>> ^lertad:
This is silly. Japan is still first and foremost an Asian culture built upon social hierarchy. This is a great CEO and an example to all, but I hate its inference that all Japanese CEOs are like this and all US CEOs are megalomaniacs by cherry-picking one company from each country.
The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. But unfortunately, the middle is never a good story.

Japan is indeed a hierarchical society, but it is a society where when an employee bows the boss bows too. What you're missing is that the American society is as much if not more hierarchical than Japan, only that fact is not formally recognized. The difference is that the American hierarchy is based on money more than on position. That's why there's idiots everywhere finding excuses for the ridiculous salaries of American C.E.O. Basically, the rationalizations are all based on the illusion called the "American Dream": maybe some day you too will be filthy rich, then you certainly wouldn't want a mob trying to put you down! In comparison, most Japanese know their place and will only accept what they can reciprocate: for example they will accept a raise only if they feel they can take on more responsibilities, even if they're in lower management and know they have no chance at a promotion because of the position game (of course, as in everything there are exceptions).

>> ^Crake:
>> ^rougy:
Friedman is pretty much the kind of nimrod...
Firstly, did he say anything in that video you disagreed with?

"Magic of the price system" did it for me. Reminds me of the "THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS" cartoon.

^punisher:

Sure he was in contempt, but that doesn't justify the ridiculous sentences nor the manhandling. If you don't start by respecting others, I don't see why they should want to respect you. And this is a civil court. Shouldn't things be more, like, civil?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Religion is fail? Then what is liberal fascism, besides very real?

Liberal fascism is an oxymoron. The definition of fascism includes mass movements of unified ideological nationalism, racism and militarism. Liberalism on the contrary includes the individualization of ideological trends - freedom of thought and speech - which begets the necessary acceptance of other nationalities and races (otherwise you're inconsistent, and that was what most of the Fathers of the Constitution were) and doesn't include a specific military ideology. In fact, the closest thing to mainstream fascism today in the western world is the current trend of American conservatism which is an amalgam of neoliberal economic theory, essentially laissez-faire capitalism, and religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism includes many of the defining features of fascism, and so when religious fundamentalist take political power they tend to become fascists. Historically, fascist leaders indeed found their strongest supporters in organized religions. This was especially evident in Franquist Spain but was also true of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Oh guys, please get your heads out of your asses. I know those lil electric cars look promising, but they can only be part of a solution when used in connection with clean energy. Right now, these electric cars won't solve anything, because the additional energy that would be needed to "fuel" these things would have to be generated from coal and nuclear power plants.

Maybe so, but power plant emissions are easier to manage than those of millions of cars, especially old cars. Remember that the first cars were electric, but that petrol won in the end because of the convenience factor as there was no national electric grid yet. In pre-war days, fuel efficiency was low and roads sparse. People used mass transit to go from city to city, or even from place to place in a big city. In fact, subways predate the automobile and are still run by electricity to this day.

But this is primarily a North American problem/misconception, that anything that doesn't let you go in the remotest of places the instant you think of going there is "not good". Let's quote Wikipedia: "Some cities have built urban rail transit systems that are so comprehensive and efficient that the majority of city residents use it as their primary means of transport. This is common in many of the largest cities in Europe, such as Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid and Moscow, many large cities in Asia, such as Hong Kong, Osaka, Seoul, Taipei, and Tokyo; in North America the only city matching these is New York.[52]" And so the conundrum: if you're working in a big city where mass transit is useful and ubiquitous, do you really need a car to commute? No. If you're not working in such a city, do you need a car? Potentially yes. Then, would you need a car that can go 500 miles in a day to commute? Not useless you're crazy. And if you really need to go from Los Angeles to New York in your car (because you're mentally ill or on a road trip), why don't you take an electric car and take your time? Driving too many hours in the same day only increases the risk of accidents. And if you don't have the time to take your time, what the hell are you wasting time driving for?

>> ^chilaxe:
Seemed like it could have been regarded as self-defense.
The driver looks like he was just in a long fight... like wrestling on the pavement or being kicked on the ground.

Not only that, but the beaten guy was obviously retreating from the now finished brawl and the other guy came at him a second time! Since he was in a car but with a window opened, the thing prescribed by self-defense law would be to flee the scene. That is what he did (if he had gone in reverse he would have smashed the assailant's car, which could be construed as retaliation). The situation is similar to crashing in a car running a red light: not your fault.

The man who ran the guy over: Arrestable for Hit and Run, Assault with A Deadly Weapon, and numerous traffic violations.

Only if you can prove intent to harm, without reasonable doubt. In the video it looks like the driver turns so as to run his assailant over, be he could defend himself by saying he tried to shake him off the hood, however clumsily. I'm pretty sure a jury would side with the victim here. There's also the matter of the Castle Doctrine, which stipulates you can use deadly force to defend a place legally occupied, and where in some jurisdiction "place" can also include a car.

>> ^imstellar28:
the foundation of communism is collectivism. the abolition of private property is a corollary.

The abolition of private land property should be one of the first acts toward a communist or stateless society.

