He totally screwed up the part were River gained or had her "powers" naturally (she was only naturally/gifted mentally, that is, she was a genius or prodigy). That came from the experimenting FROM the Alliance... Same with her fighting abilities, that was also an Alliance "gift" (to use her as a "psychic weapon"). But I think Joss already made the point IN the show that Mal was indeed a very shady person, if you didn't get that you are an idiot!

You were supposed to know that the Alliance brought a lot of great things with them, but they also stole your freedom...essentially (in exchange for a world with lots of rules).

But, what the Alliance was up to "behind the scenes" is what was really everyone's main concern--which they covered in Serenity a bit... In Serenity we found out that they had been up to a LOT more terrible things than just taking individuals like River--they were in the business of thinking they knew how to make all people "better" people...and one day they would try to institute it in force, en masse...

It seemed like the show was more a story about the civil war had the wrong side won--to some degree; I think you could make an argument for both. But it was obvious from watching that "Mal's side" was the "Confederacy", but they didn't stand for the same things, it was just that the history of things were playing out the same in many ways...and that was the point.

If The Union had been lying about a huge amount of things and started to institute policies that you went into action then they'd seem so very much like the Alliance in the show (BUT, some actions are exactly like what The Union did to Confederate "states" after the war; which DID leave them in states of welfare were citizens were left to fend for the most basic of necessities on their own--the Wild Wild West didn't just appear from comic books... Even the citizens had to fight off Indian attacks here and there and most of these attacks were born from the legacy of military campaigns and other actions via The Union (or before the States went to war--but, it's easy to see what the "Reavers" were based on, at least I assume that is what he had in mind).

Ironically, right now in our government it's doing the things that Mal was so concerned over that many that HAD lived in the Alliance regions hadn't been as worried about: slowly eroding our civil liberties, our regular freedoms are being taken away or one-by-one being hamstrung, and regulation is being destroyed allowing the corrupt to make this circle all that much worse (of course one day this cycle will just feedback on itself and create a revolution--as it always has). That is what The Alliance was doing, especially to the planets that didn't join immediately...so it does have a lot in common with our history. As The Union did do some pretty annoying and considering all of the people that needed help and were not getting anything, they actually directly killed a large amount of completely innocent people...just to punish some wealthy land owners and other people that had something to do with the Civil War. They should have taken the matter directly into their hands, but there is a lot on that as well (just like the show...why the Alliance never intervenes in the outer planets...).

God how I miss that show. I can only imagine what Joss could have accomplished in 7 or 8 seasons (maybe more). He could have made a show that could easily be written about in a college setting, about the civil war and the topics related to it. How grand the adventure could have been, except for one dickhead producer at Fox...

(*I take no responsibility for the parts of my comment I messed up on...* )


*nerd rant*

It is quite funny because the guy on the video, the so called 'priest' is one of the most twisted and unchristian leaders of the polish roman-catholic church. He is a businessman who begs old ladies like these, to send him their last money. He is a cynical hunter of 'jews' and 'anti-poles', whose sole purpose seems to be getting more money. He should be removed from the church, because he pushing it even beyond what catholic church normaly does, but he has such a fanatical following, that it is possible that he would start his own church. Number of followers possibly in tens of thousands, mostly poor people from the smaller cities and villages, older people, generaly people who feel forgoten and cheated by the system. He has a radio station, a tv station, a school - all catholic, tons of money etc. etc. The tv logo is his tv.

tl;dr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Rydzyk#Controversies

Which it is for sure. The problem is that more specifically it is a tax on people who are not smart with money. Well, often those people are people who don't make much money to begin with, hence the issue. The people who like to play it the most are the ones who can least afford it, and the ones who least understand the cost.

I think it's more like if they would stop redistributing the wealth to themselves from their workers.

If they would stop being greedy f'tards, then more people would have money to buy the things that move the economy and nobody would need government aid in the form of food stamps and welfare (save those who are honestly mentally or physically unable to work).If you want to build an economy the keyword is "build". You don't build a house by building the attic first magically floating there, then the foundation and walls to get up to it, you start with a foundation, then walls. If the people at the bottom have money to do more than barely survive, they buy things that actually move the economy, they buy things at retailers, who need to hire more people; those people buy things which results in transportation and warehouses hiring more people, those people buy things; manufacturing starts hiring (if the rich f'tard didn't send those jobs overseas, which the conservatives blame on the government rather than the rich guy who sent the job overseas for some reason, it's not like the price of that shirt went down when they sent it overseas, they just pocketed the extra wealth for themselves) and those people buy even more expensive things.

Our right wing economy favors investors and large business over the needs of the vast majority. It doesn't matter how much GM stock investors buy and trade, GM won't make more cars and hire more people until enough people can buy cars.

As we slide more and more money from the people who actually spend money in the economy and make it move, to people who just horde and invest, the economy will continue to spiral down. More and more people will require food stamps and welfare due to the actions of the rich, but the conservative right will blame the workers and former workers rather than pushing blame onto the people who are refusing to pay living wages, who push jobs overseas so they can personally pocket more wealth, and complain about the people they aren't giving living wages to and the people they laid off need government assistance, and the conservative voters go right along because the pulpit and Fox News has brainwashed them into believing that a party that disobey's everything their Jesus taught them is the Christian party.

