Skype videos should store data streams locally and have the data re-synced when reposting

Skype videos should store data streams locally and have the data re-synced when reposting.

Just because a live interview or speech has choppy/crappy audio and video does not mean the reposting should.

I trust this is obvious (clearly it should be for one-way speeches but the idea applies just as well to two-way communications.. just merge the two sources) and will become the norm going forward.

Thank you.

A Complete Civics Course In One Page

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/edward-snowden-nsa-ruling_n_4455290.html

and for posterity, this includes the following post:

Former government contractor Edward Snowden praised a federal judge's ruling against the National Security Agency's phone surveillance programs on Monday, applauding the judge for bringing the issue "to the light of day."

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled Monday that the agency's phone surveillance program was likely in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

In a statement distributed by journalist Glenn Greenwald and published in the New York Times, Snowden predicted Leon's ruling would be "the first of many" against the controversial surveillance practices.

..... (the rest of the post is probably still available)

but this is the special sauce... in the contextual links down below the post....

U.S. will not seek death penalty for Snowden, attorney general says ...

LMFAO

THERE, KIDS, IS YOUR EDUCATION. THE REST IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE, BUT THIS IS THE WORLD THAT YOU INHABIT. WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE ARE FACTS. THE REST IS UP FOR INTERPRETATION.

On "Drones" and Immigration

Perhaps the advancement of drone technology will end the debate regarding illegal immigration.

I would be in favor of that.

To be clear, this would mean the end of the tacit acceptance of illegal immigration. At a certain point, it may mean the end of immigration as an accepted part of American life (to a great degree, at least as the default position).

To begin the discussion, what would be the absolute worst degree of overcrowding that would/should (which may or may not be very different answers) be accepted? Carrying capacity is a legitimate thing, no? If not CC, quality of life has its own population related boundaries, no?

Starting from the other extreme, one could simply argue that if it's not needed for purposes of labor or "diversity", it's not needed, and if it's not needed, it's not wanted, and that, by itself, could be sufficient.

Unintended Consequences

A wonderful thing about a free economy is the unintended, unforeseeable consequences.

Amazon's leadership in the drone delivery service will give them an incredible competitive edge...... in the near term.

In the longer term, the technological advances they will help to bring about could unravel the overall competitive edge of their entire business model.

Both aspects of that would be wonderful.

Term Limits (Paradoxically)

Term limits are (perhaps paradoxically) among the most important cornerstones of a free society.

The mentality that craves for the opportunity to retain a single human being in a position of immense power in perpetuity, specifically in *the* position of *most* power, is an ugly, sad, pathetic mindset indeed - assuming it manifests itself, as it inevitably does, in a moment where one's preferred choice is the expected recipient.

As an ideal, it is a fundamentally unamerican one.

I'd explain why, but I tend to take more of a musician's approach in such situations. As long as you like my song, you can interpret it any way you like.

h/t to Salon for the tip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

Football is simply unwatchable now.

I can't deal with all the interruptions. I just can't. Delayed start in order to fit in commercials (to be fair, all sports do this now). Commercial after a kickoff, before the first play is run. Commercial on change of possession. Commercial on instant replay review. Commercial for timeout. Commercial in between quarters. Automatic review on turnovers. Commercial for timeout. Automatic review on all scoring plays. "External review" for the last 2 minutes. Commercial after a score. Commercial after the kickoff after a score, even if it's a touchback. Commercial for timeout. Commercial for injury. Commercial, commercial, commercial, commercial, commercial, commercial, commercial.

I refuse to sit through it all so I end up flicking back and forth between the game and something else. It's comical once you start to see exactly how much time is actually involved in playing the game. It can't be more than 10% of the entire broadcast.

Afaiac, that constitutes "unwatchable". I shudder to think what the experience will be like in person in a few weeks when, instead of the relatively enjoyable experience of watching television commercials (or flicking to another program), you get to stand still, in the freezing cold, perhaps drinking an $8 beer, watching a field full of people standing around doing nothing, but doing nothing in front of massive heating devices.

I wish I had said "no, thanks."

Update: the downtime is much more tolerable in person. perhaps it's simply being surrounded by so many people who are in such a good mood, or perhaps it's the in-between goings on that keep it interesting, or perhaps it's simply more tolerable to be able to watch the players going about their business during the delays. i don't know for sure, but the experience sure was fun, even with the 20 degree temperatures and 10 degree wind chill.

So Tyson was "on drugs" during some fights...

Which leads us to the following question:

Why the hell does anyone care if a fighter smokes marijuana before, during, or after a fight?

Same goes for something like heroin, or acid.

Why would anyone care, other than bettors who bet on that specific fighter?

Cocaine, or other stimulants are a different story. Steroids, of course. But marijuana?

What a ridiculous waste of time and money.

Russia proved me very wrong.

I was adamant that the members of Pussy Riot would never serve out their entire terms, and that they would all likely be released within 6 months.

I was adamant that western media was playing up the angle of the hard-line Russian government cracking down on free expression in the country, and that Russia would prove that "they are just like us" by showing leniency after making a public display, essentially to "prove a point and send a message".

Nope.

Looks like at least one of those girls is still in prison to this day. Shame on you, Russians. I'm disappointed in you.

Condolences

Andy, I'm sorry to hear about your dad. He lived a very full, productive life and raised 3 great kids. I know he was very proud of you. I wish you, your mother, your sister and your brother peace. I know I eventually proved unworthy of your friendship, but I'm grateful for those early years. I can honestly say I never had a better friend and I know I never will.

All the best.

The word 'literally'

now, literally, means 'not literally', as well, of course, as 'literally'.

I'm just not sure where you go from there.

The new Pope

has me legitimately considering 'coming home'.

I find it completely bizarre

that anyone would take "pride" in their ability to lift a certain amount of weight via their use of steroids.

it's a weird point of apparent divergence of the meaning of the terms "I" and "can" from their normally agreed upon definitions.

As for Kerry's VP possibilities

well, in a "normal" world, his bumbling buffoonery in dealing with the Syria situation *should* disqualify him from consideration. But this is politics, and "normal" don't have nothin to do wit it.

Obama likes Biden for VP for the same reason Bill Clinton liked Gore and Reagan liked Bush. Their VP's ineptitude is not a threat to their power, and makes the presidents look better and more competent in comparison. For this reason, Kerry's odds of being Hillary's VP pick may still not be zero.

If he is not to be considered, I imagine that Hillary will choose someone of Latino origin, or, at the very least, a "White Hispanic". Two women would be too risky, and two pasty whites may be too off-putting to the liberal base. Hillary's niche will be as a white woman with male Latino VP. But who would fit this description and would qualify for consideration? I do not have any specific examples off the top of my head.

John McCain has no conscience and no empathy

there's a term for that sort of personality disorder.

The funniest commercial I've ever heard

Amac.

God, country, family, and America. Let's stand together. Better for you. Better for America.

I initially assumed it was a parody. It appears not.

Too funny.

"We're going to target senile elderly folks and we're LITERALLY just going to mash together a bunch of patriotic words with no actual meaning behind anything we say."

You have to respect it on a certain level.

Infuriating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-ASbU7Qxug

and 100% worthy of criminal charges, as well as charges of civil rights violations if it is as it appears.

On Today's Episode

of the Washington D.C. dog and shony po,

SYRIA...... will they? won't they? should they? will the American people stand for it? will the world community?

stay tuned....


LOLz

Glenn Beck arguing for a "global test"

as John Kerry argues for unilateral intervention.

Life so funny.

