Arrrggghh, thanks for reminding me how much I hate this song. Bob Geldof always struck me as a smug little tard, back when this song came out. It’s the kind of song that I would have thought was edgy and clever when I was a schoolboy. During interviews when questioned about the poor taste of treating a tragedy with such smug flippancy Geldof replied that it was more like America didn’t like it when someone aired its “dirty laundry”. BTW I always read it was a schoolgirl that did the shooting, not someone who lived across the street.

Why didn’t Geldof write a song to air Scotland’s dirty laundry when some lunatic killed 18 children at a nursery school? And that line about “the silicon chip inside her head gets switched to overload”, does that even mean anything? Things don’t get “switched to overload”, they get overloaded. But I’m sure the schoolboys thought it sounded cool. So Geldof always struck me as a loser who was desperate for some claim to fame. And then Live Aid comes along and this tard gets treated like a saint. Jeez.

Thanks for the memories.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.
And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.
And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.
If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: none; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> NetRunner said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/n/NetRunner-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)
</div></div></div></div>
The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?
My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.
Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.
If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.
It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: both; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Lawdeedaw said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/l/Lawdeedaw-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...
</div></div></div></div>
Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.


This is a long quote.

Cat probably likes the clear box. Had a cat that's dead now, would want to get inside any box laying around. If you had the flaps closed and they would kinda support her weight, she'd jump up there and immediately fall through when she got to the center. Would also do it with laundry baskets...... could flip one over and her and she'd just lay in there and bat at people through the holes in it. Miss this cat, she was a complete weirdo but funny.

Then another cat has this obsession with anything plastic, at first glance you'd think it wanted what was in the plastic bags, but it wants IN the bag. The sunday ads that are color and kinda slippery like plastic, she'll lay on those and spread them all around to roll around on. Trash bags, especially the see through white kind if it's really crinkled and makes noise she'll play with them, roll around all over them. I think it's just the noise the plastic makes that she's obsessed with. The sister to this particular cat has an obsession with running water and bath tubs, but doesn't like to get wet. So she'll come running if you're taking a leak, washing your hands, running water in the kitchen sink (although this less so because it was used to give her a bath once and she's afraid of it now). She'll jump in bath tubs and roll around as long as they are pretty much dry. These are cats taken in as kittens when they were found in a wood pile in the yard, with no mother cat in sight....as long with a third male kitten that was given away..no idea if he has any strange obsessions.

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.

And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.

And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.

If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.

>> ^NetRunner:

, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)


The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?

My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.

Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.

If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.

It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...


Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.

*promote

Every time we think about same-sex marriage
Makes us sick to our guts
I mean, two people who want to commit to a stable monogamous life-long relationship
What are they, nuts?
It's unnatural!
Now a man should not lie with a person who is a guy
He should only lie to his wife, the bible is clear
We're —
Defenders of marriage
In three-button suits
We'll raise our double standard and see who salutes
Defenders of marriage
Defending the institution against people who want to get married

Every time we hear about same-sex parents
"Oh, my gosh!" we exclaim
I mean, two people who want to provide a protective and nurturing family environment
Have they no shame?
It's so deviant!
It's the Lord's holy word, as my second wife said to my third
That a family's based on obligation and fear
We're —
Defenders of marriage
Connubial narcs
Ever vigilant and patriotic patriarchs
Defenders of marriage
Defending the institution against people who want to get married

One summer evening when my woman was doing laundry
I shared a six-pack with an old John Bircher
And oh so wisely he imparted an ancient quandary, to ponder
He said, "It's nature versus legislature."
Spoken: Are people born gay, or do they turn gay just to piss off Dick Armey?

We're an army of dicks
With a militant stance
Let's get the government out of our lives and into our pants
Defenders of marriage
Defending the institution against people who want to get married
And have their insurance carried
And be beneficiary'd
And be next to the ones they love when they are buried

I'm with @Sagemind on this.

My parents are divorced, so my own family view is somewhat skewed, I will say however, that I live with my mother, and I do most of the daily grind around here. (Cooking, cleaning etc.)

