Its so strange that the moment Osama Bin Laden was killed we didn't just declare victory and leave, after all that was the original mission, however it got muddled with the later quagmire of stabilizing countries that we invade and starting democracies from the top-down rather than any grass-roots actively.

the profound mistake of any new healthcare plan that still enables a seat at the table for the middle-men profiteers of a system that willingly and complacently deny healthcare services to individuals in their time of need should never be allowed nor tolerated by the American people and should be done away with for single-payer that is not dependent on profit when it comes to people's health (after all its done that way successfully in most other countries, are they all wrong?).

one element that wasn't put forward in this video is the law that enables corporations to have the same freedom of speech rights as people, and makes it possible for them to donate as much money as they want to political campaigns and influence the results. so if lobbyists are to ever by stomped out this law is fundamentally important to 'change the game playing'.

I keep wondering if the Fructose dilemma will ever go mainstream. There are some pretty huge corporate special interests that are going to try to keep this issue muddled. See the HFCS ads that act all insulted and self-righteous.

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

I'm saying it doesn't apply..

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

I didn't add anything. In my example, the peasant is referred to as the Kings servant, if you want to reread it. If it wasn't clear, I am sorry..while the CEO might have been inconvenienced by you leaving, you aren't his property. So no it doesn't apply.

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

I'm saying that I don't believe anyone has ever been argued into believing in Jesus..however, I am also saying that you can prove it to yourself by asking the Lord to come into your life, who will prove it to you. However, you don't seem to think you need Him, so until you feel that way..

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.

The don't know, don't care comment about who is even in your government..that's fairly uninformed. And yes, I don't know how old you are..if I had to hazard a guess I would say you're in your mid to late twenties. And I know you have not searched too hard for God because you haven't found Him yet.

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Don't paraphrase..the question I asked, which wasn't even in this thread.. Was the Universe created by a supreme being?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
Don't know = Agnostic

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question. I accept people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.

Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.


A few days ago, you proposed the following:

These are the only answers to the question [of] does God exist
Yes (Theist)
No (Atheist)
Don't know (Agnostic)

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Your example is false, jonny. The peasant is a servant, he has to work. He has to produce results. You don't. If you left the company, the CEO isn't going to care. You could go live out in the woods, the peasant doesn't have that luxury. A ceo or president does not own you. The King owns the peasant. The peasant is his property.
lol to being proud of being uninformed, by the way..your generation I swear..
The existence of God can be proven, that's my entire point. You can know Jesus Christ personally, today. When I was agnostic, I didn't believe that Jesus was real, so yes I have some empathy for you. However, neither did I seriously investigate it nor did I really understand what the facts were.
I had all the information I had heard from other people, or things I had read, that atheists and agnostics in general just assume..I had all the various talking points and examples of inconsistancies that atheists and agnostics use in their arguments, most of which are easily disproven even with some cursory research. It was obvious to me that the bible was made up. Yet, with all that I didn't know a damn thing. It was really my ignorance of what was in the bible, and my inherent prejudice against it, that kept me from uncovering the facts.
I'll submit to you that if you actually did do impartial research, that the facts about who Jesus is will hold up. I challenge you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615
See if what you think you know actually matches up to reality.

I can't usually watch Pat because he likes to use the same tactics as Bill O'Reilly, where smugness is used like air freshener, and making people feel inferior is more the goal than the betterment of mankind. Many sift talks end up going in this sudo-intellectual, elitist route. Many have been consumed by its trollness, myself included. So before I get into what I want to say, I just want to say every conversation than ends up in draconian foot pounding here on the sift, even more so when I am the perpetrator, causes me weeks of anguish and usually sends me away for a week in trembling anguish for the loss of an opportunity to have real, meaningful conversation.

I like Pat's point, though, I think he muddles it a little; in the first half, he seems to rail against the notion that representative democracy works well, and in the second a rant about unelected representatives are destroying Ireland. Even so, I think the point of layers of democracy via representation seems to eliminate your representation through dilution. When you have a state, federal, continental, and world representative, it is hardly possible for your view of the world to be completely represented, or every fractionally. The policy of direct diplomacy had its failing, which was mob rule. I think an interesting problem that Pat is pointing out about representative democracy is very real...that you end up not having any representation because of the conflict between all the different levels. So while you got a vote a person into office, he wasn't the right person in the right office to affect the things that you wanted him to affect. A complicated maze where any change you want is impossible to get via a vote for your representative.