There is a tendency

to crave and desire for others to present palatable realities to you in the most appealing, and convincing manner possible.

On Anonymous Comments

The reason why they are important just crystallized.

What do they tell you to never discuss with polite company?

Religion and politics?

Why?

Should be self-explanatory, but is outside current scope.

Anonymous comments allow us to engage in these "discussions"/"debates"/"conversations" that we THINK we want to have, but the desire to have the "d"/"d"/"c"'s is usually rooted in a delusion regarding their potential usefulness and outcome.

We know the thoughts we've had, and we think that if others hear them, they will certainly be convinced of them. When that does not happen, it may be as a result of a "legitimate opposing viewpoint" or an "illegitimate opposing viewpoint" at which point the presumption becomes recursive, but no less delusional.

Yes, there may be certain cases where we will convince others, but in most cases we will not. We simply want to hold onto that delusion because, like everyone else ever, we want to be the worshipped leader bringing salvation to a thankful people, helping them escape the ignorance they had suffered under due to the lies and myths they had been told.

So when that doesn't happen, we have to reconcile it, and, even in the case of "legitimate opposing viewpoint", dissonance is the natural verbal fight response.

As long as we are anonymous online, we can leave that blob of thought and conflict and frustration and embarrassment and ignorance and delusion behind when we venture out into the real world. And we'll never know when we're coming face to face with those we may have done battle with, allowing us to maintain cordiality which otherwise may not be possible.

Non-anonymous situations prevent this, and they are destined to fail, because they are implemented by people operating with the same sort of delusion that described above by individuals engaging directly in the "battle". But now they are saddling the participants with a paper trail of these interactions which they never
(and this word has rarely been used as legitimately as in this particular case), EVER can erase.

Is that a good thing? Of course not. If someone chooses to engage in this process under their real name of their own free will, God bless 'em. I think they'll regret that and I believe that partly because I believe the entire process is ridiculous and delusional. But even if they don't come to the same conclusions about the overall process, I expect most to regret that they are no longer able to get past the mistakes of their past in any sense, because those mistakes remain available to be investigated and uncovered by anyone who is motivated enough to look.

This is not to minimize the reality of the problem of trolling. It is real, and it is annoying, but it is not solved by "real name" commenting, and "real name" commenting has the far more legitimate danger of overflowing into offline life. You know, the one that actually matters. Obviously people run the risk of others tracking them down in order to do them harm.

But this brings us to the border cases.. In some cases, "trolls" are simply defined as "those who hold a different opinion from the one a specific organization is attempting to put forth". This, of course, is an entirely useful form of troll, as long as it involves genuine opposition focused on the topic at hand. People dislike these trolls because they infringe upon the comforting delusions of unanimity and omniscience. These "trolls" are actually the only thing that make comments sections useful. But there is also another borderline case.

We all liked to poke our brother or sister when we were young. We still like to do that, and we like to do it with others as well. Sometimes we feel a need to annoy someone else because they have annoyed us. Maybe we disagree with the way they dealt with someone else. Maybe we disagree with their overall outlook on life. So we needle them and we poke them a little to stir them up. We find it funny. Those who are least tolerant of such needling are probably least tolerant of the previous kind of troll as well, the eminently useful kind, and their motivation is usually the same. They don't like anyone saying anything that challenges their worldview and their ego. They want to control others.

The final kind of troll has absolutely no value and shouldn't be tolerated. These are online stalkers who carry on a habitual pattern of verbally abusing individuals who are internalizing the abuse. These people actually want to hurt others. When there is a threat of violence involved, that is not trolling. That is a threat of violence and is a completely different animal. But the troll who constantly attacks others, specifically those who can't defend themselves and are being emotionally hurt by the interaction, is a problem. On the one hand I think it's up to every single person who chooses to engage in this silly game of online banter to become immune to this variety of trolling, and as long as everyone stays anonymous, I believe this expectation is justified. But once a real identity is involved and others are intentionally engaging in hurtful activity, even without direct threats of violence, a line is crossed and the situation requires remedy.

So there is a line and it deserves recognition, but it is fairly easy to identify and the focus should be kept on incidents that clearly cross that line. Other than that, "trolling" is part of interaction. When we are online we feel a greater freedom to test ideas in a variety of ways, including  possibly pushing them beyond where we currently believe they legitimately could go. By testing those boundaries and processing the responses, one can learn more about a topic, opinion, philosophy, etc. than they otherwise could if they simply wanted to remain within the framework of "accepted wisdom" and in the silly games of politics and debate, these opportunities to push boundaries are really the only useful part of the entire endeavor.

I think I'll just post this without proof reading because it's so fucking long and I don't feel like it and I think it will be an interesting test, as I will probably have the most vile things to say to the author upon reading it again and finding the various grammatical and logical mistakes that certainly exist therein. And then I can practice the art of conveying the information in the least offensive, most productive manner possible because that should probably always be the goal, but I certainly don't want anyone else determining for me where that line should be drawn.

Or knocking on my door when they think I've crossed it.

ASSUMING that

comedies are worth 4 stars, and I think they can be, "The World's End" gets 4 stars.

Fellas, well effing done.

OH MY GOD IF OBAMA HAD A SON...

wwwwwwwwwwwwoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


http://libertyunyielding.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Luna.jpg

there is an even better picture that was just on CNN showing one of the turds with a fur hat on and at first glance i LITERALLY thought "DAMN, that looks JUST like Obama."

Banning Anonymous Comments

is a fundamental misreading of the dynamic in more than one way.

I don't doubt that Bush...

"allowed 9/11 to happen". I just doubt that he knew exactly what kind of attack would be involved (the briefing aside).

All the available information indicates that he would have relished the opportunity to "react" to a terrorist attack given the additional power and stature he would be granted. He was, after all, a narcissistic dry drunk from the circles of power, harboring delusions of grandeur, with a plan to invade Iraq regardless. I just assume that he assumed it would be a small-scale attack with minimal casualties. The size of the attack was probably just gravy for that homicidal maniac and his surrounding cast of homicidal Zionist bureaucrat chickenhawk nerds.

"Now nobody's gonna say nothin to us.. if they do we'll fuckin destroy 'em," he most likely said.

Side note, anyone who argued in defense of his finishing the "My Pet Goat" photo op should never be listened to on any issue ever again. Defending his behavior that day is cognitive dissonance in the purest sense - similar to Obama voters who protested Bush spying as authoritarian and dictatorial but defend Obama spying and drone striking as perfectly justifiable. Is same. Is human brain making sense of the world in the most convenient ways possible. "This interpretation fits nicely." File->Save.

Transcriptions from video

are not to be relied upon.

In the vast majority of cases where a video (with audio) has a transcription of the audio laid over the video, the transcription has mistakes. I would say the percentage approaches 80%, and this is only from the brief, several minute excerpts that are showed on news clips.

In almost every instance, the mistake is essentially one of confirmation bias, where the transcriptor interprets a statement in a way that would be consistent with his/her organization's overall interpretation of events, and with the overall narrative being presented.

I shudder to think of what this means for court transcripts, but I haven't seen an egregious example of a court transcript mistake yet, so perhaps they are more reliable than most, which, of course, they should be.

Irony

Black people prejudge police officers as a group because of the isolated experiences they've had with individual officers.

Charles Blow agrees!

"The ends do not justify the means"

well said, Charles....or paraphrased at least. LOL.

now SWALLOW WHAT THAT MEANS like a big boy, or run and hide from that unpalatable truth. your choice.

Schizophrenia seems to essentially be

dissonance without bound.

