GeorgiaDon

I think you're missing the point. I appreciate that cops sometimes have to make split second decisions, and that means sometimes they will get it wrong. In the particular incident that started this thread, I don't think the cop pulled the guy over with any intention of shooting him. I also don't think a 20 year sentence is warranted by the circumstances. What punishment is appropriate I'll leave to the courts. However, I do think that if the cop's judgement is that poor, and he is so jumpy that he shoots people for complying with his orders, then it is just too much risk to the public to have that guy in that job. My point was that police training seems to be so poor that, once on the street, cops have little understanding of people behaving as people. I'm sure in their "normal" (off duty) lives cops would never expect to be able to beat on someone and not have that person even raise their hands to protect themselves, yet once they put on the uniform they expect people to stand (or lay) perfectly still while their face is being rearranged. They expect instantaneous compliance with orders barked out of the blue, such that by the time your brain has even processed the signal from your ears it's already too late. Do they really expect people to literally throw themselves face down on the ground instantly on command? I suspect there is a level of circularity in what is happening with policing today: cops treat the public as if we are all thugs, people don't respond well to being treated as if they were a thug, and cops use that hostility to justify treating everybody like a thug. I believe 90% or more of the incidents that culminate in police shootings could have been avoided if cops had not escalated tension from the very start. That doesn't even begin to address the piss-poor training on how to deal with mentally ill subjects. I do understand that not all cops display the attitude I'm complaining about. I think we rarely read about such cops because they handle matters competently and effectively, and that rarely makes for news stories. Unfortunately, one cop with an "I'm the sheep-dog and you're all just sheep" attitude does more damage than 20 good cops can repair. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

To make it more accurate, how about the instructor told someone to stand in a certain place, then flew into them and killed them? Do we need to drive with our license clenched in our teeth, so that should we get pulled over we won't have to reach into a pocket or onto the car seat to get our wallet? In the incident in question, the driver was told to get his license. When he turned and reached into the car to get his license, the officer screamed "get out of the car" and immediately (or at least within significantly less than 1 second) began shooting. It is not physically possible to hear the command, understand it (especially screamed in such a hysterical manner), check your forward momentum, and back out all in a fraction of a second. It seems to me that a common theme in several highly publicized police shootings recently is that the interval between an order being screamed and the trigger pulled is shorter than it is possible for anyone to comply. "getdownonthegroundBLAM". If I'm getting out of my car in my own garage, and struggling with a bum leg and a cane to boot, and out of the darkness an unidentified voice barks an order for me to get on the ground, you can be reasonably sure it will take more than 10 milliseconds for me to comply. Perhaps you recall the incident. Maybe police should practice this on themselves from time to time, just for fun. Sneak up on one another, out of the blue scream "get down on the ground", and if your fellow officer does not comply with 1/2 of a second taze him. To make it more interesting, do it in a shopping center when he is off duty, has a bag of groceries in his hands, and is standing over a big puddle. Then there is the issue of police bashing someones face into the pavement, or punching them over and over, or wailing away at them with an asp baton, and expecting people to lay motionless and just take it. Any attempt to ward off the blows is taken as non-compliance, and is an excuse for more beating. I suggest officers have a training exercise that involves remaining absolutely motionless while someone kneels on their chest and pounds their face. Good for the goose/good for the gander and all that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hey mirage, When you post, look just below the box where you type things in. There is a row of buttons: reply, quote, b, u, i, email, and url. Click the "url" button, paste your link, then click "url" again (it will have changed to /url). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It isn't hard to file a lawsuit. Unfortunately, that puts a burden on the construction company to defend themselves, or else the complainants may get a default judgement. While I don't generally advocate for new laws, I think perhaps there should be a law that bars people from suing for injuries they suffered while they were committing a crime. I recall reading a while ago about someone suing a property owner because they were electrocuted, while stealing copper wire! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure the situation would be quite different, were it not for the dashcam video. It's rather remarkable that the video wasn't erased, and a claim made that the dashcam was "inoperative". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Nancy Pelosi. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It is illegal for foreigners to bring guns or ammo into the US, even if they are entering on a valid visa. When I was a US Permanent Resident (Green Card holder) it was illegal for me to posses or attempt to purchase firearms or ammo. Does that mean that guns are illegal in America? Would that be a reasonable inference? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True. I also tell the cop what I am going to do, to avoid this kind of overreaction. Kind of like "I need to open the glove compartment to get my registration and insurance card", and wait for the cop to say "OK". Then, move slowly and deliberately, making sure the cop has a clear view of exactly what I am doing. Basic survival skills, unfortunately, in an "us vs them" environment. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, to be fair it's a lot of problems. There is a gang problem, a job problem, a drug problem, a wealth inequality problem, an access to mental health care problem, and no doubt others. The common thread is that access to guns to trivially easy. I suppose you are right, though, it'll be easier to solve all those other issues than it will be to convince people to allow universal background checks for all gun purchases. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I have mixed feelings. Obviously family and friends will mourn the death of these people. On the other hand, their comments (the comments section is pretty enlightening) are disturbing, in that they reflect the acceptance in some circles of society of crime as a way of life. Sure, these guys probably loved their mothers and were fun at parties, but that doesn't excuse their crime. Comments like "they had to eat too" as a justification for robbing and shooting an innocent clerk say volumes about the attitude that is rotting the core of some communities. Unfortunately, for too many people going to jail is just a rite of passage, and there is no shame, no social consequences attached to being a criminal. If you look at countries with very low crime rates, conviction and jail are associated with social ostracism, loss of all contact with friends and family, often forever. In Japan, after people have served their sentence and been released, it is common that even their own children will refuse to have anything to do with them, because of the dishonor and shame. That seems overly harsh, and there should always be room for forgiveness and rehabilitation. Still, it seems a better system than one that celebrates criminality, one where conviction and jail are just a part of growing up, as natural as growing hair on your pubic regions. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

"In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.[10] The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements.[11] The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs.[12] According to Peter Edelman, the director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, the waivers would reduce restrictions that increase the difficulty for states in helping TANF applicants find jobs.[13] ... Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was "gutting welfare reform". However, PolitiFact stated that Romney's claim was "not accurate" and "inflames old resentments", giving it a "Pants on Fire" rating.[14] CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was "taking the work requirement off the table" was false.[15] In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.[16]". Source[I have marked certain sections in bold] So, Republican governors complained that TANF rules were restricting them from implementing more effective ways of moving people from welfare to work. The Obama administration said, fine if you think you have a better idea, we'll give you a waiver so you can try it out. Then, Republicans attack Obama for "gutting welfare reform". And people blame Obama for not wanting to negotiate with Republicans? Seriously? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'll bet that really bugs him. I'm sure it'll tick him off. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I teach courses in medical entomology, parasitology, public health, and biotechnology to hundreds of students each semester. As far as I am aware, you have never attended a single one of my lectures or labs. I am curious about how, exactly, I am "ruining" my student's lives, and just how you would know this. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Still waiting to hear some concrete proposals about these "different ideas", from anyone on the conservative/libertarian sides of the bench. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As I'm sure you are well aware, the observation that protein levels decrease with increasing CO2 is founded on an extensively replicated data set generated from crops grown in the field under experimental conditions in which CO2 levels were manipulated. I suppose some might consider that to be a "prediction". Just as one might consider statements that "the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning", or "skydivers will fall towards the ground once they exit the plane" are predictions. Of course, they are very high confidence predictions based on a very large number of replicated observations, which is what experimental research does. Of course, one may change the behavior of the system by changing additional variables. A wingsuit flier may actually climb relative to the plane if he immediately opens his wings on exiting (though that would be a remarkably stupid thing to do). So yes, farmers may be able to compensate for the reduced transpiration and subsequent mineral and nitrogen uptake/protein synthesis by adding more fertilizer to the system, as I noted in my earlier post. Of course, that will add to the cost of food production, and will increase pollution problems due to fertilizer runoff into aquatic ecosystems. It may also not be economically viable in much of the developing world. I believe my point still stands: a blanket assumption that increased CO2 levels will naturally provide more benefit than harm is not warranted. