^I guess you haven’t been to the rest of America lately, because while Oregon might only have full-service fuel stations, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the following states do not, as I have driven in every one of them:

Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New York
Massachusetts
Delaware
Maryland
Washington, DC
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Missouri
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
New Mexico
Arizona
California
Colorado
Wyoming
South Dakota
Montana
Utah
Idaho

In all those states, I only recall visiting ONE full-service station. It was on I-90 in New York state, in the summer of 1989. It was a station that was full-service only, and you had to pay the extra quarter per gallon for it too. Even then, they didn't clean your windows, empty your ashtray, or halt traffic so that you could safely re-enter the road. They just pumped the gas, and then they expected a tip too.

So while full-service may be the norm in the Oregon, it isn’t anywhere else I’ve been, nor is it the norm for most non-Oregonians.

I took a few criminal justice courses in college. 30% of all black men in the country are either in prison, going to prison, or have been in prison. In Washington, DC, 50% of all black men have or will have a criminal background. The likelihood of a black man stealing a white woman's purse in an elevator is far, far higher than if it were a white man. I'm surprised so many comments state that there is little to no racial bias going on in such situations, considering the gigantic gap in criminality between whites and blacks.

Simply put, if whites and blacks had identical, or even remotely similar criminality rates, then, and only then, would I possibly believe that white women had identical "purse defending" behavior around both groups of men.
Until that day, I'm not buying it. (This Scientific American article on Buried Prejudice is pretty good: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=buried-prejudice-the-bigot-in-your-brain&print=true)

I also thought it was clear that the video is an angry, and yes, racist response to racism the creator feels exists. That's kinda the point. What goes around comes around.

One thing I'd like to point out, especially to all the "Nader is crazy" people. The source of Nader's info is a Congressman from Massachusetts by the name of John W. Olver. This is not a conspiracy theory nutcase (at least, I don't think Olver is one of those) but someone who has first-hand knowledge (read: greater than yours) of how Washington DC really works.

And I'm not even saying that Nader isn't crazy. He may well be. The only way I'd discount this concern is if...

a) John Olver turned out to be a nutjob himself.
or
b) it came out that Nader made up the source of the letter.

In looking at his Wikipedia article and the Congressman's own website, I do not find anything to suggest item 'a' being true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Olver
http://www.house.gov/olver/index.shtml

And item 'b'? Well, who knows? Anything's possible.

i think Mos Def is genius and the things he said here are right on. but i do think he talks funny. i grew up in Washington DC which has some of the worst school systems and gettos in the nation or did in the early 90s and i never ran into people that talk like him.. so he might have a speech problem lost of people do.. it dose not make him dumb.

Naw, expect to see reports like these the closer it gets to rerection time......
"Obama's Face On Mars"
"Obama Seen in Spongecake in Mexico City Bakery"
"Thousands March to Washington DC from Selma in Support of Obama"
"Obama Announces G. Garfalo as Running Mate"
"MahatmaObama, th' Freshmaker!"

^ You don't run for VP by trying to tear down the Presidential candidate.

Some of her staff have been reported as saying something along the lines of "she just wanted several days to think about things and come to grips with what's happening next."

I think the VP thing was something the press & her supporters cooked up. I think she was just in denial, and she got lots of wakeup calls throughout the day today.

Her campaign has now said she'll be conceding and endorse Obama on Friday at an event in Washington DC.

This is like a train wreck. I can't bear to watch, but I can't look away.

And if it turns out that Obama really wants to curb the abuse of power, Washington DC will just split off from the rest of the country, just like they are doing in bolivia.

here's a video about the power grab in Bolivia:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bolivia-faces-separatist-challenge

I replied to your well-reasoned post.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Ahoy! A reply.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
Quantumushroom, I presume you base your views regarding gun control on the inconsequential short term effects of gun control legislation on crime rates, most likely tested as a policy in various US states and typically cited by the NRA and various pro-gun lobbies supporting their industrial constituencies.

Washington DC: near-total "gun control" and highest murder rate in the US. The long-term failure of 60,000+ ill-conceived American gun laws on the books that only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is my proof that it doesn't work. "Gun-free zones" don't work. What works: burglars and carjackers thinking twice in states with concealed carry laws.

You should try living in a country which has utterly insignificant gun ownership levels due to restrictions on ownership over a sustained period. Perhaps then you would not think that every law abiding citizen needs a gun for his or her protection and would be more than satisfied with the protection police, or privately hired security guards for business purposes can provide for you.

America's Second Amendment is not about "needing" a gun, it's about recognizing self-defense as a fundamental human right from God (or for you atheists, "by the virtue of human birth"). It doesn't matter why anyone wants to own a gun and its none of the State's business.

BTW congratulations liberals, on the Clintons' recent confession to being part of the Evil Rich. Hell, I thought they couldn't be worth more than what, 10 million? Does anyone know how much of their 100 million dollars they've personally spent helping the poor?

Quantumushroom, I presume you base your views regarding gun control on the inconsequential short term effects of gun control legislation on crime rates, most likely tested as a policy in various US states and typically cited by the NRA and various pro-gun lobbies supporting their industrial constituencies.

Washington DC: near-total "gun control" and highest murder rate in the US. The long-term failure of 60,000+ ill-conceived American gun laws on the books that only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is my proof that it doesn't work. "Gun-free zones" don't work. What works: burglars and carjackers thinking twice in states with concealed carry laws.

