The Bear's Key

Only existing technology/prototypes. So mind reading is feasible enough, with a crude prototype. The sky's the limit, but the more unbelievable your scenario, the less people might vote for it. Although people are free to vote however they wish, even if you don't stay within the guidelines I detailed. Give it a shot (just try for technological believability -- I am). You can go as simple as you like, just not more complex than the list below. Remember: you get freebies to start off your quest, but no more than... 5 things (anything in the world). 3 databases at your fingertips. (a CIA digitized list with personal info about nationals, for example) 10 people (choose anyone in the world to be on your team and loyal to the cause) 8 events (The fall of Russia? That's your doing. Or Saddam's burning the oil fields in '91? Your idea. The reasons that our media/government supposedly ignored the *events* of flight 297? Thanks to you. Etc) Make up any strategy reason for the events you've chosen. In the alternate world, your plan's never to be shared with anyone except the people you've chosen as a team. Simply put, no outsiders are loyal enough to trust with such info, and it's less believable if you're telling everyone the plan and it hasn't leaked out. To take over the world, you don't have to choose anything on the list either, just go solo. But likely you won't get far alone/unequiped. If you want simplicity anyway, just choose fewer things or, make up your own inventory -- keeping within reach of believability. For example, no one in the world can tomorrow join Europe, the U.S., China, India, and Russia into war vs the rest of Earth. You must first do something to make them join, a believable catalyst. But it doesn't have to be war. You can take over the world via non-violent means too. Again, in a believable way. I'll print a scenario tomorrow. You definitely may collaborate with others or get input. The only true rule is for your world conquerer not to step outside the boundaries of power I've written. The reason being is that it'd be unfair to have another contestant be equipped with alien/futuristic tech or the resources of a galaxy system -- compared to your puny, modern, slower technologies. Here's a good strategy tip: use brains and power as a resource -- choose people with $$, talented minds, access to resources, connected, and/or etc, to be on your team.

Note: for questions/comments or anything other than your entry for contest, post in the other thread ("king of the world"). If you do post a question/comment here, I'll ask a mod to move it. The game... Choose one: (in an alternate world much like ours) you're either a political group, corporation, or any leader of a nation today. And the strategy you must lay out is, how do you take over the world? Say also...you've prepared for twenty years. The rules are simple. <> Each contestant's granted the following (your alternate world's self had acquired these during various instances of preparations and villain's networking)..... 5 things, anything -- except it can't be |#| people, |#| a group of things commonly used singly/individually (fleet of ships; a city -- because it's full of houses), |#| a government, |#| a legal entity (corporation, labor union, business, religion), or |#| something NO ONE today can expect to buy (planet Jupiter, Atlantic Ocean, etc) 3 databases (known, or unknown -- but it should realistically exist) 10 people (anyone) working as a team and giving your plan complete support. 8 events in the past.....ie you can (directly/indirectly) be responsible for any 8 things happening within the last 20 years. Although they must be realistic. (Such as, a typical person should consider *your* feats as being within the realm of possibility for humans -- even if they'd be reasonably skeptical about it. For example, you couldn't be responsible for the 2004 tsunami. However, you could for the Northeast Blackout of 2003) <> The execution of your plan (as a whole) can't be openly revealed to any person in that world except to someone from your team. It must be kept secret from outsiders and even cohorts and talented schemers, or bits of it camoflauged as good, necessary, and/or patriotic -- as even the most ardent supporters wouldn't normally go along with such a plan, even if that group would be considered extremists. <> Finally, your plan must be obvious that it's set in the alternate world. Therefore, if you use a familiar name, it must have •alt in front of it. Like so... alt•Palin, alt•Stephen Colbert, alt•Julia Gillard, alt•Dems, alt•etc. Voting in other thread. You may vote for any number of entries, limited to one time each, and can't vote for your own entry. Assign 1-5 points (or simply none): "1" meaning you like it, and "5" meaning you love it. Contest background... About once every 5 to 8 years, I've played a little game of mine, where corporations fight one another via legal/illegal means for world domination. The game's scope eventually widened to include tyrants, political groups, and normal masses of citizens -- each of those groups represented as its own world-conquerer. It's time for another round, so I'm going to start immediately cobbling together a scenario, based on current thoughts -- and I'd like to extend you an invitation to participate in a friendly contest and get your (master)minds cracking. You'll learn much from such an exercise in thinking outside the box. Perhaps you've already envisioned, often, a world-conquering scenario by a tyrant and/or ambitious group. So you're ready to kick some idea-butt. Fair warning, though, I've maybe honed my game-playing skills a bit. So get thinking about what to put into your entry. I'm about to start writing mine up, and even though it won't be lengthy, I'll probably be writing the entire day and still until tomorrow. It's an open-ended contest, so if you plan on entering, let us know and write an entry for however long you need to hit satisfaction with it. Also, if you've got various scenarios dreamt up or just brewing, enter however many times you wish to. Cheers!

If you have any questions/comments for the "Take over the world" contest, or wanna vote for any of the entries, post it here.

