that there are assholes in every group. Sadly, no artificially (skin pigmentation, socio-economic status, religious creed, ethnicity, geographic location, etc., etc., etc.) defined group (well, except one -- I'll leave that identification as an exercise for the reader) is free of bigots, jerks and scumbags.
I did not vote for Obama. I don't believe that races share the same bell curve for many traits (whether it be athleticism or propensity for violence).
What "races" are we talking about? In the past there were several sentient species that at one time shared this planet. Now there's just one. Homo Sapiens. Regardless of your (and a great many other people) ignorance , skin pigmentation, physical characteristics and predilection for specific behaviors are all within the normal ranges for our species.
Making statements that are unsupported by the facts is ignorant at best and deliberate lying at worst. I'll assume you're just ignorant and suggest you educate yourself.
I would argue that "hate crime" laws are immoral. I am glad you brought that up because the people who promote "hate crime" laws are a subset of the group that likes to argue that you can't legislate morality.
I have to correct you on that. I do not believe that morality can be legislated (see my earlier post) and I don't think that "hate crimes" should be sanctioned more harshly than the same crimes committed for reasons other than bigotry or bias.
I am also against the death penalty. While it is true that no murderer, having been tried, convicted and executed for their crime(s) has ever committed another murder (which is the best argument I've ever heard *for* the death penalty), too many innocent people have been executed for crimes they did not commit (even one is too many IMHO, but we know that there have been many).
What is more, once someone is executed, if it is discovered that they are innocent, we can't make amends. Also, why should those who murder (which is usually the trigger for the death penalty) get the sweet release of death? They should suffer. By being confined to a small cell. By having their lives strictly regimented and know that they will never be free again. That's much worse than death, IMHO.
You seem to be under the impression that you cannot legislate morality. However, that is not true. All laws are an attempt to legislate morality.Any law which makes something that is not immoral illegal is a bad law.
You seem to be under the impression that there is such a thing as a group morality. No such animal exists. There are social norms. There is the social contract. But morality is an individual thing. Each person has to make moral choices for themselves. Those choices are almost certainly informed by the society around them but, in the end, each moral choice is an individual one.
As such, it is impossible to legislate morality. Any attempt to do so inevitably leads to imposing the moral choices of those who create the legislation on everyone else. That's not to say we shouldn't have laws. But those laws *should* be based on the ethics and ideals of the society and are unrelated (except by happenstance and the similar moral choices endorsed by the members of that society) to morality in a very real sense.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I think it's important to recognize that your morality is not my morality even if we make similar (or even identical) moral choices.
Heinlein (while I disagree with many of his ideas) presented the concept of Rational Anarchy in his The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress which seems to, at least tangentially, address the point: I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free, because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything that I do.[Emphasis Added] --Robert Heinlein, The Moon is A Harsh Mistress
the problem, of course, is that while many pay lip service to this ideal, those same folks are often unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. This problem (the steaming pile that the so-called "conservatives" dump notwithstanding) knows no ideological, socio-economic or ethnic boundaries.
Hence, we need to have and enforce such laws that force (via sanctions or the threat thereof) people to take responsibility for their actions via monetary means like fines and legal judgements and/or restrictions on movement or personal privileges, such as prison terms or revocation of driver's licenses, etc., etc., etc.
The ideal, of course, is for these laws to be applied justly and equally to all members of society. Unfortunately, things haven't worked out that way. Those of us who *are* willing to take responsibility should make every effort to address those injustices or we all lose.
http://hellothereracists.tumblr.com/
salon just made a decent argument lambasting them for outing kids in a manner that could permanently stigmatize them as racists. Granted I think arresting the penchant for racism at a young age is a good idea, perhaps it would be more fruitful if the parents of the children were outed instead?
I think that it's a wonderful idea to out these teenagers. The adults *should* be forever branded as they should know better. For the teenagers, being outed can teach two important lessons:
1. Perception is reality. How you are perceived (accurately or not) is, as far as other people are concerned, who you are. Period. If these kids are posing or trying to be contrary/obnoxious/unpleasant just to be "different" or rebellious, they can learn the error of their ways.
2. Sometimes it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. IMNSHO, there are many people who could stand to learn that lesson.
Among normal people, youthful indiscretions are often chalked up to immaturity and teenage rebellion. Bandying the 'N' word around in unpleasant ways on Facebook is one thing. Burning a cross on a lawn or bombing a black church (or advocating similar violent acts) is something completely different.
