I don't understand what you mean about the police.
Unfortunately, recently, much more effective opposition to freedom of choice has come in the form of ridiculously transparently designed, unscientific, non-medical laws requiring completely un-needed expensive medical equipment and irrelevant abilities (like 'admitting privilege' at the nearest hospital, as if the hospital won't take an emergency patient without a Dr. 'admitting' them).
I have never heard of any campaign to sabotage execution machines or assassinate executioners or wardens. I guess THAT kind of "state sanctioned murder" is OK, but the kind science and law has repeatedly and conclusively said is NOT murder... people involved in that get threatened, harassed, and sometimes murdered themselves....by the "anti-murder" people. WHAT?!? I am glad that most of those people do lack the 'courage of their convictions' as you put it.
Ahhh, but aren't these actions are diametrically opposed to these people's stated ideology, of love and tolerance for other people's ideas and customs?...and doesn't giving to Caesar what is Caesar's means following the law (as I've had it described), and thou shall not kill mean no murdering Doctors...ever? (I'm assuming they are a Christian group, if this one isn't, then ascribe my comments to those that are)

What if others fervently believe the Greeks were correct, and it's really proper to not consider a baby a person until they are one year old, until then it's fine to just leave them outside to die or toss them off a cliff? (I'm not really saying that we should go back to that, I'm just pointing out that there are extremes on the 'pro-choice' or 'anti-unwanted children' side with historical and religious context to back them up). We would say it's fine to hold that ideology (well, legal to hold that ideology, maybe not fine), but certainly not legal or fine to act on it.

I feel that it's not meaningless to criticize a person's inappropriate actions, no matter the 'reason' for them, if it's backed up with consequence. Most people, as you noted, don't have the 'strength of their convictions' to risk going to jail, or even public ridicule for acting inappropriately, even if they sincerely believe it's for a good reason.

I don't get the wait times argument from those who oppose a single payer system. They clearly never went to an emergency room in the US. I've never had a short wait time in a US ER/Stat Care/Ultra Care type facility. Even when they seem empty it seems like an hour wait before you finally see a doctor. Oh your 2 year old is having a hard time breathing, wait an hour and a half. Your one year old is running a high fever and vomiting, wait two hours. Heck, the wait times to find a doctor if you don't already have a family doctor can be weeks or months, forcing you to go to the ER for stuff you'd probably normally see a doctor for. That isn't an efficient medical system. They anti-single payer people then will say they don't trust the government to make decisions about their health insurance... but they trust the one of the most profitable, per dollar earned, business in the US? (I vaguely recall insurance being number 3 in per dollar earned profits, right behind banks and pharmaceuticals, with a rather large gap to get to number four.) They don't get those huge profits by making decisions in the best interest of the patients and consumers. Walmart could pay $3 more per hour to every employee, give them benefits, increase the work force, and still make profits without raising prices, meaning that while half the work force there needs food stamps now, none would if the company would do the right thing and pay a living wage, but instead we have people mad at the people who work there for not making enough rather than the people who run it... anyhow the point is people like that, who run the business, can't be trusted to make decisions about your health insurance as they only care about their bottom line and their paycheck. Getting you the proper health care costs them money and they will gladly sacrifice you and your family for a better paycheck for them.

September 1, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A South Side Chicago man who admitted shooting and wounding two Chicago Police officers has been found not guilty and released from custody. In this Intelligence Report: How did the shooter's lawyer manage to win such a case?

Twenty-one-year-old Kenneth Green was asleep in his Roseland apartment two years ago when a Chicago Police team showed up with a search warrant for drugs.

Cops used a battering ram to get in.

When police kicked through the bottom of Green's bedroom door, he shot through the door wounding two of the officers. Despite admitting all that, Green got off claiming self-defense.

The early morning raid by police on Green's Roseland apartment building ended in almost three dozen shots fired, mostly by police, after veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O'Toole were wounded through the door. The officers would survive, but that day in 2009, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis used the incident to take a stand.