Awesome post, JohnB. I do wish you'd have been less sarcarcastic overall so I can learn more about your system Down Under and so it's easier to tell in some areas if you're kidding. Both those employees very much deserved it, big time, unless we're missing some context not revealed by the story. But otherwise, if no such context exists, to defend that behavior against firing is obviously inexcusable. Much of what your post says is a good reason why a party's agenda should never be to destroy/replace the other's agenda. However, your system is a lot more reasonable and centrist than ours, granted with its faults apparently, including sometimes by your left who'd seem to be following the "destroy opposing agendas" path in regards to the environment, according to your post. I'd have to know the specifics better, as we get fewer Aussie news than you do from us. Remember too, my list has the word "AND" capitalized in each line for a reason: you can't sacrifice one item for another. The most you can do is have to adjust the two conflicting items. A reasonable system would have a detailed guidance system written out for doing such adjustments between two conflicting items. So if your protection of the environment's killing people -- so long as it's not business/whatever interests purposely creating the situation (for example building houses near areas of dangerous wilderness in order to get permission to bulldoze that area when people start dying to attacks by wild beasts) -- then in reality you're failing the list as a whole. But if you're also destroying the environment to favor another item on the list, then again you're still failing the list as a whole. That's the reason a guideline must be written out beforehand, so these political decisions are better informed and less ad-hoc when a conflict arises. By the way, the list isn't a description of how U.S. left politicians do act, but rather it's my personal observation/research of what the ideology strives for. Also, the items aren't exclusively on the left, and I didn't mean to imply that. I'm sure we'd find repeats of certain entries in the right's own list. Did you read the part at bottom from the asterick? I describe how/why protections that are (meant to be) universal occasionally seem compartmentalized. What's a PITA? If that's what such politicians really believe, they should have no problem exposing all the details and planning of laws in the works, to complete public scrutiny, eh? I mean, if there's nothing bad to find in their "perfect" legislation/governing, why the cover-up? I take the same view, except I only care if the product or service is essential/critical to people, business, the economy. For instance, if chewing gum or firecrackers were monopolized via natural competition, so what? But if technologies for communication, travel, or internet-access devices were monopolized, that'd have a very different effect on society. No fewer than 5 major competitors should hog the pool of goods in that case, with no anticompetitive restrictions for the small businesses community to enter the market. By fair I didn't mean ethnicity, only fair representation against control of government by powerful interests and $$. Actually, optimal means that we'd have fewer new bridges or energy plants that need building, as the infrastructure's in an optimal state of balance. If you must continually build at a higher rate than rebuilding and maintenance, then the system's off-balance. Plus, remember you can't sacrifice any item on the list for another. Regarding both your answers, the second item covers the first one. As for your second point, it's a difficult area, where the importance of bond at some point gets overidden by the scars a child would have for life. There's grown people I know who'd love to have been given different parents, for the abuse/neglect they received, memories still difficult to completely recover from. And some malnutrition's difficult to recover from bodily. There's always good parents seeking to adopt, but you can't let the process go too far in the "protective" direction either. I meant to say unknown to the typical customer. For example, if many people weren't aware of harmful byproducts or ingredients/additions to a common spray product, unless they were the informed kind of customer. Or if people who didn't buy some other product were continually affected by its use, for example acid rain killing off a crop when you don't even buy the product causing it. Or mercury poisoning of fish in streams, when you don't use anything related to the product that's leaching mercury into the environment and streams. Now you can't eat it.

