>> ^Stu:

We all know why Americans wouldn't care if they caught him and/or killed him: because they don't. Jokes aside about the selfish nature of Americans, it goes way beyond living in a bubble of self content. It's change. Who likes change? No one. You can apply this same line of thought to almost any large group of people, be it countries, religions, etc. People think they want to know everything. They don't. If they knew everything they'd be accountable. Could you imagine the responses you'd get if you held every single United States citizen accountable (for which they are) for the economy crash? It's far easier to blame someone else and easier still to blame the government.
Blind allegiance to an unknown cause is the biggest plight of any civilized society. It's s joke you hear a lot around election time: "Why do we only get 2-3 candidates to pick from for the leader of our country, but we get 50 to pick from for Miss America." If elections were more about issues and ideas and less about money and promises, the world would be a much better place. Instead of having a lawyer run things and having the world's smartest people being advisers it should be the other way around. It won't however, because the smart people don't want the job. It's kind of a catch 22. We want smart people in power, but the smartest don't want it.
It all comes back to this case. It's easier to just get rid of a problem by shooting it than to talk it out. I say give Assange his own tv show, radio show whatever. Why? Obviously the guy isn't afraid of talking. Then again, that kind of bold disregard also comes with the usual disregard for most things, like his "other" issues of douchebaggery.
People always laugh when I say there is at most only 5-10% of this world that should be allowed to make crucial decisions because they would be unbiased and objective, but they never want to be in that group.


It's not necessarily that they don't want to be in the group, it's that unswervable people who can make decisions without bias are least suited to getting into power. I totally agree with you, but i go one further. There's probably only about 1% of people you'd ever meet that you could trust to act entirely fairly and honestly in every possibly situation.

Politicians are surrounded every day by opportunites to skim a little off the top, make life a little easier for you and your loved ones, how many people do you know that could resist that whilst working tirelessly for others? That should be a requirement for leadership. The term is public servant.

We all know why Americans wouldn't care if they caught him and/or killed him: because they don't. Jokes aside about the selfish nature of Americans, it goes way beyond living in a bubble of self content. It's change. Who likes change? No one. You can apply this same line of thought to almost any large group of people, be it countries, religions, etc. People think they want to know everything. They don't. If they knew everything they'd be accountable. Could you imagine the responses you'd get if you held every single United States citizen accountable (for which they are) for the economy crash? It's far easier to blame someone else and easier still to blame the government.

Blind allegiance to an unknown cause is the biggest plight of any civilized society. It's s joke you hear a lot around election time: "Why do we only get 2-3 candidates to pick from for the leader of our country, but we get 50 to pick from for Miss America." If elections were more about issues and ideas and less about money and promises, the world would be a much better place. Instead of having a lawyer run things and having the world's smartest people being advisers it should be the other way around. It won't however, because the smart people don't want the job. It's kind of a catch 22. We want smart people in power, but the smartest don't want it.

It all comes back to this case. It's easier to just get rid of a problem by shooting it than to talk it out. I say give Assange his own tv show, radio show whatever. Why? Obviously the guy isn't afraid of talking. Then again, that kind of bold disregard also comes with the usual disregard for most things, like his "other" issues of douchebaggery.

People always laugh when I say there is at most only 5-10% of this world that should be allowed to make crucial decisions because they would be unbiased and objective, but they never want to be in that group.

>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^longde:
Anyone else want to weigh in on @kymbos request of the Great American Novel? I think Twain' Huckleberry Finn is a must read (I actually reread this story every couple of years and still enjoy it).
What other candidates do people have?>> ^longde:
Huckleberry Finn>> ^kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.
I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).
I'm green.



I reread Catch 22 every 5 years or so, gets better every time.
edit: oh, not necessarily a classic, though.

Really? Because I couldn't get through it. I thought he just kept hammering the same points over and over and over again until I was bored to tears and stopped (kind of like American Psycho actually, I didn't need any more graphic depictions of murder to get the inanely shallow existence he led).


Pity, as I thought I'd like it. The general premise is good, hell it spawned the extremely common saying... but I was left wanting by the source material itself.

>> ^longde:

Anyone else want to weigh in on @kymbos request of the Great American Novel? I think Twain' Huckleberry Finn is a must read (I actually reread this story every couple of years and still enjoy it).
What other candidates do people have?>> ^longde:
Huckleberry Finn>> ^kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.
I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).
I'm green.




