>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So, point out the millions of videos of cops acting bad... What about the lazy citizens, criminal citizens and such who act worse?Your justification for a cops "bad behaviour" is that criminals act much worse? How like criminals do you think cops should act?>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Is our nation's society, the system we all run by, or any other nation's system for that matter, broken? Broken is the wrong word. The right word would be imperfect. Given that society is a constantly evolving system, hopefully to the benefit of the whole, broken is a silly word. So let's try again:>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Is our nation's society, the system we all run by, or any other nation's system for that matter, imperfect? Yes. Emphatically, yes.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
The mother who sprays her child with a pressure washer? The crackhead who leaves her baby in a car, or let's her baby suffocate in the couch because she is passed out? WHY! Motherhood must be a flawed system! Or the robber who shoots the head off a bank teller? Why, open banks are flawed systems!False analogy. Attributing a bank teller's head being blown off to open banks is the same as attributing an innocent man's innocenter dogs murder during a police raid to the unarmored nature of the dog.>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Please spare the hyperbole...The irony! It's thick! >> ^Lawdeedaw:
cops are people who need weeded just like every other person-- Here we agree. Everyone needs to get a little weeded every now and then.>> ^Lawdeedaw:
... And more get fired than before too.[citation needed] You sound like a religious zealot who bashes atheists.???

You sound like one hand clapping.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And what have you done personally to change the system? Do you vote for or against Sheriffs who are elcected officals? Have you written to a mayor about abuse? No? Have you supported candidates who can effect change? No?No. I've done none of these things.

But what of you? Have you organized parades in support of the judicial system? Have you given back rubs to your local "S"herrif? No? Have you ever purchased a sexy policeman calendar? No?

Ahh, well, then, your argument must be invalid.
>> ^Matthu:
>> ^lantern53:
If every police officer in this country acted this way, there would be armed revolution.
But these are two shitbirds out of hundreds of thousands of honest cops who risk their lives to keep the peace and try to preserve justice.
Don't judge thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots who should be canned...or caned.
Would you like to be judged by the action of one of your co-workers?
Don't be a knee-jerk clone and try to paint all police officers by the actions of these two.

Lol... Getting so sick of hearing this bullshit copy pasta. How many videos of abusive cops need to be put up before they're considered evidence of a flawed justice system.
You're the clone, open your eyes. If police officers continue to act this way there will be an armed revolution.
And I'm not judging hundreds of thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots. I'm judging the system which creates an unacceptable amount of abusers.

>> ^Kofi:

They seem eager to adopt Sharia law? I thought they only allowed it certain minor cases. Still, they dont have a bill of rights or a constitution. But, Sharia Law to take over? I wonder what their official religion, The Church of England thinks of that.


That is my understanding as well. Additionally, any judgements passed by a sharia court in Britain is not officially recognized by the state. Verdicts only stand as an unofficial agreement between the parties involved. Also, any case tried in a sharia court can also be tried in an official court at any time, if any of the parties desire so.

Sharia courts in Britain are a gesture of good faith toward islamic communities, giving them the opportunity to resolve matters within a judicial system they feel more comforable with. But they carry no weight.

>> ^silvercord:

>> ^MrFisk:
The fact that rape in prison has so casually become a standard of our judicial system disgusts me.

This group is doing something about it. Don't dismiss it simply because they are religious. They are serious and proactive about stopping prison rape.


See also http://www.justdetention.org/

Also, Norway's prisons are way more humane than the USA. Prison rape is much less common there. Blame socialism.

>> ^MrFisk:

The fact that rape in prison has so casually become a standard of our judicial system disgusts me.


This group is doing something about it. Don't dismiss it simply because they are religious. They are serious and proactive about stopping prison rape.

The fact that rape in prison has so casually become a standard of our judicial system disgusts me.