I could imagine

intellectual influences being viewed as and treated like drugs in the future. Civilization isn't quite ready for all the various "truths" available to it now. Of course it will always find a way to survive, regardless, but one potential adaptation may be the willing avoidance of certain influences, even if those influences are simply digital words on a screen.

Would "teaching" this approach result in the same sort of unintended consequences as it does with drugs (ie. the forbidden fruit attraction)? Aye caramba. What a minefield.

Changing stripes

Partisan media outlets change stripes in the 2nd term.

Fact.

Of course the definition of "changing stripes" is the question here.

How does President Obama feel about

his kids speaking ebonics? (btw, how ironic would it be if someone argued that the term must be capitalized? LMMFAO)

He cool wit dat?

If not, why not?

Now, those of you who disagree with the inevitable reason he would give as a response, who still hold onto this counterproductive, destructive pride in NOT speaking correctly, STFU and listen to what your president is saying (he ain't mine for rizzle). It's one of the very few things he is right about.

Congressional demarcations of the term "journalist" would mean

war.

Negativity alert

I don't respect anyone who watches or cares about the Kardashians.

Isn't it funny?

that we sometimes say, "Stop yelling at me. I'm not a child."

As if...

When was the last time

you hesitated to believe a rumor that you found attractive for one reason or another?

So, morally speaking...

if war can be justified, snark certainly seems justifiable.

Necessary? Well, no, not necessarily, but does everything have to be necessary? I wouldn't think so.

Why do toasters suck now?

I find this development inexplicable, but for whatever reason, toasters do, in fact, suck now.

I agree with Jesse Jackson.

Black Americans oughtta should boycott Florida, and every other stand your ground state.

Some people might be willing to subsidize their boycott.

OMG, Geragos, what are you doing?

vomit-inducing pandering to a majority black audience.

why do i put myself through this?

The Real Test

of De La Rionda's decency as a human being will be the length of time he can wait before coming out with a statement or perhaps a book explaining how disappointed and embarrassed he was by the performance of his star witness, and how opposed he was to even including her in the trial.

Could go either way. Depending on his overall financial situation, he could crack in a few months, or he could take it to his death bed, but one way or another, he's gonna tell that story. I'm certain of that.

Corey, on the other hand, will defend the decision to her grave.

A Debatable Point

Is prosecutorial pandering a justified aspect of governance?

I would reject the idea out of hand, but to play devil's advocate, if it saves lives by pretending to be readying a federal case against a defendant because it placates the throngs of angry dimwits long enough for them to forget what they had been angry about, is that justified?

Well, no, but I am of the opinion that that is part of the calculation for those making the top-level decisions. Thanks for yet again bringing the country to the brink of racial strife, Barack. And thanks for being a complete authoritarian tool, Eric. You both had the chance to truly lead by telling people what they needed to hear instead of what they wanted to hear, but you chose otherwise.

The Piers Morgan / Rachel Jeantal Interview

is what you call "a wrap".

The black community will not be satisfied

until individual citizens are held individually responsible for the collective actions of their ancestors.

It wouldn't take long to get them to admit that they want to sacrifice "non-whites" or "white Hispanics" or "those who are not sufficiently black" at the altar of racial reparations, and the details of any specific case do not matter. They want placating convictions, because those will make them feel better about themselves. LITERALLY. This is the request. 

"someone can always explain away why this person got off, why this person was not found guilty and what we have is a bunch of dead black men."

Well, we also have a bunch of dead black men at the hands of other black men. Mostly that is the case, in fact, but you are focusing strictly on one segment of this situation because it confirms your preferred identity - racial justice crusader. You see yourself in a certain light, and the facts are fixed around that conclusion. Guess what? We also have a bunch of dead white people at the hands of blacks. Does that concern you at all? I didn't think so. Convenient, to say the least. Now let's look at the (quite rare) incidents of DISPUTE. I assume you accept that in many instances, even black men are arrested for legitimate reason. Right? Ok, what percentage does that involve? You don't care? Well there we have it, and that's why no one cares what you say any more. You have cried wolf too many times. 

There are two possible reactions to this. First, you (not the same you as above. you, the salvageable one who has to deal with them, the you above) can shake your head and say, "they know not what they do. They are simply incapable of functioning at the intellectual level necessary to understand the situation without being consumed by their emotions and the social pressures involved." That would probably be the correct response.

Second, you could possibly consider acquiescing to their demands. You could decide that the wrongs of the past can only be righted by further wrongs today, against the descendants of the original wrongdoers. But only the white descendants, mind you. The descendants of blacks who held and sold slaves are not culpable at all, because we are talking collectivism in its purest form. Even if you are the black descendant of black slave owners, you are entitled to reparations from white America, because you are black, and that's that.

This here what you call a "irreconcilable diffince", and I believe the best response is a combination of the first, with perhaps a few sticks poked into the eye of those who need to be pushed back off my lawn. Back, dumbass. Back. Get off. You're not getting any of my stuff. Now go, or I will call the authorities and you can conclude that you are being arrested because the authorities are racist. I don't care either way. Now beat it. Maybe come back when you can control yourself and you are willing to learn a lesson or two, but not before.

We have reached a very important racial crossroads in America. We have squeezed out every last drop of give a shit by those who might be inclined towards white guilt, but who have their own lives, difficulties, struggles, and opposition to deal with. Those who have nothing better to do will always support another fight, but productive society has a cutoff point, and we have reached it. The conclusion is that "nothing will ever be good enough", and that conclusion is correct. If you want money to return to your homeland, you will enthusiastically get that. I promise you. But nothing else. Anything else constitutes extortion, and people won't be extorted any longer. Get your shit together, or get out of the way. Those are your options. Best of luck.

STUNNED by MHP

"It is possible that this jury, these six individuals, made the right decision..."

Not an exact quote, but close enough. STUNNED she would have the guts. She didn't get to finish it, as "Crump" started his presser, but good on her for having the guts. I don't remember her saying much before the verdict. Regardless, credit for the statement.

Credit to Crump for the "Peace" statement. It was quality.

Tangentially, the more I hear the "help help" audio, the more sure I am that it was George. Higher register.

UPDATE:
MHP says "this tells black families that it is ok to kill a black child who has committed no crime".

Assault and battery is a crime. Assault with a deadly weapon is a felony.

Short-lived moment of courage for the MHP. At least we had that I guess.

"Generally there's always some truth to a stereotype..."

Fascinating statement by a white woman in the overall context of the discussion.

The statement was specifically made in regards to female jurors tending, to some degree, to at least talk about emotional impact (at least in focus group research settings) moreso than their male counterparts.

The other window showed a black woman nodding her head in agreement most of the time and then finishing by saying "interesting" somewhat under her breath. Since this white woman is mostly on her side on this specific case, I wonder how easy it will be for her to ignore such a statement or at least explain it away in her mind and to others, since to do otherwise would be to force herself to draw a distinction with a person who is currently an "ally". That is something we do not like to do.

Ironic

Had Trayvon realized that George was Hispanic he probably wouldn't have been as scared of him or held animosity towards him, and therefore would not have attacked him (which would make his assault on George racially motivated) and wouldn't have been shot.

BTW, in all of the Trayvon pictures, in all the accounts of his daily activities, is there any indication that he was around white people on any sort of regular basis? There are literally no white people in any of the pictures I have seen (compared to stories regarding George's involvement with blacks). I'd like to see his parents interviewed regarding any statements they've made or beliefs they hold regarding "white people" and any lessons they had taught their son in that regard. That likely won't happen, and the desire to not cause further emotional distress would prevent any real inquiry from taking place, but I'm interested in the answers.

