the common misconception by our lantern is that because we become outraged and incensed over the actions of bad cops being..well..bad,we do not have the capacity to understand that there are far more GOOD cops performing their duties with honor and conviction.

this is not only insulting and offensive....it is dishonest.

while i can understand lanterns desire to defend his chosen profession,being motivated by his own,personal understandings.i cannot understand his almost knee-jerk reactions to criticisms when they are warranted and that somehow all of us harbor this incredibly small and narrow view of police officers.that we do not have the capacity to realize that not all cops are bad,violent,thuggish brutes.

what lantern fails to realize,possibly because he is so close to the situation,is WHY we become so outraged.
police wield immense power over ordinary citizens.they hold in their pocket the power and authority of the state.most cops are aware of this and act accordingly,with honor and integrity,the statistics bear this out.

so when a cop over-reaches said authority,or performs acts of violence against an unarmed citizen,or lies about his actions to avoid the consequences (be they malicious or accidental).

it really pisses us off.

the argument is still:power vs powerlessness.
or in many cases with police over-reach:power vs the vulnerable.

think about it this way lantern:
if a grown man abuses or molests a child,that man is vilified and condemned by society.hell,they KILL men like that in prison!

why?

because it is a total abuse of power and authority,perpetrated upon the innocent and vulnerable.this act is viewed by society as to be so venal and grotesque as to warrant the most harshest of punishments.

that young child trusted the adult to protect them.to keep them from harm.that adult betrayed that trust.

we even,in this society,blame the other adults in the situation for not interceding,because we view the protection of the vulnerable as everyones duty,and to abdicate that duty makes you complicit and henceforth....guilty.

now i am not saying that police are child molesters.
what i AM saying is that to abuse the power and authority of your station upon the innocent and vulnerable is the exact same betrayal of trust.

which is why we become outraged.

you also seem to miss why we become outraged at the supposed good cops looking the other way when bad cops break the law.basically you are the complicit housewife who allowed her baby to be molested.you share in the guilt,even though you did not perpetrate the offense,you allowed it to go unpunished.

choices have consequences and standing up and taking responsibility for those choices is the cornerstone of not only being a man but a decent human being.yet time and time again we see bad cops lying,creating false evidence,even having other cops as co-conspirators in their fabrications,all to avoid the consequences of their actions.

this is NOT what men do.
this is what children do and it is up to the parent to correct this devious,weak and irresponsible behavior.a parents job is to teach their offspring accountability.that their actions will have consequences...sometimes dire..and to accept those consequences like a man.

so when we see bad cops being irresponsible and suffering zero consequences..

it pisses us off.

and when we see you defend these bad cops.trying to perform mental gymnastics to abdicate bad policing,we take you to task.

yes yes...
we all know good cops can make a mistake.
that there are mitigating circumstances and that we were not there.some cops become so distraught over a single mistake that they may leave the force,or tragically,take their own life.

we all understand this and it is not we take issue with.
we take issue with the coward who will not take responsibility.
we take issue with the lying.
we take issue with the systematic refusal of a "justice" system which allows these bad cops to abuse their authority with impunity.
we take issue with the brutish and thuggish behavior.
we take issue with the unnecessary violence.

we are full aware that there are some fantastic cops out there,but we call out the bad cops for being bad.

and you should as well.
because they besmirch the very profession you are employed in and their behavior tarnishes the reputation of the job you perform with honor and integrity.

all good cops should be calling to the carpet every cop that over-steps his authority,abuses his power,perpetrates violence for no other reason than to be violent.if you guys did that we would have far less youtube videos revealing the subtle rot in your institution.(not so subtle anymore,thank you camera phones!).

we realize that these bad cops do not represent you lantern,so do not feel the urge to defend every single cop video.those bad cops can own their actions...if they had any balls,which they do not.

stop defending these pussies.
they are performing their duties poorly.they are making your job not only harder but less safe and they leave a stain on the job you love (at least i think you love it).

so,
just stop.
and realize we totally understand and that we wont stop calling bad cops out for being bad.

