I think you need to calm down a bit.

This is NOT about racism. Islam IS a cult. But it gets a free ride from too many of us. I know it feels "wrong" to have a pop like this (and I certainly did once) but once you delve into some of the detail it's not a pretty picture.
Still, if I can go back to the point being made by the video here's a link that is supportive, yes supportive, of science in the Islamic world.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2010/06/the-staggering-potential-of-is.html

There are things in there I don't agree with but it says that alot of new investment is coming from oil-rich states like Saudi who are at last becoming nervous about just sitting around on their oil reserves and see the need to diversify.
Also it says a recent UNESCO report says that 13 Islamic countries produced a higher percentage of women science graduates than the U.S. I'm sure that's not the full story but there's a link to the report if you want to check that one out.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^Yogi:
Look this is just racism plain and simple...

Islam is not a race any more than scientology is. Are you also saying "Anonymous" are racially prejudiced against mostly white celebrities with more money than sense? Or maybe you should wait until scientology has a good grip on several nations as the dominant religion before playing the racist card. Its amazing how conveniently cults can change shape to escape criticism.
"It's not a cult, it's a religion"
"It's not a religion, it's a culture"
"It's not a culture, it's a race"

"Its amazing how coveniently cults can change shape to escape criticism"
Dude...seriously?! You say shit like that and it's Not about racism. You just called one of the largest most established religions on the planet a cult. You hate these people...and you're finding and posting things to justify that hatred and bias. Don't argue with me...it's right fucking there. No Shut The Fuck Up! You've been proven to be a bigoted moron better than anyone could ever. Fucking pathetic.

This video, and a few movies such as Spider (which we were shown during our psychiatry rotation) and Shutter Island depict mental illness fairly accurately.

If you want to delve into the world of the mentally unstable, I would recommend watching those two.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.
And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.
And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.
If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: none; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> NetRunner said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/n/NetRunner-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)
</div></div></div></div>
The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?
My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.
Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.
If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.
It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: both; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Lawdeedaw said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/l/Lawdeedaw-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...
</div></div></div></div>
Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.


This is a long quote.

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.

And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.

And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.

If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.

>> ^NetRunner:

, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)


The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?

My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.

Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.

If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.

It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...


Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.

I've personally heard high-ranking officers make comments about Afghanistan that would land them in the news papers. Do I write a news article blasting them? No, because I know that they were just letting off steam and they expected those around them to sympathize with them but not take it as a serious comment on the state of the war.

I see three options available for a reporter in this situation; ignore the comments and write the glowing reviews Cenk is talking about, ignore the comments and write a balanced article like Lara is talking about, or shit all over people who trusted you and write what they said in confidence just so you can write a controversial, military-blasting article.

I think people should stay somewhere in the middle.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

When the purpose of your story is to delve into the personalities, thoughts & attitudes of Military "Top Brass..
How is withholding relevant statements because they might be damaging NOT protecting the military?
Good faith & not snitching is more important to you than truth and actuality?
You would rather read a sugar-coated article about how old men with glorified scout badges are "working so hard to end this war"?
About how they need just a few thousand more troops [human ammo] from other countries?

>> ^Skeeve:

Cenk seems to think that using one's discretion when it comes to printing private statements is somehow protecting the big bad thing called the military.

When the purpose of your story is to delve into the personalities, thoughts & attitudes of Military "Top Brass..

How is withholding relevant statements because they might be damaging NOT protecting the military?

Good faith & not snitching is more important to you than truth and actuality?

You would rather read a sugar-coated article about how old men with glorified scout badges are "working so hard to end this war"?

About how they need just a few thousand more troops [human ammo] from other countries?


>> ^Skeeve:


Cenk seems to think that using one's discretion when it comes to printing private statements is somehow protecting the big bad thing called the military.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^enoch:

this is not only intellectually dishonest but intellectually lazy.
i am rambling here so i will end this on this note:
disagree with jung all you wish but respect the fact that this man pushed the envelope.asked the questions that have no solid or easy answers and attempted to define consciousness.
where is YOUR contribution to this?
where are YOUR questions?
and would you have the courage to put your ideas out into the public arena?
or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?