Mirror, mirror, into the past....? http://www.suite101.com/content/apprehensive-aristocrats-a33902 A typical New England citizen might see freedom and equality as having a voice in their own destiny. In contrast, many large plantation owners in South Carolinian thought of freedom as the liberty to preserve and maintain their social and economic power base. ..... Freedom's Hypocrisy The anxious “aristocracy” in all of the southern colonies exhibited this very strong but sometimes distorted bent toward independence. This exemplified the often unacknowledged double minded thinking that was lambasted in some of the British and American Tory literature. One British author, Samuel Johnson formed this thought provoking question to penetrate the hypocrisy. “How is it, that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" http://www.suite101.com/content/the-middling-sort-a33817 Eighteenth century America raised families whose education was for the most part, superior to most in the world at that time. They tended to be "artisans and mechanics", which today we call "blue collar" workers. Their economic influence was not formidable except when they banded together in unions or clubs for the express purpose of interrupting trade for their own advantage. ..... This northeast region was, perhaps, the most "democratic" region of colonial America. While by no means without its social hierarchy, their town meetings lent a sense of social leveling and thereby a sense of control over one's destiny that did not exist in the southern colonies. ........ The Melting Pot In the middle colonies of New York, The Jerseys, Pennsylvania, and Delaware this middle class also had a sense of strength...Even in the 17th century, New York had the same "melting pot" characteristics we still see today. It was the place you went to in America to see the most diversity of culture. There are early accounts of New Amsterdam as being a safe haven for Jews and even reports of seeing followers of “Mohamet”. Amazing, eh? Remember, that's all from the 1700s -- long before the civil war. Here's a flashback sentiment that mimicks the Right elite of today...who fight against granting a bit more economic freedom to those people who most easily get sucked into the dead-end-job mortal grip of huge $$ industries/factories that pay shit, lifelong debt, and the sinking feeling of being trapped. ...many large plantation owners in South Carolinian thought of freedom as the liberty to preserve and maintain their social and economic power base. Indeed, there was always a subconscious (if not at times openly conscious) fear that their own sins would find them out if a slave rebellion ever actually materialized. This was a very real fear in an 18th century society whose slave population was as high as 65%. The social dichotomy of pride in their property and position along with the underlying guilt in the method used to obtain it fueled some strange ideas and horrifying social abuses. i.e. workers laboring in deplorable conditions vastly outnumber the types of "business" elite who lack the technique to be human in the way that the various other rich and powerful human beings are. So if the workers join in union and/or get more liberties, then the riches/power of solely the lacking-in humanity elites are dwindled/threatened by it. What's funny too is how such elites are quick to retort that we have far more liberties than most of the world, as if they somehow were directly responsible for it. No, the actions by liberals were directly responsible for it, starting with Lincoln and the original Republican Party back in their liberal days of strong government and civil rights. P.S. In anticipation of replies protesting the indirect comparison with racism, four points... I don't back down from an unpleasant thought. Neither should you. If you reveal a horrible thing done by progressives/liberals, if true I'll admit it. My usual reply is we must ensure it doesn't happen again, carefully inspecting the roots of what let it occur. By denying it, that ensures it'll happen again. There's no blanket comparisons about the rich and powerful -- only vs those whose general policies seem extremely devoid of the humanity found in various other examples of the rich and/or powerful. The crux of the problem hasn't been a typical variety racism, in my view. It's been the purposeful amplification of it via hate propaganda, a strategy for thinning out the power of the least fortunate majority. The 1% of richest keep their 90%, if we're divided. (a select few among those 1%, the ones whose exploitation of laborers consistently go too far) I'm just not politically correct (although many of the Right's elites are, but pretend they're never. Yet muddy up anything sacred/essential to their version of the Right's image, and their political correctness howls loudly into the winds of media) You're correct, perhaps I had thought the Bible Belt. In any case, I never said the Tea Party's from the South, just that it's a bastion of conservatism for a historical reason -- although a great many of its conservative people are decent/kind, their good spirit is currently outmatched by a minority of individuals whose philosophy is like their Loyalist ancestors (worship greed/power at the cost of humanity) and who's propaganda is a giant machine steamrolling the nation. But even so, its stronghold is there. Although the good people of the South are the norm, they currently seem a bit helpless against the devious machinery of the Tea Wackjobs. I like the South, and the purpose of the above comparisons with our past is to reveal today's ideological battles/divisions as a continuation of past struggles by the types of poweful aristocrats found immediately before the Revolutionary era -- who continue to view themselves as entitled to make $$ regardless of how much other people, the environment, and the world suffers for the harmful physical effects caused directly by the manner in which that $$ is profited. The South by far isn't made up of those greedy people, yet the ideology such people built to hone/maintain/protect their greed has strong roots -- tainting not only the region, but conservative ideology in the U.S. and many other places around the world. Greed exists in all places, but the ideology* that strategically defends and outright encourages it has roots in the Southern greedy aristocrats from the Revolutionary War era -- and back then, still vastly outnumbered by the southern good people, but who seem unable to halt the greedy (yet vastly fewer in number) people's activities. *(or devious rewrite of it)

I guess we can first start with your post on the subject. Sure, and I didn't. My subject's timeline goes to before the Revolutionary War period. It had slaves also. As for the Koch brothers, they're from the south, no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Family_Foundations#Political_activities http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true (your link) The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it ..... Americans for Prosperity has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception. In the weeks before the first Tax Day protests, in April, 2009, Americans for Prosperity hosted a Web site offering supporters “Tea Party Talking Points.” The Arizona branch urged people to send tea bags to Obama; the Missouri branch urged members to sign up for “Taxpayer Tea Party Registration” and provided directions to nine protests. Everything's in the article you quoted from in the other thread. And bascule's posted info a while back on Fox News staging Tea Wackjob rallies in the early days of its "movement". You pullling a jest? Eh?

Are you certain their reply's not a shorthand way of explaining to you that "spending is the only way to fill the gaps that volunteerism or free markets leave wide open, neglect, and fail to meet"? Granted, many people you discuss it with are possibly just everday, busy citizens whose knowledge is less than our political leaders and so might use poor wording to convey ideological thoughts, or maybe you've discussed it with an elected -- yet naive -- politician or two who's not quite ideologically savvy. Fairly sure I'd like to answer those questions. But first, please clarify what you said a bit (restating it differently to ensure that I do get it)? Thanks.

Keep in mind a few items on the list might sometimes confict with other items. For example... •optimal infrastructure for business and civil society to operate most effectively AND •inspection and monitoring of products likely harmful yet unknown to customers or physically affecting even non-customers AND •protection from consistent threat/intimidation/abuse by random (or familiar) people*(see below images) (this last one because of costs by justice system) ....might conflict with... •clear away government debt And so they must balance getting results in the most optimal way possible for all the items conflicting at the time with one another. ..... Edit: Plus keep in mind we're talking about philosophy, not the leadership style of various political hacks who claim to be liberal/progressive but are instead corrupt/thieves. Same applies to the original conservative philosophy that isn't equal to actions by the political hacks who've strategically corrupted/obscured its real philosophical foundations.