So for pure democracy, you get a direct voice that can get overruled by many shouting over your own. In representative, that same muddling happens when more and more systems of democracy are layered in. I would be interested to hear your opinion on this @dystopianfuturetoday. I think last time I dabbled in these waters I was called a fascist, trying to avoid a similar occurrence

I am not saying that representative democracy is systemically flawed absolutely, but has an undesirable entropy. I like trying to brain up better systems, it is how my brain works. Rep Dem has many benefits, though, some of the largest in the history of man...so trying to capture those same successes would be hard, but perhaps possible. Is there something better than Rep Dem...I surely hope so...lets vote on it!

This is muddle-headed bullshit by Ana Kasparian pretending to think about "serious issues" and trumpeting her E-Z Pik Progressive Opinion: that she's outraged by the awfulness of the War on Drugs only because blacks are getting arrested too much (and that she doesn't think taking drugs is a crime). Look how puffed up she gets, pausing for effect after repeating the statistic about more blacks in U.S. prisons today than there were slaves in (just to pick a date) 1850.

Says it all, doesn't it?

Anyone who watches the Young Turks when Ana is talking knows she is judgmental as hell. She normally advocates the harshest prison sentences, likes the work of Child Protective Services and wouldn't promote anything she didn't truly believe in — not even for (really) "a billion dollars." So you can believe her when she tells you Kim Kardashian's thighs are fat!

Cenk is clearer that the WoSD is the true problem and that poverty — not race — is the salient factor in who *does time* (as opposed to whatever Ana is officially pissed-off about) — that the results are cruel for everyone. I thought that might be why he tells the story of a (presumably white) Montana dude facing life for passing a bong in his car, except he makes a point of agreeing that the guy did do something wrong.

Ana rounds out her simulacrum of thought-provoking opinion by noting the injustice of blacks getting arrested for drug crimes even though violent crime statistics have been trending downward in urban areas. Sounds heavy. Dunno why exactly ...

Still, two and a half million people in cages across the USA rejoice to hear their story is finally being told and eagerly await Ana's future Social Studies Presentations. Upcoming Topics will include: "What is the Proper Speed Limit on the Interstate?", "Is Capital Punishment Bad?", and "Euthanasia, School Uniforms, Gun Control and Test Tube Babies: What I think for less than $ 1 billion"

I notice a trend in which every time I hear a politician speak with candid common sense, it's because they're retired.

It's as if just the act of leaving Washington DC produces clearer thinking.

I think back in the 50's, Dow chemicals, in cooperation with Walt Disney, placed some nefarious device that broadcasts around the city and muddles everyone's brain.

And what people learn in church is how to be sheep

This is a common neolib conceit. While there are myriad foibles, prejudices, and issues with religion as a whole - it cannot be argued that the principles taught by religous organizations (love one another, do unto others, turn the other cheek, go with him twain, good samaritan, et al) are precisely the sort of thing that will achieve the effect you purport to advocate (focus on welfare of others). Now - you may personally disagree with religion and that's fine. But I ask now for you to seriously consider what other source this sort of mindset is going to originate from if not the home and family?

Such sentiment certainly does not come from humanism, or secularism, or any other philosophy of men. It does not come from government. It does not come from public school. It does not come from 'community organization'. There is not a single aspect of leftist teaching, learning, or philosophy that encourages human beings to become 'good people'. That is the pervue of home, family, and religion.

So while you don't respect such things, you say that you want the values that family/church advocate to permeate society. A funny little muddle. I'm personally glad that I don't have to engage is such gesticulations of hypocrisy in order to have a moral base. I merely have to advocate that people become better, more perfect practicioners of their faith. All the needs of society can be easily, simply met by giving people their freedom, removing the onerous burden of government over-regulation & taxation - and then encouraging them to pursue their own self-interest as enlightned by their religion & morality they learned from their family.