It's really difficult for me to grasp the fact that anyone still argues such moot subjects, like it's somehow the truth of reality.. possibly.. maybe.
Lemme give an example.
You spend your entire life searching for noah's ark. As a result, one day you uncover the ruins of a previously unknown civilization.
Great, your research has embiggened world culture & history. Nevertheless it's still based in a dumb premise.
It's dumb because of our understanding that floods leave evidence.
No evidence of a global flood = no ark = issue resolved.
No need to .. ahem.. "push the envelope" any further on that one. =]
Jung may have contributed to the understanding of consciousness thru his search for the divine. But it's still stupid to say he was "edgy" for investigating questions for which we already have the answers.
I.E.
Q. Is there divine life after death?
A. No, your mind & personality is dependent on your physical brain.
Understanding all of that.
Rationalize to me how it's intellectually dishonest or lazy to avoid asking questions about a subject that is of little or no practical value or meaning?
Sayin' shit like "would you have the courage.. or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?" just makes you sound like a nutter/zealot..
[Are you willing to live in the relative safety of your certitude that flying hot pink unicorns DON"T exist.. you lazy mainstream conformist, you. ire ]
..and forces you out of the discussion.
Cause in all practical circumstances we can assert:
Gravity exists. Divine consciousness after physical death does not.

Does that clear up some people's general dismissal of jung's theories here?


genji,
your first sentence says it all.
there is no need to delve further.
the only thing you have managed to convey is your ability to think in two dimensions.
*isdupe=http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Jung-Speaks-About-Death

Thanks for this very long response! I think this was my favorite line: Take away everything someone has to live for, and he'll find a cause to die for.

I will remember that line, because I think you are absolutely right.



Thanks.

In reply to this comment by kagenin:
>> ^Avokineok:
I live in The Netherlands. Everytime I'm on Videosift, I get a sense of how bad it must be to be an American.
I see some great entertaiment with all the late night shows, but I feel bad for all of you who have to live in a country that has so many people taking everything said at Fox "News" ("Gossip" might be more appropriate) so seriously..
It seriously makes me said and makes me believe Amerika is not the land of opportunities; it's a land where people with a lot of money tell other people what think.


Who do you think were those first pilgrims from Europe were? Puritans - People who wanted nothing more than to lecture others on the poor choices they made. (If you've ever been to a good Renaissance Faire, they're the street actors wearing almost all black, and almost always carrying their bibles with them. Hang around one long enough and you'll want to tell them to go take a long walk off a short pier too, if they're in good character. That's basically how they made everyone else living at the time feel. Look at modern day puritanicals such as Pat Robertson.) The ones who colonized America had enough money to sail half-way around the world, which isn't terribly cheap.

Paying for the sins of our forefathers is something every culture does. Just look at television and video games. Here in the States, you can put some pretty violent imagery on TV and maybe even some drug use in your video games, but holy hell if you show a nipple, or touch on ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Releasing a game in the three major English speaking markets (US, UK, and AU) means subjecting your content to three different review boards, with differing notions about what is good and decent for the consumers of their country. Sex, violence, drug use - the disparity between opinions on what is acceptable for only adults to see, even among countries with common language, can mean what get's a Teen rating by the US's ESRB can get an "Adult Only" in the UK, and even be banned outright unless edited for an Australian market.

Despite all this, I remain hopeful because of the fact that those like ol' Noun-Verb-9/11 Rudy are in the minority. The fact that he's so focused on using terms like "Islamic terrorist," or "islamist" displays a blunt ignorance, and could be interpreted as flat out racism. Let's remember that he put the NYC Emergency Command Center, setup after a failed World Trade Center fertilizer bombing in the 90's, was picked by Rudy to be put in the World Trade Center, a place that had recently been the target of a terrorist attack (by attackers who were brought to justice within the same judicial system that handles our parking tickets - we didn't need the post-9/11 military tribunals then, and we don't really need them now, despite certain anti-American Right-Wingers who lack requisite faith in the system they serve). It's like he refuses to learn from history or something, and unfortunately it's not an uncommon condition among modern conservative talking heads here in the states.