More like not paying attention to examples in history revealing what an effective lying/propaganda machine can bring (often in the way of thoroughly corrupting a government), along with its adoring followers not having a clue what's next....but resentful of those who haven't joined in before then. Possibly you missed where I said "context included"? (NOT excluded) Wanna try again? See, it's pretty easy to miss the little things which are most important to see what's really there -- and it's a very big clue to the election results. Except you did say "Let's take a look at how accurate that perception is" in response to ajb's examples of tea party lunatics. Your assessment I had mentioned? It would be that sentence in quotes. So again, is your assessment of whichever you meant -- the accuracy of the researcher, or, ajb's claim -- based on personal interactions with tea rallies, or just on detailed accounts? Lol sure, you have fun with that. (to quote a certain mod) It's pretty funny that supposed Independents claim Obama "mistook" his landslide election as a mandate for universal healthcare. But what's there to mistake? Did the independent voters miss Obama's promise of universal healthcare during his campaign? If so, did they expect Obama to read voters minds who elected him after they knew he promised to work on it? No, the simple reality is they went and drank bad tea. Steeped with lies. The real tea, the real patriotic tea, happened in the New England states -- the liberal heartland. Today a new imposter of a tea brews in the South, the very ones who preferred Britain's rule and didn't wanna join the fight against her. Why'd they prefer Britain rule? The more liberal northern colonies* sought freedom of religion, while the southern colonies had more Loyalists -- rich aristrocrats from England who preferred the status quo of the British system. And now the tradition continues, but with the South's true patriots hopelessly outmatched by another group that's loyal to the powerful elite. Read your history....of the South's relation to England in colonial times, and, most interestingly....which part of the colonial U.S. had most of the rich Loyalists migrate to it from Britain. P.S. It wasn't Moontanman you're supposed to be quoting, that would be meeeeeeeeeeeeee P.P.S. Why did the so-called "Independents" also take six years to mass against Bush/Republicans, when immediately following 9/11 the nation's unity was (deviously) challenged by Karl Rove personally labeling the Democrats as Weak on Terror, labeling the U.S. justice system as wanting to give terrorists sympathy and understanding, etc, with the Republican Party joining in the chorus amongst its elected officials loud and clear, transforming 9/11 into a giant political opportunity for amassing their power. A clue: the independents are nothing more than a collection of people with 1) voter apathy, distrusting every party like I did back in the day, 2) nonpartisan people having no idea what's going on but still influenced by propaganda they hear, 3) bandwagon voters who fancy the political label, or 4) truly independent people who do all the homework necessary on every candidate AND party leaderships including the shenanegans -- this last category is probably the fewest in number, unfortunately. *The further up North you went in the colonies, the less slavery existed. The middle colonies (New York, Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware) had less slaves than the colonies in the South, but the least occurences of slavery were in the New England states: the liberal bastion of the U.S. today -- with friends in the West Coast and somewhat up North -- and the original, courageous, REAL tea partyers....who faced death or imprisonment if caught, and who dumped tea belonging to corporate interests protected by government via unfair tax breaks. As you see, things don't change very easily. But it's not a coincidence the South is mostly a bastion of conservatism, nor that it supports powerful corporate interests wholeheartedly the very way it supported powerful Britain at a time. Now you may see what's possibly coming next under the strategic pretenses of wanting to "take America back". The simple phrase has a double meaning, if you note. (for example, if Britain had uttered it -- or if descendents of its southern colonists' rich/powerful elite had)

7% of supporters is a lot for that kind of admission. Yes. Their members aren't forbidden by law to get involved, a member's just unable to claim deduction on taxes for any dues being used for political campaigning. I wasn't suggesting that that figure spoke to the accuracy of the assessment, I suggested that it showed a difference in perception between two groups of people. Yeah, and surely most ideologies have a different view of themselves compared to an opposing ideology's view of them. So? Pangloss, if you speak, and the news records what you said (context included), then the news didn't give you its own "newsy" version of the person. They gave you what the person really said. You're wrong, ajb's correct. And how many gun-rights signs are displayed at "tea" rallies, compared to the percentage of them who surely care about the issue? Obviously it'd be redundant for more than a few people to carry the signs. Better question, though: is your assessment based on personal interactions with tea rallies, or just on detailed accounts? If the second, then hey, you're somewhat correct in that point about SFN members Or they support 1) an out of context reading of the U.S. Constitution (to advance devious goals), 2) funding only right-winged projects, 3) law not applying to those who run huge businesses, and 4) controllling government while excluding the rest of us from it. Churches do have a legal way to affect politics. http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=913 ....the Church at Pierce Creek ("Church") in Binghamton, N.Y., placed a full-page advertisement in USA Today and The Washington Times. The ad began with the heading: "Christians Beware: Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments." The ad cited biblical passages, and stated that Gov. Bill Clinton supported abortion on demand, homosexuality and the distribution of condoms to teenagers in public schools. The ad concluded with the question: "How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?" ..... Among other things, the court of appeals noted that the Church had an alternative means of engaging in political activity because the Church could establish a related, separately incorporated organization under section 501©(4)* of the Code, and that organization could express opinions about candidates and even establish a PAC through which political contributions might be made. Of course, no tax-deductible Church funds could be used to support the political activities of the section 501©(4) organization or its PAC. * Section 501©(4) organizations are exempt from taxation but contributions to them are not deductible. Here's a link to different categories of 501©: http://www.taxfreecharity.com/types.htm Note how religion's lumped in with charitable, non-profit, and educational organizations. So it's not just churches who get affected. Strangely, unions just get lumped in with agriculture.

