http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

Wasn't worried, nor did I take it personally .... it is just my nature to say -- hey, I didn't say that, you misunderstood. Just like to keep the record straight, is all.

I'll eventually learn to just let misunderstandings be, it seems to provoke more confusion than trying to straighten things out.

PSAs. There is a whole 'nother topic....

Kisses!



In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
hey lady,
i didn't take your comment personally if that's what you were worried about.

i always feel like most of the PSA campaigns i see are going about it all wrong.
for instance, i would like to see an anti-drug PSA that's more about human rights and the gross exploitation of the third world thats inherent in the production of hard drugs. I did a ton of drugs as a very young kid, and knowing the kind of kid i was, i would never ever have shoved coke up my nose if i knew how it was made, who made it, how it gets here and how many people died over it on its way to my blood stream. i think that kind of thing would be even more relevant now that the cartel war in mexico is all over the news. the typical 1990 "drugs are bad, mkay?" commercials that were on when i was kid seem completely impotent.

sure, maybe PSA's don't hurt. but i think a very serious cost/benefit analysis should be made.... is this making enough bang for the buck?? is there another, more productive, method of outreach we could use these funds for?? maybe keep the PSA because it undoubtedly gets the message out to the greatest amount of people, but maybe the PSA could be about signs of poorly managed stress and the importance of coping skills and where to get the tools to deal with out of control feelings. or some shit. i don't know. just my 2 cents.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Um, my comment was about the 30% who grow up to be abusers. It wasn't directed to the 70% who didn't.

And you're right, there are other things to do.

The PSA is just a tactic. One tactic.

It certainly doesn't hurt, and it might help.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.

Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.

Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.

Puny meatbag ant cannot label me a spammer because I am omnipotent - eviscerating spammer request by impotent ant

Is there life after death? Yes.

Impotent men continue to breathe, etc.

So it'd just reinforce my impotent rage.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The film puts a human face on the suffering and illustrates some of the newer and more insidious oil industry tactics. It's also a well made film.

In reply to this comment by direpickle:
If I'm already convinced and aware that the gas/oil industries are evil and are killing us all, is watching this going to benefit me?

Why is it extreme fiction to think that powerful, ambitious men would take advantage of a power vacuum? Free market intervention via the IMF has horror stories far, far worse than this. Real stories, not fiction. Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Bolivia. Powerful people take advantage of the power vacuum in our country too. Deregulation of derivatives caused the current financial crisis. Deregulating the banks caused the mortgage fraud crisis. Deregulating energy caused the Enron crisis. Business has co-opted our relatively powerful government and led us into war and debt. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and the power of wealthy ambitious men would be unbound. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and what you consider to be oppression would be dwarfed.

When states fail, gangs and warlords always immediately rise up to take advantage of the system.

When I say anarchists and conservative libertarians are naive, I'm not trying to be mean. I think they are blind to the historical constant that powerful, ambitious men will always try and game political systems, and that anarchism, by design, would be completely impotent at stopping them. It is no small coincidence that these powerful, ambitious men support many of the institutions and think tanks that inform your politics. The same people that fund Cato and the Reason Institute also fund PNAC and Freedomworks. Does it not disturb you that Neo-Cons fund your institutions? Does it not disturb you that conservative libertarian heroes like Milton Friedman have backed violence and violent dictators in South America to further their cause? To further your cause?

Anyway, this is why I find conservative libertarianism and anarchism so objectionable. I don't think anarchism could ever happen, because of the paradox that in order to achieve and maintain an anti-state, you would need the power of a state. The reason I oppose a movement that could never get off the ground is that its principles (low taxes, deregulation) are being used as justification for the very tyranny it seeks to abolish.

(PS: check out the documentary: GASLAND. My fiction was based on real events.)

Before labor was regulated in this country, self governing business men enslaved other self governed men. How is this an improvement?

As banking regulations were removed over the past few decades, self governing bankers defrauded millions of Americans. How is this an improvement?

Self governance is subject to all of the evils of any other style of government, but is impotent to do anything about it.

>> ^blankfist:

Democracy is dangerous. But selecting an oligarchy from the brightest minds is easily as dangerous. There's no good government system. Not a one.
Self-governance to me seems obvious as the least intrusive.

Yes, you're right.
If you imagine him as impotent, he becomes clownish though. And I like the clown in him.


In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Uhg, I just watched this and am reminded how much I hate O'Reilly. So rude, arrogant, demeaning, and more!

Have to admit, this is pretty clever. Pity they killed Courier, it was far more exciting than either the hilariously impotent Kin, or Phone 7, which really, really doesn't need to crowd the market of mobile OSs any further.

