It was April the forty-first
Being a quadruple leap year
I was driving in downtown Atlantis
My barracuda was in the shop
So I was in a rented stingray
And it was overheating

So I pulled into a Shell Station
They said I'd blown a seal
I said, "Fix the damn thing
And leave my private life out of it
Okay pal?"

While they were doing that
I walked over to a place called the Oyster Bar, a real dive
But I knew the owner
He used to play for the Dolphins
I said "Hi Gil"
You have to yell, he's hard of herring

Think I had a wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh
Wet dream

Gil was also down on his luck
Fact is he was barely keeping his head below water
I bellied up to the sandbar
He poured me the usual

Rusty snail, hold the grunion
Shaken not stirred
With a peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich on the side
Heavy on the mako

I slipped him a fin
On porpoise
I was feeling good
I even dropped a sand dollar in the box for Jerry's squids
For the halibut

Well the place was crowded
We were packed in like sardines They were all there to listen to the big band sounds of Tommy Dorsal
What sole

Tommy was rockin' the place with a very popular tuna
Salmon Chanted Evening
And the stage was surrounded by screaming groupers
Probably there to see the bass player

One of them was this cute little yellowtail
And she's giving me the eye
So I figured this is my chance for a little fun
You know, piece of Pisces

But she said things I just couldn't fathom
She was too deep, seemed to be under a lot of pressure
Boy, could she drink
She drank like a . . .
She drank a lot

I said "What's your sign"
She said "Aquarium"
I said "Great, let's get tanked"

Think I had a wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh
Wet dream

I invited her to my place for a midnight bait
I said "Come on baby, it'll only take a few minnows"
She threw me that same old line
"Not tonight, I gotta haddock"

And she wasn't kidding either
Cause in came the biggest, meanest looking haddock
I'd ever seen come down the pike
He was covered with mussels

He came over to me and said
"Listen, shrimp, don't you come trollin' around here"
What a crab
This guy was steamed
I could see the anchor in his eyes

I turned to him, I said
"A-balone, you're just being shellfish"
Well, I knew it was going to be trouble and so did Gil
'Cause he was already on the phone to the cods

The haddock hits me with a sucker punch
I catch him with a left hook
He eels over
It was a fluke but there he was
Lying on the deck, flat as a mackerel
Kelpless

I said "Forget the cods Gil
This guy's gonna need a sturgeon"
Well, the yellowtail was impressed with the way I landed her boyfriend
She came over to me, she said
"Hey, big boy, you're really a game fish
What's your name"
I said "Marlin"

Think I had a wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh
Wet dream

Well, from then on we had a whale of a time
I took her to dinner, I took her to dance
I bought her a bouquet of flounders
And then I went home with her
And what did I get for my trouble
A case of the clams

Think I had a wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh

Wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh

Wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh

@newtboy
whoa whoa scooter..slow yer roll.
i lived in lauderdale and there aint NOTHING conservative about that joint.huge gay community AND a huge new york jewish community.
so yeah..liberal.

and rich.im not talking "kinda rich" im talking 'lets pull our 5 story yacht to have dinner on an over-priced intercoastal posh eatery" (which i worked at quite a few).

so i dont know what set you off,when i am speaking from actual experience.
was it the word "liberal"?
ok..let me rephrase...
obscenely rich liberals who dont want to actually SEE poor,homeless people.
they want them..you know..over there------------>
the whole "not in my back yard" thing.

yes..they donate handsomely.
yes..they gift furniture and other essentials.
yes..they help sponsor food drives (but over there------->)

so im not saying they are bad people.
i am saying they are hypocrites.
because THEY are the most vocal in local government,and while they may be generous in their charities they are also the ones who push to get those icky,unshowered homeless people out of plain sight.

cuz homeless people are icky.
what would their vacationing austrian family think???

and since tourism is the MAIN source of income in the lauderdale/boca/west palm area,the local government does what it does best.

criminalize the poor.

so it wasnt a case of "starve the poor".
it was a case of "hey,we see poor people..and in PUBLIC"

the horror......
poor people...
in public...
they must need therapy now.

i live on the west coast now (and not the cool naples west coast) and yes..this bunch of dimwitted morons who retired from middle management in order to over pay for their golf privileges and get all their news from FOX are exactly the demographic you are talking about.

not to mention the gulf coast seems to be a white trash mecca.

and yes..there IS an evangelical baptist church on every corner (true story).

and it is with great sadness that i have to admit to being neighbors with these very same dimbulbs who just re-elected rick scott.the same man who paid out the largest medicare fraud in HISTORY!

so thanks for reminding me i live in a mudpit of retards....thanks newt.

im gonna go crawl into a ball now and cry myself to sleep humming the doors "this is the end".

