>> ^Fletch:

I didn't need any more reasons to hate cops. They are nothing but militarized, above-the-law goons nowadays. They are under-trained, shoot/tase/spray-first, hyper-testosteroned thugs whose primary purpose is to raise revenue for the city/county/state they work for. Police forces everywhere are rife with power-trip blowhards who simply can't function without a daily dose of "yes sir", "no sir", "anything you say sir". People who desire to become cops are often the very people who shouldn't be allowed to become cops because their reasons have little to do with "public service", and more to do with desiring power and longing for the respect they couldn't earn as a civilian.
Remember when a college degree was required to become a cop? They'll take anybody nowadays, as long as they can write tickets. They are nothing but paid witnesses, and absolutely worthless when it comes to "protect and serve".
O'Donnell is spot on.

(good book, btw)



"If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself."

Some police forces now do extensive psychological profiling before hiring to eliminate exactly this kind of person. The problem is that almost everyone starts out normal, but after a few years on the job, they see the world differently. They become psychologically damaged by the job. They divide the world into "Police" and "others", and cease to see people as people, but as criminals. This division creates all sorts of hostility and misunderstanding, which combined with their incredible legal powers, results again and again in what you see here. If police could just admit that it's a severely traumatic job psychologically and accept help, the world would be a much better place.>> ^Fletch:

I didn't need any more reasons to hate cops. They are nothing but militarized, above-the-law goons nowadays. They are under-trained, shoot/tase/spray-first, hyper-testosteroned thugs whose primary purpose is to raise revenue for the city/county/state they work for. Police forces everywhere are rife with power-trip blowhards who simply can't function without a daily dose of "yes sir", "no sir", "anything you say sir". People who desire to become cops are often the very people who shouldn't be allowed to become cops because their reasons have little to do with "public service", and more to do with desiring power and longing for the respect they couldn't earn as a civilian.
Remember when a college degree was required to become a cop? They'll take anybody nowadays, as long as they can write tickets. They are nothing but paid witnesses, and absolutely worthless when it comes to "protect and serve".
O'Donnell is spot on.

(good book, btw)

I didn't need any more reasons to hate cops. They are nothing but militarized, above-the-law goons nowadays. They are under-trained, shoot/tase/spray-first, hyper-testosteroned thugs whose primary purpose is to raise revenue for the city/county/state they work for. Police forces everywhere are rife with power-trip blowhards who simply can't function without a daily dose of "yes sir", "no sir", "anything you say sir". People who desire to become cops are often the very people who shouldn't be allowed to become cops because their reasons have little to do with "public service", and more to do with desiring power and longing for the respect they couldn't earn as a civilian.

Remember when a college degree was required to become a cop? They'll take anybody nowadays, as long as they can write tickets. They are nothing but paid witnesses, and absolutely worthless when it comes to "protect and serve".

O'Donnell is spot on.

(good book, btw)

>> ^DerHasisttot:
"What should the city do about drivers who think they are above the law?" ENFORCE THE LAW! This was clearly a staged stunt and very cool, but nevertheless... kinda dumb.


Not to mention, was IT within the law to exact this type of punishment?

"What should the city do about drivers who think they are above the law?"

Elect a mayor who thinks he's above the law.

"What should the city do about drivers who think they are above the law?" ENFORCE THE LAW! This was clearly a staged stunt and very cool, but nevertheless... kinda dumb.

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

Other downsides: personal vendettas, poor training caused disasters, criminals with a badge, etc, etc.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea, but it's putting way too much trust in the masses.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^hpqp:
@dgandhi and @GenjiKilpatrick
I don't know if it's because my faith in humanity is practically non-existent, but I have a hard time imagining a society which does not have some form of law enforcement, for when the preventive measures and education fail... The powerful (be that with brawn or dough) will always be tempted to prey on the weak, and some will heed that temptation. Then what?

I'm inclined to respond "Yes, obviously, look at how the police act.".
I'm not claiming that power vacuums will somehow remain vacant, I'm simply suggesting that there are probably better ways to fill them. I think that any number of radical departures could serve the need to reduce power abuse better than the current system.
My favorite option is going to lose me libertarian support, but I think conscription would work very well for law enforcement.
Lets say that everybody had to serve 21 days every 3 years, 7 weekends of training followed by 1 week of enforcement. We have some professional trainers, but the cops on the street are civilians for 99.3% of their lives. Since the number of officers would be very high in this case, most of them won't even have to take time off work, they just have a gun, badge and a radio with them at all times, and the closest officers are dispatched to do what is needed.
Down side: everybody has to do it.
Up side: more cops, nobody has to do it much, and nobody get in the habit of being above the law.

>> ^hpqp:

@dgandhi and @GenjiKilpatrick
I don't know if it's because my faith in humanity is practically non-existent, but I have a hard time imagining a society which does not have some form of law enforcement, for when the preventive measures and education fail... The powerful (be that with brawn or dough) will always be tempted to prey on the weak, and some will heed that temptation. Then what?


I'm inclined to respond "Yes, obviously, look at how the police act.".

