I find the argument that a good apple shouldn't even be in the policing business (i.e. guilt by association) problematic. My argument would be: If I'm a good apple, I'd be all for reforming and fumigating out all the bad apples! Bad apples don't deserve to tarnish my good reputation nor my silence (i.e. as good as complicity), ESPECIALLY since there are -- ahem -- "only 0.01%" of them in the force! Isn't that the logical and moral sentiment?

My concern about focusing the debate on the ratio of "Good apples vs. bad apples" is that it's fraught with pitfalls. Without "big data" (because the System won't ever allows such transparency), that "ratio" is subjective. It's just an excuse for politicians and legislators to wiggle out doing anything.

The argument should be that a fair, just and functioning society should punish each and every bad apples to protect the good apples and its citizens. We shouldn't tolerate any bad apples, no matter the "ratio"... police depts & judges SHOULD be exemplary in their knowledge and adherent to the law, NOT the other way around. How else should a people trust its government?

Besides, if what they say is true -- that the "bad apples are few and far between" -- there shouldn't be much consequence to prosecute them all right? It must be worth reforming to salvage the far-to-damaged reputation right? It would be a moral booster for BOTH the police & community IMO.

Yowza! That wasn't MY experience landing in Auckland from Australia during Little Feat's April 2001 tour. They pulled out ALL the stops from dogs to a selected body search [one of the techs was detained because his glasses case smelled of marijuana!] The St. James Theater and the people we met there were delightful however and the country is absolutely stunning. I'd go back in a heartbeat [after fumigating my clothes and belongings of course] =o)

I'm fairly certain that attempting to kill the adult mosquitos (short of major DDT fumigating, which is frowned upon except in extreme situations) isn't considered very effective. It's the larvae you need to get, mostly by cleaning urban areas of old tires and other places where water collects unnecessarily.

*length=07 Yikes! .... better sleep with the light on [or fumigate the closet]

Kill it with fire! (at least in Australia)

Myna's are responsible for serious displacement and disruption of local species. They're fucking air rats, and shit machines to boot. You can have years of native birds rarely even wandering on to your balconey or outdoor settings, but as soon as myna's show up, everything is covered in shit in a day or so...

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bird-plague-no-myna-matter-20120922-26dvl.html

If you catch them (adults or chicks), it takes no effort to snap their necks quickly and cleanly. And if you do handle them, you may want to wear gloves and/or fumigate yourself with bug spray afterwards because they're absolutely lousy with lice.

The more likely and logical explanation is far simpler than Cunk's conspiracy theories. The answer is OWS was a leaderless, messageless, impotent movement that collapsed under a mixture of its own incompetence and the ridiculous (and often highly offensive) behavior of its denizens.

The Tea Party - by comparison - was and remains a group that pushes government to reduce its power, scope, influence, and budget. In 2010 they had a significant impact on the mid-term elections, and they may still have a big influence on 2012 (time will tell). And they did it without pooping on cars, raping people, killing themselves with drugs, or having to have cops fumigate them out of parks.

Lesson to OWS - if you want to accomplish something meaningful then act more like the Tea Party.

A double agent sets up an elaborate sting operation on a terrorist that ends up being another double agent who is in the process of carrying out his own elaborate sting operation? Text book example of irony.

Just like a finding black fly in your glass of chardonnay at a party celebrating the successful fumigation of your vineyard. Or like rain on the wedding day of two meteorologists. Or like meeting the man of your dreams and then meeting his beautiful wife, who turns out to be the relationship advice columnist that encouraged you to get out of the house and meet the man of your dreams. Or like a no smoking sign on a cigarette break in the executive lounge of Philip Morris.

*LMFAHS *QUALITY *LMFAHS

"
- An old man turned 98. He won the lottery and died the next day of a shock-induced heart attack.
- It's a black fly in your Chardonnay going to celebrate your apartment fumigation.
- It's a death row pardon 2 minutes too late because the Governor was busy watching Dead Man Walking.
- It's like rain at a dehydration victim's funeral.
- It's a free ride to your bankruptcy trial.
- It's good advice to never listen to me.
- ...as his plane crashed down he thought "Now I'll never make it to that Fear of Flying seminar."
- It's like rain flooding an umbrella factory.
- It's a free ride to an over-priced car dealership.
- It's the good advice from the guy who just got you fired.
- Traffic jam when you're already late to receive an award for reducing automobile congestion.
- A "No Smoking" sign on your cigarette break at the RJ Reynolds tobacco company.
- It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife from a soup kitchen.
- It's like meeting the man of my dreams and then meeting his beautiful wife who's also my relationship therapist.
- It's like rain on your wedding day to the Egyptian sun god Ra.
- It's a free ride when you've already paid for a stolen car.
- It's good advice someone advised you not to take.
- I have a funny way of defining rhetorical devices that I use in songs.
- I have a funny way of getting things wrong.
"

ok then...voted nein = thanks...fumigate the place, eh?

Oh man, I'd have to hate somebody a lot to wish bedbugs on 'em. Google it -- if they get into your house you'll have the devil's own time trying to get rid of them. Fumigation doesn't work because they burrow deep enough into the walls that it won't kill them all; cleanliness doesn't matter; they will travel 20 feet from their nest in a night to get to you and then hike back. If they hitchhike into your place they are almost impossible to get rid of. Apparently there's lots of 5-star hotels that have them.

