>> ^Esoog:

OK...you've cut the bread like that...now what?


I would actually assume that it's shipped out to restaurants.

The way those are cut, I can see a table getting a basket of 4 or so.

I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

Yeah, then all the baskets of Ron's dirty laundry will come to light.

This. Monetary unions need to follow political unions, not the other way around. The problem in europe is that they can't just print the currency of the nations that were irresponsible. If they could do that, there would be very little problem (just localized inflation). Instead, since responsible countries in Europe don't want to suffer because of the Mediterranean profligacy, they need to go with the often counter-productive austerity measures and debt renegotiation (declaring insolvency). With a global bank the problem would be worse. I'm okay with a concept like the SDR (a basket of currencies) for currency reserves and commodity pricing, but sovereign nations need the power to print their own paper. It seems clear however that the global economy needs to be decoupled from the dollar. It would be better for everybody.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think a) it's obviously politically impossible, and b) a global monetary union would be harder to pull off than the euro monetary union, and the euro is headed for collapse as it is...

As I said before (I don't know if you actually took the time to read my comment. Not the previous one, the one before that), I said that obviously there are good people in religion (although I disagree about mother theresa). But people who are good, being of a certain religion doesn't make that religion good. The vast majority of the population of the planet is theist in some form or another, so it would be a bleak, bleak world, if out of the vast majority we couldn't find the biggest number of good people. But, it's not the being religious that makes them good people, no matter what they want to project unto their religious beliefs. If your brother wasn't a mormon, would he stop being a good person?
If you're telling me he's a good person simply because he's a "christian" (and I use the term christian as loosely as possible when refering to mormons), then... well, there's something wrong. Unless you're the kind of people who thinks that before any given religion came along, all humans were savage sinners who loved nothing and no one.

And once again, let me make this VERY CLEAR. I'm not trying to dictate what's going on in other people's heads. What I'm saying is, if what they believe in is stupid, then they should be called stupid, because they are stupid.

And you're wrong. It's not just when religion touches the laws of the land that it's important to fight it. It's also when people who, as I said before, believe in completely unrealistic fantasies, want to, for example, run for POTUS. They may not even touch any laws that could somehow cross the separation of church and state, when elected, but their reasoning, is obviously not sound, and that's not the kind of people who should be given that much responsibility. Unless they put their religious beliefs aside and try to work on a different reasoning level. And that takes us into a whole other discussion about just how intellectualy dishonest religious people are.


>> ^bareboards2:

It is demonstrably false. Ask the thousands of poor who have been served by Mother Theresa and her nuns. Do they think her faith led ONLY to bullshit, deception and ignorance and ONLY bullshit, deception and ignorance?
President Carter works hard with Habitat for Humanity because of his Christian faith.
My Mormon brother delivers Christmas baskets to the poor every year for decades, working with a secular organization, because his Christian faith tells him to.
The great good works done in the name of religion are numberless.
But you reject it all with your statement that religion is NOTHING BUT bullshit, deception and ignorance.
I stick by what I said before. Dogmatic. You believe you hold the only truth. Others who believe otherwise are heretics.
And as always, I agree that we need separation of church and state. That is the only place where the battle needs to happen.
Why it is important to you to dictate what is going on inside someone else's head.... that is religious fervor, my friend, just as invasive, insulting, and most definitely to be exposed as inappropriate and unreasonable.
My religious fervor is to get you to see your need to control others is no different than the dogma that you hate.
And here we are. In this dance we have been in before.
What is so funny is I don't really like religion. I dislike it for the very reasons you do. The only difference between us is that I recognize it is none of my damn business what other people think. The only time it matters is when it reaches out into the public realm of the laws of the land.

In reply to this comment by EMPIRE:
I said religion is nothing but bullshit, deception and complete ignorance.

It is demonstrably false. Ask the thousands of poor who have been served by Mother Theresa and her nuns. Do they think her faith led ONLY to bullshit, deception and ignorance and ONLY bullshit, deception and ignorance?

President Carter works hard with Habitat for Humanity because of his Christian faith.

My Mormon brother delivers Christmas baskets to the poor every year for decades, working with a secular organization, because his Christian faith tells him to.

The great good works done in the name of religion are numberless.

But you reject it all with your statement that religion is NOTHING BUT bullshit, deception and ignorance.

I stick by what I said before. Dogmatic. You believe you hold the only truth. Others who believe otherwise are heretics.

And as always, I agree that we need separation of church and state. That is the only place where the battle needs to happen.

Why it is important to you to dictate what is going on inside someone else's head.... that is religious fervor, my friend, just as invasive, insulting, and most definitely to be exposed as inappropriate and unreasonable.

My religious fervor is to get you to see your need to control others is no different than the dogma that you hate.

And here we are. In this dance we have been in before.

What is so funny is I don't really like religion. I dislike it for the very reasons you do. The only difference between us is that I recognize it is none of my damn business what other people think. The only time it matters is when it reaches out into the public realm of the laws of the land.



In reply to this comment by EMPIRE:
I said religion is nothing but bullshit, deception and complete ignorance.

"1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs."

The point is there are a small group of people that have a large amount of welth and are using that wealth to control the political and legal system and have basicly hijacked the democracy. That is what the 99% ers are protesting.

until You remove control from people who have a compleat conflict of interest then you cannot address the core aspect of job creation.
If these protests have the desired effect , the knock on result would be that government and industry can rationally approach things in a way that might work and would in the end result in a better quality of life for more people and most likely more jobs.