I reread Catch 22 every 5 years or so, gets better every time.

edit: oh, not necessarily a classic, though.

Oh, and I must say: that's some interesting logic you're throwing my way. In defending myself against your claim of "personal attacks," you're calling me slanderous. In other words, it's slanderous of me to defend myself.

Brilliant! Joseph Heller should have used an argument like that in Catch-22.

You know what was funny, an old white lady attacked Paul for not wanting to ban gay marriage at the federal level...and he came out stating that marriage at all should not be in the hands of the government (Contracts between two people are fine...)

Shows that his political stance gets him damned with a catch 22...

As far as this vid goes, its point blows. It seems Sammy won't go further... and even if the point is proven, it still seems he is hiding for whatever reason. I don't know why? He and Google have all the proof. We should agree, Ron Paul meets with racists, and child molesters (His grocer is one...apparently.)

>> ^marinara:

First of all, I was privileged to be out there with a lot of brave and beautiful people. I'd like to give my own account of what happened on Saturday, because the mainstream coverage I've seen has been universally laughable, not that that's any surprise.
Folks were mostly gathered up in Oscar Grant Plaza by about noon, and the march started around 1 or 1:30. There were probably between one and two thousand marchers. There was a sound truck playing music, and the mood was festive and happy. Parents brought their children along, and the whole thing felt a bit like a roving dance party in the streets. There was also a bus following along which the police detained about halfway through the first part of the march on some minor infraction like people weren't all wearing their seat belts or something.
When the demonstrators reached the first target building, it was already heavily surrounded by riot cops, and people didn't even try to get near it. I don't think anyone was actually expecting the "secret" target to stay secret, given the open nature of the movement and the heavy infiltration. By this point police had begun targeted arrests against certain individuals which were evidently on their list of organizers or repeat "troublemakers". Nonetheless, the marchers were being quite peaceful and were prepared to just continue the march around the city. The police weren't having that though, and they fired a number of smoke grenades into the crowd, which caused a bit of a panic since many people initially thought it was teargas. Minor injuries were incurred amongst the marchers.
A number of older demonstrators as well as people with children decided that this was a good time to call it a day and headed away from the main police line and crowd. Police then rushed in and attempted to arrest some of the parents for endangering their children. I'm not sure exactly how this turned out, but I was told that a number of parents were able to get away with their children.
Police began to close on the demonstrators who decided to continue the march through the city. Soon after police began to deploy actual tear gas along with beanbag rounds and paint balls apparently intended to mark people for later arrest. Police claim that people were throwing things at them after this. I didn't witness demonstrators throwing anything, but it is possible. I don't find it to be a constructive activity, but I also can't blame people for being angry after a peaceful march was attacked. Medics responded to high numbers of chemical contamination and blunt force trauma cases.
As the march continued, police started to use a new tactic which recklessly endangered lives and led to many injuries. They would form up in a line behind the marchers and then on some signal charge towards the back of the march with their batons at the ready. Although attempts were made among the demonstrators to keep everyone calm, inevitably many people started running as a natural reaction to seeing a line of angry club-wielding police charging at them. Lots of people got knocked down in the press of bodies. People helped up whoever they could, but I have no idea how many people were injured during this or how badly. The police continued to use this tactic all the way back to Oscar Grant Plaza, charging forward for a block before stopping for a minute or two and then charging again. This charging tactic served absolutely no crowd control purpose, as they were pushing people in the direction the march was already going, and they could have just marched behind the demonstrators keeping pace, since nobody wanted to get within arm's reach of them anyways.
Anyways, people regrouped at OGP to rest, wash up, seek medical attention, and eat. After some time, a decision was made to march around downtown Oakland again. The march was somewhat smaller this time, but probably still around 1,000 people. Oaklanders don't give into police intimidation easily. The march eventually became a bit of a cat-and-mouse game as lines of police tried to surround the marchers and "kettle" them in for mass arrests. At one point fairly early on the police nearly succeeded, but a temporary chain link fence was pulled down allowing most or all of the marchers an escape route. Later on, a group of ~50-100 demonstrators did get blocked in on a section of Broadway without any side streets. Police then rushed in, jabbing, pushing, and beating people with batons until they were forced back into a corner near a YMCA building. Some people may have escaped through the YMCA building, and police used this to claim that the protesters were trying to take over the building, although I'm fairly certain this was never the plan since the YMCA was open and operational, not abandoned. Once the group of demonstrators was blocked in and completely surrounded, police announced that this was an unlawful assembly and ordered them to disperse. A few people tried to leave with their hands raised and were promptly thrown on the ground, beaten, and arrested. The police undoubtedly thought that they were quite clever with the Catch-22 situation they had constructed, but I doubt any of the subsequent arrest charges are going to stick as a result. Getting the charges to stick was probably not the point though.
The demonstrators were pinned into the corner like this for probably 40-60 minutes before enough police buses and vans showed up for mass arrests to begin. As the time approached, the police suddenly singled out on of the demonstrators and yanked him out of the crowd, threw him down and cuffed him. It is likely this was one of the people on their special list. A small bag of powder (possibly meth) was planted on him as he was dragged away. Given the fact that everyone knew they were going to be arrested for the past half hour or so, it is utterly illogical that this person wouldn't have ditched the drugs if they really were his. He was overheard to say that they weren't his, that he didn't do drugs, and was willing to take a drug test right then and there to prove it.
Police later arrested a large number of demonstrators near OGP using similar tactics. Apparently some demonstrators got into City Hall, although I'm not sure if any arrests were made in the building. Some people were taken to jail in Oakland, others to Santa Rita (a much nastier place) in Dublin. Some were cited and released the next day, others are still in police custody.
Given my impending court appearance, I don't want to discuss the exact involvement I may or may not have had in any of the above. I think, however, this provides a much more accurate picture of what went down than has been presented in the mainstream media, and I thank you for taking the time to hear the other side.