And at my dad/stepmothers house, my dad does most of the work, taking my sisters places, folding laundry, cleaning, etc. and yes, he does make more money then my step-mom. Reason? They're both cops, he's just higher rank because she doesn't apply for promotions. So tell me, that's the same work pattern because they're both cops.. but because my step-mom is lazy and doesn't want more responsibility that comes with a promotion, does that affect your statistics?

For the record, no, i'm not saying she represents all women on the subject, but that street goes both ways.

Now, I've done a bit of research on this.

The girl who made this, observing how men are sexist, passing off the children to their wives, sitting back doing none of the housework, all the while climbing up the corperate ladder faster? A 23 year old college student.

You're all fighting about a 23 year olds view of things she's probably never experienced. Now, someone said earlier in this thread they had the "1950's" stay at home mom. I ask you, was that her choice? or did you father force her to stay?

To be truthful, I'm not sure what China does specifically, because there's a lot of government secrecy. I can tell you that they're a state-capitalist system, and that's not a free market. So, regardless what they do, it's not a free market by definition, so continuing to discuss Foxconn is moot. Because the government gives capital subsidies, the businesses probably enjoy certain one-sided opportunities that create harsh and unrealistic work environments for their worker's. That's not a free market, though.

Let's talk about my "fallacious" argument. It's that you believe I showed theoretical evidence, right? But it was just as theoretical as the questions posed by you? When a free market advocate shows the mistakes of the regulated market by systematically listing how government uses corporate law to tip the playing field so egregiously in the direction of big business, the last ditch effort to discredit him or her is then to demand they show a system where free markets existed and thrived in their purest form. You want to talk logical fallacies, dear boy, you've pwned that can of worms.

Argument from fallacy: analyzing an argument for free markets and inferring that, since you believe it's begging the question, then its conclusion must be false.
Red Herring: A change of questioning to divert the attention on the topic.
Negative Proof Fallacy: Because something cannot be proven true it must be false.
Proof by example: If there are no free markets, then free markets are false.
Argument from repetition: You claim my defense of free markets is ad nauseum.
Appeal to ridicule: Oh my lord, this is probably your favorite fallacy to employ. It's when you present my argument as being ridiculous.
Appeal to consequences: Free markets are won't work because their lack of regulation may lead to some bad consequences.
And finally, your own begging the question: "Without democracy, there is no civic means of expressing the public will, which means the guy with the most money calls the shots."

I could do this all day. Maybe it's impossible to have an online political discussion without some fallacious rhetoric? Either way, I think it's important we stay on course with the discussion. Where were we?

I'm not making assumptions as much as I'm pointing out the biases of government intervention within the marketplace. I've given you a laundry list of corporate welfare and regulations that tip the playing field for Walmart, which are NOT theoretical, and you've not commented about those. Walmart's profit margins are immense, and you cannot deny that a large portion of those are directly caused by government intervention.

OK, I originally wrote this as a reply to your comment on "What motivates us", but I go off on a bit of a tangent that probably wouldn't interest the average viewer of the comments section there so I thought I should move it here to your profile.

It is entirely possible that my rambling below won't interest *you* very much either; in that case please accept my thanks for your aforementioned post which piqued my interest, and feel free to ignore me...

Quite a lot of your comment rang true for me. I've been living in Thailand for 3 years, working as a teacher in an ESL program. In Thailand, there is a pretty high demand for native English speakers to work as teachers, but there isn't a great supply, particularly of high-quality people that are actually interested in teaching as a career.

An extremely low percentage of native-speaking English teachers actually have degrees in teaching or English (I myself have a Computer Science degree). The majority are tourists that come here to visit and like the country, so they decide to look for options that would allow them to stay and end up teaching.

A lot of people tend to think that is a recipe for disaster, in terms of quality of teaching, straight out of the box. I basically disagree; I have seen a lot of converted tourist teachers that get personally interested in the work and motivated to do a good job. However, I think that in general the educational system and institutions here do a poor job of recognizing the realities of the talent pool that they have access to and how to manage their teachers to KEEP the people that show that they have teaching skills and motivation.

Autonomy is usually easy to come by. In most educational programs here teachers (many of whom have never actually taught before) are thrown into classrooms without any syllabus, lesson plans, course outcome goals, or even any verbal instructions or ideas. So at least in terms of the course content, I think there is generally too much autonomy.

