I have money laid down with friends that there's an after credits scene with a blue-faced, white-uniformed man standing on the bridge of a super star destroyer, accompanied by one or two obviously predatory cat or dog-like creatures.

That's absolutely true, however it's precisely why it is realistic.

They've created a massive rigid process that allows them to stay busy for eternity without getting much work done.

It's that massive rigid process that empowers them to put the man in the OP through hoops that drain his time and money, and threaten him with fines/incarceration (for not participating or for failing to pay fines) - even though the evidence is out plain as day that the guy was never involved in any of the matters at hand.

You could call what they are doing "work" and "duties". You could also call it a waste of time and money, and predatory. If you consider it work, that's fine. If you consider it a waste, then what they are doing is 'just forcing it here'.

In the end, process is made by people. People choose to maintain the status quo.
Prosecutors/judge *could* just drop the charges/case/fines/whatever - but they won't. Because a chance to win an argument on some technicality is more important than the man in the OP's life - and the process requires this mess to play out.

To the 9 to 5'ers, this is just a debate team exercise. It costs them nothing.

-scheherazade.

I believe the problem is with the government's use of competitive judiciary : where each side debates their case, regardless of merit, and the expectation is that the 'right' argument will win simply because truth should naturally be able to present a stronger argument.

This assumption not only leads to some face-palm-worthy cases/charges, it also inevitably leads to people being convicted in situations where everyone involved knows with absolute certainty that the defender is innocent (often because quirks within the rules of the official process).

In this case, the "right" thing to do is : Apologize to the man, and refund him any costs that he's incurred so far due to this mess.

But "process" requires that the government push their argument to its absolute limit, even with zero merit, because the officially sanctioned way by which the situation is resolved is via argument in court (conveniently, the need to do this is also decided by people working in court - effectively excusing their professional existence and securing their very employment).

There is no 'admitting there was a mistake'. A mistake has to be proven in court. So even though everyone involved knows that the man is not at any fault, they will still force him to spend his time and money arguing a case, just to jump through hoops, and in the end it's _extremely_ unlikely that his personal costs will be refunded to him (lawyer fees, etc).

In the mean time, everyone on the government side is simply doing their 9-5. None of this is a burden to them, and it's in fact 'how they put food on the table'. If they aren't charging him, they're charging someone else. This is just another day at the office.

The guy getting screwed can't say 'no thanks, I'll not participate', because men with guns will show up and drag him away (police arrest for not going to court). It's effectively a predatory practice whereby the government fleeces people. Everyone involved knows it's meritless, but they simply force you to dance [else go to jail], and collect some fees in the process.

Because, really, what's at stake is not 'the truth' or 'justice'. It's simply "process". An excuse to inflate the number of court cases, to keep court spending high (to secure next year's budget - "use it or lose it" accounting), to keep collections high, and generally keep the high paid welfare cases (9/10 govt employees) employed.
TBH, for a country that supposedly "hates communism", actual communist countries haven't even managed to work it out this well. (I'm not talking fairy tale boogey man communism like you see in old propaganda. I mean the practical day to day actual workings. Vast government employment, bureaucracy, "process above all".)

-scheherazade

That's insane. How are those not extinct? They're massive, slow, and I can't see how they can defend themselves. Unless they just live far outside predatory areas I'd expect them to just be floating buffets for sharks and such.

I'm confused. Amex may not be the worst of the bunch, but aren't they also somewhat guilty of predatory loaning through their credit card business?

@chingalera Cenk is a person like you or I trying to figure a way out of this mess; I don't think the personal attacks help your argument. Most of us are wrong from time to time. It's one of the things that makes us human.

Now the real point: I have an issue with the "reasonable rate" being undefined. Payday loans are predatory and being in the business, regardless of rate, is a scary proposition. If they would double as a credit union I wouldn't have as much of an issue, but without an outright profit motive we can't do a thing in this society anymore. Even this proposal seeks to usurp the existing payday loan profits for the governments coffers... just at a more "reasonable" rate. There is no rate on a payday loan is reasonable; cashing a check should not cost interest.

Which leads to a greater point: We live in an era where we cannot implement decent ideas for the greater good of humanity because the current market can't bear it. What have we wrought here? Who/what are we serving?

I don't get you chinga... payday loan places are legal, technically, but we all despise them because the fees are so inhumane, predatory, sick... as you say. Now USPS would get in on that market and drive those fees down, making the market less exploitative, taking money out of the hands of rich predatory assholes, putting it in the hands of working poor where it belonged in the first place, and saving an institution in one fell swoop... and you're.... against it? Or...?
I can understand being skeptical because it's not in front of your face working right now... but so far you haven't said why you don't think it would work. (If that's even your point... seems more like you're just plain agin'it.)

Payday loans EDB, in the United States: Fast-money strip-center locations have been popping-up all over in every city now like warts on a leper, for the past 25 years, operating in a regulatory blind spot. They loan you money at an exorbitant, unfair interest rate fully expecting and banking on the person loaned not being able to pay back the loan according to contract then penalize with fines when the debt can't be repaid. Criminal organizations have relied upon USURY as a means of extracting money from helpless or uneducated and desperate people for centuries. Mafia organizations the world over have relied on this practice since they began. I don't expect the federal government to do anything much different as much of their activity has been criminal for quite some time.

