The Mike Blowers one still blows my mind to this day.

Your video, Primitive Technology: Forge Blower, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Now I'm not 100% sure here, but I get the impression that 0-60 times weren't a major consideration in this engine swap. He sourced everything out of a junkyard he runs and built the car for next to nothing.

I did like the idea, from the comments, of chroming the part of the engine above the hood to make it look like a big blower

(bonus pic - http://jalopnik.com/holy-shit-this-car-lives-right-around-the-corner-from-m-1759322236 )

Your video, The $1200 leaf blower..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The problem with that idea is, to be a cop in today's climate, you must have some level of loyalty to your fellow officers over your loyalty to the public/law. Those few that have publicly displayed the reverse have been driven out of their jobs, if not out of law enforcement completely. I've never heard of a case where that didn't happen, but I would be happy to read any you might know of.
That means that, at best, the 'good' officers turn a blind eye to the actions of their 'bad' workmates...or get driven out. Sadly I don't see a third alternative where they are whistleblowers against their workmates but continue to successfully work in the same force with the bad cop's friends afterwards....that simply doesn't happen in any report I've seen.
I already explained why 'turning a blind eye' makes them bad in my eyes.
In my opinion, that makes the supposition that there are no 'good' cops far more supportable than the absurd, easily proven false claim that there are no 'bad' cops. It's possible it's an overstatement, but if so not by far, and as I see it it's a reasonable position to take until whistle blowers always keep their jobs and those that harass them lose theirs more often than not...and that's absolutely not the case today.
It's not just a personality issue, it's a systemic issue.

Are you Egyptian? cause.. you're definitely in denial..

This behavior isn't the norm?
Then why does it take place literally everyday?

Like you and every other police sympathizer likes to point out..

"The incidents that make the news are just a small fraction of what ACTUALLY takes place!"

Precisely.

So considering there are multiple instances of police brutality 24/7/365..

..think about all the police violence that WE NEVER SEE.

Then think about all the "less severe" police misconduct: unlawful stops, unlawful seizure, evidence tempering, falsifying reports, etc.

Even if excessive force & brutality is just a fraction of the pie.. the entire pie is still corrupt.

How do we know this?
Because whistle-blowers are always stigmatized, demoted or fired..

While murders routinely get off with little or no punishment.

Clearly, the romanticized ideal of police "protecting & serving" is a fairytale.
And those idealist police officers are the true minority.

"Police Brutality isn't the norm! America is a post-racial society!"

Psh, gimme a break.

Oh I'd hate to be a cop nowadays. I mean the ones that aren't drawn to the profession to provide a outlet for their psychopathic tendencies, the ones that really do believe the "to protect and serve" mantra. They really do actually exist, contrary to growing popular opinion.

I guess my frustration on this topic is really no different than with news in general. It's not an accurate representation of the norm. It's news _because_ it's out of the norm. News is not reality TV.

YES we should be outraged when cops do this, they should be stripped of their job and punished accordingly, the culture and practices of the force they serve should be scrutinized and corrected if found to be supportive of or responsible for their criminal behavior. If there's a culture on the force where whistle blowers don't feel comfortable reporting abuses, the force needs to FIX that. I feel apparent overall opinion against cops in general is unfair, but it is the case. If they are ever to dig themselves out of the abyss of negative opinion they will have to take on more responsibility for the problem than may be deserved.

I only wish I could be surprised by this, but I'm not, not one bit.
This is not the bad actions of a few, it's the normal procedure of the lot.
Not a single whistle blower with 20 cop cars there...because they're apparently all criminals or at best complicit with criminals. You never see a cop worried that another cop might see his criminal actions, but they are worried that they might be recorded, so it's clear they all know they're being criminally evil.
I'm getting a bit tired of these criminal thugs, worse than the "gangs" more often than not. Odd they have money to buy military equipment, but can't afford body cameras for 4 years (if then). It's clear where their priorities are, and it's not in policing.

The terrorists will fight back with vortex leaf blowers.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jersey-the-Dog-vs-Leaf-Blower

Jersey the Dog vs Leaf Blower has been added as a related post - related requested by blackfox42.

Your video, Whistle Blowers,Dissenters,Progressives - Phil Donahue (3/3), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Some people would say" -- does not necessarily indicate future tense.
I would say (see?) it is often used to more politely present a point.
Other people would say (again..) that he is referring to what people might say to tyson if they were present in the interview, and so he is saying what they would say if they were present.

For all any of us knows, two or three people asked him to ask the question and he's completely accurate and right. As i already stated, i'm interested in that question even if you aren't, so he's completely right in his statement, other people WOULD say that. Me - and probably others. Though you don't address any of that in your reply.

I don't understand what you mean in your first paragraph about the public - i never said that you had interviewed them nor that you should (??). What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement, and an endorsement is for the listeners, the public. So what i am referring to is the viewing public of a TV show on which mike tyson has appeared and offered his personal endorsement to.

In fact, you specifically said that he has a duty of care to his audience to explain his sources, so it seemed to me that your primary concern was the public's full understanding of the interview... is that not the case? I think you may have contradicted yourself here - i asked you what that duty of care was, and that's a hard question to answer without referring to the "public thought". Perhaps that's why you didn't bother addressing it in your reply. I'm doing my best to keep the discussion going, but i don't understand what this paragraph refers to or what it means.

Finally the legal battle that you linked to me. As i already reminded you, we are not his judges and it is not a courtroom, so it is utterly irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, the world is bigger than one country and this is an international website with a plethora of opinions. In exchange i'd like you to read the introductory paragraph about protection of sources which finishes with several particular comments about the united states, and one addressed directly about the US - the land of the free and home of the exiled whistle-blowers. Please remember as you read that this refers to a legal setting, and really has nothing to do with the example in this video about which you incorrectly assert that he has a duty to expose his sources. Which you still have not made clear. However i wanted to make clear that i think protection of sources is imperative to combating corruption which is absolutely rife in this day and age of illegal wars, illegal detention, worldwide spying and tracking of individuals by the NSA and Great Britain's intelligence agencies, expenses scandals, etc.

You haven't answered even half of the questions i posed to you in my first comment, i'm all ears. Or eyes. Whatever.

Leaf Blowers Suck.