"2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, "

They blame fox news because it is a media outlet owned by the small % of super rich people and a part of there method of using wealth to control the nation. fox news is also entirely disingenuous and presents its self as a news station and fair and balanced when in fact it solely exists to push the agenda of the very rich in society.

They blame republicans more so than democrats because republican policy benefits the super rich more so than the democrats policy , having said that I think most people don't even see this as a republican or democrats issue the fact is both governments are largely as bad as each other. Fact is if you have enough money you can simply lobby things into existence evan if they are a detriment to the society at large.

"3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan"

there game plan and what they want is ridiculously clear and simple they want wealth to be more evenly spread and for policy and laws to be made based on what is good for the majority of people in the country not a select few that happen to be super wealthy.

The reason why they are having to protest and kick up a fuss how they are is because democracy is so fundimentaly broken and tilted towards wealth deciding things that unless you are rich or in a high up cooperate position you cannot have any influence to gain traction.







>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.
I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.
I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.
One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.
I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).
Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.
My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.
To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.

I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.

I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.

One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.

I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).

Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.

My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.

To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

The thing with backups, Im always concerned about the backup failing, getting corrupted, or otherwise not being able to restore from it because something happened at some point in time and ruined your ability to do so.

IE, you might be backing up, see the files verified and stored but something is wrong with the ability to restore form them. It mainly is a concern for the tape storage format, but could affect a hard drive by misconfiguration, virus, or some other unknown variable.

And the only way to really verify that everything is still working as expected is to restore from backup once or twice a year to confirm your solution is still viable.

Plus, he talks about it takes 2.5 days to do a full back up.....how long does it take to do a restore if that's your backup time? If it took 2.5 days+some period of time per differential then incrementals adding up to 3 days or so...and then to redo what wasn't backed up. That's getting into 4-5 days worth of restoring at least 3 before you know it's working or not. Granted it saves you months if not more of work doing it that way, but it also puts a lot of eggs in one basket so to speak.

@NetRunner Ya, because the real objective of the wall isn't about government size, to them, but about some other, for whatever reason, elevated core ideal. It is odd, and inconsistent, and pretty much impossible to nail down. The basket of ideas people draw from to make decisions is pretty troublesome when trying to make a system that both works and is consistent. This problem of idea interchange is at the heart of the thought experiment I am devising for my new middle out approach to a government. I am starting around the idea of what a human needs to be a human, and working out from there. Already, I note that families and friends are a more powerful, and legitimate force in life than a government of distant strangers. How to leverage that force? How to make it not utter chaos? How to avoid powerplay and gaming, I'll get back to you in 2 years on that

it puts the lotion in the basket.

I always wondered what kind of pet that guy had.

Sorry, but I have to say it every time I see this guy's videos:

It puts the lotion in the fucking basket!!!

I find that women are always less likely to want to juggle my balls once they realize I have 5. They always assume it's because of my job at the nuclear power plant, "BUT NO!", I tells them, "IT'S HEREDITY GODDAMIT!! MY GRANDPA HAD 11 BALLS!" Ol' 'lleven ball we used to call him... back before the war. He ended up losing 3 balls in Vietnam, and then another in Iraq. But he still had seven, which, even still, is a respectable collection of eggs to have in your Easter basket. What were we talking about again?

I am oversimplifying things a bit here, but here's how I see it.

========================================================================

I am a merchant with a peach orchard, and I want to sell the best peaches to the market.

You are a farmer who knows how to grow peach trees, and pick all the peaches and throw them in a basket.

I hired you to make best peaches to sell to the market. But lately I've been getting some bad batches. Most are excellent peaches, but some were too tart. I address the issue and tell you that some of the batches were bad.

You, the farmer, tell me that all your batches are of excellent quality, and the batch you have today is all excellent. So I, as a merchant, pay you for your work and sell the peaches at the market. Again, some good peaches, and a few bad ones. Now word is going around that people who eat my peaches get stomach aches. Nobody wants to buy peaches from me anymore.

I goto you and tell you that I want the best quality peaches. Farmer says there's nothing he can do about it because peaches all look the same to him, and he just picks them from a tree and throw it in the basket.

I, as a merchant, want quality control. So I now hire a professional picker who can tell the difference between good peaches from bad ones when he picks them from the trees.

You, as a farmer, is upset because I've now hired this extra person into the farm who takes away from our profit margin. But I, as a merchant, tell you that we have to keep quality control if we want to keep our customers. Otherwise, I will have to stop doing business with you and find another peach farmer.

You are upset because I am intruding your rights into your job and expertise. I am upset because you refuse to control the quality of your peaches. And I am forced to impose quality control because you are not doing your part of the job as the producer.

=============================================

This is how I see the situation. The community must actively differentiate themselves from these bad seeds instead of hiding them and defending them. By doing so, you are protecting the very thing that are out to hurt you. If you fail to differentiate yourself, then we have no choice to take all of those involved with the same assumption. The community may argue that these people are crazy and these radicals have nothing to do with them. And yet, these radicals are still within their community. Nobody within the community is willing to fish them out, because they see it as turning their backs on their own kind.

And there lies the irony. The community may say they are different, and yet they still won't fish out the bad guys within the community, treating them as part of their family. It is the community's responsibility to look after its members, including keeping quality control. By refusing to keep control, you are avoiding responsibility. And someone else, whether you like it or not, will have to take up the duty.


I've made a detailed comment here: http://videosift.com/video/NYPD-is-Morphing-into-the-CIA#comment-1279011

If you disagree with what I've just said, feel free to read the extra comments and then respond.