There has been a lot of construction around my city lately, so I've come to get pretty pissy about people not leaving enough room. We would all go faster if everyone left a gap ahead of them wide enough for another car to merge into all the time and you should always make extra room for another car that has to merge.

With a few other things, like polite zipper merging, I call this the "Aggressively Cooperative" driving style, and if you aren't driving that way, you're doing it wrong and messing it up for the rest of us.

Your vagina avatar has been deleted. Please refrain from using graphic NSFW images as your avatar. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Media: "German intelligence services provide assistance to the NSA's espionage program, including selectors aimed at economic/political targets in Germany/EU"

Plebs/Parliamentary committee of inquiry: "Government, show us those selectors!"

Chancellory: "Sincerest apologies, but our hands are tied. The White House made it abundantly clear, we cannot hand these selectors over to any committee, much less the public, without risking the NSA's cooperation."

Media: "White House says it's up to the German Chancellory to make the call."

Chancellory: "Look, a three-headed monkey!"

I hate this pathetic joke of a government...

Jon Hamm, Kristen Wiig, Amy Poehler, Paul Rudd, Molly Shannon, Elizabeth Banks, Michael Ian Black, Bradley Cooper, John Slattery, Judah Friedlander, Janeane Garofalo, Joe Lo Truglio, Ken Marino, Christopher Meloni, Marguerite Moreau, Zak Orth, David Hyde Pierce, and Michael Showalter.

That is a lot of funny people

The devil is in the details, isn't it?

For instance, what kind of guaranteed minimum income are we talking about?

The context they used (automatisation, labour supply) suggests to me something along the lines of an unconditional basic income. If that's the case, it cannot be compared to a minimum wage at all, since it has effects that go far beyond the labour market and the income situation. It's a massive reshaping of how we organise society. And it becomes a pain in the ass to even conceptualise properly once you talk about how to finance it...

A minimum wage, no matter how decent it is, doesn't even put a dent into the disparity between income from labour and income from capital. It makes life less horrible for those it applies to and it somewhat curtails the welfare queens among corporations who like their wage slaves being paid for by society. Yes, I'm looking at you, Walmart! Still, on its own, it does very little about income inequality, and nothing at all about wealth inequality.

How would I address income inequality?

In German, the words for taxes and steering are the same: "Steuern". If you want to steer the income towards a more equal distribution, taxation might be the easiest way to go about it. Treat all forms of income equally in terms of taxation. Or go one step further and treat wages preferentially to support employment.

However, redistribution will only get you so far. So why not address it at an earlier stage: distribution. Mondragon serves as a successful example of how a cooperative structure puts democratic checks and balances on the wage structure within a corporation. One person, one vote puts the lid on any attempts by higher-ups to rake in 300 times as much as the peasants on the factory floor.

Yet it doesn't do anything about the inequality between wages and capital income. Even a combination of progressive taxation and fixed income-ratios doesn't do much about it. Especially since non-wage income can evade taxation in a million different ways and most politicians in every country in the world seem more than eager to protect what loopholes they created over the decades.

So what's my suggestion? Well, progressive taxation of both income and wealth, living wage plus job guarantee, support of democratic structures at the workplace, international pressure on tax havens (which includes my own fecking country). Realistic? No. But neither was our welfare system until it was implemented.

Evil seems to out-pace our option of voting for the lesser evil at each election cycle. If Hillary can win by a 2 to 1 margin, and the republicans are thrown out off office, maybe then the 1% will learn to cooperate. Not saying Hillary is a saint, but she sure isn't Bush either.
.
Young people have to show more accountability in American politics. Your iPhone will never be an interface for you to vote - you have to go register then bother to go to the polls to VOTE. Vote OUT republicans even if you don't like the democrats. Wake the F up.

@lantern53 @bobknight33

What the fuck is wrong with you two?!

WHY DO YOU JUSTIFY THE WORST SHIT, JUST BECAUSE COPS DID IT?!?!

You're both fuckin' batshitcrazy sociopaths.

I seriously hope the worst shit EVER happens to you and your families..

With the caveat that Law Enforcement Officers did it.

That way, I can smugly mock your heartache and suffering by telling you your problems are imaginary.

"Well, if they didn't want to be burned to the ground..
your Houses should have just cooperated with the authorities.."