The fact that our president didn't use words like "islamist" or "islamic terrorist" or any permutation thereof is because he understands that the greater threat to our nation is a foreign policy that takes away everything from poor young brown-skinned people living in the cradle of civilization and gives them nowhere to turn to but bombed out countries, crumbling infrastructure, and eager suicide bomber recruiters. Take away everything someone has to live for, and he'll find a cause to die for. Dealing with the symptoms is one thing. End the root cause, and then you have the potential for peace.

Take the issue with rampant piracy around the waters of Somalia. Sure, everyone's talking about the latest tanker to be overtaken, but how many stories have delved into the root cause? The polluted waters that have killed off all the fish in the region? The fish who fed the people on the land? The fish that drove the local economy? All dead. The Indonesian Tsunami caused a tidal wave of wretched filth to wash up ashore, tainting the land and water supplies, causing pestilential illnesses. If you're a poor Somali 20-something with your family boat, and you can't make an honest living with it, what are you going to do? Grab some weapons, recruit a crew of close friends in the same situation you're in, and take your chances on the shipping lanes within striking distance... yeah, that would seem like something someone EXTREMELY desperate would do. It's happening right now. The Somali Government can't do jack, they can barely govern an area the size of my rural hometown. Sure we can bust out the snipers when someone important gets kidnapped, and we can applaud the heroes who put their lives on the life to ensure the safety of others. But that won't stop the next motley crew of fishermen with nowhere else to turn but terrorizing the high seas.

I've only spent about 4 days total in the Netherlands. What I saw was beautiful. Amsterdam was breathtaking, both figuratively and literally - man, those canals can really wreak in the summer . I hope to visit again soon. Didn't get to check out much of the television, but what brief moments I was allowed rest in front of a TV on that trip was pretty cool. A lot of stuff just wouldn't get past the FCC here without some serious fines being levied for sexual content, and that's a damn shame...

But, like I said, I'm still hopeful. Wow, that was long If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

>> ^Avokineok:
I live in The Netherlands. Everytime I'm on Videosift, I get a sense of how bad it must be to be an American.
I see some great entertaiment with all the late night shows, but I feel bad for all of you who have to live in a country that has so many people taking everything said at Fox "News" ("Gossip" might be more appropriate) so seriously..
It seriously makes me said and makes me believe Amerika is not the land of opportunities; it's a land where people with a lot of money tell other people what think.


Who do you think were those first pilgrims from Europe were? Puritans - People who wanted nothing more than to lecture others on the poor choices they made. (If you've ever been to a good Renaissance Faire, they're the street actors wearing almost all black, and almost always carrying their bibles with them. Hang around one long enough and you'll want to tell them to go take a long walk off a short pier too, if they're in good character. That's basically how they made everyone else living at the time feel. Look at modern day puritanicals such as Pat Robertson.) The ones who colonized America had enough money to sail half-way around the world, which isn't terribly cheap.

Paying for the sins of our forefathers is something every culture does. Just look at television and video games. Here in the States, you can put some pretty violent imagery on TV and maybe even some drug use in your video games, but holy hell if you show a nipple, or touch on ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Releasing a game in the three major English speaking markets (US, UK, and AU) means subjecting your content to three different review boards, with differing notions about what is good and decent for the consumers of their country. Sex, violence, drug use - the disparity between opinions on what is acceptable for only adults to see, even among countries with common language, can mean what get's a Teen rating by the US's ESRB can get an "Adult Only" in the UK, and even be banned outright unless edited for an Australian market.

