There are other sources of information beyond the youtube descriptions. Did you read the link?
To me, investigator for the fed is close enough to cop, and on the TV show they went into more detail about his long past in law enforcement and I think they said he was once a "cop", but to be completely honest I actually mistook his record for the retired officer who asked him to perform and put the event on when I wrote the description, (he is definitely a retired LAPD officer).
How about "retired Federal Officer at an event put on by retired LAPD officer for retired and current LAPD"...would that placate you? I can't see why, but because it disturbs you so...fixed?

I think you're jumping on what you perceive might be a minor factual mistake (I don't see it that way, I see no meaningful distinction between a federal cop and a city or state cop), one that makes no difference to the outrageousness, to avoid the issue. It's a tactic I've seen you use before. If you held yourself to the same standard of perfection, that would be something.

What I found most telling was his statement...
"We asked why Fishell would sing this in a room full of cops, and the lawyer replied, "He thought the room would get a kick out of it." "
This guy was once law enforcement, and is still friends with current and retired law enforcement, and that's how he thinks you all would react...and he was right, no one objected in the room of cops, their friends, and their family. That's the part that was the most telling, and the worst, in case you misunderstand.
One person acting badly is just one person. His feeling that cops would enjoy that is disturbing. The rest of the room, 1/2 full of cops, enjoying the act, or even just giving that kind of disgraceful performance the respect of sitting there listening without anyone objecting or leaving, that's disgusting.

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

In case anyone misunderstands, I want to clarify that I LOVE the complexity of the sift. I love the way it works, mostly. It just needs to be explained better is what I'm bitching about. I don't want to make it less complex, I want to make it easier to understand.

This video hit the internet last January. At the time, the company only had one black doll. Now they have five dolls of color.

eric3579 above made reference to a comment the company made on an internet article about this vid. They corrected the pricing error in the vid (dolls without accessories are cheaper). They also said they were planning on coming out with a Deluxe black doll.

Everything you say is correct and reasonable. I just doubt that they ARE as rational and careful about hitting all markets. You didn't address my comment about the Bechtal test and the irrationality of moviemakers. I have the evidence of an entire industry being irrational. I don't see why dollmakers would be assumed to be exempt from the same forces.

Those in power don't pay attention to those not in power, until the formerly powerless start making noise.

And you do misunderstand the point of this vid. The lack of Deluxe black dolls isn't a CAUSE of racism. It is a RESULT of a white dominated society that minimizes black people as consumers. Maybe. This is all conjecture, of course.

That Deluxe black doll is coming though! Hallejuah!

@enoch,

I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. Hijacking and redefining anarchy to mean support for essentially a different flavour of grassroots democracy isn't clever or insightful. It's an abuse of the language. That is merely a semantic complaint though. The deeper problem is that it's an effort to build an argument atop a contradiction. Namely, anarchy with some form of overall governing structure. Starting from such a contradiction allows you defend or tie anything and everything back to your core statement. That's why I declared it intellectually dishonest.

You advocate your position as 'anarchy' but then proceed to describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You've described democracy, not anarchy. You advocate absolute freedom of the people from the tyranny of rulers. You declare no more wars of aggression, but who's rule is that except your own? I'm afraid that history shows that a large portion of your free people will most assuredly gather together and agree on waging a war of aggression, and the only stricture holding that back is the rule made by the ruler against it, in this case the ruler being yourself.

In short anarchy only fares as well as human nature can be trusted, which is not far at all. Redefining it as democracy light isn't honest, it's just rejecting the burden of defending the specific changes and improvements one would propose. It's an ancient trick used endlessly throughout history and one I refuse to accept.

you misunderstand,which may be my fault.
anarchy=no rulers
it does not mean=no government (for some anarchists it may mean that,but not all),nor does it mean=no police or military or public schools and i do not believe i stated anything of the sort.

i also stated that while the anarchist prefers direct democracy,he/she will be ok with representative,as long as they represent..which they dont.

so the anarchist sees this non-representative government and sees it for the vile,corrupted beast it is and states that it should be killed.preferably from orbit.

please understand i am not trying to sway you to my way of thinking or convince you of anything other than to point out that anarchy is not a single,one trick pony.

ok,consider this:you are walking down the street and an important text come in with a pdf attached.you are given information and told that in two days you will be expected to vote on the matter.

just an idea how direct democracy can work.

this discussion is really fascinating me.
i call out hard-liner libertarians for not even acknowledging the massive corrupt influence of the corporation,because it is an intellectually dishonest argument to NOT point out the destructive influences of the monied elite.