Finally, would Jeantal have made the "crack" about the person "following Trayvon" being a possible pedophile if Trayvon had not described him as a "cracker"? Probably not, which indicates a racist "assumption" (meh. less serious word needed) by her immediately upon hearing the race of an individual.

Sounds like maybe Trayvon surrounded himself with anti-white racism and it got him killed, ironically by a Hispanic. Yet the responsibility still somehow lies with white American racism. Ironic, and in certain ways freaking hilarious.

Racial Cognitive Dissonance

is some of the best.

The current argument is that, hey, "maybe" Trayvon felt threatened because George had the gun pulled early on!! huh? huh? .....

....

So he saw that George Zimmerman was wielding a gun.... and he attacked him?

What unarmed person outside of your favorite action film goes towards a person they see wielding a gun?

Especially when they have

four

minutes

to run.

So when do you think George pulled the gun? And what do you think Trayvon's reaction was?

So far, there is only the most random collection of desperate and disparate delusions allowing those attempting to justify their initial (and, therefore, continuing) blind support for Trayvon Martin and for a murder conviction for George Zimmerman to continue to hold their position.

That's the funniest part of the prosecution's case. Embedded directly in the central part of the argument is a prosecution admittance that they themselves have all kinds of "reasonable doubt" regarding exactly what happened in those crucial moments. They don't know. "We the prosecution have serious doubts about what happened in those crucial moments, but you the jury should have no reasonable doubt regarding same."

Funniest thing ever.

Thoroughly Entertaining

to watch media talking heads tailor their comments to the network they happen to be on at the moment.

It's like watching politicians tailor their accent to the crowd.

When trying a 17 year old for a crime

do prosecutors refer to him as "young boy"?

LOL

"That's nothing?"

um, what you described would be something.

what you described is not what happened.

what happened is.... legally speaking, "nothing". meaning, not a crime, because we have the right to self-defense as human beings.

Responsibility vs. Rights

Not having the responsibility to do some thing does not imply that you have no right to do it.

This should be obvious but, like so many things, it is not.

Weird Coincidence

Mark O'Mara looks quite a bit like Mark Fuhrman. Plus, of course, his name is Mark.

Inconsistencies... I mean LIESS!!!!! ARRRGGHH!!!

"When I walked back towards him..."
I haven't heard this on recording, so it could have been a simple transcript error. But assuming the statement was as reported, it very easily could have been a simple misstatement of "When I looked back towards him", given that the next statement would include the words "walked" ("he was walking back towards me"). This is extremely common, especially when you have a common phrase  like "back towards" in both parts of the statement. Ever play music? You'll do this a lot. You have similarities, and you accidentally duplicate additional aspects in the different parts of the statement/phrase/sentence/etc.

Even so, worst case, what would be the implication? That he walked towards him? Or that he walked towards him and started a physical altercation by striking Trayvon? Where is it supposed that he struck him? Was there any evidence of that strike? Of course not. But that's not relevant, only the specifics of the actually present injuries to George are relevant, and relevant as evidence that he was NOT physically assaulted.... or something like that.

.... people are using it against him that he knew the street name in a post-event interview, as if that proves he necessarily knew it that night, in that moment. this qualifies as pathetic and embarrassing childishness. this should be beneath a prosecuting attorney.

as to the statement, "THIS IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSES,, THERE'S NO ADDRESS HERE.... "

PROSECUTOR, "BUT THERE'S A NUMBER ON THAT HOUSE RIGHT OVER THERE..."

THAT HOUSE WAS NOT ON TREEVIEW CIRCLE. IT WAS ON THE OTHER STREET, WHICH HE DIDN'T KNOW THE NAME OF. HE ONLY KNEW THE NAME OF THE TREEVIEW CIRCLE ROAD, SO HE HAD TO GET A NUMBER OF A HOUSE ON THAT STREET, SO HE COULD GIVE A FULL ADDRESS TO THE OPERATOR.

The claim that there are no bushes in that area? NO BUSHES?... THERE ARE BUSHES ALONG THE SIDES OF THOSE HOUSES.

WOW, THIS WHOLE THING JUST GETS MORE RIDICULOUS BY THE SECOND.

"I moved his hands apart [to check his hands]" , but he wasn't dead yet, so why is it surprising that his hands may have instinctively come back to the wound? what a joke.

HOW IS IT INTENTIONAL MURDER WITH A DEPRAVED MIND, WHEN HE LEFT THE INJURED MAN AFTER SHOOTING, NOT ONLY BELIEVING HE WAS STILL ALIVE, BUT WHILE HE WAS, IN FACT, STILL ALIVE?

gee, no one can keep their distance while attempting to monitor someone they are scared of... that's not possible! lol.

ARMPITS! How does he get the gun out!!?
Again this is ridiculous nonsense. They would be moving around and he already said he was shimmying along the ground, which means they would have been adjusting almost constantly. Silly, ridiculous nonsense.

Race pimps have wasted millions of dollars, gotten people fired and threatened, and brought the country to the brink of racial riots for nothing.

FACT: the prosecution has not presented any theory as to the origin of the physical altercation. they have no theory that fits the facts of the single most important aspect of the event. that alone is reasonable doubt.

The next time I see a fight

I'm going to pay particular attention to how static the situation is, because even in courtroom situations where people's lives and freedom are at stake, individuals act as if a statement regarding circumstances at one moment would necessarily represent the circumstances at a later moment, even almost immediately afterwards.

I bet I'll see a lot of different positions and situations when I watch two individuals fighting. I bet it'll be almost non-stop motion.

As to "seeing a gun" in that dark situation, one could easily imagine an individual "noticing" a small, holstered gun during a struggle, perhaps feeling it first, and then looking down to verify. It wouldn't be hard to verify from point blank range.

And again, the idea that an individual of depraved mind intending to kill would shoot once while on the bottom of a struggle where he is being beaten, and would then tell the other individual to "stay down" while he waits for the police is nonsensical.

Apparently

"Stand your ground" laws are "humiliating" to black people. Is that the funniest thing you've ever heard? I think it's right up there.

Apparently the clearer the law makes it that individuals have a right to self-defense and do not have to retreat in the face of an assault, the more you "humiliate" black people.

Funny

Shizzle

My Nizzles.

On George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin

As to the depraved mind, were one to even assume it existed, it was not the motivating factor, in any way, for the shooting, were one to agree that the physical altercation took place resulting in the injuries to George Zimmerman's body. The depraved mind, were one to assume it existed at all, and that would be based on the initial words uttered, would only have "driven" the defendant to investigate the individual he found suspicious, and to call the authorities as he is supposed to do. The actual act of shooting was the result of the fear of imminent death or great bodily harm due to the physical assault taking place against him.

Even if you are assuming the most egregious case proposed by anyone - that George Zimmerman initiated a physical altercation with Trayvon Martin, and did so with a depraved mind - you are making that determination of fact based entirely upon the statements of one of the least reliable witnesses who has ever taken the stand, who changed the specific testimony serving as evidence of this position (testimony consisting of the reported hearing and interpretation of two words uttered over a cell phone call in which the witness claims there was "lots of wind") repeatedly. And what exactly are you assuming took place? Do you believe George Zimmerman, a fairly mousy, meek individual who had no history of such altercations, physically attacked Trayvon Martin, a significantly taller, fairly imposing individual on a rainy evening? Or that he attempted some sort of restraint until the authorities arrived? Would even an attempted restraint be evidence of a depraved mind? Absolutely ridiculous.

