@newtboy
now we are getting somewhere.

let us look at your first paragraph.notice anything?
ideology vs reality.
what you are proposing is the initial intent and ideologically i totally agree but even in your paragraph you concede to the truth,albeit a cynical truth.
(the referencing of the necessity if an informed public).which is only one aspect of a much greater whole which should be criticized and addressed.

understand i am not disagreeing with your assessments of the original intent.what i am pointing out is that what we have now is no where near a reflection of that intent,to which i have added that each right,privilege and dignity has had to be fought for and extracted FROM the government.

the government is "supposed" to represent the people.
it is "supposed" to protect and secure our rights.
but is that what we see play out?
i certainly dont think so.

the case is not exactly hard to make that the federal government no longer serves nor represents the will of the people but rather large corporate and monied interests.

though i will concede that revisionist text books can fascilitate indoctrination.

i am also not trying to make the argument this video is some political masterpiece of criticism.
it is a pandering,condescending,simple-minded piece of work BUT it is the criticism i admire.

i could go on for days on the failures of the public education system and it has very little to do with the teachers but rather the delivery system itself,which has become a machine which comodifies people into class categories.

henry giroux called it punishment creep.

school is not longer about education but rather about learning to obey.

quick story before i totally go off the rails and write you all a book:
i was subbing a history class for a friend and decided to teach shay's rebellion,since he was just completing america's war for independence and the rebellion is vital to understand the debate over federal powers.my friend was delighted with the idea but the administration was,less than enthusiastic.

the next day i was handed my third disciplinary notice and reprimanded for not following curriculum.which was bullshit because i was never given specific curriculum.

they wanted a babysitter...not a teacher.

i have not had a teaching gig since,because i didnt learn the lesson they are drilling into those kids brains.....obey.

sit down.
shut up.
and do what you are told.

do you truly think obedience should be the primary lesson learned at school?

"God Treasure One Who Can Listen to His Word and Obey Him" has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea on that post.

This is unbelievable. In this video some PEOPLE are stopping some other PEOPLE from giving food to hungry PEOPLE. Did they get so obsessed with their shiny blue uniform that they forgot that they were people with freedom to choose whether to let hungry people eat or not?

I feel like if i'd been one of the police there, i'd have had a sudden existential crisis - what the fuck have i been convinced to do here? I'm here in an authoritative capacity to stop desperate, hungry people from getting access to food. Shit, i'd have tried to organise a mass human shield around them.

I think everyone should take 5 seconds and just think exactly how this came to pass - from the law being written by the guys we endorsed, right down to the chain of command commanding these people apparently raised to obey orders unflinchingly - and then collectively feel embarrassed about it.

Sure, this may have been avoided if the proper 'housing'(?) could be arranged and it may have been inexpensive, but did it really fucking need to when it was going more smoothly than anything the government could have arranged?

Are you a Christian Engels? In what way do you interpret the scriptures? The scriptures are not vague about who Jesus said He was, why He came, and what our response to that should be. It's all there in black and white and it's not a secret. Regarding the exclusivity of Jesus, It's hard to misinterpret scriptures like this:

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Luke 13:2 And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?
Luke 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

It's not just one or two scriptures, it is the whole measure of Christ and His mission on Earth. What do you believe He came here to do?

Now there's a lesson in why you should obey playground and school zones. They're not there to protect the kids you can see.

It's not fringe when a good chunk of muslims around the world (not just the middle east) have extremist points of view:


Muslims in most countries surveyed say that a wife should always obey her husband." (including 93% in Indonesia and 65% in Turkey).

Only 32% of Muslims in Indonesia say a woman should have the right to divorce her husband (22% in Egypt, 26% in Pakistan and 60% in Russia)

1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim. 22% oppose democracy

21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.

61% of British Muslims want homosexuality punished

Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings

WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

Pew Research (2013): 81% of South Asian Muslims and 57% of Egyptians suport amputating limbs for theft.

Pew Research (2013): 72% of Indonesians want Sharia to be law of the land

Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers

MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)

Pew Research (2013): 39% of Muslims in Malaysia say suicide bombings "justified" in defense of Islam (only 58% say 'never').

Pew Research (2013): 76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion.

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.


CLEARLY, what we need is more Islam in the world. Such a force for good...

I can only judge the police on a person by person basis when they act independently.

Myself, I respect the police, and I obey and cooperate with them as required.
I've never done anything to necessitate any negative behaviour from them, so from experience, I have only good things to say about them. Though, I must admit, I've encountered some that were amazingly nice, and also some that were absolutely on a power trip.

BUT I know of three scenarios which Make them less than desirable.

1). The term Police should be synonymous with Peace (Peace officer). They are a team created to keep people safe. They uphold laws. Laws are meant to keep people safe.
But when they are used for other things, like aggressively engaging groups of protestors, they often behave against the people they have sworn to protect in insite more violent behaviours just so they can create arrests.