Our judicial system needs a face-lift. Her splendor has been mangled by injustice as the U.S. leads the world in caging its citizens. Legislators need to reverse our imprisonment trends and stop building prisons. Repealing life-without-parole sentences for non-homicidal criminals would be a good start.
In Lincoln last month, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf sentenced Jaktine Moore to life in prison for conspiring to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine* in the Lincoln area. It was his third felony drug conviction, and the court entered the statutorily mandated sentence: life with no chance of parole.
The three strikes law—coining its name from baseball—is one of a handful which force state and federal judges to hand down life sentences, regardless of the circumstances. The intention was to make punishment severe enough that no one would dare err. The result is that many Americans are now serving more time for drug offences than murder. It reflects poorly on society’s values.
Skeptic? Here’s a sad story: My cousin was murdered when I was 12 (she was 17). She was strangled. It was my first funeral, and I cried like a baby. Her killer rots in a Texas prison. But he did not get the death penalty. And he did not get a life-time bid. And the fact that a three time punk drug dealer in Lincoln, Nebraska did, is a travesty of justice. It’s like a punch to the gut.
The message is clear. Selling crack thrice is worse than murdering once. Fortunately, the majority of messages—owing to blatant hypocrisy—fall on deaf ears.
When punishments for drugs outweigh murder, it fails to make drugs the worst evil, it makes justice impossible. Crack cocaine is a wretched drug. But Americans shouldn’t get life for selling or smoking it, any other drug, and most non-violent crimes.
The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Last term the Supreme Court agreed, at least with respect to juveniles. NPR reports: “By a 6-3 vote, the court ruled it is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide crime to life in prison without the possibility of parole.”
This ruling should apply to adults as well.
Some politicians will argue that our current system is too lenient. They will say too many offenders get away with just a slap on the wrist. They may suggest we need more prisons in order to keep our kids safe. They will roar, “What kind of a message would decriminalization send to our children?” Fear is always potent come election time.
Cost alone should be deterrent enough. The average annual cost of incarceration in a federal prison is $25,895 per inmate, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Pew Center on the States pegs the average annual cost of housing an inmate in a state prison at $29,000. States would be foolish not to take action. Imprisonment alternatives are fiscally responsible.
America is in denial. It is high time she realized she has a problem. She is an incarceration addict. Once she learns to accept the things she cannot change (legislating morality), she’ll have the courage to change the things she can—and the wisdom to know the difference.
The race to lock up the most citizens is one we shouldn’t strive to win.
*Penalties for crack cocaine are exceptionally harsh when compared with powdered cocaine. It would be like paying a $50 MIP for beer, or a $5000 MIP for whiskey. In March, the Senate unanimously approved the Fair Sentencing Act, legislation that reduces the disparity in sentences for crack and powdered cocaine possession, from 100 to 1, to 18 to 1. The House has yet to approve the bill.

edit: http://www.dailynebraskan.com/hale-judicial-system-requires-revamp-on-drug-laws-1.2280845

>> ^smooman:

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"
if you look anywhere outside of islamic theocracies you will find that there are no legal ramifications for apostasy. Here in america (fuck yeah) if a muslim becomes a christian or an atheist or whatever he/she is not held under lawful punishment. I'm sure the same in britain, any free nation for that matter.


Sure, thats because those countries have secular laws that are specifically designed NOT to cater to any particular religion, but is based upon human rights that has been agreed upon during the enlightenment up to today.

But islam is the same shit everywhere. I have no doubt that many muslims are as disgusted and disturbed by these laws as I am, but if they are, it isnt because of Islam, its because of everything but Islam .

Think about it: Islamic theocracies were not designed by some outside evildoers who did their best to pick out the worst aspects of Islam that they could find, and then used superpowers to force them on the population. These societies evolved out of attempts to follow Islam as faithfully and true as possible. The reason women are treated like obedient cattle in these states and people are executed for leaving Islam is because thats what Islam preaches.

Theres little doubt that the man in this video would wish for Dawkins to find religion like he has , and convert to Islam along with the rest of the studio audience, and all of Britain for that matter. If that happened, what would happen to secular law in britain? do you think we'd have more and better rights for women? a better judicial system?, more tolerance?, more freedom to choose religion freely?

>> ^bcglorf:

How do you pay for policing and a judicial system to arrest thieves, rapists and murders? How do you pay for an army to stop the dictator next door from walking in and shooting all your policemen and taking over?

The truth is we just don't like aggression, violence and our money being stolen to pay for wars and bad government policy.
Nobody does. But people disagree on what bad government policy is, and even in many cases on the difference between war and national self defense. That's why we need more than a blanket 'do away with income taxes'. We need to additionally agree on the services to cut which that money pays for.


Do you mean the dictator that we had installed after inciting the last coup or just some random dictator?

The thing is National Defense is one thing, while unjustified wars where we've been lied to from black flag operations is another (i.e.: gulf of tonkin incident). How many of our men and women died for that great cause? How much money did it cost us? How many family units were torn apart? How many more of these must we endure and funnel more money into when we could have been beefing up our actual real National Defense?

With the amount of money the government has, why are there so many volunteer firefighters? That's the question you should be asking. The second question should be how often have you used the fire department's "fire fighting" services in your lifetime? I'd wager not often if at all. This shows me that fire departments can run effectively and have run effectively with realistically little funding, and I think it goes without saying that we all agree they are necessary.