Second, he shot only once. He didn't even necessarily intend to end Trayvon's life. In fact it appears he did not intend that. How depraved is that? "A person could reasonably assume that the act *could* result in death", but that, in itself, is not depraved, if it's done in defense.

Third, there is evidence he didn't even believe that Trayvon was dead.

There is exactly zero legitimate reason to convict on the 2nd degree murder charge and it should be tossed out. I assume that would also toss out all "lesser includeds", but i don't know for sure, and perhaps that should be a lesson to future prosecutors to charge in a more reasonable fashion, if charges are to be filed at all.

As to the 3rd degree child abuse, when exactly did the abuse take place? It again would have to assume a physical assault initiated by Zimmerman prior to the shooting, as the shooting was the result of the fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. So the abuse-related charge of 3rd degree assault would have to, again, be related to the testimony of a single witness, who is an entirely unreliable witness for all reasonable people.

The correct verdict, based on the charges filed and the lesser includeds, is not guilty on all charges.

Obama assimilated quickly

I admit I was surprised by the eagerness with which he became that which he claimed to oppose.

He appears to be, at heart, a much bigger authoritarian asshole than I expected.

Sometimes it seems like...

when you get right down to it, the only thing that's really left is art.

Jazz is like, there, and exists. No question about it.

Sometimes it feels like jazz is saying....

i understand....

there is this, and that... and this and that and this....

and aalllll that... and yeah....

this sound is still cool anyways....

so go ahead...

and take that......

and this....

and that and this and that.....

and take aalllll that.....

but don't you worry...

cuz there'll STILL be these cool sounds...

Obama's Legacy

Barack Obama was the final nail in hope's coffin.

That's one heckuva legacy.

Click, click, click, done.

It's quite funny to click through the available political media outlets, particularly the patently partisan ones, or even just the "muddy the waters forever except in the sense that we should always hold the powerful unaccountable because we like them and want to go to their cocktail parties" varieties, because you can know everything you need to know about the stories being covered, the angles being used to cover them, the claptrap being peddled and the filler being used to take up the rest of the time within the first 4 or 5 seconds.

Click...

click....

click....

done.

Effing tards.

When a socialist warmonger claims...

that there isn't enough money to go around to pay for "needed social programs", but there is plenty of money to intervene militarily in conflicts around the world, with or without a Congressional declaration of war....

well, i tend to be skeptical of that person's claims.

I HAZ POPCORN AND AM READY FOR WAR

I PUSH LEFT-LEFT-RIGHT-RIGHT-UP-DOWN-START AND I GET 100 EXTRA LIVES.

I WILL RESCUE THE PATRIOTIC FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC TERRORIST FREEDOM FIGHTERS FROM THE EVIL ASSAD.

I WILL INSTITUTE DEMOCRACY AND BRING STABILITY TO THE PEOPLES OF SYRIA

UNTIL THEY PISS ME OFF, AT WHICH TIME I WILL KILL THEM TOO

BUT I WILL DO ALL THIS OBJECTIVELY

AND WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

Is it right to hate stupidity and self-deception?

selective outrage, intellectual cowardice, etc. and so on?

Moving on...

So what is the floor under which no one should be allowed to fall?

How much will it cost?

How much will that cost increase over time?

Are there any potential unintended consequences of such a policy?

Will you work harder or less hard upon the implementation of the policy?

Will you accept raising your taxes to help pay for the policy?

If someone then says, "but it's not fair, because I am entitled to 'this'", which you hadn't included in your original definition, will you be inclined to accept their claim?

Will there ever be a case where you would disagree with such a claim?

If the person stated that you were a cold-hearted, selfish person for disagreeing with their specific claim, how would you respond?

Would you accept their characterization of your motivations?

Would it change your overall perspective on the concept at all?

Is there any place for private charity in a free society?

Is there any place for a free society on the 3rd rock?


It's funny how the "grass is greener" concept applies in all sorts of ways. We celebrate "freedom fighters" in foreign lands (even to the point of demanding that fellow citizens pay with their own treasure, even their own lives, in order to support those foreign patriots), while denigrating them at home.

That's funny, you have to admit.

Politics is jello and we are all enthusiastically hammering away.

Expecially...

lol.

Fletcher Reede said it best...

Your honor, I OBJECT!!!!

Judge, "and why is that Mr. Reede?"

Because it's devastating to my case!!

In the spirit of his recent piece

I would ask David Brooks who "authoritarian warmongers" would tend to vote for.

Or the "ignorant and uneducable". What would their voting tendency be like?

How about "religious fundamentalists who want to impose their religious beliefs on others via government force"? Who's their guy?

And corporate welfarists?

How about those who support an untouchable, unaccountable banking system with bailouts for the richest?

I doubt he would find such questions worthy of the type of examination he has given to those who vote with a more independent mindset.

the "recent piece" in question.

-----------------------

Perhaps the most important aspect of the Ron Paul phenomenon is that it has forced everyone on all sides to see the flaws in the collectivist thinking they've been captive to for the majority of their lives. Most have never been forced to reconcile the hypocrisy and illogic in their positions before. In the past, the belief that "my team agrees on this" has sufficed to convince them of their righteousness, but that is no longer the case. The Ron Paul movement is essentially holding a mirror to their faces, both as individuals and as groups, forcing them to confront all the fruits of their collective dissonance. This, understandably, causes anxiety.

The game has changed, and they are unsure how to play it, so they attack those attempting to modernize the game and force it to be played by a consistent set of principled rules. I imagine the dynamic is nearly identical to that facing slave owners at the time of liberation. Part of me particularly enjoys the knowledge that many would be appalled to see such an example being used to demonstrate this particular point (of course, their reaction would likely hold in regards to "any point they disagree with"), and I recognize that such a feeling of satisfaction is probably a manifestation of a personal weakness that I should work on. And I will! But not today. On this day, the comparison stands, and we have Ron Paul and his supporters to thank for nudging us back in the right direction.

Emptying the Desk Drawer (respeck)

• Baseball needs to do something to eliminate extra innings regular season games. 10 innings max, then it's a tie. Tangentially, I think I've been convinced that the "loser point" should be eliminated in hockey.
• Maybe it's time to ban all forms of cell phone communication while driving, including "hands-free". I would suggest setting up additional rest areas along highways to allow people to pull over and communicate safely. Y'all drive badly enough as it is. Time to minimize the distractions.
• Ed Markey's negative ads make me like Gabriel Gomez more and more
• All politicians supporting broad, sweeping collection of private individuals' communication data without a warrant should be required to give all of their account passwords to a new committee made up of citizens elected by their peers to collect and access their communications "only when necessary" and that determination shall be made in secret and "signed off on" by another, separate un-elected group of citizens chosen by me who are not and shall never be members of Congress or paid lobbyists thereof. Any politician subject to this rule found to be attempting to circumvent these restrictions by using communications technology outside of the monitored set shall be fined an amount not exceeding $50,000 and/or sentenced to a term not exceeding 6 months in jail. If you're not doing anything wrong, you probably have nothing to worry about. Accounts shall be made available free of charge to individuals under this rule requesting such.
• OOOOH SAY CAN YOU SEEEEEEE???????

Respeck

I support a new "Patriot Password Law" that

requires everyone to send all their passwords to the federal government pre-emptively in case any of us is considering doing something bad. in fact, let's just go ahead and establish the pre-crime division, in the name of efficiency and patriotism. if you're not doing anything bad, or thinking any bad thoughts, you'll probably have nothing to worry about.

Objectivity Lies

in the corners of circular rooms.

