There's something that concerns me about a person posting in an echo chamber exactly what the echo chamber wants to hear, and then accuses them of hiding their head somewhere.
In other words, you need to eat what you are serving.
I'm sorry to have concerned you. What I find concerning is that so many people still seem to believe the bullshit reasons they are fed for why our country goes to war. It's further concerning that when I point out one of the real reasons we go to war, folks like you pop up to merely point out that I am a good cultural fit for this board.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Ol Olsec: Is it your opinion that economic interests are not among the reasons the US deploys its military and intelligence agencies? If not, it seems you ought to agree with me. If so, I'd like to hear your reasons.
You do have an opinion one way or the other, yes? Or are you just here to vaguely impugn my credibility?
but as long as it's a left wing conspiracy it's okay.
Do you really not perceive that the US military and intelligence agencies are used to make the world safe for American business?
I see the Doomsday preppers have computers now.
That doesn't answer the question. Is it your opinion that economic interests are not among the reasons the US deploys its military or intelligence agencies?
Yes, indeed. I have a copy of that book. It's quite interesting to read about the financial reasons behind the American revolution, as well. It wasn't about tea!
but as long as it's a left wing conspiracy it's okay.
Do you really not perceive that the US military and intelligence agencies are used to make the world safe for American business? Why did the CIA overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954? Why did they overthrow the Iranian government a year earlier? Do you still think we invaded Iraq because Saddam was such an asshole and we just felt so bad for those poor Iraqis?
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's how the world works. Get your head out of your ass.
I thought the actual story was that if you or me dislike some policy we can go fuck ourselves, whereas if the Kochs dislike it, they get a real chance to change it.
If anyone ever wonders why fabulously rich people want to keep making more money, this is why. Money=Political Power in America. It's not about how many yachts, houses or G4's you have, once you're in the billionaires club. It's about how many Senators you have doing your bidding, and how many news stations you have framing your views. Like Walter White, they are in the empire business.
...it's not just some rich people being assholes, but rather some rich people who stand to become substantially less rich if things go the way they seem to be going.
I see, so it's some rich people being assholes then? I'm sorry, but you don't get to hold back human progress so that you can keep adding to your billions. Well, in America you do, but it's still not right. As I said during the 2008 crash, it seems there are no free-marketers in foxholes. Once the going gets rough, no one believes in the invisible hand anymore; they just want to preserve their status. As I recall, these jokers are anti-AGW as well, and pay for propaganda to convince everyone it's a liberal plot to make everyone drive a Prius. So they are contributing to the downfall of modern society so they can maintain their wealth and power. That's kind of the definition of rich people being assholes.
Very good point, but I suppose "good" and "bad" is a spectrum. The problem is, if a cop with the best intentions knows about bad/illegal behavior of another cop, what are they going to do? If they report them (at least if they're not the bad cop's superior), then the bad cop will still not be punished, but the otherwise good cop will be harassed and hazed until they have no choice but to quit or be fired (or in the case previously mentioned be thrown in a mental institution). So, would it do more "good" in the world to get shoved out the door and not effect change, or to continue doing what you can to bust the criminals that you can? I suppose the answer to that depends on how idealistic you are, but the real world tends not to be boolean.
If they haven't, everyone should see the movie Serpico. Not only is it a good movie made back when Al Pacino actually acted, but it shows the dynamic that an honest cop has to deal with in a corrupt precinct. It is fictional, but it is a good depiction of the options available.
Nor did she leak information the government considered confidential. What's with all the pro-government retards bashing Snowden? Just because Snowden isn't suicidal or masochistic doesn't mean he did anything wrong. We now have all the information we need, and we need to act on it.
There is a quasi-acknowledged organized campaign afoot to manipulate the comment sections of web forums to give them a more pro-establishment bent and combat "wrong" information. See here. Ironically it was Snowden who confirmed this for us. It's always hard to tell when someone is voicing their true opinion, and when they are doing their master's bidding. But some of the rise in pro-establishment, anti-Snowden, anti-Wikileaks opinion is due to a concerted effort by government agents.