For the intellectually challenged, here's the difference -- one is distasteful and rude, the other is incitement to violence. One is obnoxious, the other can often be a felony.
Oh, it's a surprise that SCIENTISTS ARE PEOPLE WITH FUCKING HUMAN NEEDS? Well fuck you up the ass with a goddamn railroad tie. Covered in railroad spikes. And razor wire. Coated in AIDS. And mutant lab rats. And radioactive compounds. And it's fucking on fire.
Don't hold back AC. Tell us how you *really* feel!
Amen. I've been saying for years -- since I heard about the plan -- that moving the facility there was just about the most goddamned stupid thing that could possibly be done. Plum Island is almost perfectly situated for a containment facility. The fact that it's an island means that most critters won't get off of it, so you don't have to worry about a lab rat getting out and spreading it all over. Also, if a breakout did happen, and it -did- come over to Long Island, it would likely progress from east to west and allow a chance to stop the spread before it could get to the mainland.
Sounds like a perfect use for Gitmo. You even have captive humans to test on. And if anything gets out, it's Raul Castro's problem not ours. Just sayin'.
Hmm...who was it that stonewalled at every turn? Who was it who wouldn't or couldn't even *discuss* compromise -- even to the detriment of the country? So hard to remember. Maybe someone could help me out with that?
Perhaps it was the guy living in the White House that said (paraphrased), "We won. You lost. Sit down and STFU."
That statement from the leader of the Democrat party showed just how much the Democrats wanted to compromise.
I guess you can't remember any farther back than last week, huh AC?
Slashdot Mirror
Saliva testing only shows up marijuana usage in the last four to five hours? What kind of weed keeps you wired (at least enough to still affect motor skills at that point) after 4 hours and where can I get some?
Don't smoke it. Ingest it. a gram of hashish, when eaten, can keep you high for up to six hours.
In theory, that would be the way to go.
In practice, it leaves WAY too much discretion in the hands of the cop who pulls you over. He gets to act as judge and jury based on his evaluation of your performance of whatever "tests" he decides to administer.
An objective, testable standard is needed, similar to what we have for alcohol (0.08% BAC in most states). Exactly WHERE that level is set is subject to debate, of course. The acceptable BAC level has been getting pushed lower and lower in recent years, perhaps well below the point of objective impairment, simply because of political pressure by groups like MADD and the like.
The unusual pharmacology of THC (particularly the fat solubility and long retention time) compared to alcohol is going to make this a tricky issue to solve. But handing more power to cops is NOT the way to deal with it.
The only way I can see roadsode impairment tests working properly would be to make them impartial and objective, like the "Fitness for Duty" testing devices used in some workplaces, where the subject needs to complete some simple task like tracking a point of light on a computer screen or whatever. The problem with using these as ROADSIDE tests is that they rely on an INDIVIDUAL baseline for each subject, with pass/fail based on deviation from the subject's deviation from their own previous results (presumably when sober). Such an individualized standard isn't possible with random roadside tests.
One way to address the subjectivity would be to require video of the field sobriety tests. While this wouldn't help at the time of the test if the police wanted to arrest you, it could provide for a more objective analysis in court. It's not a perfect (or even great) solution, but it's better than using meaningless (in terms of determining impairment) saliva/urine tests and can be used to verify/refute the judgement of LEOs giving the FSTs.
Remember that they legalized for medicinal uses, not recreational as far as I know.
In that case, you put a label on it like you would any judgement imparing drug: Do not operate automobiles or heavy equipment while taking this medication.
Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing. The Washington and Colorado ballot initiatives covered legalization, not medicinal use. Colorado already had a medicinal use law anyway.
That said, i agree that it should be regulated just like alcohol. DUI is DUI is DUI. No one should operate machines weighing > 1000lbs that operate at high speeds when impaired. See my earlier post WRT impairment.
In the study referenced there are LOTS of "conclusions" mentioned that can be taken out of context of the article. This be because the paper references many other studies and quotes their conclusions or observations. The bulk of the paper points out positive and negative aspects of previous studies. The paper itself does not present the conclusion of "a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" as suggested above. There may be another paper with that conclusion, but it's not this one. If that number came from one of the other studies that this paper cites, it would be interesting to see how this paper's authors address that conclusion. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf
There are three points at the end of this paper:
"Overall we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:"
1. No evidence that consumption of cannabis increases the risk of culpability for fatal traffic crashes and may decrease them. 2. The evidence for the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol relative to alcohol alone is unclear. 3 It is not possible to exclude that cannabis use, with or without alcohol leads to an increase risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.
