I hope any potentially larcenous executives out there realize that the penalty for being caught, shamed, and convicted of being a criminal can be death when you are Ken's age (even down into the 50's really).
Ken could have avoided this fate. If he had managed enron well or just got the hell out of dodge if he couldn't, he would probably be alive and very happy today.
Why would anyone invest their money if the result was "thanks, we'll take this now".
I understand and agree with the 17 year patent thing.
If you pick some arbitrary thing and say that you can't make a profit from it, the only result will be that no one will invest any time or energy into that area.
Letting other people do the work and then trying to appropriate the result "for the good of mankind" is very short-sighted.
OTH, I don't think corps are pushing hard at extending all these time limits to "infinity and beyond". We need to stop that.
1) Get a million dollars- give it all away to help other people with misquito repellents. Done. The only result is maybe more people now.
2) Get a million dollars- invest it in a new misquito repellent. Sell it and make ten million dollars. Give a million away as charity and invest the rest.
Short of stealing the money from "cold hearted capitalists" through taxes, after a very short period of time "giving it away for human happiness", the people giving the money away have no more money to give away. If they raise taxes too high, that source goes away too.
Any time you help a group of people that are a drain on society, the main result is a *larger* group of people that are a drain on society.
Don't get me wrong- I do charity work. I give money to charity. It makes me feel good to do these things. But it is given out of my *excess* money and *excess* time.
But logic is logic. You screw the producers in a group, and you end up with no producers. The key is balancing their needs against the rest of society. I think in the case of corporations and executives, that the rewards given them are *way* out of proportion. I think another group of people would take a lot less compensation to do 99% to 100% of the same thing the current batch are doing.
It was already said by the first responder but I'll put my two bits in.
If you are large and have a fast metabolism, you need a lot of food, consistently available, and close together.
This is why virus's are so much more threatening than in the past. Natural selection makes virus a little bit less horrible with each generation because the ones that kill their host quickly before they can pass to another host are selected against. The closer humans are packed together, the more virulent the virus can remain and still pass on to new hosts.
Anything we do to control these pests that is successful will create pests that are immune to those controls. Because the 99% you kill are gone in a generation and now the survivors all have varying degrees of immunity to your prior solution. If you don't kill them, it takes longer. Because 99% survive on non-human sources and 1% has this wonderful food supply with no competition and grows in numbers.
After many ruined nights over the last few summers, I finally now close my bedroom door by habit when I leave the room. And I keep the hall door closest to the front door closed all the time.
I still get them in the living area but no more sleepless nights- waking up turning on the light- looking for the bugger- killing it.
And the way they specifically buzz your ear is horrible. Why not just settle on the nice leg, take a nip and then leave.
When I really have to sleep for sure, I'll put a sheet over my ear.
I agree. If we can show that a large amount of accidents are caused by cell phone calls then I can see restricting it. I think it needs to be studied to create data so we can make that decision.
I think that there is a *lot* of wiggle room in the phrase "large amount."
The rate of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles has dropped to a third of what it was in 1950. The rate of deaths per 100 m.v.m. has been almost flat since 1990.
I see this as a strong indication that the "easy" fixes have been made and that anything we do now cost money, reduce freedom, yet reduce the fatality rate very little.
Back to my wiggle room point, I think that what public safety proponents consider a "large" number of deaths gets smaller with each passing year. I'm willing to have a tiny percentage of children drown each year so that they have the freedom (as I did) to swim in places that were not 100.000% safe only under adult supervision at a rate of 1 adult to every 8 children with $100 monitors attached to them measuring their heart rate and sounding an alarm if they appear fatigued.
It is like an extension of the "so clean we get sick because you need a certain amount of dirt to have a healthy immune system" issue. If we are too safe- we don't really get to be fully alive.
If we were arguing about grammar, I'd put it through the spell checker. If I was posting on several of the other boards I'm active on, it would be spell checked by the editor. If I was posting every other board I'm active on, I could edit the post to correct errors.
But this is slashdot, so my conscience isn't bothered a bit by spelling errors, typos, and other glitches.
Because one person one vote is ludicrous if it ignores power.
Saying the vote of an religious hermit should be the same as an equipped warrior who is morally ready to kill you ignores reality. The UN was supposed to be a way to work things out with words instead of the battlefield. If it ignores that fact, it will just lead to war again when 100 peaceniks vote themselves too many rights over the 3 people willing to kill the peaceniks when pushed too far.
Or it is possible that two parallel universes are created in that instant. One where you kill your grandfather and another where he was not killed.
