I wasn't quite clear. I don't mean scrap the system. I mean replace the officers, and train the new ones how to behave PROPERLY, and insist on severe punishment for any infraction. When the rule enforcer breaks the rules, they should have to pay twice what non-enforcers pay for the same crime...with no coddling in "protective custody".
I also agree with reversing the militarization. People will use the tools you give them...if you give them tools of war, they'll commit acts of war with them. Seems obvious to me.
My issue is that the "good cops" NEVER go after the bad cops themselves....as I see it, that makes them accessories after the fact, and also bad cops for obstructing justice. I'm fine with keeping any cop that's testified AGAINST another cop, even one that has documentation proving they stopped another cop from taking things too far. The rest need to go, IMO. They have all been complacent in the face of their own being criminal, and I'm simply not OK with that.
I do agree, simply enacting a zero tolerance policy for ANY officer misconduct, and stricter punishment than normal citizens get for the same infraction would remove most "bad cops" right away...but only if their fellow officers no longer cover up for them. With what we have today, there's no prosecution because they can't make a case when most officer crime happens off camera and the only witnesses either lie or refuse to testify. That's why I say they ALL need to go, and be replaced with new people who take the job knowing it's not a power trip and abuse won't be tolerated a whit. I also think they should have to waive their right to not talk, even self incriminate, in order to wield the authority they wield. I know it won't happen, but a newt can dream.

@bobknight33

Please tell me what your experience is with the scientific community. Do not waffle or sidestep the issue but answer exactly what the extent of your experience with scientific research is, and if necessary how that positions you to judge scientific material.

Please also provide three examples from three separate (and recent) peer reviewed (and published, i.e. forming part of the scientific argument) scientific research papers from approximately the last 4 years (since 2010) that provides something illogical as a foundation argument or any particular conclusion. (You realise of course that even 3,5,10, 100 out of 10 thousand is meaningless, but i know that you can't even understand the layout of a scientific paper, nevermind find 3 examples of an illogical statement in a scientific paper.... even my professors would struggle with that.)

I'm not going out of my way to be a dick here @bobknight33 .. but if you tried to give people medical advice (chemotherapy is illogical propaganda!) then you would be expected to have an expertise in medicine. So don't run away from your responsibility.

This shouldn't be a difficult challenge for you, being as you are so certain and so correct that the science is illogical propaganda. I've had to accept things that ran completely counter to my intuition, so if climate change science is bull then as soon as you prove it, i'm on board.

So go ahead, explain to me simply and clearly what makes it bullshit science, or you're going to have to admit that you don't even have the first clue what you're talking about (as i strongly suspect).

Believe climate SCIENCE, do not believe what politicians and industry leaders tell you about climate science - ASK A FUCKING SCIENTIST. And most of all - @bobknight33 - it is NOT ok to pretend to understand science and lie to people about it, you deceptive, brain-dead parrot. Well, having said that, at least parrots have redeeming features.

I'm only about 9 minutes in, but I don't agree with how Cenk took Maher and Harris' comments...

He said that Maher (and Harris) are suggesting that ALL Muslims hold the radical, fundamentalist beliefs. But I didn't interpret Maher's statement that way, and whether you do or not they both later suggest that a significant portion, sometimes even a majority in some countries, are the ones that hold those radical beliefs. A significant portion or "sometimes" a majority is NOT all.

I don't take that as painting ALL Muslims with the same brush, and I don't believe that either Harris or Maher intended it that way. They are, however, suggesting that if Islam is promoting these radical ideas such that they are present at (much) higher rates in Muslims than in other people... Well, maybe there is something wrong with Islam.

Cenk's argument about fundie Christians believing in the rapture is a good one. Christians believe that crazy messed up shit at a higher rate than other people of the world, so... Well, maybe something is wrong with Christianity. True.

BUT, Harris saying that Islam is "the mother lode of bad ideas" is still not necessarily meant in a racist/bigoted way (I believe it is not); OK, yes, the rapture is pretty fucked up, and people that buy into it wholeheartedly are capable of some causing a lot of fucked up damage. But I think that Harris would argue that Islam has MORE stuff like that than Christianity (death to those that leave the religion, homosexual hate, violence as a solution to many many "offences" against the religion, etc. etc.), and that unfortunately a greater percentage of Muslims buy into that extreme/damaging stuff than the percentage of Christians that buy into their extreme/damaging stuff.

I don't know that I fully agree with Harris on that point -- watch Fox News polls and you'll see that a LOT of people do unfortunately buy in to a lot of that way -out-there right-wing fundie nonsense. But, I think that Harris and Maher are correct to suggest that the best way to combat that stuff is to bring it out into the open and openly and logically criticize it for the dangerous nonsense that it is.