"People are trying to murder police officers left and right," Weis said.

After he shot two policeman, Green was arrested on the spot and charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery with a gun and held without bond.

Last week, after a several day trial, Green was found not guilty. His attorney, Marcus Schantz, told the I-Team that he convinced the jury that Green didn't know they were police outside his door executing a legal search warrant.

Sorry for the reeeaaally long post @marinara but I was trying to be brief:

1. "Zimmerman was not part of any REGISTERED neighborhood watch group."

Zimmerman did indeed say that he was "captain" of his neighborhood watch, and I can't find any proof that he wasn't, do you know why? Because there is no documentation regarding his neighborhood watch program, because it was unregistered and existed only in the heads of two or three people. And, might I add, it was certainly not "official".

When a person forms a neighborhood watch, it might be important to take into account the community that they live in. What if the community doesn't want a neighborhood watch program? What if they do, but they feel they don't want you representing them, as some people in Zimmerman's community clearly felt?

The fact is that Zimmmerman's self-appointed title carried no legitimacy at all. If my friend Cletus and I want to call ourselves the neighborhood watch, we can. I can call myself "secretary treasurer" and he can call himself "supreme overlord". But it has no more meaning than when my friend Nick and I get together and call ourselves a "fourteenth level archer", and "Nargok, the dwarven battlemage" (respectively). Only, in the case of the neighborhood watch titles, one must consider the community they are attempting to represent. This is why most watch programs (like the one you linked to) register themselves with the National Sheriff's Association, or some other organization.

2. "Oh and I documented a procedure for neighborhood watches to arrest people and a simple google search will correct you of the idea that the watch should not carry guns."

What you documented on the "City of Oxnard, Police Department" website was that citizen watch volunteers (who are registered) are encouraged to make arrests when they have seen a crime being committed, in particular, when they see someone committing the crime of vandalism. All US citizens have the right to make a citizen's arrest, but no one has the right to arrest or detain anyone for "suspicious behavior", even if that person is walking down the street wearing a hoodie, and looking skeptically at the person following them.

As to the gun, the same Oxnard website you linked to, on the same page, advises that no one carry a weapon at all, except for a heavy-duty flashlight that might be used to defend one's self in an emergency. Unfortunately, a Google search relating to neighborhood watch organizations carrying guns is inundated with articles and polls regarding this tragic case. The fox news polls indicate that a minority of people questioned think neighborhood watch members should carry guns, but those people do not reflect the views of any actual organization (that exists outside of its member's heads) that I know of.

I'd like to refer you to the response to the NY Times from Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels. The Angels are one of the most prolific watch organizations in history, with chapters all over the world. They were founded in the late seventies in NYC when the areas they patrolled were considered wastelands. Despite several attempts on the founder's life, and the loss of a few of its members over the years, they still do not advise carrying guns.

3. "...why do you insist on saying martin was an unarmed child? This is absurd."

I say it for two reasons: the first is that Martin was unarmed. There are no eyewitness reports, or even statements from Zimmerman that I've heard, that indicate that Martin attempted to use his bag of Skittles or his can of iced-tea as a weapon. The second reason I say it is that according to the US legal system, Martin was still a child at the time of his death. If he were in the "Child Protective Services' program, he wouldn't have gotten out until he was eighteen, which is the age that US citizens officially become adults (unless they're insane). Some children are tried as adults in the US, but child-victims are never represented as adults.

I understand if you think it's more appropriate to refer to Martin as a teenager, or possibly an adolescent, or even a young adult. But I don't think so, and I'll tell you why: I'm thirty-one years old. I'm not much older by comparison, but when I see a seventeen-year-old kid, I rarely think to myself, "he's got everything figured out". In fact, I rarely think that about most adults. Sure, I think most kids are smarter than people give them credit for, but I don't think Martin was mature enough to know the law and develop an appropriate response to being pursued for no reason by a man armed with a gun. And the US legal system hasn't made a determination in his case yet anyway.