/end rant

*doublepromote

@lantern53

Christ, dude, he doesn't "think" he is surrounded by racism, he clearly IS surround by racism! The events in Balitmore and Ferguson (and N.Y. and L.A. and Atlanta and all the other cities where this has happened before) clearly demonstrate that.

The media in this very video are trying to make it seem like smashed windows and burning buildings are a worse problem than black people being killed in custody by police! Meanwhile, the media barely even cover white kids rioting in Huntington Beach for reasons not even remotely as good as protesting racist oppression. How can you not see the racism that is right in front of your face--the racism that literally is dripping from the screen in this video?

It's not about "letting your skin color hold you back." It's about overcoming the odds that are stacked against many black people born into poorer communities, which takes incredible luck as much as it does incredible effort. Black people want an equal chance to succeed. They've been asking for a more level playing field for quite literally decades now and they still don't have it. Can you really not understand that anger? That feeling of powerlessness and rage? Can you really not see how condescending and patronizing it is for you to suggest people to just suck it up and get over it? How ridiculous it is to comparing overcoming low grades to get into college with constantly getting pulled over and roughed up (or killed) by cops simply because of the color of your skin? Is there no cognitive dissonance at all?

Congratulations! Your video, Powerless Automatic Wooden Gullwing Gate, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 16 Badge!

It's not powerless. It's powered by the car.

Maybe pressure operated wooden articulating gate?

Your video, Powerless Automatic Wooden Gullwing Gate, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If victims have no responsibility for their plights, then they have no ability to respond and they will forever remain victims. While this makes sense linguistically (victims are victims, by definition they have no ability, duh!), in the real world if someone wants to NO LONGER be a victim, then they will seek out ways they are ABLE to RESPOND (aka, RESPONSIBILITY) to the injury. This is PRECISELY what this woman did - she found a way to respond. She took to herself the ability to respond. She took responsibility. You merely obfuscate the issue with emotional confusion by throwing out the "victim blaming" phrase, but in so doing you also reinforce the fallacious notion that they ought to remain as powerless victims with no ability to respond (responsibility). Now it is true, some can be calloused and downright hateful in their delivery of their proposed solution - and they may not care at all if the victim does empower themselves for betterment. I'd agree the "victim blaming" pejorative carries appropriate sentiment in those cases. But in cases where the solution is well thought out, couched in sympathy and care, and delivered with love (like many responses here) "victim blaming" argument is incredibly detrimental to the victim. It is a bad, wrong, argument.

Not sure I agree in part, what about money leaving the public sector and arriving in the hands of the uber rich is confusing exactly? Russian stuff makes sense though. And nothing makes me say 'oh dear' anymore really.

I also think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that they're not concealing this stuff like they used to, pimping in the open as it were because we are powerless. Until someone picks up a brick.

i would not say i am anti-establishment but rather suspicious of power and authority,and rightly so in my opinion,but thats all that is..my opinion.

i tend to post chomsky because he is the most quoted and since he is so critical of power his research tends to be thoroughly vetted.i also post:chris hedges,henry giroux,sheldon wolin,carl popper all whom are extremely critical of the current power structures.

my faith dictates my politics and to me the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness

i am critical of power.
i challenge authority and question its validity,forcing said authority to prove its relevance in todays society.

just because i criticize and challenge current power structure in no way dismisses the very good and beneficial accomplishments of the society i reside in.there are many positives to be acknowledged and applauded,but we must be vigilant and do our due diligence in order to challenge extremely powerful forces that seek to undermine the myriad of hard-won rights and privileges in order to benefit themselves at the detriment of everybody else.

so while my politics may be perceived as radical by some,it is not radical at all to me.which should be self-evident.

and disagreement is not only fine by me but welcomed,and i am glad you will engage with me (some people fear conflict).engagement forces me to refine and examine my own ideologies and if they are found lacking,then they must be discarded.without challenge and criticism we will all sit in our own hubris,an echo chamber of our own insular ideologies,smelling our own farts.

now where is the fun in that?

anyways..always a pleasure sparring with ya.
stay awesome brother and merry christmas happy new year!

