livendive

Post, and another. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I like that some people keep them busy & keep costing them money. My protests are much more limited. When Skyride calls me to ask if I'll do business with them, I refuse. Their customers then have to drive 350+ miles to redeem their certificate, driving right past our place about 50 miles into their trip. When said students call me about their problem, I express sympathy for the fact that they've fallen victim to a scam. Perhaps if "Skydive Spokane" made it clear they have no facilities within 300 miles of Spokane, the victims would have a fighting chance. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The beetle commercial was visually spectacular, but still focused on the bad sort of bugs (eww), not the good (cars). The Doritos ads were kinda funny. The beaver commercial was a sole shining light...the only one I'll still remember 3 days from now. It seemed to me by the number of Fox network and NFL ads that maybe they priced too high and didn't sell out, then filled the gaps with their own fluff. We also had a LOT of local ads here (and terrible ads at that...I could do better with my helmet cam & laptop). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Why do I get the impression that if I were bashing Christians you would be cheering me on? mh . It's called projection. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Oh darn, and here I can't even invoke Godwin. Want to see hateful bigotry? Watch Al-Jazeera (the Arabic, not the English-language version). You have no freakin' idea what bigotry is. mh . Oddly enough, the temperature of the Arabian desert has little bearing on the temperature in the Mojave. Similarly, bigotry and hatred on the part of some muslims doesn't cancel, diminish, or otherwise affect those same characteristics in you. You hate muslims and would prefer they be eradicated, and (again, oddly enough) you think they are the crazy ones. We get it. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Agreed, insomuch as I think hate crimes are absurd. The reason someone kicks someone else's teeth in is irrelevent. They either did or didn't do it. It's presumed the attacker wasn't particularly fond of the victim, but the distinction between strong dislike and moderate hatred is silly in the extreme. That said, if I'm legally required to let one class of people search me, point weapons at me, restrain me against my will, and never fight back? Yeah, taking advantage of that authority should come with some extra risks/penalties. There has to be a trade-off. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Part of me is inclined to agree with this, but I partially disagree too. Despite my strong resentment of the process, I've gradually come around to believing police are necessary in our society, and that the position must include the trust of the public. My previously held opinion was that I should be able to legally defend myself from anyone threatening me [especially with a weapon], regardless of what costume/uniform they might be wearing. In the same way that impersonating a police officer is a crime because it undermines that trust so vital to the role, criminal acts committed under color of law must be vigorously prosecuted for the same reason (undermining that trust). Sadly, this is not the case, and where I think crimes ought to have bonus penalties if committed in violation of public trust, the reverse is far more common, and the criminals get slapped on the wrist, if that. So yeah, I suppose I think assault by someone making an arrest deserves more severe penalties than a random assault, because the former encourages the next guy being arrested to run/resist if he wants to avoid a beating. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Perfection is the cross I bear. You can't imagine how hard it is to stay humble. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I mostly agree with all of this. The prosecutor's spin will be along the lines of what an egregious wrong is being inflicted on the victim, the defense attorney's spin will be along the lines of how each blow was not that bad and clearly warranted anyhow due to the actions of the now-convicted criminal. I think both of those spins are necessary, but I think the average juror is mature enough to also handle watching the video without either attorney holding their hand...in fact of the three, I'd say that's the most important perspective. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Agreed with all of this. However what I think is funny is what's between the lines when those attorneys say this will make it difficult to get a fair trial. What they're really saying is, "Jurors are too stupid to understand something as complex as raw video. Without us reminding them to ignore their eyeballs and forego common sense, they will become hopelessly confused." Blues, Dave No. What the attorneys are saying is that by showing the video like that ("Like that" = "without attorney spinning it") it contaminates the jury pool by prospective jurors havin already viewed the evidence and formed an opinion prior to presentation in court i.e. in the absence of attorneys. There are things about it that may be inadmissible or admitted for a limited purpose. We attorneys deal with this sort of stuff all the time. A fair trial implies an impartial jury. It'll be difficult to find one with this video out there - most will have seen it and already formed an impression. The attorneys don't have a problem with jurors forming an impression, they just want to have a hand in that formation...that's their issue with this. Just like on here. "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm torn on this. I agree it's wholly irrelevent to his guilt or innocence, however I could see reducing a sentence somewhat from whatever the standard is to account for the punishment already received, similar to a credit for time served. Blues, Dave I don't - these are totally different crimes and shouldn't relate at all. The attack victim has a civil action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. The fact that the attack victim and the burglar are the same guy is inconsequential in terms of sentencing the burglary. Justice for the beating is putting the attackers in jail for their separate crime(s). It has nothing to do with the victim other than seeing that the attackers are punished appropriately. I do see your point, and played around with the same notion in my head before responding, which is why I used loosey goosey terms like "torn" and "could" and "reduce". Basically I can see that crime A deserves punishment B, regardless of crime C. However if it's clear after the fact that the person who committed crime A is being subjected to penalties B *and* D as a result, I could imagine a wise judge subtracting some amount from B to account for D. Basically, the kid committed a crime that warrants a punishment. The cops dished out some punishment of their own. While I'd be ok with a judge just saying "the penalty for burglary is ...", I could also see the prudence portion of jurisprudence attempting to mitigate the second wrong. Justice may be blind, but it doesn't need to be deaf & dumb too. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Agreed with all of this. However what I think is funny is what's between the lines when those attorneys say this will make it difficult to get a fair trial. What they're really saying is, "Jurors are too stupid to understand something as complex as raw video. Without us reminding them to ignore their eyeballs and forego common sense, they will become hopelessly confused." Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm torn on this. I agree it's wholly irrelevent to his guilt or innocence, however I could see reducing a sentence somewhat from whatever the standard is to account for the punishment already received, similar to a credit for time served. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