Clinton / Kerry - the thought hadn't even occurred to me

but it makes 100% perfect sense. Good call, amigo.

The only entertaining aspect of the Democratic primary will be watching Joe Biden be Joe Biden, while honestly thinking he has a shot at the nomination. His awkwardness and inflated sense of self-importance is always interesting to watch. But other than that it will be a rather boring, predetermined cakewalk, and will constitute (an ironic choice of words) a formidable foe for Republicans to defeat.

Republicans would need a dynamic ticket along the lines of a Chris Christie type in order to have a chance to compete. They will need someone who is not afraid of the Clinton mystique, or any mystique for that matter, and someone who ordinary Americans can relate to on a visceral level more easily than off-putting elites like McCain and Romney. Perhaps Jeb is relatable enough on a personal level for most voters, but the thought of another Bush presidency still makes me instantly physically ill. I assume that sentiment is fairly widespread and I doubt he could overcome it in a general election.

Thank you and good day.

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel

is one of the best and most useful program on television and has been for many years now. It consistently leaves you feeling as though the time spent watching it was time well spent.

I would suggest that they pay to broadcast an episode on network television as a means of advertising HBO programming. I assume they could trade-off standard advertising dollars from somewhere else to pay for it. Of course one could argue that both HBO and the networks would have a conflict of interest at that point, but I would suspect that would be the case in many of the advertising relationships for both parties.

Perhaps they could even include very limited commercials during the broadcast, but it would probably have to be limited to only a single break in order to retain the existing, uninterrupted flow of the program which is one of its benefits.

I ain't no stock guru or nuthin', but....

last day of month plunges are, in my limited experience, often followed immediately by large bouncebacks at the beginning of the next month.

just sayin' is all.

Misanthropy

Is Christianity misanthropic?

Is a belief in limited government misanthropic?

Is there a definable line?

I'm not so sure. (bleh, is there ever?)

To me, misanthropy, among all the available terms, most closely approximates "objective absorption of the realities of human nature".

Many people are intrinsically opposed to misanthropic worldviews because of the inherently "self-incriminating" nature of the concept.

If is,

then I am,

and if I am,

then I am not what I prefer to believe.

and that, as they say, can cause nausea.

"I'm not going to box you in..."

Apparently it was "yogurt discount day" yesterday. As I pore over the available offerings, two women, apparently friends shopping together, approach from opposite sides of me, each with her own shopping cart.

I hear the first woman ask the young man stocking the shelves, "where is the yogurt that's on sale?"  He attempts to help her, but you could tell early on that there would be no satisfying this customer on this day. I don't know what choice she settles on, but clearly she feels slighted.

I hear the second woman say towards me, "I don't want to box you in," for which I am grateful. There is already a cart behind me from which the young man is stocking the shelves, so with woman A to my left, and woman B to my right, being boxed in was a definite possibility. I was pleasantly surprised that woman B was even aware of the possibility, as most are usually not, but my surprise was short-lived. Even after declaring her intent, woman B had done just that. She had boxed me in. As I turn towards her, there is that hopeful moment of potential recognition... that potential for a "oops I did it anyways" and a smiling retreat... aaahhh my naivete. As I glance down towards the stocking cart to my right, then back down towards woman B's cart, essentially conveying my predicament without words, woman B begins to express her exasperation at my needing her to back up the 3 steps necessary to free me from the situation. And my goodness, did those 3 steps take their own sweet time.

So thank you, woman B, for being so socially aware as to recognize the situation, and to avoid such a predicament, making the day just a bit easier for all involved. Thank you, woman B, for "not boxing me in." I appreciate it.

Have a nice day.

Jeff Bauman is a hero

The way he has responded to the kind of life-changing adversity he faces is inspiring to others who want to live their lives without fear or self-pity.

He is an amazing, inspiring human being.

He is not alone in that regard among the victims. One woman who lost a leg wants to eventually run the marathon again. Another vows to dance again. Incredible.

I, on the other hand, still find myself pouting over a cold, or  a headache, or a bad night's sleep. I vow to be better in this regard going forward.

Sheesh, I was kind of on Knox's side...

until I saw this interview on CNN.

Something's not right about her. Too clever. Too stereotypically revealing in her inability to hide her satisfaction at potentially being able to deceive others.

Just too much.

MSNBC could serve a useful function

if they were willing to let go of the daily racialist division that appears to currently be their money maker.

I doubt they will change, as such an approach appears to be profitable in various media outlets (racialist radio is stunning in its consistently divisive racialism) but, assuming they are decent people trying to do good things in this world and this life, they might be better able to sleep at night by focusing more on promoting success stories rather than desperately seeking out every perceived slight and magnifying it to present a false sense of importance in the minds of the audience (and by doing so, in fact damaging the ability of the audience to succeed rather than helping it).

It's just like terrorism.

You're not going to die from a terrorist. Trust me.

You're going to die from something else.

I promise you.

But if you watch coverage of a terrorist attack every day for the rest of your life, you'll be convinced that the threat is greater than it is, and you'll spend an inordinate amount of your time worrying about that threat rather than focusing on things that are far more likely to impact you... things which you may have some possibility of "doing something about".

Fact.

Call me racist if you'd like, but...

I just called Seagate support and spoke with a real live American rep who spoke English as a first language and who understood the words I was saying and didn't have to speak like a robot in order to function... and it was everything I ever dreamed it could be.

The issue hasn't been completely resolved as of yet, but assuming it is after the return phone call, for this reason alone I will continue to work with Seagate.

So go ahead... call me racist if you'd like.

I don't care.

Because I know you call lots of people racist for lots of dumb reasons.

Or "xenophobic" if that's your preferred term. I still don't care.

Willing to kill and die for attention

Pay attention to your kids. And, preferably, be sane.

Greenwald seems to be playing both sides

He complains about the use of the term "terrorism" when describing the marathon bombings, and particularly the tendency to use the term in situations where the actors are Muslim, since the term wasn't used in other mass killings like Aurora and Sandy Hook, while also appearing to make the case that we should pay attention to the claims that the marathon bombings were done (as is the stated case with many attacks, specifically by Muslims) as a response to American foreign policy.

So it comes off as "I'm going to complain about this no matter what happens... cuz I need to complain and I have an agenda that must be forced onto this situation one way or another."

I would like to see him come out and declare that he believes the description of terrorism does apply here, while it did not in the other cases. So essentially I want him to express a mea culpa.

Lindsey Graham is a coward

Let the record show.

Update: Graham says the older brother went to Dagestan, "one of the most radical parts of Chexnya"

LMMFAO

Clearly the difference

is that the expressed motivations in specific cases were "religious" in nature, and

there is a movement involving a sizable number of people of that religion focused strictly on the task of establishing a political reality known as an "Islamic Caliphate" across various regions of the world, and

the individuals in that movement publicly express their desires, including their support for the use of terrorism against innocent civilians, via various forms of media.

that's the difference. duh.

there is no sizable movement believing that people in a Batman movie should be murdered, or that Gabbie Giffords was particularly rude to Jared Loughner and therefore deserving of being shot in the head, and all those visiting with her at a political event, worthy of being shot dead.

no, it's not all Muslims. <<--- retard point for retards to retard about and feel good about having covered. "there, we covered the issue". aye yaye yaye.

yes, there are many peaceful Muslims.

if you want to have a useful conversation, here are some points to address:

do certain sects of Muslims believe in using violence to force their religion as a political system onto others?
do they believe in using violence against civilians as part of that process?
do they encourage others to engage in the use of violence against civilians in order to counter what they perceive as religious persecution against their faith?
are they retarded enough to think that violence is justified when someone makes a cartoon involving their prophet?

most importantly, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

if you're avoiding the above topics, you are intentionally avoiding the important parts of the issue, most likely either out of fear of the reality, or out of a desire to maintain ratings by never resolving any important issues, in which case you're a fucking parasite and deserve to be blanket beaten until you limp home crying.

