When the average cop lightens up on the public, I will lighten up on them...but not before.
I grew up having total respect for police, their repeated actions have caused me to reconsider that.
I do not respect liars or bullies, and I've never once met a cop that wasn't one or the other if not both.
If I leave my civil service job once a week or more to play around with my kids, using departmental equipment and authority, while complaining I need more assistance and overtime to complete my duties, I should be fired for dereliction, imo.
Cops have squandered their benefit of a doubt and public good will, they have to earn it back, not just demand it. It's the pessimism of reality that jaded me, personal experiences, not just internet reports of bad behavior.

Goons. Hired goons.
...but...
being police, they have a duty to enforce the law and protect citizens even when off the clock, so letting Big Hoss put the guy in a headlock, then just walk off is a dereliction of duty. If we had their names, they might lose their jobs over it, because many people would make formal complaints and end their careers...as I think they should if the cops don't do their jobs.

I don't get your point.
Why could an officer be fired for going home and getting blown on lunch? It's on his time, in his home, and not in return for a promised dereliction of duty....COMPLETELY different from while he's on duty and in public in a public vehicle as a trade for letting someone go.
As for the officer making muscles, he was disrupting the courtroom, distracting the judge and/or jury with his antics. That's not only inappropriate, it interferes with the duties of the court, so it's totally proper for him to be dismissed....IMO. A warning would have also been appropriate, but some judges have no sense of humor, and they aren't required to.

For my part, I would say this...
Often you at least SEEM to be defending bad behavior or bad cops. That's when I take issue. For instance, you just said it's fine for cops to 'bluff' or lie to gain compliance, or as an investigative tool. Many people, like me, would say that IS bad behavior, the kind only done by bad people/bad cops.
EDIT: When you clearly denounce bad cops and/or their actions, you often get an upvote from me.
I would suggest that you have inside knowledge of how it looks from your perspective, just as we have an 'inside knowledge' of how it looks from ours. We are sharing our perspectives with each other. Neither of us owns the 'truth'.

"Truth" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person...but you don't need to know the "truth" in order to not lie. -Mr. Newt Sr. (dad)

I must think you put me in the rabid cop hater set, but you would be wrong. (please see the 'tough cop does good' video I posted as proof) I don't even feel 'hatred' towards you at all (maybe frustration), I just often disagree strongly with your position. I simply WANT to hold cops to a higher standard and to feel it's proper to give them more respect, not a lower standard than ordinary citizens without authority, a standard which deserves and garners no respect. When too many cops are liars, thugs, thieves, and a vast majority of the rest are protectors of liars thugs and thieves, that's impossible for me and others to do. That hurts 'good cops' more than anyone, but please realize it's the bad cops that did it to you, and they are the one's to be blamed, we are simply reacting to them in understandable ways out of self preservation.
We are seeing that bad cops are less of an exception than previously thought. When we are getting 10+ new abuse videos a week, there's been an escalation in this 'bad behavior' or 'bad cops' that has yet to be addressed, and the only one's that can address it properly are other cops. My position has always been that the perpetrators of these abuses are a minority (I hope), but they are supported and protected by near the entirety of the force. Until that changes completely, you must understand you are in a close group that's looking worse and worse daily to the public you 'serve', and offering less and less benefit to us. If you look at it from that position, you will understand the frustration and anger you often receive here.

To me, if you believe you can lie (bluff, trick, obfuscate the truth, intentionally misdirect, whatever you wish to call the lie) to get evidence or compliance with your wishes, you are a liar. Period. If you do it once, you are a liar. If you do it often, you are a habitual liar. If you do it in court, you are a perjurer. Cops are caught lying in court all the time and rarely if ever see any consequence, certainly not one the public sees. To me, I think it's important that they should be prosecuted publicly to the fullest extent of the law EVERY time, because it's a dereliction of duty and an abuse of power that damages the entire force and to an extent, society (by damaging trust in authority), on top of the crime of perjury, and every time it happens 'good' cops get less and less respect and trust. If only good cops were as upset about it as we are, they (you?) would do something to change the culture and stop ANY abuse you might see, not excuse and explain it away.
Just my 2 cents.

It's my humble and unworthy opinion that the only derelict transient scum that need to be culled form the English countrysides and cities, are the monarchy, complicit and dutiful parliamentary members, and anyone who hates the gypos

Oh, and that poor, white Euro-trash bitching about his gypsy neighbors-

@brycewi19, Yeah well, look where they're at-Smack-dab in the middle of the valley of suffering-The damn native Americans never even stayed there all year! These choads are a sun-starved, rag-tag collection of all the dysfunctional, depressed, and derelicts who fled their home cities all over the country and gravitated towards that vortex.

