there isnt a law (at least in my state) that prevents me from pouring a 5 gallon jug of cat piss on the sidewalk in front of the police station......doesnt mean i should fucking do it just because i can to prove a retarded point tho.

as it pertains to open carry laws (which i whole heartedly support and defend) if you perceive a need for that weapon in your daily activities or if its part of your job description, then carry. If your reason to carry is just because you fucking can? you better take the persecution and name calling like a fucking champ, douche canoe

It used to be a quite well liked straight police show about a quiet police station called Sun Hill. Then the writers decided that it was too boring that way and made it more, uhm, soapie. After that every episode has been completely OTT, and there's been a major crime wave in Sun Hill ever since (including the officers).

You probably needed to know this to get the clip.
>> ^bareboards2:

Is this an inside joke? I don't understand....
I thought they were talking about The Wire -- is The Bill a really bad police show in the UK?
(Oh gawd, you are trying to get your first sift and I'm not understanding the vid!!!!)
Good luck with it!
[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bill Huh. It seems well respected....

@SDGundamX

Wow, where to start. Your reply to my latest comment illustrates how you (willingly or ignorantly?) continue to misconstrue the issue, building up strawman after strawman, putting words and notions in Harris' mouth and mine, while ignoring everything I post. And then you post an article that maliciously distorts the views of Harris and Hitchens, depicting them as solely intent on vilifying Islam. If that article really describes what you think than I should probably stop arguing with you and spend my time better, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Yes, I read the book you linked, or at least what the preview offered, which was more than enough to show that it does not go against anything Harris or I argue, only against the strawmen you prop up. A few comments on the book nonetheless:

The introduction (the one not by the book's author) is full of wishy-washy 'everything-and-its-contraire' platitudes, and ironically refers to Muslims as a unified whole, which is exactly what you accuse H. and I of... that's a good start; it's okay to make sweeping generalizations if they're positive? But even this text recognises that the secular influence of the "West" upon Muslim modernists forces them away from the core tenets of Islam and it's sacred text, which then sees the rise of fundamentalist backlash. And then there's this tidbit in the conclusion:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

Well hello captain Obvious! Either he's trying to address Christian right white trash, in which case he should use a bilboard instead of a book (I kid, I kid), or he takes his projected audience for fools. Or maybe he's building up to the sort of strawmen you seem so fond of attacking.

Now to the actual book: the author suggests that the world concentrates on "Arab" Islam, and ignores the rest. Not only is that false (at least where H. and I are concerned), not only does it carry racist undertones (yes, "Arab" is, for lack of a better word, a "race"; "Muslim" is not), but it purposefully ignores that the Middle East is Islam's birthplace, and still regarded as it's "Mecca" (haha). It's fine and dandy to put the blame that it deserves on European colonialism, but the author seems to forget that the spread of Islam is mostly due to, hey, Arabo-Islamic colonisation (and/or military conquest, sometimes with a healthy sprinkling of "cleansing", i.e. persecution of non-muslims 'till there were none left). But hey, Christianity did the same.
A really weird part is when the author somehow turns our quasi-universal use of the "Christian" calender into an illustration of Euro-American "structural violence and hegemony". Wow.
All in all, I learned nothing new whatsoever from what I read of that book, and cannot recommend it.

So there are modern/accomodationist interpretations of the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine? So not all Muslims are crazy male Saladins (I'm not making this up)? No one here is disputing that. So there are also other factors at work here? Not being denied either.

Neither are we arguing that muslims are more likely to commit violence than anyone else. By taking away the bold when citing me, you changed the meaning of the citation, creating one of the strawmen you also use to attack Harris: the key words are "in the name of" (or, to paraphrase "with the justification/motivation" of religion).