2). Police are given quotas. This is inherently corrupt. It's only purpose is to extort monies from the public and creates tensions between them and the people they are supposed to be helping.
It serves no purpose and forces even the good police to commit crimes against the people just so they can keep their jobs. These quotas are often passed down from ranking officers or higher up in the system.
This includes everything from Stop-and-frisk policies, to Speeding-infractions, to Roadside-vehicle-searches. It gives police a legal excuse to badger, bully, extort and abuse the people.

3). There are police not cut out for the job, and we've seen this in video time and again. The officer labelled as the "Hot Head". They over react, insight conflict, and use their position to create problems where none exist.
I can only attest to this example from what I see in the news. Being from Canada, we have different laws than the US, and I see this abuse most often in news from the US.
This type of officer either joined the system so they could be above the law, or has been tarnished and gone bitter along the way. They need to be weeded out and removed from duty.

All this being siad, the Police is an exclusive club. They are a close knit group of members which stand up and support each other. This could be a good thing. they need to rely on each other, especially in times of life or death.
Unfortunately, they also stand up for each other in times where they shouldn't. They protect the wrong doers in the system, cover up irregularities and just basically lie to cover up those officers breaking the law.
It's a system of "not covering up, means you can't trust others to come to your aid."

So, yes, we need the police. We like the police.
But if they don't rethink the way they operate, they only increase the gap between helping ind hindering the people. On the current course, they are forcing a large wedge between themselves and the people that are paying their pay check to keep them safe.
If you can't trust the police, they are no longer the police -- just thugs.

The good police need to stand up against the police that are abusing the system and making their job harder on a daily basis. Fix the system, fix the interaction, and then it will fix the work environment police work in.

How many times did you 'use' your gun? How many of those times would pepper spray have sufficed?
The instance I spoke of was a completely improper application of pepper spray (with cotton swabs directly to the eyeballs) was to handcuffed people sitting in front of a building (a building with other entrances, so not blocking any business or access I might add). It was all about asserting their power because someone didn't respect their authoratah.
The other recent incident was people handcuffed sitting on a bike path (with other pathways easily used to get around them)...once again, no need for violence other than frustration at not being 'obeyed'...absolutely none.
Thousands of people are treated violently by cops in their own home yearly who aren't making meth, didn't have any argument with anyone, but were simply in the wrong home when the cops either made a mistake or acted on bad information. What about them? That's why I say the cops need to be swatted at least once a year, so they remember what it's like and don't act like asshats.

@artician In my view and this maybe too simple, but I think that Israel and the United States should not just obey international law, but obey their own populations who want a 2 state solution. There is no reason for this to be continuing on except that Israel wants the better land and the US wants a good middle east ally and base of operations.

Go back to the 1973 borders, accept the 2 state solution and we'll be done with it. Israel doesn't accept that because they say Jordan is the only palestinian state they'll allow to exist. The world has voted several times, their own populations have expressed their wishes. The only way they can continue is with apathy and a giant propaganda campaign.

Is the guy crossing the street a cop? Yep. Is he in plain clothes? yep. Does that mean that just because he's walking back and forth, the law doesn't apply? Not even a little, no.

I'm 100% in favour of these types of stings. Drivers need a kick in the ass reminder to yield for shit, pedestrians especially. I have one particular part of my drive to work, where I need to get on an on-ramp to the highway, I take it every day, 5 times a week. Typically 3 of those days, I was almost getting swiped by cars that were blowing past their yield sign because they either didn't see it, or decided that instead of stopping and letting me go first, they'd just gun it and hope for the best.

It was at the point where I would have to stop and block traffic (coming from a light, no less, so i'm blocking the on-ramp now because some idiot blew the fucking sign, again) until finally they had the O.P.P. set up shop there a few times, and people are just now -FINALLY- obeying the damn law.

And any publicity for this will be good publicity. Weather or not you think it's a good idea, or think it's only for the cops to "make ticket revenue" people who live in Somerville and know about this story will start paying attention at crosswalks and / or not just blow through them because they think they may be getting a ticket.

In either case, the desired effect is going to be achieved, at the end of the day, the people crossing that AREN'T plain clothes cops will hopefully be a bit safer because of this.

How would it be entrapment? The cop is not enticing drivers to fail to yield the right of way, he's just crossing as a normal pedestrian would, if drivers would only obey the f*king law.

I have seen these stings run in my town, also in Mass, and I'm completely in favor -- where the stings happened, drivers actually yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, elsewhere they completely ignore crosswalks.

Except that's not the truth at all. Massachusetts passed strict gun control laws in 1998 and its crime rates (including gun-related crimes) have increased significantly since then. D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country but also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related crime. Conversely, Vermont has the lowest rate (about 59 times lower than D.C.) while also having extremely lax gun control laws.