Inhumane, predatory, sick.

SO it looks perfectly reasonable at face value??I call bullshit when I see it before it happens usually... Cenk here sees it as a wonderful way to create revenue out of thin air by taking the model of the payday loan places that already exist over, not unlike a mafia organization takes over territory of another criminal's organization.

If you think I'm skeptical you are correct, if you think I am wrong that is your prerogative. If you choose to block my comments or 'ignore' them, I don't care at all-It simply proves the point I make continually here, that those who chose to place their hands over their ears, or their heads in a sand-bucket are minion, and the few dissenting opinions are met with torch and pitchfork, either because of the language used to do so is too caustic, or perhaps that the truths in my babble that are too horrible and painful to consider are much easier to deride and deny or to even consider, to damaged sensibilities combined with an ego the size of Asia.

I also consider that your stance on guns and gun ownership as equally skewed, as is much of your political rhetoric. But hey, there are a lot of folks here who think the way you do. I happen to be one of the other people.

And again, Cenk, yer a pompous git whose ego is also bloated beyond fat, and your smarmy, smug delivery makes me want to hack-up my lunch.

@Trancecoach: We're not going to agree, and that's fine. This'll be my last reply.

Retailer strong-arming: Imagine Apple makes up 95% of Best Buy's tablet sales. Off-brand-X wants to sell tablets at Best Buy. Apple says: If you sell Off-brand-X tablets, we will not let you sell our tablets. Off-brand-X is likely to only provide a tiny profit to Best Buy, compared to Apple, so they comply. (This actually happened, in a different form, with Intel paying computer manufacturers to not use AMD processors. See here). Also see price-fixing.

Widget-distribution-prevention: This is just an extension of the previous point.

Buying up all of the competitors: Ma Bell. Old AT&T. That should be enough said. But, if that's not enough, now Ma Bell is nearly entirely re-formed. The US was one government approval away from having cell carriers limited to Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T. That's been spoiled, now, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that future continuing on to two carriers colluding and price-fixing (as Verizon and AT&T pretty much have freedom to do anyway). This is another quasi-natural-monopoly situation (or at least a tragedy of the commons situation), in that the radio spectrum is not infinite. To keep the spectrum usable at all, blocks of frequencies are doled out to radio/TV/cellular/military/etc. etc. with stiff penalties for interference.

Patents: Patents present a litany of problems, but the world without them is even worse. You have two things happen, both of which are bad:
1) New technology remains veiled in secrecy indefinitely; no one else can riff on it even after patents would normally have expired
2) My previous point. The marginal utility of R&D decreases drastically based on the likelihood of a competitor being able to get hold of your secrets before you can profit on them sufficiently.
This is exactly why patents were created. It's a temporary monopoly granted by the government in exchange for the promise that the knowledge will be released to the universe after X years.

Predatory pricing: If excessive, it's illegal. That's why it doesn't happen very often. In a country with anti-trust laws, you just want to hurt your competitor, you don't want to drive them out of the market.

Natural monopolies: Since you brought this one up, you can choose your energy service because the government forces the utility to lease its lines and to decouple distribution from production. That is to say, you have a free market in production because the distribution is not free. See here. My state is the same way.

Misinformation: Who vets marketing claims in a free market? My competitor says that their food is organic. Well--hell, so is mine! They're environmentally conscientious? So am I! Their drug cures cancer? Mine cures it even better!

Oh, shit. Someone caught me in a lie! Well, I'll just force the media to ignore it and ramp up my disinformation campaign.

Ideology and Insanity are not mutually dependent.

You can have :
Sane Ideology
Insane Ideology
Sane non-Ideology
Insane non-Ideology

The principles of an individual can be constructive or destructive, whether or not they are part of an ideology.
What matters is the specific principles, and not whether or not they are associated with an ideology.

As individuals, we have animal impulses.
These include :
- Feeling combative in the presence of a verbal threat or insult.
- Feeling combative (inclined to silence/sensor) in the presence of ideas that are at odds with one's own.
- Feeling impulse to take shortcuts to reward (eg. stealing money fast vs earning money slow).

Ideology helps to fix these things.
This includes :
- Personal feelings don't take precedence over other people's physical condition.
Words are only words, actions are what makes a tangible measurable difference. We are masters of our own emotions, only ourselves can be blamed for our happiness or malcontent.

- Inherent equality of individuals. Ideas out in the open can live or die by their own merit as determined by all people. Censoring is taking privilege over other people by predetermining for them what ideas they are allowed to consider.

- Respect for domain. Doing as we like with what is ours, and not affecting what belongs to others.


"The moon does not care" (TM).
Nothing is intrinsically universal.

There are worldly concepts native to life on earth (protecting one's children, guarding one's domain, suffering/pain response, etc), but the higher order concept of "Idea X is _unacceptable_" is a purely human invented "meta" issue.



Sanity is Rationality is Logic ... which in turn is the ability to find a path from state A to state B.

