Pity the Mississauga City council and press are tearing her down now. It all seems petty from where I sit.

Listen close, as life turns its pages
Makaveli here, kickin' rhymes for the ages
Seen things in stages, wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pages
Your crew don't phase us
We'll make you bustas pay us
Run up in your spot like C.J. from San Andreas
I wrote this song a long time ago
A real long time ago
Feel me!
I wrote this song a long time ago
It was the dopest song I ever wrote... in '94

What can a nigga do
when half the people voted for George W.
It's a bitch, fuck George W.
-- can't be true --
I wanna choke him, because he's a snitch
I'm talking about George W. Smith
From city council, he ran in '93
Out in Oakland,
you probably didn't hear about him

I wrote this song a long time ago
A real long time ago
Way before Slim Shady was in demand
Way before we dropped baloney on Afghanistan
I wrote this song in '94

How am I doin' this?
Look around the club, see everyone in the place
Showing 'Pac love got a smile on my face
The girl in the miniskirt has bad taste
Because her shirt don't match
And there's a puddin' stain on the back
What the fuck is that? It might be doo-doo

And you in the back, you ain't shit
You bought a gin and tonic
but you didn't even tip
And if you hit this table one more time
then the record might skip Might skip...
I told you, stop hittin' the table

Tupac Shakur
I wrote this rhyme in 1994
I'm not alive!
Thug life!
Dave Chappelle, that ain't your wife
A married man, you've got two kids
Go home!

I wrote this song a long time ago
A real long time ago
Way before Beanie Sigel had to do a bid
Way before Dave Chappelle had two kids
(Don't give him no coochie)


DJ: 2Pac rest in peace!
2Pac: Ok, I will!



Slightly * nsfw lyrics, but what the hey.

>> ^jwray:

If she does this regularly, somebody should have helped her get help. Ignoring and playing along with the insanity isn't helping.
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Usually I end up with a strong dislike of city councils or groups like them in general. The viciousness and petty squabbles that erupt in these groups are often blown far out of proportions to the issues that instigated them.
That being said. I honestly am finding it strange that this city council has earned some respect from me.
They know of this lady's illness but continue to allow her to speak in front of them and do not hinder her in any way.
From the article,
"She usually speaks twice a month during the council's open mic sessions, where citizens can talk for up to five minutes on any topic. The council sits patiently until she is done."
Had she been doing this in Dallas Tx, or any of the surrounding cities I have no doubt that she would of been forcibly removed and banned from returning. More likely causing even more damage to her psyche by adding the idea that she is being prosecuted for her ideas and beliefs.
Hats off for this city councils understanding and patients.




Please read the article.

Now to point out one quote from it.

"He said her family has tried to get her help multiple times, but unless she harms herself or others, there's not much more they can do."


Being Ill does not remove a persons rights. Its easy to say "Get her Help or she needs help" but unless she is willing to receive it there is not much anyone can do. It's no so much as playing along as it is just being respectful.
It also does not hurt anyone just to be polite.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Usually I end up with a strong dislike of city councils or groups like them in general. The viciousness and petty squabbles that erupt in these groups are often blown far out of proportions to the issues that instigated them.
That being said. I honestly am finding it strange that this city council has earned some respect from me.
They know of this lady's illness but continue to allow her to speak in front of them and do not hinder her in any way.
From the article,
"She usually speaks twice a month during the council's open mic sessions, where citizens can talk for up to five minutes on any topic. The council sits patiently until she is done."
Had she been doing this in Dallas Tx, or any of the surrounding cities I have no doubt that she would of been forcibly removed and banned from returning. More likely causing even more damage to her psyche by adding the idea that she is being prosecuted for her ideas and beliefs.
Hats off for this city councils understanding and patients.

Or, they're all just having a laugh at her expense. I find this all really humorous, and yet I can't help but feel a little bad for laughing.

If she does this regularly, somebody should have helped her get help. Ignoring and playing along with the insanity isn't helping.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Usually I end up with a strong dislike of city councils or groups like them in general. The viciousness and petty squabbles that erupt in these groups are often blown far out of proportions to the issues that instigated them.
That being said. I honestly am finding it strange that this city council has earned some respect from me.
They know of this lady's illness but continue to allow her to speak in front of them and do not hinder her in any way.
From the article,
"She usually speaks twice a month during the council's open mic sessions, where citizens can talk for up to five minutes on any topic. The council sits patiently until she is done."
Had she been doing this in Dallas Tx, or any of the surrounding cities I have no doubt that she would of been forcibly removed and banned from returning. More likely causing even more damage to her psyche by adding the idea that she is being prosecuted for her ideas and beliefs.
Hats off for this city councils understanding and patients.

Usually I end up with a strong dislike of city councils or groups like them in general. The viciousness and petty squabbles that erupt in these groups are often blown far out of proportions to the issues that instigated them.

That being said. I honestly am finding it strange that this city council has earned some respect from me.
They know of this lady's illness but continue to allow her to speak in front of them and do not hinder her in any way.

From the article,
"She usually speaks twice a month during the council's open mic sessions, where citizens can talk for up to five minutes on any topic. The council sits patiently until she is done."

Had she been doing this in Dallas Tx, or any of the surrounding cities I have no doubt that she would of been forcibly removed and banned from returning. More likely causing even more damage to her psyche by adding the idea that she is being prosecuted for her ideas and beliefs.
Hats off for this city councils understanding and patients.

It's true - I worked at a (local) newspaper where we weren't allowed to offend City Council and we were never allowed to run stories that featured our advertisers (which were all businesses in town) - even when they were laundering drug money.