I wasn't aware there was an acceleration limit on the books.
It's called Exhibition of Speed, and there is a law against it. It's one of those great laws that has no clear definition and is up to the officer to identify.
Hmm, is there any proof of this smell? If not, it is equivalent to hearsay, wouldn't you say? And no, 2 policemen do not make 2 separate witnesses, especially for this case. You only have to point to lots and lots of historical lying by police to invalidate that argument on reasonable doubt grounds. But then again, "smell" by itself doesn't do much for them, they need something tangible. In this case, they found plenty.
AFAIK, the statements of law enforcement are treated as fact, unless they can be proven false. So if an officer says he smelled marijuana, he smelled marijuana unless you can prove he did not. I'm not a fan of that either, but it is the way it is.
So can we just all admit that we have no control over our government anymore
Why admit something that isn't true? Would I love to have more control over my government, the US government? Absolutely. Would I like to have a much smaller government which can be controlled easier? Absolutely. Would I like constitutional rule changes, like abandoning the first past the post, that undermine the current political oligopoly? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that no control currently exists, but rather what control does exist can be greatly improved.
At the national level, very little control exists. Unless you have money for lots of contributions and lobbyists, you won't get much traction. I find it interesting that you say we have some control, but still describe our current situation as a political oligopoly.
Yeah, and if SCOTUS rules against it they can use their many SCOTUS investigators to make sure the administration is complying, and the legendary SCOTUS army to stop them if they're not.
So can we just all admit that we have no control over our government anymore, and that any idea that we live in a democracy or a republic is just a pleasant fantasy? If a Supreme Court ruling can be simply ignored by the other two branches, why are they there?
Question is why are these people starting a family that they cant afford and shifting the cost of having that family to us the tax payers? I am 35 years old, and I would have certainly loved to have started a family earlier (in my 20s) but had to wait until I had sufficient savings to a point where I can afford to provide my kids with opportunities that they will need in other to succeed. While I believe everyone should have a choice on how many kids they want to have or when to have them, I do not believe it is fair to tax strangers for your reproductive decisions.
This would hold up if people always made rational, well thought out decisions. But we all know that is not the case. Plenty of people on this site will tell you that free will doesn't exist; that we are all driven by reactions to the events around us that are colored by our genetics, predispositions and previous experiences. I don't think it's quite that simple, but the fact remains that we all have stressors and attitudes that shape or choices. We are not rational actors, and our actions cannot always be justified logically.
Also virtually nobody in the USA chooses between a $90 doctor's visit and feeding their family. The choice is usually between a $90 doctor's visit and a $90 cable or cell phone bill.
You need to get out of your socio-economic class more. You may not know these people, but 16% of the US population lives below the poverty line ($23,050 yearly income for a family of four). Those people may indeed have to choose between eating and a $90 doctor visit. It may not be a lot to you, but $90 is almost 5% of their monthly income. They are feeding, housing and transporting four people on less than $450 a week. An unexpected $90 expenditure reduces that to $360. That's a significant hit; one that requires forgoing other things.
I feel that there's something wrong when a powerful lobby is fighting to make Hobby Lobby pay for abortions but doesn't mind people having to pay for their own prostheses.
Who is making Hobby Lobby pay for abortions? Do employees submit expense reports for their abortions?
How do you know what an ape thinks? I understand that a lot of my choices are not made consciously. That's why I used the word choice instead of free-will. However, I have the ability to bring some of those unconscious choices into consciousness. I have made the choice in the past to alter my perception of something in order to adjust my reaction to it. I have the ability to observe the outcomes of certain actions or attitudes and adjust my behavior to achieve a different outcome.
We have recognized that simply letting the strong have their way does not lead to a peaceful stable society. So we create laws against assault, fraud and theft. We hold ideals of equality for people in society and before the law. This was not always the case. We have made choices and changed how society works. Are we there yet? Have we created the precise society we want? Of course not. Many people still choose to use their power to dominate others. It's a process whose outcome is uncertain. But we have achieved much more than the apes. And that is due to our ability to create according to our choices.