Despite all this, I remain hopeful because of the fact that those like ol' Noun-Verb-9/11 Rudy are in the minority. The fact that he's so focused on using terms like "Islamic terrorist," or "islamist" displays a blunt ignorance, and could be interpreted as flat out racism. Let's remember that he put the NYC Emergency Command Center, setup after a failed World Trade Center fertilizer bombing in the 90's, was picked by Rudy to be put in the World Trade Center, a place that had recently been the target of a terrorist attack (by attackers who were brought to justice within the same judicial system that handles our parking tickets - we didn't need the post-9/11 military tribunals then, and we don't really need them now, despite certain anti-American Right-Wingers who lack requisite faith in the system they serve). It's like he refuses to learn from history or something, and unfortunately it's not an uncommon condition among modern conservative talking heads here in the states.

The fact that our president didn't use words like "islamist" or "islamic terrorist" or any permutation thereof is because he understands that the greater threat to our nation is a foreign policy that takes away everything from poor young brown-skinned people living in the cradle of civilization and gives them nowhere to turn to but bombed out countries, crumbling infrastructure, and eager suicide bomber recruiters. Take away everything someone has to live for, and he'll find a cause to die for. Dealing with the symptoms is one thing. End the root cause, and then you have the potential for peace.

Take the issue with rampant piracy around the waters of Somalia. Sure, everyone's talking about the latest tanker to be overtaken, but how many stories have delved into the root cause? The polluted waters that have killed off all the fish in the region? The fish who fed the people on the land? The fish that drove the local economy? All dead. The Indonesian Tsunami caused a tidal wave of wretched filth to wash up ashore, tainting the land and water supplies, causing pestilential illnesses. If you're a poor Somali 20-something with your family boat, and you can't make an honest living with it, what are you going to do? Grab some weapons, recruit a crew of close friends in the same situation you're in, and take your chances on the shipping lanes within striking distance... yeah, that would seem like something someone EXTREMELY desperate would do. It's happening right now. The Somali Government can't do jack, they can barely govern an area the size of my rural hometown. Sure we can bust out the snipers when someone important gets kidnapped, and we can applaud the heroes who put their lives on the life to ensure the safety of others. But that won't stop the next motley crew of fishermen with nowhere else to turn but terrorizing the high seas.

I've only spent about 4 days total in the Netherlands. What I saw was beautiful. Amsterdam was breathtaking, both figuratively and literally - man, those canals can really wreak in the summer . I hope to visit again soon. Didn't get to check out much of the television, but what brief moments I was allowed rest in front of a TV on that trip was pretty cool. A lot of stuff just wouldn't get past the FCC here without some serious fines being levied for sexual content, and that's a damn shame...

But, like I said, I'm still hopeful. Wow, that was long If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

Ever since I dropped below 30 per video, I've not wanted to delve deeper into that.

But yeah, it could be cool to be able to order the member profiles after votes per video.

"This is america's middle class; we've hacked at it, chipped at it and pulled on it for 30 years now."

Is that true? Normally this meme is based on a comparison between the average compensation rates between today and 1973. The appearance of stagnation is generated by at least 3 points that should make evidence-based thinkers uncomfortable.

1. The calculation uses sleight-of-hand to switch to 'wages' instead of 'compensation,' because the latter includes the entire picture, such as substantially increased compensation in the form of healthcare coverage.

2. The calculation is skewed downward by including not just the existing middle class that we're trying to expand, but also including the continual bulking up of the lower class through importing low-wage workers from other countries. That's great if we want to give low-wage workers from abroad opportunities, but it would be poor data policy (i.e. we decrease our intelligence ) if we count those statistics in the column of middle class families falling behind ("being chipped at," as Ms. Warren put it).

3. The calculation is based on the consumer price index (e.g. groceries), and values technology available now that wasn't available in 1973 (i.e. it was unobtainable even at a pricepoint of millions or billions of $) as an improvement of 0. For example, you want your diseases treated with modern cures instead of 1973 medicine? That's worth $0.00 to you. You want access to the sum total of human knowledge from your living room or on your iPhone walking down the street? That's worth $0.00 to you. Apparently, access to your iPhone is worth less to you than a napkin.