my comment was pointed directly at the government,corporations do not create laws.

since you acknowledge the perversion of the rule of law i can only assume you are referring to an idealized memory of said rule,which no longer exists in reality.

so when i read your answer to the question "which side are you on"? it comes across as "the idealized version from beginning of our country".
which,according to your own commentary is pure fiction...it has been perverted.

i actually agree with the tenor and flavor of your comment,i just dont understand choosing a fantasy side when this video draws a pretty clear line in the sand.

this video really touches me for that very reason.incredibly powerful,yet simple message.i love how dolan uses depression era union organizing folk music to accompany his ridicule and disdain for the fake and ineffectual person who thinks wearing a t-shirt or colored ribbon is somehow helping the plight of the common man.that it is time to choose sides.

my jesus reference was not intended to shock or offend,but rather point out a hypocrisy i am encountering daily,and with increasing frequency.jesus walked with the oppressed,the disenfranchised and the abandoned.his ministries were directed at these pockets of humanity.he was an insurrectionist,a radical and a dissident.he was always on the side of the powerless.

so how i look at it,to choose the "other" side is to choose an ever-increasing authoritarian powered elite that is systematically stripping you of the very ideals you propose to support.the very power structure that robs and steals your grandkids future,commodifies human beings and criminalizes the poor.

or a more apt analogy:you have chosen the plantation owner and the slave master.

which is why my reaction is a visceral one.

my faith has always dictated my politics,and i cannot,in good conscious,choose a side that seeks to crush my fellow man for its own continued:greed,luxury,social status,political influence and social relevance.

the price they demand is too high.
it is time to choose sides.

as for being vulgar piece of trash..yeah..i dont see it.
maybe the music is not your thing or the video production value is low,but "vulgar piece of trash"?

sorry man..just dont see how this music video can be placed in that category.

@enoch .At no point did I say stupid. I said 'you'd have to be ignorant to not understand the facts about immigration'. Which is true.
Facts are facts. I'm not demonizing, that is something THE SUN and MIRROR do to immigrants on a daily basis.

It was @A10anis who used the words "you are joking', half wit, childish, shut up, STUPIDEST"

btw. I agree with your point "the argument is always power vs powerlessness." and I also enjoy your videos.

@billpayer

i dont really understand your attack tactics.
what does it serve?
@A10anis may be many things,but stupid and ignorant are not one of them.
he/she just has a different perspective on things.which @dannym3141 addressed quite succinctly,and respectfully.

i actually agree with many of your posts and i happen to like and respect russell brand for having the balls to stand up for the little guy,but i cannot respect when you presume to know someones political philosophy based on so little.

are you aware that you are using the very same tactics that rabid,rightwing nutters use?
it is so easy to dismiss someone when you can demonize them.
we all become so much easier to manipulate and control when we all buy into the over-simplifed tropes of :conservative/liberal,which are both viewed as dirty words and insults and is a massive success for the propaganda state.

the argument is never conservative versus liberal,those are just labels used to beat us over the head with and paint a divisive line in the sand.where people can take sides and throw poop at each other.it serves nothing and no one besides those who wish to dominate and control.

no,the argument is always power vs powerlessness.

but nothing will ever be gained if we stick to the narrative being fed to us by the very same power structure that wishes us to remain compliant and subservient to a system that no longer serves the population.

so attacking @A10anis 's point of view and opinion,presuming his level of knowledge based on almost nothing,will gain you nothing but perpetuate the very power system that holds us all down.

have to give respect to receive respect.

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!

in an anarchal society the corporation could not and would not exist.they would go back to being temporary business alliances in order to complete an assigned project and then disbursed.

Who tells Enron or Blackwater they have to disburse? Who enforces this?

in an anarchal society,if a company wanted to move its plant over-seas and would leave thousands un-employed,effectively destroying that community.they would first have to seek permission from that township and/or sell the plant to the town in order to change base of operations.

Again, what's stopping them? In fact, what stops a company from cutting down a massive forest or polluting a river?

in an anarchal system,there would be no war on drugs.no criminalizing the poor.no war on terror or wars of aggression.