News is just a business and if it's not making money, or the stories get in the was of making money, then it isn't news they want to communicate.

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?

Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.

If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

>> ^NetRunner:

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.
Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.
As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.
Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.
Right, like investment banking.
Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.
From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?
Agreed, once I correct the label.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.
I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.
It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.
I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.

But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.

Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.

As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.

Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.

Right, like investment banking.

Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.

From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

Agreed, once I correct the label.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.


I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.

It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.

I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

>> ^Grimm:

RP wants to end all the needless wars. If any war is worth fighting then he would only require that Congress "declares war" as it is outlined in the Constitution.


Exactly, I think that would answer some of @bcglorf 's hold up on isolationism. Like isn't so black and white, especially on matter of war. Which is why he is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense. My like the recent stop to the SOPA legislation due to pressure from the outside, the same kind of pressure could of been used to help in Libya..but only if the supporters of that action could sway enough people to support that decision...just like a democracy should. And I don't think hiding behind things like NATO or the US should undermine our Presidents responsibility to us, he works for us first after all. Like in most questions of this nature, there isn't really a right or wrong when the action is taken or not taken in the most strict sense...only what was the most supported.

I think it is a little, in that light, to say that we couldn't declare war on the Libyan government. We are just so used to the President going to war for us, that we have basically abdicated our responsibility in this area. That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work. Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs. I think that Statism might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).

I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

But more to @bcglorf 's point on genocide, and cowardice. I don't think it is fair to say cowardice when your only course of action is making more widows and orphans. And more importantly, it is an entirely different thing for some president to commit you to that course of action without any "due process", in this case, a declaration of war. I don't think it is cowardice, persay, to not want to kill someone that doesn't want to kill you, and might have a legitimate claim to kill the person they want to kill. But that is neither here nor there, a moral question that most likely will never see commonly, the point is, that each of us should have a voice in the action we collectively have to take, action or inaction. The benefit of defaulting to inaction is that it doesn't stop someone morally convicted like yourself to fund operations of support for whatever side. That is why I usually side with Libertarian answers for complicated issues, sometimes, you don't need one answer for everyone. Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

Iceland is a fascinating country populated by equally fascinating people.

Of the "western" world, they have the highest proportion of people who accept evolution, but at the same time they have a significant portion of the population that wont dismiss the existence of elves.

Politically, they had a joke party, called The Best Party win the Reykjavik city council elections on a platform of, among other things, being opening corrupt (as opposed to secretly corrupt).

Quite an amazing place

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 6 Badge!

-I don't believe Ron Paul to be directly pro- or anti-education, he is indifferent to it. What he is against is paying taxes. But, without taxes there are no schools. He talks about vouchers and school choice, but doesn't go into any depth as to how those would be achieved. At the end of the day, I don't see much difference between anti-education and anti-education-funding. The outcomes are the same.

-I don't disagree with the fact that local, state and federal governments have different strengths and weaknesses. Local school districts should decide how to run their own schools, and they largely do from my experiences in education. The only federal mandates I'm aware of are the NCLB testing (which is admittedly terrible - and the schools districts have the option of opting out at the cost of federal funding) and the basic restrictions and protections that apply to government programs (religious restrictions for teachers, religious freedoms for students, civil rights protections, low income aids, etc.)

-My arguments were more aimed at anarcho-capitalism, since my window into libertarianism was opened by a fairly extreme ancapper. You sound like a more reasonable states rights conservative. Again, I agree with you that states should be given greater power, but I do like the idea of having a greater constitutional authority that prevents prejudice and corruption. Of course it's all so confused and corrupt at the moment, big or small...

-But big business does already intervene at the local and state level. They even pick off city council seats when they need to. It would be much easier and cheaper for corporations to destroy state houses one by one or to buy them outright, rather than to lobby them. Be careful what you wish for.

My main gripe with Paul is that he talks a good game against corporatism, but at the same time supports the kinds of deregulation and tax cuts that empowered corporatism in the first place. Fighting fire with gasoline.

No, it's that you presume God is irrelevent. That's the natural conclusion from your fishtank example, isn't it? You see a world without God, and I see a world with God. Clearly, only one of us is correct. That is why absolutes are important. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. If you don't believe in absolutes, I would ask you, do you absolutely believe that?

>> ^vaire2ube:
God is Irrelevant, is the point. We can't debate the subject by virtue of its definition, so if you have a differing opinion just deal with it.
Reality is still real. We can interact without absolute knowledge.
Read the article from Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow September 27, 2010
"A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved fishbowls. The sponsors of the measure explained that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl because the curved sides give the fish a distorted view of reality. Aside from the measure’s significance to the poor goldfish, the story raises an interesting philosophical question: How do we know that the reality we perceive is true? The goldfish is seeing a version of reality that is different from ours, but can we be sure it is any less real? For all we know, we, too, may spend our entire lives staring out at the world through a distorting lens."

God is Irrelevant, is the point. We can't debate the subject by virtue of its definition, so if you have a differing opinion just deal with it.

Reality is still real. We can interact without absolute knowledge.


Read the article from Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow September 27, 2010

"A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved fishbowls. The sponsors of the measure explained that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl because the curved sides give the fish a distorted view of reality. Aside from the measure’s significance to the poor goldfish, the story raises an interesting philosophical question: How do we know that the reality we perceive is true? The goldfish is seeing a version of reality that is different from ours, but can we be sure it is any less real? For all we know, we, too, may spend our entire lives staring out at the world through a distorting lens."