>> ^westy:

This is just annoying , Yes its possible for sum one to compose general music around random notes.
seems like a mastabatory celebration of the protentoise interpretation of what a piano is.


Well I, for one, completely agree with westy. Ms. Kronenberg's arrangement of this piece belies the typical human ignorance involved when trying to project the metaphysical onto the postmodern darkness of the everyday conditional object. Her lack of finesse when dealing with the emotional spectrum involved with the derivatives of dialectical emotional power is clumsy at best. At worst it becomes a maladroit nightmare of unresolved, vernal weltschmerz.

Additionally, my balls can play the key-fiddle better than this chump.

>> ^westy:

This is just annoying , Yes its possible for sum one to compose general music around random notes.
seems like a mastabatory celebration of the protentoise interpretation of what a piano is.


These notes are not that random - it's a complete redub. A lot of the note clusters the eye picks up wouldn't make sense in terms of the audio if any of those were actually notes that the baby was playing. The note velocities and pedal work also don't match. Note there's no ambient noise, nor sound of the baby cooing or laughing.

Also, maybe lighten up: it's only a cute baby video.

LOL!!!
In reply to this comment by westy:
This is just annoying , Yes its possible for sum one to compose general music around random notes.

seems like a mastabatory celebration of the protentoise interpretation of what a piano is.

Your video, Interview with a One-Year-Old, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 34 Badge!

Thank you, kymbos! That viddy is one of my favourites!

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
I just showed this to my one year old daughter: transfixed.

*promote

I just showed this to my one year old daughter: transfixed.

*promote

I didn't have enough information when I initially commented on this video (because the video didn't provide it), and I jumped to conclusions - my bad!! In any event, it would definitely have been helpful if the video had indicated if the otter was a sea otter, river otter, or ...

Here's some fun and interesting information about otters from the World Famous San Diego Zoo web site:
Class: Mammalia (Mammals)
Order: Carnivora
Family: Mustelidae
Genera: 6
Species: 13
Length: largest—giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis, up to 7.8 feet (2.4 meters); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, up to 3 feet (0.9 meters)
Weight: largest—sea otter Enhydra lutris, males up to 95 pounds (43 kilograms); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter, up to 11 pounds (5 kilograms)
Life span: 15 to 20 years
Gestation: from 2 months for smaller species to 5 months for sea otters
Number of young at birth: 1 to 5, usually 2
Size at birth: 4.5 ounces (128 grams) for smaller species to 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms) for sea otters
Age of maturity: 2 to 5 years
Conservation status: four species, including the sea otter, are endangered; three otter species are vulnerable.
Fun facts
• You can tell otter species apart by the shape and amount of fur on their noses.
• Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not have a layer of blubber to keep them warm; they rely on warm air trapped in their fur. Sea otters have the densest fur of any mammal, with about 100,000 hairs in a space about the size of a postage stamp!
• Most otter species capture prey with their mouths, but Asian small-clawed otters and sea otters have flexible fingers and grab with their hands.
• North American and European river otters have been known to share dens with beavers—but the beavers do all the building!

Mammals: Otter
Range: Africa, Asia, and parts of North America, Central America, and South America
Habitat: sea otters are found in the Pacific Ocean and along the coastline, but most otter species live in rivers, lakes, and marshes

Champion swimmers
Otters are the only serious swimmers in the weasel family. They spend most of their lives in the water, and they are made for it! Their sleek, streamlined bodies are perfect for diving and swimming. Otters also have long, slightly flattened tails that move sideways to propel them through the water while their back feet act like rudders to steer.

Almost all otters have webbed feet, some more webbed than others, and they can close off their ears and noses as they swim underwater. They can stay submerged for about five minutes, because their heart rate slows and they use less oxygen. They’re also good at floating on the water’s surface, because air trapped in their fur makes them more buoyant. Have you ever noticed that when an otter comes out of the water, its outer fur sticks together in wet spikes, while the underneath still seems dry? That’s because they have two layers of fur: a dense undercoat that traps air; and a topcoat of long, waterproof guard hairs. Keeping their fur in good condition is important, so otters spend a lot of time grooming. In fact, if their fur becomes matted with something like oil, it can damage their ability to hunt for food and stay warm.