From wikipedia's entry on the communist manifesto:
10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

See the thing that starts with 1? The abolition of private property (i.e. land ownership) IS collectivism. Collectivism means collective ownership. You can't collectively own a factory but not the property it's built on. Well you can, but you would be dangerously inconsequential. A "communist State" is in fact an oxymoron. The State is only there as a representative of the collective to arrange the conditions necessary for the establishment of the ultimately stateless society, otherwise known as communist society. Of course such concentration of power, even though "temporary", is a prime target for megalomaniac tyrants.

But then again, if Ayn Rand is your only source on communism, it's no wonder you don't understand anything.

>> ^thinker247:
I wonder what would happen if a prominent black Republican won the primaries to become the next Republican candidate for President. Oh, what would racists do?

They'd go back to being Democrats.

This is a case of confusion, as when you almost bump repeatedly into another person when walking in an alley, except when you walk in an alley you are not facing a 300 pound muscle machine with protective equipment.

Basically, the ref tried to go to his right towards the line, the the runner was initially going in the same direction, so the ref tried to let him pass by slowing and cutting slightly to his left. But the runner must have seen the ref coming from his right and also thought of cutting to the left, without slowing (maybe he was trying to avoid the guy from the other team but it makes a difference only in the intent of the moves he ultimately made not in the actual sequence). The two guys being of roughly the same shape and size, the law of inertia, with a little help from the defending referee, prevailed and the guy going the fastest was veered off course the most by the collision (the little help from the referee simply made it so the runner came down instead of simply stumbling off semi-randomly).

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
It's almost like no one's backing the Republicans.

It's exactly like that. Republican supporters either are too selfish to give their "hard-earned" money to the Man or they are economically savvy enough to brace themselves for the next market crash/tax hike for war spending/natural disaster at the hand of their spiteful and puny god/etc. And with no social safety net worth the name, they must keep their money somewhere safe, preferably in a sock somewhere near a gun.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Some of you are reading this for the first time:
NO NATION HAS EVER TAXED ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY.
If you ain't sure, read it again.


Yes, exactly. To tax itself a society must already be prosper. What you can tax yourself into is not poverty though. It's either into a healthier, safer life (by redistribution of wealth) or plain bankruptcy (by squandering). And as shown by History, the fastest way a society can tax itself into bankruptcy is by raising armies and waging futile and/or unwinnable wars. Spoils of war only compound the problem, making those belligerent societies dependent on a continuous influx of foreign tribute (e.g. the Romans), when not outright ruining their economies with massive inflation (e.g. the Spanish).

Of course, nowadays it is very slightly more complicated, but a basic truth remains: every kind of capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, in the long run. It's a pyramid. A pure hierarchy. You can choose to mitigate this fact or not through a form of socialism. America chooses not to essentially because every damn idiot "Joe the plumber" living there thinks he can make it big, if only (add whatever you think you need to make it big here)! But of course, reality being reality, for every person that "makes it big", many others must make do with less. If not your next door neighbor, then the women in Mexico or the children in Bangladesh.

Conservatives (neo-liberal economists in this case) think socialists are Utopians, but it is clearly they who are: they think they can run the "economy", the "market", as if there was no effective rarity. Sorry, but replicator technology does not yet exist. The only thing they're doing is playing make believe as if they were still in kindergarten: they look out from their sandbox and see a world of wealth waiting to be plundered and brought back to their sand castles. They know in their minds the plunder is not infinite, but they act as if it was because there's only one thing in their heart: "more plunder for me!". You may confront them, argue with them, even convince them intellectually that they are wrong; still in the end all they can retort is: "I can do whatever I want! After all, it's all make believe right?"

Her facial ticks are like an imprisoned mime homunculus trying to get out of her brainwashed grey matter, as if every time she spoke of the lord the poor thing got violently crushed against her tiny cranium .

Yeah, "real aikido" tries a little too much to be "cool aikido". I must admit the cool factor works in their demo though. Problem is, no one falls like that if he isn't trained to! On many of those techniques uke would fall like a rock to the ground with a broken shoulder/elbow/wrist. Doesn't make much of a show...

lol, this kind of pain-inducing techniques are exactly what aikido has not been (re)designed for. If you want to induce pain, do Daito-ryu jujutsu.

Moreover, trying to execute a technique by primarily inducing pain will not work on anesthetized suspects, as can happen with the use of psychoactive substances like alcohol and some other drugs. Also, that he lets go of the arm/elbow to squeeze the wrist before cuffing the suspect shows he's got no idea of what he's actually doing. And as kagenin pointed out, his ikkyo are not followed through to the ground and the suspect stays on his knees which is the second worst position you can stop a technique at, the worst being of course with the suspect standing (like he also does on some of the techniques). Also, I've seen zero atemi which is always a bad sign.

Of course, inducing pain will work on most people but if you encounter someone with impaired senses or with above average joint suppleness, your technique will likely get you into trouble.

>> ^Nebosuke:
Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are still worse that Palin.

Palin is worse because she's ignorant. At least Karl Rove and Dick Cheney screw America knowingly.