I'm just going to go through this point for point.

There is no gulf between the result, there is no gulf for the family of the victim. It doesn't matter if he's dead, there is no going back from that.

Argument from consequences. As sad as the result is, that isn't on the police.

If you have ever been choked you would know that you can't help yourself but resist. Your body spasm, it's trying to get air and you'll do everything you can to survive. What this tactic does is insure that a person will fight back so you can keep harming that person.

That is simply untrue, and I can tell you that from experience (10 years of martial arts and been in a few fights in my time). If you're getting choked, you stop resisting, because you've already lost and you're just making it worse.

The police are absolutely in the wrong, this man is not a danger to anyone, even himself. They either talk him down, or use non lethal means to bring him under control. If they can't do that they leave him be, and if they need to follow him until they get backup. There is no reason to immediately attack him, it just makes this worse.

Again, we have no idea why the police are arresting this guy, because the video doesn't provide any context.

So no it is not unreasonable to call it murder at all. It is by definition a Murder because it is the Unlawful Killing of a Human Being.

Two problems with that:
1: Unlawful. It wasn't unlawful, they were arresting him which they have a legal right to do.
2: You're deliberately leaving out a crucial part of the definition: with malice aforethought. Again, are you saying the cops deliberatly set out to kill him?

They may have the legal right under this Nations laws to murder people with impunity but the laws are wrong.

The use of deadly force by police is governed by laws, and any use of said force results in an investigation. In fact, deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." ( Tennessee v. Garner)

I completely agree that there have been cases of unjustified killing by police where they have escaped sanction (Diallo is the one that springs to mind), but to say that they can "murder people with impunity" is hyperbole and nonsense.

What you are doing is defending them using their Laws. Why would anyone ever accept that? If I could make the laws for myself I would and then I would never be guilty.

Because it's not "their laws". The police enforce the law, they don't make it. The laws are made by elected representatives.

There are huge problems with the justice system in the US (see john Olivers video on prisons for a start) and part of that is the police, but what you're doing is not helping.

It's akin to arguing that we should take action on climate change (a very real problem), because if we don't fairies will go extinct.

There is no gulf between the result, there is no gulf for the family of the victim. It doesn't matter if he's dead, there is no going back from that.

If you have ever been choked you would know that you can't help yourself but resist. Your body spasm, it's trying to get air and you'll do everything you can to survive. What this tactic does is insure that a person will fight back so you can keep harming that person.

The police are absolutely in the wrong, this man is not a danger to anyone, even himself. They either talk him down, or use non lethal means to bring him under control. If they can't do that they leave him be, and if they need to follow him until they get backup. There is no reason to immediately attack him, it just makes this worse.

So no it is not unreasonable to call it murder at all. It is by definition a Murder because it is the Unlawful Killing of a Human Being. They may have the legal right under this Nations laws to murder people with impunity but the laws are wrong.

What you are doing is defending them using their Laws. Why would anyone ever accept that? If I could make the laws for myself I would and then I would never be guilty.

I disagree. There is a huge moral gulf between deliberately setting out to kill someone and having someone die while they are resisting your attempt to restrain them.

And "an overwhelming forceful attack" is the whole point of an arrest. It's not supposed to be a fair fight, the suspect is supposed to give up peacefully when he sees the odds stacked against him. That it ended in his death is because he resisted arrest.

Here's the thing. You know all those movies and TV shows where an innocent man resists arrest, solves the crime he's accused of and is eventually proven right? Guess what happens in real life... he still gets convicted of resisting arrest. The law is like that for a reason. It's not up to you to decide your guilt or innocence.

I'm not saying the cops were right (as @Jerykk pointed out, there's no context to decide if they should have been arresting him), but calling it murder is unreasonable.

And, it goes into action..