@Pangloss Who dismissed conservatives? I put the word in quotations for a reason: the politicians and industry heads who pretend to be conservatives made the propaganda noise, for which the real conservatives are being taken for a ride. Fiscal conservatism. Small government. Deregulation. Free enterprise. States rights. Great ideas...only if balanced with the left's platforms. However, "conservative" politicians set it up to replace/destroy the left's part, with the result being a harmful imbalace. The right's platforms aren't better or worse than the left's -- if the plan were balance. However, many of the Right's converted get hung up on those platitudes above. I say to those, who repeat such mantras... "Don't regurgitate stuff. Give me your own thoughts." Why don't conservatives allow government to compete with business if the market's failing to produce a (quality) necessity to everyone? You've said liberals haven't compromised, but that's how deep you're entrenched in a narrow view. Liberals philosophy has compromised from the very beginning, where conservative philosophy doesn't, and here's the numbers: liberal philosophy in the U.S. wants less than 100% of healthcare run by government (i.e. business has a place in the result), yet conservative philosophy wants all 100% of healthcare run by private interests -- even when their setup neglects much of the population (i.e. government has no place in the result). You still say there's no compromise by the left? Your answer might shed light on the reason for my post which you seemed to find offensive. But hopefully instead, you do an honest comparison as I expect. Keep in mind, that healthcare example has similar, real-life counterparts in the other platforms I listed at top. Since you're the proponent of not dismissing concerns, then why not address the concern by the left -- about their philosophical compromises not getting any mutual response or token gesture by conservative philosophy? And that the left does seek to work together, but the right seeks to instead dominate the platforms and replace the left's contributions with their own? Also you had nothing to say in reply to the part I quoted from CaptainPanic's post.

Don't you mean "Wall Street"? No, the following is what their "conservative" politicians/industry heads* really fear.... *who are vastly more elite than France (and have a vastly higher sense of entitlement to shift due taxes onto the middle class, use our infrastructure without paying for it, buy our government's elected leaders without our permission, hire cheap illegals, and kick we the people from our homes via eminent domain for their wealth seeking)

The right's machinery tries (via con jobs) to define the left. But their made-up definitions either fall way short of reality, or compare them (dishonestly) to unrelated systems in nations lacking our Constitutional protections, freedom of expression, adequate system of defense lawyers, or healthy separation of powers -- at the very least. In the real definition of progressives and liberals, these groups don't fit it: militant rebels planting bombs to fight oppression; tyrants proclaiming to be communists yet nearly identical to tyrant leaders in right-winged nations lacking our free press and civil rights; many political groups with a narrow axe to grind. Certainly they're not the left.... Protecting the environment AND striving for quality of jobs AND civil rights AND transparent government AND freedom of press AND the legal wall protecting us from religious and government dominance into each other's workings AND removing the profit of war by private interests AND fair exposure to opportunity AND widespread and improved access to fruitful education AND no monopolies of products that are essential to a vast number of people, business, and our economy AND fair representation of the people in government AND optimal infrastructure for business and civil society to operate most effectively AND providing basic needs to those of us with problems helping themselves or to victims of market/economic failure AND taxes based on drain of raw material and natural resources + use of infrastructure to faciliate acquiring one's wealth + the number of livelihoods at stake and level of upheaval on economy if that busines fails AND reasonably limited copyright durations AND basic human rights aren't lost by incarceration or trouble with the law AND inspection and monitoring of products likely harmful yet unknown to customers or physically affecting even non-customers AND rights to decide everything about the functions of your own body that doesn't physically impact the world outside it AND our individual freedom to enter and leave the nation (and travel within) AND having sex with consenting adults however they damn well please AND freedom to look at vulgar sexual images AND privacy rights AND getting married to whatever sex one desires AND protection from consistent threat/intimidation/abuse by random (or familiar) people*(see below images) AND do whatever you like so long as it doesn't trample/deny rights for others AND kids protected from critically unsafe homes or a parent who hits them violently in frustration as a hobby AND clear away government debt AND striving to ensure the justice system doesn't regress back to the "guilty without evidence" dark ages. That's liberals and progressives. In a nutshell, clean government.....for the people. What does this all mean? I'm going to vote tomorrow, and made a commitment to take 20 people eligible for voting. And to do so, I had to turn down a paying gig, can't really afford to, but the nation can't either if the wackies get in so....I might decide to help out longer, perhaps the entire day. This from someone who never bothered to vote for any of the "corrupt" parties before 2004. Well one thing I've learned, vast differences in severity of corruption exist within our government today. So, what?...I'll not just stand by and let a deceptively named "tea" party -- whose leadership's been infiltrated by the type of people the original Boston Tea Party fellas revolted agianst -- sneak into power that easily. It's reverse deja-vu. The *fake* tea party's infiltrators are recycled con people we find sprinkled throughout history: imposters who've struggled 223 years to make a come-back from their kind's loss in 1787, when the colonies here voted for a strong central government to represent the people (via district), with the Constitution, against the objections by those who likely preferred division, although....they've managed to somewhat divide us now, and have somewhat retaken our government for themselves via waves of congressional lobbyists. But all their grand effort reflects a simple picture: them in desperation. The world's social and technological variables are quickly moving in a direction hostile to them: unity. Yes, people have drunk the coolaid and the bad tea. So? Many of us also drink good tea, I like mine straight. And here's a couple pictures I like.... Both of the images are by Jonathan Kay/National Post *and by "random", I'm meaning.... (Fox is the shit, literally)

The escape You giving me the bird?

The universe already expanded faster than light during/after the Big Bang. It continues to expand today. It doesn't expand by movement, rather it's because new space is created everywhere, therefore even now stars recede from one another. Light's speed is constant, so naturally scientists deduce it wont ever change -- no matter how quickly the universe expands.