Lived in PDX, worked in Eugene, Oregon has an over-abundance of America's flotsam and jetsam and continually too-stoned-for-their-own-good, hipster flakes and in the rural areas, a certain brand of redneck that makes Texas' seem tame!

Even black folks are afraid of the place! Pasty White People, EVERYWHERE!
Welcome to Oregon!

Up-vote for first-time embed of svoiperez!

Time changes so much. I wonder, how long does it take for our viewpoints change enough that dereliction of duty to becomes heroism?

If, say, the USA went to war with Iran now, and some US pilot spared an Iranian plane - or land installation, as would be more likely - how much praise do you think they'd earn?

If only we could have the perspective of a few decades more when we look at our current times...

I know my momma loves me
I know my poppa loves me
I know the camera loves me
I can tell my brother loves me
I know that Boston loves
And San Francisco loves me
I love the city back,
I just can't help it, it's so lovely

I'm in my lucky underwear, i'm feeling debonair
If it's a lonely trip to heaven, I'm already there
I'm in the bedroom i'm like stepping like I'm Fred Astaire
I make it happen, battlerapping at my Teddy Bear
When I was twelve I'd leave my door open a crack
afraid if getting busted sneaking porno on my mac
I guess I was a freak
Until I got caught last week
(who's been loving you?)
I was reading Booker T, I threw the book at me
I go for the lookers but they never look at me
I would get a hooker if I could unhook her bra
I'd be looking soft as soon as she took her top. off
let's go rolling in a broken winnebago
stop and smoke a bowl out of a hollowed out potato
It's hash now, but it's hash browns soon
(who's been loving you?)

I know that Jesus loves me
I know that buddha loves
The fucking easter Bunny
and the ghost of gandhi love me
I know that santa loves me
I think my Aunties love me
I know my Grandma loved me
she thought I was handsome trust me

this insanity, that's heredity
it's my family, we can let it be
wish I pretended that mom and dad are dead to me
But i love my dad, that motherfucker read to me
my first words were "where's the love?"
mad smug, assed up on a bearskin rug
fashodo, mom'll show you the photo
(who's been loving you?)
I do embarassing better
I could wear a pink sweater
with a pair of slick pleather pants
derelicte e-va-ry day and it's well known
that I hop off stage with my cell phone
fake a dropped call when everybody's near me
and shout "I love you mom!" so everybody hears me
I need to and true nothing new but
(who's been loving you?)

Even though I owe them money
I think it's pretty likely
that my whole family loves me
My lovers tend to like me
I know my homies love me
My teachers loved to hate me
The haters love to fuck with me
the fickle love me lately

I'm a percussionist. I never knew guitar
it's cheesy, but I'm stunting like a superstar
it's easy man I'm hopping out a moving car
call me weezy cause I'm coughing at the hookah bar
I don't do cigars, but I got hella game
I can make a lady out of styling gel and cellophane
so you can yell my name, I make the bed frame move
(who's been loving you?)
me and my better friends are heading to the town strip
if they don't let us in we'll never take roundtrip
because I took an hour picking out my outfit
and then I took another slicking down a cowlick
and I like house sitting, but fuck it now's different
I'm going out and there ain't a bouncer for cowtipping
So I'ma tear this joint up
And i'ma party till the hoofs point up
(who's been loving you?)

this is for Charles Barkley
This is for Poison Ivy
This it's for Draco Malfoy
And it's for Bill O'Reilly
This is for Ned Mencia
It's for the corporate lawyers
it's for the backseat drivers
And for my friend Ann Coulter

>> ^heropsycho:

So much for civil discourse.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner



??? care to point out where I was uncivil in my reply towards you? What a pathetic cop-out.

So much for civil discourse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

>> ^heropsycho:

It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.

You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?

But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.

I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."

Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

(not from the film)

"The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks its doing are as different as night and day." - Herbert Ley Jr., M.D. (former Commissioner of the FDA)

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

@heropsycho

1. My original point was more aimed at questioning whether teaching is so exceptional. It is certainly harder than many other jobs, but does it deserve exclusive status with it's restrictive labour laws? If so, do you believe jobs equal to or more stressful than teaching should receive the same benefits? More specifically, if we knew that greater job security in stressful jobs created better outcomes (ie, in teaching the students are better taught), then why is it that the private sector has not willingly adopted this? What I'm saying is, there's double standards at play.