You were born in the one where your grandfather lived, lived your life, went back, killed your grandfather and returned to the universe where he was killed.
---GP---You-------You never return to this time line.
/ travel back
KillGP ---GPkilled ---- You return to this time line.
If you breed a couple red-haired freckled irish, you are going to get a similar looking child.
Likewise there are food preferences, diseases, weaknesses and strengths by breed just like for dogs.
We used to call it "race" but now that is to negatively loaded.
However, our 'races' were too simplistic. "White", "Black", etc. Really there are many distinct breeds of whites inside of "white", distinct breeds of blacks within "black". Resorting to the dog model again... you have chihuahua's but then there are several sub-breeds which breed true that are distinct.
It seems that if you have any group of people that has been isolated for a few thousand years (islanders... those white japanese?... remote native tribes... certain religious groups.. people with a strong tendency to inbreed only in their group?) that they could have a separate bloodline going further back than Chiang estimates.
If you could get them to donate some genetic material, you could check that possibility.
My concience doesn't bother me one bit when I'm getting copies of any music over 28 years old.
In fact, it bothers me a lot whenever I have to pay for a song which is 50 years old and the original artists are all dead. I know all I am doing is putting money in the hands of a corporation which is trying to destroy the public domain. So my concience bothers me a lot when I have to do that. So much so that I havn't done it for a long time now.
JC Penney is being sued by the Islamic Purity Party for serving web pages to Burkastan of women who are not completely covered.
I think the freedom that was the web is going to be shut down before long and we are going to have national firewalls that only "whitelisted" sites can get through.
Here is the US. Examples I have are one fed who is in the midwest, a relative who is in texas, and an acquantance in texas. We were discussing the behavior of the jerk in arkansas and the fed said they were trained to behave that way to intimidate and keep control. Since it annoyed us, I can imagine it might piss someone off who had a short fuse.
Thanks! Given the lack of editing ability, it's a reasonable position to take to obvious glitches in folks posts.
I'm saying my real world observations don't jibe with the study. I know so many studies are done with some kind of ax to grind or with funding from someone with an ax to grind so it makes me suspicious.
You can manipulate statistics and presentation to make something appear better or worse than it really is.
I think a clearer study would be cell phone records tied to accidents that actually occured.
Just off the top of my head...
How many cell calls are made and no accident occurs (the vast majority). How many other things distract us as much as being drunk at.08? Are we going to make those illegal. * Are we going to outlaw eating certain kinds of food in the car. * Are we going to outlaw children in the front seat period. * Are we going to outlaw having an argument in the car. * Are we going to outlaw having uncaged pets in the car. * Are we going to outlaw driving on less than 8 hours sleep (Let's start at "1 hour" and then encroach like we are doing with booze). * The list really goes on... Is it significant that.08 was legal for years and.10 was a more realistic level. (yes I'm sure.08 makes us safer and by that logic.06 should be even safer and then.04, etc.). What is the actual accident rate increase?
I'm arguing against this proposition because I talk in the car on my cell occasionally and I don't want that ability to be taken away or turned into a large fine. I'm arguing against it because I think the reduction in accidents is not established and the cost may not be worth the benefits.
More generally, the increasing fascist/nanny state is really irritating the hell out of me.
And yea... I just realized that I typed "realized at" instead of "realized it".
Also too late to correct it. I've given up caring since my karma got blown away. I still show as "excellent" karma but get no pluses to posts. No way to fix it since there isn't really any customer support here at slashdot. I just have to hope that it will randombly buggily fix itself the same way it went bad.
Last accident I was in was being hit from behind while sitting at a red light (while it was still red). Accident before that, I was sitting at a red light and the person put it into reverse and backed in to me trying to change into the left turn late after it was way too late to do so.
Both accidents were 8 years ago in my large durango SUV that i had at the time in those glorious days of.88 cent gasoline.
Prior that that... hmm maybe 1990? so 26 years? I was given traumatic news while driving in the car by a friend about 30 seconds before.
I recognize it is a danger- I was almost broadsided by a lady, talking on her cell. She was at the stop sign- I was on the thru street with no stop sign doing about 30- why she decided it was time to go is beyond me.
I think some people are more of a danger than others. I don't look at what I do when I'm shaving. I just run the electric shaver up and down my face.
Whenever things feel at all threatening in the car on the cell, I say I have to go- or even just hang up.
