Kennedy

I haven't read this one or seen the movie, but if it's anything like Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, then it should be filed under fiction rather than documentary. I read Blackwater, and the history at the beginning was pretty accurate and actually included a few things I didn't know. After he went from history to "modern day" ops of Iraq and his own political rants and demagoguery, it gets unreadable. I forced myself to finish it only because I promised I would. It was terrible. I'll give Scahill props for excellent investigative skills (credit for exposing the Somali-NSA run CIA funded prison in Mogadishu), but his journalism is almost always slanted beyond reason. Honestly, I don't seen winning the Alternet best book of the year award as an honor. The guy worked with Michael Moore on Moore's television show. He got his start with Democracy Now! The guy is a progressive true believer and crusader. I'll take a look at the book, but I don't have high hopes, and not being masochistic, I don't promise to finish it. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well like you said, "peace on earth and good will towards man" is overdone and nonspecific. In that case, I'd wish for hypocrisy to be punished and personal opinions to be allowed (AKA not a crime to offend people and allowed to tell people when you think they're wrong). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

For those with a bone-deep aversion to clicking on breitbart, the list: 1. The Framing of George Zimmerman 2. Oprah Winfrey and the $38,000 Purse 3. The Oberlin College Racism Hoax 4. The Anti-Lesbian Waitress Tip Hoax 5. The Black Student Receives Racist Text Hoax 6. The Racist Red Lobster Receipt Hoax 7. The Student Threatens Herself with Rape Hoax 8. The Racist Football Graffiti Hoax 9. The Vassar College Hate-Message Hoax 10. The Neverending Matthew Shepard Hoax Honestly I hadn't even heard of all of them. Maybe in passing, then brushed off as either more idiots being idiots, or more idiots pushing sensational idiocy. What surprises me is that the "knockout game" story didn't make the list. Too late in the year, I guess. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The judge that ruled the bulk meta data collection is legal based his decision on SCOTUS Smith v Maryland. The problem is that Smith doesn't apply in anything more than the most cursory fashion, and Smith isn't much of a decision on its own. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

While it's embarrassing that the US hasn't adopted stronger cards, there's more to this than just the mag stripe being weak. Remember the Global Payments breach last year? The entire system needs to be strengthened and updated, and kept up to date. I'm sick of hearing huge companies acting like ignorant home PC users and failing to install updates that prevent or at least impede or catch breaches like this. I'm most bothered by the fact that I found out about the breach from tech sources only after Krebs and security professionals outted the theft. Target has done most everything wrong in this case, from not getting ahead of it, to not being clear about who and what were affected and when, to making any reasonable effort to communicate with customers. (almost as bad as RSA's recent non-denying denial of NSA complicity). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Plenty of old testament verses denounce the witch (particularly exodus 22:18), but I can't think of one that suggests burning them to death. That's usually reserved for sexual misdeed and unclean objects and priests I remember one verse talking about how witches and assorted undesirables will burn in the lake of fire (hell, the second death etc, in Revelations I think), but none suggesting people do it. Then there's that whole new testament thing, you know: "Let he who is without sin..." and so forth. Plenty of bad examples in history of course, but this sounds like it come down from local tradition, not bad papal example from the inquisitions and such. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Every over the age of 16 may not have a car, but I'm pretty sure they all have a body. So your thought process is "if you gave something, the government can make you but more things, whether you want to or not." Is that it? Do you support any limits whatsoever on government's power to interfere in private life? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Bullshit. Everybody likes throwing out the seatbelt and car insurance example. That is nonsense. The are only required if I choose to buy a car. If I choose not to buy a car, I'm not required to buy them. With ACA and healthcare, there is no choice. I am required to buy something or face governmental penalty. What else am I required to buy that is not based on the if you do A, then and only then are you required to buy B, but only on the if you are breathing you must buy C? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