The question is "how do we fund them"? I say there are voluntary ways to do that such as my previous example of a user fee, which is they'd bill you for their services. Or it could come out of the gasoline tax that is meant to cover infrastructure. There are many ways to do it, I'm sure.

How do you pay for policing and a judicial system to arrest thieves, rapists and murders? How do you pay for an army to stop the dictator next door from walking in and shooting all your policemen and taking over?

Police are also necessary, but I don't want to pay for jackbooting militarized police units, and I should have a say in that. Courts are necessary, and they're also covered by user fees currently. The question about an army or navy is an interesting one. Look at Switzerland. They don't have a standing army, and yet the dictator next door hasn't marched in there. I'd ask whether or not we need a standing army or navy. And if we do, it should focus only on defense, which is why Switzerland's model works so well with their citizens being armed.

But people disagree on what bad government policy is, and even in many cases on the difference between war and national self defense. That's why we need more than a blanket 'do away with income taxes'. We need to additionally agree on the services to cut which that money pays for.

Do you think it's fair you have to pay for only a few programs you believe in and a lot you don't? That's the problem with income tax. It's not voluntary like excise tax or user fees, therefore it can be taken in high amounts from each of us to fund whatever the government chooses, and our only recourse is by way of a single vote for representation in a two-party system whose policies closely resemble each other's.

Income tax was originally created to fund war. Think about that. It's immoral on its face. We can do a lot better without it. And wouldn't it be great if you could give your money to programs you believe in locally rather than having them take your money and choosing for you? Remember, government isn't just fire departments, public schools and roads. It's war, it's inequality, it's corporate collusion, and it's theft.

I have given solutions. Income tax is theft of labor. Excise taxes and user fees could be used to fund any number of government goods and services. They currently exist now. Here are a few examples:

Bus fair covers the cost of buses.
Gasoline tax covers roads.
Camping fees for parks.


Thank you for the specifics, this may be the closest you and I have come to actually understanding each other .

Those are excellent examples, which is why they are widely implemented that way already in a great many places. Fire fighting can't entirely rely on volunteers, nor can it entirely rely on free market pricing. How do you pay for policing and a judicial system to arrest thieves, rapists and murders? How do you pay for an army to stop the dictator next door from walking in and shooting all your policemen and taking over?



The truth is we just don't like aggression, violence and our money being stolen to pay for wars and bad government policy.
Nobody does. But people disagree on what bad government policy is, and even in many cases on the difference between war and national self defense. That's why we need more than a blanket 'do away with income taxes'. We need to additionally agree on the services to cut which that money pays for.

Meh. I have no problem with three strikes. If you know you're a cookie theft away from a life term, and you still steal cookies, that's exactly where you belong, because you just can't control yourself.

If you want to make a difference, don't look at the prisons or judicial system, look at education and poverty. Those are the real drivers here...

On a more serious note, I stand by my position from back when I moved to abandon it. I require two things before I can support a reinstatement:
1. Change the name. 'Siftbunal' or something might work.
2. It needs more checks and balances, along xxovercastxx's thoughts. The free-for-all mob rule is a horrible basis for a judicial system.

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.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

But, once again it is in your opinion that they mean to provoke, that is why there is a Judicial system in place, to solve these conundrums. Hence the reason that Philidelphia supreme court protected David Hackbart right to give the bird to a citizen, and a peace officer, because he was expressing his distress with his current situation.
In fact the city gave him 50,000 to settle the matter.
But I think we are arguing two different things, however related. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, which are invariably tied. You cannot have one without the other.


I admit that this is purely my opinion, and you are probably right, judicially this sort of rhetoric needs to be covered by the freedom of speech. If nothing else, then to ensure that people cannot be censored merely for being hot headed or lacking judgement in the heat of the moment.

However, I still feel that relying on emotional offense is an inexcusable element to bring to a discussion.

The problem with the way Carlin, and for that sake Wilders, seeks to offend people while proving his point, is that the point only reaches the people who already agree with him. When you give people on the opposite side of the spectrum, the people you really need to reach, an excuse to get offended, they switch off and ignore the central message entirely. That is immensely counter-productive when trying to spread ideas, and trying to actually make a difference in the world.

In the end, I guess it makes little difference when looking at which ideas flourish across the entire political spectrum, and which do not. Carlins words, and people like Wilders, will continue to be ignored by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum due to their reliance on offending people to convey their message.

My only hope is that the people out there with ideas, which could actually change the world for the better, don't fall into the same trap