I see lots of other drivers, on cells, doing as good a job as other drivers on the road. So I don't believe these reports. I want to see their sample size and the sample make up. I want to see the driving records of the sample outside of the cell phone tests. And I want to know where the funding for the study is coming from. Who has an ax to grind.
I have never driven after drinking since I know it screws you up. I've seen the evidence there and it is convincing. Of course, I've only been drunk like 6 times in my life and been drinking at all perhaps 20 times. I'm not a big drinker except for annual events.
It is not our government's job to force us to involuntarily donate money to foreign countries, many of whom may be making insane decisions that bring on their own pain.
My point is that many more humans could be saved with the money and time that are spent fighting abortion. The fight over abortion, the war on terror, and the war on drugs are basically destroying our country.
The abortion fight causes the religious conservatives to close their eyes and keep voting for evil people who are selling the country away to soulless multi national corporations who exploit children, run sweatshops, and engage in completely amoral behavior while destroying people's lives and poisoning our land. In the past the religious types would have been fighting these things- but as long as the republicans *promise* to fight against abortion, they get the votes without regard to all the other damage being done. Hell, I don't even think the republicans *want* to win the issue. The second they do, they lose their base.
The wars on terror and drugs are turning a nice easy going libertarian capitalist country into a fascist state where everything is owned on a monopoly basis by corporations for "live + 75 years".
I don't even know why I'm going on about all this- I saw all this a decade ago and mostly just disconnected. I'm gerrymandered into an 80/20 district where my vote doesn't matter either bleeding way. I do volunteer work but increasingly see that it is futile. I give donations but increasingly feel the same. Every time i see the head of some charity organization is making five times my salary, I wonder why the hell am I donating money to them?
Every time I see a religious type outright lying in an argument over evolution, I am saddened.
It is so easy to just ignore all this and be very happy in my personal life and so pointless to get involved any more.
It is a fact. By focusing your efforts on the abortion issue other people are dying of cancer, starvation, genocide.
You have made the personal decision that that is worse than the other ways of dying so it gets your attention, money, posts, and volunteer time first. You have made the decision that occasionally going to a movie, having a steak dinner, and driving a new car is more important than the lives of several thousand humans around the globe that you could donate food to.
99% of us do that *every* day. We are not going to sacrifice our ice cream after dinner so that 6 people in indonesia can be saved from starving for a month. I accept that most of us do the same thing. What I don't do is pick a particular subset of dying people and use it as a pretext to try to control other people's lives.
I also hate cigarette smoke but I hate the move to ban "second hand" smoke even more. We are all giving up our freedoms one at a time- and as we give each one up, another yahoo rises to point out yet another freedom that is too dangerous for us to continue having.
I have some friends in law enforcement and here they are trained to be assholes to "get control of the situation".
I've been the target of this twice over the last five years- once as a passenger in arkansas (which was a real mistake on the cops part because my friend decides where big conventions go and since that date- he has made sure they end up in adjacent states if they have to be in that area).
The other time was as a driver. I had just gotten a huge vet bill and was a bit in shock. The cop was a complete asshole making faces and little hand gestures (like "quote marks" in the air) and rocking his head and body from side to side as he said each word to emphasize each word.
It sounds funny tho "be careful, Sir" (smack).
I think have the people who *want* to be a policement should be disqualified for that- because what they really want is the power, not to protect society.
Yes and millions of people die stupid, useless, horrible deaths every day- but for some reason we only seem to care about the ones inside women who had, definately had, consensual sex. I see it as a punishment for them for breaking the the anti-abortionists moral code.
While you read this, several living, young human beings probably died of starvation. Why are their lives so much less important than a tiny cell mass that is months from being viable? As the ads say, you could save one for 50 cents a month. You could save 1600 for 800 a month. How can you have a soda each day when that would save a human life for an entire month? You can't unless you are engaging in the same calculus as a young female who says her life is more important than another life.
And you can't have it both ways on the rape issue.
Either *some* rape victims will not be believed and forced to bear the child or *some* innocent men will go to prison for raping someone they had consensual sex with so the girl can have an abortion. It is one of those very messy edges of the issue that won't resolve cleanly.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope any potentially larcenous executives out there realize that the penalty for being caught, shamed, and convicted of being a criminal can be death when you are Ken's age (even down into the 50's really).
Ken could have avoided this fate. If he had managed enron well or just got the hell out of dodge if he couldn't, he would probably be alive and very happy today.
Exactly.
Why would anyone invest their money if the result was "thanks, we'll take this now".
I understand and agree with the 17 year patent thing.