I'm not claiming that power vacuums will somehow remain vacant, I'm simply suggesting that there are probably better ways to fill them. I think that any number of radical departures could serve the need to reduce power abuse better than the current system.

My favorite option is going to lose me libertarian support, but I think conscription would work very well for law enforcement.

Lets say that everybody had to serve 21 days every 3 years, 7 weekends of training followed by 1 week of enforcement. We have some professional trainers, but the cops on the street are civilians for 99.3% of their lives. Since the number of officers would be very high in this case, most of them won't even have to take time off work, they just have a gun, badge and a radio with them at all times, and the closest officers are dispatched to do what is needed.

Down side: everybody has to do it.
Up side: more cops, nobody has to do it much, and nobody get in the habit of being above the law.

The transcription is from a different message. Here's the right one:

Greetings, members of NATO. We are Anonymous.

In a recent publication, you have singled out Anonymous as a threat to „government and the people“. You have also alleged that secrecy is a ‘necessary evil’ and that transparency is npt always the right way forward.

Anonymous would like to remind you that the government and the people are, contrary to the supposed foundations of „democracy“, distinct entities with often conflicting goals and desires. It is Anonymous’ position that when there is a conflict of interest between the government and the people, it is the people’s will which must take priority. The only threat transparency poses to government is to threaten government’s ability to act in a manner which the people would disagree with, without having to face democratic consequences and accountability for such behaviour. Your own report cites a perfect example of this, the Anonymous attack on HBGary. Whether HBGary were acting in the cause of security or military gain is irrelevant – their actions were illegal and morally reprehensible. Anonymous does not accept that the government and/or the military has the right to be above the law and to use the phoney cliche of „national security“ to justify illegal and deceptive activities. If the government must break the rules, they must also be willing to accept the democratic consequences of this at the ballot box.We do not accept the current status quo whereby a government can tell one story to the people and another in private. Dishonesty and secrecy totally undermine the concept of self rule. How can the people judge for whom to vote unless they are fully aware of what policies said politicians are actually pursuing?

When a government is elected, it is said to „represent“ the nation it governs. This essentially means that the actions of a government are not the actions of the people in government, but are actions taken on behalf of every citizen in that country. It is unacceptable to have a situation in which the people are, in many cases, totally and utterly unaware of what is being said and done on their behalf – behind closed doors.

Anonymous and WikiLeaks are distinct entities. The actions of Anonymous were not aided or even requested by WikiLeaks. However, Anonymous and WikiLeaks do share one common attribute: They are no threat to any organization – unless that organization is doing something wrong and attempting to get away with it.

We do not wish to threaten anybody’s way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people – who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.
The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing „embarassing“ about Wikileaks revelations, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous’ or Wikileaks’ revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.

A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to „how we can avoid a similar leak in the future“. Such advice ranges from better security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won’t have to worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you won’t have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules and you won’t have to worry about getting in trouble for it.

Do not attempt to repair your two faces by concealing one of them. Instead, try having only one face – an honest, open and democratic one.

You know you do not fear us because we are a threat to society. You fear us because we are a threat to the established hierarchy. Anonymous has proven over the last several years that a hierarchy is not necessary in order to achieve great progress – perhaps what you truly fear in us, is the realization of your own irrelevance in an age which has outgrown its reliance on you. Your true terror is not in a collective of activists, but in the fact that you and everything you stand for have, by the changing tides and the advancement of technology, are now surplus to requirements.

Finally, do not make the mistake of challenging Anonymous. Do not make the mistake of believing you can behead a headless snake. If you slice off one head of Hydra, ten more heads will grow in its place. If you cut down one Anon, ten more will join us purely out of anger at your trampling of dissent.

Your only chance of defeating the movement which binds all of us is to accept it. This is no longer your world. It is our world – the people’s world.

We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

opec suddenly deciding to only sell oil for actual gold isn't a conspiracy... its a possibility

the NATO response and the reasons behind it is where the "conspiracy" lay...



and no offense, but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought

how people in the US think that they are somehow above International Law, and that emotion is a good motivation to act that way is beyond me... its moronic really, and that their government's main motivation being money or strategic positioning is somehow like "Alien Anal Probes" in terms of believability is even beyond that

if you aren't aware that the US (let alone most[if not all] Western nations) couldn't operate "AT ALL" based on its actual liquidity, but only on its ability to acquire credit... and how this system benefits them, yet hinders developing nations... I don't think any reason will reach you

somehow the corporations (military contractors) are money motivated... but their lobbies, or promise of "consulting jobs" after terms of service, etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind... nope, motivations based on money/power stop at the corporate level, and don't seep into world politics at all



and "secret motivation" is hilarious, because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right? because if you didn't... stories like this wouldn't be so rare that you'd actually refer to it as a "secret"



foreigners don't dislike American's because of their freedoms, they dislike them because with they waste them and accept the first and most convenient drivel fed to them... seriously

But these Critical Mass pricks certainly are a self-righteous bunch.
In large part, fair, I suppose.