What can you do to protect yourself? Check under mattresses in hotels / hostels for their droppings as soon as you arrive in the room; make damn sure they haven't come home with you in your luggage. Once again, google it -- forewarned is forearmed.

Perhaps *fumigate would be a better invocation for purging deadpool rubbish than *destroy, MG. heh. I'd dig that. Reserve *destroy for self-destruction to the nethers rather than to the discard pile. or maybe *suicide for self-destruction of a video?!?

not only that, but they make no mention (do not factor in) of NOT being able to control the "dose" of fluoride that people get.

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-sources.htm


http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf

also, the ADA recommends that babies do not get any fluoride. How is one suppossed to do that if bottle feeding (formula) ? buy an expensiv reverse osmosis machine, or bottled water. Bigger problem yet, not many people know about this, so they cannot follow the guidelines for something they don't know about.


http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/infant-fluoride-warning.pdf




In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
I just read a part of qruel's submitted free online book, at The National Academies Press site, on fluoride by the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
I just browsed through the summary and it contains many conclusions of health problems at levels between 2 and 4mg per liter. Standard addition to water is 1mg per liter. This is very close to a toxic level which should typically lie a 100 times above normal exposure.

Hey Gorgonheap

at the request of Constitutional Patriot could you post your response back intot he thread for people

thanks

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Actually my father is a agricultural scientist. One who has been in the industry for over 20 years now. He has a PhD in Phytopathology. Every one of his jobs has required him to test the effects of herbicides and pesticides on plats, animals, ground soil, and water systems.

In his years of research he has found that the only reason ecosystems become contaminated is because of improper use on the part of the farmer. Some have a philosophy of "if a little is good then a lot must be better". However when chemicals are properly used they are 100% biodegradable with no harmful effects on ecosystems.

I don't know about fertilizer that much. But having worked on farms for most all of my adolescent years I can see how they can be harmful. Coinciding all the protective gear I had to wear before fertilizing a field.

I appreciate your research and open mind about all of this. I need to do some more myself.

In reply to this comment by qruel:
Hey gorgonheap.

Thank you for posting about the use of hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6). Do you realize that these are byproducts of the fertilizer industry and are classified as toxic and can contain lead ?

read this... it it insightful and disturbing

http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

______________________________________

I think your views represent what "most" people think about fluoride. But I would urge you to take a little deeper look as the claim that it "helps" the body are decieving.

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.

____________________________________________


you also talk about dosage, which is a very important aspect. id you mean to say that "It can have negative effects but the dosage and use of it can turn it from a helpful substance to a harmful one." you wrote the opposite in your post.

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf
_____________________________________________


you mentioned "Some studies suggest that fluoridation is associated with a median decline in the number of children with cavities of 12.5%, and a median decline of 2.25 teeth with cavities."

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).

for those who have seen my previous posts on the subject of you fluoride, you might know that this is a subject of great interest to me. So for the new eyes that may view this video and the comments, I will be re-posting some information into this tread that bears repeating

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf

also, the ADA recommends that babies do not get any fluoride.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/infant-fluoride-warning.pdf

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2005
Water Fluoridation:
a Review of Recent Research and Actions


Artificial fluoridation of drinking water by municipalities at 1 ppm of fluoride ion probably does not reduce tooth decay, except for a minor effect on deciduous teeth. Hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt, which contain other toxic substances because they are not purified, certainly have no significant benefit.

Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data.

There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also occur, including neurologic damage.

Antifluoridationists compromise their credibility by unwarranted assertions that many stable fluorine-containing materials are harmful.

The EPA should set the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level at 0.4 ppm fluoride in drinking water.

The FDA should reverse its position on permitting sale of products containing fluoride that claim dental benefit without proof of safety or effectiveness.

Fluoridation of municipal water should cease.

Defluoridation of naturally fluoridated water down to 0.4 ppm of fluoride should
be mandated. Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap water if fluoridation cannot be stopped.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons_2005_Water_Fluoridation_review.pdf

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf

also, the ADA recommends that babies do not get any fluoride.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/infant-fluoride-warning.pdf

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2005
Water Fluoridation:
a Review of Recent Research and Actions


Artificial fluoridation of drinking water by municipalities at 1 ppm of fluoride ion probably does not reduce tooth decay, except for a minor effect on deciduous teeth. Hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt, which contain other toxic substances because they are not purified, certainly have no significant benefit.

Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data.

There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also occur, including neurologic damage.

Antifluoridationists compromise their credibility by unwarranted assertions that many stable fluorine-containing materials are harmful.

The EPA should set the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level at 0.4 ppm fluoride in drinking water.

The FDA should reverse its position on permitting sale of products containing fluoride that claim dental benefit without proof of safety or effectiveness.

Fluoridation of municipal water should cease.

Defluoridation of naturally fluoridated water down to 0.4 ppm of fluoride should
be mandated. Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap water if fluoridation cannot be stopped.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons_2005_Water_Fluoridation_review.pdf