If you pick some arbitrary thing and say that you can't make a profit from it, the only result will be that no one will invest any time or energy into that area.
Letting other people do the work and then trying to appropriate the result "for the good of mankind" is very short-sighted.
OTH, I don't think corps are pushing hard at extending all these time limits to "infinity and beyond". We need to stop that.
Philantropy is selected against.
1) Get a million dollars- give it all away to help other people with misquito repellents. Done. The only result is maybe more people now.
2) Get a million dollars- invest it in a new misquito repellent. Sell it and make ten million dollars. Give a million away as charity and invest the rest.
Short of stealing the money from "cold hearted capitalists" through taxes, after a very short period of time "giving it away for human happiness", the people giving the money away have no more money to give away. If they raise taxes too high, that source goes away too.
Any time you help a group of people that are a drain on society, the main result is a *larger* group of people that are a drain on society.
Don't get me wrong- I do charity work. I give money to charity. It makes me feel good to do these things. But it is given out of my *excess* money and *excess* time.
But logic is logic. You screw the producers in a group, and you end up with no producers. The key is balancing their needs against the rest of society. I think in the case of corporations and executives, that the rewards given them are *way* out of proportion. I think another group of people would take a lot less compensation to do 99% to 100% of the same thing the current batch are doing.
It was already said by the first responder but I'll put my two bits in.
If you are large and have a fast metabolism, you need a lot of food, consistently available, and close together.
This is why virus's are so much more threatening than in the past. Natural selection makes virus a little bit less horrible with each generation because the ones that kill their host quickly before they can pass to another host are selected against. The closer humans are packed together, the more virulent the virus can remain and still pass on to new hosts.
Anything we do to control these pests that is successful will create pests that are immune to those controls. Because the 99% you kill are gone in a generation and now the survivors all have varying degrees of immunity to your prior solution. If you don't kill them, it takes longer. Because 99% survive on non-human sources and 1% has this wonderful food supply with no competition and grows in numbers.
After many ruined nights over the last few summers, I finally now close my bedroom door by habit when I leave the room. And I keep the hall door closest to the front door closed all the time.
I still get them in the living area but no more sleepless nights- waking up turning on the light- looking for the bugger- killing it.
And the way they specifically buzz your ear is horrible. Why not just settle on the nice leg, take a nip and then leave.
When I really have to sleep for sure, I'll put a sheet over my ear.
I agree. If we can show that a large amount of accidents are caused by cell phone calls then I can see restricting it. I think it needs to be studied to create data so we can make that decision.
s /vj05intro.pdf
I think that there is a *lot* of wiggle room in the phrase "large amount."
Looking back...
http://www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/journal/2005/pdf
The rate of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles has dropped to a third of what it was in 1950.
The rate of deaths per 100 m.v.m. has been almost flat since 1990.
I see this as a strong indication that the "easy" fixes have been made and that anything we do now cost money, reduce freedom, yet reduce the fatality rate very little.
Back to my wiggle room point, I think that what public safety proponents consider a "large" number of deaths gets smaller with each passing year. I'm willing to have a tiny percentage of children drown each year so that they have the freedom (as I did) to swim in places that were not 100.000% safe only under adult supervision at a rate of 1 adult to every 8 children with $100 monitors attached to them measuring their heart rate and sounding an alarm if they appear fatigued.
It is like an extension of the "so clean we get sick because you need a certain amount of dirt to have a healthy immune system" issue. If we are too safe- we don't really get to be fully alive.
If we were arguing about grammar, I'd put it through the spell checker.
If I was posting on several of the other boards I'm active on, it would be spell checked by the editor.
If I was posting every other board I'm active on, I could edit the post to correct errors.
But this is slashdot, so my conscience isn't bothered a bit by spelling errors, typos, and other glitches.
Because one person one vote is ludicrous if it ignores power.
Saying the vote of an religious hermit should be the same as an equipped warrior who is morally ready to kill you ignores reality. The UN was supposed to be a way to work things out with words instead of the battlefield. If it ignores that fact, it will just lead to war again when 100 peaceniks vote themselves too many rights over the 3 people willing to kill the peaceniks when pushed too far.
Perhaps like calling mexico an incan or aztec country?
Or it is possible that two parallel universes are created in that instant. One where you kill your grandfather and another where he was not killed.
You were born in the one where your grandfather lived, lived your life, went back, killed your grandfather and returned to the universe where he was killed.
---GP---You-------You never return to this time line.