It is true

that every resident of the affected area would have been not only justified, but RIGHT to want to arm themselves in order to be able to defend themselves should the terrorists happen upon them.

It was not an argument against gun rights, it was exactly an argument for them.

Michael Bloomberg turned out to be a real

douche.

The 7/11 Robbery

a ridiculously, statistically impossible coincidence? or a miscategorization amidst the fog of the situation? i assume the latter. i assume it was misreported as a robbery somewhere along the chain. it probably simply referred to the carjacking.

if it was robbed within minutes of their being there, it would be a lottery-winning-esque coincidence.

One of the most disgusting dynamics in the world

is watching one individual adapt their own thoughts and/or statements and/or actions to conform to the sentiments they believe those around them want to hear... when the topic being discussed is important.

It apparently applies to the individuals involved in this attack (based on published reports), and it most certainly applies to most of those blabbering about in media outlets.

So all the video was kept secret

and the "professionals" were given the opportunity to review that hidden evidence, and so, since they noticed certain individuals via that hidden evidence, that somehow proves that "crowdsourcing" couldn't have been valuable, had the "crowd" been given access to the same evidence?

Self-serving illogic.

If the public had access to all the video (video taken by PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS for their own PRIVATE PURPOSES which they VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED TO THE GOVERNMENT when it SEEMED REASONABLE TO THEM), the case would have been solved more quickly, but that doesn't lend itself to an increased police presence, and to increased overtime pay, and so that solution is not desirable. It's that simple. We're all in it for ourselves. Freedom allows the largest number of people to work "for themselves" towards the same goal. Everything else is a distasteful appropriation of credit amongst a smaller group of individuals who happen to be paid via funds forcefully acquired from everyone else.

That's the only difference.

Fuck you, Deval.

Fuck you, everyone who fails to understand this.

I'm not sure who hates American freedom more...

terrorists, or Peter King and Lindsey Graham.

I don't agree with

having weight benches in prison, nor do I agree with providing Muslim terrorists with Qurans, or the opportunity to read Qurans provided by others.

I think they should be provided with whatever the fuck we feel like providing them with (like cartoons mocking Mohammed). Or nothing at all. That includes if/when they are being led to their state-sponsored deaths. Perhaps provide a Muslim with a Christian priest. I might be ok with that.

I have a hard time understanding why

the public safety wasn't best served by releasing all applicable video around the bomb scene as soon as possible, even if you had to block out some of the victims.

I'm a little annoyed at the desire of certain government actors to appropriate responsibility for the resolution of the situation specifically to "professionals". I'm inclined to want to toss a "fuck you" the way of anyone who takes such an approach.

Might we have saved another life by immediately publicly releasing the video showing the placing of the bombs and the reaction of the bombers? Rather than keeping that video accessible only to those "professionals"?

I think we might have.

I sure do.

Update: Plus, of course, he wasn't found until people were free to go about their lives again, essentially leveraging the eyeballs of millions of "non-professionals", which directly resulted in finding him. I didn't take issue with the decision to shut the city down, and I give credit for the realization that such an approach could not continue for more than a day. I think they are defensible decisions, and I think you could even argue that the lack of targets plus the extended, exhausting time period may have also saved lives. But you could also argue that he'd have been caught more quickly without such a heavy-handed approach, and when I see people excluding this possibility in favor of promoting their own broader philosophical agenda (government "professionals" good, civilians bad), I get pretty fucking annoyed.

"They were losers"

It will never be said more effectively or succinctly.

Jealous, bitter losers.

Nothing more.

Obama proposes 10 MPH federal speed limit

No?

Does he not want to save lives? I mean it *would* save lives, right? Lots of lives? So why doesn't he support such a measure? Is he beholden to the automobile industry?

The Objectivity Unicorn

I'm ENRAGED that I haven't seen the Objectivity Unicorn!!!

How DARE the Objectivity Unicorn refuse to be seen!!!!

I blame that group of human beings over there for not showing me the Objectivity Unicorn!!!

Why come they can get away with hiding the Objectivity Unicorn??!!??

Resumption of sports games definitely helps.

Feels more normal already. Sports are serving exactly the purpose they were intended to serve. I'm glad they didn't cancel any more games. It's providing a wonderful escape. I shall be seeking out such escapes more often going forward. Thanks to all the organizations and participants who sent messages of goodwill.

New resolution

I'm going to try not to read comments sections anymore.

I'm going to try not to absorb news media more than once or twice per day.

I'm going to try to put much more time and effort into productive activities.

I'm going to better myself by limiting my exposure to those who serve no useful purpose in my life.

I'm going to leave the masses and the crazies to their time-wasting, tribal herdishness and insanity.

I'm going to protect my well-being by limiting my exposure.

I'm responsible only for me, my thoughts, my beliefs, my actions, and no one else's.

I am, as of this moment, truly free.

Evolutionarily Speaking

following the herd has many obvious advantages.

Just not intellectual ones.

Einstein was wrong.

The most powerful force in the world is not compound interest.

The most powerful force in the world is confirmation bias.

I Simply Can Not Believe

how quickly, calmly, and selflessly some people can head towards a bomb explosion rather than away.

I can't even comprehend it.

Heroism of the highest order.

God bless them and God bless the victims and their families.

On Being Hurtful

Even though I am a proponent and practitioner of being as honest as possible, I am going to *try* not to say things that are intentionally "hurtful" to others going forward because of the words I recently read of the most brilliant blogger I've ever come across. Unfortunately, sometimes hurtful words seem most appropriate, and certainly serve to convey the sentiments I am intending to express. They also tend to catapult propaganda more effectively. It will be up to me to decide if the sentiments themselves are legitimate, defensible, and/or "desirable", or if they are negativities I should work to eliminate from my life. I suspect I will go back and forth on that forever, basically depending on the kind of day I am having. I'm not a very strong person in that regard.

But I admit that my motivations for "intentionally hurting another" through words come most often from fairly negative places that serve fairly destructive roles in my own life. I can certainly justify the practice in certain contexts (aside: why does it seem like the same word (certainly in this case) often finds its way multiple times into a single sentence and then proves too difficult to remove and replace without altering the meaning of the sentence beyond repair? frustrating result of a limited vocabulary and decision to never read any of my summer reading books, I guess), as can anyone who believes in one's right to self-defense. When others are engaging in pursuits designed to encroach upon my life and my freedom and doing so based on what I believe to be fundamentally ridiculous premises, ESPECIALLY while doing so in an aggressive, "intentionally hurtful" manner themselves, a response-in-kind feels justified.

Perhaps that is a limitation of my maturation process, or perhaps that's just one of those realities of life. I don't know, but either way I will be more aware of my response going forward and will attempt to reduce the instances of "intentionally hurtful" behavior, if only as a tribute to the unnamed blogger referenced above.

"European American"

The term wouldn't provide much useful information, would it?

It would imply a rather nebulous "bond" among people who most likely have little to nothing in common with each other other than perhaps the color of their skin... if even that. It also most likely groups together various factions including groups who engaged in slavery and genocide amongst each other.

LOL

I guess I am a "European American" just like the French.. and Germans... and Spanish... and Portuguese... and Italians... and Irish... and Scottish... and English..... etc..