And a very strong reason why we won't be sending our child to public schools.
They are not places of learning. They are prison systems for children in which the biggest bully rules.
I would not be surprised if there were a strong correlation between the freedom of bullies and test scores. Why should anyone care about school when it's absolute torture going? How can they learn when it's all about emotional and sometimes physical torture?
Meh, I went to a white-bread private school and I still got bullied. In white-bread private school, your bully's father is a multi-millionaire who gives a lot of money to the school, above and beyond tuition. Ever deal with entitled, spoiled rich kid bullies? They're a lot of fun. And you can't get the school to do anything about it because they want daddy's money. Don't kid yourself. Bullies come in all shapes and sizes and socio-economic classes. Wealth and privilege only make it worse.
What did his mother expect from the school as a reaction? Siding with the victim of bullying? Seriously? Allow me to give you a brief rundown of how school deal with bullying.
What a school wants is "peace". They want pupils to shut up and not cause a problem. Especially not a disciplinary one. So how do they deal with bullying? Well, easy: Not at all. Because it is not a school's problem. The bully has his victim, is satisfied and will not cause any other problem towards the school, its property or its faculty. The victim is being pushed and punched.
Now when does the school run into a problem in this scenario? Right. When the victim does not want to play his role anymore. That is when the school runs into a problem. Because now they have to do something. Until that moment, there was no reason for a reaction. A pacified bully is no problem, and a victim that lets the bully kick him is none either. The very LAST thing the school wants is to be forced to take action against the bully. Because then not only does it draw attention to the bullying problem, it puts a very unhappy bully at their hands, someone who knows how to cause trouble if he wants to, who may or may not be even supported in his actions by his parents.
The school's reaction is a logical one: The victim upset the apple cart. He created a problem for the school. What the school wants is him to shut the fuck up again and swallow the punches.
Why does this explanation make me think of US foreign policy?
"...Picking on the weak is wrong, and you don't get to take advantage of a fellow human because you're physically or mentally able to do so."
You are kidding right? Survival of the fittest is the only rule in life. Just look around. People who were smart enough to "make" the most money or physically brutal enough to steal the most are your owners.
When someone has that kind of power by whatever means, and uses it to make your life miserable, you have to take them out when it is clear your "society" is not going to help you.
Even kids know this, and some of them actually attempt it.
The truth is that we are still apes with a haircut and shinier, smarter ways to kill each other.....same as it was when all had was a rock.
Survival of the fittest describes the ability to reproduce, not dominate those around you. Indeed, if it referred to the ability of an organism to dominate all around it, it would eventually run out of resources and die. Not very fit.
You are correct that might makes right. But we are different from the apes in that we have a choice. We can choose the kind of world we want to live in and work towards realizing it. Just because the powerful keep making the same selfish choices doesn't mean it has to be that way. We make it that way.
There is still a lot of pain, fear and ignorance to be worked through in the world. We are improving in that many of us recognize that the patterns of domination are not good for us. We at least recognize that it's not what we want. But we still go with selfish impulses, so clearly we have a way to go yet.
The police aren't there to protect the innocent. They are there to defend the criminals. I have witnessed this firsthand.
Another example of the social insight of the Simpsons. Chief Wiggum wasn't wrong when he said the police are powerless to help you, not punish you. The police arrest criminals, whomever they perceive that to be. This may result in help to someone, but it isn't the primary goal. Dealing with the alleged criminal is their primary goal.
Slashdot Mirror
There's something that concerns me about a person posting in an echo chamber exactly what the echo chamber wants to hear, and then accuses them of hiding their head somewhere. In other words, you need to eat what you are serving.
I'm sorry to have concerned you. What I find concerning is that so many people still seem to believe the bullshit reasons they are fed for why our country goes to war. It's further concerning that when I point out one of the real reasons we go to war, folks like you pop up to merely point out that I am a good cultural fit for this board.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Ol Olsec: Is it your opinion that economic interests are not among the reasons the US deploys its military and intelligence agencies? If not, it seems you ought to agree with me. If so, I'd like to hear your reasons.