/ travel back
KillGP
---GPkilled ---- You return to this time line.
But you have to have some kind of label for it.
With dogs we call them "breeds".
Clearly an irishmen is not a mongolian.
If you breed a couple red-haired freckled irish, you are going to get a similar looking child.
Likewise there are food preferences, diseases, weaknesses and strengths by breed just like for dogs.
We used to call it "race" but now that is to negatively loaded.
However, our 'races' were too simplistic. "White", "Black", etc. Really there are many distinct breeds of whites inside of "white", distinct breeds of blacks within "black". Resorting to the dog model again... you have chihuahua's but then there are several sub-breeds which breed true that are distinct.
It seems that if you have any group of people that has been isolated for a few thousand years (islanders... those white japanese?... remote native tribes... certain religious groups.. people with a strong tendency to inbreed only in their group?) that they could have a separate bloodline going further back than Chiang estimates.
If you could get them to donate some genetic material, you could check that possibility.
My concience doesn't bother me one bit when I'm getting copies of any music over 28 years old.
In fact, it bothers me a lot whenever I have to pay for a song which is 50 years old and the original artists are all dead. I know all I am doing is putting money in the hands of a corporation which is trying to destroy the public domain. So my concience bothers me a lot when I have to do that. So much so that I havn't done it for a long time now.
JC Penney is being sued by the Islamic Purity Party for serving web pages to Burkastan of women who are not completely covered.
I think the freedom that was the web is going to be shut down before long and we are going to have national firewalls that only "whitelisted" sites can get through.
Here is the US.
Examples I have are one fed who is in the midwest, a relative who is in texas, and an acquantance in texas.
We were discussing the behavior of the jerk in arkansas and the fed said they were trained to behave that way to
intimidate and keep control.
Since it annoyed us, I can imagine it might piss someone off who had a short fuse.
Thanks! Given the lack of editing ability, it's a reasonable position to take to obvious glitches in folks posts.
.08? Are we going to make those illegal. .08 was legal for years and .10 was a more realistic level. (yes I'm sure .08 makes us safer and by that logic .06 should be even safer and then .04, etc.).
I'm saying my real world observations don't jibe with the study. I know so many studies are done with some kind of ax to grind or with funding from someone with an ax to grind so it makes me suspicious.
You can manipulate statistics and presentation to make something appear better or worse than it really is.
I think a clearer study would be cell phone records tied to accidents that actually occured.
Just off the top of my head...
How many cell calls are made and no accident occurs (the vast majority).
How many other things distract us as much as being drunk at
* Are we going to outlaw eating certain kinds of food in the car.
* Are we going to outlaw children in the front seat period.
* Are we going to outlaw having an argument in the car.
* Are we going to outlaw having uncaged pets in the car.
* Are we going to outlaw driving on less than 8 hours sleep (Let's start at "1 hour" and then encroach like we are doing with booze).
* The list really goes on...
Is it significant that
What is the actual accident rate increase?
I'm arguing against this proposition because I talk in the car on my cell occasionally and I don't want that ability to be taken away or turned into a large fine. I'm arguing against it because I think the reduction in accidents is not established and the cost may not be worth the benefits.
More generally, the increasing fascist/nanny state is really irritating the hell out of me.
And yea... I just realized that I typed "realized at" instead of "realized it".
Also too late to correct it. I've given up caring since my karma got blown away. I still show as "excellent" karma but get no pluses to posts. No way to fix it since there isn't really any customer support here at slashdot. I just have to hope that it will randombly buggily fix itself the same way it went bad.
Yea... I realized at as soon as I hit "post"
No point in correcting it since slashdot is still too lame to allow you to edit your posts (unlike every other board I'm on).
I shave in the morning.
.88 cent gasoline.
I talk on the cell.
Last accident I was in was being hit from behind while sitting at a red light (while it was still red).
Accident before that, I was sitting at a red light and the person put it into reverse and backed in to me trying to change into the left turn late after it was way too late to do so.
Both accidents were 8 years ago in my large durango SUV that i had at the time in those glorious days of
Prior that that... hmm maybe 1990? so 26 years? I was given traumatic news while driving in the car by a friend about 30 seconds before.
I recognize it is a danger- I was almost broadsided by a lady, talking on her cell. She was at the stop sign- I was on the thru street with no stop sign doing about 30- why she decided it was time to go is beyond me.
I think some people are more of a danger than others. I don't look at what I do when I'm shaving. I just run the electric shaver up and down my face.
Whenever things feel at all threatening in the car on the cell, I say I have to go- or even just hang up.
