There seems to be two main forms of analysis going on here. One is seeing a cop justified in a use of force because she is 'resisting arrest' and there is an 'angry mob' around him. The other claims this was unjustified and that the cop is a pig.

Lets think about what constitutes resisiting arrest. Why is that automatically a bad thing? For what reason should human beings willfully accept an arrest when they don't find it justifiable? Why should we willingly accept a white male's handcuff and perspective of 'the law'? This officer is operating on an understanding of how society should operate and what his place in is when he decides to arrest this woman. This understanding is inherently hierarchical and oppressive. Think about the power relationship here, or between cops and society in general. There is little to no repercussion for these fuckers. Only recently with the advent of video technology can we show what these scumbags do all the time. Human beings have a right to resist the State. No reason at all why we should have to bend over for this class traitor.

That 'angry mob' idea. I wonder if it was a group of white people asking the officer to stop, what you categorize them as an angry mob? These people, if angry, have a right to be angry: a cop is repressing two woman, one of which was hit in the face. There is no reason why humans can't resist when they feel it necessary to do so. Your claim of an 'angry mob' reveals alot of racism. Guarantee that if it were white folks, you would call them 'patriots' or 'concerned citizens'.

I'm in favor of the second analysis. This is a pig, those are human beings resisting the state. Revolt is what makes us human

Allow me to adjust your analogy as you've missed a few crucial points. We've removed government involvement in the market, so Walmart can no longer profit from tax abatements, billions in taxpayer bailouts, protectionist tariffs, eminent domain, state franchise monopoly privileges, subsidized land and other taxpayer funded subsidies. In fact, laws are no longer structured to create better conditions for corporate charters vs. individuals going into business, because there would be no corporate charters.

There will also no longer be costly licensure requirements, regulatory fees, etc. that currently keep less wealthy business owners from competing or even starting a business to begin with. Walmart also takes advantage of China's authoritarian regime which manipulates the market and forces its people to work in bad conditions under the threat of violence. Workers make up to 70% less than they should, which is the only real area you'd have to compete with. But! Being that more local companies could compete with a local Walmart (given the examples above), more companies like yours would open, thus creating more jobs. A little economics 101 here: The more jobs, the higher the wages. The more companies, the higher the competition, thus the lower the cost of goods and services. And given more options and better wages, people wouldn't need to shop at Walmart and probably would choose a store like yours.

Eventually a huge hierarchal company like Walmart would have to reduce themselves to something smaller, because competition would slowly edge them out. The world we live in today would be absolutely transformed. That's your happier picture, and it's 100% plausible.

Thanks for the advice, guys!

I set up Better Gmail. (Starter's guide here.)

I enjoy Gmail's automatic filters that direct emails into different labels, and that combines well with Better Gmail's hierarchical labels.


Ornthoron, thanks for the recommendation... I'm sure a Unix email client would be much more convenient!

^100% agree. Should be taken out of unsifted and put directly to the right of "Front".

edit .. You basically relegated submitting videos to the site to the same hierarchical value as beggars canyon.
Which would be fine imo if both of them were on top. The last thing Beggars canyon needs is to be buried in a sub menu. Same with submitting videos.

westy, the topic of emotions / emotional connections is inherently subjective.

Quoting vclxrr: "Without that thanks, and without the understanding that comes with genuine gratitude for the sacrifice of another life for your own, a person begins to devalue the life of the creature they killed. The devaluation continues and grows in its own way, until eventually that person (and all people) come to believe themselves to be above less intelligent forms of life."

Quoting westy: "THIS IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE what if you have a neutral understanding and appreciation for everything not a hierarchical one?"

Perhaps not always. But too often true, nonetheless. The truth of it is apparent from my observation of Earth's civilization as a whole. How many world cultures live as one with the land? How many world cultures live in united harmony with each other? When was the last time some group of people wasn't at war with another? Were you aware that some of the people of China are finally dealing with one of the greatest ecological crises this world has ever known? A crisis brought about by their own lineage's lack of proper respect for the environment. Now, because of that lack of respect, China is running low on fresh drinking water. But the issue of fresh drinking water is an issue that affects many countries. A portion of California, USA, for example is low on clean water because of over-consumption. And when something like that affects one region of the world, it has a significant impact on the whole world.

We are all interconnected. There are layers of unity that humans share with each other, and layers of unity that all things share with all other things. Art is (among other things) a way of making us immediately aware of these layers of unity.

So, to quote you, westy:

"no i don't [misunderstand the nature of the situation] and nowhere in your response have you actually pointed to any misunderstanding of the situation on my behalf."

Your very first comment, and subsequent comments, indicate your misunderstanding.

Quoting westy: "If you cried At his death then you are seriously imbalanced person."

I'm being generous by saying that you misunderstand. Perhaps you understand perfectly, but choose to devalue other peoples' need to place emotional significance on social icons who mean something to them. Perhaps the feelings of others are meaningless to you, westy. I don't know you, so i don't know. But the attitude you have been demonstrating exhibits a lack of respect.


To KamikazeCricket - I care. I don't know the names of my city sanitation workers (aka: garbage men). I don't know the names of the people who keep my city water clean. I don't even know who planted the trees (as part of our urban beautification initiative) that have helped make my city a nicer place to live. I don't know them, but i most certainly acknowledge their sacrifice. I thank them in my own way, by trying to respect the work they do. By trying to be a better person each day. And by challenging apathy wherever i see it.

To roughy, and squeak - Right on! I too will miss George Carlin. He said a lot of things that made a lot of sense to me. He was able to say important things that people needed to be reminded of, but say them with a unique brand of caustic humor.