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From one of the comments (Rachel) to the blog you linked: "Some plants grow faster under higher CO2 concentrations but at a cost: protein concentrations in the tissues of these plants decrease and so do minerals of nutritional importance including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. So while crop yields might increase, the quality of the crop decreases and so animals feeding on these crops will need to eat more of them to compensate for the loss of nutrients. As someone else has pointed out, C4 plants do not benefit at all with elevated CO2. These plants include important crops like maize, sugar cane, sorghum and millet. There are fewer C4 species but they occupy a large area on Earth. The enormous tropical grasslands of Africa and South America are C4 plants and these will not benefit much from elevated CO2. source" So, even a fairly modest increase in CO2 will result in crops that have less protein and minerals. People will have to consume more to achieve the same intake of protein and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus. Eating more means consuming more carbohydrates to get the same amount of protein as before. Of course, more land/fertilizer/water will have to be used to generate the same amount of protein as we currently produce. The argument that higher CO2 levels will be good for us is unfortunately not supported by actual facts. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Perhaps you meant, what else have we tried recently? In the past we tried debtor's prisons. Was that a good solution? Indentured servitude? Many of the "safety valves" that existed in the past are no longer available. People can no longer migrate out west and homestead land (after driving off the current inhabitants of course). Or maybe we can conscript the poor, then conjure up a nice war to cull them down to a manageable number. The fact is, many changes have aligned to exacerbate problems in our society, and the government is not responsible for all of them. The US population has more than doubled since 1950, so that's an additional 150 million people who have to fit into society in a productive, self-supporting way. At the same time life expectancy has increased dramatically, though at the cost of having more elderly people with associated medical issues. Speaking of medical issues, our medical technology now has the power to treat many conditions that used to be a sentence to disability or death, but this treatment comes at significant and rapidly escalating cost. At the same time as these changes have happened, we have also built an economy that is increasingly dependent on a work force that is maintained on the lowest possible compensation. At one time, "middle class" and blue collar jobs paid enough to buy a little house in the suburbs and support a family in at least a reasonable degree of comfort, but those days are ancient history. A sizable chunk of those jobs no longer even exist, ever since shareholders and CEOs came to believe that their patriotic duty was to maximize personal wealth by shipping all the manufacturing and textile jobs offshore to places where living wages, workplace safety, pollution controls etc don't impede their profit taking. Do I argue that government programs have been all moonbeams and rainbows? No, of course not. But I would say that some favorites of the conservative crowd, such as the so-called "war on drugs" and get-tough-on-crime boondoggles such as the plethora of three strikes laws and mandatory sentencing rules have been even more destructive to society than any social assistance program. Who could have thought it would be a good idea to create a large sub-culture of America where most of the kids grow up in fatherless households because the fathers are locked up for often trivial drug "offenses"? What useful suggestions do we hear from the conservative and libertarian wings? Both bleat like stuck pigs over the suggestion that an honest day's work deserves an honest day's pay. Raise minimum wage? But then my hamburger will cost more! One difference between the two is, conservatives would rather pay for prisons than schools, and libertarians don't want to pay for either, even though everybody knows that a lack of education is the single best predictor of a life of poverty and crime. No doubt, just handing someone a welfare check no strings attached is not the best way to encourage someone to become self-supporting. Not that the welfare system works that way, as Bill alluded to, but that's the straw man people enjoy attacking. So all you conservatives and libertarians out there, what solutions would you advocate for the mother with three small kids at home, Dad locked away for some victimless "crime" (maybe he smoked a joint, oh the horror!), no job in town that comes anywhere close to paying enough to cover rent, food, and child care while Mom is at work. What brilliant ideas do you have? Or are you content with the notion of "I got mine" and "it's not my problem"? I'm all ears. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Of course, a big unknown in all of this is the probability that increasing population density and mobility will culminate in a major pandemic. While that would not be the ideal way to cull the world's population, it might be effective. I wonder if these population projections take into account the influence of certain religions that forbid access to birth control. The Catholic Church is not particularly effective at enforcing it's edicts (for example, Quebec is >90% Catholic but has the lowest birthrate in Canada), but other religions are much more "motivational". There is a reason Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world, and it isn't all due to converts. Here in the Western World (AKA "liberal democracies") we tend to take it for granted that people will more or less make up their own minds about birth control and family size. But then, we don't stone or behead people for following their own conscience. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting. 1. Jesus was by any possible measure an extreme socialist. He wanted the rich to give all their wealth to the poor, he cured people of diseases and even brought them back from the dead without requiring payment, he fed people without requiring payment, and on and on. 2. You hate socialists and socialism (except of course when you are the beneficiary). 