**I need to give attribution, this blog was posted on reddit by a so called street medic attached to occupy oakland

First of all, I was privileged to be out there with a lot of brave and beautiful people. I'd like to give my own account of what happened on Saturday, because the mainstream coverage I've seen has been universally laughable, not that that's any surprise.

Folks were mostly gathered up in Oscar Grant Plaza by about noon, and the march started around 1 or 1:30. There were probably between one and two thousand marchers. There was a sound truck playing music, and the mood was festive and happy. Parents brought their children along, and the whole thing felt a bit like a roving dance party in the streets. There was also a bus following along which the police detained about halfway through the first part of the march on some minor infraction like people weren't all wearing their seat belts or something.

When the demonstrators reached the first target building, it was already heavily surrounded by riot cops, and people didn't even try to get near it. I don't think anyone was actually expecting the "secret" target to stay secret, given the open nature of the movement and the heavy infiltration. By this point police had begun targeted arrests against certain individuals which were evidently on their list of organizers or repeat "troublemakers". Nonetheless, the marchers were being quite peaceful and were prepared to just continue the march around the city. The police weren't having that though, and they fired a number of smoke grenades into the crowd, which caused a bit of a panic since many people initially thought it was teargas. Minor injuries were incurred amongst the marchers.

A number of older demonstrators as well as people with children decided that this was a good time to call it a day and headed away from the main police line and crowd. Police then rushed in and attempted to arrest some of the parents for endangering their children. I'm not sure exactly how this turned out, but I was told that a number of parents were able to get away with their children.

Police began to close on the demonstrators who decided to continue the march through the city. Soon after police began to deploy actual tear gas along with beanbag rounds and paint balls apparently intended to mark people for later arrest. Police claim that people were throwing things at them after this. I didn't witness demonstrators throwing anything, but it is possible. I don't find it to be a constructive activity, but I also can't blame people for being angry after a peaceful march was attacked. Medics responded to high numbers of chemical contamination and blunt force trauma cases.

As the march continued, police started to use a new tactic which recklessly endangered lives and led to many injuries. They would form up in a line behind the marchers and then on some signal charge towards the back of the march with their batons at the ready. Although attempts were made among the demonstrators to keep everyone calm, inevitably many people started running as a natural reaction to seeing a line of angry club-wielding police charging at them. Lots of people got knocked down in the press of bodies. People helped up whoever they could, but I have no idea how many people were injured during this or how badly. The police continued to use this tactic all the way back to Oscar Grant Plaza, charging forward for a block before stopping for a minute or two and then charging again. This charging tactic served absolutely no crowd control purpose, as they were pushing people in the direction the march was already going, and they could have just marched behind the demonstrators keeping pace, since nobody wanted to get within arm's reach of them anyways.