True or false: the government is now requiring that I spend my money to purchase a product that I may not want. (Note use of the word product, indicating something purchased from a company, not service, indicating things to government does with my tax dollars) I don't like the idea of the federal government having the authority to force me to purchase things. Why healthcare? More importantly, once they can force me to buy that, why stop there? What makes it different from anything else? What's to stop them from requiring me to buy another product. And another. And another... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Do they charge you a penalty tax if you don't buy a car? Terrible analogy, professor. If you want to use cars, then the ACA requires all Americans to purchase a vehicle, and is must have certain features. Failure to purchase a vehicle means you pay an annually increasing tax each year. It also requires immediately taking the car you love to the scrap yard for compaction if it doesn't have what the feds think all good cars should have. So are you OK with the government requiring citizens to purchase things or face taxes for failure to purchase? I seem to recall you being against a Kennesaw, GA ordinance (failure to abide by which did not even cause tax penalties). In your mind, what should the feds be allowed to tax you for choosing not to purchase what they want you to purchase? You're on record approving healthcare and disapproving firearms. How do you draw a reasonable line? Or is it your personal preference and the tyranny of "for your own good" / "the greater good". witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I'd say the difference there is accurately punishing bad conduct. They say really bad assaults are more serious than "simple" assaults, and deserve more in a sentence. I have no problem with different classes of crime having different penalties. In the case of chases, we have to take into account the threat posed. Not a great analogy, but consider: there is lying to the police, running from the police, fighting with the police when they try to arrest/search/whatever, and running from police in a car. Compare it to threatening someone, threatening someone with a weapon, punching someone, beating them requiring hospitalization, and beating them requiring bodybags and a morgue. I am suggesting that fleeing from police in a car is a great deal higher in seriousness than it's sentencing structure. Right now it is "running away in a car is bad" (on the level of other serious traffic violations). I say it should be "fleeing from the police, putting innocents, police, and suspect in grave danger is REALLY bad and should be sentenced accordingly" (with other violent felonies). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Actually, my idea is the complete opposite of three strikes. My idea puts a severe penalty on a crime that is likely to lead to death or great bodily harm to innocents and participants. It's intended to remove the motivation for criminals to run. Sure, some of them still will, but so what? We have laws against murder and criminals still do that. The point is to punish felons taking an action that will likely lead to death. It's not that different from felony murder rule or applying homicide charges to drunks involved in fatal motor vehicle wrecks. Three strikes, on the other hand, applies life sentences to people committing piddly little frauds. Tell me you see the difference. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Do you have a better suggestion than current law? Or are you just upset that the best compromise is not good enough for you? If so, would you apply it to driver's licenses? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That was my reaction as well. Justice HAS been served. In case they hadn't heard, armed robbery is a dangerous profession. As for their distress over "thug" comments, if it walks like a thug, dresses like a thug, and commits armed robbery like a thug, then it IS a thug. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

... if we only had a wheelbarrow, that would be something. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

All well and good until you get to the part where criminals, by their nature, don't give a shit about the laws. You can make all the laws you want, but they're still not gonna give a shit. It's no different than all the airspace restrictions and TSA bullshit in the wake of 9/11, they're still not gonna respect a line on a map or a rule in a book. Nonsense. The system in place just begs criminals to flee from the blue lights. Simple cost benefit analysis. Option 1: pull over, take a felony larceny charge. Option 2: flee and elude, you either get away scot free, or face basically the same penalty as pulling over. So why stop? Of course criminals are going to break the law, that's what they do. But don't think for a second that they don't consider the penalties, or lack thereof. Put real time behind a crime, and it alters their decision making. It may not stop them, but if they're willing to threaten the lives of everyone on the road, at least there'll be some consequences. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Why is that chase relevant to this discussion? No innocent bystanders or police were injured, and the suspects died by police gunfire, not traffic collision. Yes, the officers who broke policy to join the chase were wrong and apparently deserve discipline, but what does that have to do with banning pursuits? The article also fails to mention the reason for the initial stop and what led to officers shooting the suspects. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