So, it's not the lying cop that's confrontational in your eyes?
We know she lied about seeing him because she doesn't give him a 'smoking in public' ticket, which I'm 99.99999% certain she would have written if she had actually seen him smoking.

I agree, he handled it badly, but I say he handled it badly because he spoke to the cop at all.

It is NOT in your best interest to remain cooperative with a cop....EVER. If they ask you a question, it's only asked to find a crime to charge you with. ANY question you answer is enough for them to lie and say 'he sounded drunk/high/angry/slow/like he was lying' and continue interrogating and investigating you, or just plain arrest you, then claim you said something completely different (prime example: see this video where she claims he never said he didn't smoke, although the video proves he DID say he never smoked in his life, but cops are all 'professionally' trained liars and most will lie about you to find something to charge you with). Don't give them a thing to twist into something to investigate or charge you with...not a god damn word. If you say nothing, they can't twist it into something actionable.

Yeah, he eventually stated that he didn't smoke, after a few minutes of being a confrontational jackass. And yes, the cop did claim that she saw him smoking, but again, after a few minutes of him being a confrontational jackass. And of course, there is the distinct possibility that he was in fact smoking and just lied about it so he could make yet another sensationalistic anti-cop video.

The latter can't be proven based on the video alone but what can be proven is that he handled the situation badly. Only way he could have handled it worse is if he punched the cop. It's important to remember that cops are human. If you antagonize them, they'll probably find some way to get back at you. Should they? No, but until we replace human cops with robot cops, emotions will always be a factor. As with any human interaction, it is usually in your best interest to remain civil and cooperative.

As usual, the "victim" escalated things for no good reason. First by ignoring the cop, then by refusing to cooperate and being confrontational. And then he becomes frustrated when they start ignoring his questions.

The entire situation could have been avoided if he had simply and politely stated that he wasn't smoking when first asked. It's amazing what a little bit of courtesy and common sense can achieve. Just because you have the legal right to act like a douche doesn't mean you should act like a douche.

Well this is a very interesting video, because I'm trying to figure out wtf UTA stands for, I'm thinking it's Utah Transit Authority or something. So do they have a rule about not smoking on UTA property? That's got to be it.

I'm thinking these two male cops are thinking what a lot of male cops think, which is why the fuck did this little woman become a police officer.
But i got to cover her ass because she probably can't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. She probably needs to get into the DARE program so her biggest challenge is keeping 7 yr olds from putting boogers on her pantleg.

Of course, some women cops are pretty awesome, pretty fearless, and quite useful. Some, like I suspect this one, is pretty worthless.

I don't understand why they trespassed this guy from UTA property however. I just don't see how that's legal.

The whole interaction is quite irritating because I have to agree with the hoodie guy, nothing makes sense.

Which is fine as far as it goes, until he starts painting all cops are brainless gov't toads who sponge off the taxpayer etc etc etc. You lost me there, boss, because now you're insulting my avocation, in which I take a lot of pride.

Lemme give you an example of police work. Yesterday I helped a lady who had an auto accident, her brand new Mini Cooper got destroyed by some little juvenile driving a big ass Jeep Cherokee.

Today I assisted my Lt. with a neighbor complaint, some jerkoff who sounded like he had 18 Red Bulls for breakfast and wouldn't shut the fuck up had thrown a bunch of trash over a patio divider in an apt. complex because he thought his Latvian neighbor was making too much noise. Nobody got arrested, we were just there trying to resolve these two idiots from killing each other.

Then today I drove some old handicapped biddy 15 miles down the road so she could be with her husband who was having hip surgery. it took us a good 30 minutes to find out where the old codger was but we did it.

Two other officers responded to a family who called about their grown son who was off his meds and had a knife...we've been to this house dozens of times because the son is a fucking mental. I thought for sure this guy would get shot dead today, but turns out he was just arrested and transported to the PD for processing.

A couple of people got arrested for shoplifting, nobody got beat, they got a piece of paper with a court date on it.

etc etc etc

But no, this 'hispanic' dude has to jump to 15 conclusions about what ALL police officers do and it's total bullshit.

Dude, you're about as idiotic as these phony UTA cops.