Honestly sometimes Google makes you want to pull your hair out. They do some good work (I depend on Gmail) but the downside is dealing with a business entity who unilaterally defines the nature of the relationship you're getting into. And that means pain and suffering when you realise your level of dependency bound up in that contract.

Sometimes the thought of going back to POP mail and having everything on my computer seems like a good idea. I'm constantly reminded of how egregious they can be by the Scroogle guys. And here I have my new Android phone into the bargain synching my mail and contacts.

All of which is just impotent ranting I suppose. But maybe if you can't resurrect adsense then maybe something better and just as sustainable can be put in place. Mother of invention and all that.

Yep. Hear you 100%. Not only does it take guts to turn someone in, but I would even say that someone has to have cahones to admit to THEMSELVES that someone has wronged them. A great deal of my own therapy has involved attempting to actually believe (truly believe, in my core) that a certain person wronged me (consistently) when I was a child. Hence the (initial) privacy of any context of abuse, which I think is really lost in cases like this one.

But anyway, I do not think I am trying to say that "she only made the tape to expose him publicly for a hollywood public spectacle factor and that stems from, or is evidence of some kind of fame whoreness." Just the last part... I would take issue with that. I don't think she is a whore... or is even acting like a whore. What I am trying to say is that, by deferring to the whorish media as an intermediary, that she might not only be taking the gravity out of Gibson's actions, but is using similar mechanisms of public humiliation and shame to which bullies like Gibson might themselves be quick to defer. YES, such violence needs to be brought into the open, and YES Gibson should be shown as the monster he is, but (again) to expose him in such a way would seem to risk exposing Gibson the character rather than Gibson the genuinely troubled and potentially dangerous man.

>> ^peggedbea:

so, it seems you think she only made the tape to expose him publicly for a hollywood public spectacle factor and that stems from, or is evidence of some kind of fame whoreness? i can see the logic there, and perhaps it is the case.
however, as i said before, the relationship messes with your head. a lot. i never once turned my husband into the cops. not when he hit me. not when he held a knife to my throat. not when i knew he was driving around drunk with a bag of methamphetamine and i knew all i really needed to do was call the cops and he'd get locked up for a while and i could leave peacefully. not when he stole my credit cards and ran up 8k worth of debt. not when he was in a dysphoric manic fit and screaming similar things with a gun to his head. never. i think i thought it would have been some sort of betrayal to the man i married, who i was under the impression was a sweet, shy, sensitive, creative boy who loved me and my daughter but struggled with demons from a life filled with abuse and addiction (which i was hard wired from early childhood to understand and empathize with, because i was raised by the mentally ill and by drug addicts, its just how the world looked from perspective). and maybe i knew how impotent law enforcement was to help, he did after all, belong in a hospital as opposed to a jail cell. because i was close to him and i knew all this torment was mental illness, demons from his past, and the drugs he uses to self medicate because he lives every single day in unimaginable mental anguish and stress and it all comes from bad chemicals. and he could be good. 60% of the time he was at least passably decent.
i did however, tape a few of his fits. i thought i could let him listen to it later when he was calm and more rational and he would see how badly he needed help. i thought it would convince him to take his meds. i bring this up because i now know several other people who have done the same thing. you dont want them locked up, you dont want to press charges on family, because they need psychiatric help. you just want them to see how crazy they are and put down the dick pipe and take their meds. i think this is probably the more likely scenario especially since there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not she was even the one to release them. i'm not sure anyone is equipped to handle these situations well, particularly not the type of person who would be attracted to them in the first place. that's why it's called a "cycle" of abuse. i learned in a class a few years ago that only 30% of adults who were abused as children abuse their own children. i thought that was sort of hopeful and interesting. i would like to know though what percentage of adults who were abused as children end up in abusive relationships. i would bet its also somewhere around the 30% mark.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
I think you're right to react the way you have. But I honestly think that part of my frustration with this video might have been lost in what I do recognize now as a real insensitivity on my part. It is definitely easy to say that you've missed the point, because you haven't, and you have brought my attention to a whole other level of insult allowed by my comments. Plus, you are right to say that it is easy to blame the victim, because it is SOOO easy, and I have done it.
HOWEVER. While I have def. made some serious assumptions about this 'tape', I think you have also. I also feel that you have tacked on a good deal of information onto the position of both Gibson and Grigorieva. First, you don't seem willing to admit that her taping this conversation indicates a very real violation. I'm sure it sounds really 'academic' of me, but I do believe that her recording and releasing it elevates Mel's chauvinism to the level of spectacle even more so than before. You might argue that it NEEDS TO BE HEARD; that this monstrosity needs to be brought into the light. But at the end of the day, isn't there something a bit less dignified... a bit less spectacularly absurd about a court hearing and a restraining order as opposed to an audiotape? Doesn't something like this run the risk of turning his behavior into a 'product' or 'caricature' than say... a nice day in court? Wouldn't something like this run the risk even more so of having his actions digestible as some kind of ironic or absurdly funny gesture, by some asinine, pigheaded, 'middle-class', 'academic', pseudo-intellectual white boy on the internet?
So, while your outrage is rock-solid, it would seem counter-productive for me to insist I was wrong, because I believe that I am fundamentally right. I HAVE blamed a victim... but for now, its an invisible victim (unfortunately), made all the less clear by her acting that role out through the very avenues of power and control utilized by foul-mouthed, violent, and dangerous people like Gibson himself. So for now, Gibson unfortunately remains fascinating. And that is an unfortunate reality I truly believe you need to come to terms with in this context. Until he pays a very real price for his behavior, he will remain that fascinating image of horrific thoughtlessness, and will CONTINUE to represent everything that is wrong with Hollywood (for as much as it gives us). Sadly, with these kinds of videos, he continues to just play ANOTHER ROLE, thanks to the very people who would listen to his voice with very real horror, and feel justified in their disgust while at the same time refusing to see the only REAL evidence of violence ACTUALLY available to them, which in this case is really only its fucking screenplay.
I stick to my upvote, as well as my comment, all the more because of your upsetting and honest response.