Party animals
Otters are very energetic and playful. You might say they love to party! They are intelligent and curious, and they are usually busy hunting, investigating, or playing with something. They like to throw and bounce things, wrestle, twirl, and chase their tails. They also play games of "tag" and chase each other, both in the water and on the ground. River otters seem to like sliding down mud banks or in the snow—they’ll do it over and over again! Otters also make lots of different sounds, from whistles, growls, and screams to barks, chirps, and coos. All this activity is part of the otters’ courtship, social bonding, and communication, and since otter pups need practice, they tend to be even more playful than the adults.

Life as a pup
Most otters are born in a den, helpless and with their eyes closed. The mother takes care of them, often chasing the father away after their birth, although in some species the dad may come back after a couple of weeks to help raise them. The babies, called pups, open their eyes and start exploring the den at about one month, start swimming at two months, and stay with their mother and siblings until they are about one year old, when they head off on their own.

For sea otters in their ocean habitat it’s a little different—the pups are born with their eyes open, and they have a special coat of hair so they can float, even though they can’t swim yet. They are carried on their mother’s stomach until they are about two months old, when they start swimming and diving on their own.

For most otters, social groups are made up of a mother, her older offspring, and her newest pups; the males spend most of their time alone or with a few other males. During breeding time or where there’s lots of food, though, larger groups of otters may gather, especially among sea otters in kelp beds.

The seafood diet
Otter food may not all come from the ocean, but it is definitely fishy! River otters eat mostly fish, frogs, crayfish, crabs, and mollusks, with an occasional small mammal or bird. Sea otters eat many of the same things, but mostly sea urchins, abalone, crabs, mussels, and clams, which they crack open against rocks they hold on their stomachs. Otters have long, sensitive whiskers that help them find prey, even in murky water. Some species, like the Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, also use their hands to probe into mud or under rocks to find a tasty meal that might be hiding there. River otters use lots of energy and digest their food very fast, so they eat several times a day. Sea otters need to eat 20 to 25 percent of their body weight each day. That’s a lot of abalone!
The otters at the San Diego Zoo are fed carnivore diet, carrots, and either squid or trout. They also get small amounts of "treats" for enrichment, like crayfish, worms, potatoes, or yams.

My one year old feels the same way about tissue boxes (to my dismay)

Hmm, I wasn't even thinking, was just reading the original video's description I'll change the title!

>> ^BoneRemake:

no way thats a 1 year old.

How is this different from killing a fish by hitting the head with a hammer and then gutting it? The only difference really is that seals have harder skulls and thus may need to be hit two or three times before they stop moving completely (the first hit probably kills 95% of them, but some still move just like a headless chicken would).

By the way, rifles are used to kill adult seals, since they move too fast on ice. But of course you don't see that because it's not "brutal" enough. What you see in the videos is always hunting of 12 to 15 days old seals who have begun molting (their pelt changes from white to grey). These can be killed with only the hakapik since they can't move fast enough to escape a killing blow.

In Norway, a veterinary must be aboard each ship. Still the Norwegian rules for seal hunting state that : "Adult seals that are more than one year old must be shot in the head with expanding bullets, and can not be clubbed to death. The hakapik shall be used to ensure that the animal is dead. This is done by crushing the skull of the shot adult seal with the short end of the hakapik, before the long spike is thrust deep into the animal's brain. The seal shall then be bled by making an incision from its jaw to the end of its sternum. The killing and bleeding must be done on the ice, and live animals may never be brought onboard the ship. Young seals may be killed using just the hakapik, but only in the before mentioned manner, i.e. they need not be shot." (From wikipedia) Also, "In 2007 the European Food Safety Agency confirmed that the animals are put to death faster and more humanely in the Norwegian sealing than in large game hunting on land." The only difference with Canada I think is that Canadian hunters don't have to bleed them on the ice.