The growing wealth and income gap is the biggest challenge facing our nation, and indeed much of the world. Of course most of the rest of the world does a better job of caring for the work force than the US does, paid maternity leave in all but 4 nations, paid vacation time in most of the world by law, paid sick time in most developed economies, minimum wages tied to inflation in much of those countries, a minimum level of health insurance for every man woman and child without having to buy from for-profit corporations (most actually use a single payer, which sort of ignores the fact that our individual mandate that we have now was invented by the Republican party, and is financed the same way they wanted to do it and the tax penalty for not participating is the same...the other nations that use individual mandates do so via not-for-profit insurance)... We do so much to protect the rich and investor class in this nation... sickening really.

Your video, People Masher, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Like a little bully who stands behind his parent who is defending them, while the bully, at the same time is mocking the other kid from behind their parent's back while they are saying, "My Tommy would never do that."

The courts are trusting you to use the laws morally and with just cause. Using it to trick innocent people or like has been said above to ruin people's lives for your own gain is incomprehensible.

@lantern53. I'm not sure how you can argue with people, and tell them they are wrong. This is your public. the people you swore to protect and serve. What went wrong with you that you have let go of the duty you started with and have come to think of the public as the enemy?
You would go a lot further in life to listen to people's concerns and take this attitude into the workplace and use it to help people. Help people in need and also help people see a better side of police.

We're here to add ideas, and to offer positive criticism (some of us) - the ones that are against you are the ones you've already pushed to far. You are worsening the problem by making even more people dislike police officers and the authority they abuse.

Cenk: "You know he meant bigoted[not racist], stop nitpicking stuff like that.."

NO, thats a crucial fucking point. Its not bigotry nor racism, it is criticism of a RELIGION, not a race, not a people, not a population, not a country, not a skin color , not a sex, , not a language, not a philia, not a fuckin skull shape. A religion. There is a crucial difference. If you cant see the difference, then I'm sorry: Try again.

The thing is, criticizing a bad idea, or a collection of bad ideas can never be racist nor bigoted.

That not to say that some people aren't irrationally hating and bigoted towards muslims, or people who look like they might be muslims, but that is a COMPLETELY different thing.

Everyone understands this in politics: if you think the republican party sucks, that doesnt mean you hate people with a texan accent. Still, I'm sure some people think people with a thick texan accent are automatically to be considered as racist hillbillies who vote republican. That's stereotyping and bigotry. Being anti-republican is not.

BTW, anyone bamboozled by Reza Aslans fantasies about islamic countries being equality paradises shoud read Muhammad Syed and Sarah Haiders dismantling of his distortions right here : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/

@ChaosEngine I understand wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt. It does sound unfair, but my outlook is colored by the multiple police officers I know personally who think, talk and act that way.
It's disgusting, but time and again I've seen exactly how the institution works inside, and I know too many guys who became cops because they "get to beat the shit out of people".
The people I'm speaking of are truly sociopathic masochists and assholes. It has always been primarily in urban areas (Sacramento, Oakland, LA), and the problem runs straight through the institution end-to-end.
I have police in my family, some of them are good people. I know that a lot of police are good people, so I'm sorry for being so bluntly blinded by my personal experience-turned-anger. When things like this happen so frequently, it really gets my ire up.

Ultimately you're right, a taser would have been slightly more appropriate. Talking would have gone a lot further in the realm of humanity though.

I was uncomfortable with this video because I was afraid that it would be used as fuel for homophobia.

I upvoted because really, it is the most anti-homophobic thing out there. It dares to treat gay people as people. Fully, 100% people with a range of personalities.

As a woman, I wasn't offended by the "gayness" of the character, I was offended by the blatant sexual nature of his comments. All this chatter about gayness completely misses the point about what is appropriate behavior in the workplace. And in fact, all this chatter disturbs me deeply -- it is misdirection from the true "crime" here.

Equality is asking everyone to be treated EQUALLY. You don't talk about sex in the workplace like this -- not if you are gay or straight.

Having said that -- my male boss and I are completely inappropriate with each -- but NOT around anyone else. We have bawdy senses of humor and we crack each other up. As he said early on in our working relationship -- it isn't sexual harassment if it is UNWANTED sexual attention.

This guy's co-worker was plain in his language that he was uncomfortable and didn't want to hear sexually explicit stuff, and he wasn't homophobic in his comments. He was ignored. That was not okay.

The point was brought home by making him happily and openly gay and letting the chatty one have a moment of self-truth. Because yeah, he was an asshole.

Explaining comedy and social commentary is so boring.

@harlequinn, you do realise that NZ actually has quite sensible gun laws? You can own semi-auto rifles and so on but to do so you need a firearms licence. This includes not only a police check, but the cops will actually come to your house and check that you have adequate storage provisions for your guns. On top of that

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

- a history of violence
- repeated involvement with drugs
- been irresponsible with alcohol
- a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
- indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

To me those are perfectly reasonable and sensible restrictions.

