this is revolting. just fucking revolting. How is this man not being awarded a millionaire settlement?

So Teddy Roosevelt was a communist?!

It doesn't mean there's no problem government can't fix. It means that gov't can fix shortcomings in a free market system with reforms. You know things like the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, those terrible gov't programs that spend other people's money to do things like ensuring what you buy at the grocery store won't kill you. How wasteful!

The Progressive Movement was about eliminating corruption in government. It was about improving society through various means, including gov't involvement when needed, but not always. For example, Henry Ford paid his workers well, very much against what most factory owners did, as Ford was heavily influenced by the Progressive Movement. Settlement Houses were charity based, not government run, and helped to educate adults to become more effective workers by teaching various skills. Yes, it overstepped its bounds with Prohibition, but it also brought the following communist, socialist, un-American things:

Women's Suffrage
Meritocracy to gov't agencies and officials
Modernized public schools
Food and Drug Administration
Busted up monopolies to protect consumers
Regulated unfair business practices designed to eliminate competition at the detriment to consumers
Safer working conditions
End of child labor
Fairer pay for workers with things like the minimum wage
Unemployment insurance

I'm sure qm will have a problem with some of the above, but how can you argue with the vast majority of them? Most historians rank T. Roosevelt and FDR as two of America's best presidents. They're probably the two most well known Progressives in US History.

This is of course all part of the communist conspiracy!!!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Progressivism = socialism = statism = communism lite and regular brand.
Nutshell:

There's no problem government can't solve! Just keep throwing other peoples' money at it!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Someone care to explain what "progressive" means? I can't find a suitable definition on the internets, or in commonality of liberal progressives. The only meaningful definition was from progressive tax codes, but I don't think that idea encapsulates the entirety of this vague concept.

Facts? Okay, 1 out of four go bad for cops as opposed. K. But there are 1000 or more citizens than cops. So, individual cops get the bad end of the stick most often than individuals by and large--thanks for the stat you just provided.And the death ratio is far high for cops too. (I am not saying abuse doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter as much as death...)

So when you say, "Clearly the individual should have more to fear" you are, clearly incorrect (By your own stat.)

Additionally, "Fear" and "blind power" can never go together. It has to be one or the other.


I agree some cops act either-or, which makes them thugs. They should be prosecuted. Did you also know who the more likely applicant for suicide is? Cops... Why? Who knows. Probably the same psychological reason that more commit crimes.



>> ^swedishfriend:

Reality!!!
Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?
Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.
Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.
Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.
Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).
The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.
The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

Reality!!!

Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?

Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.

Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.

Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.

Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).

The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.

The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

@NetRunner, screw the settlement. I'd prefer a tit-for-tat settlement where a couple of my buddies and me get to taze the officers repeatedly and pummel the shit out of them.

That was a joke. But would certainly be more fair in some respects than robbing the taxpayers every time a cop uses excessive force.

>> ^shagen454:

The real shame is that people take out of court settlements for this sort of thing. Yes, it is a pain to go to court for years - but when people opt out of the system and take money instead it only obscures the underlining problem.


Another shame is that agencies will settle out of court on plainly bogus accusations in order to avoid the waste too. It works both ways.

The real shame is that people take out of court settlements for this sort of thing. Yes, it is a pain to go to court for years - but when people opt out of the system and take money instead it only obscures the underlining problem.

>> ^raverman:

You're right: If only the Palestinians would put down their weapons, accept their imposed poverty, accept the god given superiority of god's choosen people, and graciously move off their land and into the sea so more settlements could be built... there would be no more violence.>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Oh, right. Its sad because if the Arab Nations had allowed the 2 state system there never would of been a problem to begin with but no. They had to attack to push the Jews in to the sea.
The real truth?
If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel’ – Benjamin Netanyahu
And thats sums it all up.