Most of the studies I reviewed came to the conclusion that being high does impair you. Also, even very small quantities of alcohol significantly increases the amount of impairment experienced. Smoking a bone with a couple of friends may not result in significant impairment, but having a couple of beers too may result in severe impairment.
Please see this for specific cites.
While on the subject, does anyone have the source for this quote? "Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes"
Role of Cannabis in Motor Vehicle Crashes, Michael N. Bates and Tony A. Blakely 1999
The conclusion certainly isn't from that paper, I read the study and its conclusion was that Cannabis may decrease the risk of fatal accidents.
"There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks."
For additional studies/details, please see my post from *last week*
Governments are harmful. That they may provide a benefit for some people in some situations ignores the fact that they had to use force to obtain that benefit from others.
I agree. That's why I moved to Somalia. Come on over, the water's fine!
Everything looks like a nail.
This guy runs the USPTO. What's he going to say? "We've really cocked things up and need to rethink our IP framework." I think not. The real incentive here is for Kappos to give the impression that what his organization is doing makes a positive difference, whether it does or not.
I'm not against IP, I'm against the *insane* IP framework that's in place in the US.
Sadly, we're not likely to see any positive change since our legislators are all firmly in the pockets of the corporations who use our incredibly unfair IP to stifle innovation and ensure fat profits.
This situation reminds me of how Ambrose Bierce, in his superior lexicon, defined an 'alliance':
I submit that this is true in domestic as well as international politics.
Yet another good reason why you should never, ever talk to the police.
Please elaborate on how this is a good thing, because I'm really confused about it. To me it sounds like, the police finally found a way to identify a murderer, but then this 5th amendment thingy comes in and it gets thrown out on a technicality. What's good about that?
I've read the Wikipedia entry about the self-incrimination aspect of it, to prevent confessions obtained under torture for example. But that's a far cry from what we have in this case.
The relevant Fifth Amendment protection reads:
US courts have ruled that a criminal suspect/defendant may not refuse DNA testing based on their Fifth Amendment rights. However, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge before a "search" can be performed.
US courts have ruled that (except for convicted felons and other narrow exceptions) police must obtain a warrant before coercing someone to give up a DNA sample.
However, based on the 1985 California v. Greenwood case, if you spit on the sidewalk, throw away a cigarette butt or lick a stamp, then legally you have "abandoned" the DNA and police can collect it without a warrant. California v. Greenwood focused on household garbage placed in bins outside your curtilage, but that reasoning was expanded to include "abandoned" DNA as well.
N.B., IANAL
It's a stereotype: Just like used-car salesmen, the majority of recruiters are helpful, knowledgeable and genuinely want to help..
I'll agree with the helpful part. Of course they want to help. That's how they make their living. As for knowledgeable? Not so much. In my 20+ year IT career, I've met exactly two (out of dozens) recruiters who actually had some sort of clue beyond keyword recognition. Many of the interviews arranged for me by recruiters were a complete waste of everyone's time since they didn't understand the job spec or my resume.
But that's not the real problem. The real problem is the *lying*. I've caught recruiters lying *to* me and I've caught recruiters lying *about* me.
On the whole, recruiters make things *more* difficult for those seeking jobs and waste an enormous amount of hiring managers' time. I suppose it's possible that I was just unlucky that the dozens of recruiters I've dealt with are the "bad apples," but that's not so likely.
IF there truly are any "moderate" muslims (the politically-correct people keep telling us these moderates are the vast majority) then they should have wrapped-up and solved the whole "extremist" thing long ago...
Are you really that brainwashed or are you just a bigoted asshole?
Muslims are not a monolithic group. There are many sects and subgroups. Just like Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. there are Muslims of all stripes. Including those that are just as bigoted as you. Why don't you go and make all the various sects of whatever bullshit religion (and they all are) you subscribe to play nice? Here in the US we probably have them all beat, as some have observed:
Oooh, how do I join? Do drink dead Christian, I have to go to communion. The blood is great, but the raw Jesus flesh is usually dry, and a bit salty.
Sorry. The IJC (and world domination) is just for the chosen people. However, aside from the monthly magazine, I don't get much for the dues I pay. You'd think I'd get a fat check every month or at least wholesale pricing since we're running the world, eh?
Not just dead Christian. It's Christian babies. We have our own dry stuff (see the link), but it's not salty.