Work conditions, on the other hand, are extremely variable. As someone from the midwestern US, Thailand is frequently HOT. Sometimes classrooms have air conditioning, but many do not. Some classrooms are good at having ready access to very basic supplies (chalk / board markers / copy machine for worksheets) or other stuff (flashcards / books), and some seem to think that a room containing broken chairs and desks, with no chalkboard or other writing surface should be fine. Administration officials seem genuinely surprised and puzzled when a lack of basic supplies creates motivation issues.

Another major contributor to classroom conditions is the presence, absence, and/or quality of teaching assistance. Schools say that there will be a Thai speaking co-teacher or teaching assistant in the classroom at all times to help maintain order and translate words or concepts as needed. In practice that is often not the case, which can be disastrous for people that are just thrown in without any experience or techniques to maintain discipline. If you lose control of discipline in a hot classroom full of 40+ gradeschool kids that don't speak English, and don't have anyone there to back you up or bail you out, motivation is going to plummet. Rapidly.

Anyway, sorry for the really LONG ranting response, but I'm interested in how that would compare to your findings in your thesis. Particularly if there is some country or system that tends to "get it right" more often than others.

And just as a final note, I too thought of Google when watching the clip. When the narrator said he was going to provide an example of a company that gave employees time to work on self-directed projects, I was almost sure he was going to say Google.

Thanks for the interesting comment!
>> ^SDGundamX:

For my Master's final project, I presented on teacher motivation for teachers of English as a Second or Other Language. In my research, one of the things I looked at was salary. Studies that had been done on teacher motivation and salary found the same thing this study found--that you need a minimum salary in order to get people to stay at the job, but better than average salary didn't correlate to better motivation. There were a host of other factors that did correlate, however, including the big one mentioned here--autonomy.
But autonomy wasn't the only factor. As poolcleaner pointed out work conditions are also a significant factor in motivation. If you're forced to teach your classes in the janitor's closet with no air circulation and only a dim lightbulb for illumination no amount of autonomy or salary is going to make you a motivated teacher. Likewise, if your boss doesn't listen to anything you say or you have no input in the curriculum at all, you see a big drop-off in motivation as well.
Still, autonomy is a pretty key component to motivating people. I think autonomy in the workplace works if it is coupled with accountability. If you look at companies like Google, which give their employees a couple hours a day to work on whatever they want, you quickly see that the model works because Google also monitors what the people are working on and gets to keep (and ultimately sell) whatever the final product is. I think it is safe to say that this model is working well for them.
Also, having been to the Google Mountain View campus lots of times, I can tell you that they've definitely got the work environment thing covered: free lunches at dozens of restaurant-style cafeterias; on-site massages and doctor; laundry services; a gym; free shuttle from the major mass transit stops in the area.... It's unbelievable. You can read more about the benefits here.

For my Master's final project, I presented on teacher motivation for teachers of English as a Second or Other Language. In my research, one of the things I looked at was salary. Studies that had been done on teacher motivation and salary found the same thing this study found--that you need a minimum salary in order to get people to stay at the job, but better than average salary didn't correlate to better motivation. There were a host of other factors that did correlate, however, including the big one mentioned here--autonomy.

But autonomy wasn't the only factor. As poolcleaner pointed out work conditions are also a significant factor in motivation. If you're forced to teach your classes in the janitor's closet with no air circulation and only a dim lightbulb for illumination no amount of autonomy or salary is going to make you a motivated teacher. Likewise, if your boss doesn't listen to anything you say or you have no input in the curriculum at all, you see a big drop-off in motivation as well.

Still, autonomy is a pretty key component to motivating people. I think autonomy in the workplace works if it is coupled with accountability. If you look at companies like Google, which give their employees a couple hours a day to work on whatever they want, you quickly see that the model works because Google also monitors what the people are working on and gets to keep (and ultimately sell) whatever the final product is. I think it is safe to say that this model is working well for them.

Also, having been to the Google Mountain View campus lots of times, I can tell you that they've definitely got the work environment thing covered: free lunches at dozens of restaurant-style cafeterias; on-site massages and doctor; laundry services; a gym; free shuttle from the major mass transit stops in the area.... It's unbelievable. You can read more about the benefits here.