Imposed Poverty? So they are not spending millions and millions of cash on rockets, guns, explosives and bullets. Those things just appear? Maybe they should not of let Yasser Arafat pocket so much money? Claiming poverty while being able to launch hundreds and hundreds of rockets and firing thousand and thousands of bullets seems to be, I don't know.. Full of shit? Billions have been given to the Palestinians, they did not use this money to improve their lives. They used it to try and kill people.
The Arab nations started this mess. They attacked first and continued to keep trying to start wars. They used the Palestinians as a tool and Israel keeps taking the blame. And for what? Self Defense? You claim truth while screaming propaganda bullshit and for what I've seen it may be working but at some point someone is going to find out the real truth and it will be a sad day. It will be the day Hamas kicks in their door and comes for them. Palestinian TV teaches children hate and murder. Funny how you do not find that on Israeli Tv but the Israeli children are learning the lesson also. Every time a rocket is fired at them and their schools. Every time they have to run and hide when the sirens screams. Every time some brainwashed idiot blows him self up in a mall or when their Olympic athletes are murdered.

The Beginning of all this started with the Arab Countries they do not seem to want to take the responsibility to end it. So the beginning of the end must start with the Palestinians.

You're right: If only the Palestinians would put down their weapons, accept their imposed poverty, accept the god given superiority of god's choosen people, and graciously move off their land and into the sea so more settlements could be built... there would be no more violence.>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Oh, right. Its sad because if the Arab Nations had allowed the 2 state system there never would of been a problem to begin with but no. They had to attack to push the Jews in to the sea.
The real truth?
If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel’ – Benjamin Netanyahu
And thats sums it all up.

My girlfriend works with troubled Inuit youths (a group filled with intense despair, but thats another story), she told me a story about why so many of the Inuits in Canada despise white people.

The story goes that awhile back, not sure when, the Canadian army came to their settlements and put down all their sled-dogs. The Canadian governments official reason was that all the dogs were rabid. But another reason some people put forth is that the government wanted to issue SIN #'s to all the Inuits, and that was very hard to do when the Inuits were very nomadic, often traveling super far, with their sleddogs, to hunt caribou. And they did issue SIN #'s shortly after.

(My gf saw pictures of the Inuits holding their dead dogs, BTW)

I'm getting to my point: After the govt massacred their dogs, they built two grocery stores and two gas stations. That's pretty sweet... But were the dogs even rabid to begin with? That's the controversy.

And so I see a lot of parallel with American Imperialism in the Middle East. The hubbub and the murmurs are about the truth behind these wars. Are we there to free repressed Libyans? Or are we there to steal their oil? Well... Maybe it's both. What's so bad about seeing an unhappy people struggle to free itself from an oppressive govt, coming to their aid, helping them to build the foundations of democracy, and then... taking a little precious oil for our troubles?

OK that's it, devils advocate out.

FUCK AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.

It will harm the kids when their parents show it to them over and over to pump up the settlement amount...

This.

Title should be fixed to "Uncontacted Tribe in Brazil..." or "Uncontacted Tribe in the Amazon..."
>> ^messenger:

It's quite unlikely they are in Brasilia, since Brasilia is a large city and metropolitan area, whereas these settlements seem as remote as you can get.

>> ^messenger:

It's quite unlikely they are in Brasilia, since Brasilia is a large city and metropolitan area, whereas these settlements seem as remote as you can get.
Indeed. Brasilia is about 3000 km away from the border with Peru (where this tribe supposedly is).

It's quite unlikely they are in Brasilia, since Brasilia is a large city and metropolitan area, whereas these settlements seem as remote as you can get.

>> ^peggedbea:

revolutions will continue to be televised. the arab world will see democracy. and theyll be disappointed.


Although to be fair, our version of democracy is akin to the soviet version of communism.

I'd really love to see an attempt at implementing a demarchy as proposed in Alastair Reynolds "Revelation Space" books. For those who didn't read them (been a while since I read them myself, so please excuse any fuzzy memories): It's a sci-fi setting placed a good enough distance into the future; demarchists (demoratic anarchists) are one faction of humanity whose political system comprises of the general population voting over just about anything, removing the need for a centralized gouvernment. To be able to securely vote in the volume neccessary, everyone has an implant and each settlement has a central computer dedicated to distributing and tallying the votes.