Hey Winston,
Sorry a couple of points I was trying to make got a little muddled and mashed together in my last comment during editing before I rushed out to work. Including my math on 6x10.

What I told youabout my friends building a house and being off the grid is true. I know because they did it, and I've seen it. Their house is in Quebec, not some backhills somewhere. I've been there. They made me pizza.

Yeah, I'm sure that they're paying some interest on the loan they got to pay for it all up front, but they did it for less than $11,000. And fully installed by electricians. They're fully off the grid for electricity. They use a gas stove instead of electric, and they don't have a microwave, in order to cut down on power drain. But they have a fridge, lights, hot water, computers and everything else you would expect a family home to have.

I don't know where you got the rest of your figures. All I can tell you is what I've seen with my own eyes. And that the tomatoes on the pizza were grown in their vegetable garden, the pepperoni sausage came from the meat shop a 10 minute drive away, and it made for a memorable meal.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

600 square feet of panels is two 6'x5' panels on a rooftop--that isn't very big.
Elementary geometry says you need TWENTY 6'x5' panels to get 600 sq feet. Regardless, the issue is not the surface area per se but the COST to cover that much surface area. Photovolt panels are expensive, highly inefficient, and use toxic elements. They need maintainance, replacing, repair, and have a lifecycle. Same with the VERY expensive batteries you need to buy.
And it doesn't cost $50,000 per household.
Many estimates put the installation of a fully functional solar powered home at well over $50K. 660 sq ft costs $10,853 just for the panels using the cheapest product I could find. Then there is wiring, connectors, inverters, batteries, mounts, control panels, and monitors... The backhills of Alberta may be different, but in the U.S. it is highly illegal to install your own electrical system... You're looking at thousands in licensing, regulatory, and labor. $10K? Not on this planet.
But let's say you're super lucky and manage to get the whole shebang installed for only $25K somehow. [...]

That was hard to watch. Hard to tell if the guy is extremely nervous, or realized he made a big mistake by taking interviews and was just doing his best to muddle through it.

I have to wonder if some people don't get in because of their names....or if they have pictures on the ballot..because of how they look.

Where did I or anyone else in this post imply that religion was responsible for all mankind's woes? You're certifiable, dude. Logical to a tee, HAH! Someone thinks highly of themselves while simultaneously revealing the opposite at every chance.

You want to refute my argument? Show how what you said wasn't a blatant false equivalence which was basically all I claimed. That would be a refutation. Not all this other bizarre off-topic nonsense that just muddles whatever point you were attempting to make. Keep shifting them goalposts.

There's an element of this that I keep finding interesting. The supposed problem with a minority government is that the out-of-power parties get an effective veto on policies the plurality party tries to present.

Most people present this as a situation that wouldn't last long, and that the new PM would just call for another election, rather than try to muddle through.

Well, since we seem to have decided in our country that any party with fewer than 60 seats in the Senate (or doesn't hold the White House) is effectively a "minority government" due to it being vetoed by the opposition party, this seems like a permanent condition here in the US.

Simple question -- if this is considered untenable in the UK, why do we act like it's a good thing in the US?

Or am I missing some fundamental difference between our systems?

Silly

Silly? Well, if by silly you mean "dead on accurate" then, sure.

I thought you thought he was a socialist

Obama wouldn't call himself a socialist. He'd call himself a progressive, or a moderate, or some other leftist term. He is a person who almost exclusively pushes large government, big spending solutions to issues. If that's a socialist, then he's a socialist - but all such political labels are muddled these days.

And - I reiterate - the survey is bunk. I'll illustrate... Swap the polarity of this study and turn back the clock a few years. It is 2008 and Rush Limbaugh sponsors a random poll of Democrat voters. Here are his questions...

1. Do you believe GWB lied on purpose to start the Iraq War so he could make his Father happy?
2. Do you agree that Cheney & Bush conspired with Halliburton to intentionally profit from the war?
3. Do you believe GWB is so unintelligent that he can't even speak properly?
4. Do you agree that it was actually the Bush Administration that blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11?
5. Was Bush a draft dodger?
6. Is it your opinion that Bush stole the 2000 election by cheating and manipulating the Supreme Court?