If someone learns to expertly maintain control of impulses and reactions, they're an expert -- not a freaking "robot". They've learned new mental skills -- for example: which consistent/ingrained habits are triggering the usual massive frustrations in life, and how to sidestep those. Similarly, good real-life police instruction methods enable the officer to handle things an untrained person might completely lose it with (if facing the same). The real problem is we perceive something as so obviously true, yet end up wrong and keep faithful to it via ignorance. So what's *obvious* doesn't matter, you gotta keep testing and exploring possibilities. Right now you're assuming Joe's gonna love the idea of testing the cop's limits of restraint. But why assume that? Maybe your perception of Joe is wrong. He might only like to prey on the weak, or maybe he seeks confrontation. So for Joe, either option's incompatible with an expertly trained cop. However, our knowledge is limited. But there are good police training systems (who make experts of newbs), and I'm certain they studied the Joe issues psychologically much better than us. In essence, your *obvious* conclusion might be poorly deduced. It happens all the time. For instance, let's examine how people reacted to Trolls when the internet began. Many people fed them, because GOLLY, yelling and reacting angry will surely make them go away -- "obviously". But after people began the "Don't feed the troll" campaigns, the smart forums groups knew the best way to avoid flame wars or persistent trolls is to simply ignore them, let mods handle discipline. Problem solving that improved certain forums a lot without anyone becoming a *robot* or pressure-cooker. More to examine.. Another *obvious* misconception people have is their supposedly good approaches to certain forms of discipline that obviously *works*. Like rubbing a dog's nose in the wet spot on the carpet. Epic fail. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29780984/?pg=7#Health_CreatureComforts_PetMyths Myth 6: Rub a dog's nose in its 'business' to housetrain it That only makes your dog afraid of you. Instead of learning to potty outdoors, it will find hidden places to go in the house ..... “Punishment is often overly harsh and used incorrectly,” Dr. Bain says. “The best way to train any animal is to reward the appropriate behavior.” . Lots of people up north think you catch a cold from being out in the cold weather. But as a leading expert (quoted below) informs us, that's not what really happens... Viruses are pure undead malevolence encoded into genetic material and wrapped up in a creepy protein shell. They aren't even technically alive, so temperature has no affect on them. They're just tiny zombies that you can't even shoot in their microscopic zombie heads. And finally there's one I use with the locals to reveal our simple flaws in perception -- especially if an *obvious* fallacy happened earlier. But, not as a counter or reply to their fallacy. Just to hope a critical thinking lesson slips in and begins developing roots. Usually when it's hot and someone's fan is on, I'll ask if the fan cools the air or temperature. Of course many are bound to say yes as the fan's direct breeze is just ahhhhhhhhh great. "If we put a thermometer into the fan's air 15-20 minutes, it won't show any drop in temperature" The assumption was challenged, my one friend surprised there was no apparent cooling. I'm guessing the reason we feel cooler is because the rushing air strips off a layer of warm body-heated air usually lurking just over the skin. It's a hunch, I never tested it, but originally I did make a calculated assumption based on several real factors/variables... 1. If you turn a fan the other way, suddenly it's not cool. 2. A fan doesn't work like the AC, which cools even the parts it's not facing. 3. A similar mechanism is outside wind chill factor, but notice how the official weather still reports the higher temperature. So it stands to reason the air outside isn't cooled by mere wind. 4. The best protection against that wind chill is layers, jacket, and hat. Probably lets your otherwise escaping body heat accumulate. 5. I placed objects in the fan's air too see if they would cool down. Nope. Always test it.

Yours, not everyone's. But the reality you describe below that is more like hyper fiction. My apologies, that wasn't intended. But the way I see it, there's no real context removed in a work of fiction. I decided it wasn't relevant and it seemed to me the rest was just rephrasing your point. Now that I see your point it's just as irrelevant to reality. I'm gonna print this statement of fiction, jaywalk it to my vehicle with a cop nearby, affix it to my dashboard, then go pass a highway cop within 10 (or so) miles over the speed limit -- and neither cop's gonna bother applying the law. Do you want a picture? And maybe you've never been left off by a cop for violations (alcohol, traffic, noise, whatever), but I have -- plenty times. Also... One day mate, I shall

I agree that part of why cops are upset with filming is that it's been abused. But I think the case is overblown -- police ire is misdirected into unproductive channels, like challenging filmers on the street who are exercising their democratic rights correctly. Alternate fix. [math]Description = exaggeration^3[/math] I'd zip down to Florida right now so you can point to where in the video you saw people (besides the ONE woman) attempting a hostile move or even threatening the cop (verbally or physically). And where did you see a ticket being given? All we ever saw from the very beginning is the cop's hands on the girl. You completely ignore two possibilities: 1. Everyone was already there, i.e. the cop entered into the gathering of people, not the other way around. 2. If the people actually gathered, they might've done so because the cop's hands went on the girl, and not because he wanted to issue a ticket. (Honestly, which sounds more likely?) Remember your own words concerning video recordings... Maybe you were right! Could it be you fell victim to the limited context in the video? Definitely possible. Street goes two ways. Or they heard the cop mention jaywalking and saw him acting like a newb, therefore deducting he'd be a lot more terrified if the small girl were on the Ten Most Wanted list. False, it's not their job. Your invention/perception/whatever, but definitely not their job. Just because certain public servants don't have to be kind, and can legally respond with harsh or lethal force when absolutely necessary, doesn't mean their job is to be assholes. Well you're the one desiring for schools to instruct whatever version of reality they please. So welcome to the reality that'd arise if everyone had personal and/or different versions of the legal procedures.