You do have an opinion one way or the other, yes? Or are you just here to vaguely impugn my credibility?
gotta love conspiracy theorist.
but as long as it's a left wing conspiracy it's okay.
Do you really not perceive that the US military and intelligence agencies are used to make the world safe for American business?
I see the Doomsday preppers have computers now.
That doesn't answer the question. Is it your opinion that economic interests are not among the reasons the US deploys its military or intelligence agencies?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/26/us-security-snowden-germany-idUSBREA0P0DE20140126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/
So, am I a "doomsday prepper" or just a citizen informed about the way his country projects power on the world stage, and for which purposes?
Yes, indeed. I have a copy of that book. It's quite interesting to read about the financial reasons behind the American revolution, as well. It wasn't about tea!
Ever heard of nuclear?
The problem is, you still have to mine for it, and there's a finite supply of nuclear material.
gotta love conspiracy theorist.
but as long as it's a left wing conspiracy it's okay.
Do you really not perceive that the US military and intelligence agencies are used to make the world safe for American business? Why did the CIA overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954? Why did they overthrow the Iranian government a year earlier? Do you still think we invaded Iraq because Saddam was such an asshole and we just felt so bad for those poor Iraqis?
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's how the world works. Get your head out of your ass.
I thought the actual story was that if you or me dislike some policy we can go fuck ourselves, whereas if the Kochs dislike it, they get a real chance to change it.
If anyone ever wonders why fabulously rich people want to keep making more money, this is why. Money=Political Power in America. It's not about how many yachts, houses or G4's you have, once you're in the billionaires club. It's about how many Senators you have doing your bidding, and how many news stations you have framing your views. Like Walter White, they are in the empire business.
...it's not just some rich people being assholes, but rather some rich people who stand to become substantially less rich if things go the way they seem to be going.
I see, so it's some rich people being assholes then? I'm sorry, but you don't get to hold back human progress so that you can keep adding to your billions. Well, in America you do, but it's still not right. As I said during the 2008 crash, it seems there are no free-marketers in foxholes. Once the going gets rough, no one believes in the invisible hand anymore; they just want to preserve their status. As I recall, these jokers are anti-AGW as well, and pay for propaganda to convince everyone it's a liberal plot to make everyone drive a Prius. So they are contributing to the downfall of modern society so they can maintain their wealth and power. That's kind of the definition of rich people being assholes.
Very good point, but I suppose "good" and "bad" is a spectrum. The problem is, if a cop with the best intentions knows about bad/illegal behavior of another cop, what are they going to do? If they report them (at least if they're not the bad cop's superior), then the bad cop will still not be punished, but the otherwise good cop will be harassed and hazed until they have no choice but to quit or be fired (or in the case previously mentioned be thrown in a mental institution). So, would it do more "good" in the world to get shoved out the door and not effect change, or to continue doing what you can to bust the criminals that you can? I suppose the answer to that depends on how idealistic you are, but the real world tends not to be boolean.
If they haven't, everyone should see the movie Serpico. Not only is it a good movie made back when Al Pacino actually acted, but it shows the dynamic that an honest cop has to deal with in a corrupt precinct. It is fictional, but it is a good depiction of the options available.
Nor did she leak information the government considered confidential. What's with all the pro-government retards bashing Snowden? Just because Snowden isn't suicidal or masochistic doesn't mean he did anything wrong. We now have all the information we need, and we need to act on it.
There is a quasi-acknowledged organized campaign afoot to manipulate the comment sections of web forums to give them a more pro-establishment bent and combat "wrong" information. See here. Ironically it was Snowden who confirmed this for us. It's always hard to tell when someone is voicing their true opinion, and when they are doing their master's bidding. But some of the rise in pro-establishment, anti-Snowden, anti-Wikileaks opinion is due to a concerted effort by government agents.