i find it just as intellectually dishonest to not address/criticize and question the government.

one does not preclude the other.
we can argue which one gave birth to the other but i dont think anybody can deny that what america has now is NOT a representative democracy but rather a plutocracy.

so just as i dont understand how a hardline libertarian can ignore the power and influence of a corporation and call it "capitalism" (hint:its not),i equally cannot understand the defense of a government that threw its citizens overboard 40 years ago.

i refuse to defend moral bankruptcy,on any level.
i refuse to buy into the "its not perfect but its the best we have"
no..it is not.we can do better and what we have now is far from the best.
best intentions maybe....but not the best..

newt brought up a big point that i was unaware.
this is my flavor of anarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

which to some anarchists makes me a "bad" anarchist,whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

Well, the radius of the moon is about 1,080 miles, and the radius of the Sun is about 432,687 miles.
Do I need to say the rest of your grasp of the science involved is not firm?

Newtboy, please pull out a calculator and punch in 1080 x 400..the answer is 432000.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html

"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. This is just the same as when you use your thumb to block your view of something that is both much larger and much farther away."

See, my fairy tale tells me that giant bean stalks are real

I think you have a misunderstanding of what faith is. I have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow because the evidence shows that it is more likely to happen than not. No one could prove that it would, but my faith is justified based on the evidence. In the same way, I have faith that Christianity is true based on the evidence of the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe the evidence is extraordinary and sufficient to place my faith in, and that the contrary case is insufficient. Have you ever studied the evidence for the resurrection? If you haven't then you have rejected it based on your preconceived notions and biases rather than because you believe the evidence is insufficient. There are plenty of things we take on faith and believe and are perfectly rational for doing so. Here is a highlight that talks about 5 different things we all take on faith:

Total misunderstanding....he planned on using it for a do it yourself circumcision, and was just checking it to be sure it fit in his pants.

You misunderstand. Family court can't vacate state fees levied because of ILLEGALLY IGNORING family matters (child support). That's criminal. (and please don't be silly and say 'he didn't illegally ignore anything', because as far as the state is concerned he did until he proves he did not IN COURT, where the claim can be scrutinized and verified)
Courts have the authority and processes they do because intelligent, thoughtful people designed an imperfect system to do the best we could at serving justice. Because it is now so overworked, (and in this case abused by numerous people perpetrating frauds) it no longer works as designed...not because those in it are creating their own busy work, but because there is far too much actual work. (agreed, that's a good reason to streamline any process that could be streamlined)
Um...I don't want to sit in front of a robotic judge, thank you very much.
Um...courts ARE higher and more enlightened, due to their authority granted by society and their experience dealing with it.
Often courts do work properly. This one did, it vacated his child support order as soon as he proved he was never notified. Because you don't understand the full process does not mean it's poorly designed.
Like I said, I'm glad I'm not as cynical as you....you can deny it, but you are incredibly cynical about those working in the courts. I have known some, and they do not resemble your remarks in the least. They joined the law to help people, not to become a 9-5 drone lapping up the legal honey.

Sam makes a great point about the failure of journalism, and I love that he calls out Cenk on the issue at the start. Call it whining if you like, but he's so spot on with his criticism that it alone makes the viewing worthwhile in my opinion.

All Sam is really asking for (not the profiling part) is to acknowledge that it matters what people believe. I'm amazed that this is somehow hard for people to swallow. I think most people would agree with him, fundamentally on this point.

Having accepted the above point (that people are motivated, at least in part, by their beliefs), one of the next things to do is to identify some of humanity's worst ideas, and try to undermine them. It so happens that the horrible ideas Sam is tackling, in general, are in the holy books of the 3 big monotheisms. Since 2 of those 3 have already internally dealt with the most horrendous of their ideas, it leaves the latecomer, Islam, to fall under the microscope. It doesn't help that islam, at it's foundation, attempted to bake in a proof against future refinement and growth.

This seems almost as uncontroversial as a logical chain of thoughts could be, yet somehow people manage to misunderstand them.

Sam Harris is sharp as ever. Cenk loses damn near every point. I can genuinely not see how anyone can think Cenk "won" this debate.

@enoch I must say that I'm disappointed if that's what you're walking away with from this clip. Cenk seems to misunderstand most of what Harris is trying to say, and when he explains further Cenk brushes it off and changes the subject in, to use the wording from the video, a scatter shot way. Grabbing parallels or examples from seemingly random and unrelated ways. It feels like Harris is fighting an uphill battle which is tiring him, so there's a lot of repetitions to try and hammer the points home. Sadly they seem to fall on deaf ears.

