after watching this, the main thing that strikes my mind is what if buehler had just been some ordinary joe shmoe and not a west pt grad/army vet/stanford mba...

would he be in more serious trouble? would this have still made the news? if so, to the same degree? and what does that say about our media?

he'll have all charges dropped, i'm sure, if the police dashcam doesn't show him intentionally spitting on the officer... but i doubt he'll have any tortious legal claim

aside from all of that... this whole snafu just highlights for me again how aggressive us police officers can be -- i've spent close to two decades as an american living in asia, thirteen of those years in taiwan... the difference between the police at home and those here is night and day...

patrol cars here actually drive around, very slowly, with their police lights lit at all times - this struck me as odd initially, but i came to realize that it acts as a deterrent to lawlessness - there're also no speed traps, and if you're stopped by the police, they're always very courteous... almost apologetic

there are a few downsides to this though... they're slow to respond to calls for help, and practically do backflips in order avoid any sort of paperwork on their part

i often wonder about what the cause of such differences (i.e. aggressiveness / discourtesy) between the two might be -- part of it is certainly the fact that everyday americans have ready access to firearms, whereas the only armed taiwanese are gangsters -- another aspect i suspect is the level of officer empowerment by the local government (e.g. us officers are given an enormous amount of power to be used and/or abused, while taiwanese police for the most part act as society's shepherds in uniform)

how to reconcile these differences, and perhaps reach a happy medium?

^ he's right on the money

it's the auspiciousness of the first fish of the lunar new year

at this time, most businesses in asian culture give out yearly bonuses* and as such people are generally flush with cash -- there's also a huge aspect of traditions which supposedly bring good fortune in the coming year, and likewise taboos to avoid

virtually everything costs more during this season: airline tickets almost double (if you can even get a seat); taxis add surcharges; most all hotels and restaurants are booked to capacity, etc

*to their asian employees (one of the few times it sucks to be a western 'barbarian' out here - typically no bonus, but you're stuck with the extra costs of the holiday)

hmmm... you may be right

he was quite a famous hawaiian comedian back in the day - even won an emmy

might also be funny only to locals

imho, it's disingenuous to begin this timeline arbitrarily in 1953 - going back just a little further puts many of these events in a far more honest context.

anyway, upvote for the history

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

heh heh, thanks

usually when people ask why i chose the name, i tell them my mom was a ronnie james 'dio' groupie... and what that might insinuate about my parentage - lol

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Great name btw

One of my favorite people of all time was Diogenes.

heh heh... sweet

not as dangerous as it looks though...
i was doing similar from the age of seven

check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrCrAwn4Aks

it's a popular summer surfspot on the south shore of the hawaiian island of oahu called china walls - my house is visible for a few seconds in this vid as it pans quickly to the left - i swam in waves like that almost every day of my life

on a side note, that lava shelf is where they filmed some of the coastal scenes in the lost series

hahaha... that's what you might call "winning one for the gipper"

@criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/07/threesome-marriages.html

@criticalthud
let's be really clear... i agree with your position on corporate personhood
but... we can use "citizens united" to abbreviate the scotus decision: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... and how that decision has overturned several previous legal precedents and aspects of bcra -- and we can also use "citizens united" to refer directly to the non-profit group of the same name...

i'm just pointing out the latter (the npo) filed suit against the fec because they felt that a media corporation (moore, et al) was violating bcra - the fec dismissed their complaint -- then the group made a similar 'documentary' about hillary clinton and promoted it with the same style and timing of moore's anti-bush film - a lower court barred it, stating that it violated the bcra -- this background led us to the troubling scotus decision

what i was pointing out was that bcra, etc, was already allowing corporate political advocacy through the media, i.e. movie producers, book publishers, newspaper conglomerates, and television networks, etc

this, imho, is what really muddies the waters

yes, the system is broken and needs fixing, but...

citizens united was the logical outcome of michael moore's (inc) release of the anti-bush film "farenheit 9/11" in an election year, and its rushed dvd and tv releases within 30 days of the 2004 election

how could the fec state that it wasn't a form of corporate political advertising? how could they then turn around in 2008 and block the release of citizens united's film "hillary: the movie" prior to the election?

this scotus decision leaves me worried... but i'm also flabbergasted that "the left" didn't rail against moore's blatant "corporate advertising" in an election year, yet now their feathers are all ruffled

heh heh - good stuff

ron paul would obviously be captain hindsight

granted i'm a cynic...

but give me five minutes chatting with my four-year-old son, then one minute of edited video... and i could have him dropping 'natural' philosophy as well

you're welcome - glad i could help =)

>> ^berticus:
AHAHAHA!!! best laugh i've had all day thankyou.