>> ^peggedbea:
have you lost your mind?
a logical extension of your rant could be "i have no sympathy for this bitch who claims she was date raped, it just shows what little respect she has for herself for going somewhere with a date rapist and then being whiney enough to go to the cops about it, fuck her"
like it or not there are thousands of women stuck abusive relationships they cant get out of. i can see where the "its your own damn fault for getting into it in the first place" argument would seep into the mind of some assholes who lack perspective and experience. but speaking as someone who has been there and is speaking to you from the other side of it, there is an overwhelming amount of manipulation that goes on in the beginnings of a relationship with an abuser and in the process a very real shift in logical and your ability to think clearly happens. being a child of abuse makes you very susceptible to these kinds of relationships as your brain was wired very young to feel comfortable and tie feelings of abuse to feelings of love. after a prolonged period of time behaviors that are wildly inappropriate just become normal. on top of that you live your day to day life in survival mode, and being in perpetual survival mode robs you of your ability to THINK. and certainly of the confidence to leave. adding a baby on top of it and your brain becomes completely fried and totally warped.
admitting you let someone take this much power, and degrade you senselessly takes an incredible amount of courage. it takes an insane amount of courage and fortitude and balls to go back into the world and KEEP TRYING. how dare you chide her for this.
this shit needs to be exposed. and the stories need to be told. the more people who hear the stories of these women the less ignorant twat assholes will open their dickless middle class white boy academic internet mouths and blame the victim.
fuck you.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Also, I have no sympathy for this woman. By releasing this tape, she is not just showing what kind of a person Gibson is--she is also showing that she has very little respect for herself by dating a person who would say these things to her. Also, I am not even sure how much this kind of thing reveals about the guy. Again, sounds like he is on drugs, or is manic, or both. Plus, from the sound of the audio, I wouldn't be surprised if she re-recorded he responses to Mel, which sound really rehearsed anyway. So... Mel is an ass, but fuck her too.

so, it seems you think she only made the tape to expose him publicly for a hollywood public spectacle factor and that stems from, or is evidence of some kind of fame whoreness? i can see the logic there, and perhaps it is the case.

however, as i said before, the relationship messes with your head. a lot. i never once turned my husband into the cops. not when he hit me. not when he held a knife to my throat. not when i knew he was driving around drunk with a bag of methamphetamine and i knew all i really needed to do was call the cops and he'd get locked up for a while and i could leave peacefully. not when he stole my credit cards and ran up 8k worth of debt. not when he was in a dysphoric manic fit and screaming similar things with a gun to his head. never. i think i thought it would have been some sort of betrayal to the man i married, who i was under the impression was a sweet, shy, sensitive, creative boy who loved me and my daughter but struggled with demons from a life filled with abuse and addiction (which i was hard wired from early childhood to understand and empathize with, because i was raised by the mentally ill and by drug addicts, its just how the world looked from perspective). and maybe i knew how impotent law enforcement was to help, he did after all, belong in a hospital as opposed to a jail cell. because i was close to him and i knew all this torment was mental illness, demons from his past, and the drugs he uses to self medicate because he lives every single day in unimaginable mental anguish and stress and it all comes from bad chemicals. and he could be good. 60% of the time he was at least passably decent.