I see lots of other drivers, on cells, doing as good a job as other drivers on the road. So I don't believe these reports. I want to see their sample size and the sample make up. I want to see the driving records of the sample outside of the cell phone tests. And I want to know where the funding for the study is coming from. Who has an ax to grind.
I have never driven after drinking since I know it screws you up. I've seen the evidence there and it is convincing. Of course, I've only been drunk like 6 times in my life and been drinking at all perhaps 20 times. I'm not a big drinker except for annual events.
It is not our government's job to force us to involuntarily donate money to foreign countries, many of whom may be making insane decisions that bring on their own pain.
My point is that many more humans could be saved with the money and time that are spent fighting abortion. The fight over abortion, the war on terror, and the war on drugs are basically destroying our country.
The abortion fight causes the religious conservatives to close their eyes and keep voting for evil people who are selling the country away to soulless multi national corporations who exploit children, run sweatshops, and engage in completely amoral behavior while destroying people's lives and poisoning our land. In the past the religious types would have been fighting these things- but as long as the republicans *promise* to fight against abortion, they get the votes without regard to all the other damage being done. Hell, I don't even think the republicans *want* to win the issue. The second they do, they lose their base.
The wars on terror and drugs are turning a nice easy going libertarian capitalist country into a fascist state where everything is owned on a monopoly basis by corporations for "live + 75 years".
I don't even know why I'm going on about all this- I saw all this a decade ago and mostly just disconnected. I'm gerrymandered into an 80/20 district where my vote doesn't matter either bleeding way. I do volunteer work but increasingly see that it is futile. I give donations but increasingly feel the same. Every time i see the head of some charity organization is making five times my salary, I wonder why the hell am I donating money to them?
Every time I see a religious type outright lying in an argument over evolution, I am saddened.
It is so easy to just ignore all this and be very happy in my personal life and so pointless to get involved any more.
It is not a bloody straw man.
It is a fact. By focusing your efforts on the abortion issue other people are dying of cancer, starvation, genocide.
You have made the personal decision that that is worse than the other ways of dying so it gets your attention, money, posts, and volunteer time first. You have made the decision that occasionally going to a movie, having a steak dinner, and driving a new car is more important than the lives of several thousand humans around the globe that you could donate food to.
99% of us do that *every* day. We are not going to sacrifice our ice cream after dinner so that 6 people in indonesia can be saved from starving for a month. I accept that most of us do the same thing. What I don't do is pick a particular subset of dying people and use it as a pretext to try to control other people's lives.
I also hate cigarette smoke but I hate the move to ban "second hand" smoke even more. We are all giving up our freedoms one at a time- and as we give each one up, another yahoo rises to point out yet another freedom that is too dangerous for us to continue having.
set up shop someplace else I know what I'd do in a heartbeat.
There are many countries that would probably be jumping for joy to get the tax revenue that myspace generates.
I have some friends in law enforcement and here they are trained to be assholes to "get control of the situation".
I've been the target of this twice over the last five years- once as a passenger in arkansas (which was a real mistake on the cops part because my friend decides where big conventions go and since that date- he has made sure they end up in adjacent states if they have to be in that area).
The other time was as a driver. I had just gotten a huge vet bill and was a bit in shock. The cop was a complete asshole making faces and little hand gestures (like "quote marks" in the air) and rocking his head and body from side to side as he said each word to emphasize each word.
It sounds funny tho "be careful, Sir" (smack).
I think have the people who *want* to be a policement should be disqualified for that- because what they really want is the power, not to protect society.
Well, if the police were not doing anything wrong, why should they worry about having their actions recorded?
I swear to god we get closer to a fascist state every day.
Yes and millions of people die stupid, useless, horrible deaths every day- but for some reason we only seem to care about the ones inside women who had, definately had, consensual sex. I see it as a punishment for them for breaking the the anti-abortionists moral code.
While you read this, several living, young human beings probably died of starvation. Why are their lives so much less important than a tiny cell mass that is months from being viable? As the ads say, you could save one for 50 cents a month. You could save 1600 for 800 a month. How can you have a soda each day when that would save a human life for an entire month? You can't unless you are engaging in the same calculus as a young female who says her life is more important than another life.
And you can't have it both ways on the rape issue.
Either *some* rape victims will not be believed and forced to bear the child or *some* innocent men will go to prison for raping someone they had consensual sex with so the girl can have an abortion. It is one of those very messy edges of the issue that won't resolve cleanly.