I wasn't aware there was an acceleration limit on the books.
It's called Exhibition of Speed, and there is a law against it. It's one of those great laws that has no clear definition and is up to the officer to identify.
Hmm, is there any proof of this smell? If not, it is equivalent to hearsay, wouldn't you say? And no, 2 policemen do not make 2 separate witnesses, especially for this case. You only have to point to lots and lots of historical lying by police to invalidate that argument on reasonable doubt grounds. But then again, "smell" by itself doesn't do much for them, they need something tangible. In this case, they found plenty.
AFAIK, the statements of law enforcement are treated as fact, unless they can be proven false. So if an officer says he smelled marijuana, he smelled marijuana unless you can prove he did not. I'm not a fan of that either, but it is the way it is.
Shows the level of maturity on slashdot, I suppose. False police reports are a felony.
Who says it's false? I'm sure if I followed an important public figure around for a while I could catch him rolling a stop sign or two.
So can we just all admit that we have no control over our government anymore
Why admit something that isn't true? Would I love to have more control over my government, the US government? Absolutely. Would I like to have a much smaller government which can be controlled easier? Absolutely. Would I like constitutional rule changes, like abandoning the first past the post, that undermine the current political oligopoly? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that no control currently exists, but rather what control does exist can be greatly improved.
At the national level, very little control exists. Unless you have money for lots of contributions and lobbyists, you won't get much traction. I find it interesting that you say we have some control, but still describe our current situation as a political oligopoly.
Yeah, basically.
Sitting at your desk all day is not working.
That's a pretty narrow definition of work. But I guess I can now tell people that I don't work for a living!
Yeah, and if SCOTUS rules against it they can use their many SCOTUS investigators to make sure the administration is complying, and the legendary SCOTUS army to stop them if they're not.
So can we just all admit that we have no control over our government anymore, and that any idea that we live in a democracy or a republic is just a pleasant fantasy? If a Supreme Court ruling can be simply ignored by the other two branches, why are they there?
Question is why are these people starting a family that they cant afford and shifting the cost of having that family to us the tax payers? I am 35 years old, and I would have certainly loved to have started a family earlier (in my 20s) but had to wait until I had sufficient savings to a point where I can afford to provide my kids with opportunities that they will need in other to succeed. While I believe everyone should have a choice on how many kids they want to have or when to have them, I do not believe it is fair to tax strangers for your reproductive decisions.
This would hold up if people always made rational, well thought out decisions. But we all know that is not the case. Plenty of people on this site will tell you that free will doesn't exist; that we are all driven by reactions to the events around us that are colored by our genetics, predispositions and previous experiences. I don't think it's quite that simple, but the fact remains that we all have stressors and attitudes that shape or choices. We are not rational actors, and our actions cannot always be justified logically.
Also virtually nobody in the USA chooses between a $90 doctor's visit and feeding their family. The choice is usually between a $90 doctor's visit and a $90 cable or cell phone bill.
You need to get out of your socio-economic class more. You may not know these people, but 16% of the US population lives below the poverty line ($23,050 yearly income for a family of four). Those people may indeed have to choose between eating and a $90 doctor visit. It may not be a lot to you, but $90 is almost 5% of their monthly income. They are feeding, housing and transporting four people on less than $450 a week. An unexpected $90 expenditure reduces that to $360. That's a significant hit; one that requires forgoing other things.
I feel that there's something wrong when a powerful lobby is fighting to make Hobby Lobby pay for abortions but doesn't mind people having to pay for their own prostheses.
Who is making Hobby Lobby pay for abortions? Do employees submit expense reports for their abortions?
How do you know what an ape thinks? I understand that a lot of my choices are not made consciously. That's why I used the word choice instead of free-will. However, I have the ability to bring some of those unconscious choices into consciousness. I have made the choice in the past to alter my perception of something in order to adjust my reaction to it. I have the ability to observe the outcomes of certain actions or attitudes and adjust my behavior to achieve a different outcome.