Greatest Tank Battles- M2 Bradley vs T-72 | Gulf War (3 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sum91rgJXkI

It wasn't just waterboarding, Hitchens admitted he was wrong on Iraq as well.

One of the things I admired most about him was that on taking a strong stance on his beliefs, he was still willing to put those beliefs to the test and if persuaded change them.

As you know, he was sketchy on condemning water boarding, tried it, and came back unreservedly declaring it as unqualified torture. He did the same thing with his position on Iraq, but I can see how many missed it. During the first gulf war Hitchens was very publicly vocal in his opposition to the invasion, even debating and destroying Carleton Heston. After the war, Hitchens went to Iraq to live with Kurdish people, and he promptly came back with his mind changed and advocated from that day forward for the removal of Saddam.

Nothing like waking up on your 17th birthday and seeing Challenger detonate over the Gulf.

I think that you will find reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium, rather, they produce a grade of plutonium known as reactor grade. Weapons grade plutonium is upwards of 95% Pu239. Reactor grade plutonium is what is known as weapons usable, not weapons ready. This is because of the high contamination factor of Pu240, Pu241, and Pu242. These heavier breads of Pu have both high spontaneous fission rates (bad for your fission weapon), and considerable heat, enough so to make weapons fabrication a problem (is it bad when your closed weapons device needs ventilation to not melt itself). While these problems are addressable in advanced weapons platforms, outside of well established nuclear weapons programs, making weapons from them is very challenging.

The main trouble, however, I think is economics, and nuclear is forced to internalize many of their impacts where as other solutions, mainly fossil fuels, do not. That is a pretty key competitive disadvantage.

Also note that electricity is only a fraction of total power, total power includes many non-electrical uses, most notably motor vehicles via liquid fuels. When you look at solar in this light, it represents a sub-fraction of a percent. So 5% of annual solar electrical generation is only a small part of a larger energy picture, and picture which also needs to be weighted against the rest of the world for which solar provides very little power. This isn't an attack on solar, it is a bringing to light of how vast the gulf is to address climate issues with any one technology.

So I think you will find that he isn't off by orders of magnitude, rather, he was being pretty generous to the total amount of energy produced by solar and wind world wide, and climate issues and emissions are world issues.

Key World Energy STATISTICS IEA:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf

(I trust the IEA's numbers)

But I share the sentiment that we need to reduce coal and gas to address climate concerns. The fact that German emissions have risen for 2 years in a row is troubling to say the least. I consider France and Sweden to be better models, lower CO2 per capita and electrical prices in both cases compared to Germany, and both heavy nuclear users...with Sweden using a fair deal more hydro power than France. Nuclear and hydro are the proven heavy lifters in the area of CO2 reductions, which is why I think his criticism of environmental groups in addressing climate issues is justified as they generally oppose both.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2012 IAEA:

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/12-44581_ccnp2012_web.pdf

Sorry, but the whole "we were all in it together during the depression" thing is bullshit. Sure, everyone banded together and looked after each other.... unless you were black, gay, Irish, Jewish or even female.

He's totally right about wage repression though.

Also,I'd point out that his list of resentments: the poor, black people, immigrants, unions, intellectuals and government; that's a list of resentments of the right.

Sorry, but this isn't some vast idealogical gulf between fringes. It's a gap between a centre-right party (the democrats) and insane people.

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

It looks to me like they've created a great way to demonstrate the engineers' designs to executives in an intuitive presentation. Though not the same as designing in 3D with your hands in the air, it's an important problem to solve. Too often there's a gulf of understanding and expectation between executives and engineers.

@bcglorf
there are a few things i dont understand about your position.i hope you can clear them up for me.

1.you state that there is conclusive evidence that it was the assad regime that executed the use of chemical weapons and that only russia and the syrian government are stating otherwise.
could you supply this evidence for us?
because as far as i can tell the only entity providing evidence is isreal and i have to admit being skeptical of their claims.they have been wrong before and often.

2.now lets address the hypothetical that it IS assads regime that is responsible for the chemical attacks.
how does this give the united states the right to unilaterally use military force?
where is the diplomatic option?
why are we not even attempting to bring the players on the ground in syria to the negotiating table?
sanctions?embargoes?
why are we jumping right over steps 3 and 4 and diving into bombings?
how is killing innocent civilians considered "humanitarian"?