A very large portion of law enforcement agencies have some sort of pursuit-limiting policy. Very few have an all out No Chase policy. Many that I know of limit it to violent felonies only, a few have "supervisor's call" policy, and some have an anything goes, "We Am Da LAW!" policy. The most common that I know of limits it to violent felonies: bank robberies, murders, kidnapping, shootings, etc, and specifically restricts traffic, DWI, larceny, and non-violent felonies) Realistically I understand why departments go that way: it's all about limiting liability. The problem is, as you so aptly put it, the bad guys know and so they just run. (if they really want to limit liability, just don't give your officers vehicles: no driving means no wrecks and no chases, and cuts complaints; or hey, just close down, then you have no liability ) My thoughts? I think the legislators need to pass a law that running from the police in a car (felony fleeing and eluding or whatever your jurisdiction calls it) is a mandatory 20 year prison sentence, no probation, no deals. Make it a highest class felony up there with aggravated rape and premeditated murder. Make it so the penalty for running is worse than whatever they're running for. If a chase is that dangerous (because of the suspect, not the cops, remember?), then make it carry such a penalty that you're only going to do it to escape a murder rap. Then give discretion back to LEOs and their supervisors to conduct a pursuit as needed. That douche bag that stole Turtle's buddy's car? See if he blows that red light and runs when he's staring down twenty years in the can. Don't neuter law enforcement, penalize the dangerous law breakers. Makes sense, no? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Small but important note: law enforcement does not need probable cause to stop and frisk. When discussing legal issues, using the correct terms is necessary. The phrase you're looking for is reasonable suspicion, a significantly lower standard than probable cause. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I'm familiar with the "render unto Caesar" story. But tell me, did the Romans require the Jews to perform actions against their religion? Did they create central authority capable of telling you what to do and not do on your land, what you could and could not eat, whom you could and could not interact with as you like? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oh, I do believe the federal government is necessary, and taxes are required to support it. (I'm not sure what you meant in your second sentence) I also believe they have exceeded their needed size and certainly their constitutionally justified size. Tell me, where do you think government stops? What are it's limits, in your mind? What choices are actually left to the individual? I've always liked the idea that the law should act as a shield, not a sword. It should protect, not be used to attack and control. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

There's an important distinction that Rangel and those like him miss: there is a significant difference between voluntarily giving part of your possessions to those less fortunate and FORCING others to give up their things at a rate that YOU decide. For those less familiar with biblical literature, Jesus supported the former, not the latter. Government is FORCE, raw and naked force, with a physical and financial penalty for failure to comply. That is why as much decision making should be left to the lowest level decider as possible (leaving most to the individual, then local, then state, then federal level). Going the other way, consolidating decision making at the highest level, leads to the most people being forced to do things they object to. ...and to be honest, I don't recall Jesus ever saying (according to scripture) that anyone was going to Hell for particular trespass. I think it was more along the lines of being closer to God, or making decisions that distanced a person from God. I heard a Catholic priest giving an interesting talk about Hell being further from God because a person chose to put things between himself and God, and Heaven was basically closeness with God - the point being that God doesn't send souls to Hell, but that souls can make choices that cause them to suffer. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Which is the lawyer version of: Keep pulling the trigger until you are very sure he won't be getting up. Actually it's the good advice version of: if you have to shoot, shoot until he doesn't get up. (very different from from shoot until he won't ever get up again) The lawyer version will cost you. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You realize a lot of people only supported Snowden because it looked like he only stole particular information and documents, that he didn't do a full Bradley Manning. While I'm not fan of any government breaking its own laws, you realize the purpose of the NSA is to intercept and decrypt information. Strong encryption works. Weak systems are easily broken. Putting your trust in others to secure your valuables leaves you open to being victimized (especially web letting you down doesn't hurt their reputation). PS- the Guardian did an abominable job breaking and covering this story. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

If you'd said "never been used in a homicide", I might have agreed with you. Knowing a little bit about obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, I'd have to strongly disagree. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*