You should try living in a country which has utterly insignificant gun ownership levels due to restrictions on ownership over a sustained period. Perhaps then you would not think that every law abiding citizen needs a gun for his or her protection and would be more than satisfied with the protection police, or privately hired security guards for business purposes can provide for you.

America's Second Amendment is not about "needing" a gun, it's about recognizing self-defense as a fundamental human right from God (or for you atheists, "by the virtue of human birth"). It doesn't matter why anyone wants to own a gun and its none of the State's business.

BTW congratulations liberals, on the Clintons' recent confession to being part of the Evil Rich. Hell, I thought they couldn't be worth more than what, 10 million? Does anyone know how much of their 100 million dollars they've personally spent helping the poor?

Really, though, what’s more surprising? That Bush was booed at a public event in one of the most liberal cities in America, Washington DC, or that there were enough people at a Nationals game to boo loud enough for it to register during a television broadcast?

http://sayanythingblog.com/

That was actually dated the month before the National Park Services response...so those are the points they are attempting to address. The most current response from PEER regarding the National Park Service response is as follows.

EVOLVING GRAND CANYON POSITION LEAVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS — National Park Service Now Distancing Itself from Creationist Book It Approved

Washington, DC — The National Park Service insists that it does not teach creationism or endorse the view that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah’s Flood, according to a new agency public statement posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Despite this statement, the agency will continue selling a book making those “Young Earth” claims about the origin of the canyon – a book that top agency officials approved over the objections of its own park superintendent

In a statement issued by the National Park Service (NPS) Chief of Public Affairs, David Barna, on January 4th, the agency contends that park rangers have been instructed to “use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon…The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old.”

The statement adds, “Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old…We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content.”

While this is the first time that the Park Service has gone on record distancing itself from the book, Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, on sale in park bookstores, the Barna statement does not explain:

* Why did the Park Service approve it for sale? Under agency rules, park officials are only to allow display materials of the highest accuracy and which support approved park interpretive themes in its bookstores;
* What happened to the “policy review” on the book promised in public statements and in letters to members of Congress by Barna and other NPS officials?
* Why has NPS refused for the past five years to issue the pamphlet entitled “Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion” providing guidance to park rangers and other interpretive staff on how to answer questions relating to creationism, evolution and related topics?

The Barna statement notes “This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore” but omits the fact that this “inspirational” section was created after PEER exposed the fact that the book was being sold as a “natural history.” The inspirational section now includes anthropological works on Native American culture but no other work remotely resembling the Vail book.

The new Park Service statement implies it will keep selling the creationist book for the foreseeable future, despite protests from the agency’s own specialists that the book’s approval violated Park Service rules.

“Our only point is that the Park Service should stop selling the book with a government seal of approval,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”

^ very impressed with grimm and sourcing this. you are *quality

In reply to this comment by Grimm:
National Park Services Responce:

Recently there have been several media and internet reports concerning the National Park Service’s interpretation of the formation of the Grand Canyon.

The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon. Our guidance to the field is contained in the NPS Management Policies 2006 and NPS Director’s Order # 6 and requires that the interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. Our commitment to scientific accuracy is also driven by Director’s Order #11B, which requires us to ensure the objectivity of the information we disseminate.

Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon. If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer.

The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.

The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 270 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation? Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old. This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section there are photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also give an alternative view of the canyon’s origin). The park’s bookstore contains scores of texts that give the NPS geologic view of the formation of the canyon.

We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content. However, neither do we censor alternative beliefs. Much like your local public library, you will find many alternative beliefs, but not all of these beliefs are used in the school classroom. It is not our role to tell people what to believe. We recognize that alternative views exist, but we teach the scientific explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon.

I hope this explanation helps.

David Barna
Chief of Public Affairs
National Park Service
Washington, DC
Registered Professional Geologist (AIPG #6528)
Licensed Geologist (North Carolina #129)

National Park Services Responce:

Recently there have been several media and internet reports concerning the National Park Service’s interpretation of the formation of the Grand Canyon.

The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon. Our guidance to the field is contained in the NPS Management Policies 2006 and NPS Director’s Order # 6 and requires that the interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. Our commitment to scientific accuracy is also driven by Director’s Order #11B, which requires us to ensure the objectivity of the information we disseminate.

Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon. If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer.

The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.

The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 270 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation? Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old. This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section there are photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also give an alternative view of the canyon’s origin). The park’s bookstore contains scores of texts that give the NPS geologic view of the formation of the canyon.

We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content. However, neither do we censor alternative beliefs. Much like your local public library, you will find many alternative beliefs, but not all of these beliefs are used in the school classroom. It is not our role to tell people what to believe. We recognize that alternative views exist, but we teach the scientific explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon.

I hope this explanation helps.

David Barna
Chief of Public Affairs
National Park Service
Washington, DC
Registered Professional Geologist (AIPG #6528)
Licensed Geologist (North Carolina #129)

I'm not trying to paint the police as bad people.. i've stood up for the police in other video posts and I have family that are in the police force. This police unit is a Washington DC unit that specializes in crowd control and protestor apprehension. Are the police of the District of Columbia immune to the requirements of police in official states? This is worth investigating at least. What I am concerned about are Rogue police activites , as we all should be.

cool, I'm in DC this weekend visiting a friend, and was in just about every place pictured in the video in the last 24 hours, you might consider adding Washington DC to the tags