@gbfunk, apparently silvercord and QM want to prove your point for you.

silvercord brings us an article from pajamasmedia, which is essentially a screed entirely aimed at calling Obama a hypocrite for a laundry list of reasons that have about as much factual basis as your average Fox news segment. There's no actual criticism of his policy prescriptions of course, and certainly doesn't contain the "valid points and constructive criticism" you desire.

QM recommends you read a book that's so far off the deep end, even other conservatives call it wingnuttery.

The best I've seen in terms of non-crazy conservative counterpoint is the American Conservative Magazine, which seems to try to stick to a fair reading of the facts and positions of liberal politicians, while still providing a conservative counterpoint to the stuff I usually read.

I also find that there's limited sanity to be found in conservative economists when they're engaged in debate with a liberal economist (though when they're left to their own devices, they seem to lie like rugs).

Mostly though, I find that if what you're looking for is a constructive, well reasoned, fact-based critique of Democratic policies, you can find tons of it on left-wing blogs. This is especially true if you're looking for criticism of Obama that doesn't just boil down to a) Obama is arrogant, b) Obama is a tyrant, c) Obama is a liar, or d) Obama is not like you, so fear and mistrust him.

its funny how they say that in ten years you might have a robotic house maid ( bullshit imho).

WE would have to design homes differently in regards to having such a personal army of robotic doppelgangers doing your bidding letting you sit and get even more fat. Sure they have that Toyota or Honda robot that can walk; but in ten years do people honestly believe there will be a scenario where a robot will walk up/down stairs, fold the laundry vacuum with its feet while doing so and laying a scent trail or freshly baked bread ?



I THINK NOT.

If people aren't nice to me, I'm not nice back. You are escalating this as much as I, but honestly it's already being blown out of proportion.

I thought "That Girl with the Rack" was a hilarious title, and I still do, because OBVIOUSLY she has a bunch to offer in the video, so it was a bit of a self-deprecation making the title. And the title WORKED, people saw the video, which is the point of any title. People seem to infer that I am a horrible person, disrespectful to women and what not, and I don't like people being aggressive at me for a stupid title. In this response you are unduly aggressive too and there's really no need for it. You say I'm the one throwing a temper tantrum - well, let's both cool down a little here.

This is why I responded poorly to you, to not take it out of context:
"No one accused you of committing a crime, but if you really cannot acknowledge why your title is demeaning and rude in referring to the individual in the video - and to women in general - then you are in denial."

Denial is something I've been accused of before, so I'm a little sensitive about it, because it is just not true. I know exactly what the title is and I chose it for a reason, not to disrespect women, not to be demeaning, but to make a damn joke.

"stop being a whiny little boy"
Very mature. I had a similar response here first, but like you said, it would just escalate it even further. I had expected better from @Issykitty.

Can't we both just be mature enough to not escalate this any further? I don't want the drama and I doubt you do either.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
Plucking a laundry list of words out of context in reference to your lame title does not equate a personal attack on your character as those comments were simply pointing out what I reiterated (in that your title sucked balls, seriously), and I'm really confused as to why you see it that way. I don't know what to tell you. We're all nazis/ pc thugs to you if we call your title out for what it is.

I don't give a shit or not what changes you make with your fucking title so don't do me or anyone any favors. I was responding to the seemingly misplaced temper tantrum that you threw, but I guess I know what to expect from @gwiz665. Don't fucking dare tell you that your title is demeaning, even if JUVENILE is a way nicer and gentler word to describe what I'd actually want to call your "Girl With The Rack" title. You decided from the get-go that you were going to have a hissy fit with the first person that called out your title for what it was. You are escalating this and turning it into something personal when it originally wasn't. Stop being a whiny little boy.


In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
@Issykitty "Kindly"? Are you kidding now again? "Disrespectful", "shameful", "juvenile", "sucky", "pathetic", and "denial". Those are not kind words. If you poor sensitive people had asked me nicely, I would have changed the title without throwing a hissy fit, but when people instead insinuate that I should be ashamed or attack my person, that just doesn't feel very kind at all (yes, I'm sensitive about my person, so I hit back). A PC thug by any other name is still a thug. Stop being a goddamn thug!