Maybe, but it would simply be replaced by something even worse.

look,the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness.

anarchy is about power to the people in its purest form.
and i hold zero illusions that it may be remotely perfect but if i have to choose..i will always choose YOU over some wealthy elite power broker.

And that's why I believe in a representative democracy. To me there are only a few ways the world can work:
- there's what I would call historical anarchy, where there was nothing to stop groups of the powerful banding together to oppress the weak. This has been the default position for most of human history.
- there's small scale communal anarchy, where people live in small communities. It's possible for this to work, but some bright spark usually figures out that these people are easy pickings for oppression (see above). Even if that doesn't happen, it's incredibly limiting. All of our greatest achievements only happen with cooperation on a large scale. If we're ever to get off this rock and see what's out there, it's not going to happen with hippie communes.
- representative democracy. It's ugly, inefficient, susceptible to corruption, open to pointless "moral crusades" and can be heartless and bureaucratic. And it's still the best system we have....

Churchill really wasn't kidding when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

@ChaosEngine

i think you fell into the same trap that bc did i.e:only one flavor of anarchy and that simply is an untruth.

i also think you are aware that on some issues we are in total agreement.

what i find most interesting is that latter part of your comment actually makes an argument FOR an anarchal system.all the things you listed that you hate,well..im right there with ya and so is the majority of not just your and my respective countries,but globally!

anarchy has worked but usually on smaller scales and there are certain criteria that most people are unwilling to meet.
for anarchy to work there must be:
an informed citizenry.
and a citizenry that participates.

which is a tall order here in america.

another problem is that societies will build structures that will become institutions that will become sensitive to corruption.that governments will eventually become bloated beasts that seek to only perpetuate its own continued existence,at the cost of the people and the virtues they have tried to uphold.

this we see playing out all over america and europe.

the anarchist realizes that the TRUE power in a society is NOT the government but rather the very people in that society.if that government no longer serves the people then it must be dismantled,on morals grounds alone this is the right thing to do.

in an anarchal society the corporation could not and would not exist.they would go back to being temporary business alliances in order to complete an assigned project and then disbursed.

in an anarchal society the federal reserve would lose its charter.

in an anarchal society,if a company wanted to move its plant over-seas and would leave thousands un-employed,effectively destroying that community.they would first have to seek permission from that township and/or sell the plant to the town in order to change base of operations.

in an anarchal system,there would be no war on drugs.no criminalizing the poor.no war on terror or wars of aggression.

in an anarchal system there would be no surveillance state,nor system of controlled indoctrination because that would be anathema to the very goals of an anarchic system.

look,the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness.

anarchy is about power to the people in its purest form.
and i hold zero illusions that it may be remotely perfect but if i have to choose..i will always choose YOU over some wealthy elite power broker.

there are a few inaccuracies in this video but over-all..makes a pretty strong point.
our fore-fathers did not exactly agree on the size,powers and authority the federal government should have,quite the opposite see:the federalist papers.

so the statement that the original intent was for a small centralized government is inaccurate.

but the argument over the bill of rights is fairly accurate.
hence the terms "inalienable and god-given".

i think the term indoctrination is used appropriately here.
2nd graders should not be introduced to such ideologies and most certainly not in this fashion.get em while they are young!..reprehensible.

this is ideology vs reality.
this is power vs powerlessness.
this is power abusing young minds to create a submissive and unquestioning attitude towards authority.

while the ideology may be comforting and even noble..it is a delusion when compared to the reality.

a citizen must KNOW their rights in order to fight for them.because power will ALWAYS attempt to curb or outright take those rights away and if they are able to do that (and they HAVE in many cases) then those rights are..in fact..privileges.

the "free speech zones" example is perfect.that was from st louis RNC in 2004 (i think..im recalling from memory).see? they didnt "take" away your right to free speech,they just made you do it -------> over there.

which affectively neutralized any dissent,but hey..you still had your right to free speech,just neutered and ineffectual.

to even call this educational is an insult to teachers.
its indoctrination..pure and simple.