What is being argued is that Islam, i.e. the doctrines found in the Qur'an and Hadith, justify - render moral even - actions that are unethical, harmful, violent (the same is true of the Bible, from which Sharia law stems, but it is much less practiced than under Islam). That is why I quote the Qur'an, which - whether you like it or not - constitutes the core of the religion called "Islam" ("submission", btw... a pretty bad start). Nor can you deny that said religion demands that its holy text be considered the infallible and ultimate word of God (33:36). Many Muslims ignore the worser parts? Yay hooray! Doesn't change that some do not.

As for evidence (of which the book you cite, at least the parts accessible to me, contained none), you will never get it from me because you want evidence that supports the strawman arguments you put in H.'s mouth and mine, and there's no way you're getting that from either. What you do get, from the small sample of examples above (in a mess of html, i admit), is evidence that Islam today, more than any other religion, is at the source of (e.g. application of Sharia law) or aggravates (e.g. honour killing, fgm) acts of violence, discrimination and barbarity.

Is the fact that more than half of the active terrorist groups in existence today wear their Islamist agenda proudly, often including it in their name, not "evidency" enough for you?

Is the fact that unethical practices are condoned by Islamic (and almost only Islamic) regimes, even enshrined in civil law (which is also religious law), not evidence of Islam's virulence?

What more do you want? You say "You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion". You, and the author of that pathetic excuse of an article you just linked to, are trying to project a generalising, hate and fear-mongering view on people like Harris and myself, something I find both ignorant and insulting. Of course I can criticise an ideology, warn against its potential (and existing) negative consequences, without targeting every one of its adherents, or even the majority thereof. When Hitchens points out that the idea of vicarious redemption, central to Christianity, is unethical, and the Christian God's treatment of Abraham disgusting, is he saying that all Christian's are unethical and disgusting?

You say: Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it.

Quite simple really: compare pre-Islamic revolution Iran with post-Islamic revolution Iran. Compare the twin fates of Pakistan and India, the former being "created" as an Islamic nation. Which of the two bears the record for honour killings (the Sihks and Hindus try hard to catch up, I know)? Which of the two was hiding the world's most famous terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist? Which of the two has one of the lowest rates of literacy for women? In which of these two countries, whose post-colonial fate is practically identical, do you have 7/10 chances to be sexually abused in a police station if you are a women? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Colonialism and its modern forms (globalisation, etc.) have a lot of blame to shoulder, no doubt whatsoever. But that does not diminish in any way the import and effect of Islam's doctrines. Did colonialists invent sharia law, for example, or demand it be enforced? No. Mohamed and his ideology did.
Blaming everything on colonialism and "western" influence is a twisted form of pretentiousness, as if only the "west" could come up with bad stuff. Arabs, Asians, Africans, etc. are people too, they too can be atrocious, it's not just reserved for the whiteys! It's as wrong as blaming slavery entirely on Europe and the American colonies. The slave trade in Africa and the Middle East was going on long before "westerners" became buyers, and guess who was doing the trading?

As long as you insist on blinding yourself to the influence of Islam in the world today, or at least to its negative aspects, you will have a skewed and prejudiced view, exactly what you are accusing others of. Of course it is only one factor among many, but it is an important factor, whether that suits your guilt-by-association-ridden conscience or not.

Definitely.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
>> ^burdturgler:

I guarantee the cop in this situation felt like he was fighting for his life. More weight and in a police station or not, he was alone and the criminal definitely got the drop on him and was going for his gun, like you said. Scary situation.


So Fear would be a good channel? And I agree, he was shaken afterwards and you could see it. It is because everything turned out alright that I could breathe happily.

>> ^burdturgler:

I guarantee the cop in this situation felt like he was fighting for his life. More weight and in a police station or not, he was alone and the criminal definitely got the drop on him and was going for his gun, like you said. Scary situation.


So Fear would be a good channel? And I agree, he was shaken afterwards and you could see it. It is because everything turned out alright that I could breathe happily.

I guarantee the cop in this situation felt like he was fighting for his life. More weight and in a police station or not, he was alone and the criminal definitely got the drop on him and was going for his gun, like you said. Scary situation.