This is not a protest; this is assholes coming together to inconvenience everyone else.
Not so. Protests are not designed to be convenient. They're designed to get attention. Some disrupt people's lives a lot. CM only does a little. Also, you could as easily describe all car drivers as "assholes coming together to inconvenience everyone else" every day during rush hour, but I'm guessing you're a car driver, so you empathise with them, but not with cyclists.

...bikes have to obey traffic laws, just like cars and buses. Critical Mass does not obey traffic laws; that's the whole point of the event...
Well, no. Breaking laws "at every opportunity" is not the point of CM. You acknowledge it's a protest, of sorts, so you shouldn't be surprised that we go through stop signs. Big deal. As for property damage, that's not part of CM. Not sure what you've been reading. Beyond traffic laws, we generally don't do anything wrong, and IMO, people who do should be arrested.

so they don't have to do the proper paperwork for an event
Some cities do file the paperwork every month. Don't know which ones. Not mine. I don't like that idea because it requires declaring an official leader and an official "parade route", both of which miss the point of not needing to ask permission to use our own roads, and the point of it being a protest, not a parade.

they should all be ticketed and the few who take it even further, smashing car windows and such, should be arrested too. There's no reason they should be above the law, no matter how much they believe they are.
Fair. Any cyclists who break laws beyond traffic laws are stepping outside the protest, and are fair to arrest. And we sometimes are arrested, but usually just for riding our bikes, you know, like peaceful protesters often get arrested. But mostly, the police respect us as harmless protesters and let us go on our way, sometimes even helping to block intersections for us.

Make CM a cyclists' parade... it'll do wonders for your PR.
So, the exact same protest, but with some city bureaucrat's stamp on a piece of paper, and suddenly now it's OK with you? I mean, is it OK, or isn't it? If it's OK, then why do you care if we have a permit? If it's not OK with you, again, what difference would it make if we had a permit?>> ^xxovercastxx:

<the neat-o stuff quoted above>

@Darkhand is completely insane. Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't think it's ok to run these people down with a car. I hope the driver is found and spends a shitload of time in prison.

But these Critical Mass pricks certainly are a self-righteous bunch. This is not a protest; this is assholes coming together to inconvenience everyone else. @messenger makes the argument that bikes "are traffic" just like cars and buses. This is true, which is why bikes have to obey traffic laws, just like cars and buses. Critical Mass does not obey traffic laws; that's the whole point of the event (they prefer "spontaneous celebration" so they don't have to do the proper paperwork for an event).

If I, in my car, were to behave like the CM cyclists; running red lights and stop signs, destroying others' property, violating laws at every opportunity; I would be arrested within 15 minutes and nobody would feel the least bit sorry for me, yet everyone loses their shit if one of these cyclists is ticketed or arrested.

They should all be ticketed and the few who take it even further, smashing car windows and such, should be arrested too. There's no reason they should be above the law, no matter how much they believe they are. If they want to shut down city streets, they should do the paperwork like anyone else. Make CM a cyclists' parade... it'll do wonders for your PR.

His intention was good but it's rather unprofessional to leave in midst of an interview. Just sayin'.

It's sorta like capturing a window spider and releasing it outside in midst of a job interview or saying hello to his friend while he's at the principal's office. Do remember that he just came out of a police station fighting extradition facing a rape charge in Sweden. (which is another debating case of immaturity of him and people he mingles with)

It just goes to show his attitude towards all this media attention, that he's not taking things very seriously, not much different from a love-starved kid getting attention by being naughty.

What he's doing with wikileaks has made headlines, fighting against the tyrannies of corporate controlled and concentration of power. That's good. But he's also a man that does not care much for conventional rules, and he'd rather play this role of vigilante and in fact loving every minute of it. He's just as immature and selfish as any one of those crooks he is ought to expose them.

He likes the fact that he can play outside the boundaries, that he is above the law. In fact that's what his work is about, by means of backhand deals and illegal information leaks. But he's doing these bad things to the bad guys, which is the major difference and why some people view him as a hero. So his existence is in itself a constant clash of irony, a people's hero out to fight against world's problems, by practicing the same techniques the baddies are using, and enjoying his role in it.

I answer the entire controversy with this awesome cartoon:

http://comics.com/matt_bors/2010-05-24/

This is what liberals, and perhaps the media wanted.

Mostly though, I'm in the camp that says "I can't think of anything he can do to help with the spill that he hasn't already done and not been given credit for".

I'm also at least partially in the camp that says he should be grandstanding and demagoguing this incident until there's a national consensus that we really do need to get serious about all the issues this touches on, including a) the environmental impacts of using oil, b) the need to have effective and strong government regulation of business, c) re-establishing the rule of law and the general sense that no one, not even the mega-rich, are above the law, and d) that getting off oil is a big job -- which is to say that doing so would employ a lot of people, and we happen to have more than a few people who desperately need jobs right now.

But strictly speaking, that's not "doing more about the spill", that's maximizing the political value of a crisis that validates essentially everything about the liberal outlook on, well, just about everything...