In b4 the usual suspects state that he was clearly trying to flee, or could have been reaching for the sawed off between his shoulder blades, or that's what he gets for burglary, or police work is stressful and they can't be too careful. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

How were last night's services at Westboro Baptist, Mark? It looks like you topped off your hateful bigotry tank good and proper, praise Jesus. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I would think that 5 in a row and unanimous would be statistically significant. Maybe? Would the significance say something about the 9th? Or is the judge they kept overturning just a moron? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I stand with my country, and the guy who's trying to keep it's government honest. Pro tip: You, me, and the rest of the folks in here are the country. Our government is a tool we use to keep things orderly. Sometimes the vacuum cleaner in your house needs a bit of preventative maintenance, or a few parts replaced...that doesn't mean you hate your house. Blues, Dave USN, 86-92 "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I learned as a child, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I think it's good that Wikileaks is making a lot of people stand up and admit to their comments and actions in the light of day. And if the next time they pause to consider how it will play out in public, so much the better. Civility, self-control, accountability...these are all good possible outcomes of making things a bit more visible. Do I think a Nobel prize is warranted? I'd have to see the competition, but probably not. Like someone else said, a Pulitzer or something similar would probably be more appropriate. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Who said it wouldn't? In such a scenario, stating beforehand that you believe a company categorically is or is not responsible for the actions of its employees indicates an unacceptable bias. There would be no reason to conduct a trial in front of such a jury, as the evidence wouldn't affect the verdict. "A company may (not) be responsible for the actions of its employees" = acceptable. "A company is (not) responsible for the actions of its employees" = unacceptable. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Sounds pretty knee-jerk. You either make an illegal threat against someone or you don't. "Could be perceived..." is bs. And I don't care what the victim's job is. We're not a monarchy, despite allusions by the Kennedy's, Bush's, et al. Obama, Brady, Boehner, and Giffords all deserve the same protections against threats that the rest of us deserve, no more, no less. They may have a security team that takes those threats more seriously, as harm to them is more disruptive to society than harm to us common folk, but the legality of threatening someone should not hinge on what that person's job is. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Do you guys realize that all the "but the the other guys..." stuff sounds like the tattle-taling of a 5 year old? The hypocrisy is on both sides in approximately equal doses. The right gets a slight edge in volume due to the greater popularity of right wing commentators than left wing, but Olbermann almost counts as two. Whether you typically vote D or R, regardless of the flavor of your "news", and regardless of whether you prefer Beck, Limbaugh, or Olbermann, espousing hatred and intolerance will get you the same. I think there can be a proper time and place for a violent overthrow of a government. However I don't think we're even remotely close to that situation and we have many civil/legal options remaining to effect whatever change it is we want to see. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'll agree with you, that the odds against an Abrahamic god are nearly total, and go one further that I consider all religions organized by humans as being prohibitively unlikely. Beyond that though, I think we'd first have to agree on a definition of "god", and that is more difficult than it may appear. In the end, my version of agnosticism revolves around a fundamental concept of laziness with regard to subjects that are unknowable. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It seems really simple to me, agnostics just don't have as much faith in their beliefs as atheists. I'd argue with that assertion. I'm quite confident that I can't know whether there is a "god", and I'm equally convinced that neither you nor Meso can either. You most certainly believe in such an entity, and he almost certainly does not, and both of you are just as convinced of your rightness as I am of your ignorance (the literal definition, not a slam). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Try listening to Gifford talk about what Palin was doing to her. Kind of makes one sick to their stomach. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4&feature=player_embedded#! You are correct Gifford and the MSNBC reporters do make my stomach turn Did you even watch the video? She acknowledged nutbags on the left AND the right, stated that it was the responsibility of leaders on both sides to tone down the rhetoric and encourage civil, democratic change rather than violence, and the tag line across the bottom said "Tea partiers claim Giffords is toast." Which part of that turned your stomach? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

He caved to Republican pressure to further increase the budget deficit. You know, the party of "fiscal responsibility" who think the bills will pay themselves. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)