3. You claim to love Jesus. It's interesting (at least, to me) that you, and millions like you in the US, claim to love Jesus, yet you hate so many of the things He did and advocated. It would be a great Psychology PhD thesis for someone (or more likely many someones) to study how you guys can hold such dissonant beliefs at the same time. Don't you ever think about your values and beliefs? I'm sure it's no coincidence that you are able to easily tolerate similar cognitive dissonance in your political beliefs, so that an action that was perfectly fine when Regan did it is an unconstitutional attack on the American people if Obama does it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How much did Jesus charge people for their lunch when he and the disciples gave out loaves and fishes? Did Jesus kick the moneylenders out of the Temple because they weren't paying sufficient rent? How do you reconcile "stand your ground" with Jesus telling His disciples to put away their weapons when the soldiers came to arrest Him? There is almost no overlap between "patriotic American" and Christ's teachings. There is a lot of overlap between Christ's teachings and socialism. Doesn't that make your head explode? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I can't think of a reason why someone would need a lawyer, unless you had complicated your situation by being arrested during your time as a permanent resident. The naturalization form is simple, I think even simpler than the 1099EZ. As tk said, the process for permanent residence is much more complicated. My experience regarding the cost was more in line with tk as well, $400 is about what I paid. No doubt it has gone up since then. I am well acquainted with USIS lines, thank you very much. The fact that you refer to "INS", when the agency has not gone by that name in at least 15 years, indicates to me that you either have no personal experience with the system, or if you do your experience was much farther back in time than mine. Nothing you wrote refutes any of my points about why the green card was changed to expire periodically when previously it was good for life. Overall my Canadian passport will get me into more countries with less hassle than my US passport. Canadians are not targeted as political poker chips,as Americans are by some countries, so Canadians tend to be left in peace. When trouble does arise, the Canadian government is at least as successful as the American at intervening, and with less drama. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's a "carrot/stick" the government came up with some time ago to encourage people to move from permanent resident status to naturalized citizen. Once you are granted permanent residency, that is for life unless you are convicted of a felony, or voluntarily relinquish it. Previously, the physical "green card" that showed proof of permanent resident status was also good for life. Also, many permanent residents never applied for citizenship, although they were eligible after five years. After all, as a permanent resident you can live here, work, travel outside the country, etc; the only things you can't do is vote and serve on juries, and many people consider that a plus. One impediment that was noticed was that it cost a significant amount of money to apply for citizenship; why pay several hundred dollars for the privilege of serving on juries? The solution that the government came up with was to require permanent residents to renew their physical copy of the "green card", I believe every 10 years, and of course there is a fee for that in the same ball park as the fee to apply for citizenship. Now the choice is "do I pay several hundred dollars to renew my green card, and keep doing that every 10 years forever, or do I pay the same several hundred dollars to apply for citizenship and only have to do it once". Of course, put that way many people say "what the heck" and apply for citizenship. If you are still confused about the difference between the permanent resident card and permanent resident status, think of it this way: do you lose your citizenship just because your passport expired? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It might have been a good idea to pay it. In $1 bills, 100 million of them, each one treated with a generous helping of Ebola. By the time the first ISIS members begin to show symptoms, the money will have been spread around so much all of them will have been exposed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't think these are the same thing at all. The law recognizes the right of the governor (in most or maybe all states) to pardon or apply clemency. The governor has a lawful right to commute a death sentence. Of course, voters may exact a cost for that later. Juries have no such right, except perhaps in New Hampshire, though the bit I've read of that law doesn't make it clear that juries are free to nullify a murder charge if they decide the victim was "unworthy". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It is my understanding that your understanding is wrong. Juries can no more make up the law as they see fit than you or I can. Jury nullification is, of course, difficult to prove or prosecute. It also has a questionable history in this country, such as the long record (in the past) of white defendants being automatically acquitted of crimes committed against black victims. In some jurisdictions, juries can make recommendations about the punishment, and judges are allowed to consider extenuating circumstances. That is the appropriate time to take into consideration the circumstances under which the crime was committed IMO. That is because they don't legally have this power. In practice, exercising such a "power" would require everybody on the jury to agree to a criminal conspiracy. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)