We have recognized that simply letting the strong have their way does not lead to a peaceful stable society. So we create laws against assault, fraud and theft. We hold ideals of equality for people in society and before the law. This was not always the case. We have made choices and changed how society works. Are we there yet? Have we created the precise society we want? Of course not. Many people still choose to use their power to dominate others. It's a process whose outcome is uncertain. But we have achieved much more than the apes. And that is due to our ability to create according to our choices.
And a very strong reason why we won't be sending our child to public schools.
They are not places of learning. They are prison systems for children in which the biggest bully rules.
I would not be surprised if there were a strong correlation between the freedom of bullies and test scores. Why should anyone care about school when it's absolute torture going? How can they learn when it's all about emotional and sometimes physical torture?
Meh, I went to a white-bread private school and I still got bullied. In white-bread private school, your bully's father is a multi-millionaire who gives a lot of money to the school, above and beyond tuition. Ever deal with entitled, spoiled rich kid bullies? They're a lot of fun. And you can't get the school to do anything about it because they want daddy's money. Don't kid yourself. Bullies come in all shapes and sizes and socio-economic classes. Wealth and privilege only make it worse.
What did his mother expect from the school as a reaction? Siding with the victim of bullying? Seriously? Allow me to give you a brief rundown of how school deal with bullying.
What a school wants is "peace". They want pupils to shut up and not cause a problem. Especially not a disciplinary one. So how do they deal with bullying? Well, easy: Not at all. Because it is not a school's problem. The bully has his victim, is satisfied and will not cause any other problem towards the school, its property or its faculty. The victim is being pushed and punched.
Now when does the school run into a problem in this scenario? Right. When the victim does not want to play his role anymore. That is when the school runs into a problem. Because now they have to do something. Until that moment, there was no reason for a reaction. A pacified bully is no problem, and a victim that lets the bully kick him is none either. The very LAST thing the school wants is to be forced to take action against the bully. Because then not only does it draw attention to the bullying problem, it puts a very unhappy bully at their hands, someone who knows how to cause trouble if he wants to, who may or may not be even supported in his actions by his parents.
The school's reaction is a logical one: The victim upset the apple cart. He created a problem for the school. What the school wants is him to shut the fuck up again and swallow the punches.
Why does this explanation make me think of US foreign policy?
Unfortunately, bullying is not against the law, its against POLICY. Necessity is for breaking THE LAW. No law was broken so you can't take this route.
How about an imminent threat or personal danger? "Bullying" may not be against the law, but threats and assault are.
"...Picking on the weak is wrong, and you don't get to take advantage of a fellow human because you're physically or mentally able to do so."
You are kidding right? Survival of the fittest is the only rule in life. Just look around. People who were smart enough to "make" the most money or physically brutal enough to steal the most are your owners.
When someone has that kind of power by whatever means, and uses it to make your life miserable, you have to take them out when it is clear your "society" is not going to help you.
Even kids know this, and some of them actually attempt it.
The truth is that we are still apes with a haircut and shinier, smarter ways to kill each other.....same as it was when all had was a rock.
Survival of the fittest describes the ability to reproduce, not dominate those around you. Indeed, if it referred to the ability of an organism to dominate all around it, it would eventually run out of resources and die. Not very fit.
You are correct that might makes right. But we are different from the apes in that we have a choice. We can choose the kind of world we want to live in and work towards realizing it. Just because the powerful keep making the same selfish choices doesn't mean it has to be that way. We make it that way.
There is still a lot of pain, fear and ignorance to be worked through in the world. We are improving in that many of us recognize that the patterns of domination are not good for us. We at least recognize that it's not what we want. But we still go with selfish impulses, so clearly we have a way to go yet.
The police aren't there to protect the innocent. They are there to defend the criminals. I have witnessed this firsthand.
Another example of the social insight of the Simpsons. Chief Wiggum wasn't wrong when he said the police are powerless to help you, not punish you. The police arrest criminals, whomever they perceive that to be. This may result in help to someone, but it isn't the primary goal. Dealing with the alleged criminal is their primary goal.