a guess based on very little information:

he was shooting at an abstract, at a proxy for the system and source of a pervasive and ubiquitous fear, at the protectors of the very thing that is causing a lot of the suffering and senseless death within his community. it was clearly an act of desperation and the really sad part is no one will ever consider any of that and no one will ever be able to say any of that in public and so this act of desperation becomes another piece of the narrative of apologetics to maintain the status quo. a reciprocal of the bullshit "bad apples" argument that gets repeated ad nauseam.

while this op ed is thoughtful and considered, it isn't thoughtful enough, imo. but no one is allowed to consider the motivation for this act of desperation to be legitimate.

I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

The leaked counterproposal is fucked up. Nevermind my ultra left wing preferences, opposing higher taxes on corporations while cutting benefits for the poorest of the poor is fucked up. That's fuel for the anti-European parties. They can paint themselves as the protectors of the plebs against those feudal overlords in Brussels and Berlin with this kind of shit.

Bob, I'd like to.

Seriously. I'd like to see offsetting videos of cops being good citizens and good protectors and defenders. Because deep down, I want to believe cops are exactly that. I don't want to believe The Thin Blue Line is a collection of corrupt thugs who believe it's their right to act as judge, jury and executioner. I want to think cops are doing the right thing for the right reasons and not riding the wave of a power trip.

Show me the videos of cops being helpful, courteous and kind and I'll upvote them. But at the same time, I will not close my eyes to the videos that show cops doing the exact opposite.

They likely had a litter from their lone house cat. That's happened to me on several occasions. Enjoy them as cute little menaces to society and then sell/give them away. Better to spay and neuter cats, but sometimes you get a cat that's already pregnant or it happens before you had a chance to.

From personal experience, a household with ~10 cats is manageable but that is where it gets hard (and I don't recommend it). Invest in a couple decent automated litter boxes, feeding set up so the cats don't crowd over one or two bowls. 4 is not bad. Makes for a fun little animal family. Hilarity always ensues. 1 is lonely, 2 is a rivalry, 3 is a crowd, but 4 is a silly family of prankster cats.

But then there is the mother who is off camera, so that's 5 cats. That's fun. Sibling cats who grow up around their mother become very caring and mature better. I had a scenario where my male and female kittens had kittens. It was so cool studying their family structure. Seeing the attachments the kittens have to the mother and father, and allowing it to grow to fruition is a joy to see, even if it's not always possible to keep the fam together every time.

Animal family units are awesome and I almost feel like every human family should have a protectorate animal family that is their duty to protect and nurture. If you can raise an entire animal family, you can do anything. Human families are narcissistic barbie playsets for most people, so this is less disturbing to me than a family with 4 children.

Well, even if you did say they were toxic I'd have agreed with you, like others here have said any reasonable comments made would have been buried under a metric fuckton of bullshit anyhow.

I think there is a misunderstanding here however, when GenjiKilpatrick and others are talking about Sarkeesian "being called on her shit" they mean the reasoned criticism, not the threats, nobody here is arguing in favor of that.
I am curious though, unless you know something about these threats that I don't, how do you know that they are in fact "Serious"? Most people can dream up all kinds of crazy shit or even talk about it, but that still doesn't put you into Dexter Morgan territory (Dexter would be too polite to say anything like that anyhow, and Sarkeesian doesn't fit Harry's Code).
If you are referring to the UCU lecture that she cancelled, then no, neither campus security nor the FBI advised her against going through with the appearance, she made that choice on her own.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp

You also say "It's unseemly to imply a single woman should ignore such threats or assume they are not credible", which makes me wonder if this was a man we were talking about would you still feel the same way? Adam Orth received death threats to both himself and his family and while it did create a lot of discussion, even heated discussion, it did not generate the same kind of mass outrage that this has so far. Gabe Newell also got a threat from a developer some time back and that got barely a peep out of anyone.
Simply put, we still live in a society that puts on a good public show of equality for men and women, but privately we still teach our little boys that men are still the true protectors of our society. We don't get as upset when men face danger because that is what we expect of them, and this kind of deeply embedded cultural belief is the real heart of sexism in our society. This debate over the role of women in video games is all superficial because I believe it comes from those much older beliefs.

Sad.
You are supposed to be the protectors of the public, but you seem to think it's proper to live in fear of and disgust with them.
I was taught, and it has held true, that the best way to win a fight is not to be in one. I have won many a 'fight' in my youth by being LESS violent than the person assaulting me, sometimes with words diffusing the situation, sometimes by simply avoiding their clumsy attacks and allowing them to hurt themselves. Escalating the violence is almost never the best option, just the simplest and most reactionary.
Those times I 'lost' a fight (only happened with my brother who was twice my size, unavoidable, and I couldn't talk down), I could have become more violent to 'win' and saved myself from discomfort and injury by stabbing him...that would have been inappropriate. To me, from your comments you would have knifed him, because winning is more important than anything else. That theory sucks ass, and I think you know it.
OK, if "all too many cops" is hyperbole, I'll say "nearly every cop on the force"...better? Both are true, both are terrible. Show me just 3 instances of cops going against other cops publicly and in court, and remaining cops. You can't. That's "All too many" to almost everyone that's not in uniform.

For my part, I would say this...
Often you at least SEEM to be defending bad behavior or bad cops. That's when I take issue. For instance, you just said it's fine for cops to 'bluff' or lie to gain compliance, or as an investigative tool. Many people, like me, would say that IS bad behavior, the kind only done by bad people/bad cops.
EDIT: When you clearly denounce bad cops and/or their actions, you often get an upvote from me.
I would suggest that you have inside knowledge of how it looks from your perspective, just as we have an 'inside knowledge' of how it looks from ours. We are sharing our perspectives with each other. Neither of us owns the 'truth'.