Honest opinion is one thing, being condescending, patronizing, and spiteful is another.

Plucking a laundry list of words out of context in reference to your lame title does not equate a personal attack on your character as those comments were simply pointing out what I reiterated (in that your title sucked balls, seriously), and I'm really confused as to why you see it that way. I don't know what to tell you. We're all nazis/ pc thugs to you if we call your title out for what it is.

I don't give a shit or not what changes you make with your fucking title so don't do me or anyone any favors. I was responding to the seemingly misplaced temper tantrum that you threw, but I guess I know what to expect from @gwiz665. Don't fucking dare tell you that your title is demeaning, even if JUVENILE is a way nicer and gentler word to describe what I'd actually want to call your "Girl With The Rack" title. You decided from the get-go that you were going to have a hissy fit with the first person that called out your title for what it was. You are escalating this and turning it into something personal when it originally wasn't. Stop being a whiny little boy.


In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
@Issykitty "Kindly"? Are you kidding now again? "Disrespectful", "shameful", "juvenile", "sucky", "pathetic", and "denial". Those are not kind words. If you poor sensitive people had asked me nicely, I would have changed the title without throwing a hissy fit, but when people instead insinuate that I should be ashamed or attack my person, that just doesn't feel very kind at all (yes, I'm sensitive about my person, so I hit back). A PC thug by any other name is still a thug. Stop being a goddamn thug!

Honest opinion is one thing, being condescending, patronizing, and spiteful is another.

"Remember that year in the windfields party when you threw up in the laundry hamper?"
"... no?"

equality:
you don't deserve to make more money than me for the same job and the same quality of work just because you have a penis. i can do more with my life than pop out babies and clean up your shit. my thoughts, ideas, opinions, feelings are just as valid as yours, as yours are as valid as mine. and blah blah blah blah you know all that

chivalry:
what remains of it, for the most part, is part of the courting ritual. if we're on our first date and you make no attempt to open doors for me or pick up the check or have good manners, that's our last date. i'm not sure why that's how it is. i am perfectly capable of doing those things for myself, but courting rituals are important and that's part of it. on the same coin, i'm expected to reciprocate by pretending you're fascinating and funny, not being opinionated, smiling politely, wearing make up, smelling nice, looking presentable, making polite conversation and being more conventionally feminine than i normally am. it's just part of the deal. i also used to feel bad having someone else pay for my shit, but apparently if i try to pay for my own stuff on a first date that's a signal that i just want to be "friends". these are cultural rules and they exist and most people abide by them. it's cool.
after a relationship is established the rules get more lax, i can pick up checks, i can open some of the doors, i can get more opinionated, you can act like more of a pig. as far as household chores go, if both people work to pay the bills then the chores should be split and how a couple chooses to split them is up to that couple. but i'd guess you're better at moving heavy objects and opening jars than i am. and i'm probably happier to scrub the toilet and fold the laundry. and you're still responsible to make each other feel special sometimes, and sometimes that means the traditional gender role courting game comes back into play.

common decency:
everyone should make way for everyone else and hold doors open if you get there first. regardless of gender. it's just being decent. it's like saying "i acknowledge your existence and i respect you", anything less is sheer rudeness. if i make it to the door first, i open the door. if an elderly person is slowly edging ahead of me to the door, i pick up my step and open it. if anyone is carrying something heavy or cumbersome to the door ahead of me, i step up and get the door. it doesn't matter what their gender is. out in public men do end up going out of their way more often to open doors for me, it's not necessary, but i do smile and say thanks and acknowledge it. and i do think it's polite. but i certainly don't just stand there and wait for some strange man to move his ass and get out of my way or open this silly door. i'm teaching both of my kids to open doors for other people and help other people with things in public, but i do emphasize "opening doors for ladies" more with my son. because gentlemen are appreciated (or should be). but my daughter is getting heavily schooled in respect and courtesy as well.

i'm sorry you have bitchy, attractive, spoiled neighbors. but chivalry and feminism aren't the issue.