Charlie Veitch, the founder of the peace activist group ‘The Love Police’, was pre-emptively arrested on Thursday the 28th of April 2011, around 1615h, on an allegation of a conspiracy to cause public nuisance. As the video evidence shows, Charlie was not read his rights, and no warrant was presented for his arrest or for the search of his living space.

He was held for 16 hours at Parkside Police Station in Cambridge. Outraged locals, students, and activists protested outside the station, and concerned citizens from around the world inundated the station with phone calls to voice their concern of this totalitarian police behaviour. Parkside police were obstructive to his lawyer, family, and partner, let alone friends and supporters, by not providing any information of his wellbeing or whereabouts.

At around 1000h on Friday the 29th of April 2011, Charlie was collected by the Metropolitan Police from Parkside and taken to an undisclosed police station in London for 8 hours. Efforts by his lawyer, family, and partner to locate him were made in vain – he had effectively been ‘disappeared’ into the police system. Charlie was denied his right to a phone call from London, again continuing the obstruction of his access to his lawyer, family, partner and supporters. He requested that the police telephone his partner to inform her of his whereabouts, which was promised but not performed. With his family in the dark as to his whereabouts, concern was considerably growing.

Charlie was eventually released on bail 23 hours and 45 minutes after his arrest at approximately 1600h on Friday 29th April from Edmonton Police Station, London – just within the 24 hour limit that a person can be lawfully arrested and detained without charge. - http://www.cveitch.org/

His intention was good but it's rather unprofessional to leave in midst of an interview. Just sayin'.

It's sorta like capturing a window spider and releasing it outside in midst of a job interview or saying hello to his friend while he's at the principal's office. Do remember that he just came out of a police station fighting extradition facing a rape charge in Sweden. (which is another debating case of immaturity of him and people he mingles with)

It just goes to show his attitude towards all this media attention, that he's not taking things very seriously, not much different from a love-starved kid getting attention by being naughty.

What he's doing with wikileaks has made headlines, fighting against the tyrannies of corporate controlled and concentration of power. That's good. But he's also a man that does not care much for conventional rules, and he'd rather play this role of vigilante and in fact loving every minute of it. He's just as immature and selfish as any one of those crooks he is ought to expose them.

He likes the fact that he can play outside the boundaries, that he is above the law. In fact that's what his work is about, by means of backhand deals and illegal information leaks. But he's doing these bad things to the bad guys, which is the major difference and why some people view him as a hero. So his existence is in itself a constant clash of irony, a people's hero out to fight against world's problems, by practicing the same techniques the baddies are using, and enjoying his role in it.

It's really humorous to me to see SFPD's undercover cops. They just don't fit in, ever. Even when these messengers of the darkside are trying to get protestors to "incite a riot" so they can tase & arrest everyone, everyone knows who you are. I know you're reading this. FUCK YOU.

The other humorous thing about them is most of the drugs in the Tenderloin (like bad, bad stuff - OCs, methadone, heroin, crack, meth) are peddled a block away from the police station and it seems like every once in a while they'll try to nab a whole bunch of people but for the most part that entire block is overlooked by the entire police department. Why is that?

This show is so frustrating. The writing quality is good one one level, truly awful on another: Dexter's personal journey is well handled. I like that he's got an accomplice who also doubles as romantic interest but oh. my. god. with the terrible internal police station antics. The harebrained marriage between Batista and LaGuerta (as well as all the other idiotic romance subplots) is something I just cannot care about.

I wish it was more realistic, like a documentary-style police procedural.

The incindent you are thinking about was in Umeå in Sweden.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2180448/stal-dator-men-lamnade-tillbaka-innehallet-pa-usb-minne

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I would think that many carjackers would do something similar - going from carthief to kidnapper or murderer is a big, big step. Thieves usually do it for easy money, extortion is hard money, murder is no money.