@scheherazade, ah yes, the libertarian argument. I want a gun and fuck everyone else.

Kids getting shot at school? Fuck 'em, not my problem.
Random nutjob mows down a bunch of people in California? Fuck 'em, not my problem.

The fact is that guns do cause harm. The "people kill people" argument is beyond infantile. Of course, people kill people.... with a gun. It's a lot harder to go on a mass killing spree armed with a stick.

Here are the indisputable facts:
- There are some sick people out there. Some are just fucked up, some are in need of help.
- Sometimes these people snap.
- Sometimes when they do, they get a gun and kill a bunch of other people.
- If they didn't have a gun, the harm would be less.
I'm assuming no-one disputes those facts.

Now there are two solutions to this:
- Pro-gun advocates take the position that citizens need guns to defend themselves from this kind of situation. They often argue that instead of taking guns away from everyone, we should focus on either helping the mentally unbalanced or stopping them by shooting them.
- Gun control advocates take the position that if the shooter didn't have access to a gun in the first place, then maybe the whole mess would be avoided or at the very least minimised.

To me, it's a simple matter of practicalities. Option 1 is simply not working. We're decades (possibly centuries) away from completely understanding mental illness, that's if we achieve that at all. Meanwhile, crazy/insane/evil people are still going on shooting rampages.
And stopping them after the fact? That's pretty cold comfort to the people that have already been killed.

I am genuinely perplexed as to how people don't understand this.
Gun control works. In every other developed country in the world, there are reasonable and sensible laws restricting firearm ownership, and there is nothing like the kind of insane shootings we see on a regular basis in the US.

No-one is arguing that all guns should be taken away. No-one is saying you can't hunt or target shoot or even defend your home if necessary (although again, in the civilised world, most of us have no need for that).

But jesus, maybe you don't need an AR-15 with a massive clip. And is it that unreasonable to check to see if someone is mental or criminal before selling them a gun?

Apparently, in the US, it is.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

pfft, the rich have welfare, they just call it tax breaks, and they have the lobbyists to keep them.

No one wants those on foodstamps to use them for alcohol and other frivolous items. name me one non-foodstamp-using person who does? It's a strawman that the right obsessively cling to.

As with so many things, it's not about laws or bureaucracy, it's about enforcement. laws mean nothing without enforcement. I'm getting sick of seeing more and more panhandlers downtown where I live and I completely agree that handouts are not an efficient solution.

but you know what isn't a good solution either? negative reinforcement. We've been living under the conservative idea that if we just keep punishing the poor and making their lives more miserable, then obviously that will be motivation to not be poor.

IT DOESN'T WORK. maybe it works for a small percentage of people, but those people aren't poor then. so you have a group of people that are continually being punished and devalued for no good fucking reason because if they aren't motivated to not be poor under these kinds of conditions, then they never will be.

so again, we have this situation where there are two solutions that aren't really effective, but one is slightly less bad than the other. sure some people may use their foodstamps for alcohol and other shit...but many people do actually use their foodstamps for...food. shock.

Even if you had a much more equal distribution of wealth, we're still going to have poor people and people in poverty.

I think the issue is largely mired in health, physical and mental. Even with all our technology...mental health is still unreliable and some people are so physically impaired that they can't work or work well.

Despite largely claiming to be pro-life, the right would either secretly want them to die alone in an alley or make them indentured servants to some corporation if they aren't already. That, I submit, is no life, at least not a good and healthy one.

I don't have the answer, all we can really do is point out that many of the things we've tried aren't working and will never work, and even if there are some successes, it's still largely inefficient, but what's the alternative? if you are "pro-life" then an inefficient solution is still preferable to a solution that simply doesn't work. So I call bullshit on people who like to claim they have the solution. If someone out there has the solution, they certainly haven't demonstrated it yet.

Step up and bear hug them.
Like I'd really care!

"People are people so why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully." -- Depeche Mode

I agree with @eric3579 but I go further. I also attribute this to black people and their culture--after all they should be better than crime since their roots come from an afrocentric value background. Def higher standards for them! I also attribute it to women, fat people, disabled people, preachers, teachers, business executives and prostitutes (Since they have a sexual responsibility to all they sleep with.)

Until all these groups dime out each other and expect better of each other, and break the bull-shield, wall or whatever catchy name we make for it life won't get better.

If you think looking at tit's is a sexual advance I would imagine you live in northern Alaska where other "people" aren't even near you. How do you walk around in society? Do you dictate what everyone is allowed to look at? If you really "treat people as people" you should tolerate what other people decide to set their eyes upon. People like you would have us all become androgynous clones so that no one is different than the next. I like diversity - which is another reason tits are so seductive - they come in all shapes and sizes, they're like fingerprints or snow flakes. You should look into your Scopophobia. I imagine as the world becomes increasingly more populated it will be intolerable.