So no, the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to suggest. There is no consistent correlation between gun control and gun crime rates. Banning something doesn't make it magically disappear and considering the fact that the majority of guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally, gun control really only affects people who obey the law (i.e. not criminals). Guns already exist. Criminals already have guns. Criminals already sell and distribute guns illegally. Gun control laws are completely irrelevant to these people.

The irony in all this is that the people calling for gun control are often the same ones calling for the legalization of drugs. We all know how effective the ban on drugs has been. Why would you think that a ban on guns would be any different?

What we do know is that guns are a deterrent and an equalizer. It's the reason why 9 out of 10 mass shootings take place in schools or other places where people are least likely to be armed. It's the reason why a robber is less likely to rob someone he believes to be armed than someone he believes to be unarmed. Strict gun laws only bolster a criminal's confidence that he can get away unscathed because he's the only one with a gun.

Finally, are people seriously including suicide-by-firearm as a relevant statistic? If somebody wants to commit suicide, there a multiple ways they can go about it. Hanging, slit wrists, drug overdose, jumping out the window, etc. If a gun is unavailable, they'll just use another method.

It's that all cringing feeling that someone is trying to convince you, convert you, get into your head. The irrational thought, speaking it like it's truth, telling you to give up and obey, just let "him" into your heart, and all will be okay - Give up, give in, let go of all reason.

It's not just the sentiment of mind control through repetition and peer pressure, it's the ill-educated and backwards thinking and the intensity that they try to sell it with.

When the hairs stand up on the back of your neck, that's not the Holy Spirit, it's your internal warning system telling you to flee danger.

More from Photography is not a crime:
First, Andrea Mears called police on a man for flying his remote control quadcopter over a public beach in Connecticut.

Then, when police didn’t respond in seconds, she attacked the man

“He’s taking pictures of people on the beach … with a helicopter plane,” she told the cops by phone.

“Can you guys hurry? I already talked to him, just come.”

Seconds later, she attacked him.

The man, who goes by Hogwit on Youtube, began recording the encounter on his iPhone as his quadcopter was flying overhead, capturing her clawing at his face and pulling at his shirt.

“You want to take pictures?” she asks him as she jams her fingers into his mouth. “Yeah, you’re going to see how it feels when police come.”

Then she has the audacity to tell him “let go of me” as she is all over him.

“If you wouldn’t be assaulting me, I wouldn’t be touching you,” he responds, remaining exceptionally calm considering the circumstances.

“He’s taking pictures of people on the beach!” she yells as she continues to rip his shirt. “I’m going to kick your ass, you little motherfucker.”

“Can someone call the cops!” the man yells. “I’m being assaulted! Help!”

Police arrived and arrested her for assault in the third degree and breach of peace. The incident took place May 12 at Hammonassett State Park in Madison.



Here are more details from the man who was flying the drone that he posted on a forum shortly after the incident:

I went to a nearby beach that is a whopping 2 miles long, set up, talked to some people that were curious what my “thing” was, demonstrated the loiter feature (pulling the quad to one direction or another), demonstrated rtl (flying it away then having it return), and make a lot of people think the quad was just awesome. I never went below 50 feet save for take off/landing, then after the end of my last flight, some crazy lady came over and started taking pictures of me…and dialed 911 for the 3rd time in 15 minutes…she said something to the effect of, “There’s a guy here taking pictures at the beach with a helicopter plane.” (I distinctly remember her saying, “with a helicopter plane,” because that just sounds hilarious.) They basically said that they’d send someone when one gets free during each of the 3 calls she made, she decided they didn’t care enough about someone obeying the law so when no one was around she assaulted me and she decided to stop when she got a phone call. I called the police to report the assault, and boy was the response big…10 or more vehicles arrived (cops, DEEP, and an ambulance)…They first listened to her story of lies (she claimed I was taking close ups of people in bikinis, and that she had asked me to stop flying before calling the police, and that I was the one that assaulted her, and and and). The police approached me very aggressively, believing her full story, and before anything else was said I brought up something that she missed… The fact that the cell phone in my hand has a camera…that was recording. I had video evidence that she went nuts completely unprovoked, and was the one that assaulted me. She was then charged with assault, and breach of peace and I gave the cops a copy of the video for their prosecution. I then also showed them my last flight where you can make out her colorful shirt getting up from the beach then following it until it lands which proved that she lied when claiming that she asked me to stop flying before calling the police.
At the end of it all, one of the officers said to me basically, “Flying that thing the way you were is fine, you’re not in any trouble. You can come back and fly, but just be aware that some people can be alarmed.”


*fail, *lies, *wtf

"I hope he obeys the traffic laws himself"

Clearly he does not. The situation at :35 was created when he failed to yield (like all the traffic next to him) at the roundabout.

Also, he's riding like an idiot. Yes, the car at the end was at fault, but he shouldn't have been going so fast he couldn't stop for it.