It is pretty amazing that people actually believe that stuff. I mean, what with the Lubavitchers mostly on welfare and the other Hasidim in the US and the Haredi in Israel also not working for a living, you'd think the complaint would be about those lazy Jews sitting around reading the Torah all day.
But I guess it's easier to hate the Jews if you delude yourself into thinking they're running the world. Damn, bigots are dumb!
Because now TSA won't LEGO of him.
He should have just let the TSA have his Eggo
The 'shoe bomber' didn't have a BOMB in his shoe, the whole story was made up by our Jewish 'masters' to give them even more excuses to take naked photographs of us using their TSA scanners. The public are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable. I can't even have a conversation with ANYBODY I know about stuff that matters. Take the JEWS' disgusting mass murder in Gaza over the past few days - the idiots I work with don't even know what they 'should' think about it, seeing as they subconsciously know that Jews are their 'masters' and mustn't be criticised, no matter what atrocities they commit. Hell, they already get away with torturing their own baby boys, 'because God told us to do it', what can't they get away with?
Just to clarify, I don't support the Israelis' heavy-handedness in Gaza, nor do I support the subjugation of the Palestinians over the past sixty-odd years. I also don't support the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, including women and children by Palestinian thugs.
Sadly, you're part of the problem. Just as the vast majority of muslims are not terrroristic stone killers, the vast majority of Jews are horrified by the evil perpetrated on the Palestinians by the Israeli government.
The 'shoe bomber' didn't have a BOMB in his shoe, the whole story was made up by our Jewish 'masters' to give them even more excuses to take naked photographs of us using their TSA scanners.
Strange. I just checked my copies of IJC Monthly (part of what I get for my dues in the International Jewish Conspiracy) for the time around when that guys was arrested and there's no mention of us making that up. I'll bring it up at the next meeting as we're plotting our next "Drinking Christian baby blood" party.
Bigoted Scumbag!
I don't like the situation the way it is, and I'm sure that there could be more sanity around the whole issue, but I also think that what they do is not completely without merit and I do kinda understand where they're coming from. The TSA shouldn't engage in assholery with people who they are responsible for protecting. Most sane people wouldn't arrest someone because they're wearing the jewelry of their choice. But then TSA agents on a power jag think it's perfectly fine to engage in such stupidity in support of security theater.
There. FTFY.
Babies' diapers can be used to build bombs. Babies should be banned from planes.
Especially if they are crying.
Why can't the TSA do something about that? Litte bald-headed Machiavellis, all of them, I tell you . . .
Stewie Griffin is going to blow up your house for that one, Kid.
Maybe these racists (but you won't see this on the geomapping racist tweets site (or cbs, nbc, msnbc, salon, mediamatters, thinkprogress, nyt, washington post, chicago sun times, St. Petersburg Times, charlie Rose, GMA, SacBee, LaTimes, BBC, BostonGlobe, CNN, Huffpo, Politico, UKGuardian, or the several hundred other top circulating political news/blogs).
Which just goes to prove that there are assholes in every group. Sadly, no artificially (skin pigmentation, socio-economic status, religious creed, ethnicity, geographic location, etc., etc., etc.) defined group (well, except one -- I'll leave that identification as an exercise for the reader) is free of bigots, jerks and scumbags.
I did not vote for Obama. I don't believe that races share the same bell curve for many traits (whether it be athleticism or propensity for violence).
What "races" are we talking about? In the past there were several sentient species that at one time shared this planet. Now there's just one. Homo Sapiens. Regardless of your (and a great many other people) ignorance , skin pigmentation, physical characteristics and predilection for specific behaviors are all within the normal ranges for our species.
Making statements that are unsupported by the facts is ignorant at best and deliberate lying at worst. I'll assume you're just ignorant and suggest you educate yourself.
I would argue that "hate crime" laws are immoral. I am glad you brought that up because the people who promote "hate crime" laws are a subset of the group that likes to argue that you can't legislate morality.
I have to correct you on that. I do not believe that morality can be legislated (see my earlier post) and I don't think that "hate crimes" should be sanctioned more harshly than the same crimes committed for reasons other than bigotry or bias.
I am also against the death penalty. While it is true that no murderer, having been tried, convicted and executed for their crime(s) has ever committed another murder (which is the best argument I've ever heard *for* the death penalty), too many innocent people have been executed for crimes they did not commit (even one is too many IMHO, but we know that there have been many).