So it would seem that the concept of red-light cameras is debated by special interest groups on both sides, with strong lobbying from red-light camera vendors. The wikipedia summary explains the controversy thus: "Authorities cite public safety as the primary reason that the cameras are installed, while opponents contend their use is more for financial gain. There have been concerns that red light cameras scare drivers (who want to avoid a ticket) into more sudden stops, which may increase the risk of a rear-end collisions."

The same Wikipedia article summarizes the research thus: "A report in 2003 by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) examined studies from the previous 30 years in Australia, the UK, Singapore and the US, and concluded that red light cameras "improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used." While the report states that evidence is not conclusive (partly due to flaws in the studies), the majority of studies show a reduction in angle crashes, a smaller increase in rear-end crashes, with some evidence of a “spillover” effect of reduced red light running to other intersections within a jurisdiction. These findings are similar to a 2005 meta analysis, which compared the results of 10 controlled before-after studies of red light cameras in the US, Australia and Singapore. The analysis stated that the studies showed a reduction in crashes (up to almost 30%) in which there were injuries, however, evidence was less conclusive for a reduction in total collisions. Studies of red light cameras worldwide show a reduction of crashes involving injury by about 25% to 30%, taking into account increases in rear-end crashes, according to testimony from a meeting of the Virginia House of Delegates Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee in 2003. These findings are supported by a review of more than 45 international studies carried out in 2010, which found that red light cameras reduce red light violation rates, crashes resulting from red light running, and usually reduce right-angle collisions."

There are enough interesting sources there that you can still find confirmation for your particular bias, whatever it is, if you so choose.

"defend against evil".
Should make you wary instantly.

And I laughed hard when I saw that they have 54,000 and 50,000 in Japan and Germany, where almost no threat exists, and only have 28,000 in South Korea where a real threat exists.

Sorry, but intelligent people dont buy this crap anymore. Its not the USA keeping the world safe, its cooperation. But if you stir up shit in the East, like right now and for the last few decades, there will be war. You cant expect people to stay peaceful when you invade their countries, install totalitarian regimes everywhere, finance and organize coup d'etats, sanction countries so only the people suffer and kill civilians everywhere with drones and cruise missiles. Its an audacious self-fulfilling prophecy, bullying tactics. You stir up shit and then when they get angry and attack you and those who support you, you point at them and say "told you so, you need our protection". And then furthermore have the audacity to blame other countries that do similar stuff in a MUCH smaller scale and mostly only due to the stuff you incited. Seriously... WTF? How stupid must you be to believe such bullshit of "world protection"???

Crap....I just took your word that I was wrong. Just minor googling shows me that I was essentially right, and what you speak of happened near the end of total allied control of Germany. We've essentially had bases there since the end of the war.
WIKI-
In practice, each of the four occupying powers wielded government authority in their respective zones and carried out different policies toward the population and local and state governments there. A uniform administration of the western zones evolved, known first as the Bizone (the American and British zones merged as of 1 January 1947) and later the Trizone (after inclusion of the French zone). The complete breakdown of east-west allied cooperation and joint administration in Germany became clear with the Soviet imposition of the Berlin Blockade that was enforced from June 1948 to May 1949. The three western zones were merged to form the Federal Republic of Germany in May 1949, and the Soviets followed suit in October 1949 with the establishment of the German Democratic Republic (GDR).

In the west, the occupation continued until 5 May 1955, when the General Treaty (German: Deutschlandvertrag) entered into force. However, upon the creation of the Federal Republic in May 1949, the military governors were replaced by civilian high commissioners, whose powers lay somewhere between those of a governor and those of an ambassador. When the Deutschlandvertrag became law, the occupation ended, the western occupation zones ceased to exist, and the high commissioners were replaced by normal ambassadors. West Germany was also allowed to build a military, and the Bundeswehr, or Federal Defense Force, was established on 12 November 1955.

Will YOU stand corrected? ...or was this a misunderstanding of what I meant by 'why the bases are in Germany', because I do understand those reasons have changed over time, as you indicated...I was talking about the original reason we stationed American military there.

Black people need to tell it to black people, as they are the biggest threat.

The reason black people get stuck in the inner-city cycle is because they are threatened by other black people. That's one reason they don't cooperate with police. White people aren't going to come in and hurt them, other black people are.

2500 people shot in Chicago last year.