When the average cop lightens up on the public, I will lighten up on them...but not before.
I grew up having total respect for police, their repeated actions have caused me to reconsider that.
I do not respect liars or bullies, and I've never once met a cop that wasn't one or the other if not both.
If I leave my civil service job once a week or more to play around with my kids, using departmental equipment and authority, while complaining I need more assistance and overtime to complete my duties, I should be fired for dereliction, imo.
Cops have squandered their benefit of a doubt and public good will, they have to earn it back, not just demand it. It's the pessimism of reality that jaded me, personal experiences, not just internet reports of bad behavior.

What conservative policies?
When I grew up, those were fiscally responsible (not adding a trillion to the debt in one bill), pro environment (starting the epa, not trying to kill it), pro science (not claiming all science is only political conspiracy) based policies. No longer.
What does the word "conservative" even mean today? Whatever Trump says it means today, even when that contradicts what he said yesterday?

It's clear that conservative values are long ago out the window.

Luke Skywalker seems to be a genuinely amazing human with a great sense of humour. He grew up to be a fine man. *promote

The data of the study came out of Germany, where the effects of a change in temperature are much more moderate than in many other areas. Basically, this decline is attributed mostly due to farming, the saturation of everything with pesticides, and, generally speaking, the destruction of the ecosphere. Even worse, this is in a country with comparably extensive regulation on all these matters, unlike, say, India.

As you say, this really is no bueno.

Driving past fields of rapeseed in the late '90s meant a windshield full of bugs. We used to head into the fields wearing yellow shirts just to see who can get the densest armor of bugs. Now, I can walk past the very same fields outside the town I grew up in with less than 5 bugs on a yellow shirt.

Or how about another anecdote: when I grew up, barbecue in my (grand-)parents yard meant paying attention to all the wasps, so that you don't swallow one by accident. I haven't seen a single one over several barbecues this year. Bees and bumblebees are still around, though less plentiful, but wasps are a complete no-show. Haven't seen a hornet in two years.

@jwray

*facepalm*

You realize the link you just posted is titled "IQ dominates socioeconomic background data for white men" (my emphasis).

Sure, there is a correlation between IQ and crime and it is hotly contested to what that actually means.

To some, that means only dumb criminals actually get caught (meaning we don't know the true average IQ of criminals because the smart ones get away with it).

To others, it reflects the socioeconomic status of the people most likely to commit crimes (i.e. likely grew up poor in a neighborhood without strong educational opportunities and therefore does not share the cultural values that IQ tests inherently load into the questions and furthermore the test-taker may be openly hostile to standardized test-taking).

To still others it reflects the RESULTS of crime (i.e. leading a criminal lifestyle makes it more likely that you are going to suffer traumatic physical injuries to the head that literally make you dumber).

The 7-8 point difference you quoted is not nearly enough to make a difference on the crime rates. 100 IQ is the normally distributed mean and Japanese people on average, score around 106. For reference, a standard deviation on the IQ test is 15 points, meaning that for all intents and purposes Japanese people are still roughly in the same ballpark as Americans with their 98-point average.

And literally the first Google search result when I looked up Japanese IQ scores was this one, explaining how national average IQ scores correlate with the per capita income and national rates of economic development.

In other words, economic factors correlate with IQ, which correlates with negatively with crime, which seems to further reinforce the idea that socioeconomic forces are a key factor in criminal behavior.

Look, we're getting really far afield of what the video is about. I think it is a no-brainer that few gun crimes are committed in Japan because guns are so heavily regulated. We do have stabbings, in fact we have mass stabbings (which is something you don't see so often in the U.S.). The thing we both agree on is that it is impossible for the U.S. to replicate these crime statistic results, whether that be for cultural reasons or whatever other cause you want to throw out there.

The USA doesn't really have a middle ground for patriotism (except for the super rich, I mean THE one percenters).

You either grew up or learned to be fairly anti-patriotic, or vice versa super-patriotic.

This dichotomy has divided us since almost the beginning of the nation. I don't see it ever being solved as long as we remain one.

That said, there are smart people and idiots on both sides. I consider myself to be very patriotic to the nation itself, but I realize that there are plenty of things we must improve at. Sadly, there is always going to be the contingent that either thinks we can never improve or that thinks there is no need for it. Trying to explain logic to either of them is nigh futile.

As far as the NFL, I suspect the next move Trump will make is to push for the removal of their anti-trust exemption.

Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.


As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.



As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

I grew up on Tom Baker. I have loved and hated some Doctors as they came and went.

What I've learned: give anyone a chance. They might surprise you, and often do. But if they don't, let it go - it's not the end of the show. Matt Smith I thought would be awful (Too young! No skills!) and I was completely and utterly wrong, and happy to be wrong. Life gives you easy lessons sometimes.

heh heh, this guy's having a laugh...

how could it be unexpected?? the sets come in at pretty well-timed intervals, the backwash for such a wave would be pulling backwards (hard) on his waist and thighs, and he'd have heard it

i grew up about a five-minute drive from sandy beach on oahu, and had my dad throwing me into the shorebreak from about the age of seven...laughing his ass off, while i'd stagger out of the surf half-drowned and with my sand-filled trunks around my ankles

here are some cool photos of the place by an old college buddy of mine:

http://www.beachboyphotography.com/Surf/My-Smug-Mug/i-gHjVj6T

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

I have to say, I grew up in a forest where seeing raccoon and possum families was a near daily occurrence, often inside the house, and I did see the kits out playing during the daytime alone sometimes. Had we assumed the parental units were flat meat, we would have split up a half dozen or more families to "rescue" critters that were just fine. I feel like that happens a lot, to the critter's detriment. You know what they say about good intentions, right?
Now, if he looked on the road and there was a large female freshly killed nearby, my opinion might change, but best bet if you don't KNOW they're in need of help is to just leave them alone and assume they'll find mom soon, imo.

You have got to be kidding me! That's some old bullshit, turning public roads into toll roads. How do you get to own one, because it sounds like a sweet plum.

I grew up in Houston, and that traffic was insane in the early 80's and only got worse. More than once I rode my bike completely across town, +-15 miles, faster than my mom could drive.
I love where I live. Rush hour means slowing down to near the speed limit...we simply don't have traffic except at accidents and road work. It's bliss.

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

I've seen Guinness in plenty of other movies (Bridge on the River Kwai is prob his best IMO), but I grew up watching Star Wars as a kid and whenever I hear him speak, I hear Kenobi.