Something tells me he knew someone as a teacher. My Mother is a teacher (retired now) and let me say, that is one of the most selfless jobs in the world--IF you decide to make it that way. There are some teachers that truly do ride on the coattails of others.

But, the majority (especially Elementary) need a huge amount of preparation to get anything done. The digital age will help this, a bit. The real problem is lack of funds (along with not buying adequate resource materials), lack of pay, and BY FAR the biggest issue is classroom size...

yeah,thanks to @speechless for bringing this to my attention.while i knew it was a re-enactment i didnt feel it detracted from the very real problems with racial profiling.

it appears i should have taken the 5 minutes to uncover a very cynical and ultimately counter-productive attempt by these two opportunists to undermine some very real social issues.

so the egg is on my face and i apologize to all for not doing my due diligence.

ill keep the video but im changing the title.

i wonder if she really has a kid or just real problems.

Yeah, this is a made-up piece of BS. They have -real- problems, so why is this video making shit up?

Or if these guys really are this stupid, they have bigger issues than a lack of money.

Besides, objectification isn't even the problem, the real problem that liberals ignore is DEHUMANIZATOIN. Spider-woman is far from dehumanized. She's a very complex character, you learn all about her. You learn her favorite color, he dreams, her interested, her fears. You learn of her needs, the things she hates.

Through pin-ups you learn all about her sexuality as well. It is not the artist or the fan that thinks of spiderwoman as something dirty or subhuman for expressing her sexuality but the critics that reduce her to an object. In truth they do this not to defend spiderwoman, but to dehumanize her fans. They are told they are subhuman beasts for having sexual thoughts. That they are monsters for having interested in a female as anything other than a role model. It's total and complete hyporacy. The fans of spiderwoman view spiderwoman as nothing less than a complete human being, the fans themselves are reduced to nothing more than animals. Once the object is reduced to a level below humanity, any level of decadent violence can be done to them by the feminist, and that's the point.

But the real problem is that we consume far too much grain and animals that eat grain, as opposed to things with the other essential omega fats...1:7 ratio--even though it should be 1:1 ratios.

Oh, and 23 billion dollars...omg! That's pennies on the dollar over the entire world's economy...

no matter how you spin it, the death was unnecessary. Again, this WOULD have been a great time to use a taser.

They keep using the wrong weapons at the wrong time.

Even if he was belligerent. He simply did not have to die. Cops, and wannabe cops, seem to have a real problem with appropriate levels of force.

I think the real criminals are the press though, they are going to stoke this fire for all they can. There was absolutely no reason for them to publish that autopsy diagram showing where the bullet impacts were. No matter what happens, they're going present the case as being completely 50/50 and could go either way.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

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.

OR chiccorea, SHALL WE DRAG, the entire sift community into your fucking therapy sesson, and make a deal of it, which I am VERY want to do. You have shown your ass here with regard to myself, are shitting once-again, on one of my posts, my comments, and you have a fucking problem that may very well cause my account to be unilaterally by admins stripped from me, and I consider ALL of my actions art in my life, INCLUDING my participation on this website.

You are forcing me to be this dick sir, and you have some real problems which are detrimental to this forum. Calling you out once again you pathetic asshole, what's it gonna be??

I'd be more than unhappy to have my account stripped from me by someone who obviously needs some hard-core therapy. You're socially inept and incite these incursions unilaterally with a view to my demise and I take issue with it. Does this make me your whipping-bitch?? Fuck that and no sir, it does not.

All you do here is hunt new submissions to see if you can ban someone for violations of rules, hassle me, and otherwise make benign, one-line comments with a brown-nose-finish as a thematic device.


*edit: I'll let this thread lay fallow or not and then take chichorreas's bullshit to the sift talk forum, I'm tired of one user's mental illness fucking with my place here....

I just lost 5 minutes watching a video full of assholes that isn't porn. What a waste of time. All men harass women? Americans screaming "death to America"? Assholes farting at each other, that's what this is. "Look at me me me, my shit smells the worst! I get fucked the hardest!" is what they say.
I think all their shit stinks and I don't want anything to do with it. There are real problems mentioned here but these people are really not equipped to deal with it.

The real problem is college dorms. What music other people like never bothered me before, and doesn't now, no matter how terrible I personally considered it to be. The two years of my life I spent living in a college dorm was a different story though. I can take bad music for a few minutes here and there in public, or at a party where the music isn't really important, but when it's in your home, on repeat, 16 hours a day--that's different. I started to hate the people playing it too. Since "they have bad taste in music" isn't really a good reason to self-justify actually *hating* someone (who I knew, really, were okay folk), I naturally had to invent some complex, sociological explanation for it.

Of course, I grew up, left the dorms, and this isn't a problem anymore, but there are still many millions of 18-21 year-olds, living in dorms, with only three hours of classes a day, spending the rest of their ample free time sitting at their computers with Nickelback blasting through the walls on repeat. Maybe it builds character or something.

To be really fair, though, I haven't had to hear Trey Anastasio playing a guitar since then, and I can't be sure what I'd do if I did.

The real problem with Islam isn't the religion itself or the extremists exploiting it for their terrible and sometimes murderous goals, it's the silence of the moderate, tolerant Muslims. Their refusal to speak out against those who want to abuse their beliefs to pit Islam against the rest of the world is what makes all that hatred so effective.
I saw plenty christian opposition against the Westboro Baptist Church, I've yet to see muslims protesting death threats against cartoonists.

You completely misread my post (big surprise). This is another one of those distinctions that make no pragmatic difference. What does distinguishing between"believers" and "deniers" do for cleaning the air (and cleaning the environment)? Do "believers" contribute less to smog, greenhouse gasses, pollution, etc.? I remember driving to NYC from Boston and noticing the filthy brown/grey cloud enveloping the city as visible as you approached it. Is that because all NYC dwellers are "climate change deniers?" How about the L.A. smog? These are real problems, much more so than some "climate change believers" whose predictive models keep proving to be inaccurate.

Of course, as is pointed out here, "denier" is simply a shaming slur, and "climate change" is yet another tool in the hypocrite's toolbox to "prove" how much we need the rulers to save you from the weather.

Meteorology has many many variables that need to be considered, making it next-to-impossible to conduct experiments under controlled conditions in order to prove or falsify your theories. The pragmatic response then, is to ask what are you (going to) do(ing) about it (with it being whatever the article says)?

(In other words, it looks like the Prius came into being about 135 years too late.)

Bottom line is, if "man-made catastrophic climate change" is not happening, then society needs to stop listening to politicians and other hypocrites. If "man-made catastrophic climate change" is happening, then society needs to stop listening to politicians and other hypocrites if it wants to put a stop to it. And also take a good look at their own behaviors and contributions to waste and pollution because "belief" or not makes ZERO DIFFERENCE; only actual behavior makes a difference.

I'm having a real problem putting my thoughts into words. I would feel a union has most of it's member's values presented for the most part. If a union leader really started acting contrary to the rank and file, he'd be voted out.

"Citizens United" -and PACs in general- however, from what I've been able to figure out, is a CEO donating "for his employees", but a CEO working contrary to his employee's wishes is commonplace, dare I say expected? As long as he has the blessing of the Board and Shareholders, his position is fixed.

I would think a union is closer to having its member's welfare in mind than a CEO. I have less a problem with a union (mass of people) controlling a government, than Corporations (a couple dozen people) controlling it.