What is more, once someone is executed, if it is discovered that they are innocent, we can't make amends. Also, why should those who murder (which is usually the trigger for the death penalty) get the sweet release of death? They should suffer. By being confined to a small cell. By having their lives strictly regimented and know that they will never be free again. That's much worse than death, IMHO.
You seem to be under the impression that you cannot legislate morality. However, that is not true. All laws are an attempt to legislate morality.Any law which makes something that is not immoral illegal is a bad law.
You seem to be under the impression that there is such a thing as a group morality. No such animal exists. There are social norms. There is the social contract. But morality is an individual thing. Each person has to make moral choices for themselves. Those choices are almost certainly informed by the society around them but, in the end, each moral choice is an individual one.
As such, it is impossible to legislate morality. Any attempt to do so inevitably leads to imposing the moral choices of those who create the legislation on everyone else. That's not to say we shouldn't have laws. But those laws *should* be based on the ethics and ideals of the society and are unrelated (except by happenstance and the similar moral choices endorsed by the members of that society) to morality in a very real sense.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I think it's important to recognize that your morality is not my morality even if we make similar (or even identical) moral choices.
Heinlein (while I disagree with many of his ideas) presented the concept of Rational Anarchy in his The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress which seems to, at least tangentially, address the point:
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free, because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything that I do.[Emphasis Added]
--Robert Heinlein, The Moon is A Harsh Mistress
the problem, of course, is that while many pay lip service to this ideal, those same folks are often unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. This problem (the steaming pile that the so-called "conservatives" dump notwithstanding) knows no ideological, socio-economic or ethnic boundaries.
Hence, we need to have and enforce such laws that force (via sanctions or the threat thereof) people to take responsibility for their actions via monetary means like fines and legal judgements and/or restrictions on movement or personal privileges, such as prison terms or revocation of driver's licenses, etc., etc., etc.
The ideal, of course, is for these laws to be applied justly and equally to all members of society. Unfortunately, things haven't worked out that way. Those of us who *are* willing to take responsibility should make every effort to address those injustices or we all lose.
http://hellothereracists.tumblr.com/ salon just made a decent argument lambasting them for outing kids in a manner that could permanently stigmatize them as racists. Granted I think arresting the penchant for racism at a young age is a good idea, perhaps it would be more fruitful if the parents of the children were outed instead?
I think that it's a wonderful idea to out these teenagers. The adults *should* be forever branded as they should know better. For the teenagers, being outed can teach two important lessons:
1. Perception is reality. How you are perceived (accurately or not) is, as far as other people are concerned, who you are. Period. If these kids are posing or trying to be contrary/obnoxious/unpleasant just to be "different" or rebellious, they can learn the error of their ways.
2. Sometimes it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. IMNSHO, there are many people who could stand to learn that lesson.
Among normal people, youthful indiscretions are often chalked up to immaturity and teenage rebellion. Bandying the 'N' word around in unpleasant ways on Facebook is one thing. Burning a cross on a lawn or bombing a black church (or advocating similar violent acts) is something completely different.
For the intellectually challenged, here's the difference -- one is distasteful and rude, the other is incitement to violence. One is obnoxious, the other can often be a felony.
Oh, it's a surprise that SCIENTISTS ARE PEOPLE WITH FUCKING HUMAN NEEDS? Well fuck you up the ass with a goddamn railroad tie. Covered in railroad spikes. And razor wire. Coated in AIDS. And mutant lab rats. And radioactive compounds. And it's fucking on fire.
Don't hold back AC. Tell us how you *really* feel!
Amen. I've been saying for years -- since I heard about the plan -- that moving the facility there was just about the most goddamned stupid thing that could possibly be done. Plum Island is almost perfectly situated for a containment facility. The fact that it's an island means that most critters won't get off of it, so you don't have to worry about a lab rat getting out and spreading it all over. Also, if a breakout did happen, and it -did- come over to Long Island, it would likely progress from east to west and allow a chance to stop the spread before it could get to the mainland.
Sounds like a perfect use for Gitmo. You even have captive humans to test on. And if anything gets out, it's Raul Castro's problem not ours. Just sayin'.
Hmm...who was it that stonewalled at every turn? Who was it who wouldn't or couldn't even *discuss* compromise -- even to the detriment of the country? So hard to remember. Maybe someone could help me out with that?
Perhaps it was the guy living in the White House that said (paraphrased), "We won. You lost. Sit down and STFU."
That statement from the leader of the Democrat party showed just how much the Democrats wanted to compromise.
I guess you can't remember any farther back than last week, huh AC?