Anyways, people regrouped at OGP to rest, wash up, seek medical attention, and eat. After some time, a decision was made to march around downtown Oakland again. The march was somewhat smaller this time, but probably still around 1,000 people. Oaklanders don't give into police intimidation easily. The march eventually became a bit of a cat-and-mouse game as lines of police tried to surround the marchers and "kettle" them in for mass arrests. At one point fairly early on the police nearly succeeded, but a temporary chain link fence was pulled down allowing most or all of the marchers an escape route. Later on, a group of ~50-100 demonstrators did get blocked in on a section of Broadway without any side streets. Police then rushed in, jabbing, pushing, and beating people with batons until they were forced back into a corner near a YMCA building. Some people may have escaped through the YMCA building, and police used this to claim that the protesters were trying to take over the building, although I'm fairly certain this was never the plan since the YMCA was open and operational, not abandoned. Once the group of demonstrators was blocked in and completely surrounded, police announced that this was an unlawful assembly and ordered them to disperse. A few people tried to leave with their hands raised and were promptly thrown on the ground, beaten, and arrested. The police undoubtedly thought that they were quite clever with the Catch-22 situation they had constructed, but I doubt any of the subsequent arrest charges are going to stick as a result. Getting the charges to stick was probably not the point though.

The demonstrators were pinned into the corner like this for probably 40-60 minutes before enough police buses and vans showed up for mass arrests to begin. As the time approached, the police suddenly singled out on of the demonstrators and yanked him out of the crowd, threw him down and cuffed him. It is likely this was one of the people on their special list. A small bag of powder (possibly meth) was planted on him as he was dragged away. Given the fact that everyone knew they were going to be arrested for the past half hour or so, it is utterly illogical that this person wouldn't have ditched the drugs if they really were his. He was overheard to say that they weren't his, that he didn't do drugs, and was willing to take a drug test right then and there to prove it.

Police later arrested a large number of demonstrators near OGP using similar tactics. Apparently some demonstrators got into City Hall, although I'm not sure if any arrests were made in the building. Some people were taken to jail in Oakland, others to Santa Rita (a much nastier place) in Dublin. Some were cited and released the next day, others are still in police custody.

Given my impending court appearance, I don't want to discuss the exact involvement I may or may not have had in any of the above. I think, however, this provides a much more accurate picture of what went down than has been presented in the mainstream media, and I thank you for taking the time to hear the other sid

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm just curious, but what's the supposed connection between immigration and the viability of a social safety net?


The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.

So the response to this fear is a political push to close the borders. I think this is a horrible mistake, but I also agree that people shouldn't be forced to pay for other people. So, it's impossible to have a viable social safety net when you allow potentially anyone from the world to use it, but only a small number of citizens to pay for it.

It's a catch-22. I want open borders. Immigration only helps the economy. But welfare programs cannot be sustainable when the number of users outweighs the number of payers. In places like Denmark they keep their population exclusive, therefore they can afford certain entitlements nationally we could never enjoy in the States. At least not sustainably.

You disagree obviously?

The story of the Roman emperor Gaius (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, son of Germanicus) is a really good counter example for you. He was a likable, cultured, well educated young man who just turned out to be entirely unsuitable for the job thrust upon him. Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia has an article summarising some of the main points, but finding a book on the subject would be better.>> ^Longswd:

That's an old saw I've always considered to be fallacious. It's not that power corrupts, it's that power is attractive to the corruptible and why it should never be granted to those who seek it. A Catch-22 for any democratic elective process (or any form of governance in general, really). I don't know the answer, I just know that humans suck.

That's an old saw I've always considered to be fallacious. It's not that power corrupts, it's that power is attractive to the corruptible and why it should never be granted to those who seek it. A Catch-22 for any democratic elective process (or any form of governance in general, really). I don't know the answer, I just know that humans suck.

@lucky
No. They are actually called guidelines for the same reason my job has "guidelines," instead of "rules."

