Eating beef is the nutritional equivalent of driving a super-stretch Hummer H2 in Friday L.A. gridlock traffic compared to other sources of calories.

http://www.culinaryschools.org/yum/vegetables/

I was disappointed how they seemed to now be saying that suddenly the Republicans are on the side of 'following the rules' and not on the side of using any tactic that works to further your agenda, no matter how sneaky or underhanded. (by having the 'bill' say 'we're going to sue you', it implied to me that he's a republican...not a piece of legislation). That's why I can't upvote, that's just disingenuous, unless things have changed in the last week.
I was also disappointed that everyone is up in arms about this order...it will likely barely be implemented before the next election because of legal challenges, (edit: or possibly, but unlikely, because the congress actually acts itself and creates a different law superseding the order) If the next president is a Republican, he (or she) will probably simply void it day one. That's the thing about executive orders, they are at the whim of the CURRENT president and easily removed...but they are also actual law and are used by both parties to bypass gridlock in congress, at least temporarily.

Burden or gridlock. Those are subjective terms that connote a desire to catch up. Catching up helps no one involved in law enforcement.

They terms you should look for are "Artifacts and metrics".

Every department must spend more than it did last year. This year's funding is what it is because of what was spent last year. Next year's funding depends on what will be spent this year.

A lack of funding leads to downsizing and furloughs. Best way to secure funding for next year is to spend this year.

Money has colours. You get different charge codes for different actions.
Some charge codes are considered low pri / overhead. Others are considered necessary. If you're charging mostly overhead, and very little necessary, you have bad metrics. If you charge mostly towards necessary and little to overhead, you have good metrics.

Police have to arrest/charge people to look productive. That generates metrics showing that police are needed. If they can make sure to spend at least as much money on enforcement this year as last year, their jobs are secured. A department that's mostly sitting around, is a department that is not critical, and can get a budgetary cut.
So long as police are employed, they will find people to arrest/charge/ticket/whatever. Even if they have to stretch for it.

The same situation applies in court. Prosecutors are looking to maximize their convictions metrics. Their job is to get people convicted. It's not that they /want/ to convict people. That's simply how they charge their time, and how they get good metrics.

Judges don't necessarily care how a case goes. They simply want to charge as much time to judging as possible.

Actually "catching up" serves the interests of no one. And it's not that people are sitting down saying "Hey, how can I make myself look necessary". Some people do, sure. But most people are simply thinking "I gotta stay/look busy".

The "system" takes care of getting things to run amok.
Everyone stays busy so they can charge productive looking time codes, so they don't get scolded by management or downsized.
Departments spend all their allocated money so they don't get under funded.
Analytically, it looks like they are saturated, so they get more funding, and bring on more people.
The new people need to stay busy, and the cycle repeats.
The beast grows.

In effect, burden and gridlock are the food that keeps the beast fed.

This isn't simply a law enforcement issue. It's how government works. Every program makes it a goal to spend all of their funding, and look as busy as possible. No one wants to be cut, and looking like you're not busy is an easy way to be 'it' when there is a cut.

Rememer : All money is spent on payroll.
You don't pay the earth for anything.
If you buy materials, that's simply paying the payroll for the material supplier.
The entire cost of anything, is the total cost of all employees.
The only way to ever reduce costs, is to reduce how much someone makes.
Either by cutting the amount paid, or by cutting jobs.
Every year there's talk of reigning in government spending.
That means that every year, there's talk of cutting jobs.

TBH, newtboy, I don't know your background, or how much experience you have around government crap. I donno if this all sounds like a joke, but it really is this stupid.

-scheherazade

That argument might make sense if the courts were not so overburdened that there's near gridlock. Because they are, there's absolutely zero need for anyone to create more court cases to ensure job security, and has not been since the 80's at least, if not longer.

I'm no expert but everything I've ever heard/read from informed sources (i.e. people who study these things rather than random people on the internet) concurs with exactly you you just said there.

Traffic Jams supposed to act like longitudinal waves that snowball as they go due to people driving too close and needing to overcompensate. i.e. what starts as a few people braking a bit too much becomes 100's of people at a standstill a few miles down the line of traffic.

I think you are entirely correct to suggest that if everyone maintained a healthy distance and steady pace traffic would flow considerably more smoothly and many jams wouldn't even happen in the 1st place.

There are choke points but these need never take up more than a lane if people had some perspective and collective sympathy....