Ridiculous collectivist retardation.

I find the use of the term "African American" to be similarly completely useless and, in fact, embarrassing. I am embarrassed for any individual who uses the term, in the same way I am embarrassed for people who say "irregardless", or "I could care less". It's a crutch, and it's time to retire the term. If you know the country you are from, or region within the country, or if you have some other meaningful identifying trait amongst your ancestors that you feel is relevant to who you are today, please provide it. That would at least have a touch more relevance to defining "you" (at least as you define yourself) than the broader terms which really have no meaning.

Unintended Consequences of Universal Background Checks

People will obviously start limiting their exposure to mental health professionals. Depending on your frame of reference, that could be either a very good thing, or a very bad thing.

Not to mention the fact that such a policy would probably not have prevented a single one of the mass killings it is being promoted in response to.

The Liberal Utopia

A liberal's definition of "freedom" goes something like this:

the government should be free to do whatever it wants, as long as I agree with it

people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't offend anyone else, or, more to the point, me

i should be free to do whatever i want regardless of who it offends because those people are just right wingers or republicans or something and so they deserve to be offended.


Have I left anything out?

Hola...

Esa mi a quien esta buscando?....

LOL

I have to admit...

the Shaq ads make me want a Buick.

Why Was Slavery Wrong?

If the majority wanted to maintain slavery, and voted democratically to do so, why would that, philosophically speaking, be "wrong"?

I specifically ask those who prefer to refer to America as a "Democracy".

Every Time I Watch Goodfellas...

I can't help but think about how Jack Nicholson ruined The Departed...

..the obvious notwithstanding.

Anything More Obnoxious Than...

college graduates of overpriced schools whining about their inability to repay their student loans, "demanding" that others be forced to pay off their own bills?

G

F

Ys

got it?

Government Power is the Precious

craved and longed for, and viewed as an end in itself by the unenlightened.

Unnamed Tool On The Iraq War

According to an unnamed tool involved in the Iraq war, we needed to invade Iraq because of WMD, which didn't exist, but it was still worth it because we had to get rid of al Qaeda in Iraq, which was responsible for a total of like zero terrorist attacks in the country, give or take a few, but we "succeeded in Iraq", even though now "unnamed tool" can't go back to Iraq, because al Qaeda is there, and they are engaging in regular attacks, and they also have a price on the head of "unnamed tool".

But we still won.

Because we got rid of the al Qaeda.

Even though they are likely there now. And active.

And weren't before.

And we had to get rid of the WMD.

Which didn't.

You guessed it.

Exist.

As always, it's entirely up to you if you want to believe in the fairy tales regarding "our leaders". Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. Such beliefs certainly keep the conversations more interesting and entertaining. "What went wrong?" "Have we learned any lessons?" "How could they have been so wrong?" "Follow up, should we invade Syria?"

Carry on witcher bad selfs.

Truism

Once the parasite is granted power over the host, both are doomed, and neither is long for this world.

Cable News

If you watch cable news for extended periods of time, you're not 'really' that bright. Of course this goes for "network news" as well, or any other industry that behaves in a similar manner.

It should take you 5 seconds to realize that it's not worth your time to listen to someone like Stephen Hadley. These are actors, playing the part of "serious, concerned citizen leaders". It's a game, and they get a hearty laugh at the idea that people take them seriously. Their only incentive is to self-aggrandize and to set themselves up to make more money, preferably money forcefully taken from others via government force. You think it's more "high-minded" than that. It is not, and you can't deal with that fact.

The industry has little to no value. It is a self-perpetuating bubble designed only to gain access to cocktail parties and state dinners. They accomplish nothing. Of course, it's not their job to accomplish anything. It's their job to get eyeballs, in order to get advertising money. If you think there is something worthwhile going on there, you're simply not able to be honest with yourself. You have a void and you are filling it with psuedo-intellectual junk food and you should grow up.

Stop watching. Do something more useful with your time. Get a hobby. I guarantee you that if you abstain for a day, a week, a month, 6 months, a year, you will be able to click back briefly and see the exact same conversations, featuring almost the exact same characters, spouting the exact same nonsense, pretending in the exact same way to care whether they are correct or not, with the hosts pretending in the exact same way about the "substance" of the discussion.

The only difference is that you might have a nice beautiful garden to enjoy in the meantime, rather than telling yourself "I'll get to that as soon as I learn this right wing/left wing radio/tv host how wrong he is!!!! Imma learn him with an email." LOL

Yeah, you and a few hundred thousand other nobodies about whom the hosts could not care less. "Thanks for watching/listening. Click here for the premium membership."

Tailgaters Beware

I am a good driver. I obey the rules of the road. Most do not. I tend to drive in an appropriate lane on the highway. Most do not. I encourage others to move right when it is safe to do so. But I NEVER, EVER, EVER tailgate.

Tailgaters are always the worst, dumbest people on the road. They are narcissists who believe that it's up to you to adjust your driving style because they couldn't leave early enough to obey the law and get to their destination on time. My response to a tailgater is to slow down. The closer they get, the slower I go. Not by hitting the brakes, of course, but simply by taking my foot off the accelerator, causing a nice, gradual, maddening-for-the-tailgater decrease in speed that is noticeable, but not dangerous. This is the correct response to a tailgater. If one keeps a distance and flashes lights or gives a quick beep, I'm likely to change lanes as soon as it is safe to do so. But if they tailgate? Nope.

I leave early enough, so I am not in a rush. It's not my job to drive fast enough for your liking. I don't care about you. I don't owe you anything, except the opportunity to follow the law and drive safely without me putting you in danger - an opportunity you are denying me by tailgating.

Tailgating is dangerous, whether it's done by a civilian or a police officer. It is ILLEGAL, and in this case, for a reason. I'm a better driver than you. That is almost certain no matter who you are. Learn how to plan your time better, learn how to recognize that you are no more important than anyone else on the road. Learn how to "see" the big picture, rather than being that idiot who changes lanes maniacally in rush hour traffic, saving yourself a total of about 30 seconds in your drive, while making yourself look completely ridiculous, and bothering everyone around you (by cutting them off) unnecessarily in the process. Learn how to use a turn signal. Learn how to drive. Most of you who want people to drive faster, and are willing to tailgate to force the issue, are complete morons and are hiding behind your lifted truck with oversized wheels.  You ooze stupidity, and it's not my job to alter my lawful actions to suit you.

The funniest thing is watching a tailgater over a period of time. They close quickly whenever there is space between them and the car in front of them. They simply aren't capable of behaving in an appropriate way on the road. Too bad for them. I'm not moving.

Have a great day.

Incredible Heroism - Murad Khan

If this story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/afghan-police-officer-hugs-suicide-bomber_n_2863081.html) is true, Murad Khan is a hero of the highest order. The report is that he recognized a suicide bomber wearing a vest, and when he was unable to stop the attack, he hugged the attacker, guaranteeing his own death, but undoubtedly saving the lives of others in the process.

As everyone knows, the word "hero" is tossed around far, far too often. In this case, it hardly seems sufficient to describe the individual and the act.

Rest in peace, Murad Khan. May the world respect your sacrifice.

Simple Way To Save Lives

If you are going to commit an armed robbery, carry only a taser. The life you save could be your own. Or someone else's, which could, you know, save yours. This seems pretty obvious, but if you're like me, sometimes the most obvious solutions are the last ones you think of.

To those whose lives I will have saved with this suggestion, thank you. You will make my life worth having lived.

Paaaaace.