2. This is getting off topic, but I don't think anything is innate. We may have a predisposition to better at certain things but anything that we wish to excel at will ultimately require countless hours of practice. Again, I think you're being selective in exemplifying only a very good teacher which directly engages with everyone in the class. Most of what I recall (from 4 schools) involved teachers teaching in their own style 'at' a class, not directly to individuals.

3. My point would be that merit pay would raise the wages of 'good' teachers and thereby attract more teachers into the workplace. It won't ever be perfect as a system, enterprise bargaining in the private sector is subject to the whims of cronyism/favoritism of your superiors and isn't a perfect reflection of performance, but as a system it functions. By the way, I'm not in any way implying multiple choice tests are sufficient, open ended questions can be standardized just fine.

5. I would put down the opposition of unions to merit pay to several reasons:

a) Unwillingness to change - this reflects all changes not just merit pay. There are potential ups and downs but there is no incentive for them to take a risk. You would think flagging students scores relative to other countries (particularly Scandinavian and rich SE Asian countries) would be an incentive, but ultimately they are delinked from these outcomes.

b) Potential fall in membership - A move to individual wage setting over a seniority based wage (at least that is what it's here in OZ) would diminish their power and their members base. Standardized wages are generally seen in low skilled jobs where there is high turnover, a large supply of willing workers to replace them and therefore constant pressure to push down wages - a place where unions have great value in preventing this from happening. We both agree teaching requires considerable expertise. Were the labor system to move to individual wage setting on performance their role would diminish and their members base would dwindle.

As far as I'm concerned merit pay is but a scapegoat to justify their opposition from a more selfish point of view.

Last point - As I made sure to mention, I'm not opposed to the arts. What I'm appalled by is teacher's union activists talking about the benefits of these ultimately extracurricular areas when there are countless schools in impoverished regions unable to imbue many of their students with the ability to hold down an rudimentary job. Talking about these luxury activities and painting a rosy picture detached from reality, while glossing over the overt failings of basis education in derelict communities is disgusting to me frankly.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Peroxide:
Actually blankfist, go to Somalia, I bet you won't get food poisoning there... Or vise versa, if we all stop paying taxes, food poisoning shouldn't be a problem anymore.
How does arguing about the inefficiencies of government show that taxes are theft? It merely shows that your government is inefficient.

Actually, Peroxide, go to Nazi Germany. I bet you'll find the big government nanny state is to your liking there. Or maybe you'd prefer someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini?
Also, I live in Los Angeles now for over ten years. They're about as big a nanny state as you could ask for in the entire USA, and, yes, the government here is terribly inefficient. They take (I meant steal) more money than most other cities in this country, yet they're claiming to be bankrupt. Yes, very inefficient.
So, let me ask you, if the state or city takes money from you in exchange for services, and that exchange of course is compulsory and nonnegotiable, and they take a king's ransom (nearly 10% on sales tax alone), yet cut services because they can't afford not to, how is that not a dereliction of duty? Furthermore, how's compulsory extraction of money not theft?


Try Norway. It's really nice up there.

Nazi germany was socialist-in-name-only. They banned unions/strikes and never had any significant welfare programs. They were virulently anti-communist. The only nationalization of industries was for the wartime production of military goods.

>> ^Peroxide:

Actually blankfist, go to Somalia, I bet you won't get food poisoning there... Or vise versa, if we all stop paying taxes, food poisoning shouldn't be a problem anymore.
How does arguing about the inefficiencies of government show that taxes are theft? It merely shows that your government is inefficient.


Actually, Peroxide, go to Nazi Germany. I bet you'll find the big government nanny state is to your liking there. Or maybe you'd prefer someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini?

Also, I live in Los Angeles now for over ten years. They're about as big a nanny state as you could ask for in the entire USA, and, yes, the government here is terribly inefficient. They take (I meant steal) more money than most other cities in this country, yet they're claiming to be bankrupt. Yes, very inefficient.

So, let me ask you, if the state or city takes money from you in exchange for services, and that exchange of course is compulsory and nonnegotiable, and they take a king's ransom (nearly 10% on sales tax alone), yet cut services because they can't afford not to, how is that not a dereliction of duty? Furthermore, how's compulsory extraction of money not theft?