i did however, tape a few of his fits. i thought i could let him listen to it later when he was calm and more rational and he would see how badly he needed help. i thought it would convince him to take his meds. i bring this up because i now know several other people who have done the same thing. you dont want them locked up, you dont want to press charges on family, because they need psychiatric help. you just want them to see how crazy they are and put down the dick pipe and take their meds. i think this is probably the more likely scenario especially since there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not she was even the one to release them. i'm not sure anyone is equipped to handle these situations well, particularly not the type of person who would be attracted to them in the first place. that's why it's called a "cycle" of abuse. i learned in a class a few years ago that only 30% of adults who were abused as children abuse their own children. i thought that was sort of hopeful and interesting. i would like to know though what percentage of adults who were abused as children end up in abusive relationships. i would bet its also somewhere around the 30% mark.
>> ^griefer_queafer:

I think you're right to react the way you have. But I honestly think that part of my frustration with this video might have been lost in what I do recognize now as a real insensitivity on my part. It is definitely easy to say that you've missed the point, because you haven't, and you have brought my attention to a whole other level of insult allowed by my comments. Plus, you are right to say that it is easy to blame the victim, because it is SOOO easy, and I have done it.
HOWEVER. While I have def. made some serious assumptions about this 'tape', I think you have also. I also feel that you have tacked on a good deal of information onto the position of both Gibson and Grigorieva. First, you don't seem willing to admit that her taping this conversation indicates a very real violation. I'm sure it sounds really 'academic' of me, but I do believe that her recording and releasing it elevates Mel's chauvinism to the level of spectacle even more so than before. You might argue that it NEEDS TO BE HEARD; that this monstrosity needs to be brought into the light. But at the end of the day, isn't there something a bit less dignified... a bit less spectacularly absurd about a court hearing and a restraining order as opposed to an audiotape? Doesn't something like this run the risk of turning his behavior into a 'product' or 'caricature' than say... a nice day in court? Wouldn't something like this run the risk even more so of having his actions digestible as some kind of ironic or absurdly funny gesture, by some asinine, pigheaded, 'middle-class', 'academic', pseudo-intellectual white boy on the internet?
So, while your outrage is rock-solid, it would seem counter-productive for me to insist I was wrong, because I believe that I am fundamentally right. I HAVE blamed a victim... but for now, its an invisible victim (unfortunately), made all the less clear by her acting that role out through the very avenues of power and control utilized by foul-mouthed, violent, and dangerous people like Gibson himself. So for now, Gibson unfortunately remains fascinating. And that is an unfortunate reality I truly believe you need to come to terms with in this context. Until he pays a very real price for his behavior, he will remain that fascinating image of horrific thoughtlessness, and will CONTINUE to represent everything that is wrong with Hollywood (for as much as it gives us). Sadly, with these kinds of videos, he continues to just play ANOTHER ROLE, thanks to the very people who would listen to his voice with very real horror, and feel justified in their disgust while at the same time refusing to see the only REAL evidence of violence ACTUALLY available to them, which in this case is really only its fucking screenplay.
I stick to my upvote, as well as my comment, all the more because of your upsetting and honest response.

>> ^peggedbea:
have you lost your mind?
a logical extension of your rant could be "i have no sympathy for this bitch who claims she was date raped, it just shows what little respect she has for herself for going somewhere with a date rapist and then being whiney enough to go to the cops about it, fuck her"
like it or not there are thousands of women stuck abusive relationships they cant get out of. i can see where the "its your own damn fault for getting into it in the first place" argument would seep into the mind of some assholes who lack perspective and experience. but speaking as someone who has been there and is speaking to you from the other side of it, there is an overwhelming amount of manipulation that goes on in the beginnings of a relationship with an abuser and in the process a very real shift in logical and your ability to think clearly happens. being a child of abuse makes you very susceptible to these kinds of relationships as your brain was wired very young to feel comfortable and tie feelings of abuse to feelings of love. after a prolonged period of time behaviors that are wildly inappropriate just become normal. on top of that you live your day to day life in survival mode, and being in perpetual survival mode robs you of your ability to THINK. and certainly of the confidence to leave. adding a baby on top of it and your brain becomes completely fried and totally warped.
admitting you let someone take this much power, and degrade you senselessly takes an incredible amount of courage. it takes an insane amount of courage and fortitude and balls to go back into the world and KEEP TRYING. how dare you chide her for this.
this shit needs to be exposed. and the stories need to be told. the more people who hear the stories of these women the less ignorant twat assholes will open their dickless middle class white boy academic internet mouths and blame the victim.
fuck you.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Also, I have no sympathy for this woman. By releasing this tape, she is not just showing what kind of a person Gibson is--she is also showing that she has very little respect for herself by dating a person who would say these things to her. Also, I am not even sure how much this kind of thing reveals about the guy. Again, sounds like he is on drugs, or is manic, or both. Plus, from the sound of the audio, I wouldn't be surprised if she re-recorded he responses to Mel, which sound really rehearsed anyway. So... Mel is an ass, but fuck her too.