I don't see any arrogance in the video, granted I'm missing the last 30 minutes or so.

Nonsense.

If you were a true Christian, you'd follow the laws of the old testament too.
I presume you don't go into town everyday and put people of other religions to the sword?

I want to address this scripture quotation first:

Matthew 5:17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

You have fundamentally misunderstood what Jesus is saying here. What do you think He is talking about? What do you think He means when He said He came to fulfill the law? Please elaborate.. This, however, is what He was talking about:

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

He fulfilled what the law and prophets said about Him on the cross.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

What did they write concerning Him?

Luke 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!

Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

You need to understand what was written about Jesus and how He fulfilled it before you can understand what He was talking about.

Your misunderstanding of the gospel and Old Testament law not withstanding, a true Christian is not under the old covenant, they are under the new covenant.

Romans 10:4-10 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

The old covenant is for Israel, the new covenant is for the whole world. Christians are not under law, but grace.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

So you can drop the "no true scotsman" fallacy....

It's funny you would invoke this fallacy, yet state earlier "If you were a true Christian.." Yet, according to Jesus, there are true and false Christians:

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

A true Muslim follows Allah, and Allah has instructed his followers to exterminate all of the nonbelievers.

Is it not hilarious that he's OK with his entire network lambasting his idiotic idea, but when a comedian does it it's time to have a shit fit?!
To those who might think it sounds like a good idea to arm a private mercenary army with top notch military equipment and pay them to kill 'our enemies' with impunity, please remember that nearly every time this leads to our equipment in the hands of our enemies being used against us, often by the same people we gave it to in the first place, AND the creation of more enemies. Mercenaries only work for the highest bidder, the instant that's not you, it's not your army and may be your enemy (with your best equipment and knowledge of your systems).
Also, if we pay them to kill overseas, does anyone really think we are absolved of responsibility (especially in the minds of the locals) because they don't wear US military clothing? Just duh.

EDIT: Wait...did we misunderstand, and is Bill slyly suggesting we pay our bill to the UN and get some protection from their 'mercenary army'?!

How could you misunderstand a simple question like that ?
At the end he said he's read multiple legal documents that state that 9/11 was because of ISRAEL and SAUDI ARABIA not our FREEDUMB.

Not only do i think this is wrong, but i think it is obviously and patently wrong.

It is demonstrable that a confrontation does not necessarily escalate the longer it goes on for. If you've been taught that in training by someone purporting to be an expert then i despair. I almost feel at a loss for where to begin - i have been in thousands of confrontations that de-escalated due to more time passing allowing both parties to explain or understand better, or for the blood to cool down. I've seen thousands of the same types of confrontation happening to other people. It literally happens all the time; misunderstandings get corrected and the situation de-escalates.

I hope that the brief explanation has betrayed what you really meant. Perhaps you were talking about a specific range of situations with a violent individual.

Or perhaps that's the problem and someone has been training law enforcement this falsehood which effectively encourages you to use the most extreme measure you have to end the conflict more quickly and keep it at a safely low level of escalation. And then you end up with mine- and rocket-resistant urban combat vehicles patrolling the streets, teams of camo'd police holding weapons INCORRECTLY in the presence of civilians on your own streets, and the mowing down of unarmed shoplifters...... all because it's more kind that way? I refute that, and before anyone says the most dangerous words ever spoken 'but we've always done it that way', in a discussion about the ineptitude or otherwise of law enforcement you aren't allowed the premise "law enforcement's methods are and always have been the best way to do things." -- Law enforcement, along with politics, should be the most heavily scrutinised and re-scrutinised systems that exist - because of their unique position to affect people.

I do NOT consider the concern for the safety of a police officer to be greater than the concern for the rights of a citizen; i was under the impression that police were the defence line between citizens and criminals, they put their lives on the line to keep society safe and running. Their job is to ensure we can be citizens, and they are paid to uphold the ideals of the society - freedom, respect for the individual and personal security. I genuinely hope they do so safely, but you don't play with feathers unless you're willing to get your arse tickled, as the saying goes. It is very possible to be safe, respectful and understanding all at the same time in the pursuit of law enforcement. If a person does not have the ability to behave that way they should not be in the job in the same way as someone who finds kids irritating and hit-able shouldn't go into childcare.