So, I may be jumping the gun by posting before watching the whole clip here, but I really feel like Cenk is misinterpreting what Maher and Harris were going for.

Rand hasn't been dead THAT long. give it another 100 years or so to see if people still put her on a pedestal. It's already glaringly obvious that no-holds barred capitalism is harmful and not a good way to go.

It's just like racism. There are still a lot of people who were alive when having separate fountains for the colored folk was considered an ethical viewpoint. Just because we have laws that say that sort of behavior is not ok doesn't mean people change their views. You basically have to wait for that generation to die off or be confined to a nursing home before real change to occur.

Thus it is the same with the Rand disciples. There are just too many people who firmly believe unrestricted capitalism is still the way to go and you won't be able to change their opinion, you have to either successfully remove them from a position of influence or wait for them to croak.

I find that question inappropriate. Like asking how much I make or how much I can bench press. Not OK to ask casual acquaintances.

Laws must be reactionary, because you should not be punished for harms that you haven't yet committed.
'Imagined future harms' are a poor reason to take action against anyone.
Fundamentally, you're not in charge of other people's imagination. That's their business, not yours.

Inevitability is not an issue, incidents are inevitable for all drivers, without exception, so long as they keep driving.
Any non-zero probability will have an incident, given enough time.

Every driver is unique, and it is not deterministic that "driver A + 3 beers" is worse than "driver B".
It's not deterministic that driver B has a lower probability of incident.

These guys were good enough to get a license, and are legally 'suitable' to drive.
They are above the "absolute bar" determining 'ok' or 'not ok' to drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIJ0kQtLyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I-OqmQc5hI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiRDv4nxe64
(Seriously, watch them end to end... it's amazing.)

Imagine the drivers that you know. Do you think a few beers will get them even close to as bad as the people in the links? Because it's enough to get them a DUI. Hence the irrationality of just saying "drink = unsuitable to drive".

There are lots things that impact your cognitive function.
too tired
too excited
too bored
too entertained
too preoccupied with memories
too preoccupied with anticipation
etc, etc, etc...
A driver at 90% attention due to these reasons is considered ok, but a driver at 95% attention [for whatever reason] ... that just happened to drink alcohol ... is a criminal. Again, irrationality.

The fact that you're operating in a diminished state /specifically/ due to alcohol is not meaningful.
How much you are diminished [regardless of why] is what matters - but that isn't even in the drinking and driving public discussion.
Heck, some people aren't even prepared when at 100% attention and 100% sober (like the folks in the links).

I generally dislike how unprepared drivers are.
Just being able to drive around a few blocks, parallel park, and answer a few questions from a booklet you just read 5 minutes prior, is crap criteria.
IMO, it shouldn't even be criteria until much later.
IMO, people should be able to proficiently autocross in the wet before they are even given a chance to begin learning the road rules.

IMO, people consider driving a necessity (which it is if you want a normal life), and they throw driving into the same bucket as walking.
Something they need to do every day, it's mundane, nothing special, nothing worth concerning yourself about.
If they have an "accident" (the term accident should really be "operator error" 99% of the time), they even get offended if you say that they screwed up.
Like as if it's just an "Oh well, shit happens" sort of thing, and blaming them for what they did is profane.

At the same time, there's a religion of "drinking and driving hate" that has mushroomed into something not far from crazies frothing at the mouth.
"He drank... and drove! Burn him! Burn him!" ...
Imagine being the person that was arrested, watching people talk to you like you're the antichrist himself ... and you never even hurt anyone. Discussing amongst themselves 'what they need to do to you'.

Punishing only harm has two benefits :
A) It focuses on real victims.
B) It only involves people who were demonstrably not suitable drivers (the harm is the demonstration) - without any emotional bias for the reason behind the unsuitability.

Using the law for deterrence is possibly even illegal in itself (If I had my way, it would be seen as so).
There is supposed to be "no cruel and unusual punishment".
If you ask "what makes is it cruel/unusual?" - the answer will be that it causes excessive suffering.
Deterrence consists of punishing people in excess (making examples), in the hopes that it scares 3rd parties.
So then the idea is that the suffering should be in proportion to the crime.
Making examples, is by definition, punishing in excess of what is deserved.
DUI laws are by design an exercise in exactly this.

-scheherazade

Surprisingly it's not ok to threaten another country with force, as per the UN Charter. The US is a rogue state though, and we will do whatever we want, rules are for other states.

So yes we have a preference, but that doesn't mean we get to force another country to bend to our choice of rulers. Especially since it literally tortures an entire country whenever we do it.