3.if the reasoning that we are being given is that a syrian intervention is based on "humanitarian" grounds and that the assad regime has perpetrated "crimes against humanity" (which is possible).where is the united states deriving this moral authority?
when we consider that the united states itself used:phosphorous and depleted uranium in iraq,which IS indeed considered a war crime.
in fact the united states has pretty much broken international law in every conflict since 1950 in regards to war crimes.
so where is our supposed moral authority?

4.if we dismiss the questionable intelligence in regards to chemical weapons in syria AND we ignore the utter hypocrisy in using banned weaponry and we focus on JUST the crimes against humanity defense for intervention.that somehow the united states is doing all this for "humanitarian" reasons.
then we must ask the question:
"if the united states is such a beacon of moral purity and is the defender of the weak and helpless that it will strike at any sovereign nation that dares to kill its own citizens.why is it that the united states turned a blind eye in other countries that perpetrated almost mass genocide against its own people"?

what makes syria more special than the millions of human beings who were allowed to be murdered and slaughtered by its own government while the united states sat back and did nothing,and many times supplied the very weaponry USED to murder those people?

the hypocrisy is staggering.

the implication is that the united states is NOT interested in a stable syria but exactly the opposite.
maybe this thought is troubling for americans but i submit that if that is the case then they have not been paying attention.

*edit-as for your "iraq is the way it is due to saddam hussein" assertion.
really?reeeaaaally?
you do realize the united states armed saddam.we didnt pull the trigger when he went after the iranians and the kurds but we supplied the gun.
you do realize that we never left iraq after the first gulf war.
are you aware that even as reprehensible and venal saddam was,iraq had running water,hospitals,schools.even with the continued bombings and sanctions iraq had a functioning government?

are we to believe ,by your assertion,that iraq is in the state it is right now due to saddam hussein and america bears ZERO responsibility?
we have occupied iraq for TEN YEARS.saddam was executed 7 yrs ago.
the united states has failed on an epic scale in regards to iraq.

remember that whole "we will be greeted as liberators"
"the oil we confiscate will pay for the war"
maybe i am reading your commentary wrong but i cant wrap my head around your assertion.
it just does not hold up under the simplest of scrutiny.

You reflect a lot of peoples opinions with this. Those who are terrified of terrorist attacks and let themselves get whipped up into a panic state anytime they push the propaganda button.

Oh those aren't happy natives those are blood thirsty psychos redskins we have to destroy to feel safe.

Those aren't nice Chinese laundrymen they're trying to kill us, we need to launch a chemical attack against mainland China (true story).

Those aren't black slaves we're keeping under our boots, they want to rape your daughters we can't give them freedom!

Those aren't peaceful villagers they're Red Communist bastards that are coming for us like a HOARD!

And so on and so on and so on. This country is terrified of everything, and usually the boogie man it makes up is the very people or country that we have under our boot. If we take our boot away for even a second they'll destroy us and everything we hold dear. There were people arming themselves and wearing Camo during the FIRST Gulf War because they were terrified of Saddam Hussein showing up on our doorsteps.

This culture of fear is what they use to justify everything, it's all about Security. Guess what, it doesn't have anything to do with security, because they know very well what they can do to make us more secure, even more than our magical country already is. They're not doing it, they have never done it...they're not protecting us, they only protect themselves FROM US.

This isn't an attack or anything you bring up a very good point which tons of people do during these debates. I'm getting really tired of the most protected society in the world not responding to those who actually pose a threat to not just our survival, but humanities as a whole.

Hi.
I didn't actually think your "snuff" video was out of place, but I wanted to ask: you're not actually banned, are you? I only saw the comment, and ... you know what I mean.
I once had a coworker paste a video around the (3000+ person) company mailing list that was a video of a grainy black-blotch (guy) being mowed down by what was said to be the mini-gun of an Apache helicopter in the gulf war. Granted that the coworkers commentary was celebratory and offensive, but even that nearly-abstract video insulted me more than what you posted, and your tone clearly had no such intent.
I hope you stick around. Please don't take offense, and I'll be writing to those who flagged you later to hopefully calm them the fuck down too. This is the best community I've been a part of online in more than a decade, and I am sad to lose anyone who's a contributor.
I didn't think the video was snuff, and I don't think the majority of the community would think so either.