Pangloss just a heads up. If any parts of the following seem like an insult to you, be aware it's not intended as such, merely written either in humor, a friendly jab, or a "get real" sentiment. But no harm meant. And now for the roasting I kid, I kid (to borrow from Mr Skeptic) Wow, you have video clairvoyance -- seeing events that occurred before the clip even starts. To me it seems the crowd's already there when the vid began, plus the cop's already wrestling the girl's hands. Really, you need to examine the video a lot closer. 1. There's a few people, not "half the neighborhood". The rest are onlookers from the big park. 2. Someone goes near the cop, but only to forcefully pull away the girl in pink dress. 3. The cop at the end of vid finally does official procedure, loudly telling the guy to "stand back". Both the cop and girl might deserve blame. Was it so ultra important for the cop to score a jaywalking "violation"? Quite off. Most everyone here seems to be anti-"being-denied-the-tools-to-help-ensure-more-accountability-to-citizens". From what I've seen (attended a few different schools) it's usually the *rule*. No, the courts are the ones in that business. Unless you meant the holding facility where (arrested) suspects go temporarily. And not people, but suspects. (Remember your civics lessons ) That's great. Also, for me it reinforces why certain aspects of education need to be more standard. If a higher number of people learned Civics, then maybe.... ...the entire scenario could've played out quite a bit differently. Oh definitely, as a whole U.S. average. But it's likely higher in certain areas, mostly where the (civic) education's bad and/or the police department's corrupt. Brutality's not as frequent. Abuse of power, though, is likely much higher everywhere. But still, there are lots of decent cops, way more than unscrupulous ones I'll bet. Nope, don't see it. Gawkers, witnesses, a camera guy, and one person interfering who might've been the girl's friend. *No* to that Pangloss law, but *yes* to standing back to give room when instructed and not making threatening remarks to the officer -- probably already covered by law. How can anyone show you, when the right to videotape's all gone? Where's the onus for you to prove that....a general disrespect for law enforcement has been awarded falsely through media frenzy and demagoguery? Or perhaps misunderstood? I think he was referring to questions when you're the target of suspicion. If anything, he seems to disrespect only the brutality cops. And they're not responsible for a largely crime-free existence. But good teachers, volunteers, families/friends, philanthropists, cops, government and business leaders, etc...yes, they're all responsible for a largely crime-free existence. He didn't advise anyone here to do anything. But even so, they're perfectly normal feelings. I actually like cops for the most part, rarely ever have a problem with them, and often defended good cops when people make false generalizations to say they're all corrupt or power-trippers. Yet seeing the vid link from post #14, I felt a natural urge here and there to wanna kick each douchebag abuser in the screen. I'll rarely (if ever) feel like that when it's someone random beating up another unknown person. The difference is because of risks vs authority -- one's mandated by law to not hit back, with potentially severe consequences for doing so. That results in feeling awfully powerless in a severe way for the victim. And knowing they're feeling it eats at me in an instant. But the girls* in your video do stand to gain from increased knowledge of police procedure. *and the cop too Get used to it, he's an inventive guy See above. Oh, and you alone happened to get the truth? C'mon, really? So who cares, if he got a "sense of empowerment"? Does it hurt anyone? The guy would find out soon the captured film were junk. Is there an exaggeration fallacy? He clearly didn't mean no laws should exist, just a fewer number of them and/or plainly visible to everyone. No, he's on a similar territory as many of us, I bet. It's you who seems to be on a distant limb in some alien world. Come back to us! You don't want people to have rights if they march in anti-war demonstrations? Just to clarify. It might be Pangloss, that your life's been sheltered against police harms occurring either to you or friends. And if so, you might not understand it, but people with strong feelings on the issues perhaps had or were close to bad police encounters that might jar the core of your relatively virgin sensibilities.

Is calling taxes stealing a form of deceit? The OP's premise is flawed in many ways. 1. It originates from slick politicians. 2. Taxes aren't collected from random people here and there. 3. If stealing really happens it'd depend both on the people watching over the funds and the special interests' control. A nation's bills have to be paid. Taxes are a group effort, it's not stealing by government. However since theft is usually done in secrecy, then any misdirection/lies in how funds are spent or taxes collected would be more like stealing. So why not concentrate on that aspect? (worth a mention: the Constitution specifically allows our government to tax)

Pangloss, no offense, but you really suck at making comparisons...really awful. Well, political ones at least. Glenn Beck and Fox Tabloids make distortions primarily to benefit one ideology while attempting to discredit that same ideology's opposition. Where news in general just lies and distorts to feed their ratings and pockets, without being hellbent on elevating or destroying any party. Here's a clue to the way many people view TV news in general... Where the Fox Tabloids audience might view their doses of fake "news" with adulation, reverence, love, etc. But really, we do know a lot of the news is bullshit. We just don't subscribe to the manufactured idea that news mostly caters to a single ideology -- except Fox does apparently. The only good point you have -- and it's a great one -- is that CNN piece shouldn't be labelled "news". But we can say that about lots of stupid "news" bits on prime time news itself on most any channel/station. Yet that brings up another important point. FOX News, MSNBC. See the difference? One's channel is labeled "news", so any opinion piece get the "news" label automatically. MSNBC hasn't behaved like that. I had made an error in faulting MSNBC's political segments being on a news channel, but now I withdraw such comments in light of MSNBC not having the "news" label so visibly everywhere (unlike Fox). MSNBC has taken to being the FOX antidote on certain time slots, but at least MSNBC hasn't labeled their antidote pieces as "news".