Since when is "crazy" or "insane" a dirty, mean word you can not use for mentally ill people? She is clearly not ok in the head, her behaviour meets the exact definition of "crazy" and "insane". It's not like she has a severe case of depression, then it would be inappropriate, she is cleary delusional.
However, I certainly don't like the idea represented here that she might become a homicidal maniac, that she's a ticking timebomb that needs defusing. She may be scary but that doesn't mean she's automatically dangerous. I'd rather worry about all the drunk people with car keys in their pockets.
What this lady needs is help by professionals and not simply be thrown in an institution. She isn't a broken toy that you store in the attic, she needs treatment and certainly medication. Dragging her out of her house and throwing her in a padded cell won't make her paranoia better.

What's funny depends on who you're telling the joke to. I tell all my jokes to myself, therefore all of them are funny.

Seriously, you need to pay attention where you say what to whom. Rape jokes aren't funny if being told in a rapevictim support group, no matter who you are and how clever the joke is. In that situation it's not ok. Being alone in an elevator with your best friend? Hilarious as shit. Mind your audience. Don't be cruel, don't be reckless.
That said, you can't go to a Luis CK show and be surprised when he makes such jokes. He gets paid for it. So does Carlin although his rape jokes are mediocre. He so much better with blasphemy.

Woah, the girl in the BMW 1800 @ 0:26 was definatly not ok after that. And what about that Beetle convertible @ 2:26? Somebody please whop that driver's ass.

Also, it's quite amazing to see how stable the 914 was, compared to the 911s and that Capri(?) @ 3:14.

I think you have the right, especially if you're only suspected of guilt to keep your blood in your body. If they find your blood somewhere they can test it, but your blood is yours and I'm not ok with the cops taking it away.

Especially in conditions such as those, he could've gotten an infection and lost a limb.

I've been reading his responses as I've been sent all of the ones he's given to the people questioning his article. I'm starting to see how he thinks about the world and this situation and I can kind of tell where the disconnect comes from.

He's correct that we have no real evidence of misuse of powers, yet. I think the problem is how he sees the world, as the government and the people as equal. I don't agree, I believe that the standard of proof is completely on the government.

All power is illegitimate, unless you can prove its legitimacy. They have to prove why they can take such liberties with their internal spying of the citizenry. They haven't, 9/11 and the Boston attack aren't such a great threat to our society. Furthermore the US hasn't done anything to minimize those threats but has instead done everything to increase them. If they followed even just a few of the suggestions from the 9/11 committees recommendations maybe they'd have a leg to stand on but they don't.

I'm not ok with giving them the power to spy on us. I don't trust Obama when he says no one is listening to our phone calls or reading our emails. Do what we put you in office to do, close Guantanamo, open government, stop waging illegal wars (covert ones now too). You get credit and trust by doing basic things, but the government doesn't listen to us, so why should we give them any power at all?

As an atheist, you think injecting religious nuttery into a government proceeding is "beautiful and touching"? I think it's atrocious, and I think it's unfortunate that someone who thinks critically enough to reject the supernatural delusions of religion can't perceive the impact it can have on religious freedom (read: my freedom from it) when it infects government on any level. The efforts (some successful) of the insane hoards of thousand-yarders in this country to do just that definitely have me "spoiling for a fight".

"I am as separation-of-church-and-state as you get."

I am not OK with this. I don't care how annoying the dude is, or how incapable the cop is at dealing with him verbally, you don't resort to electrocution.

>> ^Yogi:

The faulty piece of equipment doesn't bother me, that's something that occurs in my everyday life and we deal with it as best we can. What does bother me is the actions of the polling people...if what this person says is true they shouldn't be there doing the polling. Show them a problem and it's their job to either fix it or decommission the machine.


It bothers me. I've been a software developer for over 10 years (professionally, technically I've been developing software for 3 decades, I know how machines work extremely thoroughly). Even considering the fact that he didn't display the input result from every option presented, this is still entirely suspect.

Regarding voting machine systems: there is literally NOTHING there that requires even a modicum of tech that's post-1985. Maybe encryption would cause a bug like this, but encryption would NOT, under any realistic circumstance, cause a reproducible user-feedback/GUI error like this, because it would be employed to store the data, not display feedback of any kind.


>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Totally.
Also, I would've said to her "No, it's NOT OK! This machine is defective!" and demanded it be removed. I wonder if it's part of the machines that got the "Experimental Patch"


Yeah me too. I would have recorded the entire exchange, as well as getting her name and the specific voting location. I would not let it go, but would probably post it and collect as much evidence as possible. "Both" parties are lying sacks of no good shit, and I don't trust any of them. I am sick of fake, self-servers running the United States at the expense of the rest of the world.