Unfortunately they don't and most (or at least enough) tend to drive like the impatient selfish twats they are. This makes biking gently past all of them in their self inflicted gridlock misery all the more satisfying (wouldn't be the 1st time I've sung the Trololol song while doing so either )

This is so sleazy, and it's the exact same schtick the Republicans used against Clinton.

1. Manufacture a bunch of half baked scandals.
2. Link them all to the President, whether he was involved or not.
3. Launch them all at the same time so they are hard to respond to.
4. Describe them with minimum detail and maximum hyperbole.
5..Cross your fingers that the public won't scrutinize your claims.
6. Use manufactured outrage to try and boost your corrupt, floundering, obstructionist party in the upcoming elections.

Most of these manufactured scandals have been debunked, or are a lot more nuanced than portrayed by this GOPer, but many will just watch this video and leave it at that.

Meanwhile, unemployment remains high, the infrastructure crumbles, gridlock keeps the congress from fixing the economy,, anonymous corporate cash floods our elections, economic disparity grows, there is still no accountability on Wall Street, the drone program continues to kill innocents and Bradley Manning sits on trial.

>> ^dag:

Thomas Jefferson said when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I don't think the US government is afraid of its people - I wish they were.
I think there's more to the dysfunction in American government than the balance of fear.


"Government" is not a person. Our government is comprised of individuals, every one of them a human being (with the exception of two androids and four pod people). I think they DO fear us, which is why they're so prone to pandering. Worse, though, is that WE are our government. By and large, WE put these people there.
I think one of the biggest problems we have is the two-party system, an unfortunate inevitability of the First Past the Post voting system.
One thing the FPtP video doesn't really mention is what happens once the parties have established their dominance - indoctrination. We're encouraged to side with Republicans or Democrats, and once we've done that, over time we're inclined to start buying into the entire party platform. You can't be anti-abortion and pro-gay-rights. We immediately jump to the defense of any party tenet attacked by our "misguided" opposition. Minor differences of opinion become sacred cows. Perhaps this is a natural herd mentality, a defense mechanism against marginalization, or avoidance of peer conflict.
Whatever the causes, the outcome is gridlock and resentment. Nothing gets done because compromise is weakness. Candidates are only able to rise to power by adhering to the party line.
So I begin my post suggesting that government is individuals, and end by suggesting that individuals cede their power to the parties.
The system is broken. Checks and balances only function when sufficient individual agency is involved.

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

His recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage?!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing. Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true. A truly radical stance to the left on abortions is pushing for a federal law to provide anyone who wants an abortion to get them for free, and at any time during the pregnancy. Something closer to that line than "I want to continue to provide funding for an organization that spends 99% of its budget on other things than abortion. BTW, this is an organization that was also funded by the Republican presidential administration AND a GOP dominated Congress. In fact, it's received funding since 1970."

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not some , most . Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.
I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly.

*dead -- "'Gridlock (F...' This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Vodmania..."

whoa whoa whoa.....where did I say what she did is OK?
>> ^Kofi:

His point and I think THE point of this video is that her behaviour can in no way be universalised. No one can park where ever they like regardless of the impact. If they did then there would not be gridlock. There would be parklock.
Hypotheticals enable us to imagine consequences of our actions and are therefore important when considering what is right and wrong. Suppose another decided to do what she did, right next to her. Road is closed. Longe says "That's ok man. They might have had something important to do. Its ok that they think that their event is so much more important than so many others because hey, it probably is. I mean, think of other people"
Driving, like society at large, is about a social contract not to be douches to each other. This woman violated it many times over with potentially dangerous consequences and was indignant about being held accountable.

His point and I think THE point of this video is that her behaviour can in no way be universalised. No one can park where ever they like regardless of the impact. If they did then there would not be gridlock. There would be parklock.

Hypotheticals enable us to imagine consequences of our actions and are therefore important when considering what is right and wrong. Suppose another decided to do what she did, right next to her. Road is closed. Longe says "That's ok man. They might have had something important to do. Its ok that they think that their event is so much more important than so many others because hey, it probably is. I mean, think of other people"

Driving, like society at large, is about a social contract not to be douches to each other. This woman violated it many times over with potentially dangerous consequences and was indignant about being held accountable.

But see...dum dum...we're not talking about you. Stop thinking about only yourself. Expand your mind to other people and adopt THEIR perspective. Stop being selfish and narrow minded.

You said that that it doesnt matter because there were no emergency vehicles at the moment. REALLY??? What if there were? What if there are the next time?

It sounds like you're encouraging people to do this. Who gives YOU or HER the right to impose themselves on you or others? Can you imagine if someone did this to her and caused her delay?