Living up to your name? You bolded the wrong parts. Here they are, fixed... A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373 ©. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following: Again, but with just the relevant parts... For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. .... A law enforcement official or agency may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following: So people can be detained for any ordinance, say...jaywalking, honking excessively, loud yelling at night, music blasting, etc. And the law doesn't specify what "reasonable suspicion" is, so explain how any person reading the law is supposed to interpret that. Also, how do you enforce that "race, color or national origin" plays no consideration when following the Arizona law? Your high horse took off galloping to the winds even before you posted in outrage -- then and now. Well, considering the article's focus is kidnapping in the U.S., how is Columbia or India even relevant? You're not trying to imply #2 city in the world, I'd hope. Plus... The majority of the victims are either illegal aliens or connected to the drug trade. Just to be sure, you're not implying that everyday citizens are getting kidnapped? Whatever the case, there's a far easier solution to the problem: legalization of drugs.

Yeah, because *reasonable* standards never improved anything in the world by leaps and bounds. So perhaps I'll make you a giant list of things we'd not have if not for intelligent standards, first on that list being our ability to communicate on the internet so effectively as we're doing now. You see, it's really not ideological as you might think. The struggle is mostly between people wanting to teach neutral/accurate material for basic overall society function vs. those who'd like to insert political/religious non-facts. Is that accurate? Of course why stop there? Let's not have one Constitution, but multiple variations of them everywhere so whatever anyone sees as good enough for them is a wee-regional founding document. And the Constitution would also be subjective, a personal interpretation of rights, but not to those control freaks who rather it mean one standard thing for everyone. Because parents with money send kids there? Or are the charter schools luxuriously enormous to fit all the kids come rushing in from all the surrounding public and desperately lacking educational places? And how would the low-income or three-jobs parent get the kid to the distant charter school -- do those places send out a bus for distant students? Really, let's see the data on that fear -- and I'll show you data on how public education scares the hell out of power-seekers in religion who can't indoctrinate kids there. If you were stating an original thought it'd be different, however I've encountered nearly identical propaganda repeatedly. There's people from Europe here among our membership. Let's see how their experience relates to what Caroline Hoxby said in the quote above, comparing the nuances of both our systems as well. There's always more to the whole picture. Oh really, so PTA decides what the children learn? Right. That's why having schools teach material chosen by local political whim is a bad idea: misinformation to the extreme. Yes, logic please. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAs for public schools, overall government, business, whatever is presented as "best" - there's a smart way to do things and a dumb way. Listening to politics instead of real examination usually helps feed the dumb way.

That's funny Genecks, I was about to post the same thing: the Christian cross is obviously not secular as it's Christian. If the poll asked just about a normal cross, it might be different. This, for example Over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings. TRENDS: ... Five people have been shot and killed, eight others shot and wounded, dozens of buildings bombed, firebombed, even hit with napalm and noxious gas, sending several people to the hospital, all in the U.S., all in the last two years, and all for this political/ideological cause. And that • 1994-JUL: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action assassinated a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic; he also wounded the wife of the bodyguard. He was sentenced to both life imprisonment on federal charges, and execution on state charges. • 1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month. Plus this Abortion providers in northern New York state and Canada were attacked ... • 1994-NOV-8: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver BC was shot in the leg. • 1995-NOV-10: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster ON (Near Hamilton) was shot in the elbow. • 1997-OCT-28: A physician in Rochester NY received minor shrapnel wounds. • 1997-NOV-11: Dr Jack Fainman of Winnipeg MN was shot in the shoulder. • 1998-OCT-23: Dr Barnett Slepian from Amherst NY (near Buffalo) was murdered, although the perpetrator claimed that he only wanted to wound the doctor. All five were shot through a glass window or door at their homes. Don't forget that Between 1998 and 2000, more than 80 letters which threatened Anthrax contamination were sent to U.S. clinics in 16 states. Anthrax is a potentially fatal bacteria if its spores are inhaled into the lungs. All of the letters turned out to be hoaxes. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington on 2001-SEP-11, similar Anthrax letters started appearing in political offices and news media in New York, Washington, and other cities. Some letters actually contained the deadly bacteria. In late October, abortion clinics in 13 states throughout the U.S. received about 150 letters marked "Time sensitive security information enclosed" with return addresses from law enforcement groups. They were mailed from five states. Inside was a powder and a death-threat letter allegedly signed by the "Army of God." Helping lead us to In the U.S., 84% of all counties have no abortion services; of rural counties, 95% have no services. Oh so that's how things get done: wither the opposition illegally and pretend to everyone the change was brought about by good old-fashioned peaceful rallies. At least what's cool about the one site I linked to, is they give credit to the majority of pro-lifers as being separate from the extremists claiming to be in their ranks, plus it mentions how a number of pro-life organizations disapprove of the violence. But then I have to ask what you think the response would've been if the shoe were on the other foot: if the anti death penalty crowds behaved that way -- injuring or killing people and sending death threats? Oh right, ideological opposites are *equally* misbehaved or dysfunctional. Not that you would've claimed such a thing.

The same would be good in any nation as part of a multi-faceted approach to legalization. Actually if you look at Mr Skeptic's point again, the ones heading to prison would be just the pushers. And then they can sell to each other in there. According to a show on Prohibition by the History Channel, during Prohibition the rate of drinking and the citizens doing it were each higher than before Prohibition started.