For example:
[Given A=alive]
If your desire is to survive (B=alive), then eating poison is illogical.
It would be insane then to eat poison, as it would not be a path from A to B.
But if your desire is to die (B=dead), then eating poison is logical.
It would be sane to eat poison, as it would be a path from A to B.

Point being, people like to view the world with their own goals in mind.
Given that other people invariably have different goals in mind, the judgment of sane or insane becomes relative ... that's not "just words", that's quite real.
If a miserable person with a painful disease eats poison, is it logical for a healthy happy individual to say "that's insane"?



Much of our body politic is the projection of a subset of people's standards onto a larger population, with disregard for the other people.

At this point, politically, we are mired in populism, and we lack ideology - even though we were handed a pretty good one at the beginning.

Instead of having some guiding concepts that we use to restrain emotional impulses, we [as a society] fly off chasing populist agendas fed to us by our "team" (party) of choice.

Ironically, often rooting for a position that we are at odds with. (eg. "I hate the Affordable Care Act" even though "I like having coverage for pre-existing conditions")

The constitution does a good job at laying down the rules for an equitable relationship between government and people, but it's practically a dead document these days.
Elected officials neglect their obligation to represent and instead fashion themselves as leaders.
Lawmakers pass laws in violation of the constitution day in and day out.
Judiciary enforces lower laws that are constitutionally null.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness aren't just words. They're text from the highest law of the land.
Under such a standard, you would think that it would mean that a person would be able to lead their personal life as they please. But not as it stands.

Most of our public debate, is about whether or not people should "allow" other people to do things with themselves or other consenting individuals.
"Allowing(y/n)" people to do drugs [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to have firearms [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to marry [while not involving others].
etc.

With the main objections being "I'm not physically involved, but I wouldn't do things that way if it were me, so I choose to have hurt feelings (and call that a personal involvement), and subsequently push my personal standards onto others".
It's a selfish, impulsive, capricious, predatory behavior ... lacking any meaningful ideological temperance.

-scheherazade

Hence, a predatory pedophile gives Satan a bad name, and power to those whose stewardship begins as compromised ⚸ Savilles' a piece of shit

Hmmm...

I don't have an issue with the wage itself. I worked retail for years. Retail doesn't pay high wages. Any of them, it's not a high skill sector. It's not somewhere I'd want to be my entire life and should most likely be considered a "stepping stone" line of work. For some though, they never get out - partly because of the draw and promise of climbing the corporate ladder to success and some because that's just the best they can do. It's retail - not one is asking for an engineer's pay scale. I don't know about the US, but in Canada, WalMart only pays minimum wage for sales associates, tellers and floor staff.

What I do have an issue with is the way Wal-Mart (and some other retail companies) treat their employees. Almost all positions are part-time. They don't hire more than a few full time employees. Full time employees cost more money in benefits and you can't reduce their weekly hours to make the monthly budget.

Store managers are given very small monthly budgets for man hours. They have to stretch those hours, and place the man power only at peak periods. Part time employees are easier to move around the schedule because they aren't respected, they can also be made to work seven days a week if you give them the min hours per day as possible. They are hired for that purpose. The problem is that people's lives don't function that way. These people also need to have second jobs. You are expected to make WalMart your primary job (even if it's only part time). They may schedule only eight hours in a week. If you have a second job with set hours, Walmart will not work with you because they don't care.
There are all kinds of issues that arise but scheduling is a huge issue.

Benefits. WalMart benefits are so meager, I'm not sure why they bother. I've heard first hand how the medical coverage they offer is lousy and most people end up paying out of pocket for additional insurance if they actually expect to be treated.

WalMart is predatory retail. They have employees that are paid to shop the community and undercut every product that can be bought elsewhere - even if it means they sell at a loss. They increase the prices on every item that cannot be bought locally - even if it means inflating it artificially higher than it's worth. They especially target the small businesses. Once they are able to put those businesses out of business, they will raise all the prices they once sold at a loss because now you don't have a choice. From a business point of view, their process is very smart, it takes every opportunity it can to get your dollar. on the flip side, if everyone is out of business, they can't afford to shop anywhere else. Eventually all retail business employees will be WalMart Employees. It's a downward spiral that isn't sustainable.

WalMart are Bullies. They have the biggest and most expensive lawyers in the business. They can afford it. and if they can't win, because they know they are in the wrong, they will just stonewall until the opposition runs out of money and still win by default. If there is something they want, they get it because they have the wealth, money and power to make it happen - fair practices be dammed!

Also on a separate note, Indigo Books and Music has joined forces with U.S. bookstore chain Barnes & Noble in refusing to stock or sell any books published by online rival Amazon.com. This is in protest to Amazon using predatory tactics that weaken an already struggling book industry. Citing the online company’s policy of reserving exclusive rights to sell e-books produced by Amazon's new publishing arm.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/indigo-joins-growing-boycott-of-books-published-by-amazoncom/article543954/


Not banning per say but a definitely proof that, we can only access what is offered to us.

Yeah, funny how trying to turn a predatory animal into a sideshow doesn't work out.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!