Now - if that exact poll was run I would lay you odds that the answers would be 75% to 90% in the range of "Yeah he lied, yeah he's stupid, yeah he blew up the towers, yeah he cheated..." Would the results be legitimate? No - they'd be absolute pure bunk.

Survey design is all about removing bias from the questions. It is impossible to get good data when you are using a bad instrument. GIGO. The Daily Kos questions are leading and biased. Therefore the results are complete crap. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of proper and effective survey design. These questions were designed to get a specific response - and they got it. It means nothing.

"It's society's fault he was driven to desperation!"
"It's entirely his responsibility for making this choice!"

Why does it have to be one or the other?
All criminals are human beings. They're people. People who, because of their circumstances, have made poor choices. This is a statement that acknowledges the impact of their situation and their personal culpability.

The criminal here may have been driven to desperate acts by his situation, or he might just be a sociopathic opportunist. We can't be certain.
He may have been lured by the promise of easy money after hearing how someone else had gotten away apparently scot-free. He might feel that a few hundred or thousand bucks is worth a lot to him, but is effectively nothing for the corporation behind the counter, and that no one's really going to be hurt by his actions.
He might have been just high enough to talk himself into it, or be talked into it by someone else.
His starving family, or his kid that needs a kidney transplant, or the eviction notice that's probably coming in a few days, or the drug habit he's feeding - none of these make it "OK" to decide to commit a crime, but they're factors.

We're often very quick to picture someone who has committed a crime as nothing more than the crime itself.
It's a message I think gets a bit muddled in Eastwood's Gran Torino. We're shown how Thao is driven by peer pressure to attempt to steal the titular vehicle; he's not a criminal, but a person who made a very poor decision. A person who could potentially be rehabilitated from his "life of crime." At the same time, the gang members throughout the movie are vilified in typical "nothing more than criminals" fashion.

If this pharmacist was in violation of corporate policy by having the pistol at work (and I highly doubt CVS policy allows employees to arm themselves), then he'll probably be fired, or at least reprimanded.
I imagine he was probably "fed up" and angry about "these criminals preying on us and getting away with it." Does that make what he did right? Personally, I don't think so.
Here in Texas, I'm allowed by law to shoot someone if they're stealing my property. I don't think property is worth killing over. I do, however, think it's reasonable to use deadly force if my life or the life of a loved one is in imminent danger, or to prevent or stop a sexual assault against a loved one.
Beyond asking if he was "right" to do it, we can also ask if it was a responsible act. Unless the pharmacist saw something that convinced him the robber was preparing to shoot someone, I definitely think it was irresponsible, even if he'd fired one carefully-aimed shot that dropped the robber. The vast majority of robberies are bloodless affairs and criminals know that employees are typically trained to comply with demands. Confrontation with a firearm could have escalated the situation in an unpredictable fashion.

I'm not sure what the law is in Georgia, but here in Texas one of the clauses for use of deadly force is that the "actor did not provoke the person against whom the force was used." This clause gives me pause because it seems like displaying a gun in the first place might be considered provocation.

I'm not going to re-write a very succinct explanation of Catholic doctrine which you would do well to read before spouting off some juvenile rants against the Pontiff - here's the first three sections from an article on the topic:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Papal Infallibility


The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).



Vatican II’s Explanation


Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").



Based on Christ’s Mandate


Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).



Some Clarifications


An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
-------------------------------------


>> ^WaterDweller:
Same gal as last year: http://www.videosift.com/video/Person-charges-the-pope
Apparently she hasn't changed her clothes for a whole year. Or she just really likes red


In response to this comment below - yeah, it's like becoming an annual tradition or something.

Kind of hard to tell from the angle seen, but it looks like the Vatican Guards took her down before she got to B16, but they took him to the ground as well as a protective (over-reactive?) measure, at least that's how it seems to look. It would make sense to do that, anyway, cover him in case she's not attacking by herself, has explosives, etc.