"Truth" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person...but you don't need to know the "truth" in order to not lie. -Mr. Newt Sr. (dad)

I must think you put me in the rabid cop hater set, but you would be wrong. (please see the 'tough cop does good' video I posted as proof) I don't even feel 'hatred' towards you at all (maybe frustration), I just often disagree strongly with your position. I simply WANT to hold cops to a higher standard and to feel it's proper to give them more respect, not a lower standard than ordinary citizens without authority, a standard which deserves and garners no respect. When too many cops are liars, thugs, thieves, and a vast majority of the rest are protectors of liars thugs and thieves, that's impossible for me and others to do. That hurts 'good cops' more than anyone, but please realize it's the bad cops that did it to you, and they are the one's to be blamed, we are simply reacting to them in understandable ways out of self preservation.
We are seeing that bad cops are less of an exception than previously thought. When we are getting 10+ new abuse videos a week, there's been an escalation in this 'bad behavior' or 'bad cops' that has yet to be addressed, and the only one's that can address it properly are other cops. My position has always been that the perpetrators of these abuses are a minority (I hope), but they are supported and protected by near the entirety of the force. Until that changes completely, you must understand you are in a close group that's looking worse and worse daily to the public you 'serve', and offering less and less benefit to us. If you look at it from that position, you will understand the frustration and anger you often receive here.

To me, if you believe you can lie (bluff, trick, obfuscate the truth, intentionally misdirect, whatever you wish to call the lie) to get evidence or compliance with your wishes, you are a liar. Period. If you do it once, you are a liar. If you do it often, you are a habitual liar. If you do it in court, you are a perjurer. Cops are caught lying in court all the time and rarely if ever see any consequence, certainly not one the public sees. To me, I think it's important that they should be prosecuted publicly to the fullest extent of the law EVERY time, because it's a dereliction of duty and an abuse of power that damages the entire force and to an extent, society (by damaging trust in authority), on top of the crime of perjury, and every time it happens 'good' cops get less and less respect and trust. If only good cops were as upset about it as we are, they (you?) would do something to change the culture and stop ANY abuse you might see, not excuse and explain it away.
Just my 2 cents.

All hail Her Grace, Elizabeth of House Windsor, second of Her Name, Queen of England and the First Men, Lady of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm!

No kickback protector, no guard to keep the chain on the sproket, no spikes to grab jumped chain, no clutch to prevent stuck chain from tearing the motor out of the housing....oh and the lack of bar oil.

If the dude can afford a grinder that big, he can afford a fuckin chainsaw. Cmon.

I've seen enough of these videos to know that only a small percentage of badge wearing criminals ever go punished. It's the job of cops to uphold the law and protect citizens. Here is a clear example of a violent crime being committed. If any police/judge/prosecutor wants to be viewed as a protector of justice and not a terrorist in uniform then these criminal members of their fraternal order must permanently be removed, and jailed. Until then all are either guilty of aiding criminals or failing to do there job.

When I was young and first heard those famous lyrics "Fuck the Police" I thought it was childish babble from criminals. After years of life, I have come to the conclusion +90% of police are good people. They just don't do their job, and stop the few that aren't.

If this was a dog you'd have a protector for life. But it's a cat, so you get a "i was fine anyway" look.

@enoch, you must have your head in your own rectum if you think that Oakland is anywhere close to a libertarian's wet dream. You clearly have no interest in having a real discussion about any of the principles I've outlined for you, and I have little problem ignoring your posts.

If anything, Oakland is more like a statist's dream, right now. The inevitable result of regulations and criminalization of drugs. Drug dealers, pimps, bookies, and such are, in fact, "cronies" of the governmental system due to the fact that their jobs are overpaid by the illegality of these services.

If Oakland decriminalizes all of the above mentioned "services" that these guys provide, then I would grant that the city is, indeed, moving in a libertarian direction. Otherwise, only psychos and low-lifes tend to take those illegal jobs given that they are subject to the precariousness of the whims of the legislators

I don't mind them doing any of the above activities, actually. But shooting guns in the air could be a violation of someone else's property, depending on where the bullets fall or on whom/what. And obviously the state "protectors" are doing nothing about any of these things.

Like I said, let private security take over and these random shootings would be curtailed..

Make Oakland business-friendly, and you will see it become much less violent. A libertarian's "dream" does not look like an over-regulated Oakland.

Private enterprise/private property does not put up with random shooting into the air in the middle of a city. Tell me: Why are there are no gang shootings inside the Google campus? Or at Disneyland?

Why do these things tend to happen only in "public" spaces? Tell me.

That cop heckled by the gangs had zero incentive to risk his life for no gain. Businesses, on the other hand, have the incentive to keep gangs off of their property. And they will find those willing and able (for the right price) to deal with the gangsters in ways the government cronies simply can/will not..

I agree, I restricted my point to things that can easily be changed. That was intentional. Those were the sorts of comments she was complaining about (e.g. that she's being "intentionally unattractive"). Men would receive similar criticism. If straight up sinewy stud wore baggy assed stained hoodies to his weatherman job, or thick rimmed glasses and a pocket protector with suspenders then a handful of people would give him shit for it. I promise you. They would. A handful more will talk about how they don't give a fuck and want to jump on his magnetic pole. The rest will talk about how they hate "wintery mix."

You seem to miss my point. I think it's demeaning to suggest that being sexualized is the problem, or even that it is gendered. Cat calls, come ons and so forth should be seen for what they are. Compliments. The problem is exactly what you said in the last paragraph. What you look like, and the value of what you say should be seen as completely orthogonal dimensions. Unfortunately, in this world they aren't. That's lame.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.