I read somewhere, where a university professor got his laptop stolen, the thief returned his files and data on a usb stick in the profs mailbox (but kept the laptop). Saved him a hell of a lot of work having to recreate it, and insurance pays for the laptop anyway, so that was a much smaller hassle. The point is criminals are still people, but usually desperate or weak-willed.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Couple of weeks ago, something similar happened here, except the robber had some sense of decency, and the mother was the idiot.
So this woman stops her car in front of the building she lives in, and leaves the car open, with the key in the ignition, and a 6 or 7 year old child and a toddler inside the car, to go up to the apartment and pick up some stuff.
Some guy comes along and steals the car, with both children still inside.
A few miles away, he stops in front of a pharmacy, and tells the older kid to take his sibling inside because their aunt is supposedly waiting for them inside.
The pharmacist obviously didn't knew who they were, so he took them to a police station.

I would think that many carjackers would do something similar - going from carthief to kidnapper or murderer is a big, big step. Thieves usually do it for easy money, extortion is hard money, murder is no money.

I read somewhere, where a university professor got his laptop stolen, the thief returned his files and data on a usb stick in the profs mailbox (but kept the laptop). Saved him a hell of a lot of work having to recreate it, and insurance pays for the laptop anyway, so that was a much smaller hassle. The point is criminals are still people, but usually desperate or weak-willed.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Couple of weeks ago, something similar happened here, except the robber had some sense of decency, and the mother was the idiot.
So this woman stops her car in front of the building she lives in, and leaves the car open, with the key in the ignition, and a 6 or 7 year old child and a toddler inside the car, to go up to the apartment and pick up some stuff.
Some guy comes along and steals the car, with both children still inside.
A few miles away, he stops in front of a pharmacy, and tells the older kid to take his sibling inside because their aunt is supposedly waiting for them inside.
The pharmacist obviously didn't knew who they were, so he took them to a police station.

Couple of weeks ago, something similar happened here, except the robber had some sense of decency, and the mother was the idiot.

So this woman stops her car in front of the building she lives in, and leaves the car open, with the key in the ignition, and a 6 or 7 year old child and a toddler inside the car, to go up to the apartment and pick up some stuff.

Some guy comes along and steals the car, with both children still inside.

A few miles away, he stops in front of a pharmacy, and tells the older kid to take his sibling inside because their aunt is supposedly waiting for them inside.
The pharmacist obviously didn't knew who they were, so he took them to a police station.

going to the police station is basically being arrested. Especially since repeat infractions invoke fines and visits from state social workers. I am glad he finally says what the law actually is, an attempt and moral enforcement by the state. Just as for years, the state has had the last word on what marital status is, or what drugs you put in your body. There is no logical separation with this and fining parents who's children are found at fast food restaurant.

>> ^VoodooV:

Republicans simply cannot shake their hypocrisy. Even you were somehow able to believe that this was all Obama's doing. We were all supposed to believe the war was good when we were under Bush. Now that we're under Obama, it's bad? WTF?
Personally, I'd say it's a war of ignorance, but ignorance is also a choice too so it works both ways
And for the nth time, it's not a war. Only congress can declare war. We WISH it would be a war because if it was official, it would have been over years ago.


This isn't entirely actuate of the situation. As you can see if you watched the video, most rank and file republicans still support the war. Steele seems to be a recent convert on the anti-war kick, but Ron Paul has never really supported war or police actions at large.

For anyone who has played civilization, we know that democracy suffers from war weariness (unless you build enough police stations which is kind of scary now that I consider it!). A good war turns into a bad war fast in the public eye if people don't agree with it. The fact that Obama had decided not to end it, but rather escilate it does make it his war now. It is the difference between folding and paying to see the flop, he didn't even have to small blind on this one, he said he was a war candidate from day one about ganastan.

As far as it being a war or not, it doesn't really matter what you call it, we are shipping them bombs, and not via federal express. Congress is funding it, not forcing his hand. It is a de facto war regardless of what you want to call it. Perhaps the fact that it isn't even a war makes it worse, not better anyway. It means the president can bomb countries and not even have to ask congress, such a great precedent.