It'd be interesting to see figures like Ms. Warren delve into these kinds of fascinating intellectual topics, but her job is to say whatever she wants, using whatever data policy she wants to, as long as it's in agreement with the cognitive temperament of the audience.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
torturing innocent people to death, illegally wiretapping our communications, invading sovereign nations who posed zero threat to anyone, pillaging our treasury, running a pseudo dictatorship and delving into the absolute worst of politics -- so people, even news hosts, had every right to be incredibly @#$$ed off.
Everything you listed is an "Olbermann" level diatribic exaggeration driven by a leftist bias.

You really have no idea how biased you yourself are. I think you self reinforce your own bias by the feeling that your life is on the right track, and therefore your views and opinions are absolute and correct. You're smart enough to realize the republican party flubs up majorly, but you are obviously OBVIOUSLY biased towards the other side of the isle. There's no real in between for you. You ultimately side with the republican party's views, and you foolishly believe there's a responsible way of pulling them off.

The answer is to go with the best ideas from both parties and make that work. That I believe is how the system was meant to be set up. But now everything is polarized like a nation watching the last two football teams in existence battle it out, each of us rooting for the one team we side with.

There are no good ideas from the other party for you, you will ultimately side with pretty much every ideal the Republican's throw out, and expect every one else to live under those rules. Left, liberal, radical has become a way for you to easily dismiss ideas you're not willing to be open to... never mind the world is made up of individuals. There is good and bad in everything.

If you want to live your life pro-choice, pro-religion, pro-conservative, pro-flying spaghetti monster.. that's your right... but stop shouting in the way of the progress that needs to happen for us to move forward, taking the best of what either party has to offer and forging ahead. Republicans are disliked because it's obvious to many that they're more about winning then helping these days. I'm not saying that makes Democrats "good", but they at least seem to be looking ahead.

We need better health care. At least in the hands of the government it can be held somewhat accountable. In the hands of corporations we're at their whims. The free market will create a profit driven, competitive environment. And no, we will not have much sway in how that environment forms.. after all.. we HAVE to go to THEM.. it's not a luxury item. It's something we all need.

And btw, why are you here? Sift a video or two, geeze.

torturing innocent people to death, illegally wiretapping our communications, invading sovereign nations who posed zero threat to anyone, pillaging our treasury, running a pseudo dictatorship and delving into the absolute worst of politics -- so people, even news hosts, had every right to be incredibly @#$$ed off.

Everything you listed is an "Olbermann" level diatribic exaggeration driven by a leftist bias. I see very little difference is that kind of frothing, insanity driven dribble and Olbermann's Brown meltdown (or "Browndown"). Six of one.

But - to be perfectly honest - I don't really mind it when people gripe at politicians - no matter what side of the aisle they are on. My beef with Olbermann is not his ranting. My beef is the unequal, biased, closed-minded application of it. If he was 50% harping on liberals and 50% harping on conservatives then I'd be cool with it.

While Olbermann has been doing this schtick for a long time, at first it was because the US was doing some incredibly fucked-up shit.. like, you know, all that torturing innocent people to death, illegally wiretapping our communications, invading sovereign nations who posed zero threat to anyone, pillaging our treasury, running a pseudo dictatorship and delving into the absolute worst of politics -- so people, even news hosts, had every fucking right to be incredibly pissed off.

Yes, Olberman's "special comment" segment has been an utter trainwreck for a long time and should have retired it long ago. Yes, what once was reserved for the absolute most inhuman acts of our government is now used for petty personality pissing contsts.

Yet I think what WP willfully ignores is that there's a neverending valley of difference between the above, and just some GOP homunculus jackass winning one lousy senate seat.

But you gotta admit, the Limbaugh dig was pretty hilarious.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by arvana:
Good call!

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
I think when you're dealing with the "what if", you're delving in to the area of *scifi.