I think the debt reduction is valid for some members. Canada didn't get hit nearly as hard as Americans or Icelanders did, so from our PM's perspective, debt reduction makes sense (I have political disagreements with the guy, but Canadians are generally proud of our Governments' fiscal responsibility - fake lake notwithstanding).

However, you guys could definitely use some more stimulus (and not to the banks). I hear Krugman warning against a relapse into recession and maybe even depression, and that is the last thing America needs right now (imagine what the Republicans would do with that?)

Environmental regulation would be nice - but Harper is a Calgary Tory, which means he eats crude oil for breakfast. Remember, he was the one who called Kyoto a Socialist Scheme to re-distribute wealth. I was frankly surprised Obama didn't go after him a little bit on that, but I have been hearing that the Americans are reluctant to criticize Canada too much on the oil sands fearing we may just say 'fuck it' and export to China instead. Even the European countries didn't really mention it too much - I figured Germany or France would at least bring it up.

Some would say that violent protest is the only way to make them notice - that they don't listen the other 900 days between G8/G20 meetings, and this is an opportunity to get their attention. After Montebello, I think it's safe to assume the cops wanted to bump some heads, and as agents of state authority who are funded by my tax dollars, it's our duty to oblige.

It does water down the message a bit - it is hard to discern their purpose or motivations sometimes. I think the purpose it does serve is reminding people that they are not alone in their disgust with 'The Man'. It's like what they say about France being the last place where Governments are still afraid of the people. >> ^NetRunner:

Apparently, the big theme for the meetings is Debt Reduction. Whaddya think?
What do you think the G8/G20 leaders should be focusing on? How would you go about solving the world's problems?
I think the Debt Reduction part of it is crazy stupid. I'm glad the US delegation is arguing for more fiscal stimulus, though I'm sad to say we seem to be the only ones.
What should they be focusing on? Fiscal stimulus, environmental regulation, and making the Chinese stop manipulating their currency.
Human rights would be nice too, but they're an economic group, they don't do the human rights thing. That's the UN's impotent jurisdiction.
How do you see the protests that have been taking place? Is violence ever justified? Pics.
Do the minority of the protesters who vandalize and attack security folks have just cause? Are they ruining it for the peaceful demonstrators? Do they only serve to tarnish the many causes of other protesters and groups?
I think the protests are totally ineffective. The G20 members don't give a shit, and regular joes don't ever hear what they have to say. Hell, even political junkies like me would be hard pressed to say who's doing the protesting, beyond the anarchists who seem to only exist to protest G8/G20 meetings.
There's no point in violence committed against security forces at the G20. People who do it tarnish the reputation of the protesters, and give any jackbooted statists (real or imagined) good propaganda to use to dismiss the protests.

Apparently, the big theme for the meetings is Debt Reduction. Whaddya think?

What do you think the G8/G20 leaders should be focusing on? How would you go about solving the world's problems?

I think the Debt Reduction part of it is crazy stupid. I'm glad the US delegation is arguing for more fiscal stimulus, though I'm sad to say we seem to be the only ones.

What should they be focusing on? Fiscal stimulus, environmental regulation, and making the Chinese stop manipulating their currency.

Human rights would be nice too, but they're an economic group, they don't do the human rights thing. That's the UN's impotent jurisdiction.

How do you see the protests that have been taking place? Is violence ever justified? Pics.

Do the minority of the protesters who vandalize and attack security folks have just cause? Are they ruining it for the peaceful demonstrators? Do they only serve to tarnish the many causes of other protesters and groups?

I think the protests are totally ineffective. The G20 members don't give a shit, and regular joes don't ever hear what they have to say. Hell, even political junkies like me would be hard pressed to say who's doing the protesting, beyond the anarchists who seem to only exist to protest G8/G20 meetings.

There's no point in violence committed against security forces at the G20. People who do it tarnish the reputation of the protesters, and give any jackbooted statists (real or imagined) good propaganda to use to dismiss the protests.