I will miss our 'Modern Man'.

"I'm hangin' in, there ain't no doubt; and I'm hangin' tough.
Over and out."

"However, you fail to understand the nature of the situation " ?

no i don't and nowhere in your response have you actually pointed to any misunderstanding of the situation on my behalf.



"Without that thanks, and without the understanding that comes with genuine gratitude for the sacrifice of another life for your own, a person begins to devalue the life of the creature they killed."

THIS IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE what if you have a neutral understanding and appreciation
for everything not a hierarchical one?


vclxrr I would sagest that you don't write subjective or non definite things in a way that comes across as if you are stating facts.

I thought hierarchical distinctions of social class was the whole point of England.

DM = Danger Mouse.

So two thousand years of slaughter in the name of the judeo-christian faith, the deliverance of the most violent century in human history, the hijacking and distortion of fundamental human truths and values, a corrupt and dangerous hierarchical system in league with governments and powermongers, and CREATIONISM is "giving christianity a bad name" ?

hearing Jon Stewart put it that way, I kinda think the human race probably wants some blood from the G8 countries. I mean if we live in a hierarchical capitalist global economy, and if the top of that hierarchy is to blame for most of its current problems... then the bulk of the human race is gonna be pissed and looking upwards. You gotta wonder how this whole mess is going to influence global politics in the decades to come. Probably nothing big will happen... but hmmm

Here's some quote from Marx and Engels which could be A PART of an explanation for what happened in the "communists" countries. I couldn't find the most interesting quote on these topic, and cant really go in an extended explanation in my foreign english, but I urge people to read Marx and Engels instead of knowing them through intermediary.

"The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms [...] Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.[...] Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture [...] The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions - cheap government - a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism. [...] It supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic institutions. [...] It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor[...] What else, gentlemen, would [this] be but communism, "possible" communism?"
The Civil War in France, Karl Marx

"Question:Then you do not believe that community of property has been possible at any time?
Answer: No. Communism has only arisen since machinery and other inventions made it possible to hold out the prospect of an all-sided development, a happy existence, for all members of society. Communism is the theory of a liberation which was not possible for the slaves, the serfs, or the handicraftsmen, but only for the proletarians and hence it belongs of necessity to the 19th century and was not possible in any earlier period."
Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, Friedrich Engels
(note that ALL "communist" revolutions happen in country in which most of the population where peasant)

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others."
Principles of communism, Friedrich Engels

>> ^residue:
So it's alright for Bale to have a bad day and go on a tirade, but it's not ok for a regular guy working on the set to have a bad day and accidentally walk onto the set. Got it.
Actors can do whatever they want on a bad day, everyone else gets verbally abused and fired when they have a bad day.


Regular guy? This guy is the Director Of Photography! As far as set hierarchic goes here in the US he is on level with the director for decision making of framing and lighting. The entire camera crew answers to him.

Wandered on to set?! The DPs behavior wasn't new, it was something he had been doing regularly on set and people were getting pretty tired of it, he has also done it on other films he has worked on. This DP has a rather tenuous reputation in town for being condescending to his crews and just all around not fun to work with.

So again, as I said before, CONTEXT people, context.

He's brilliant, and it's a shame that his vision will probably never be embraced by civilization at large.

I made a visit to the Venus Project and met him a few months ago, and he's a wonderful man. When you're in his presence you'd never guess that he was 92. He's so full of energy and enthusiasm.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Man, I was going to send you a link to the Venus Project in my last reply! I have seen no better vision for a harmonious civilisation that this, removing the monetary system wipes out so many problems. The need to make a profit is driving the entire planet to destruction. When I started reading Jacques Fresco's stuff, it was like somebody just switched the lights on.

It opened my eyes to the stuff we're being fed via the news about resources running out, food running out blah blah blah - there are enough resources, enough skill and enough talent to make this vision work right now, it is the rich and powerful who stand in the way.

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
There's a gentleman here in Florida that I've grown to thoroughly admire. He's a futurist by the name Jacques Fresco and he's designed a future free of much of the bullshit that we deal with today, a global community with a cybernated resource based society. In his world money doesn't exist, the government is run by computer constructs administered by the best and brightest(not the power hungry), and industry has been automated to allow people the freedom to work on the betterment of mankind. You might enjoy checking him out. www.thevenusproject.com

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

Man, I was going to send you a link to the Venus Project in my last reply! I have seen no better vision for a harmonious civilisation that this, removing the monetary system wipes out so many problems. The need to make a profit is driving the entire planet to destruction. When I started reading Jacques Fresco's stuff, it was like somebody just switched the lights on.

It opened my eyes to the stuff we're being fed via the news about resources running out, food running out blah blah blah - there are enough resources, enough skill and enough talent to make this vision work right now, it is the rich and powerful who stand in the way.

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
There's a gentleman here in Florida that I've grown to thoroughly admire. He's a futurist by the name Jacques Fresco and he's designed a future free of much of the bullshit that we deal with today, a global community with a cybernated resource based society. In his world money doesn't exist, the government is run by computer constructs administered by the best and brightest(not the power hungry), and industry has been automated to allow people the freedom to work on the betterment of mankind. You might enjoy checking him out. www.thevenusproject.com

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

There's a gentleman here in Florida that I've grown to thoroughly admire. He's a futurist by the name Jacques Fresco and he's designed a future free of much of the bullshit that we deal with today, a global community with a cybernated resource based society. In his world money doesn't exist, the government is run by computer constructs administered by the best and brightest(not the power hungry), and industry has been automated to allow people the freedom to work on the betterment of mankind. You might enjoy checking him out. www.thevenusproject.com

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.