Guidelines can be broad and shapeable at whim; that way it's a catch 22. Those who question guidelines can be told, "Sir/ma'am, the guidelines are not set in stone but reflective of a broader policy." And, for those who break the rules, erm, I mean guidelines, you can tell them, "See, you didn't follow the guidelines so now we move on to B."

Trust me, it's a confusing matter that’s left intentionally confusing. But when in doubt, if the rules/guidelines have a consequence, then they are rules. If they are guidelines, then they don't have a measurable consequence.

Dictionary.Reference.com for "Guidelines" notes nothing about punishment or potential punishment.
1. any guide or indication of a future course of action: guidelines on the government's future policy.
2. a lightly marked line used as a guide, as in composing a drawing, a typed page, or a line of lettering.
3. a rope or cord that serves to guide one's steps, especially over rocky terrain, through underground passages, etc.

>> ^SDGundamX: I suppose what disturbs me most about the religion/atheism rift that sometimes appears in the comments section on the Sift is that some individuals (on both sides) take a condescending view of those who don't think exactly as they do (you'll find several examples among the posts here).



I find it's kind of hard not to have that seem to come through, and certainly there's some blunt cases of it.. but I wasn't trying to be condecending myself, and yet.. when I go back and read what I wrote it does come across that way to some degree.

I don't have a problem with anything anyone believes, till they push it on others. And I have more of a dispute with actual religion than anything spiritual (I figure we are limited to our senses, and I would think it would be odd if we're capable of sensing everything that makes up the universe).

Christian religion to me just seems so man made. All the weird logics and loopholes to it. Why would a god care if a good person who never worshiped any god passed on. What about that makes them bad? Oh right, I inherited all the sin of my predicessors. Dang, quite the catch 22 there.. guess I have to sign up.

All said and done though, I welcome anyone who's going to post and pitch in to the sift.
(except Pennypacker.. just kidding.. sorta)

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.

That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together. The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Just in case you require examples of protectionism that stifles competition, I have a great many. The recent banking coup is a good place to start. A lot of small and midlevel banks closed after the bailouts (WaMu! Fucking WaMu closed!), so now the big banks no longer have to compete against hundreds of banks. This was by design.

After prohibition the government forced a three tiered system onto the alcohol industry which keeps the two major beer manufacturers on top while the smaller brewers are being edged out. On even smaller levels, a lot of small businesses use government to keep new competitors out by pushing licensing and other expensive requirements onto new businesses. This happens often for hair salons, florists, casket manufacturing, and just about every small business industry in America. NY public transit union recently sought legal injunctions against local businessmen who offer cheap minivan rides throughout the city for much less than what the Metro can offer.

Lastly, look at the film industry. It's a mess. The unions and corporations have made it extremely difficult for independent filmmakers to shoot a film and have it distributed (though the internet is changing things a bit). And the cost of production in Los Angeles is through the roof, because of union fees, permit costs, etc. If you choose to use union actors for a non-union film you could face a pricey lawsuit. And not to mention how difficult it is for those who want to join the unions, with catch 22 rules like, "You must work 200 hours on a union film set to be admitted into the union, but you can't work on a union film shoot unless you're in the union." Funny how people still manage to get in.

@dystopianfuturetoday @NetRunner

I think Sam Harris (in this) is closest to the mark you're both going for when he says "Very few people are comfortable to being enemies of reason."

I think you can stretch that statement a long way. By using, as he suggests, words like evidence and reason, you can push people into admitting they are being unreasonable or at least concede that their arguments don't have evidentiary support. These two argument techniques should already be the basis for intellectual conversation and debate. Unfortunately that isn't always the case.

People easily fall into logical fallacies because they're ignorant of what they are and of how decieving they can be. People also are very unwilling to change their minds once made up, as you pointed out. Beyond that though, majority of the population is ill-equipped when it comes to critical thinking skills.

Dystopianfuture is right to admit faults, and (not to simply follow suit with an unoriginal idea but hey it's a Catch-22) let me join in in admitting that I am guilty of bad/emotional rhetoric but I try my best to provide evidence when called for and to be a rational person in general.

I hope others will do the same lest we end up like Idiocracy (though remember intelligence is not a prerequisite for reproduction, oh shit nevermind, looks like we're fucked, exibit 1, exibit 2)