Why is it okay for her to do this? Because it only inconveniences ppl for 10 mins? REALLY?

You dont think EVERYONE wants to just park wherever tf they want to? I feel like im talking to a third grader....If she in your weirdo world can do it then everyone should be able to do it. Then there would be no traffic problem AT ALL because the city would be one giant parking lot. No inconvenience then because there wouldnt even be a point in getting in your car.

This could go on forever. This is my last post on this vid.

>> ^longde:

I am quite used to gridlock and delay and have learned to take it in stride. I live and work in areas where it takes an hour to go 1 mile at peak rush hour. I regularly get held up for an hour or more. Two days ago, on a layover on a 30 hour flight, our plane was delayed for 50 minutes.
To only be inconvenienced for 10 minutes at a time would actually be a great improvement.
So, thank you for your ironic wish. I in turn sincerely hope you develop some patience and fortitude.>> ^Confucius:
May you be inconvenienced for 10 minutes many many times until YOU gain some perspective.......and half a brain.
>> ^longde:
There was no emergency vehicle.
It's not a big deal; and I hate to wait in traffic. If you think 10 minutes is a big deal, the problem with that attitude and this video is that people don't know how to keep things in perspective, and want to escalate everything into a mountain. What's next, honor killings 'cause I cut you off in traffic?
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^longde:
Yes, she blocked the street. Big fucking deal. Yes she was an asshole, but the blocked drivers were delayed for what, 5-10 minutes?
I would think that when the guy has posted her name, number, and business, inciting people to harass the woman, he opened himself to prosecution or a lawsuit. Or some heavy retaliation. If I was directly responsible for kicking bread out of someone's mouth, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.

Yea no big fuckin deal at all unless there is an emergency vehicle that needs to get by, or you are on your break and going back to work, or maybe going to pick your kid up from your asshole insignificant other. BUT BIG FUCKIN DEAL IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO BE AT THE MOMENT.

I am quite used to gridlock and delay and have learned to take it in stride. I live and work in areas where it takes an hour to go 1 mile at peak rush hour. I regularly get held up for an hour or more. Two days ago, on a layover on a 30 hour flight, our plane was delayed for 50 minutes.

To only be inconvenienced for 10 minutes at a time would actually be a great improvement.

So, thank you for your ironic wish. I in turn sincerely hope you develop some patience and fortitude.>> ^Confucius:

May you be inconvenienced for 10 minutes many many times until YOU gain some perspective.......and half a brain.
>> ^longde:
There was no emergency vehicle.
It's not a big deal; and I hate to wait in traffic. If you think 10 minutes is a big deal, the problem with that attitude and this video is that people don't know how to keep things in perspective, and want to escalate everything into a mountain. What's next, honor killings 'cause I cut you off in traffic?
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^longde:
Yes, she blocked the street. Big fucking deal. Yes she was an asshole, but the blocked drivers were delayed for what, 5-10 minutes?
I would think that when the guy has posted her name, number, and business, inciting people to harass the woman, he opened himself to prosecution or a lawsuit. Or some heavy retaliation. If I was directly responsible for kicking bread out of someone's mouth, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.

Yea no big fuckin deal at all unless there is an emergency vehicle that needs to get by, or you are on your break and going back to work, or maybe going to pick your kid up from your asshole insignificant other. BUT BIG FUCKIN DEAL IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO BE AT THE MOMENT.

There's a reason Ron Paul is hated by both parties a simple one too. He doesn't play by their rules. This is exactly the kind of person we need in office someone who refuses to let partisan politics influence major decisions that effect the Nation as a whole. By keeping the people at the forefront of his mind and not his "Party".

I'm sick of all this Left/Right bullsh*t it's time to do what's right for this Nation regardless of petty political agendas.

[edit] And I know exactly how the system works thank you very much. It work through the bowels of corruption and greed.

I think it's high time we flushed the system as it is and started anew.

>> ^Fletch:

@Auger8
If you think for a second that a President as despised by his own party as the opposing party is just going to walk into the White House on Inauguration Day and "make decisions", you have no idea how the system works. He will have NO EFFECT on the status quo, and the country will go through yet another four years of political gridlock while both parties look ahead to 2016.
I absolutely share your frustrations with Obama, and he isn't getting my vote this time. I'll write in Kucinich or Warren, or somebody. What I won't do is jump onto the short bus with the rest of the Ron Paul nutcakes. Yeah, voting write-in will have the same effect as voting for Ron Paul... it throws a potential Obama vote away. I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.